The Preserve Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis) and the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in Thurston County, Washington

Prepared for UCP Sagewood, LLC

November 2017

Prepared by:

Krippner Consulting, LLC PO Box 17621 Seattle, Washington 98127

November 2017

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 9

Regulatory and Legal Framework for HCPs and Incidental Take Permits ...... 9

The Endangered Species Act ...... 9

National Environmental Policy Act ...... 11

National Historic Preservation Act ...... 11

Other Federal, State, County and Local Requirements ...... 12

Applicant’s Goals ...... 13

Plan Area and Permit Area ...... 14

Plan Area ...... 14

Permit Area ...... 14

Proposed Action ...... 16

Covered Activities ...... 16

Requested Permit Duration ...... 18

Status of the Covered Species ...... 18

Mazama Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama Merriam, 1897 ...... 18

Conservation Status ...... 18

Distribution and Population Trends ...... 19

Life History and Ecology ...... 21

Habitat Characteristics ...... 21

Threats/Reasons for Decline ...... 22

Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa, Baird and Girard, 1853 ...... 24

Conservation Status ...... 24

Population Trends and Distribution ...... 25

Life History and Ecology ...... 26

2 November 2017

Habitat Characteristics ...... 27

Threats/Reasons for Decline ...... 28

Restoration approaches ...... 30

Analysis of the Impacts Likely to Result from the Taking...... 30

Olympia pocket gopher ...... 30

Oregon Spotted Frog ...... 37

Conservation Program ...... 38

1. Biological Goals...... 38

2. Biological Objectives ...... 39

3. Minimization Measures ...... 41

4. Mitigation Measures ...... 42

5. Monitoring Plan ...... 42

6. Adaptive Management Plan...... 44

Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances ...... 46

Changed Circumstances ...... 46

Unforeseen Circumstances and “No Surprises” Assurances ...... 47

Evaluation of Unforeseen Circumstances ...... 48

The “No Surprises” Policy ...... 48

Funding Assurances ...... 49

Alternatives to the Taking the Applicant Considered ...... 50

Such Other Measures that the Secretary May Require ...... 51

Permit Amendments ...... 51

Annual Reporting...... 52

Literature Cited ...... 52

Appendix A. Existing Conditions Map Set ...... 59

3 November 2017

Appendix B. The Preserve Data Forms and Photos ...... 69

Appendix B is 11 pages long, inserted separately into this document.

Appendix C. Site Management Plan: Conservation Site ...... 71

Appendix C is 47 pages long, inserted separately into this document.

Appendix D. Effects Matrix ...... 73

Appendix D is 7 pages long, inserted separately into this document.

Appendix E. Estimated Funding Requirements ...... 75

Appendix E is 1 page.

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. EXISTING AND POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS AT THE PRESERVE ...... 33

TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL GOPHER HABITAT QUALITY AT THE PROJECT AND CONSERVATION SITES ...... 35

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. THE PROJECT SITE AND THE CONSERVATION SITE ...... 15

FIGURE 2. CURRENT AND HISTORICAL RANGE OF MAZAMA POCKET GOPHER IN WASHINGTON STATE ...... 19

FIGURE 3. APPROXIMATE RANGE OF OLYMPIA POCKET GOPHER ...... 20

FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF OREGON SPOTTED FROG IN THURSTON COUNTY ...... 26

4 November 2017

LIST OF ACROYNMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND FREQUENTLY USED TERMS

Applicant Refers to any person, as defined in section 3(13) of the ESA, who requires formal approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting an action (50 CFR 402.02). The Applicant submitting this habitat conservation plan is UCP Sagewood, LLC.

Categorical (NEPA definition) A category of actions which do not individually or exclusion cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedure adopted by a Federal agency in implementations of these regulations (Sec. 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required (40 CFR 1508.4).

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Changed Changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered circumstances by a conservation plan or conservation agreement that can reasonably be anticipated by plan or agreement developers and USFWS and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events).

Covered Activities Activities that a permittee will conduct for which take is authorized in an ESA section 10 permit. The Covered Activities include all actions in the plan area that are 1) likely to result in incidental take, 2) are reasonably certain to occur over the life of the permit, and 3) are under the Applicant’s control. The Covered Activities for this HCP include work related to site management (before development), development, and ongoing management (post construction). Covered Activities also include vegetation management at the onsite habitat set-aside area and Conservation Site.

Commission Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission’s primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington and monitor WDFW’s implementation of the goals, policies, and objectives established by the Commission.

Conservation Site Parcels that will be permanently dedicated to management and conservation of the Covered Species

Covered Species Species that are covered for Incidental Take

EA (NEPA definition) Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with NEPA, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 5 November 2017

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

EIS (NEPA definition) Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA containing, among other things, an analyses of environmental impacts of a proposed action and alternative considered, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (NEPA section 102(2)(C); 40 CFR 1508.11 and 40 CFR 1502).

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

FR Federal Register. The Federal Register is the official journal of the Federal government that contains most routine publications and public notices of government agencies. The Federal Register is compiled by the Office of the Federal Register (within the National Archives and Records Administration) and is printed by the Government Printing Office. Section 10(c) of the ESA requires each application for an exception or permit under Section 10 to be published in the Federal Register.

GMA Growth Management Act

Harass Defined by USFWS as “… an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).

Harm Defined by USFWS to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

ITP Incidental Take Permit. A permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to a non-Federal party undertaking an otherwise lawful project that might result in the take of an endangered or threatened species. Application for an incidental take permit is subject to certain requirements, including preparation by the permit applicant of a conservation plan, generally known as a "Habitat Conservation Plan" or "HCP."

JBLM Joint Base Lewis-McCord

6 November 2017

LLC Limited Liability Company

NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.). A Federal statute that requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their discretionary proposed actions, and for significant environmental actions seeking public input on decisions and implementation of Federal actions.

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

On-site habitat set- Prior to Federal listing under the ESA, WDFW guidance for the state-listed aside Mazama pocket gopher recommended establishment of an “onsite habitat set-aside” as a minimization measure for projects that could impact the species. The Applicant’s project site incorporates such an onsite habitat set-aside that was established by the previous landowner in accordance with City of Tumwater permitting requirements in place when construction of the residential subdivision was initiated. The Applicant will continue to manage the existing on-site habitat set-aside in accordance with the pre- existing commitments to comply with City of Tumwater permitting requirements that pre-date the Federal listing of the species and creation of this HCP.

Permit Area The geographic area where the incidental take permit applies. It includes the area under the control of the applicant/permittee(s) where covered activities will occur. The permit area must be delineated in the permit and be included within the plan area of the HCP.

Plan Area The specific geographic area where covered activities described in the HCP, including mitigation, may occur. The plan area must be identified in the HCP. Plan areas must include at least the permit area but often include lands outside of the permit area.

Project site The portion of The Preserve site owned by the Applicant where development and construction activities covered by this HCP will occur

RCW Revised Code of Washington

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need, a Washington state designation for certain rare or declining species of plants, fish, or wildlife

Take “…to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (ESA Section 3)

Threatened species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA

7 November 2017

section 3(20); 50 CFR 424.10(m)).

Unforeseen Changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered circumstances by a conservation plan or agreement that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan or agreement developers and USFWS at the time of the conservation plan's or agreement's negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species (50 CFR 17.3).

USC United States Code

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

8 November 2017

Introduction

UCP Sagewood, LLC (the Applicant) owns The Preserve, a partially developed, 127-acre residential subdivision (project site) located in the City of Tumwater, Washington. The Applicant recognizes that The Preserve is occupied by and contains habitat for the Olympia subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis, hereafter Olympia pocket gopher), a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). The Applicant acknowledges that it will not be possible to completely avoid impacts to this species and its habitat while engaging in the otherwise lawful development of this property. Krippner Consulting, LLC prepared this Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on behalf of the Applicant in partial fulfillment of requirements to seek an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. An ITP provides exceptions to the prohibitions against “take” of species listed under the ESA under specified conditions and in compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations. The Preserve is zoned for residential uses and the Applicant anticipates completing construction and development activities on this site over the next 15 years. The Preserve is a residential subdivision project that was partially developed by a previous owner prior to the Federal listing of the Covered Species. In this HCP, the Applicant proposes a conservation program that is intended to minimize and mitigate unavoidable impacts to the Olympia pocket gopher and its habitat. Conservation program actions will take place on the 127-acre project site and on a permanently protected 64.6- acre offsite location (the conservation site). The 64.6-acre conservation site provides habitat for, and is occupied by, the Olympia pocket gopher and by the threatened Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occur on the project site and are not likely to be impacted by project construction or development activities, but may be impacted by habitat management activities on the conservation site. Because both of these listed species are found on the conservation site, the Applicant commits to manage the site to benefit both species (collectively referred to as the Covered Species) in perpetuity to offset expected impacts of the taking.

Regulatory and Legal Framework for HCPs and Incidental Take Permits

The Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Congress enacted the ESA to protect plants and animals in danger of, or threatened with, extinction. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for implementing the ESA for species under its jurisdiction. The ESA and its implementing regulations in Section 17 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is Federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA. Section 3 of the ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 United States Code [USC] §

9 November 2017

1532 (19)). The term “harm” is defined to include any act “which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 C.F.R. § 17.3). The term “harass” is defined as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 C.F.R. § 17.3). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires each Federal agency to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (16 USC § 1536 (a)(2)). If the actions of a Federal agency may affect listed species or result in take, the action must be addressed under Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC § 1536 (a)(2)). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of threatened and endangered species, including the attempt or action to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” such species (16 U.S.C. § 1532). Section 10 of the ESA allows non-Federal applicants, under certain terms and conditions, to incidentally take ESA-listed species that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 9 of the ESA. When a non-Federal landowner or other non-Federal entity wishes to proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that may result in the incidental taking of a listed species, an incidental take permit, as defined under Section 10 of the ESA, is required. Incidental take is defined as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity” (50 CFR § 17.3). Under Section 10 of the ESA, an HCP that meets USFWS statutory and regulatory requirements is required to accompany an application for an incidental take permit to demonstrate that all reasonable and prudent efforts have been made to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for the effects of the potential incidental take. It is necessary for the USFWS to assure that the HCP and any implementing agreements submitted by an Applicant comply with the provisions of the ESA with regard to incidental take [50 CFR 17.22 (b) and 17.32(b)] prior to issuance of a take permit for Federally listed threatened or endangered fish and wildlife species. An HCP submitted in support of a Section 10 permit application must specify [16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv)]:

• The impact that will likely result from the taking;

• Steps the Applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts; the funding available to implement such steps; and the procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances;

• Alternative actions to such taking considered by the Applicant and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be used; and

10 November 2017

• Other measures that may be required as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. To issue an incidental take permit, the USFWS must find that [ESA § 10(a)(2)(B)]:

• The taking will be incidental;

• The Applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;

• The Applicant will ensure that adequate funding will be provided;

• The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

• The Applicant will ensure that other measures as may be required by USFWS as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP will be implemented. National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies analyze and publicly disclose the social, economic and environmental effects associated with “major Federal actions” (§ 4332). The issuance of an ITP is considered a “major Federal action” and is therefore subject to NEPA compliance. The required analysis can take the form of a Categorical Exclusion, an Environmental Assessment (EA), or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Before it can decide whether to approve an ITP under Section 10(a)(1)(B), the USFWS will prepare and distribute a document that addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of issuing the requested ITP on the “human environment”, including the incidental take authorized by permit issuance and the effects associated with the implementation of the Applicant’s HCP.

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC § 40 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their proposed actions on properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. “Properties” are defined as “cultural resources,” which includes prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, and structures that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. An undertaking is defined as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency; including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. The issuance of an ITP is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

11 November 2017

Other Federal, State, County and Local Requirements

The Applicant understands that an ITP is valid so long as the Covered Activities are in compliance with all relevant Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The Applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for ensuring that the proposed project and the Covered Activities comply with applicable Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) is the supervising authority for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The Commission’s primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington and monitor implementation of the goals, policies, and objectives established by the Commission. The Commission also classifies wildlife and establishes the basic rules and regulations governing the time, place, manner, and methods used to harvest or enjoy fish and wildlife. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) defines endangered as: “any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state” (WAC 232-12-297, § 2.4); and defines threatened as: “any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats” (WAC 232-17-297, § 2.5). The Commission designated the Oregon spotted frog within Washington as endangered in 1997 (WAC 232-12-014), and designated the Mazama pocket gopher in the state as threatened in 2006 (WAC 232-12-011[1]). Unlawful taking of species designated as endangered by the Commission constitutes a gross misdemeanor or a class C felony (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 77.15.120), and the unlawful taking of species designated as threatened by the Commission is a misdemeanor (RCW 77.15.130). Prior to Federal listing, WDFW guidance for the state-listed Mazama pocket gopher recommended establishment of an onsite habitat set-aside as a minimization measure for projects that could impact the species. The project site incorporates such an onsite habitat set-aside that was established by the previous owner in accordance with City of Tumwater permitting requirements in place when construction of the residential subdivision was initiated. The Applicant will continue to manage the existing on-site habitat set-aside in accordance with the pre-existing commitments to comply with City of Tumwater permitting requirements that pre- date the Federal listing of the species and creation of this HCP. Washington State Code provides that taking of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife is not unlawful if authorized by a permit issued under the ESA (RCW 77.15.120(1)(c), 77.15.130(1)(c)(ii)). The Applicant will therefore meet state requirements for species listed under state code by securing an ESA ITP that authorizes incidental take of listed species.

12 November 2017

In accordance with WAC 232-12-297, WDFW is required to perform periodic species status reviews and species management and recovery efforts for state protected species, including state sensitive, candidate, and monitor species. Several of these species may occupy the conservation site, including western toad (candidate), Olympic mudminnow (sensitive), western floater (monitor), and western pearlshell mussel (monitor). The Applicant will therefore report any observations of these species on the conservation site to WDFW for their use in species conservation. Development on the project site will require various permits and project approvals from the City of Tumwater. Permits likely to be required will include those for clearing, grading, storm water management, utilities, and construction. Compliance with relevant Critical Area Ordinances will also be required.

Applicant’s Goals

This HCP has been prepared to meet the requirements of the ESA. An HCP is needed because the proposed project has the potential to result in take of listed species. Pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the USFWS may authorize incidental take by a non-Federal entity though the issuance of an ITP. In support of an application for an ITP, the Applicant must prepare an HCP. This document establishes the methods and measures of success required to meet the conservation needs of listed species that could be impacted by the proposed project. Importantly, it also provides a stable and predictable operating and regulatory environment and preserves the Applicant’s ability to pursue its development objectives with assurances from the USFWS that incidental take of Covered Species is authorized. The purpose of the HCP is to:

• Quantify the potential impacts that covered activities and the proposed conservation program may have on the Covered Species;

• Ensure that any take of listed species caused by the construction and development of the project site or the conservation program will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities;

• Ensure that the impacts of the take will, to the maximum extent practicable, be minimized and mitigated, including provisional procedures to deal with changed and unforeseen circumstances;

• Ensure that mitigation for impacts to listed species that cannot be avoided will result in a net benefit to the Covered Species;

• Ensure that adequate funding for implementation of the HCP will be provided; and

• Ensure that the take of the listed species will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of these species in the wild. This HCP covers activities including clearing, improvement, and development of land for residential uses in the Permit Area in compliance with other applicable Federal, state, and local requirements.

13 November 2017

Plan Area and Permit Area

The geographic boundaries of the HCP consist of a Plan Area that includes all relevant aspects of the proposal including areas that will be used for any activities described in the HCP, including the locations of the project development site and the conservation site, and the Permit Area. Plan Area

The Plan Area (see Figure 1 “The Project Site and the Conservation Site”) is the specific geographic area where covered activities described in the HCP, including mitigation, may occur; and includes both the project site and the conservation site. Permit Area

The Permit Area (see Appendix A “Vicinity Map”) is the geographic area where the incidental take permit applies. It includes the area under the control of the applicant/permittee(s) where covered activities will occur. The proposed Permit Area consists of the project site (totaling 127 acres) and the conservation site (totaling 64.6 acres). For this HCP, the Plan Area and the Permit area are synonymous. These properties are mapped in Appendix A “Existing Conditions Map Set” and Appendix C “Figures”, and described in Appendices B and C. This HCP describes the Applicant’s proposal to fully offset adverse effects in the Permit Area and contribute to the conservation of the Covered Species by restoring and managing habitat at the 64.6-acre conservation site. The conservation site will serve as permanent mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the Covered Species in the Plan Area and is more fully described in the Mitigation Measures section of the Conservation Program and in Appendix C. The project and conservation sites are located on glacial outwash soils in the south Puget Sound region. These glacial soils include sandy loams and gravelly sandy loams. Soils on much of the project site have previously been disturbed and compacted by various construction-related activities, and invasive non-native vegetation including various pasture grasses and Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius) are present. Olympia pocket gophers are present at both the project and conservation sites. Olympia pocket gopher habitat on the project site was disturbed by previous landowners prior to the Federal listing of the Olympia pocket gopher by grading, cut, and fill activities related to residential development. Approximately 40% of remaining soils on the project site were substantially disturbed (see Appendix B). Remaining Olympia pocket gopher habitat in areas of the project site where soils were not previously disturbed by construction activities is dominated by tall, dense rhizomatous grasses. Some forbs are present.

Ongoing agricultural practices currently influence habitat quality at the conservation site. The upland portion of the site consists of open livestock pasture covered in a mix of forbs and grasses. Current land uses consist of cattle grazing and haying activities (Appendix C). Areas along fence lines and near watering troughs where livestock congregate show signs of soil compaction. A more detailed analysis of habitat quality differences between the project and conservation sites is provided in the Analysis of the Taking section of this HCP.

14 November 2017

Figure 1. The Project Site and the Conservation Site

Oregon spotted frogs are present at the conservation site where aquatic habitats provide areas for them to breed and reside year-round. Oregon spotted frog and the Olympia pocket gopher are more fully described in the Status of the Species section. The project site contains existing residential homes and infrastructure such as roads and utilities that were constructed prior to the listing of the Covered Species under the ESA. The project site is located in the City of Tumwater and is zoned multi-family medium density residential 9-15 units per acre (MFM) and single-family medium density residential 6-9 units per acre (SFM). The conservation site is located in unincorporated Thurston County and is zoned rural - one dwelling unit per 10 acres (R 1/10).

15 November 2017

Proposed Action

The Applicant proposes to construct a total of 327 single and multi-family homes and associated infrastructure (including roads, driveways, and utilities) on the previously described 127-acre project site. The development and construction including all covered activities will be completed in accordance with this HCP within the 15-year duration of the requested permit. To offset unavoidable impacts of the taking resulting from the covered activities, the Applicant will implement the Conservation Program described in this HCP, including acquiring and managing a 64.6 acre conservation site for the benefit of the covered species in perpetuity. The Applicant has determined that site preparation, construction, and development activities cannot completely avoid impacts to listed species or their habitats on these parcels. Covered Activities

Covered activities include actions related to site management (before and after development), construction, vegetation management on the project site (including management of the pre- existing onsite habitat set-asides); and habitat restoration and management activities at the conservation site. Covered activities and their effects on the Covered Species are described in a step-wise fashion in Appendix D: Effects Matrix. The steps required for developing and managing the project site for residential use follow this general sequence of events: 1) Geotechnical investigation: Excavator is used to dig soil test pits. 2) Installation of temporary erosion control measures such as sediment fencing and infiltration basins.

3) Cut above-ground vegetation. 4) Clear and grub vegetation: Vegetation is cleared on portions of the site to be developed. Equipment that may be used for vegetation clearing includes brush cutters, rotary cutters, chain saws, chippers, and stump grinders. 5) Construct access road and gravel staging areas. 6) Install office trailer. 7) Create and use borrow areas. 8) Excavate and grade soils: Soils on the site are graded and leveled by cut and fill in accordance with approved project plans. Equipment used for these tasks includes graders, excavators, and dump trucks. 9) Stockpile materials: Topsoil is removed and stockpiled for site restoration. 10) Add fill and imported soils.

16 November 2017

11) Remove debris. 12) Compact substrate. 13) Lay and compact aggregate substrate. 14) Construct roads and driveways: Gravel fill material is spread and compacted for roads. Roads are paved. Equipment used to construct roads and driveways includes graders, scrapers, rollers, dump trucks, concrete mixer trucks, and concrete pump trucks, and pavers. 15) Install underground and aboveground utilities: Trenches are excavated for installing underground utilities. Utilities are installed and the trenches covered with gravel fill and topsoil.

16) Construct permanent drainage systems and basins. 17) Install building footings 18) Build concrete slabs.

19) Fuel and maintain vehicles on-site.

20) Ingress/egress traffic.

21) Install sod.

22) Landscaping/restoration.

23) Upgrades to stormwater facilities: Storm water facilities may require upgrades when standard storm water manuals are updated. Local laws, as amended, may require additional repair and maintenance. This work may require grading, excavation, soil amendments, seeding, or planting within the identified storm water facilities.

24) Utility repair and maintenance; road and sidewalk improvements: Site soils may also be disturbed when work is done on underground utilities or other infrastructure such as roads or sidewalks are improved.

25) Landscape maintenance: Landscaped areas will be maintained by mowing, pruning, and plant replacement as needed. Vegetation management to maintain suitable habitat for the listed species will be ongoing at the onsite habitat set-aside, including mowing every other year and control of invasive plant species as needed, and at the conservation site to limit invasive plant species, and remove shrubs and trees. Clearing of invasive species and woody vegetation is likely to be accomplished through mechanical means such as brush cutters, rotary cutters, and riding mowers, or with the use of prescribed fire.

17 November 2017

The Applicant will not use pesticides or herbicides for vegetation management in the onsite set- asides or conservation site without prior approval from USFWS. The Applicant acknowledges that any future proposed new covered activity, such as use of herbicides or pesticides, in the Plan Area may require a revision to the conditions of the proposed ITP. The Applicant and the Land Steward will adhere to the Native Vegetation Best Management Practices found in the Site Management Plan (Appendix C) to avoid potential adverse effects to Covered Species and their habitats at the onsite habitat set-aside and at the conservation site. Requested Permit Duration

The Applicant requests a renewable ITP with a duration of 15 years. The Applicant believes that proposed construction activities at the project site will be complete and that the HCP will achieve the described conservation goals within 15 years. If the project site has not been developed before the permit expires, the Applicant may wish to renew the permit to continue ongoing actions or to provide for those areas that have not been developed. In order to renew the ITP, the Applicant will notify USFWS in writing and submit a renewal request at least 30 days prior to permit expiration in accordance with regulation (50 CFR 13.22). The Applicant understands that USFWS will review the conservation program; the benefits accrued to the Covered Species and the status of those species upon receipt of the renewal request. The Applicant also understands that USFWS will consider the best science available at that time and complete any additional analyses needed to comply with applicable laws or regulations when processing a renewal request. Minor or technical changes or updates may be incorporated into a renewed permit. Substantive changes may require additional analysis, amendments, or the issuance of a new permit. Permit renewals, amendments, and other changes are described more fully later in this document.

Status of the Covered Species

The Applicant has determined that Olympia pocket gophers and their habitat are present on the project site and the conservation site, and Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat are present on the conservation site. The Applicant therefore proposes to cover both of these species for incidental take. Mazama Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama Merriam, 1897

Conservation Status In 1991 the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission designated the Roy (T. m. glacialis), Tenino (T. m. tumuli), Tacoma (T. m. tacomensis), Shelton, (T. m. couchi), and Cathlamet (T. m. louiei) subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under state law (per RCW title 77 and WAC 232-12-014, 232-12-011, and 232-12- 297). In 2001 the USFWS published notification that the Mazama pocket gopher in Washington was a candidate for listing under the ESA (66 FR 54808-54832). The state of Washington listed the Mazama pocket gopher as threatened under state law in 2006.

18 November 2017

On April 9, 2014, USFWS listed the Olympia, Roy, Tenino, and Yelm (T. m. yelmensis) subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher as threatened under the ESA (79FR 19760-19796). Though multiple subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers are known from Washington State, this status of the species description will focus primarily on the listed subspecies (the Olympia pocket gopher) that will be affected by the Covered Activities, and is therefore the subject of this HCP. Distribution and Population Trends In Washington, Mazama pocket gophers are found on remnant glacial outwash prairies of the southern Puget Sound region and on subalpine meadows of the Olympic Mountains. Six subspecies are currently known to exist in Washington: one in Clallam; one in Mason; three in Thurston, and one in Pierce counties (Figure 2). They were formerly found near Tacoma and in Wahkiakum County.

Figure 2. Current and Historical Range of Mazama Pocket Gopher in Washington State

19 November 2017

Gophers are seldom found in densely developed areas, or sites with very rocky soil (WDFW 2013). Many surviving subpopulations are small (<50) and appear to be isolated from other subpopulations, although there is little data on dispersal to help delineate genetically connected populations. Small subpopulations are unlikely to persist for long without at least occasional demographic and genetic recharge by dispersing individuals from other nearby populations (Stinson 2013). Re-colonization becomes less likely as habitat is fragmented and populations isolated. Large populations or clusters of subpopulations close enough and with land condition that permits exchange of dispersers may be important for the persistence of each subspecies. Abundance and distribution of the Olympia subspecies (Figure 3) that may be impacted by this HCP is summarized below.

Figure 3. Approximate Range of Olympia Pocket Gopher

The largest known population of the Olympia subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher is found in the loamy sand soils at the Olympia Airport and surroundings in Tumwater on Bush Prairie (Stinson 2013; Figure 3). USFWS designated critical habitat for the Olympia pocket gopher at

20 November 2017

the Olympia airport (79 FR 19712-19757). Gopher mounds have been documented in surveys on over several hundred acres of maintained grassland at the airport (McAllister and Schmidt 2005). In 2005, McAllister and Schmidt (2005) derived a crude population estimate of 6,000 for the airport, but no trapping was done to determine how closely this approximated the number of actual gophers. Gophers are also found in vacant lots, yards, and pastures in nearby locations on both sides of Interstate 5 (WDFW 2016). Life History and Ecology Pocket gophers spend most of their time within their system of burrows. Gophers are believed to be generally solitary and exclude other gophers from their burrows except when breeding and when females have litters. Pocket gophers generally remain within their established territories, although they will shift their home range in response to seasonally wet soils (Stinson 2013). Thomomys pocket gophers adjust their annual cycle of activity to the seasonal changes of weather, soil, and plant growth where they occur (Cox and Hunt 1992). Pocket gopher territory (i.e., burrow systems) sizes vary with habitat quality and reproductive status. Using radio- telemetry, Witmer et al. (1996) estimated that the late winter-early spring home range of T. mazama on a fallow field averaged 108 m2 for 4 males (range 73–143 m2), and 97 m2 for 4 females (range 47–151 m2; 0.01–0.03 acre). WDFW personnel captured an average of nine gophers per acre in a 22-acre plot at Olympia Airport, but some gophers were not captured and remained in the plots (G. Olson, unpubl. data). Mazama pocket gophers attain sexual maturity by the breeding season after their birth, when about 9 months old and females rear a single litter of about 5 (2-7) pups per year (Witmer et al. 1996, Verts and Carraway 2000). Gopher populations can increase dramatically in the summer after the dispersal of young of the year, and may increase to 3–4 times the spring adult population. In addition to this annual influx of young-of-the-year, gopher populations also fluctuate year-to-year due to environmental conditions. Pocket gopher populations are characterized by local extinction and recolonization (Baker et al. 2003). Territoriality and extreme weather may be important factors influencing pocket gopher populations. Pocket gophers have been called ‘keystone species’ and ‘ecosystem engineers’ because they affect the presence and abundance of plants and other animals (Vaughan 1961, 1974; Reichman and Seabloom 2002). Their extensive excavations affect soil structure and chemistry; and food caches and latrines enrich the soil thereby affecting plant community composition and productivity. Mazama pocket gophers are an important prey species for many predators, including hawks, owls, coyotes, and weasels; and their burrows provide retreats for salamanders, western toads, frogs, lizards, small mammals, and invertebrates (Stinson 2005). Habitat Characteristics Mazama pocket gophers live on open meadows, prairies and grassland habitats of the glacial outwash plain where there are porous, well-drained soils (Dalquest 1948). Mazama pocket gophers do not require high quality prairie, but can live in a wide range of grasslands, particularly if they include a significant component of forbs, such as clover, lupines, dandelions, false dandelions, and camas. In addition to remnant prairies, occupied sites in Washington

21 November 2017

include grassy fields at airports, pastures, fields, Christmas tree farms, and occasionally clearcuts (Stinson 2013). Although most of the populations are found in grasslands on land that was prairie, they will move into sites with well-drained soil where forest cover has been removed, including recent clearcuts. Gophers are known to populate sites after timber harvest and become common for a few years while grasses and forbs are available, but decline as the area regenerates to forest. This has been observed most frequently in Mason County. They are otherwise essentially absent from forest habitats in Washington (Stinson 2013). Gophers also less frequently reported where grassland has been taken over by dense Scot’s broom (Steinberg 1996, Olson 2011b). Perennial forbs are preferred for food over grasses, and fleshy roots and bulbs, such as camas (Camassia spp.) are important when green vegetation is not available. The availability of forbs may provide nutrients important for gopher growth and reproduction. However, there is little research on the relative value of native versus non-native prairie vegetation as forage sources for the gopher. Gophers also eat fungi and disseminate the spores of species that have an important role in facilitating plant growth. Mazama pocket gopher association with soil types and characteristics. The distribution and abundance of pocket gophers is greatly affected by soils. Soil characteristics that affect gophers include depth and texture, particularly rock and clay content that affects burrowing ability, permeability that can result in periodic flooding of burrows, and water-holding capacity and fertility that affect growth of plant foods. In general, pocket gophers prefer deep, light-textured, porous, well-drained soils, and do not occur in peat or heavy clay soils (Chase et al. 1982, Baker et al. 2003). Distribution of Mazama pocket gophers appears correlated with prairie soil types, but they are not found on all remnant prairie sites. They rarely occur where soil is very rocky (Steinberg 1996, Olson 2011b). There are local populations in non-prairie loam, sandy, and gravelly soil types (e.g., Indianola loamy sand, Grove, Everett) that may have been unused by gophers in the past due to forest cover. These occurrences often are adjacent to more typical prairie soils (e.g., Nisqually soils). They may be able to occupy any site that supports herbaceous vegetation, does not have significant tree cover, and is well-drained sandy, loamy, or gravelly soil (Stinson 2013; WDFW 2013). Mazama pocket gophers in Washington have not been found in clay, and there are few records in silt soils. In summary, deep well-drained, sandy loam or loamy sand with sufficient fertility and water-holding capacity to support desired forbs appears to provide optimal habitat (Baker et al. 2003). Threats/Reasons for Decline Much Mazama pocket gopher habitat in the south Puget Sound has been lost to development, agriculture, and succession to forest, and what remains continues to be degraded by invasion of Scot’s broom and other non-native plants (Stinson 2013). Urban Development. High density residential development has been particularly destructive to prairie habitat, and probably led to extinction of the Tacoma pocket gopher. Habitat loss has eliminated most of the prairie vegetation in the South Puget Sound area, though significant areas

22 November 2017

remain in grassland. Pocket gophers may not persist in high-density residential areas due to effects of frequent mowing, herbicides, impervious surfaces, and perhaps elevated mortality rates resulting from predation by cats and dogs and trapping or poisoning of rodents, including gophers (Stinson 2013). Trends in the human population suggest that amount and quality of habitat will continue to decline without protection and careful management of conflicting uses. Thurston County is projected to have 170,000 additional people and need an additional 50,000 detached single- family housing units, and >25,000 multi-family units by 2040 (Sustainable Thurston 2011:A11). As remaining habitat patches become smaller, fewer, and farther apart, the likelihood of each patch continuing to support gophers declines as intervening habitat patches are lost (Stinson 2013). The persistence of Mazama pocket gophers on roadsides, vacant lots, and lightly grazed pastures suggests that they are relatively resilient, and may be able to persist in rural and low-density developed areas. However, recent extinction of the Tacoma pocket gopher indicates that life for gophers in high-density residential and commercial areas is hazardous and recruitment and re- colonization is inadequate to maintain local populations (Stinson 2013). The last possible records of the Tacoma pocket gopher were animals that were killed by pet cats and identified as gophers by homeowners (Ramsey and Slipp 1974). It is not known if the mortalities from these sources have a significant effect on gopher populations, particularly in less densely settled areas. Pocket gophers can damage young trees and their mounds can be a nuisance to landowners. Their foraging habits can also be unwelcome in vegetable gardens and at Christmas tree, berry, and vegetable farms in the area. Though Mazama pocket gophers are currently protected from killing without a permit; the frequency with which they are trapped or poisoned is unknown. When larger populations are suppressed by these methods, they readily recover if habitat remains suitable, but for small and isolated populations, mortality from persecution added to other hazards may lead to extirpation (Stinson 2013). Livestock grazing. Gophers may survive in pastures in rural residential areas, but studies in California indicate that gopher density tends to decrease in heavily grazed pastures (Eviner and Chapin 2003). Mazama pocket gophers have persisted on well-managed ranches in Thurston County (Stinson 2013). Gravel mining. South Puget Sound prairies are located on glacial outwash gravels. Some of these glacial gravel deposits are very deep and valuable for use in construction and road- building, and prairie sites may be destroyed by gravel mining. One of the sites where Tacoma pocket gophers were collected became a large gravel pit, and two gravel pits have been opened on occupied gopher habitat in Pierce County south of Roy, and on Rock and Rocky prairies in Thurston County (Stinson 2013). Airport Management and Development. Pocket gophers are known to occur in grasslands surrounding airport runways and adjoining lands. Airport safety considerations require that the vegetation be mowed to maintain visibility, eliminate cover for large animals that might pose a hazard for aircraft, and provide a safety margin should aircraft overshoot or land short of

23 November 2017

runways. This management benefits gophers by reducing woody vegetation and maintaining grassland conditions. Succession and invasive plants. The fire regime established and perpetuated by Native Americans maintained the south Puget Sound prairies for the past 4,000 years or more. Fire suppression allows Douglas-fir to invade and overwhelm prairie ecosystems. Disturbances such as grazing and vehicle traffic may accelerate colonization by Douglas-fir because Douglas-fir seed germination is enhanced by disturbance that increases mineral soil contact (Stinson 2013). Douglas-fir control has been conducted to maintain prairies in recent years at JBLM’s Johnson Prairie and Weir Prairie Resource Natural Areas, DNR’s Mima Mounds and Rocky Prairie Natural Areas Preserves, Thurston County’s Glacial Heritage Preserve, and WDFW’s Scatter Creek Wildlife Area. Scot’s broom is the most visible invasive species that can cover prairies relatively rapidly. Olson (2011a) reported that Scot’s broom negatively affected the probability of gopher site occupancy and plot use; the model suggested that plot use appears to decline as Scot’s broom cover approached 10%. Parker (2002) reported that the glacial outwash prairie ecosystem is readily invaded by Scot’s broom and that simply reducing soil disturbance and fires would not stop broom invasion. Rook et al. (2011) noted that Scot’s broom has long lasting effects on the soil that reduces germination and success of some native species. Scot’s broom can be killed through burning, hand pulling, or herbicide, but control requires an ongoing program because the plants produce abundant seeds that can remain viable in the soil for several decades. Regular mowing can prevent Scot’s broom seed production. Fire often stimulates germination of broom seeds in the soil, so a second burn or herbicide is often employed to effectively control the abundant seedlings (Rook et al. 2011). Portions of the Artillery Impact Area on JBLM are broom free, indicating that frequent burning prevents broom establishment, but this can also affect native species. All control methods can be detrimental to native species if not well planned. There are numerous invasive exotic plants in addition to Scot’s broom that degrade native prairies in the south Puget Sound region. Techniques for restoration of prairies and oak woodlands of the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin ecoregion are reviewed in Dennehy et al. (2011), Dunwiddie and Bakker (2011), Hamman et al. (2011), and Rook et al. (2011). Implications of habitat loss for populations. Pocket gophers are vulnerable to local extinctions because of the small size of local breeding populations (Steinberg 1999). Low effective size of local populations and relatively large genetic differences between populations may be typical of gopher populations (Daly and Patton 1990). Pocket gophers have probably persisted by continually re-colonizing habitat after local extinctions; however, the loss of habitat patches and increases in hazards such as busy roads may inhibit re-colonization (Stinson 2013). Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa, Baird and Girard, 1853

Conservation Status

The Oregon spotted frog was listed as endangered in Washington State by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in 1997. The USFWS listed the species as threatened under the ESA

24 November 2017

on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51657- 51710), and designated critical habitat on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29336-29396). The state of Oregon designates the species as critical, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife considers Oregon spotted frogs a species of special concern. Canada lists the species as endangered in the lower Fraser River drainage of British Columbia, due to small distribution and declines in adult population size (COSEWIC 2011).

As recently as 2004, the Oregon spotted frog was presumed eliminated from over 70% of its former range (Pearl and Hayes 2004). While recent surveys have detected more populations, extensive alteration of hydrology and wetland character in its now-unoccupied historic range has eliminated historic suitable habitat. Population Trends and Distribution Rangewide. Historically, the Oregon spotted frog ranged from extreme southwestern British Columbia through northeastern California (McAllister and Leonard 1997). It is presumed that most historical populations were not documented (McAllister and Leonard 1997). Of sixty-one reported historic localities of Oregon spotted frog, approximately 13 occurred in Washington (McAllister and Leonard 1997, Hayes 1997). Declines in populations have been noted in lowlands west of the Cascade Range in Washington (Dumas 1966, Nussbaum et al. 1983, McAllister et al. 1993, Hayes 1997, Hallock 2013). Spotted frog populations are currently known to exist in one watershed in British Columbia, six watersheds in Washington, and eight watersheds in Oregon; none have been recorded in recent years in northern California (Hallock 2013). Washington. The ‘type locality’ specimen described by Girard in 1853 came from “Oregon… Puget Sound” in the 1840s. The specimen was collected by the Wilkes Exploratory Expedition, which included naturalists who explored the Nisqually and Chehalis River Basins. As recently as 2004, only four Oregon spotted frog localities in two watersheds were known to occur in Washington (Pearl and Hayes 2004). Currently in Washington, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within six sub- basins/watersheds: the Sumas River, a tributary to the Lower Chilliwack River watershed and Fraser River sub-basin; the Black Slough in the lower South Fork Nooksack River, a tributary of the Nooksack River; Samish River; Black River, a tributary of the Chehalis River; Outlet Creek (Conboy Lake), a tributary to the Middle Klickitat River; and Trout Lake Creek, a tributary of the White Salmon River. The Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers are tributaries to the Columbia River. The Oregon spotted frogs in each of these sub-basins/watersheds are isolated from frogs in other sub-basins. Upper Chehalis River Sub-basin. Thurston County contains the entire Black River drainage. To date Oregon spotted frogs are known to occupy wetlands in the floodplain and tributaries of the upper Black River drainage between Black Lake to areas just south of Mima Creek. Oregon spotted frog sites in the Black River may be isolated from each other. The full extent of the distribution of Oregon spotted frog in the Black River watershed is not fully known and undetected populations may occur within the drainage.

25 November 2017

The USFWS designated 4,880 acres (1975 hectares) and 7 stream miles (12 stream kilometers) of critical habitat in portions of the Black River drainage (Unit 4, Figure 4; USFWS 2016). Life History and Ecology Description. The Oregon spotted frog is a highly aquatic medium sized frog with black spots, upward looking eyes and highly webbed feet. Genetically, Rana pretiosa is distinct from Rana luteiventris (Green et al. 1996, 1997) partially due to prolonged isolation.

Figure 4. Distribution of Oregon Spotted Frog in Thurston County

Habitat use, home range and behavior. Their habitat use and home range is constrained by their behavior and extent of suitable habitat. The Oregon spotted frog deposits eggs in late winter or early spring depending on elevation, metamorphoses by mid-summer and overwinters in water

26 November 2017

(Dickerson 1906, Licht 1971, Pearl and Hayes 2004, Hallock and Pearson 2001, Watson et al. 2003). Within their summer home range, which can be quite small (0.2 ha), adult Oregon spotted frogs inhabit permanent water including streams and ponds. Prey items include aquatic organisms such as aquatic arthropods (Chelgren et al. 2008, Watson et al. 2003, Licht 1986, Pearl et al. 2005, Waddell 2015, Yahnke 2015). Frogs may avoid dense herbaceous vegetation or grass and select for submergent vegetation with some shrub cover (Watson et al. 2003, Popescu et al. 2013). Most frog growth and maturation occurs in the summer (Turner 1957, 1960) in older ponds (Chelgren et al. 2008). Survival rates are lowest in the egg and larval life stages. In response to predators, frogs remain still, subside into the water or jump into the water rather than retreating into terrestrial areas (Licht 1986). With the initiation of fall rains, frogs in lower elevation habitats (Puget Lowlands and Fraser River Lowlands) extend their home range and migrate through moist or aquatic habitats to the breeding range (Watson et al. 2003, Chelgren et al. 2008). Frogs may move into adjoining flooded fields during and following rainfall events (Licht 1986). Movements of 100 meters to over 2.4 kilometers have been reported (Watson et al. 2003, Waddell 2015). In southeastern Canada, home range sizes in winter varied between 1.37 and 3.16 ha (Popescu et al. 2013); at one location in western Washington home ranges averaged 1.9 ha (Watson et al. 2003). During winter, juvenile and adult frogs burrow in the mud and undercut banks or move around under the ice in shallow to deep ponds or flowing channels, sometimes with roots, woody debris and springs (Dickerson 1906, Chelgren et al. 2008, Popescu et al. 2013, Shovlain 2005, Pearl et al. 2009, Hayes et al. 2001, Hallock and Pearson 2001). In early February, frogs move from winter habitat to their breeding range (Licht 1969, Chelgren et al. 2008). Males ‘advertise’ using a distinctive but weak clucking (Licht 1971). Females are thought to lay one egg mass each breeding season (Phillipsen et al. 2009) with an average of 643 eggs per mass. Egg masses are often, but not always laid in communal clusters (USFWS 2014). Egg mass deposition occurs in shallow pools, generally less than 14 inches deep, connected to permanent water including streams, wetlands, and springs (USFWS 2014). Eggs hatch in two to four weeks and tadpoles feed on algae and detritus. Growth may be reduced in the presence of predators or due to high density of tadpoles (Barnett and Richardson 2002). Metamorphosis may extend into mid-summer. Oregon spotted frog tadpoles were observed through late July with the last one sighted on August 3, and metamorphs were observed through August 10 at West Rocky Prairie in Thurston County, Washington (Yahnke 2015). If water levels do not persist in these shallow environments, mortality may occur. Egg masses and tadpoles are susceptible to mortality from desiccation when water levels fluctuate rapidly in breeding and rearing habitat (Hallock 2013). Habitat Characteristics Habitat components that support all life stages and population growth include a gradual topographic gradient of aquatic habitats encompassing:

27 November 2017

1) Seasonal or permanently flooded areas with gradual gradients and short stature emergent vegetation (including reed canary grass) from spring through summer for egg and tadpole development; 2) Permanent lentic or slow moving water bodies with sun exposure for adult and juvenile survival in summer; and 3) Well oxygenated water and shelter from freezing conditions and predators for overwintering (Hallock 2013).

Most sites exceed 4 ha and are nested in a longer aquatic corridor (Pearl and Hayes 2004) although they have also been found to use smaller areas.

Summer habitat consists of ponds connected to winter habitats via a low topographic gradient, ditches or moist meadows. Summer habitat is often limited in area to the extent of suitable water depths. Specific details of habitat characteristics are pertinent to management: In summer, frogs have been found in small (60 to 700 m2) ponds ranging in depths from 23.6 cm to 200 cm (Watson et al. 2003, Waddell 2015, Shovlain 2005, Chelgren et al. 2008). In a recent PhD project conducted in Thurston County, juvenile frogs were found in two deep channels, mowed plots, an excavated pond and spring Carex cover (Yahnke 2015). In one study, 45 young frogs were detected in shallow water (40.2 ± 27.8 cm, range of 13 to 67 cm), whereas 21 adult frogs were found in slightly deeper water (41.3 ± 30.8 cm, with a range of 8.0 to 127 cm) (Yahnke 2015). At another occupied wetland in British Columbia, Oregon spotted frog and red-legged frog used a river and a floodplain pond for breeding, rearing and feeding after metamorphosis (Licht 1971). Its dimensions were approximately (12 x 60 m in extent) by (0.2 to 0.9 meter deep) and it retained water through July (Licht study pond as reviewed in Pearl and Hayes 2004). Winter habitat consists of well-oxygenated wetlands, streams, and lakes with mud, willow root complexes, and beaver runs (Dickerson 2006, Watson et al. 2003, Pearl and Hayes 2004). In winter, frogs have been found in water from 17.4 ± 0.8 cm to 111 cm deep (Watson et al. 2003, Hayes et al. 2001). Breeding sites are shallow, exposed to the sun and connected to non-breeding habitat. Breeding site water depths range from 5 to 30 cm (Licht 1971, Hayes et al. 2000). Vegetation under the egg mass is usually last year’s emergent vegetation and is short, compressed by snow, or reduced in stature by livestock or human activities (Pearl et al. 2009. Licht 1971, Watson et al. 2003, Kapust et al. 2012). For instance, vegetation height above the water surface in mowed plots used by Oregon spotted frogs averaged 20 cm (Abreu 2015). Water persistence through metamorphosis is also important. Water level declines from low rainfall, water withdrawals or diversion off pasture, agricultural, and residential lands, or removal of beaver dams may result in stranding or mortality of egg masses or tadpoles (Licht 1971, Hayes et al. 2000, Hallock 2013). Threats/Reasons for Decline Across their range, Oregon spotted frogs are threatened by wetland loss and alterations; loss of disturbance processes that set back succession; regulatory mechanisms that require shrub and tree plantings in wetlands; invasive species such as reed canarygrass; and alterations of creek and river channels (Hallock 2013, USFWS 2014). In the Black River basin of Thurston County,

28 November 2017

specific threats include wetland loss; invasion by reed canarygrass; shrub encroachment; wetland replanting with shrubs and trees; grazing pressures; urban development; lack of beaver presence; water quality impairment; predation by bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) and introduced fish species; small population sizes; regulatory mechanisms and disconnected populations (USFWS 2014). Rapid water levels changes during critical time periods in the Oregon spotted frogs’ life cycle pose another threat to the species. Frogs typically breed near wetland edges. Water level declines in spring or water level fluctuations due to altered wetlands and water regimes may strand egg masses or tadpoles and lead to desiccation (Pearl and Hayes 2004, Licht 1971). In the Black River watershed, breeding habitat extends into seasonally flooded areas (USFWS 2014) that may dry out during the breeding season. Declines in the extent of summer shallow water areas may place Oregon spotted frogs in closer proximity to predators such as bullfrogs or garter snakes and may partially explain the relatively low summer survival rates reported at Dilman meadows in Oregon (Chelgren et al. 2008). Invasion of tall plants such as reed canarygrass or dense shrubs may impair breeding habitat by creating a dense thatch or reducing solar exposure. Shrubs may encroach as a result of intentional planting or regulatory requirements that prevent natural or anthropogenic disturbances. Measures to control reed canarygrass such as grazing or haying are another potential threat, but can be conducted when the water has receded from the breeding area. Grazing is a threat to Oregon spotted frogs in some areas, but the range of beneficial and negative effects from grazing are not yet resolved (USFWS 2014, Hayes 1997, McAllister and Leonard 1997, Watson et al 2003). Much of our understanding on the effects of grazing stem from studies conducted in xeric portions of Oregon, where cattle concentrate in riparian zones where forage is palatable. Two studies suggest minimal effect of grazing on egg masses or distribution of young Columbia spotted frogs (Bull and Hayes 2000, Adams et al. 2009). However, at Jack Creek, Oregon, Oregon spotted frogs avoided heavily grazed areas (Shovlain 2005). At sites in northern and eastern Washington, cattle grazing is not adequately maintaining suitable habitat and other measures such as reed canarygrass replacement are being attempted (USFWS 2014). Conversely, in western Washington, light grazing maintained breeding habitat by maintaining openings in the otherwise dense thatch of reed canarygrass (Watson et al. 2003). The WDFW Draft Recovery Plan for the Oregon spotted frog recommends further investigation into the level of grazing intensity needed to maintain habitat suitability (Hallock 2013). Other threats include introduced aquatic species such as bullfrogs that prey on spotted frogs (Hayes and Jennings 1986). Bullfrogs are categorized as “prohibited nonnative aquatic animal species” in Washington (RCW 77.12.020) and are considered a threat to the state’s environment and its economy. A recently identified potentially significant threat to Oregon spotted frog is the widespread presence of a fungus specific to amphibians. This fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis has caused amphibian declines around the world (Hayes et al. 2009) and is known to occur throughout wetlands in the Pacific Northwest (Pearl et al. 2008, Hayes et al. 2009).

29 November 2017

Urban development and regulations intended to preserve wetlands in the low elevations of the Puget Trough may also threaten wetland character (McAllister and Leonard 1997, USFWS 2014). Development may result in modifications of the seasonally flooded areas used by Oregon spotted frogs that are not identified or create barriers between populations. Breeding habitats in Thurston County include seasonally flooded areas, which may or may not be identified as wetlands (USFWS 2014). The isolation of populations is considered a threat across their range, including in the Black River basin (USFWS 2014). Regulations intended to protect wetlands may result in encroachment of trees and shrubs or invasion of reed canarygrass into breeding habitat (USFWS 2014). However, a few remnant populations of Oregon spotted frog persist in human-modified habitats such as agricultural fields with poorly maintained ditches and backwaters adjoining golf courses. Research evaluating how residential and agricultural activities affect the persistence of Oregon spotted frogs is important. Restoration approaches Managed grazing, reed canarygrass replacement, mowing, and other wetland management techniques are important tools for managing spotted frog breeding habitat (Hallock 2013, Watson et al. 2003, Kapust et al. 2012). Oregon spotted frogs respond positively to enhancement of breeding habitat (Kapust et al. 2012, Blessing 2016). Effects of these practices on frogs are not completely understood. Monitoring of response of frogs to habitat enhancement and water level changes can inform subsequent vegetation management.

Knowledge gaps. Site-specific research is needed to better understand how to manage Oregon spotted frog habitat (Hallock 2013). The Oregon spotted frog appears to be highly selective in its habitat requirements. Knowledge of habitat needs for adults, tadpoles, and metamorphs are essential for conserving and managing for Oregon spotted frogs (Hallock 2013). Specifically, research is needed on habitat requirements of non-breeding frogs; effective management of reed canarygrass; effects of canarygrass management on co-occurring species; grazing practices that benefit frogs without impairing water quality; and the relationship of beaver activities and frog population dynamics and persistence.

Analysis of the Impacts Likely to Result from the Taking

Olympia pocket gopher

The relative value of Mazama pocket gopher habitat can be assessed based on a number of factors. Pocket gophers prefer deep, light-textured, porous, well-drained soils. Areas that include the soil types described in the USFWS final listing rule for the species (79FR 19760- 19796) are considered to have higher habitat quality than sites with other soil types. Mazama pocket gophers prefer perennial forbs for food over grasses. Locations that provide preferred vegetation types such as clover, lupines, dandelions, false dandelions, and camas provide better habitat than sites under grassy cover. Pocket gophers are also less frequently reported where grassland has been taken over by dense Scot’s broom (Steinberg 1996, Olson 2011b), and are essentially absent from forest habitats in Washington (Stinson 2013). Habitat value for gophers appears to decrease as the density of woody vegetation and Scot’s broom increases.

30 November 2017

Sites that contain characteristics associated with the presence of the species may represent potential habitat. These factors include the presence of suitable glacial outwash soil types (such as Alderwood, Cagey, Everett, Indianola, McKenna, Nisqually, Norma, Spana, Spanaway- Nisqually complex, Yelm, and others), the availability of vegetation types known to be used as foods, or proximity to other sites known to be occupied by pocket gophers.

Mazama pocket gophers can be difficult to detect because they spend most of their lives underground, with the exception of very brief surface forays for feeding or for dispersal of young from their natal burrow systems. Mazama pocket gophers are typically detected by searching potential habitat for the presence of gopher mounds. Detection of mounds can verify presence of the species on a site, but does not provide abundance or distribution data.

The amount and quality of the potential habitat on the project site varies considerably. Before 1990, the entire project site was forested (see past aerial imagery in Appendix A). The site was used for grazing and hay production after it was cleared and until site development activities commenced in recent years.

Soil maps show the site as Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 3% slopes; Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes; McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 5% slopes; Norma silt loam; Yelm fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes; and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes (see Appendix A: The Preserve Soils Map). These soil types are suitable for gophers. Indianola loamy sand is considered to be medium preference; the rest are considered to be low preference soils suitable for gophers (USFWS 2015).

Approximately 60 percent of the 127-acre project site was disturbed prior to the Federal listing of the species by site preparation, utility installation, road construction, and residential home building activities. Approximately 34 areas of the project site (27 percent of the site) have already been developed with roads and homes, and the soils on approximately 23 acres more (18 percent of the site) have been so thoroughly disturbed that habitat is not suitable for gopher occupation due to the presence of gravel fill, high levels of compaction, or major grade changes. These various impacts to site substrates were identified and surveyed in the field. They are shown as different types of developed areas on The Preserve Habitat Map in Appendix A and are described further in Table 1. Once the project is completed, 93 acres or 73% of the site will be developed with residential lots and roads. The remaining area to be managed or left undisturbed as grassland includes 11.6 acres of gopher habitat set-aside, 12.4 acres of emergent wetland and buffer, and 9.7 acres of storm facilities.

Approximately 37 acres of remaining habitat of moderate to low quality (some of these areas have been graded to some extent) will be impacted by project activities (see Appendix A: The Preserve Habitat Map and Table 1). Olympia pocket gopher mounds have been observed in some of these areas on the project site, though few to no mounds were observed in areas dominated by dense, tall grasses and in shrub thickets, as summarized in Table 1.

The project site is adjacent to high traffic volume roads such as Old Highway 99, and medium density residential and industrial development sites. Ongoing and future activities on these

31 November 2017

adjacent and nearby properties are likely to degrade and fragment available habitat and isolate remaining pocket gophers in the area.

The project site is located near the Olympia airport where critical habitat for the Olympia pocket gopher has been designated on approximately 676 acres of contiguous grassland that is managed for airport operations. The gopher population at the airport could serve as a source population for the project site. However, the impacts of losing approximately 37 acres of gopher habitat near the airport within a matrix of urbanizing areas are small in comparison to the large and contiguous habitat patch at the airport. The impacts are also minor in comparison to the protection of a new source population at the conservation site where the gopher population should have a greater capacity to expand into surrounding rural and agricultural areas. In addition, habitat at the conservation site has lower risk of future degradation and fragmentation because of the lower density rural zoning in this area. See Appendix A: Aerial View for a landscape view of the existing land uses and level of urbanization surrounding the project site and the conservation site.

32 November 2017

Table 1. Existing and Post-Construction Conditions at The Preserve

Existing Conditions Acres Description

Developed Areas

Developed Lots and Roads 33.7 Homes and roads are built

Compacted Gravel Areas 16.49 Gravel fill piles and quarry area

Raised Berm >8 feet High 2.48 Compacted soils formed into berm

Raised Berm <4 feet High 0.49 Compacted soils formed into berm

Compacted fill soils higher than Raised, Graded Area 3.18 surrounding grade

Developed Area Sub-total 56.34

Remaining Habitat in Planned Development Areas

Grass Dominated 21.75 not disturbed, low gopher occupancy

Grass-Forb-Shrub 9.08 graded soils, moderate gopher occupancy

Shrub Dominated 6.07 graded soils, low to no gopher occupancy

Habitat Sub-total 36.9

Post-Construction Conditions Acres

Developed Lots and Roads 92.94

Grassland Habitats

Habitat Set-aside 11.6

Stormwater Facility 9.70

Wetland and Buffer Areas 12.36

Grassland Area Sub-total 33.66

Total Project Site Area 126.6

33 November 2017

Individual pocket gophers in areas with degraded or limited food resources would be expected to require larger home ranges with more extensive burrow systems. Mazama pocket gophers are known to be antagonistic towards each other (except when breeding), which generally results in avoidance behavior that tends to distribute individuals across a landscape. It is reasonable to assume that this distribution behavior combined with the larger expected home ranges in areas of lower habitat suitability might result in impacts to fewer individuals when compared to habitat impacts in areas with higher relative habitat quality.

When construction is initiated on the remaining undeveloped portion of the project site, habitat will be lost along with any individuals. Incidental take is expected to be highest during initial site clearing, grading, and excavation as these activities will extend below the ground and into burrow systems, natal nests, and food caches. Burrow systems may be destroyed and individual animals harmed during these construction activities. Harm to animals or burrow systems may also occur once sites are developed if gophers persist in landscaped areas and storm water facilities. Incidental take due to Covered Activities is also described in Appendix D, the effects matrix.

Take in the form of harm may occur during site clearing, excavation, and grading if equipment injures or kills individuals or if forage plants are removed and soils for burrow systems are removed or compacted. Take may occur in the form of harassment wherever suitable habitat is removed and covered with impervious surfaces. Harassment may occur when individuals experience a measurable disruption to their normal behavior when their forage resources are removed, they are disturbed, or there is an increased energetic demand from having to relocate and/or rebuild tunnel systems and food caches.

Observing or documenting instances of take will be difficult or impossible because Olympia pocket gophers remain underground for most of their lives. The loss of suitable habitat on the project site will therefore serve as a surrogate for the amount of take anticipated over the term of the requested permit. All potential Olympia pocket gopher habitat on the project site is likely to be lost due to development activities, except in habitat set-asides, wetland and buffer areas, storm facilities, and road corridor areas once the site has been developed and construction is complete.

A total of approximately 37 acres of potential Olympia pocket gopher habitat will be impacted by development activities. The Applicant proposes to offset all 37 acres of potential habitat with a single large and permanently protected site that will be managed for the benefit of the species in perpetuity. The Applicant proposes to mitigate for the entire amount of potential habitat at a rate of at least one acre of permanently conserved habitat for each acre that will be impacted.

An approximately 64.6-acre site located west of Tilley Road and south of the Olympia airport is the proposed permanent conservation site for the Olympia pocket gopher. The Applicant proposes to conserve the site by executing a perpetual conservation easement, extinguishing future development rights associated with these parcels, and managing the site (see Appendix C “Conservation Site Management Plan”) with the goal of preserving, restoring and maintaining high quality Olympia pocket gopher habitat on this site. Within this 64.6-acre site, there are approximately 39 acres of occupied or potential Olympia pocket gopher habitat. The remainder

34 November 2017

of the site (below approximately 193 feet in elevation) appears to be seasonally saturated and therefore unavailable as year round habitat for this ground-dwelling species, though this area may be seasonally available for the species.

Table 2. Comparison of Potential Gopher Habitat Quality at the Project and Conservation Sites

Parameter Project Site (remaining Conservation Site potential habitat to be impacted)

Soils 22 acres of medium to low 39 acres of medium to low preference soils; 15 acres of preference soils; soils are fine loamy soils disturbed by filling, sand and fine sandy loam with no grading, and compaction; only a gravel; all soil types have been small portion of the disturbed observed to be occupied by gophers soils have been documented to be occupied by gophers

Vegetation Tall, dense rhizomatous grasses Pasture grasses and weedy forbs where soils are not disturbed; currently maintained by grazing and Scot’s broom thickets and areas haying operations; the percent cover dominated by a mix of low of non-native forbs such as clover, growing grasses and forbs dandelion, chickweed and plantain is where soils are disturbed relatively high, ranging from 40% to 95% throughout the pasture area

Gopher occupancy Low density of mounds Low density of mounds observed on observed, patchily distributed in suitable fine loamy sand and fine 9 acres of grass-forb-shrub sandy loam soils. habitat with disturbed soils

Landscape context Located in the City of Located in unincorporated Thurston Tumwater, surrounded by County, surrounded by agricultural urbanizing areas (high density land and forests, connected with the residential, industrial Salmon Creek riparian and wetland development, and the Olympia system Regional Airport) and major roads including Old Highway 99 and 93rd Avenue SE.

Zoning in area Light industrial and high and Low density rural residential medium density residential

35 November 2017

Table 2 provides a summary and comparison of the habitat conditions at the project and conservation sites. Potential habitat for gophers on the conservation site is mapped as containing Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 3% slopes; Yelm fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes; Norma fine sandy loam; and Norma silt loam soil types.

The 64.6-acre conservation site is positioned in a rural area adjacent to other open grassland habitats and near other sites known to be occupied by the species. Permanently protecting this site with a conservation easement and ensuring ongoing management at this location will expand the amount of habitat for Olympia pocket gophers secured under a conservation easement. Extinguishing development rights in conjunction with the recordation of the conservation easement on the conservation site will prevent the development of up to 6 residential dwelling units in upland grassland areas that would have otherwise been allowed under the current zoning of R1/10.

Ongoing site management, including initial release of compacted soils and potential introduction of prescribed fire as an ecological restoration tool may result in short-term harm or harassment to individual gophers and habitat changes that may not initially benefit individuals of the species. However, the long-term conservation value and benefit of the habitat enhancement program are expected to exceed the impacts from the short-term harm and harassment of individuals resulting from these actions.

The project site is positioned within a landscape that is increasingly fragmented by urban development. Even if the habitat remaining on this site was restored and managed specifically to meet Olympia pocket gopher requirements, connections to other habitat areas are increasingly disrupted by roads, industrial, and residential developments. In contrast, the conservation site is located in a rural setting surrounded by an open landscape that has been subjected to less habitat fragmentation. The establishment and long-term management of the conservation site will secure non-fragmented areas intended to fully offset the impacts occurring on the fragmented habitat that currently remains at the project development site.

The USFWS stated that “there are few data on historical or current population sizes of Mazama pocket gophers in Washington” in the final rule listing the species as threatened (79 FR 19775). Estimates of demographic-level responses to the loss of a portion of potential habitat are therefore difficult. However, the loss of a total of approximately 37 acres of poor to moderate quality potential habitat in a rapidly urbanizing area is unlikely to result in a population or demographic-level response because the Applicant will provide permanent protection for the species at the conservation site.

The Applicant believes that acquiring, managing, and permanently removing known threats (including precluding the potential for future development) on the proposed conservation site will offset the impacts of the taking expected to result from the Covered Activities and is expected to generate a net overall benefit for the Olympia pocket gopher.

36 November 2017

Oregon Spotted Frog

Wetlands on the project site are not permanently inundated or connected directly with a permanently flowing stream. Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occur on the site and are not likely to be impacted by project development.

The Oregon spotted frog is present on the conservation site. Ongoing site management at the conservation site designed to improve habitat conditions for frogs, including mowing or invasive species management during the dry season, may result in short-term harm or harassment to individual frogs and habitat changes that may not initially benefit the species. However, these activities are being conducted in order to improve habitat conditions for breeding frogs since low stature vegetation (in contrast to tall, invasive grasses that eliminate or degrade breeding habitat) in shallow water is required for successful breeding. Since there is uncertainty regarding the best methods for managing habitat for frogs, several methods for improving habitat conditions will be tested during the first few years of the permit term. These methods may include mowing, managed grazing, and covering invasive grasses with tarps then replanting with low stature native emergent plants. The results of using these methods will be monitored and used to refine and improve management techniques in future years. The use of this adaptive management process is intended to optimize management activities for species conservation and recovery. Opportunistic surveys for bullfrogs and non-native fish will also be conducted to identify and then address the threats posed by these non-native predators. The net conservation benefit expected to result from the reduction of threats and enhancement of habitat proposed in this HCP are anticipated to exceed any adverse effects to individual Oregon spotted frogs resulting from the management actions.

Potential sources of take include effects from:

• Vegetation management including mowing, grazing, covering, and replanting; • Egg mass and habitat surveys; • American bullfrog and non-native fish control; and • Impacts associated with creating breeding sinks, if recommended for increasing breeding habitat.

As described in the effects matrix in Appendix D, any of these activities may result in the death of individual egg masses, tadpoles, metamorphs and adult frogs by crushing; behavioral changes that might put an individual at greater risk of predation due to physical disturbance of their habitat; or an energetic cost to individuals, possibly leading to death, from the temporary removal protective cover or food sources immediately following the disturbance. Chemical use may also cause additional stress or death.

The ongoing perpetual management of approximately 25 acres of wetlands and Oregon spotted frog habitat associated with Salmon Creek located within the conservation site, since it was not required for mitigating any loss of spotted frog or wetland habitat at the project site, will result in the Applicant having 25 acres of potential mitigation credit available for its own use or sale to others in Thurston County (see Appendix A: Conservation Site map). The Applicant

37 November 2017

understands that the relative mitigation value of the habitat managed for the Oregon spotted frog will be determined at the time and in relation to such proposed future mitigation needs.

Acquiring and ensuring permanent management of the proposed conservation site is expected to offset the impacts of the incidental taking that could result from restoration and management activities and is expected to generate a net conservation benefit for the Oregon spotted frog.

Conservation Program

The Conservation Program describes the Applicant’s proposed actions and commitments to conserve the Covered Species. The conservation program consists of six components: 1. Biological Goals

2. Biological Objectives

3. Minimization Measures

4. Mitigation Measures

5. Monitoring Plan

6. Adaptive Management Plan

1. Biological Goals

Biological goals are intended to be broad, guiding principles that clarify the purpose and direction of the Applicant’s HCP (USFWS and NMFS 2016). These biological goals describe what the conservation plan aims to accomplish over the course of the permit term for each of the species covered by the plan. The biological goals are intended to address specific threats to the Olympia pocket gopher and the Oregon spotted frog cited in the USFWS listing rules for these species (79 FR 19760-19796, and 79 FR 51657- 51710, respectively), and describe how the Applicant’s HCP will address these threats where they occur in the permit area. 1. The Applicant will contribute to the conservation of the Olympia pocket gopher by restoring and permanently managing sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of this subspecies in the Plan Area. a. To prevent the loss of burrowing habitat necessary for successful Olympia pocket gopher breeding and sheltering, avoid, minimize, and mitigate activities that compact, grade, remove, or cover suitable soils with impervious surfaces. b. To prevent the loss of habitat necessary for successful Olympia pocket gopher feeding, avoid, minimize, and mitigate removal of forage vegetation.

38 November 2017

c. To prevent the loss of forage vegetation necessary for successful Olympia pocket gopher feeding, avoid, minimize, and mitigate encroachment of native and nonnative plant species that compete with forage vegetation. d. To prevent the loss of burrowing habitat necessary for successful Olympia pocket gopher breeding and sheltering, avoid, minimize, and mitigate encroachment of native and nonnative trees and shrubs that overtake soils with woody roots. e. To prevent the loss of Olympia pocket gopher individuals necessary for successful breeding, avoid, minimize, and mitigate predation by feral and domestic pets (cats and dogs). f. To prevent the loss of Olympia pocket gopher individuals necessary for successful breeding, avoid, minimize, and mitigate the capture, trapping, killing or poisoning moles or other ground-dwelling mammals. 2. The Applicant will contribute to the conservation of the Oregon spotted frog by permanently managing sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of this subspecies in the Plan Area. a. To prevent the loss of habitat necessary for successful Oregon spotted frog breeding, feeding, and sheltering, avoid or minimize and mitigate human activities that result in the loss of wetlands to land conversions; changes to hydrologic conditions; changes in water temperature and vegetation structure resulting from reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and restoration plantings; and increased sedimentation, elevated water temperatures, reduced water quality, and vegetation changes resulting from the timing, intensity, and location of livestock grazing. b. To prevent the loss of genetic diversity necessary for successful Oregon spotted frog breeding, avoid or minimize and mitigate small population sizes and low connectivity among breeding locations. c. To prevent the loss of tadpole, juvenile, and adult Oregon spotted frogs necessary for successful breeding, avoid or minimize and mitigate displacement, competition, and predation by nonnative species (such as bullfrogs and introduced fish species). 2. Biological Objectives

Biological objectives describe measurable performance targets useful for evaluating progress towards achieving the plan’s biological goals. Objectives provide benchmarks for determining the effectiveness of the conservation program and inform effective adaptive management over the duration of the permit. Each of the specific measurable objectives identified here may be beneficial to more than one of the Covered Species, and each objective is therefore associated with the species it is intended to benefit. Management actions that will be implemented to achieve these objectives are described in the Site Management Plans found in Appendix C.

39 November 2017

1. Acquire and manage the upland area of the conservation site (i.e., that portion of the property above approximately 193 ft. elevation consisting of about 39 acres) for the permanent conservation of the Olympia pocket gopher upon issuance of the requested permit. This objective is intended to support biological goal 1a for the Olympia pocket gopher. 2. Manage the upland portion of the conservation site to restore and maintain the area currently consisting of a mix of grasses and native and non-native forbs. Baseline vegetation cover conditions will be recorded in year one. Total cover of native and non- native forbs known to be food sources for gophers will be managed to ensure no less than 70% total cover on the upland portion of the site within one year of permit issuance. This objective is intended to support biological goal 1b for the Olympia pocket gopher. 3. Manage the upland portion of the conservation site by restoring and maintaining the site in a condition meeting the definition of native prairie (defined for the purposes of this effort as coverage of no less than 10% of the site by no less than 10 different native prairie forb species). By year four after permit issuance at least 5 native forb species will be established, and collectively they will cover no less than 5% of the upland portion of the site. By year ten after permit issuance at least 10 native forb species will be established, and they will collectively cover no less than 10% of the upland portion of the site. This objective is intended to support biological goal 1b for the Olympia pocket gopher. 4. Manage woody vegetation on the upland portion of the conservation site to ensure no more than 5% canopy cover of woody vegetation greater than 12 inches in height. This objective is intended to support biological goals 1c and 1d for the Olympia pocket gopher. 5. Control unauthorized access and activities on the permanent conservation site upon issuance of the requested permit including managing access, trapping and removal of feral and domestic pets that may kill, harm, or harass pocket gophers, and prohibiting capture, trapping, killing or poisoning moles or other ground-dwelling mammals. This objective is intended to support biological goals 1e and 1f for the Olympia pocket gopher. 6. Manage the wetland portion (i.e., that portion of the property lower than approximately 193 ft. elevation consisting of about 25 acres) of the conservation site for the permanent conservation of wetlands and the Oregon spotted frog upon issuance of the requested permit. This objective is intended to support biological goal 2a for the Oregon spotted frog. 7. Manage the wetland portion of the conservation site to provide breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat for Oregon spotted frog by ensuring sufficient native emergent and submergent vegetation. Baseline native emergent and submergent vegetation cover will be recorded in year one. Native emergent and submergent vegetation will be managed to ensure coverage of no less than 30% by year 4 after permit issuance, increasing to no less than 50% by year 10 and thereafter. This objective is intended to support biological goals 2a and 2b for the Oregon spotted frog.

40 November 2017

8. Manage the wetland portion of the conservation site to provide breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat for Oregon spotted frog by ensuring sufficient native shrub coverage. Baseline native shrub cover will be recorded in year one. Native shrubs will be managed to ensure coverage of no less than 10% by year 4 and thereafter. This objective is intended to support biological goals 2a and 2b for the Oregon spotted frog. 9. Manage the wetland portion of the conservation site to provide breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frog by ensuring sufficient amounts of low-statured emergent vegetation. Baseline emergent vegetation cover will be recorded in year one. Emergent vegetation less than 12 inches above water surface will be managed to ensure coverage of no less than 20% no later than 1 year after permit issuance, increasing to no less than 30% by year 4, and increasing to no less than 50% by year 10 and thereafter. This objective is intended to support biological goals 2a and 2b for the Oregon spotted frog. 10. Support Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat at the conservation site by managing displacement, competition and predation by non-native species (such as bullfrogs and non-native fishes) if these threats are documented on the site. This objective is intended to support biological goal 2c for the Oregon spotted frog. 3. Minimization Measures

The Applicant will implement the following measures to minimize impacts to the Covered Species. Minimization measures at the permanent conservation site will be implemented throughout and beyond the duration of the Permit as a component of the ongoing operations and maintenance of this site for the benefit of the Covered Species. Avoidance of impacts is always the most effective method to prevent harmful effects to Covered Species. The Applicant will seek to avoid areas known to be occupied or that may provide habitat for any of the Covered Species to the greatest extent possible. Olympia pocket gophers occur within near-surface soil horizons for parts or all of their lives. They can therefore be adversely impacted or killed when the soils where they are found are compacted. The Applicant will reduce soil disturbance and compaction to minimize impacts to these species when engaging in vegetation management and other activities within the Permit area, in particular on the conservation site. The Applicant may utilize multiple strategies to minimize soil compaction or disturbance, such as specifying the use of tracked equipment rather than wheeled equipment or requiring the use of “landing mats” to distribute the weight of heavy equipment over a broad surface area. The selection of the most appropriate measure will be site specific and will be based on site conditions at the time the work is performed. In each instance, however, the Applicant will select methods that minimize compaction of soils that could affect the Covered Species. Oregon spotted frogs are highly aquatic amphibians that typically occur only in or at the water’s edge. Avoiding mechanical management activities in the water or immediately next to the water’s edge would minimize adverse impacts to Oregon spotted frog. Waiting until water levels have reached their minimum in the late summer and early fall will allow for management to occur in the largest area with the lowest potential of impacts to frogs.

41 November 2017

Both of the Covered Species can be adversely affected by degradation or loss of habitat due to encroachment by invasive and non-native vegetation. The Applicant will manage vegetation on the conservation site to reduce the cover of invasive and non-native species to minimize exposure to this stressor. The existing onsite Olympia pocket gopher habitat set-aside located on the project site will continue to be permanently managed in accordance with pre-existing City of Tumwater permitting requirements. This management includes mowing every other year and control of invasive plant species as needed. 4. Mitigation Measures

This HCP provides short-term and long-term mitigation measures intended to rectify, reduce, and compensate for the impacts of the incidental taking associated with the Covered Activities. The Applicant or a long-term land steward commits to permanently manage the conservation site for the benefit of the Covered Species. Management of this site will include preservation, restoration and enhancement of existing and potentially suitable habitat for the two species covered by this plan. The Conservation Program provides for the ongoing management of this site through a dedicated funding mechanism to endow future management efforts (detailed in the Funding Assurances section of this document and further described in Appendix E). The site management plan prescribing specific actions and measurable performance standards is attached as Appendix C. The dedication of this property as permanent conservation site will eliminate the threat that this site could be developed therefore preventing additional fragmentation and loss of habitat for the Covered Species. This site will directly contribute to the ongoing efforts of the USFWS, Thurston County, the City of Tumwater and others to secure permanent protections that will aid in the recovery of these species. Conservation of this site serves to offset the loss of poor to moderate quality habitat at the project site with a larger block of permanently managed occupied habitat that will expand the amount and quality of conserved habitats for the Covered Species. Restoration activities may include the removal of trees, shrubs, and woody vegetation and invasive species such as reed canarygrass. Clearing of invasive species and woody vegetation is likely to be accomplished primarily with mechanical means such as brush cutters, rotary cutters, and riding mowers, or with the use of prescribed fire. Native seeding and planting may also be used in conjunction with other management techniques to enhance habitat for Covered Species and restore functioning prairie and wetland ecosystems. In addition to promoting the recovery of Covered Species, the ongoing management of the permanent conservation site will contribute to regional strategies for conserving prairie and wetland ecosystems. 5. Monitoring Plan

The USFWS determined that monitoring is essential to determining and documenting the success of conservation programs (50 CFR 17.32) and informing adaptive management efforts. Two types of monitoring are incorporated into HCPs. Compliance monitoring will document how the Applicant implements the terms and conditions of the requested Permit. Effectiveness

42 November 2017

monitoring will determine and document if the stated biological goals and objectives are being achieved. Compliance monitoring will describe how the HCP is implemented, and will result in an annual report to the USFWS each year for the duration of the requested permit. Compliance monitoring describes implementation of: 1) the Covered Activities, and 2) the conservation strategy. Covered Activities monitoring describes how the avoidance and minimization measures previously described are implemented each year. Covered Activities monitoring also describes the amount of take occurring each year, in terms of individuals of each species when that can be determined, and in terms of the amount of habitat removed or affected. Conservation strategy monitoring documents the implementation of the plan’s conservation measures. The annual report will describe how and when each of the mitigation measures was performed each year. Effectiveness monitoring determines if the biological goals and objectives of the plan are being achieved. Effectiveness monitoring collects data that will over time determine if the conservation measures are working and how the Covered Species are responding to these actions. Effectiveness monitoring efforts are focused on ensuring that suitable habitat is maintained for each of the Covered Species. Annual monitoring of the permanent conservation site will document site conditions and determine the level of effort needed to manage woody or invasive species such as Scot’s broom or reed canarygrass. An annual report summarizing existing conditions, management recommendations, other observations of Covered Species or their presence (such as gopher mounds and spotted frog egg masses) will be submitted to USFWS. The monitoring plan for the conservation site is described in detail in Appendix C. Monitoring of the conservation site includes quantitative measures of invasive plant species and vegetation cover that benefits the Covered Species. The presence of gopher mounds, frog eggs masses and an approximation of the total area of spotted frog breeding habitat will also be recorded. Potential threats, such as unauthorized human activities and non-native predators, will be identified during monitoring. Progressive performance standards to be met during the permit duration are designed to provide an increasing amount of suitable habitat or higher quality habitat for the Covered Species over time. Monitoring results will be used to document both success in achieving performance standards that year and problems that need to be resolved in order to sustain and maintain habitat for and eliminate threats to Covered Species on the site. In the annual report, monitoring results will be evaluated in tandem with best available science to make management recommendations and guide management activities for achieving biological goals and objectives. Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to USFWS annually until this HCP expires. The monitoring report for the conservation site can be combined with any other required reporting into one annual report for presentation to USFWS. The annual report will document what the Applicant did to comply with the terms and conditions of the ITP, and will address each of the permit terms and conditions.

43 November 2017

An annual report including the monitoring reports will include: 1. Activity and date of conservation actions since last monitoring report.

2. Baseline and current on-site conditions that are or may be adversely affecting Covered Species and their habitat, as well as any actions being undertaken or contemplated to address such conditions.

3. An evaluation of how conservation goals and performance standards are being met; what activities need to be taken to meet them in future years; or recommendations for revisions to goals and performance standards if changed circumstances have occurred.

4. An analysis of any experimental or trial management techniques that were monitored that year, and discussion of how the results will be used to guide management in future years.

5. Conservation actions that will be implemented prior to the next monitoring report submission. 6. Adaptive Management Plan

The U.S. Department of the Interior defines adaptive management as a structured approach to decision making in the face of uncertainty that makes use of the experience of management and the results of research in an embedded feedback loop of monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments in management strategies (Williams et al. 2009). Uncertainties may include a lack of biological information for the Covered Species, a lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of mitigation or management techniques, or doubt about the anticipated effects of the project. Adaptive management is a required component of HCPs that allows for the incorporation of new information into conservation and mitigation measures during HCP implementation. Effective implementation of this approach requires explicit and measurable objectives, and identifies what actions are to be taken and when they are to occur. Adaptive management measures do not generally trigger the need for an amendment. The results of ongoing monitoring activities will inform adaptive management proposals to adjust and improve management techniques as site conditions change over time and as new information on Covered Species and their management becomes available. The Applicant’s qualified consultant, a third party manager, or another qualified ecologist assigned by the landowner (if lands are transferred to another conservation landowner as approved by USFWS) will monitor the conservation site. The site management plan that describes the baseline performance standards and initial management actions is found in Appendix C. Adaptive management is intended to improve the effectiveness of ongoing management of the Covered Species and their respective habitats. To ensure that management actions remain focused on the biological goals and objectives specified in the conservation program, the Applicant will employ the following remedial actions if the conservation program’s specified goals and objectives are not met.

44 November 2017

If unauthorized human access or activities occur on the conservation site, the Applicant will increase monitoring and patrol and install additional signage delineating property boundaries with trespass warnings. If these activities continue, improved fencing intended to restrict human access may be installed or other means may be used to prevent human entry. Fencing may include locked gates to control access points to the properties. Any fences and gates will be patrolled and maintained as necessary to continue to control unauthorized access.

If forb and woody species cover to support Mazama pocket gophers does not reach the biological goals, objectives, and performance standards for this metric on the conservation site, management efforts such as altering timing of other actions (such as avoiding mowing when these species are setting seed or actively vegetatively reproducing), using management that enhances reproduction and growth of these species (such as the use of prescribed fire), or planting or seeding to expand populations of these species will be adjusted annually until these standards are maintained. Different management techniques may continue to be tested experimentally until solutions are found for meeting performance standards set for these measures.

If Oregon spotted frog habitat is not achieving the biological objectives and performance standards, management practices will be adjusted to achieve these objectives. More frequent mowing may be required or grazing practices may need to be timed differently to keep vegetation lower early in the growing season. Native planting or seeding may also be required in conjunction with invasive species management.

Climate change in this region is expected to result overall in warmer average temperatures across all seasons and in wetter winters and drier summers in future years (University of Washington 2012). Resulting changes in vegetation communities over time that could impact the Covered Species may require adaptation of management activities to ensure that the performance standards established in this HCP are achieved. Such changes could include altering timing or frequency of management activities described in the Site Management Plan (Appendix C). Actions beyond those discussed in this HCP are not covered, and the Applicant will consult with USFWS to determine if any proposed changes to management actions beyond such minor adjustments as changes to timing or frequency may result in take of listed species and therefore require an amendment to the ITP to provide take coverage.

Uncertainty regarding biological or ecological factors that can be affected with recurring management actions (such as new management techniques to control invasive and woody plant species) may be addressed by testing and comparing alternative approaches with control treatments. If field testing is conducted, results will be evaluated and subsequent management will be modified to reflect the improved understanding resulting from such testing. The study design, methods, results, and modifications to ongoing management activities will be described in the annual report. Any change/adaption to the management regime will be based on best available science and focused on ensuring that the biological goals described in the HCP are achieved.

45 November 2017

Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances

Changed Circumstances

Changed circumstances include all reasonably foreseeable circumstances that could be anticipated to occur in the Plan Area within the duration of the proposed permit. This includes natural events that normally occur in the Plan Area (fire, flood, climate change, earthquake, new species invasions, disease, etc.), the listing of other species within the Plan Area that may be affected by the Covered activities, or other events that could affect the Applicant’s ability to meet the biological goals and objectives described in this HCP. If natural events, such as those listed above, or other events, such as a change in genetic taxonomy, that could affect the Applicant’s ability to meet the biological goals and objectives described in this HCP occur at the conservation site, then how these events have affected Covered Species and/or their habitat will be described and addressed in the annual monitoring plan. Site management actions will be altered/adapted using best available science to promote the continued goals and objectives of habitat conservation for the Covered Species. If unplanned fire occurs at the conservation site, then additional management activities may be required to meet HCP and site management performance standards. Some invasive species such as Scot’s broom that may be present in the seed bank can be stimulated to germinate by fire. Additional management actions such increased frequency of mowing may be necessary after an unplanned fire event to control these invasive plants. Native seeding or planting may also be necessary to help prevent colonization of bare soils by invasive species. If flooding that could affect listed species occurs, a changed external factor may be responsible and should be determined. If human activities have caused the flooding, the Applicant will take steps to address or remedy the source or cause of the concern if the cause is located on the Applicant’s property or is within the Applicant’s control. Actions that inadvertently alter drainage, surface flows, or groundwater tables are not considered Covered Activities under this HCP. In the unlikely event that changes to drainage conditions become necessary, the Applicant will consult with USFWS to determine if such actions could result in take and therefore whether an amendment to the ITP would be required to provide take coverage before implementing any such actions. Shifts in seasonal ground water table over time may be more challenging to address. Because no remedial actions for such an occurrence are expected, they are not provided for in this HCP. If the Applicant determines that they need to take action to address this changed circumstance, they will consult with USFWS to determine if their proposed actions could result in take of listed species and therefore whether an amendment to the ITP would be necessary to provide take coverage before initiating those activities. A major earthquake could cause topographic uplift or subsidence. Changes to site conditions such as colonization of disturbed soil areas by invasive species or altered soil moisture conditions could result in shifting vegetation communities. The Applicant will adjust management actions to ensure that the biological goals and objectives and the associated performance standards described in the HCP will continue to be achieved. Altered management actions could include changing the timing or frequency of management actions or planting and seeding native plant species important to the Covered Species for reproduction or feeding.

46 November 2017

Actions beyond those discussed in this HCP are not covered, and the Applicant will consult with USFWS to determine if any proposed changes to management actions beyond such minor adjustments may result in take of listed species. If new invasive species are detected on a site, the Applicant will employ the Adaptive Management procedures described previously to evaluate and adapt management activities to ensure that the goals and objectives of the conservation program will be met. If there is a change in taxonomy for any of the Covered Species, USFWS will be allowed to research the animals on the project site or conservation site, if needed, to learn more about the taxonomy at these locations. However, a taxonomic change should not require specific site management changes. If a newly listed species occurs within the permit area covered by this HCP, the Applicant will determine if that newly listed species might be affected by the Covered Activities. If effects to the newly listed species can be avoided, then no additional action is required. If effects to the species cannot be avoided, the Applicant will consult with USFWS before proceeding with development activities to determine if the permit can be amended to incorporate conservation actions for the newly listed species. Amending the HCP to incorporate an additional Covered Species would require additional analysis under the ESA and NEPA. Unforeseen Circumstances and “No Surprises” Assurances

Unforeseen circumstances include circumstances that were not anticipated by the Applicant or USFWS during the preparation of the HCP that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. Unforeseen Circumstances are defined by Federal regulation (50 CFR §17.3) as “changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan or agreement that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan or agreement developers and the USFWS at the time of the conservation plan’s or agreement’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species.” USFWS bears the burden of demonstrating that Unforeseen Circumstances exist, using the best scientific and commercial data available. If an Unforeseen Circumstance occurs during the term of the HCP, and if USFWS determines that additional conservation and mitigation measures are necessary to respond to such Unforeseen Circumstances, then USFWS may require more conservation measures of the Permittee, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within conserved habitat areas, if any, or the HCP’s operating conservation program for the affected species, and if such measures maintain the original terms of the HCP to the maximum extent possible (50 CFR 17.22). Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph: 1. USFWS will clearly document any findings of Unforeseen Circumstances. In determining whether any event constitutes an unforeseen circumstance, USFWS will consider, but not be limited to, the following factors: 1) the extent of the current range of affected species, 2) percentage of range adversely affected by the HCP, 3) the percentage of range of the affected

47 November 2017

species conserved by the HCP, 4) the ecological significance of that portion of the range affected by the HCP, 5) the level of knowledge about the affected species and habitat and the degree of specificity of the species’ conservation program under the HCP, and 6) whether failure to adopt additional conservation measures would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the affected species in the wild. 2. USFWS will not require the commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation without the consent of the Applicant or impose additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or natural resources otherwise available for use by the Applicant under the original terms of the HCP, including additional restrictions on covered actions that are permitted under the HCP. 3. Nothing in this HCP will be construed to limit or constrain USFWS or any other governmental agency or individual from taking additional actions at its own expense to protect or conserve a species included in the HCP. In the event of Unforeseen Circumstances USFWS will provide written notice (except where there is substantial threat of imminent, significant adverse impacts to a Covered Species) to the Applicant with a detailed statement of the facts regarding the unforeseen circumstance involved, the anticipated impact(s) to the Covered Species and their habitat(s), and all information and data that supports the assertion. In addition, the notice will include any proposed conservation measure(s) that is believed would address the Unforeseen Circumstance, an estimate of the cost of implementing such conservation measure(s), and the likely effects upon the Applicant. Evaluation of Unforeseen Circumstances

During the period necessary to determine the nature and location of additional or modified mitigation, the USFWS may perform an analysis of the Covered Species or its habitat. The Applicant may submit additional information to the USFWS. The USFWS may use requested or provided information to propose modifications or redirection of existing conservation measures.

The “No Surprises” Policy

The “No Surprises” policy (69 FR 71723) states that if the Applicant is properly implementing an HCP that has been approved by USFWS, no additional commitment of resources beyond that already specified in the plan will be required. “Properly implemented conservation plan” means any HCP and permit whose commitments and provisions have been and are being fully implemented by the Applicant and in which the Applicant is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, so the HCP is consistent with the agreed-upon operating conservation program for the project. A properly-implemented conservation plan for the HCP includes implementation of all elements of the conservation plan, including the Adaptive Management, Monitoring Program, and responses to Changed Circumstances. The Applicant seeks the regulatory (No Surprises) assurances for all Covered Species in the plan. In accordance with No Surprises, the Applicant will be responsible for implementing and funding adaptive management and remedial measures in response to any Changed Circumstances

48 November 2017

as described in the HCP. The Applicant would only be obligated to address Unforeseen Circumstances within the specified limits described above. The Applicant understands that No Surprises assurances are contingent on the proper implementation of the ITP and the HCP. The Applicant also understands that USFWS may suspend or revoke the Federal permit, in whole or in part, in accordance with Federal regulations (50 CFR Section 13.27 and 13.28 and other applicable laws and regulations) in force at the time of such suspension.

Funding Assurances

The ESA states: “the applicant therefore submits to the Secretary a conservation plan that specifies... (ii)... the funding that will be available to implement such steps” [10(a)(2)(A)]; and “ the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided” [10(a)(2)(B): (iii)]. To issue an incidental take permit, the USFWS must find that the Applicant will ensure that adequate funding will be provided [ESA § 10(a)(2)(B), 50 CFR 17.32]. The Applicant must therefore identify the financial and/or legal instrument that will be relied upon to ensure that adequate funding will be available in the appropriate amounts and at the appropriate times throughout the life of the permit or the duration of the obligation (whichever is longer).

The Applicant anticipates purchase of the conservation site will be completed prior to or upon ITP issuance. However, if the property closing date is still pending when the ITP is issued, the purchase price will be guaranteed by the Applicant by an irrevocable letter of credit (LOC) issued by a qualified banking institution (i.e., a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured fiduciary) deemed acceptable by USFWS in writing. The LOC for the purchase of the conservation site will be issued within 90 days following ITP issuance. The Applicant understands that the USFWS will conditionally permit the ITP to ensure that the conservation site has been secured prior to authorization of any take of listed species. The conservation site will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement, which is acceptable to USFWS. The Applicant hereby commits to fully fund implementation of the Conservation Program described in this HCP. Funds are assured through provision of documentation from (name of financial institution) that the Applicant has secured a line of credit (or other suitable financial or legal instrument) of no less than the estimated annual expenditures required to implement the plan. Because the estimated costs are expected to vary over time (with management actions that are likely to be less intensive in successive years, for example), the Applicant will update the implementation cost estimate and adjust the funding assurances amount accordingly on an annual basis. These actions and resulting documentation will be provided in the annual report to the USFWS.

49 November 2017

The Applicant will fund all preserve management activities and implement the initial preserve management activities described in Appendix C, Conservation Site Management Plan, and will be responsible for meeting: 1) the performance standards set forth to be achieved within one year of ITP issuance (see pages 19 and 20 of Appendix C), and the Phase 1 and Phase II performance standards (see page 20 of Appendix C). The initial preserve management activities are defined as those preserve management activities consisting of habitat management implemented in the first year of permit issuance through the fourth year after permit issuance in accordance with Appendix C, Conservation Site Management Plan. Following submittal of a monitoring report to USFWS demonstrating that the Phase I and Phase II performance standards have been met and the initial preserve management activities have been completed, the Applicant will grant a conservation easement to a third party easement holder in perpetuity, and its continuance will be made a condition of the ITP. The grantee will record the conservation easement. During the initial preserve management activities, the Applicant will fund 100% of the costs of the initial preserve management activities. To ensure available funding for management of the conservation site after the fourth year, the Applicant will fund the long-term preserve management of the conservation site for Covered Species in perpetuity through the establishment of an endowment, in an amount acceptable to USFWS. The endowment must be fully funded by the Applicant. Proceeds from the endowment will be applied to fund conservation site management costs upon the initiation of long-term management activities by the long-term land steward and holder of the conservation easement. The endowment shall be held and administered by a Land Trust Accredited entity such as a land trust, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, or a public agency (the State, Thurston County, etc.), or the long-term land steward. The Applicant commits to fully fund and implement the conservation actions described in this HCP (including the attached Site Management Plan) in perpetuity, and understands that the annual costs to implement these actions may increase over time due to market forces such as inflation. Additionally, unforeseen circumstances may necessitate an increase in the endowment amount. The Applicant understands that failure to fully fund and implement the HCP including adaptive management and remedial measures in response to changed circumstances would jeopardize regulatory assurances associated with the permit (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5)).

Alternatives to the Taking the Applicant Considered

An HCP is required to describe “what alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized” (ESA §10(a)(2)(A)(iii)). The only alternative that would completely avoid impacts to the Covered Species or their habitats would be to choose not to develop the project site where the listed species may occur. The Applicant has decided not to forego development of the site because much of the site has already been developed and they have already made significant investments in infrastructure including roadways, utilities, and storm water facilities for the remainder of the tracts. The infrastructure developed for this site was completed prior to publication of the Final Rules listing the Covered Species as threatened or endangered. Choosing not to develop this site would

50 November 2017

represent a loss of the value of the infrastructure previously constructed to facilitate development of these tracts. In addition, the project site is located within city boundaries that are compliant with the intent of the state Growth Management Act (GMA). The construction of residential development on the project site is an otherwise lawful activity and the Applicant has decided to develop this site or make it available for development at some time over the term of the requested permit.

Such Other Measures that the Secretary May Require

Permit Amendments

It may be necessary at some time over the duration of the proposed permit for the USFWS and the Applicant to clarify provisions of the HCP or the requested ITP with respect to program implementation or the meaning and intent of language contained in these documents. Such clarifications should not change the substantive provisions of any of the documents in any way, but merely clarify and make more precise the existing provisions. In addition, it may be necessary to make administrative changes or minor modifications to the documents at some time over the duration of the proposed permit. Such changes should not result in substantive changes to any provisions of the documents, but may be necessary or convenient to represent the overall intent of the Applicant and the USFWS. Examples of such administrative changes or minor modifications include correction of typographic errors in the documents, changes in the legal business name or mailing address of a permittee, or clarification of reporting procedures. Requests for administrative changes and minor modifications must be received in writing and may be reviewed and approved by the USFWS Regional Office or by the State USFWS Ecological Services Office in accordance with applicable regulations and policies (50 CFR 13). Except as provided for above, the HCP and the ITP may not be amended or modified in any way without the written approval of the Applicant and the USFWS. Major amendments to the HCP or the ITP would be required for changes in location, Covered Activity, type or amount of take, or Covered Species. Examples of changes requiring major amendments to the documents include the listing of a species not currently addressed in the HCP that may be affected by the Covered Activities; the modification of any Covered Activity, minimization, or mitigation measure under the HCP, including funding, that may affect the type or amount of take, the effects of the Covered Activities, or the nature or scope of the minimization or mitigation measures in a manner or to an extent not previously considered in issuing the ITP; or any other modification of the Covered Activities that causes an effect to the Covered Species or their designated critical habitat not considered in the original ITP. Such major amendments will be processed by the USWFS in accordance with the provisions of the ESA, the applicable regulations (50 CFR 13 and 17), and will be subject to the appropriate level of environmental review under the provisions of NEPA.

51 November 2017

Annual Reporting

An Annual Report describing Covered Activities and the conservation measures will be prepared by the Applicant or the land steward, as appropriate, and submitted to the USFWS Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington no later than February 1 each year for the duration of the permit. The report will summarize the following information:

• The development status of the project site. • The Applicant’s anticipated development timeline for the project site (if known). • The date on which development and construction is completed (usually the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the last structure completed on a site). • On the first annual report date following completion of development, the Applicant will describe the site as “completed” or “fully developed”. • Conservation measures implemented on the project site before it is developed (the specific actions and the dates on which these measures were implemented). • Conservation measures implemented on the conservation site (include specific actions and dates). • If any parcels (project site or conservation site) are conveyed to a third party in fee, under easement, or through some other arrangement, the structure of the relationship and responsibility for ongoing management under the requirements in the HCP and the ITP will be defined. Copies of conservation easements or management agreements defining these roles and responsibilities will fulfill this requirement. • Results of compliance monitoring describing how each of the requested permit terms and conditions was achieved. This serves to verify that the Applicant met all requirements during the permit year. • Results of effectiveness monitoring describing progress towards achieving the biological goals and objectives of the HCP. This includes monitoring of the measurable performance standards in Appendix C and may include description of the status and trends of the Covered Species and their habitats on the project site and on the conservation site.

• Status of conservation site endowment; including receipts, disbursements, earnings, and balance.

Literature Cited

Abreu P. 2015. Restoring hydrological and ecological functions of wetlands invaded with reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) for potential Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)

52 November 2017

oviposition recovery at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Fort Lewis. MS Thesis, 94 pp. The Evergreen State College. Adams, M.J., C.A. Pearl, B. McCreary, S.K. Galvan, S.J. Wessell, W.H. Wente, C.W. Anderson, and A.B. Kuehl. 2009. Short-term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia Spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) 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. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation (2nd ed.). John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,232 pp. Barnett, H.K. and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Predation risk and competition effects on the life- history characteristics of larval Oregon spotted frog and larval red-legged frog. Community Ecology 132:436-444. Blessing, B. 2016. Unpublished report submitted to USFWS June 22, 2016 entitled: Water levels and plot design: continued WDFW ALEA plan monitoring at Salmon Creek. 13 pp. Bohannon J.D., D. Gay, C. Johnson, M. Widner, and C. Bauman. 2012. Oregon spotted frog presence surveys in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Washington. Unpublished report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bull, E.L. and M.P. Hayes. 2000. Livestock effects on reproduction of the Columbia spotted frog. Journal of Range Management 53:291-294. 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. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp. Chelgren, N.D., C.A. Pearl, M.J. Adams, and J. Bowerman. 2008. Demography and movement in a relocated population of Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa): Influence of season and gender. Copeia 2008(4): 742-751. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011. COSEWIC Assessment and status report on the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in Canada. 2011- 09-09. Cox, G. W., and J. Hunt. 1992. Relation of seasonal activity patterns of valley pocket gophers to temperature, rainfall, and food availability. Journal of Mammalogy 73:123-134. Dalquest, W. W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 2:1- 444. Dalquest, W. W., and V. B. Scheffer. 1944. Distribution and variation in pocket gophers, Thomomys talpoides, in the State of Washington. American Naturalist 78:308-333, 423-450.

53 November 2017

Daly, J. C., and J. L. Patton. 1990. Dispersal, gene flow, and allelic diversity between local populations of Thomomys bottae pocket gophers in the coastal ranges of California. Evolution 44:1283-1294. Dennehy, C., E. R. Alverson, H. E. Anderson, D. R. Clements, R. Gilbert, and T. N. Kaye. 2011. Management strategies for invasive plants in Pacific Northwest prairies and oak woodlands. Northwest Science 85:329-351. Dickerson, M.C. 1906. The frog book. Doubleday Page and Company. Garden City, New York. 253 pp. Dumas, P.C. 1966. Studies of the Rana species complex in the Pacific Northwest. Copeia 1966:60-74. Dunwiddie, P. W. and J. D. Bakker. 2011. The future of restoration and management of prairie- oak ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science 85(2):83-92. Eviner, V. T., and F. S. Chapin III. 2003. Gopher-plant-fungus interactions affect establishment of an invasive grass. Ecology 84:120-128. Green, D.M., H. Kaiser, T.F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and K.R. McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex, in Western North America. Copeia 1997:1-8. Green, D.M., T.F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and H. Kaiser. 1996. Postglacial range fluctuation, genetic subdivision and speciation in the western North American Spotted Frog Complex, Rana pretiosa. Evolution 50(1): 374-390. Hallock, L. 2013. Draft State of Washington Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 93 pp. Hallock, L. and S. Pearson. 2001. Telemetry study of fall and winter Oregon spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) movement and habitat use at Trout Lake, Klickitat County, Washington. 36 pp. Hamman, S. T. P. W. Dunwiddie, J. L. Nuckols, and M. McKinley. 2011. Fire as a Restoration Tool in Pacific Northwest Prairies and Oak Woodlands: Challenges, Successes, and Future Directions. Northwest Science 85 (2): 317-328. Hayes M.P., J.D. Engler, S.V. Leuven, D.C. Friesz, T. Quinn and D.J. Pierce. 2001. Overwintering of the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Klickitat County, Washington 2000-2001. Final Report to Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. 46 pp. Hayes, M.P. 1997. Status of the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa sensu stricto) in the Deschutes Basin and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a range wide synopsis of the species status. Final report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under contract to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Oregon. 57 pp. + appendices. Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20:490-509.

54 November 2017

Hayes, M.P., C.J. Rombough, G.E. Padgett-Flor, L.A. Hallock, J.E. Jonson, R.S. Wagner, and J.D. Engler. 2009. Northwestern Naturalist 90(2):148-151. Hayes, M.P., J.D. Engler, D.C. Friesz, and K.M. Hans. 2000. Oviposition of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge: Implications for Conservation. Final Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington State Office, Lacey, Washington. Huntly, N. and R. Inouye. 1988. Pocket gophers in ecosystems: patterns and mechanisms. BioScience 38: 786-793. Kapust, H.Q.W, K.R. McAllister, and M.P. Hayes. 2012. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) response to enhancement of oviposition habitat degraded by invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7(3):358-366. Leaming, Carl. 2016. Personal communications in January, February, and March 2016. Long time owner of three of the conservation site (Leaming Farm) parcels. Licht, L.E. 1971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frogs, Rana aurora aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 52(1): 116-124. Licht, L.E. 1974. Survival of embryos, tadpoles, and adults of the frogs Rana aurura aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa sympatric in southwestern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 52:613- 624. Licht, L.E. 1986. Comparative escape behavior of sympatric red-legged frogs, Rana aurora and spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa. The American Midland Naturalist 115(2):239-247. Licht, LE 1969. Comparative breeding behavior of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) and the western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa pretiosa) in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47:1287-1299.

McAllister K.R., W.P. Leonard, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) surveys in the Puget Trough of Washington, 1989 – 1991. Northwestern Naturalist. 74(1):10-15. McAllister, K., and A. Schmidt. 2005. An inventory of Mazama pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama) on the Olympia Airport, Thurston County, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. McAllister, K.R. and W.P. Leonard. 1991. Past distribution and current status of the spotted frog in western Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 21 pp. McAllister, K.R. and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon Spotted Frog. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 38 pp. Nussbaum R.A., E.D. Brodie, and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow. 332 pp.

55 November 2017

Olson, G. 2011a. Mazama pocket gopher translocation study: progress report. Cooperative Agreement #13410-9-J015. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA. Olson, G.S. 2011b. Mazama pocket gopher occupancy modeling. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 45pp. Parker, I. M. 2002. Safe site and seed limitation in Cytisus scoparius (Scot’s broom): invasibility, disturbance, and the role of cryptogams in a glacial outwash prairie. Biological Invasions 3: 323–332, 2001. Pearl, C.A. and M.P. Hayes. 2004. Habitat associations of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa): A literature review. Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia WA, USA. 45 pp. Pearl, C.A., J. Bowerman, and D. Knight. 2005. Feeding behavior and aquatic habitat use by Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) in central Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 86(1): 36- 38. Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, and N. Leuthold. 2009. Breeding habitat and local population size of the Oregon Spotted Frog in Oregon, USA. Northwestern Naturalist 90(2):136-147. Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, R.B. Bury, and B. McCreary 2004. Asymmetrical effects of introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) on native ranid frogs in Oregon. Copeia 2004(1): 11-20. Pearl, CA, E.L. Bull, D.E. Green, J. Bowerman, M.J. Adams, A. Hyatt, and W.H. Wente. 2008. Occurrence of the amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Herpetology 41(1):145-149. Phillipsen, I.C., J. Bowerman, and M. Blouin. 2009. Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa): genetic estimates at two life stages. Conservation Genetics 11(3): 737-745. Popescu, V.D., A.M. Kissel, M. Pearson, W.J. Palen, P. Govindarajulu, and C.A. Bishop. 2013. Defining conservation-relevant habitat selection by the highly imperiled Oregon spotted frog, Rana pretiosa. Herpetelogical Conservation and Biology 8(3):688-706. Ramsey, R. W., and J. W. Slipp. 1974. Draft report of a biological assessment Wapato Hills, Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Prepared for Wilsey & Ham, Inc. Tacoma, WA. 25 pp. Reichman, O. J., and E. W. Seabloom. 2002. The role of pocket gophers as subterranean ecosystem engineers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 44-49. Rook, E. J., D. G. Fischer, R. D. Seyferth, J. L. Kirsch, C. J. LeRoy, and S. Hamman. 2011. Responses of prairie vegetation to fire, herbicide, and invasive species legacy. Northwest Science 85:288-302. Shovlain, A.M. 2005. Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) habitat use and herbage (or biomass) removal from grazing at Jack Creek, Klamath County, Oregon. MS Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon. 56 p.

56 November 2017

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, WA. 51 pp + maps. Steinberg, E. K. 1996. Population studies and management of the threatened Mazama pocket gopher: a regional perspective. Final Report, Contract #WAFO-092795, The Nature Conservancy. 50 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. 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. Stinson, D.W. 2013. Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Washington State Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 91+ vi pp. Sustainable Thurston. 2011. Draft Housing Panel White Paper, September 2011. Thurston Regional Planning Council, Olympia, WA. Turner, F.B. 1957. The ecology and morphology of Rana pretiosa pretiosa in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkely. Turner, F.B. 1960. Postmetamorphic growth in anurans. The American Midland Naturalist 64(2): 327-338. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened, Annual Notice of Findings on Recycles Petitions, and Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 66, (October 30, 2001), No. 210: 54808-54832. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 79. No. 168: 51658-51710. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Memorandum: Mazama Pocket Gopher Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance. Dated July 1, 2015. Prepared for Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Staff and Interested Parties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 81. No. 91: 29336-29396. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook.

57 November 2017

University of Washington. 2012. Summary of projected changes in major drivers of Pacific Northwest climate change impacts. Version date: March 21, 2012. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/files/climatedriverssummary.pdf. Vaughan, T. A. 1961. Vertebrates inhabiting pocket gopher burrows in Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy 42:171-174. Vaughan, T. A. 1974. Resource allocation in some sympatric subalpine rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 55:764-795. Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 2000. Thomomys mazama. Mammalian Species 641:1-7. Waddell, C.D. 2015. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in lowland western Washington, USA: a population, parentage, and non-breeding habitat analysis. MS Thesis. The Evergreen State College, Olympia WA. 140 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. Mazama Pocket Gopher Distribution and Habitat Survey in Western Washington – 2012. Summary Report. 31 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2016. Priority Habitats and Species Database. Online records. Watson J.W., K.R. McAllister, and D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements and habitat selection of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37(2):292-300. Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 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. Yahnke, A.E. 2015. Amphibian exposure to aquatic herbicides: Ecological interactions with invasive plant management. PhD Thesis. University of Washington. 186 pp.

58 November 2017

Appendix A. Existing Conditions Map Set

Vicinity Map

Project Site / Aerial Imagery from 1944

Project Site / Aerial Imagery from 1965

Project Site / Aerial Imagery from 1980

Project Site / Aerial Imagery from 1990

Project Site / The Preserve Soils Map

Project Site / The Preserve Habitat Map

Aerial View

Conservation Site

59 November 2017

60 November 2017

61 November 2017

62 November 2017

63 November 2017

64 November 2017

65 November 2017

66

November 2017

68 Appendix B: The Preserve Project Site Data Forms and Photos

Plot data was collected to characterize areas with different vegetation cover types, varying levels of soil and vegetation disturbance, and various mapped soil types. Each plot is approximately 10 meters by 10 meters in size. Plot name is associated with the photo point number. Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site

Data Forms Grass Dominated – PPP21 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP21 NRCS Mapped soil type: Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-21” – 10YR 3/3 sandy loam with some gravel Soil disturbance: No

Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 0%

Grass cover: 100% View North Forb cover: 10% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Festuca arundinacea Agrostis sp. Holcus sp. Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Vicia sp. Species in Apiacea family Taraxacum officinale Cardamine hirsuta

Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or View East general area: Rubus ursinus in plot Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: None were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: Soil not too different than mapped type; gravel size is smaller than typically found in Everett or Alderwood series soils; mole mounds present in plot

View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-2 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site

Grass Dominated – PPP22 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP22 NRCS Mapped soil type: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-4” – 10YR 2/2 silt loam 4-18” – 10YR 4/4 gravelly silt loam Soil disturbance: No

Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 0% View North Grass cover: 100% Forb cover: <5% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Festuca arundinacea Agrostis sp. Phalaris arundinacea Juncus effusus (soft rush) Forb species with >5 percent cover: Trifolium repens Species in Apiacea family

Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: View East Rubus ursinus in plot

Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: None were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: Soil texture more like the McKenna gravelly silt loam mapped nearby; soil saturated 12 inches below the surface; water ponding on surface nearby

View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-3 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site Grass-Forb – PPP4 Date (s): 3-22-16 & 11-10-15 Plot Name: PPP4 NRCS Mapped soil type: Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-4” – 10YR 3/2 gravel and sand 4-20” – 10YR 3/2 and 10YR 3/4 near bottom of pit - gravelly sandy loam Soil disturbance: grading, filling and compaction Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 40% View North Grass cover: 30% Forb cover: 60% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp.

Forb species with >5 percent cover: Trifolium repens Hypochaeris radicata Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: Cytisus scoparius – low density in plot, dense in some areas nearby View East Gopher mounds in plot: likely Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Low density of mounds observed in this habitat/soil type in Oct/Nov 2015 Other notes: soils nearby are very compacted, but here near the top of the storm facility they are loose and they are similar to the mapped soil type except within 4 inches of the surface where they are loose gravel and sand View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-4 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site Grass-Forb – PPP20 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP20 NRCS Mapped soil type: Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-22” – 10YR 4/4 loamy sand – but within the same plot soils are gravel and sand and are very compacted

Soil disturbance: grading, filling and compaction Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 80% View North

Grass cover: 30% Forb cover: 20% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp. Holcus sp. Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Rumex acetosella Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: Rubus ursinus Cytisus scoparius Pseudotsuga menziesii saplings View East Gopher mounds in plot: maybe Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Low density of mounds observed in this habitat/soil type in Oct/Nov 2015 Other notes: soils in this area are really variable, within this plot there are both loose loamy sand and compacted areas of sand and gravel, this variability is representative of all areas mapped as grass-forb; Vole holes common here View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-5 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site Shrub Dominated – PPP17 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP17 NRCS Mapped soil type: McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 5% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-3” – 10YR 2/2 sandy loam 3-5” – 10YR 3/3 silt loam 5-10” – 10YR 3/4 silt loam 10-22” – 10YR 2/2 fine sandy loam

Soil disturbance: topsoils are compacted to 10” deep; grading has View North occurred Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 5% Grass cover: 90% Forb cover: 20% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp. Holcus sp. Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: 60% cover Cytisus scoparius Pseudotsuga menziesii saplings View South Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: None were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: soil elevation is noticeably higher than the ground level in the forest on the other side of the sound barrier berm (see photos ___ for PPP18 following the data forms)

View West

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-6 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site

Shrub Dominated – PPP19 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP19 NRCS Mapped soil type: Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-14” – 10YR 3/3 very gravelly sandy loam >14” – compacted, hardpan Soil disturbance: grading for development has occurred and soils are very compacted below 10” View North Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 0% Grass cover: 100% Forb cover: 40% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp. Holcus sp. Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Rumex acetosella Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: 80% cover Cytisus scoparius View East (berm at property edge and forest Pseudotsuga menziesii saplings beyond property boundary) Alnus rubra saplings Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: None were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: Topsoil appears similar to mapped soil type, but below this soils are very compacted

View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-7 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site Habitat Set-Aside – PPP23 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP23 NRCS Mapped soil type: Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-20” – 10YR 3/2 very gravelly sandy loam Soil disturbance: no Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 10%

Grass cover: 60% View North Forb cover: 80% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Festuca sp. (may be a native bunchgrass) Holcus sp. Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Rumex acetosella Plantago lanceolata Species in Apiacea family Taraxacum officinale Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: View East Cytisus scoparius Rubus ursinus Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Unknown, mounds were recorded in 2007 in the habitat set-aside, but no mounds were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: mowing regime for this area in accordance with HMP is every other year; mole mounds are present

View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-8 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site Habitat Set-Aside – PPP24 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP24 NRCS Mapped soil type: Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-16” – 10YR 2/2 fine sandy loam 16-20” – 10YR 3/2 fine sandy loam Soil disturbance: no Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 0% Grass cover: 100%

View North Forb cover: 5% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Festuca sp. (may be a native bunchgrass) Festuca sp. Agrostis sp. Forb species with >5 percent cover: Taraxacum officinale Vicia sp. Cardamine hirsute Cirsium arvense Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: View South

Gopher mounds in plot: maybe Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Likely a low density of mounds in this part of the habitat set-aside Other notes: mowing regime for this area in accordance with HMP is every other year; mole mounds are present; mowing has occurred more frequently during the growing season in recent years

View West

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-9 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site

Compacted Gravel – PPP15 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP15 NRCS Mapped soil type: Norma silt loam Observed soil profile: 0-5” – gravel and sand 5-10” – gravelly loam >10” - hardpan Soil disturbance: grading, filling, and compaction has occurred

Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: View North 80%

Grass cover: 15% Forb cover: 5% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp.

Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Rumex acetosella

Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: Cytisus scoparius nearby in thickets View East Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: None were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: Soils were compacted during grading for this phase of the project and gravel and sand fill was spread for vehicle access

View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-10 Appendix B: Data Forms and Photos of The Preserve Project Site Compacted Gravel – PPP16 Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: PPP16 NRCS Mapped soil type: Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-10” – gravel and sand >10” - hardpan Soil disturbance: grading, filling, and compaction has occurred

Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: View North 20%

Grass cover: 40% Forb cover: 70% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp.

Forb species with >5 percent cover: Hypochaeris radicata Lupinus sp.

Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: Cytisus scoparius View East Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: None were observed in Oct-Nov 2015 or March 2016 Other notes: Although this area has re-vegetated, soils are still compacted from site development activities to the extent that suitable soils for gopher burrowing no longer exist here.

View South

Krippner Consulting, LLC B-11 Appendix C

Conservation Site Management Plan

Appendix C of The Preserve Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis) and the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in Thurston County, Washington

Prepared for

UCP Sagewood, LLC.

November 2017

Prepared by:

Krippner Consulting, LLC

PO Box 17621

Seattle, Washington 98127

Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4

Purpose ...... 4

Purposes of this Site Management Plan ...... 4

Land Steward Roles and Responsibilities ...... 5

Property Description ...... 5

Location and Access ...... 5

Land Use ...... 7

Topography, Hydrology, and Soils ...... 7

Existing Easements ...... 10

Habitat Descriptions ...... 11

Biological Resources Surveys ...... 11

Presence of Listed Species ...... 13

Habitat Management and Performance Standards ...... 13

Primary Goal ...... 13

Restoration and Management ...... 13

Vegetation and Habitat Management ...... 13

Woody Vegetation Control ...... 14

Mowing ...... 14

Prescribed Fire ...... 15

Targeted Application of Herbicides ...... 16

Native Seeding and Planting ...... 16

Nonnative Species Management ...... 17

Managed Grazing ...... 17

Adaptive Management ...... 17

Phased Restoration - Performance Standards ...... 18

2 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Site Management...... 21

Site Inspection ...... 21

Fences, Gates, Roads ...... 21

Public Access ...... 21

Biological Monitoring ...... 21

Reporting and Planning ...... 23

References ...... 24

Appendix 1: Baseline Data and Photos ...... 26

Appendix 2: Management and Monitoring Actions by Phase...... 33

Appendix 3: Survey Protocol ...... 36

Appendix 4: Native Vegetation Best Management Practices ...... 43

Appendix 5: Grazing/Forage Harvest Guidelines for Maintaining Breeding Habitat for Oregon Spotted Frogs ...... 45

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conservation Site Vicinity Map ...... 6

Figure 2. LIDAR Elevation Data - 187 ft to 200 ft ...... 8

Figure 3. NRCS Soils ...... 9

Figure 4. Pre-Restoration/Existing Vegetation Communitie ...... 12

3 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Introduction Purpose UCP Sagewood, LLC (the Applicant) proposes to acquire a 64.6-acre tract (the “conservation site”) to compensate for unavoidable take or adverse effects to wildlife or their respective habitats as described in “The Preserve Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis) and the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in Thurston County, Washington” (the HCP). The restoration and ongoing perpetual management of the conservation site will contribute to the recovery of species regulated under Federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances.

Purposes of this Site Management Plan The purposes of this Site Management Plan (Plan) are to establish and describe: 1. The Land Steward’s roles and responsibilities; 2. The current (baseline) condition of the conservation site; 3. Habitat performance metrics and standards; 4. Management actions that will be implemented to achieve these performance standards; and 5. Monitoring and reporting requirements associated with the conservation site. This Plan describes actions that will be implemented throughout and beyond the 15-year term of the HCP, and includes conservation measures for initial site restoration and ongoing land management. This Plan is based on current conditions at the conservation site. Ongoing monitoring will document changes over time as restoration and management actions are implemented, and management actions will be adapted to ensure that these activities continue to meet the biological goals and objectives described in the HCP. While the overarching biological goals, conservation strategy, and specific performance standards will remain intact, on-the-ground management techniques will be reviewed and adapted over time. Monitoring data and any resulting proposed modifications to the management actions described in this Plan will be recorded in an annual report submitted to the USFWS. It is anticipated that less frequent management adaptation may be required after initial site restoration activities are complete and as site conditions stabilize. This site will contribute to prairie and riparian area protections intended to conserve a system of functioning ecosystems at a landscape scale. Conserving this site and ensuring ongoing management is expected to contribute to recovery of the covered species.

4 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Land Steward Roles and Responsibilities The Land Steward will be responsible for:

• Implementing this Plan; • Monitoring and managing the conservation site; • Restoring and maintaining habitat for the covered species in accordance with the performance standards in this document; and • Submitting the required Annual Report to the USFWS.

UCP, LLC will initially serve as the Land Steward, but reserves the right to convey management responsibilities to a suitable third party agreed to in writing by the USFWS during the term of this HCP. BMCH Washington, LLC will hold the property title as the owner of the conservation site. Any document purporting to convey a property interest in, or management responsibility for, the conservation site will expressly incorporate by reference the Incidental Take Permit (ITP), the HCP, and this Plan, and all attachments and related documents thereto. Additionally, any conveyance or transfer of management responsibility will expressly require that the grantee and or manager abide by the terms and conditions of the ITC, the HCP, and this Plan.

The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it is responsible for funding implementation of the conservation efforts described in the ITP, the HCP, and this Plan in perpetuity. Property Description Location and Access The 64.6-acre conservation site is located in unincorporated Thurston County south of the Olympia Regional Airport, east of Interstate 5, and west of Tilley Road (Figure 1). It includes Parcels 12722430200, 12727210200, 12727110102, and 12727120200. The conservation site is approximately 0.75 mile south of 93rd Avenue SE. Salmon Creek borders the south site boundary on the east portion of the site. Access to the conservation site is from Tilley Road South. To access the property from Olympia, take Interstate 5 South (I-5) to Exit 99 onto 93rd Avenue SW. Turn left onto 93rd Avenue SW to cross over I-5 then turn right after 1.5 miles onto Tilley Road South. Follow Tilley Road South for approximately 0.9 miles. Turn right onto a private drive with an automatic gate, the last driveway north of Salmon Creek. Access the northernmost portion of the conservation site at the end of the gravel drive. There is currently no driving or walking access to areas of the property south of Salmon Creek.

5 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Figure 1. Conservation Site Vicinity Map

6 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Land Use The conservation site has been used for agricultural production or timber harvest for more than 25 years and is currently used for hay production and grazing. Waterfowl hunting has also been allowed by the owner in wetland areas. There are no structures on the site. Current land uses in the vicinity include agriculture, conservation and open space management, forestry, and low-density (rural) residential (see data forms and photos in Appendix 1).

Upon issuance of the requested ITP the Applicant will discontinue agricultural operations including hay production and livestock grazing and dedicate the site for conservation purposes (though managed grazing may be employed in limited circumstances, described below, to control non-native vegetation such as reed canarygrass to benefit Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat). The use of the site upon issuance of the ITP will be to restore, enhance, and maintain habitat for the covered species in perpetuity. Any other uses of the site will not preclude, inhibit, or adversely impact the capacity of the site to achieve the biological goals, objectives, or performance standards established in the HCP and this Plan.

Topography, Hydrology, and Soils The overall topography of the conservation site is relatively flat, with slopes of less than 3 percent. Site elevations range from 187 feet MSL in wetland areas on the south portion of the site to 200 feet MSL in upland areas near the north boundary of the site (Figure 2). The site spans a portion of Salmon Creek, which is a tributary of the Black River. Salmon Creek is a perennial stream associated with permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands located on the south and west portions of the site. Salmon Creek is naturally prone to flooding due to its flat topography and underlying geology (Thurston County 2004). Thurston County monitors ground water levels in the Salmon Creek basin. Since 2010, precipitation has fallen more evenly across the fall, winter, and spring seasons, and ground water levels have risen by approximately one foot and have remained high longer into the growing season than historical averages. It is not clear at this time if this is a part of a decadal cycle or a more long-term trend associated with climate change (Beiver 2015). Beaver (Castor canadensis) dams can influence flooding patterns and moderate water level fluctuations (Cederholm et al. 2000, Pollock 2003). Landowners in the Salmon Creek basin have reported that beaver activities can be problematic for existing agricultural and residential uses (Blessing 2016). However, no beaver dams were observed influencing water levels at the site, and this plan does not rely upon the presence of beaver activity for maintaining Oregon spotted frog habitat. Urban development in the basin also influences flooding and ground water levels (Thurston County 2004). Most of the site is mapped as Indianola loamy sand (0 to 3% slopes); Yelm fine sandy loam (0 to 3% slopes); Norma fine sandy loam; Norma silt loam; and Semiahmoo muck soils (Figure 3: USDA NRCS 2015).

7 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Figure 2. LIDAR Elevation Data - 187 ft to 200 ft 8 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Figure 3. NRCS Soils

9 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Existing Easements UPC Sagewood, LLC identified and purchased or removed easements to reduce potential threats to the covered species or their habitats that could result from exercising reserved rights associated with these preexisting encumbrances. There are two remaining easements for which the Applicant was unable to obtain releases:

Reservations and exceptions, including the terms and conditions thereof:

Reserving: minerals

Reserved By: Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation

Filed: January 24, 1903

Recording Information: Volume 50 Page(s) 308 through 312

We note no examination has been made regarding the transfer or taxation of the reserved rights.

In this connection we note Oil and Gas Confirmation Special Warranty Deed No. MP1-35004

Recorded April 25, 1984 under Recording No. 8404250156.

Notice of Claim to Severed Mineral Interest:

Recorded: December 30, 2002 and December 26, 2008

Recording No(s).: 3490084, 3490085, 4051721 and 4051722

Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:

Recorded: July 08, 1941

Recording No.: 354358

In Favor Of: The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation

For: lines of telephones and telegraph or other signal or circuits

The site will be permanently managed for the ongoing benefit of the covered species in accordance with this site management plan. A conservation easement will be placed on this site to preclude activities that are not in keeping with the purposes of the Applicant’s conservation program and the requested ITP.

10 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Habitat Descriptions Biological Resources Surveys Existing (pre-restoration) vegetation communities are shown in Figure 4. Grasslands categorized as “degraded” (defined as grasslands containing <5% tree cover, <50% shrub cover, and <10% native herbaceous cover [Thurston County et al 2013]) dominate the site and are vegetated predominantly by nonnative pasture grasses and weedy herbs (Appendix 1: Data forms and associated photos).

Surveys performed by Krippner Consulting LLC in January and March 2016 recorded baseline composition of the upland area (defined as those portions of the site above the 193 foot MSL elevation, as shown in Figure 2) as consisting almost entirely of degraded grassland (i.e., containing 5% tree cover, <50% shrub cover, and <10% native herbaceous cover, (Thurston County et al 2013). A narrow swath of this upland consists of an upland shrub community (Appendix 1: CSP3 view south photo).

Surveys conducted by Bonnie Blessing in July 2016 recorded baseline conditions in the wetland area (defined as those portions of the site below the 193 foot MSL elevation, as shown in Figure 2). The wetland and aquatic areas are dominated by native emergent and scrub-shrub species, with the exception of an approximately seven-acre stand of dense reed canarygrass south of Salmon Creek.

The palustrine emergent (PEM) community is vegetated by a diverse assemblage of emergent and submergent plants north of Salmon Creek including slough sedge (Carex obnupta), soft rush (Juncus effusus), slender rush (Juncus tenuis), toad rush (Juncus bufonius) ovate spikerush (Eleocharis ovata), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), American brooklime (Veronica americana); water-starwort (Callitriche sp.), marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris), floating marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides), floating pondweed (Potamogeton natans), Ladies thumb (Polygonum persicaria), and forget-me-not (Myosotis laxa) (Photos 4 through 6). Willows dominate the palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) community (Photo 5). Reed canarygrass is dominant south of Salmon Creek on the west parcel where no grazing or haying activities have occurred in recent years.

Salmon Creek is mapped by the WDFW Salmonscape database as providing habitat for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sea-run and resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). It also provides habitat for great blue heron (Ardea herodias)(state monitor species), green heron (Butorides virescens)(state monitor species), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mink (Neovision vison), waterfowl, Olympic mud minnow (Novumbra hubbsi)(state sensitive species), and other aquatic-related species. Beaver activity is widespread in the basin. Salmon Creek basin may also provide habitat for western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), a state candidate species, and two state monitor mollusk species, western floater (Anodonta kennerlyi) and western pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata).

11 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Figure 4. Pre-Restoration/Existing Vegetation Communities

12 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Presence of Listed Species Olympia pocket gopher Olympia pocket gophers are known to occur on the site, and mounds have been documented on all soil types (outside of wetland areas) found on the site (see Appendix 1). Olympia pocket gophers have also been documented to occur on parcels north of this site.The approximate elevation of 193 feet above mean sea level (MSL) was used to estimate the area of suitable habitat for Olympia pocket gophers (Figure 2). Soils at this elevation were saturated below 12 inches deep in January and March of 2016. Recent gopher mounds were observed near this elevation in March when ground water was at 16 inches and soils were saturated at 14 inches below the surface, demonstrating that the species uses soils at this elevation on the site (see Appendix 1: CSP4 and Photos 1 and 2 for more details). For the purposes of this plan, the portion of the conservation site above 193 feet MSL are presumed to consist of either occupied or potentially suitable Olympia pocket gopher habitat. Soils along fence lines and in other areas where livestock congregate have been compacted and may be less suitable for use by Olympia pocket gophers (Appendix 1: Photo 3). Oregon spotted frog Oregon spotted frogs have been documented in Salmon Creek and in the shallow emergent wetlands on the conservation site. The short stature vegetation in seasonally or permanently inundated wetlands, particularly north of Salmon Creek, provide breeding, summer, and overwintering habitat for this species. Habitat Management and Performance Standards Primary Goal The primary goal for the conservation site is to: Maintain, in perpetuity, fully functional upland and wetland ecosystems that provide suitable habitat for the covered species included in the HCP. Site restoration efforts will be implemented in phases, improving the conservation value of the site over time. The Applicant has provided funding assurances to ensure perpetual management of the conservation site to the standards described in the HCP and this Site Management Plan. Restoration and Management Restoration and management will focus on improving and maintaining habitats for the covered species by, without limitation, controlling woody vegetation and invasive species such as Scot’s broom and reed canarygrass, which degrade the conservation values of the site.

Vegetation and Habitat Management The primary vegetation management goals are to reduce the cover of invasive and non- native pasture grasses, increase cover of native forbs in upland areas, and increase the

13 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

coverage of a diverse assemblage of native, low stature plants in wetland areas. This Plan presumes that some level of vegetation management will be required each year to restore and maintain suitable habitat for the covered species. The Land Steward will rely on regular monitoring of site conditions and evaluation of the effectiveness of previous actions to prescribe the most effective management actions to achieve Plan goals. Native seeding and/or planting may also be required to establish self-sustaining populations of native forbs and vegetation.

Effective vegetation management may require multiple approaches including woody vegetation control, mowing, prescribed fire, targeted application of herbicides, and limited application of managed grazing to control invasive vegetation. See Appendix 2 for a table of management actions, frequency, schedule, estimated labor hours, duration, etc.

Restoration of the degraded grasslands on the upland areas on the site to benefit Olympia pocket gopher (those portions of the property above approximately 193 foot elevation totaling about 39 acres, Figure 2) may also require shallow disking or plowing to release compacted soils and seeding with native vegetation to restore ecosystem function and establish self-sustaining populations of native prairie species. Though these measures are expected to improve habitat conditions, there is little available data regarding effects of these actions to Olympia pocket gophers. These actions will therefore be one focus of monitoring and adaptive management efforts and will be documented and described in the annual report to USFWS.

Woody Vegetation Control

Woody vegetation will be removed by mechanical means to maintain upland areas managed for the benefit of Olympia pocket gophers and wetlands that support Oregon spotted frog. Ground disturbance that could result in soil compaction will be minimized by performing work when soil conditions are dry and less prone to compaction and by selecting equipment that is less likely to compact soils (such as tracked rather than wheeled equipment, the use of “landing mats” to distribute weight over larger surface area, etc.). Brush or other woody debris will be removed or mulched on-site.

Woody vegetation in the wetland portion of the site (that portion of the property lower than approximately 193 foot elevation consisting of about 25 acres) may be cut or removed in order to expand potential habitat for Oregon spotted frogs in a manner consistent with applicable stream buffer protection laws and other legal requirements. Mowing

Annual mowing in late summer or early fall is the anticipated treatment prescription to control invasive plants and promote native forbs and prairie plants establishment. However, initially mowing will occur in early summer to cut invasive grasses when most of their energy is being stored above ground to reduce plant vigor in following years. The ideal timing for early mowing is when seed heads are beginning to form, but are not yet viable. This timing is not going to be same for all species or for all individual plants. Therefore the Land Steward will monitor the site and decide when to mow based on

14 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

when most of the invasive grasses are near this stage of development. Close monitoring of field conditions will be needed to most effectively manage native and non-native vegetation. Timing of mowing operations and selection of most suitable equipment will help avoid and minimize adverse effects to Olympia pocket gophers in the spring and early summer.

In Oregon spotted frog breeding areas a second cut in late summer or early fall may be necessary to maintain low vegetation height in areas dominated by reed canarygrass. Mowing reed canarygrass at least twice per year may help reestablish native species by increasing the amount of light that reaches the soil (Thurston County 2009). Removal of thatch build up after mowing removes nutrients used by reed canarygrass and supports germination of the native seed bank (Dave Hays WDFW, pers. comm. 2016). Each year the effectiveness of this treatment method will be reviewed and adjustments or alternative methods will be recommended following spring monitoring. The frequency of mowing is expected to vary over time and may not be required every year once native plant communities meet site performance standards. Appendix 4 provides Native Vegetation Best Management Practices that the Land Steward will follow to help avoid and minimize adverse effects to covered species and their habitats.

Springtime monitoring may prescribe late summer mowing to maintain early successional stage grass and forb dominated plant communities. These conditions favor Olympia pocket gopher habitat suitability and emergent/submergent wetlands for Oregon spotted frogs. Regular mowing is expected to promote the growth of preferred Olympia pocket gopher forage plants (herbs and grasses) on the upland portions of the site. Pocket gophers are known to aerate soils and increase plant diversity (Hartway and Steinberg. 1997; Mielke, 1977), which may improve soil conditions and prairie plant diversity and abundance over time.

Mowing may not be recommended every year, and other treatments such as the use of prescribed fire or targeted herbicide application may be more effective in restoring the site to these conditions during a given year.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is a regularly used conservation tool recommended by regional prairie restoration practitioners to manage invasion of woody vegetation (Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011). Fire can stimulate germination and growth of native prairie species, and would be expected to improve forage availability and habitat conditions for Olympia pocket gophers. However, prescribed fire can also stimulate the germination of Scot’s broom (Dennehy et al. 2011) and other invasive plants. Care must be taken that areas made bare by fire are not colonized by invasive species. Follow-up seeding or planting of native plants may be required following fire since there is no information about the native seed that may be present in the soil seed bank. Prescribed fires of moderate to low duration and intensity, such as those that would be expected on South Puget Sound Prairies, are not likely to adversely affect Olympia pocket gophers or their habitat. As a conservative measure, however, no more than 1/3 of

15 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

the site area will be treated with prescribed fire in any year to minimize temporary removal or disturbance of Olympia pocket gopher habitat.

Targeted Application of Herbicides

Targeted use of herbicides to control invasive plant species may be recommended for managing Scot’s broom or other invasive species, or for reducing the cover of dense, rhizomatous grasses, including reed canarygrass, if mowing alone is not enough to achieve performance standards for habitat restoration. Prairie restoration practitioners in the region have successfully employed the use of grass-specific herbicides that kill non- native grasses with minimal impacts to native forbs and grasses to open areas up for colonization of native species (Stanley et al., 2011). If native vegetation is not already present in the general area, grass-specific herbicide treatment may need to be followed with native seeding. To avoid and minimize potential impacts to covered species, herbicide application targeted only to invasive plant species will occur rather than broadcast application treatments. Herbicides will not be used in the wetland portion of the site to avoid harm to Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat.

Note regarding selective targeted application of herbicides:

USFWS will not cover the use of herbicides or pesticides as a covered activity in the HCP until such time as analysis to evaluate the effects of these products on listed species and critical habitat are complete. The Applicant acknowledges that any use of such means therefore remain subject to prior approval by USFWS and to the take prohibitions in place under the ESA until such time as any needed analyses are finalized. The Land Steward will adhere to the Native Vegetation Best Management Practices attached to this Plan (see Appendix 4) to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to covered species and their habitats.

Native Seeding and Planting

Native seeding or planting will likely be required to meet the performance standards for upland areas since the status of the soil seed bank at this location is unknown. Restoration activities including disking or tilling may be used to loosen soils and improve soil textures especially in areas compacted by prior livestock use. In wetland areas currently dominated by reed canarygrass, mats of native emergent vegetation, such as Juncus supiniformis and Juncus balticus, may be used to smother and replace dense stands of reed canarygrass after it is controlled by physical means such as weed cloth or tarps. If a native seed bank is present beneath reed canarygrass, tarps can be used to cover reed canarygrass in submerged areas for approximately two years until the dense mat of reed canarygrass has died. When the tarps are removed the underlying seed bank should

16 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

colonize the area, and/or additional seeding and planting of native emergent and submergent plants can occur. If the underlying seedbank is not of suitable structure for Oregon spotted frogs, further vegetation management may be required in frog breeding areas. For example, soft rush and tule bulrush are too tall for use by breeding frogs and may therefore need to be controlled. These methods are most effective when complemented by control of adjacent reed canarygrass in surrounding areas.

Nonnative Species Management

Displacement, competition, and predation by nonnative species (such as bullfrogs and nonnative fishes) are known threats to Oregon spotted frogs. If such nonnative species are found on the conservation site the Applicant will implement measures to reduce or eliminate the threats they pose to the covered species. Efforts to control these species fall within the jurisdiction of state and local authorities. Legal means and methods for taking these nonnative species are prescribed by the State of Washington (see WAC 220-12-090 and 232-12-619). Efforts to manage such species will adhere to applicable regulations and guidance from WDFW and the Washington Invasive Species Council.

Managed Grazing

Livestock grazing occurs at many Oregon spotted frog sites (Hayes 1997, Hallock 2013, Watson et al. 2003, Shovlain 2005). Grazing may benefit Oregon spotted frogs: Columbia spotted frog mass volume was greater in grazed wetlands than in ungrazed wetlands (Bull and Hayes 2000). Where invasive grasses prevail, use of livestock grazing creates openings for oviposition in an otherwise dense monoculture of reed canarygrass (Watson et al. 2003). Livestock have been observed grazing on reed canarygrass and avoiding several native wetland plants (slough sedge, rush, spikerush, ladies thumb, and marsh seedbox) that may be used for oviposition by Oregon spotted frogs (Blessing 2016). Managed grazing may be utilized to control reed canarygrass within that portion of the site managed to benefit the Oregon spotted frog in accordance with NRCS guidance (see appendix 5). The use of livestock or grazing will not be permitted within the 39-acre upland portion of the conservation site managed for the benefit of the Olympia pocket gopher.

Grazing to manage reed canarygrass in the wetland portions of the site to benefit Oregon spotted frogs will adhere to the NRCS draft “Grazing/forage harvest guidelines for maintaining breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frogs” attached to this Plan as Appendix 5 or a subsequently developed grazing management plan created in cooperation with NRCS and USFWS and approved by both Agencies prior to use.

Adaptive Management

Since there is uncertainty for determining the most appropriate methods of managing frog habitat, adaptive management may be used to test different management methods. For example, once baseline habitat conditions are recorded, different grazing regimes and management by mowing only could be compared in areas with similar elevation and

17 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan vegetation to a control area where no management is done for a period of 1-2 years. The results from trials such as these can then be used to inform future management. Adaptive management is also likely to be used in upland areas to determine the most effective methods for establishing native prairie plants.

Phased Restoration - Performance Standards Restoration performance standards are based on habitat requirements for the covered species. Restoration and management actions are expected to improve site conditions each year, and may vary by year in response to monitored site conditions. The conservation site performance standards are phased with the expectation that the use and intensity of specific management actions will change as site conditions improve and stabilize over time. Reduced management activity may be warranted in a given year if all performance standards are met and no issues adversely affecting the covered species or their habitats are identified during monitoring.

The performance standards for each phase are summarized in Tables A and B (below). Table A. Performance standards for Olympia pocket gopher habitat on the upland (approx. 39 acre) portion of the conservation site over time.

Upon permit Phase I: No Phase II: No Phase III: No issuance and later than 1 year later than 4 later than 10 described in after permit years after years after first annual issuance and permit issuance permit issuance report thereafter and thereafter and thereafter

Native and Non- Inventory and No less than native Forb document 70% cover of Cover baseline of total (native and non- forb (native and native) forbs non-native) cover Native Forb Inventory and No less than 5% No less than Cover document cover of native 10% cover of baseline of forbs native forbs native forb cover (collectively) (collectively)

Native Forb Inventory and No less than 5 No less than 10 Diversity document native forb native forb baseline of species species native forb established established diversity Woody Inventory and No more than vegetation document 5% cover of baseline of total woody woody vegetation vegetation cover greater than 12” in height Invasive and Inventory and No more than noxious species document 5% cover of (Scot’s broom, baseline of total invasive or State or County invasive and noxious species noxious weeds) noxious weed

18 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

cover

Table B: Performance standards for Oregon spotted frog habitat on the wetland (approx. 25 acre) portion of the conservation site over time.

Upon permit Phase I: No Phase II: No Phase III: No issuance and later than 1 year later than 4 later than 10 described in after permit years after years after first annual issuance and permit issuance permit issuance report thereafter and thereafter and thereafter

Native emergent Inventory and No less than No less than and submerged document 30% cover of 50% cover of vegetation cover baseline of native native emergent native emergent emergent and and submerged and submerged submerged vegetation cover vegetation cover vegetation cover

Native shrub Inventory and No less than cover to provide document 10% cover of wintering habitat baseline of native native shrub shrub cover cover

Emergent Inventory and No less than No less than No less than vegetation no document 20% cover of 30% cover of 50% cover of greater than 12” baseline of emergent emergent emergent above water emergent vegetation no vegetation no vegetation no surface to vegetation no greater than 12” greater than 12” greater than 12” provide breeding greater than 12” above water above water above water habitat above water surface in surface in surface in surface in breeding habitat breeding habitat breeding habitat breeding habitat

Invasive and Inventory and noxious species document (including reed baseline of total canary grass and invasive and any species on noxious weed the State or cover County noxious weed lists)

Performance standards to be achieved within one year of permit issuance include: The primary goal following permit issuance is to initiate re-establishment of prairie vegetation in upland areas to provide habitat for the Olympia pocket gopher and establish and maintain native palustrine emergent and submerged wetland habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. The Land Steward will complete a baseline inventory characterizing vegetation on the upland (approximately 39 acres) and wetland (approximately 25 acre) portions of the

19 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

conservation site. For the upland areas, the inventory will quantify native and total cumulative (i.e., native and non-native) forb cover, native forb diversity, and total woody vegetation cover. For the wetland portions of the site, the total cover of native emergent and submerged vegetation, native shrubs, and emergent vegetation no greater than 12 inches above water surface will be quantified. The Land Steward will identify and document the distribution and abundance of invasive and noxious species (including Scot’s broom and reed canary grass) on the upland and wetland portions of the site. This baseline inventory data will be incorporated into the first annual monitoring report to the USFWS. Phase I performance standards: Phase I consists of the first year after permit issuance. Performance standards prescribed for this phase may be achieved at any time prior to or during this phase, and will be maintained once achieved. At least 70% of the upland area will be covered in forbs to ensure suitable food resources for Olympia pocket gophers (may be a mix of native and non-native forb species). Woody vegetation greater than 12” in height will cover no more than 5% of the upland area to provide suitable Olympia pocket gopher burrowing habitat. At least 20% of the wetland area will consist of emergent vegetation up to 12” above the water surface to provide suitable Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat. Phase II performance standards: Phase II begins on the first anniversary of permit issuance and continues through the beginning of the fourth year after permit issuance. Performance standards prescribed for this phase may be achieved at any time prior to or during this phase, and will be maintained once achieved. During Phase II no less than 5% of the upland area will be covered in native forbs, and no less than 5 native forb species will be established (self-sustaining on the site). At least 30% of the wetland area will be covered with native emergent and submerged vegetation, at least 10% of the wetland area will be covered in native shrubs, and another 30% will be covered in emergent vegetation no greater than 12” in height above the water surface. Phase III performance standards: Phase III begins on the fourth anniversary of permit issuance and continues through the end of the tenth year after permit issuance. Performance standards prescribed for this phase may be achieved at any time prior to or during this phase, and will be maintained once achieved.

20 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

No less than 10% of the upland area will be covered in native forbs, and at least 10 native forb species will be self-sustaining on the site. At least 50% of the wetland area will be covered with native emergent and submerged vegetation, and no less than 50% will consist of emergent vegetation less than 12” in height above the water surface. Note that native emergent vegetation may fulfill both categories, but should be reported as satisfying each measure separately. Site Management The property owner and Land Steward will be responsible for controlling property access and human use of the site. Site Inspection

The site will be inspected no less than annually or when the Land Steward is notified of any problems. Signs of human activities will be documented, and corrective measures for any problems that are found will be implemented. For example, property signs that go missing will be replaced, trash will be removed, and barriers to ATV and motor vehicle use are put into place to control unauthorized access.

Fences, Gates, Roads

Site boundaries will be marked with conservation site signs and fencing. Existing fencing on the site may be modified to follow property boundaries and eliminate interior cross-fences. Existing barbed wire fencing that maintains a buffer around Salmon Creek may be maintained if grazing is used as part of vegetation and habitat management strategy.

Public Access

Use of the site by the general public shall be strictly prohibited and enforced by the Land Steward Limited public access shall be restricted to environmental research and educational activities which do not take conserved species, and waterfowl hunting, with the express prior written approval of the Land Steward The Applicant will provide access to the USFWS for HCP compliance monitoring. Biological Monitoring Biological monitoring will be conducted to determine if the HCP conservation program goals, objectives, and performance standards are being met. Monitoring results will inform recommendations for subsequent management actions. The entire site will be surveyed with particular focus on invasive species composition, distribution, and abundance. Annual photo documentation and plant surveys will be completed. The survey protocol described in Appendix 3 will be followed in order to evaluate whether or not performance standards are met each year. Monitoring efforts in the upland portion of the site will initially focus on the diversity and abundance of vegetation that provides forage for gophers. Monitoring of wetland habitats will initially focus on providing suitable habitat conditions for Oregon spotted

21 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

frog. Different management techniques will be tested in upland and wetland areas, in particular during the first few years of management. Monitoring will be used to compare management methods and evaluate which techniques provide the best results in terms of meeting the biological goals, objectives, and performance standards stated in the HCP. The knowledge gained from monitoring results will be used to guide the next year’s management until all performance targets are met for each of the covered species. Management will continue to be guided by monitoring results for the duration of the permit and thereafter.

A survey documenting vegetation communities, dominant plant species, and habitat conditions will be conducted every year between April 15 and June 15 for the first 10 years after permit issuance, then every 2 years from year 10 through 15. This timing may be adjusted depending upon water levels and weather conditions each year. Surveys for Olympia pocket gopher mounds will be conducted from June 1 through October 31 every year for the first 10 years after permit issuance, then every 2 years from year 10 through 15. If signs of feral or domestic animals, such as cats or dogs, are present, or if it appears that trapping or poisoning of ground-dwelling mammals has occurred, then the Land Steward take steps to eliminate these threats to gophers within fourteen (14) days of their discovery, and will continue monitoring to ensure that steps take are effective. If feral cats or dogs are present they will be trapped and removed from the site. Surveys for Oregon spotted frog habitat and egg masses will be conducted during the breeding season that year, as determined by weather conditions and water temperatures, typically in February or March. Wetland habitats will be monitored for the presence of American bullfrog and non-native fish. If these species are found on the site the Land Steward will coordinate with USFWS to counter this threat with recommended control measures. Opportunistic surveys for state species of concern such as Olympic mudminnow and western toad or state monitor species such as western floater and western pearlshell may also be conducted during monitoring visits. If these species are documented, they will be noted in the annual report and reported to WDFW for their species status review and recovery efforts. Survey area coverage for habitat parameters is no less than 5 percent of the entire Conservation Site, and representative of all different treatment areas and vegetation community types.

22 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Reporting and Planning Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to USFWS annually during the 15- year term of the ITP, and once every three years after ITP expiration, in perpetuity. An inventory of plant diversity and abundance will be updated annually and included in the Annual Report to USFWS. This information is expected to be very beneficial over time, and may demonstrate the potential value of the conservation site as a source for native seeds, roots, or bulbs for other restoration or habitat management efforts. Monitoring reports will include the following: 1. Activity and date of conservation actions since last monitoring report.

2. Current on-site conditions that are or may be adversely affecting covered species and their habitat, as well as any actions being undertaken or contemplated to address such conditions.

3. An evaluation of progress towards achieving individual conservation goals and performance standards; and recommendations for management improvements to optimize site habitat suitability.

4. Conservation actions anticipated prior to the next monitoring report submission.

23 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

References Biever, M. 2015. Water Year 2014 Data Report. Thurston County Water Resources Environmental Monitoring Program. 5/13/2015. Accessed online August 15, 2016 at: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/monitoring/reports/Water%20Year%202014%20Full%20R eport/Water%20Year%202014%20Summary%20Report%20(MPB%20FINAL).pdf Blessing B. 2014. Wetland ratios, soil types and geologic history at Oregon spotted frog wetlands in Thurston County. MS Thesis The Evergreen State College. 76 pp. Blessing, B. 2016. Field communications with Brett Hale of Stickhorse Training Facility on August 1, 2016. Livestock manager. Bull, E.L. and M.P. Hayes. 2000. Livestock effects on reproduction of the Columbia spotted frog. Journal of Range Management 53:291-294. Cederholm, J. DH Johnson, RE Bilby, LG Dominguez, AM Garrett, WH Graeber, EL Greda, MD Kunze, BG Marcot, JF Palmisano, RW Plotnikoff, WG Pearcy, CA simenstad, PC Trotter. Pacific salmon and wildlife- ecological contexts, relationships and implications for management 2nd edition. 145 pp. Dennehy, C., E.R. Alverson, H.E. Anderson, D.R. Clements, R. Gilbert, and T.N. Kaye. 2011. Management Strategies for Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Prairies and Oak Woodlands. Northwest Science. Volume 85. Number 2. Pages 329-351. Dunwiddie, P.W. and J.D. Bakker. 2011. The Future of Restoration and Management of Prairie-Oak Ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science. Volume 85. Number 2. Pages 83-92. Hallock, L. 2013. Draft State of Washington Oregon spotted frog recovery plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 93 pp. Hartway, C. and E. K. Steinberg. 1997. The Influence of Pocket Gopher Disturbance on the Distribution and Diversity of Plants in Western Washington Prairies. Pages 131-139 in Dunn and Ewing (1997) Ecology and Conservation of the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape. The Nature Conservancy of Washington, Seattle. 298 pp. Hayes, M.P. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa sensu stricto) in the Deschutes Basin and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a range wide synopsis of the species status. Final report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under contract to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Oregon. 57 pp. + appendices. Mielke, H. W. 1977. Mound Building by Pocket Gophers (Geomyidae): Their Impact on Soils and Vegetation in North America. Journal of Biogeography. 4:171-180. Pollock, MM, M Heim and D. Werner. 2003. Hydrologic and geomorphic effects of beaver dams and their influence on fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium paper 36.

24 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Shovlain, A.M. 2005. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) habitat use and herbage (or biomass) removal from grazing at Jack Creek, Klamath County, Oregon. MS Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon. 56 p. Stanley, A.G., P.W. Dunwiddie, and T.N. Kaye. 2011. Restoring Invaded Pacific Northwest Prairies: Management Recommendations from a Region-Wide Experiment. Northwest Science. Volume 85. Number 2. Pages 233-246. Thurston County 2004. Salmon creek comprehensive drainage basin plan. phase 2: alternatives analysis and recommendations. June 2004. Thurston County. 2009. Integrated pest management prescription: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Thurston County Noxious Weeds Program. Revised 11/2009. Thurston County, Willamette Partnership, and ENVIRON International Corporation, 2013. Thurston County Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology: Species and Habitat Risk and Asset Prioritatization (SHARP) Procedure Manual. Version 0.99. Thurston County Planning Department, Olympia, WA. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Online Soil Survey. Accessed in 2015. Watson J.W., K.R. McAllister, and D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements and habitat selection of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37(2):292-300.

25 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Appendix 1: Baseline Data and Photos Plots are approximately 10 meters square in size. Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: CSP1 NRCS Mapped soil type: Yelm fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-22” – 10YR 3/3 fine loamy sand Soil disturbance: No Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 0% Grass cover: 100% View North Forb cover: 95% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Dactylis glomerata Lolium perenne

Forb species with >5 percent cover: Geranium molle; Taraxacum officinale; Cardamine hirsute; Trifolium repens; Glechoma hederacea; Stellaria media View East Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: No Gopher mounds in plot: no Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Low density of mounds detected by USFWS in summer 2015; mounds observed in north portion of pasture in March 2016 View South Notes: Soil is a fine loamy sand rather than the mapped Yelm fine sandy loam; vegetation is <12” high due to heavy grazing; mole mounds and goose scat are present

View West

26 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: CSP2 NRCS Mapped soil type: Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 3% slopes Observed soil profile: 0-10” – 10YR 2/2 fine loamy sand 10-22” – 10YR 3/4 fine loamy sand Soil disturbance: No Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 5%

Grass cover: 100% View North Forb cover: 80% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Dactylis glomerata Lolium perenne

Forb species with >5 percent cover: Lamium purpureum; Taraxacum officinale; Cardamine hirsute; Trifolium repens;

Glechoma hederacea; Plantago lanceolata View East

Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: No Gopher mounds in plot: no

Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Low density of mounds detected by USFWS in summer 2015; mounds also View South observed in this mapped soil type in March 2016

Notes: Soil texture is similar to mapped soil type; vegetation is <12” high due to heavy grazing; mole mounds and goose scat are present

View West

27 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: CSP3 NRCS Mapped soil type: Norma fine sandy loam Observed soil profile: 0-3” – 10YR 2/1 fine sandy loam 3-9” – 7.5YR 2.5/3 fine sandy loam 9-21” – 10YR 3/1 fine sandy loam Soil disturbance: No

View North Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: <5%: mole mounds Grass cover: 100% Forb cover: 40% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Agrostis sp.; Phalaris arundinacea

Forb species with >5 percent cover: Stellaria media; Trifolium repens; Ranunculus repens; Lotus corniculatus View East Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: No Gopher mounds in plot: no

Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Low density of mounds observed in this mapped soil type in March 2016

View South

Notes: Soil texture is similar to mapped soil type; vegetation is <12” high due to heavy grazing; mole mounds and goose scat are present; ground water is present at 20” and soils are saturated at 16” below the ground surface

View West

28 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Date (s): 3-22-16 Plot Name: CSP4 NRCS Mapped soil type: Norma fine sandy loam Observed soil profile: 0-5” – 10YR 3/2 fine sandy loam 5-20” – a mix of colors - 10YR 3/2; 10YR 3/6; 10YR 2/1 fine sandy loam Soil disturbance: Some compacted soils due to livestock congregation nearby View North Bare ground/moss/lichen cover: 50% Grass cover: 20% Forb cover: 80% Grass species with >5 percent cover: Dactylis glomerata; Lolium perenne; Phalaris arundinacea Forb species with >5 percent cover: Stellaria media; Trifolium repens; Cardamine hirsute; Glechoma hederacea; Cirsium arvense View East Shrubs, vines, or trees in plot or general area: No Gopher mounds in plot: yes

Gopher mound distribution in area represented by this plot: Low density of mounds observed in this mapped soil type in March 2016

View South

Notes: Soil texture is similar to mapped soil type; vegetation is sparse due to heavy grazing; mole mounds and goose scat are present; ground water is present at 16” and soils are saturated at 14” below the ground surface

View West

29 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Photos taken on March 22, 2016

Photo 1. Gopher mound observed in CSP4 where soils were saturated 14 inches below the ground surface and ground water was observed at 16 inches in depth.

Photo 2. Close-up view of gopher mound observed at CSP4.

30 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Photo 3. Compacted area near gate where livestock congregates by a feeding and watering station, view west near the northwest corner of Parcel 12727110102.

Photo 4. View north from CSP5, emergent wetland dominated by slough sedge in this area.

31 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Photo 5. View south from CSP5, Salmon Creek and associated wetlands.

Photo 6. View west from CSP5, Salmon Creek and associated wetlands.

32 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Appendix 2: Management and Monitoring Actions by Phase.

Management Summary

Initial Phase (Years 1-3)

Actions Description Metric Frequency Schedule

Access Keep property in orderly 8 hours per No less 1 time per control/garbage condition year than 1 time year removal per year following monitoring

Maintain open Maintain open prairie by 24 hours per No less 1 time per habitat and control brush cutting and spot year (60 hours than 1 time year noxious weeds spraying for Year 1 for per year following initial monitoring restoration activities)

Conduct biological Belt transect data 24 hours per No less Spring to performance collection and photo year than 1 time early monitoring monitoring each year Summer

Prepare annual Presentation of field data, 20 hours per No less Due monitoring report results, and conclusions. year than 1 time February 1 and work Plan for Plan outlining each year next year management, monitoring, restoration, and administration for upcoming year.

Update Update management 10 hours per As needed Year end management Plan Plan as needed. year

33 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Intermediate Phase (Years 4-9)

Actions Description Metric Frequency Schedule

Access Keep property in orderly 8 total No less than 1 time per control/garbage condition hours 1 time per year removal year following monitoring

Maintain open Maintain open prairie by 16 hours No less than 1 time per habitat and control brush cutting and spot per year 1 time per year noxious weeds spraying year following monitoring

Prescribed burning Crew to complete burn unit 40 hours Every 3 Fall or other prairie operation per years restoration actions treatment year

Seeding of burn unit Seeding using broadcast 24 hours Every 3 Fall or other cleared seeder per years areas with native treatment seed mix year

Conduct biological Belt transect data collection 24 hours No less than Spring to performance and photo monitoring per year 1 time each early monitoring year Summer

Prepare annual Presentation of field data, 16 hours 1 time each Due monitoring report results, and conclusions. per year year February 1 and work Plan for Plan outlining management, next year monitoring, restoration, and administration for upcoming year.

Update Update management Plan 5 hours per As needed Year end management Plan as needed. year on average

34 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Final Phase (Years 10–15)

Access Keep property in orderly 8 total No less 1 time per control/garbage condition hours than 1 year removal time per following year monitoring

Maintain open habitat Maintain open prairie by 8 hours per No less 1 time per and control noxious brush cutting and spot year than 1 year weeds spraying time per following year monitoring

Prescribed burning or Crew to complete burn unit 24 hours Every 4 Fall other prairie operation per years restoration actions treatment year

Seeding of burn unit Seeding using broadcast 12 hours Every 4 Fall or other cleared seeder per years areas with native treatment seed mix year

Conduct biological Belt transect data collection 16 hours No less Spring to performance every other year; photo per year on than 1 early monitoring monitoring and general site average time per Summer observations every year year

Prepare annual Presentation of field data, 12 hours 1 time per Due monitoring report and results, and conclusions. Plan per year on year February 1 work Plan for next outlining management, average year monitoring, restoration, and administration for upcoming year.

Update management Update management Plan as 5 hours per As Year end Plan needed. year on needed average

35 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Appendix 3: Survey Protocol

Introduction This survey protocol is intended to provide a standardized approach for assessing whether the conservation program outlined in the HCP is being successful implemented. Indicators of successful implementation are measured by the percent cover of the vegetation type; presence and distribution of pocket gopher mounds; and other habitat features that characterize habitat suitability for the species covered in the HCP. The data collected in accordance with this survey protocol indicates whether suitable habitat exists for the Oregon spotted frog and Mazama pocket gopher.

Survey Timing and Frequency Surveys for percent cover of vegetation types will be conducted every year between April 15 and June 15 for the first 10 years, then every 2 years from year 10 through 15. This timing may be adjusted depending upon water levels and weather conditions each year. In alternating years from years 10 through 15, the sites will still be monitored for signs of unauthorized human access, habitat modifications, invasive species or noxious weeds.

Surveys for Olympia pocket gopher mounds will be conducted from June 1 through October 31 every year for the first 10 years after permit issuance, then every 2 years from year 10 through 15. Surveys for Oregon spotted frog habitat and egg masses will be conducted during the breeding season that year based on weather conditions and water temperatures, typically in February or March. Surveys will be conducted every year for the first 10 years, then every 2 years from year 10 through 15. Egg mass surveys will be conducted in all areas that have suitable water levels for breeding frogs. Opportunistic surveys for state sensitive and candidate species as Olympic mudminnow and western toad, respectively, or state monitor species such as western floater and western pearlshell may also be conducted during monitoring visits. Record any observations of American bullfrog, non-native fish predators, or water quality problems. These may pose threats to Oregon spotted frogs. Identify and record any signs of feral or domestic animals, such as cats or dogs. Record any signs of trapping or poisoning of ground-dwelling mammals. Non-native predators and trapping or poisoning other ground-dwelling mammals may pose threats to Olympia pocket gophers. Minimizing Impacts In order to prevent the spread of chytrid fungus to frogs, clean boots with a weak solution of bleach before conducting surveys if you have been surveying other wetland areas.

36 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Survey Coverage Survey area coverage should be no less than 5 percent of the Conservation Site and include representative areas of each management area. For example, the conservation site is 64 acres. To survey at least 5 percent (3.2 acres) of the 64 acres survey plots should be 15 by 15 meters (225 m2 or 0.056 acre) in size and placed approximately every 60 meters along the transect and there should be a total of approximately 57 plots if transects belts are 50 meters apart (parallel lines and belt transect total length of 2,364 linear feet). The total of 3.2 acres divided by 0.056 acre (225 m2) = 57 plots. Fewer representative plots may be used if the vegetation community is observed to be uniform, particularly in areas with similar elevation and restoration treatments. Field Materials Field notebook

Meter tape

Meter stick for water depth

Thermometer for water temperature

PVC pipes for temporary staking of 15 by 15 meter plots during survey

GPS

Camera

Field data sheets

Aerial imagery map (described below) Procedures for Collecting Field Data

Prepare an aerial photo of the survey site and randomly select a different cardinal direction/orientation for the continuous transect line every year. Belt transect lines are spaced parallel to each other and 50 meters apart. Transect lines are continuous throughout the site. Import the belt transect route onto a GPS unit for consistency in the field or use another method that ensures transects are spaced and placed appropriately.

37 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Survey plots are 15 meters by 15 meters, placed on alternating sides of the belt transect every 60 meters along the entire length of the belt transect (See example in Figure A).

Aerial photo of the survey site should include north arrow, scale bar, survey area boundary, and parcel boundaries (if relevant), overlaid on recent, high-resolution aerial imagery. Print copies of aerial photo and field survey form for use in the field, and/or collect field data electronically in accordance with the field form. At each upland grassland plot record percent cover or presence/absence data as specified on the field data form for: Scot’s broom and/or all other woody vegetation greater than 12 inches in height; grassland with >10% forbs; high quality native grassland; bare ground, moss, lichen, low stature grassland less than 12 inches high; and gopher mounds. Also record gopher mounds observed outside of plot areas. At each wetland plot record cover, measurement, or presence/absence data as specified on the field data form for: native emergent and submergent vegetation; native shrub vegetation; average water depth; surface water and vegetation extending <12 inches above water; number of Oregon spotted frog egg masses. Also record egg masses observed outside of plot areas. Record GPS point location at the center of each plot (approximate center).

38 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Field Data Form

Date:

Surveyor:

Treatment Area (if subject to specific management for experimentation):

Non-native predators (including cats and dogs):

Signs of human intrusions, trapping, or poisoning of ground-dwelling mammals:

Notes about gopher mounds observed on site between plot locations:

General Notes:

39 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Data to Record in Each 15 x 15 m Plot Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3

% Scot’s broom / woody cover > 12” tall (0-4; 5-9; 10-19; 20-49; 50-100)

% Grassland with forbs at >10% cover

(0-4; 10-19; 20-39; 40-79; 80-100)

% High quality grassland

(0-4; 5-9; 10-19; 20-49; 50-100)

Gopher mounds present (yes or no)

List any native plant species present

40 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Field Data Form

Date:

Surveyor:

Treatment Area (if subject to specific management for experimentation):

Non-native predators (including American bullfrog and non-native fish):

Signs of human intrusions or water quality problems:

General Notes:

Data to Record in Each 15 x 15 m Plot Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3

% Native emergent and submergent vegetation (0-9; 10-19; 20-49; 50-100)

% Native shrub vegetation

(0-9; 10-19; 20-49; 50-100)

Average water depth (inches)

(0-2; 2-12; 12-24; 24-36; >36)

% Surface water and vegetation extending <12 inches above surface water

(0-9; 10-19; 20-49; 50-100)

Oregon spotted frog egg masses present (yes or no)

List any native plant species present

Total count of Oregon spotted frog egg masses observed on site between plot locations and at plot:

41 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Prepare map of potential breeding areas and approximate locations of egg masses.

Data collected for Oregon spotted frog egg mass surveys:

1) Date 2) Time start 3) Time end 4) Surveyors 5) GPS track number(s) 6) If eggs are detected: a. Number of egg clusters b. Latitude/Longitude – or show on map c. Water depth d. Water temperature e. Treatment (mowed, replanted, unplanted, natural) f. Vegetation composition under egg mass i. Plant Species 1 ii. Plant Species 2 iii. Plant Species 3

42 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Appendix 4: Native Vegetation Best Management Practices

The following Best Management Practices will be followed to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to covered species or their habitats.

Mobilization, staging, and demobilization of equipment will occur on suitable, developed portions of the site or parcel (such as on existing hardened driving surfaces).

If native forbs are present, mechanical mowing will be conducted when these species are dormant (or have senesced) and are less vulnerable to damage. Mechanical mowing will be conducted from mid-summer to late-fall to minimize potential impacts to native vegetation.

Woody debris or heavy slash removed from the site will be piled in areas with nonnative vegetation, chipped, or hauled off site.

If native forbs are present, herbicide applications to control non-native and invasive plants will be conducted when these native forbs are dormant (or have senesced) and are less vulnerable to damage. Herbicide applications will be spot applied only to the invasive and nonnative vegetation (i.e., no broadcast or non-targeted applications of herbicides will be permitted).

Herbicide applications will comply with Material Safety Data Sheet and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act label approved uses and guidelines. All herbicide applications will be conducted under the supervision of a state- or Federally- certified (licensed) applicator, and treatments will be documented and submitted as part of the regular reporting cycle.

Herbicide applications will be accomplished with the use of spot sprayers and/or wick applicators where they can be focused most effective in controlling invasive and nonnative plants.

To avoid and minimize the possibility of excavating, collapsing, or otherwise physically damaging Mazama pocket gopher burrows and nests containing immobile young, any work requiring the use of heavy equipment will be scheduled to avoid the months of April through July each year.

The Land Steward will avoid operating heavy equipment on occupied or potentially occupied Mazama pocket gopher habitat, and will minimize passes over occupied habitat, to the fullest extent practicable.

43 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Work requiring the use of heavy equipment will be scheduled for late-summer and early- fall to the fullest extent practicable, when soil moisture content falls in a favorable range, freeze-thaw conditions can be avoided, and damage in the form of soil rutting and compaction will be minimized.

Native material will be side cast alongside the locations of any small excavations, stockpiled, and later used to backfill the excavations. Soils will be backfilled, with only a minimal amount of light grading to reestablish the original ground contours. To the extent practicable, when replacing the excavated soils and re-establishing original ground contours, the Applicant should takes steps to prevent a coarsening of the surficial soils and upper soil profile; e.g., it may be feasible and advisable to stockpile separately the surficial top soils.

Disturbed areas will be seeded with native forbs and prairie species with the goal of establishing self-sustaining populations of representative native prairie species.

44 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

Appendix 5: Grazing/Forage Harvest Guidelines for Maintaining Breeding Habitat for Oregon Spotted Frogs

USDA-NRCS western WA DRAFT PROTOCOL

Managing Reed Canarygrass grasslands for maintenance of Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat

All activities should occur only when soils are firm enough to sustain equipment or livestock traffic without causing excessive soil damage or erosion through compaction or surface rutting. Typically, the soil water table should have dropped to at least 18 inches below the soil surface before traffic occurs. Because of soil moisture gradients, management activities may need to occur in elevation-determined bands around the surface water area throughout the season, starting at the upper part of the slope, where soils should dry out first.

Initial Management

If the area has not been harvested for several seasons and there is overmature grass with heavy thatch present, then mowing should be done before the initial grazing or hay harvest. Ideally, this will occur in late summer or fall the year before the haying or grazing management system begins, and the mowed grass and thatch should be removed from the field (potentially by baling or burning). If that isn’t practical then the dead material should be chopped into short lengths with equipment such as a brush-hog mower as soon as possible. Mowing height should leave 3-5 inches of residual stubble.

Managed Grazing

Install needed infrastructure for grazing management, such as fences and livestock watering facilities. Drinking water must be available to each paddock, either from a trough or properly protected surface water sites. If livestock can be controlled with a power fence, it is a very effective tool to control location and intensity of grazing, because temporary wires and posts can easily cross-fence a pasture into smaller units, and paddock configuration can be changed as needed throughout the season. In addition, power fencing in active floodways can be removed in the late fall, reducing fence damage during high stream flow events.

In the spring, initiate grazing when soil conditions are dry enough to support traffic without excessive soil damage, as per the guidance above.

Grazing systems can be designed in several ways. The following paragraphs describe two generalized grazing systems that are recommended for OSF habitat management. However, each individual site should have a site-specific plan, with the principles below combined with inventory of site soils, vegetation resources, water, livestock resources and limitations and grazing infrastructure in order to develop a successful site-specific

45 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan

plan. Because of differences in site plant productivity and hydrology and herd forage needs, sites can have very different livestock stocking rates and seasons of use.

1. Establish livestock stocking rate numbers and grazing paddocks of a size so that each paddock will provide 1-3 days of grazing for the herd. Move the livestock to the next paddock when the target stubble height is reached (generally 2-6 inches for Reed Canarygrass when being managed for frog habitat). Continue the livestock rotation through the paddocks, adding downslope paddocks to the rotation as those paddocks’ soils dry out through the spring and summer. Continue to rotate livestock through the useable paddocks, observing the target stubble height, until either the fall rains make the field too wet to graze without soil damage, or plant growth slows enough that other forage sources are needed. This system will provide more uniform utilization and/or flattening of the vegetation in the field, and will need to be monitored more frequently for soil pugging (small divots or holes) by livestock hooves on wet soils and to make sure that adequate forage remains in the paddock to meet livestock nutritional needs. Monitoring is also needed to prevent overgrazing of forages or increased consumption of potentially poisonous plants.

2. Establish livestock stocking rate numbers in balance with the forage available in a paddock for a longer period of time than just a few days at a time. For equally- sized paddocks to those used in method 1, this stocking rate will be lower, but will be maintained over a longer period of time. (“Set-stocking” – see below *). This method will result in more patchy utilization of vegetation in the paddock, as livestock can and will be more selective as to the species and specific plants that they graze. This can have benefits for plant diversity if species such as native forbs, sedges or rushes are present. It will also result in less uniform residual stubble heights for both native and non-native species, with some plants remaining quite tall due to non-utilization or under-utilization. This method should require less frequent monitoring than method 1 while still achieving acceptable (if slightly different) results. Regular monitoring must still be done, however, and livestock removed from or added to the paddock as needed to balance their forage requirements with the varying forage growth throughout the grazing season. Often this system works best with a herd of mother animals (i.e. cow-calf pairs) which will more likely be on the site over many seasons/years and so will learn which parts of the site to use and which parts to avoid (because of standing water, etc.). Introducing a new herd of animals on the site each year will require initial training of the herd to learn the site each year.

Both grazing systems should include regular monitoring of fences and livestock drinking water sources.

Conserved Forage Grass Management (hay, haylage, silage, etc.)

Harvest the forage as soon in the season as soil and weather conditions allow (typically late May to early July). Mowing height should leave 3-6 inches of residual stubble. Remove the forage from the field as soon as possible. Harvest again whenever reed

46 Appendix C Conservation Site Management Plan canarygrass height reaches at least 18 inches tall. Harvest the final time for the year in mid- September to mid-October, or when it appears that soil moisture will soon restrict access to the field because of potential soil compaction and/or rutting damage. If there isn’t enough forage to make it worthwhile to bale hay or make silage, the field should still be mowed, with the material chopped into short lengths and left in place to decay.

If no livestock grazing or conserved forage harvest occurs in a given year, then at a minimum mowing should occur as outlined in “Initial Management”, above.

Considerations for Ground-Nesting Birds

If mowing is planned to occur before July 1, consider using one of the following methods to help protect wildlife:

1. Attach a flush bar on the mower/harvest equipment

2. Use one of the following harvest patterns:

a. Begin on one end of the field and work back and forth across the field

b. Being in the center of the field and work outward

*Set-stocking: Stocking rates (number of livestock in a paddock) vary between grazing periods to match pasture growth and animal forage needs.

47

Appendix D. Effects Matrix

Species Resource Need Notes Olympia pocket gopher Suitable soils: open meadows, prairies and grassland habitats of the glacial outwash plain where there are porous, well-drained soils. The distribution and abundance of pocket gophers are greatly affected by soils. Soil characteristics that affect gophers include depth and texture, particularly rock and clay content that affects burrowing ability, permeability that can result in periodic flooding of burrows, and water-holding capacity and fertility that affect growth of plant foods. In general, pocket gophers prefer deep, light-textured, porous, well-drained soils, and do not occur in peat or heavy clay soils. Soils T. mazama in Washington have not been found in clay, and there are few records in silt soils. Distribution of Mazama pocket gophers appears correlated with prairie soil types, but they are not found on all remnant prairie sites They rarely occur where soil is very rocky. There are local populations in non-prairie loam, sandy, and gravelly soil types (e.g., Indianola loamy sand, Grove, Everett) that may have been unused by gophers historically due to forest cover. These occurrences often are adjacent to more typical prairie soils (e.g., Nisqually soils). In sum, deep well-drained, sandy loam or loamy sand with sufficient fertility and water holding capacity to support desired forbs appears to provide optimal habitat.

May be limited in otherwise suitable areas by inadequate food resources. Historically in high-quality prairies dominated by native vegetation. Gopher populations are known to live in a wide range of grasslands, particularly if they include a significant component of fleshy-rooted forbs such as clover, lupines, dandelions, false dandelions, and camas. Perennial forbs are preferred for food over grasses, and fleshy roots and bulbs, such as camas are important when green vegetation is not available. The availability of forbs may provide nutrients important for gopher growth and reproduction. Gophers also eat fungi and disseminate the spores of species that have an important role in facilitating plant growth. Vegetation In addition to remnant prairies, occupied sites in Washington include grassy fields at airports, pastures, fields, Christmas tree farms, and occasionally clearcuts. associations Most of the populations are found in grasslands on land that historically was prairie, they will move into sites with well-drained soil where forest cover has been removed, including recent clearcuts. Gophers are known to populate sites after timber harvest and become common for a few years while grasses and forbs are available, but decline as the area regenerates to forest. They are otherwise essentially absent from forest habitats in Washington, particularly those with well-developed shrub understory. Gopher populations at airports benefit from mowing which prevents invasion of the extensive grassland by woody vegetation. Gophers also are rare where grassland has been taken over by dense Scotch broom. Pocket gophers have been called ‘keystone species’ and ‘ecosystem engineers’ because they affect the presence and abundance of plants and other animals. Their extensive excavations affect soil structure and chemistry; food caches and latrines enrich the soil, affecting plant community composition and productivity.

Spend most of their time within their system of burrows. Burrow habitats When pocket gophers have established a territory, they generally remain there, although they will shift their home range in response to seasonally wet soils. Pocket gopher territory (i.e., burrow systems) sizes vary with habitat quality and reproductive status.

Dispersal Mazama pocket gophers attain sexual maturity by the breeding season after their birth, when ~ 9 mo old and rear a single litter of ~5 (2-7) pups per year. Gopher populations can increase dramatically in the summer after the dispersal of young of the year, and may increase to 3–4 times the spring adult population. Other animal Mazama pocket gophers are an important prey species for many predators, including hawks, owls, coyotes, and weasels; their burrows provide retreats for salamanders, western toads, associations frogs, lizards, small mammals, and invertebrates. Other human- Pocket gophers may not persist in high density residential areas due to effects of frequent mowing, herbicides, impervious surfaces, and perhaps elevated mortality rates resulting from associated impacts predation by cats and dogs and illegal trapping or poisoning of gophers. Effects Matrix Olympia Pocket Gopher

Phases (where Life History Resulting Effects of the Covered Activity appliable) Sub-Activity Where When Duration Frequency Form Stressor Response to Stressor Conservation Measures Action Residential Residential Use tracked equipment to development development Crushing death reduce soil compaction death (Pre- Increased energy development) Loss of food materials expenditure to locate and disturbance of Use construction fencing to additional foods and Soil disturbance burrowing habitat limit area of disturbance excavate new burrows Geotechnical investigation; Infrequent, Increased energy Installation of temporary Suitable and Days to typically once Juveniles and Loss of suitable Use tracked equipment and expenditure to excavate new erosion control measures occupied Year round weeks before time of adults Soil compaction burrowing habitat limit area of disturbance burrows such as sediment fencing habitat construction Increased energy and infiltration basins Vegetation Minimize areas of expenditure to locate removal Loss of food materials disturbance additional foods Loosen soils to promote drainage in infiltration Increased energy Hydrology Loss of suitable basins and other project expenditure to excavate new changes burrowing habitat areas burrows

Infrequent, Cut above-ground Suitable and Year round, typically once at Increased energy vegetation occupied mostly spring Days to time of Juveniles and Vegetation Cut to a height of 6 inches expenditure to locate habitat and summer weeks construction adults removal Loss of food materials or greater additional foods Residential Use tracked equipment to development Crushing death reduce soil compaction death (Development phase) Increased energy Clear and grub vegetation; Loss of food materials Hydroseed residential lot expenditure to locate and disturbance of areas until they are additional food and excavate Construct access road and Infrequent, gravel staging areas; Install Soil disturbance burrowing habitat developed new burrows typically once to office trailer; Create and Suitable and Year round, Days to prepare site for Juveniles and use borrow areas; Excavate occupied mostly summer Increased energy weeks residential adults and grade soils; Stockpile habitat and fall expenditure to relocate and home materials; Add fill and excavate new burrows; death construction imported soils; Remove Loss of suitable Use tracked equipment to if unable to relocate to new debris Soil compaction burrowing habitat reduce soil compaction habitat area Increased energy expenditure to locate Hydroseed residential lot additional foods; death if Vegetation areas until they are unable to locate new food removal Loss of food materials developed sources

Page 1 Effects Matrix Olympia Pocket Gopher

Phases (where Life History Resulting Effects of the Covered Activity appliable) Sub-Activity Where When Duration Frequency Form Stressor Response to Stressor Conservation Measures Action Residential Residential development development (continued) (Development Use tracked equipment to phase, Crushing death reduce soil compaction death continued)

Compact substrate; Lay and compact aggregate Loosen soils and reseed in Increased energy substrate; Construct roads Loss of food materials unpaved areas such as expenditure to locate and driveways; Install Infrequent, and disturbance of utility corridors and additional food and excavate Suitable and Year round, underground and above Days to typically once at Juveniles and Soil disturbance burrowing habitat drainageways new burrows occupied mostly summer ground utilities; Construct weeks time of adults Increased energy habitat and fall permanent drainage construction expenditure to relocate and systems and basins; Install excavate new burrows; death building footings; Build Loss of suitable Use tracked equipment to if unable to relocate to new concrete slabs Soil compaction burrowing habitat reduce soil compaction habitat area

Keep soils in undeveloped Increased energy Hydrology Loss of suitable and storm facility areas expenditure to excavate new changes burrowing habitat loose to allow infiltration burrows Increased energy expenditure to locate Highly variable Loss of food materials Prevent spills and use BMPs additional foods Suitable and Year round, Fuel and maintain vehicles Days to and project Juveniles and Increased energy occupied mostly summer Contaminants on-site weeks specific, up to adults Loss of suitable expenditure to excavate new habitat and fall daily burrowing habitat Prevent spills and use BMPs burrows

death Prevent spills and use BMPs death Highly variable and project Ingress/egress traffic Suitable and Year round, specific, may be Limit equipment movement occupied mostly summer Days to several times Juveniles and outside of designated access habitat and fall weeks per day adults Crushing Death roads Death Increased energy expenditure to locate additional foods; death if Infrequent, Minimize soil compaction unable to find new food Suitable and Year round, Days to typically once at Juveniles and Soil disturbance Loss of food materials and disturbance sources Install sod occupied mostly summer weeks time of adults Increased energy habitat and fall construction expenditure to locate additional foods; death if Vegetation Minimize soil compaction unable to find new food removal Loss of food materials and disturbance sources

Page 2 Effects Matrix Olympia Pocket Gopher

Phases (where Life History Resulting Effects of the Covered Activity appliable) Sub-Activity Where When Duration Frequency Form Stressor Response to Stressor Conservation Measures Action Residential Residential development development (continued) (Development phase, continued) Crushing Death Minimize soil compaction Death Increased energy expenditure to locate additional foods; death if Infrequent, Minimize soil disturbance to unable to find new food Suitable and Year round, Days to typically once at Juveniles and Soil disturbance Loss of food materials the extent possible sources Landscaping/restoration occupied mostly summer weeks time of adults habitat and fall construction Increased energy Loss of suitable expenditure to excavate new Soil compaction burrowing habitat Minimize soil compaction burrows

Increased energy expenditure to locate additional foods; death if Vegetation Consider including forbs like unable to find new food removal Loss of food materials lupine in landscape plan sources

Increased energy Minimize soil disturbance to expenditure to locate Infrequent, Soil disturbance Loss of food materials the extent possible additional foods landscaping Use light or wide rubber Increased energy Upgrades to stormwater maintenance Loss of suitable tracked equipment that expenditure to excavate new facilities; Utility repair and Residential may occur 1-4 Soil compaction burrowing habitat minimizes soil compaction burrows maintenance; Road and Suitable and Year round, Development Days to times per year Juveniles and sidewalk improvements; occupied mostly Summer (Operational weeks in spring or adults Landscape maintenance; habitat and Fall Phase) summer; other Habitat set-aside activities only management once every 5-10 Consider including forbs like years lupine and camas in landscaping and habitat set- aside areas; Time mowing to Increased energy Vegetation stimulate forage plant expenditure to locate removal Loss of food materials growth additional foods

Page 3 Effects Matrix Olympia Pocket Gopher

Phases (where Life History Resulting Effects of the Covered Activity appliable) Sub-Activity Where When Duration Frequency Form Stressor Response to Stressor Conservation Measures Action Conservation Site Use light or wide rubber Increased energy Management and Temporary disturbance tracked equipment that expenditure to excavate new Suitable and Annually, Restoration Summer and Juveniles and Soil compaction of burrowing habitat minimizes soil compaction burrows Mowing occupied Days typically once Activities fall adults Time mowing to stimulate Increased energy habitat per year Vegetation Temporary loss of food forage plant growth and expenditure to locate removal materials allow native forbs to seed additional foods Minimize depth of soil Increased energy Once to reduce Temporary disturbance disturbance needed to expenditure to excavate new Suitable and soil compaction Spring through Juveniles and Soil disturbance of burrowing habitat reduce soil compaction burrows Tilling or light disking occupied Days from previous fall adults Minimize area of Increased energy habitat grazing Vegetation Temporary loss of food disturbance to compacted expenditure to locate Ongoing operations removal materials areas only additional foods Management and Restoration Suitable and May occur in Juveniles and Increased energy Activities Prescribed burning occupied Days some years, Summer and adults Vegetation Temporary loss of food Burn less than one third of expenditure to locate habitat once per year fall removal materials the site each year additional foods Avoid treatment in occupied Herbicide treatment for Suitable and May occur in Contaminants Death habitat areas Death Spring through Juveniles and killing grasses or noxious occupied Days some years, 1-3 Increased energy fall adults weeds habitat times per year Vegetation Temporary loss of food Avoid treatment in occupied expenditure to locate removal materials habitat areas additional foods Suitable and As needed each Juveniles and Increased energy Fence repair occupied Year round Days year adults Temporary disturbance expenditure to excavate new habitat Soil disturbance of burrowing habitat Minimize disturbance areas burrows

Page 4 Species Resource Need Notes

Oregon spotted frog In Thurston County, Oregon spotted frogs occur in the Black River drainage. Washington’s remaining populations of Oregon spotted frogs occupy still-water wetlands connected by riverine systems. The perennial creeks and associated network of intermittent tributaries provide aquatic connectivity between breeding sites, active season habitat, and overwintering habitat. Additionally, perennially flowing waters may provide the only suitable habitat during extreme summer drought or during winter when oxygen levels drop in still-waters under ice and snow. Associated wetlands have a mix of dominance types including aquatic bed, emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands. The seasonally inundated wetland margins are frequently hay fields and pasture. Habitat The less disturbed sites have wet meadows and prairie uplands. Watson et al. stressed that the most important features for microhabitat use were water depth, flow characteristics (still water was used over flowing water), and a high degree of water surface exposure (i.e., 50-75% water) or conversely, a low to moderate degree of emergent vegetation (i.e., 25-50%). During the coldest months, Oregon spotted frogs require well-oxygenated waters and sheltering locations protected from predators and freezing conditions. During the summer drought (July to September), frogs in Thurston County were restricted to remnant pools that persisted during this time. Some occupied sites are formed by American Beaver (Castor canadensis) activity.

Oregon spotted frogs require breeding habitat with low vegetation structure and full solar exposure. Breeding frogs gather in seasonally flooded margins and shallows of emergent wetlands in areas that receive minimal shading from the surrounding vegetation. Oregon spotted frogs select breeding sites in seasonally flooded wetland margins adjacent and connected to perennial wetlands. Frogs use the same breeding areas every year and depending on topography and site conditions, may lay eggs at the same site. Eggs are deposited in shallow water typically ≤ 15 cm but up to 30 cm (up to 12 in.) deep. Oregon spotted frogs occasionally lay egg masses on floating mats of prostrate reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) in waters that are deeper than typically used (> 30 cm, 12 in.). Breeding The placement of egg masses in comparably warmer shallow waters and the selection of sites that receive minimal shading from the surrounding vegetation also speed development rates. Non-shaded habitat quickly warms on sunny days limiting potential freeze damage from cold nights. Non-shaded habitat also enhances development of algae that live symbiotically in the eggs and may be critical for oxygen delivery to and removal of nitrogenous waste from the innermost embryos in communal clusters. Full solar exposure also seems to be a significant factor in breeding habitat selection. Oviposition sites are in shallow waters with low vegetation structure that does not shade the eggs. Typically these locations are near shore but can also be in areas with extensive shallows. Low vegetation structure is typical of early successional vegetation stages but also can result from cattle grazing, haying and mowing.

Feeding The tadpoles are primarily herbivorous feeding on algae, decaying vegetation and detritus. Metamorphosed frogs prey primarily on invertebrates.

Oregon spotted frogs suffer mortality mainly from predators and chance environmental events. Loss and alteration of wetland habitat. Oregon spotted frogs have life history traits, habitat requirements and population characteristics that make them vulnerable to such loss and limit their distribution. These include 1) a completely aquatic life history; 2) communal reproduction concentrated on the landscape with the same localized breeding areas used annually; 3) high levels of population fluctuation; 4) dispersal limited to aquatic corridors, 5) relatively large permanent wetlands (> 4 ha, 10 ac) that include shallow, warm-water habitats, 6) breeding habitats that have shallow water (≤ 30 cm, 12 in), short vegetation and full sun exposure with relatively stable hydrology and aquatic connectivity to permanent waters, and 7) overwintering habitats that provide adequately Threats oxygenated water and shelter from freezing conditions and predators. Additional threats include geographic isolation of Oregon spotted frog populations, loss of natural processes that set back vegetation succession (e.g., beaver activity), invasion of exotic grasses into shallow wetland habitats, colonization of wetlands by non-native predators, and increase of water-borne pollutants and emerging diseases. Invasive wetland species that alter wetland structure and function impact Oregon spotted frog habitat. Reed canarygrass is present at all Washington sites and is the invasive plant of greatest concern due to the potential loss of Oregon spotted frog habitat from shading and impenetrable thatch. The grasses’ high rate of transpiration and ability to outcompete native plant species also are of concern for Spotted Frog habitat. In the Lower Puget Sound, reed canarygrass is especially problematic because there is no snow pack to compress it and the vertical structure shades breeding habitat. Effects Matrix Oregon Spotted Frog

Life History Covered Activity Sub-Activity Where When Duration Frequency Form Stressor Response to Stressor Conservation Measures Resulting Effects of the Action Conservation Site Management Activities Cut vegetation using hand held devices Tadpoles, Wetland Summer and 1-2 times Crushing Death in wet areas Death Mowing 2-4 days metamorphs habitat fall per year Physical Movement away from Increased energy expenditure to and adults Disturbance disturbance Minimize area of disturbance move away from disturbance Vegetation No mowing in areas dominated by Increased energy expenditure to find removal Loss of cover native vegetation cover from predators Graze only in areas where the water table is typically at least 18 inches Spring Tadpoles, Crushing Death below the ground surface Death Wetland 1-2 times Grazing through late 2-4 weeks metamorphs Physical Movement away from Use grazing only to manage invasive Increased energy expenditure to habitat per year summer and adults Disturbance disturbance non-native grasses move away from disturbance Vegetation Limit or prohibit grazing in areas Increased energy expenditure to find removal Loss of cover dominated by native vegetation cover from predators Search for frogs and move them to other habitat nearby before tarp Tadpoles, Crushing Death installation Death Covering invasive Wetland Once per Year round 2 years metamorphs Physical Movement away from Install tarps outside of the breeding Increased energy expenditure to vegetation with tarps habitat area and adults Disturbance disturbance season move away from disturbance Vegetation Increased energy expenditure to find removal Loss of cover Only cover invasive plants cover from predators Wetland Repair fences outside of the breeding Fence repair habitat All year 1-2 days As needed All life forms Crushing Death season if possible Death Time construction to avoid eggs and Crushing Death tadpoles Death Creation of breeding Late August Once Physical Movement away from Increased energy expenditure to sinks; Driving routes for Wetland Metamorphs through 2-4 weeks every 10- Disturbance disturbance Minimize area of disturbance move to adjacent habitat areas these management habitat and adults October 20 years Minimize vegetation loss; use BMPs activities like mowing Vegetation Loss of cover and like construction mats and designated Increased energy expenditure to find removal foraging habitat routes for driving access new cover and forage Minimize walking through typical Bullfrog and non-native Spring Crushing Death spotted frog breeding and cover areas Death Ponds 2-4 weeks As needed All life forms fish control through Fall Chemical If possible, avoid chemical use in areas Death, injury, or impairment of treatment Exposure to chemicals typically used by spotted frogs bodily functions Conservation Site Monitoring Activities Walk slowly and watch for egg masses Crushing Death and adult frogs Death Movement of adults Late winter Eggs, tadpoles, away from disturbance; Increased energy expenditure to Egg mass and Habitat Wetland 1-3 times through 1-2 days metamorphs Physical Egg detachment and Avoid physical disturbance near egg move away from disturbance, surveys habitat per year summer and adults Disturbance possible egg death masses possible egg death Disinfect boots after surveying wetland areas to avoid spreading fungal disease Spread of disease and death of Pathogens Disease or death to frogs individuals

Page 5

Appendix E. Estimated Funding Requirements

Year 1 Estimated Management and Monitoring Costs for 64-Acre Conservation Site

Average Actions Hours/year Hourly Rate Total Cost Administration including land management and monitoring coordination 20 100 $2,000 Access control/garbage removal/fence repair 20 80 $1,600 Maintain open habitat by mowing and/or managed grazing (in wetland only) 40 80 $3,200 Noxious weed management 10 80 $800 Prescribed burning or other prairie restoration actions 20 80 $1,600 Seeding of burn unit or other cleared areas with native seed mix 10 80 $800 Conduct biological performance monitoring of performance standards 80 100 $8,000 Targeted research/adaptive management 40 100 $4,000 Prepare annual monitoring report and work plan for next year 30 100 $3,000 Update management plan 10 100 $1,000 Expenses - fencing, dumping fees $1,500 Expenses - equipment rental $2,000 Expenses - native seeds and/or plants $1,500 Expenses - travel costs, lodging $1,000 Property taxes $5,100 Insurance (property damage and liability insurance) $350 Total estimated cost for Year 1 $37,450 Equipment rental includes up to one week rental of a tractor with a mower deck