Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner previews Tumwater comprehensive plan conservation element; board asks for input on oaks, wetlands and urban wood use
Summary
City planner Anna Bauer presented the draft conservation element of Tumwater’s comprehensive plan, covering agriculture, forestry, wetlands, critical aquifer recharge, Oregon white oak protections, the Habitat Conservation Plan and urban wood utilization; board members provided feedback and requested clarifications.
Anna Bauer, a city planner working on the comprehensive plan’s conservation element, presented a draft of goals, policies and draft implementation actions to the Tumwater Tree Board on Monday. She described the plan’s two-part format: a concise goals/policies/implementation section and a technical background section that documents best-available science.
Bauer framed the draft around state and county requirements, noting tensions between growth-management housing needs and natural-resource protections. She said the draft emphasizes accessibility: “Part 1 is the goals, policies, and implementation items … we wanted that to be a handy document,” and part 2 supplies technical justification and references to state programs.
Key figures Bauer cited during the discussion included: about 7% of the city’s soils are prime farmland (with a larger area potentially prime if drained or irrigated), and roughly 371 acres are enrolled in the state open-space tax program as active forest land. She described conservation protections already in the municipal code and noted sections that will be reviewed and revised, including references to landscaping/street-tree rules and forest protections.
The presentation covered critical areas and habitat protections: wetlands classification and a city policy of “no net loss” for high-quality wetlands; critical aquifer recharge and wellhead protection zones that limit certain pesticide and fertilizer uses near drinking-water wells; and geologically hazardous slopes where development intensity and vegetation removal are regulated. On fish and wildlife, Bauer described how a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) creates a mechanism to allow some development in urban areas while preserving higher-value habitat elsewhere.
The board discussed Oregon white oak specifically. Bauer said critical-areas protections already call out Oregon white oak habitat and cited Fish and Wildlife best-management guidance: developers removing very large oaks for development may face substantial mitigation requirements. In the meeting she noted an example from the guidance that removal of a large oak could require substantial replacement plantings (she referenced mitigation tables and the Fish & Wildlife guidance used to determine replacement numbers).
Board members raised urban wood utilization as a potential implementation focus — keeping usable wood in the community for local mills, artisans and institutional uses rather than sending material to landfill or chips. Bauer and board members discussed building that work into implementation actions and coordinating with the city’s urban forestry management plan.
Bauer closed by asking board members for written comments and reminding the group that the draft would next go to the city’s General Government Committee; the comprehensive plan will ultimately come to the city council for adoption. She asked the Tree Board to send any suggested edits or concerns to the comp-plan email address in the packet.
No adoption or code changes were made at the meeting; Bauer sought the board’s feedback on wording, priorities and possible unintended consequences to be incorporated into the next draft.
