Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Habitat Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County staff outline Habitat Conservation Plan goals: 3,500 acres target, 300 enrolled so far
Summary
County natural-resources staff told the planning commission the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) covers four species, requires developers to pay mitigation fees for off-site restoration, and aims to acquire and restore roughly 3,500 acres over a 30-year period; 300 acres have been enrolled to date.
Thurston County natural-resources staff presented an overview of the county's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) at the May 20 meeting, explaining how the mitigation program is designed to fund landscape-scale habitat restoration while allowing regulated development to proceed under Endangered Species Act coverage.
"We are looking to acquire about 3,500 acres over the life of the 30-year program," the county's natural-resources program manager said. "We have 300 acres enrolled today." Under the plan, developers and other project proponents can obtain incidental-take coverage for four "covered species" by paying mitigation fees; the county uses those fees to buy, restore and steward lands in perpetuity to offset project impacts.
The county's HCP provides coverage for five subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, the Oregon vesper sparrow and the Oregon spotted frog. Staff described how mitigation credits are calculated: they account for both the area and a site's habitat value. Project applicants must first demonstrate avoidance and minimization of impacts before the county calculates required credits and issues a certificate of inclusion.
County staff said mitigation is delivered through county-owned properties that are acquired, baseline-monitored and restored. Restoration can be a long, costly process: depending on site condition, it may take five years for some properties and 15'20 years where invasive species like scotch broom must be controlled before native prairie values are restored.
Commissioners asked whether single-family lots or larger subdivisions are the main driver of take. Staff said single-family projects make up many of the permits by count, but the acreage impacts and revenue that sustain the HCP are driven mainly by larger UG subdivisions and intensive commercial or industrial developments. That revenue is the primary funding source for acquiring mitigation lands.
Staff said the HCP is intended to complement—and not replace—site-specific protections under the county's Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Program. Commissioners and members of the public raised questions about how HCP mitigation sites are protected if annexed or rezoned during future city actions; staff said county ownership and perpetual stewardship commitments generally preserve mitigation value regardless of local annexation.
The HCP team asked commissioners and the public to view mitigation as a long-term, landscape-scale tool that can make up for unavoidable impacts while county CAO and SMP protections continue to apply where relevant.
