draft thurston county habitat conservation plan · 2016. 5. 3. · capital facilities plan with...

Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department

THURSTON COUNTY | 2000 LAKERIDGE DRIVE SW | OLYMPIA, WA 98502-6045

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan VERSION 0.9 UPDATED MAY 3, 2016

Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan

i

Table of Contents List of Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Addendums ................................................................................................................................................................. vi

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... ix

Section 1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 HCP Vision, Goals, Purpose, and Need ......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Plan Development ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................. 7

Section 2 Description of the Area to be Analyzed ................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 15 2.2 Covered Species and Habitats ..................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Federally Listed Species Not Proposed for Coverage ................................................................. 26

Section 3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................................. 27 3.1 Covered Activities ....................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Permit Duration .......................................................................................................................... 46

Section 4 Analysis of Impacts Likely to Result from the Taking .................................................................... 47 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 47 4.2 Methods of Quantifying Habitat Area and Value for the HCP Species .................................... 47 4.3 Projected Impacts of the Taking Resulting from Covered Activities ........................................... 55 4.4 Effects on Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................... 69

Section 5 Conservation Program ................................................................................................................................ 74 5.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 74 5.2 Biological Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 76 5.3 Minimization Measures .............................................................................................................. 81 5.4 Mitigation Measures: Building the Thurston County Conservation Lands System .................... 82 5.5 Mitigation Measures: County Commitments ............................................................................. 86 5.6 County Landowner Assurances ................................................................................................... 92 5.7 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 93 5.8 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................... 98

Section 6 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 100 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 100 6.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Thurston County ......................................................................... 100 6.3 Process to Obtain Incidental Take Coverage ............................................................................ 104 6.4 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................. 107 6.5 Implementing the Conservation Program ................................................................................ 110 6.6 Data Management .................................................................................................................... 111 6.7 Schedule and Reporting ............................................................................................................ 111 6.8 Changed Circumstances ............................................................................................................ 113 6.9 Unforeseen Circumstances ....................................................................................................... 116 6.10 Amendments ............................................................................................................................. 116 6.11 HCP and Incidental Take Permit Renewal ................................................................................. 118


ii

6.12 Enforcement ............................................................................................................................. 118 6.13 Notice ........................................................................................................................................ 118

Section 7 Costs and Funding ........................................................................................................................................ 120 7.1 Cost to Implement the HCP ...................................................................................................... 120 7.2 Cost Estimate Methodology ...................................................................................................... 121 7.3 Funding Sources and Assurances .............................................................................................. 123

Section 8 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................... 134

Section 9 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 135

Section 10 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................... 138


iii

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of Thurston County in Washington, USA. .............................................................................. 2

Figure 1.2 Thurston County HCP Permit Area............................................................................................................. 4

Figure 1.3 Steps undertaken in the HCP planning, development, and review process. ............................ 6

Figure 2.1 Land cover in Thurston County as defined by National Land Cover Data (Homer et al

2015). ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.2 Subbasins in Thurston County. .................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 2.3 Land use zoning in Thurston County as of 2015. .............................................................................. 19

Figure 2.4 Prairie–Oak AOI of the Thurston County HCP. .................................................................................... 24

Figure 2.5 Oregon spotted frog Habitat Screen for the Thurston County HCP. ........................................... 25

Figure 3.1 Typical road and bridge maintenance cross sections. ...................................................................... 35

Figure 4.1 HCP impacts analysis process summary. ............................................................................................... 48

Figure 5.1 Primary strategies of the HCP Conservation Program. ................................................................... 74

Figure 5.2 Focal Areas and Reserve Priority Areas in the Conservation Lands System. ......................... 75

Figure 5.3 Biological objectives for Goal 1. ................................................................................................................. 78



Figure 5.6 Projected timing of impact minimization in over the permit term of the HCP. ..................... 81

Figure 5.7 Integration of the HCP conservations strategies into the Conservation Lands System. ... 84

Figure 5.8 Projected timing of securing working lands agreements in over the permit term of the

HCP (1.0 ac = 0.4 ha). ........................................................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 5.9 Projected timing of permanently protecting new lands over the permit term of the HCP.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 5.10 Projected timing of securing additional habitat value for legacy existing conservation

lands over the permit term of the HCP (1.0 ac = 0.4 ha). ...................................................................................... 91

Figure 6.1 Diagram of process to receive a Thurston County HCP Participation Agreement. All

projects need to meet other normal County permitting requirements. Land use projects that do not

require a county permit, but may impact listed species should work with USFWS to determine

whether a proposed project or action is likely to result in take. .................................................................... 106

Figure 6.2 Guild 1 Mazama pocket gopher service areas in Thurston County. ......................................... 108


iv

List of Tables Table 1.1 Covered species and primary habitats of the Thurston County HCP. ............................................ 5

Table 2.1 Land use by zoning in Thurston County as of 2013. .......................................................................... 18

Table 2.2 Partial list of protected, conserved, managed, or publicly owned lands containing covered

species in Thurston County. .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Table 2.3 Prairie–Oak Habitat Guilds in the Thurston County HCP. ................................................................ 21

Table 2.4 Prairie soils with documented use by MPG subspecies in Thurston County (USFWS 2016).

....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 2.5. Federally listed species not proposed for coverage in the Thurston County HCP. .............. 26

Table 3.1 Covered activity summary for residential development................................................................... 28

Table 3.2 Covered activity summary for accessory structures added to existing (pre-HCP)

residential development. .................................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 3.3 Covered activity summary for extended septic system installation or repair and home

heating oil tank removal. .................................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 3.4 Covered activity summary for commercial and industrial development................................... 30

Table 3.5 Covered activity summary for public service facility construction. ............................................. 32

Table 3.6 Transportation projects expected to occur in HCP habitats as identified by the 20 year

Capital Facilities Plan with extrapolated estimates from years 20 through 30. Annual impact areas

are unknown, but can be estimated as 1/30th of the 30-year projections. .................................................... 33

Table 3.7 Covered activity summary for transportation capital projects construction. .......................... 34

Table 3.8 Drainage System Types ................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 3.9 Covered activity summary for transportation maintenance and work in right-of-way. ..... 42

Table 3.10 Covered activity summary for landfill and solid waste management. ...................................... 43

Table 3.11 Covered activity summary for water resources management. .................................................... 45

Table 3.12 Covered activity summary for County parks, trails, and land management. ......................... 46

Table 4.1 Covered Activities and Projected Take of Habitat. .............................................................................. 49

Table 4.2 Factors used to determine the value of a site for MPGs, and the scores used for each factor

in the analysis of habitat value. Based on USFWS guidance (August 2015). ............................................... 50

Table 4.3 Distribution of prairie-oak habitat in County jurisdiction across MPG habitat categories

for each MPG subspecies. ................................................................................................................................................... 52

Table 4.4 Potential occupancy values from PHAM (Addendum B: Prairie Habitat Assessment

Methodology Documentation), which indicate the predicted likelihood (0= Zero likelihood, 1 =

100% likelihood) that a habitat type’s physical and biological resources can support the species in

the prairie-oak guilds. .......................................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 4.5 Distribution of 200 randomly selected points within PHAM habitat types across the

Prairie–Oak AOI. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 4.6 Projected impacts for all covered activities over the 30-year HCP............................................... 56

Table 4.7 Impacts from new residential development. ......................................................................................... 59

Table 4.8 Impacts from added accessory structures. ............................................................................................. 60

Table 4.9 Impacts from septic system extension or repair and home heating oil tank decommission.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61

Table 4.10 Impacts from commercial and industrial development. ................................................................ 62

Table 4.11 Impacts from public service facility construction. ............................................................................ 63


v

Table 4.12 Impacts from transportation projects. ................................................................................................... 64

Table 4.13 Impacts from transportation maintenance and all work in County road right-of-way. .... 65

Table 4.14 Impacts from landfill and solid waste management. ....................................................................... 67

Table 4.15 Impacts from water resources management. ..................................................................................... 68

Table 4.16 Impacts from County parks, trails, and land management. ........................................................... 69

Table 4.17 Summary of anticipated effects to critical habitat from HCP covered activities.

Application of Best Management Practices and avoidance will minimize impacts. .................................. 70

Table 4.18 Anticipated potential effects to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly critical habitat from

development covered under the HCP. .......................................................................................................................... 73

Table 5.1 HCP biological goals by species guild. ....................................................................................................... 77

Table 5.2 HCP minimization measures. ........................................................................................................................ 81

Table 5.3 HCP working lands and outreach strategy objectives and conservation measures. ............. 87

Table 5.4 HCP new conservation lands strategy objectives and conservation measures. ...................... 89

Table 5.5 HCP legacy lands support strategy objectives and conservation measures. ............................ 91

Table 5.6 Adaptive management triggers and responses. .................................................................................... 99

Table 6.1 Milestones for HCP implementation. (Milestones for conservation program’s biological

objectives are provided in Sections 5.4 and 5.5) ................................................................................................... 111

Table 6.2 Summary of possible changed circumstances during the term of the incidental take

permit. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 113

Table 7.1 Projected HCP costs by category and implementation period (2015 dollars). ..................... 120

Table 7.2 HCP revenue by funding source for two HCP funding scenarios. ............................................... 124

Table 7.3 HCP funding sources. .................................................................................................................................... 125


vi

List of Appendices Appendix A. HCP Outreach Summary (in development)

Appendix B. Best Management Practices

Appendix C: Bridge Maintenance Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)

Appendix D: Beaver Dam Management Plan

Appendix E: Thurston County HCP Oregon Spotted Frog Survey System

Appendix F: Covered Species Critical Habitat PCEs

Appendix G: Model Conservation Easement

Appendix H: Site Management Plan Template

Appendix I: Conservation Lands Prioritization Criteria

Appendix J: Performance Standards for Conservation Lands

Appendix K: Thurston County HCP Determination Letter, Participation Agreement, and

Memorandum of Participation Template

Appendix L: Sample Annual Compliance Report

Appendix M: Summary of Covered Activities Impacts

Appendix N: HCP Implementation Guide (in development)

List of Addendums Addendum A. Species and Habitat Descriptions

Addendum B. Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology Documentation

Acknowledgements


vii

List of Acronyms The following is a list of acronyms used in the Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan.

AOI – Area of Interest

BMP – Best Management Practice

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CNLM – Center for Natural Lands Management

EA – Environmental Assessment

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

ESA – Endangered Species Act

HCP – Habitat Conservation Plan

ITP – Incidental Take Permit

JBLM - Joint Base Lewis-McChord

MPG – Mazama pocket gopher

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NLCD – National Land Cover Dataset

OPG – Olympia pocket gopher (subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher)

OSF – Oregon spotted frog

PHAM – Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology

ROW – Right-of-Way

SMA – Special Management Areas

TCB – Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

TPG – Tenino pocket gopher (subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher)

UNK – Currently unknown subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher

YPG – Yelm pocket gopher (subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher)

TRPC – Thurston Regional Planning Council


viii

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WDFW – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR – Washington Department of Natural Resources

WSDOT – Washington Department of Transportation


ix

Executive Summary Background and Purpose

Thurston County is a great place to live and work, and its population has grown significantly in the

last 50 years. That growth has changed the habitat available to support multiple unique species that

rely on prairie, oak, wetland, and riparian areas. The Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan

(HCP) is a 30-year plan intended to:

Provide certainty and Endangered Species Act authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) for a wide range of activities undertaken, permitted, or funded by

Thurston County within the unincorporated areas of the County;

Coordinate conservation efforts for 12 species associated with prairie-oak and wetland/riparian habitat across the County;

Allow for economic development—constructing homes, starting businesses, and building

the infrastructure needed to support a vibrant Thurston County; and

Support Thurston County’s rural character, working agriculture lands, and the open space

lands that makes the County a great place to live, work, and play.

The HCP Plan Area includes all of unincorporated Thurston County that intersects habitat for the 12

covered species. For ease of implementation, prairie-oak areas of interest (AOI) have been

organized by habitat Guilds. Guild 1 includes prairie soils that support listed MPG. Guild 2 includes

native prairie vegetation that provides Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly and other butterfly habitat.

Guild 3 includes open prairie spaces where Streaked horned lark and Oregon vesper sparrow may

be found. Guild 4 includes oak savanna and woodlands used by such species as Western gray

squirrel. There is also a fifth habitat type for Oregon Spotted Frog found in wetland and riparian

areas (see Figure i). Habitat areas are described in Section 2.2.1 of the HCP, and exclude city

jurisdictions and federal lands such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord.


x

Figure i. Habitat within the HCP Plan Area.

With this HCP, USFWS will provide an incidental take permit for the covered species (Table i) and

covered activities (Table ii) within the HCP giving the County local control over the actions needed

to protect and enhance habitat for rare and endangered species.

Table i. HCP Covered Species

Habitat ESA listed species (Common Name)

Other rare species (Common Name)

Guild 1 Prairie Soils

Mazama pocket gopher (3 subspecies)

Guild 2 Native Prairie

Vegetation

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

Other butterflies (Puget blue butterfly; valley silverspot butterfly; hoary elfin; Oregon

branded skipper; Mardon skipper) Guild 3 Open Space

Prairies Streaked horned lark Oregon vesper sparrow

Guild 4 Oak Savanna and Woodland

Slender-billed white-breasted nuthatch;

Western gray squirrel Wetland/Riparian

Oregon spotted frog

Wetland/Riparian


xi

Table ii. Covered Activities and Projected Take of Habitat

* 1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

Covered Activities and Projected Impacts

The HCP covers the activities listed in Table ii likely to occur in habitat required for HCP species.

The HCP used Thurston Regional Planning Council’s projections for residential, commercial, and

industrial development, capital improvement plans for transportation and other public facilities,

and information from other sources to identify likely covered activity locations between 2015 and

2045. Those activity locations were mapped with habitat locations to identify the likely area and

value of habitat affected by covered activities for the five HCP habitat types (four types of prairie-

oak habitat plus wetland/riparian habitat for Oregon spotted frog). Overall impacts were measured

using a combination of habitat quality and quantity—a functional acre. One functional acre is equal

to an acre of very high quality, high functioning habitat. The HCP is required to provide

conservation measures that avoid, minimize, then mitigate for the functional acres impacted by

covered activities over the next 30 years. The estimated take of habitat in Table ii below are for HCP

planning purposes. The County is only required to mitigate for the actual impacts that occur during

the plan period.

If all the HCP-projected take occurs, between 18-34% of soils preferred by Mazama pocket gopher

could be altered by covered activities. Very few impacts are projected for Oregon spotted frog

habitat (1.4% of available habitat), oak woodland species (16% of habitat), covered bird species

(13.5% of available habitat), and covered butterfly species (8.7% of available habitat).

The majority of impacts are likely to accrue from residential development that will occur mostly on

prairie soils (Guild 1 habitat) in areas with low preference soils for Mazama pocket gopher and not

next to known populations of covered species. There are projected impacts to some high quality

habitat for several of the covered species. The HCP’s Conservation Program is intended to mitigate

for impacts that are unavoidable, but also provide a common-sense approach to conservation that

secures the open and working lands with habitat needed to support the unique species in Thurston

County.

Covered Activity 30-year Projected

Area of Activity (acres)

30-year Projected

Impacts (functional acres)

To Minimize

(func. acres)

To Mitigate

(func. acres)

Residential Development 12,718 5,331 1,919 3,412

Added Accessory Structures 700 290 104 185

Septic extension or repair, heating oil tank

decommission (temporary)

273 123 44 79

Commerical & Industrial Development 1347 955 344 611

Public Service Facilities 143 89 30 57

Landfill/Solid Waste Management 59 24 8 15

Transportation Projects 342 184 63 118

Transportation Maintenance & Work in right of

way (temporary)

1101 474 161 303

Water Resources Management 136 55 19 35

County Parks, Trails, and Land Management 47 39 13 25

TOTAL 16,866 7,564 2,647 4,916


xii

Conservation Program

The HCP’s conservation program is intended to build a network of conservation lands that support

habitat. Those conservation lands will be targeted in reserve priority areas (see Figure ii)—the

most important habitats for covered species. A reserve priority area will be made up of natural area

reserves (cores and corridors) and working lands (see Figure iii). The County will also support

compatible land uses connecting reserve priority areas. Together, these conservation lands will

support efforts to recover and support the range of species covered by the HCP. No one partner can

implement the conservation program—private landowners, community organizations, and

government partners need coordinated efforts.

The conservation program is intended to conserve 7,564 functional acres (3061 functional

hectares) of habitat suitable for multiple species, which is what will be required to avoid, minimize,

and compensate for impacts to covered species that result from covered activities. For the purposes

of projecting conservation need for the HCP, high quality habitat is assumed to provide about 90%

of the of possible habitat value for covered species. In other words, every acre of high quality

habitat protected in the conservation program will provide about 0.9 functional acres of credit on

average. The 90% is based on the habitat value provided in USFWS’ spreadsheet for MPG described

in Section 4.2.1.2.

Figure ii. Focal and Reserve Priority Areas.


xiii

Figure iii. Conservation Lands System Categories.

Those 7,564 functional acres (3061 functional hectares) will be achieved with a portfolio of

strategies (see Figure v for likely distribution of conservation area by strategy) that include:

New acquisition, core habitat conservation easements, and working lands conservation easements on conservation lands that are enhanced to high quality habitat and/or

maintained as working lands—all maintained in perpetuity;

Additional enhancement and maintenance endowments for existing conservation lands;

A working lands strategy that provides County assurances for voluntary conservation on

private lands, and landowner incentives tied to 15-yr working lands agreements; and

Minimizing impacts to habitat through acquisitions and easements completed through programs run by County partners (e.g., Department of Defense, State of Washington, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, and USFWS programs). An Incidental Take Permit cannot rely

on commitments from other federal agencies. In the event County partners are not able to

secure habitat to avoid impacts, the County will increase the conservation contributions of

the new conservation and working lands strategies. Partner-secured conservation lands

cannot be used to mitigate HCP impacts, but their protection will reduce the total impacts

anticipated under the HCP.


xiv

Figure iv. HCP conservation strategies, all targeted to Reserve Priority Areas.

Figure v. Likely distribution of functional acre targets by conservation strategy.

2,804

1,800

1,620

756585

Functional Acres by Conservation Strategy

Minimization New Lands: Core

New Lands: WorkingLandsEasements Existing Lands

Working Lands


xv

The conservation program needs to “keep pace” with the impacts generated by covered activities

(i.e., the County may never impact the anticipated 7,564 functional acres, so would only need a

conservation program for the acreage actually impacted). The HCP also includes several “jump

ahead” provisions that allow certainty for development as the conservation program ramps up.

These jump ahead provisions include:

An accounting every 5 years to ensure that conserved functional acres are equal to or greater than the functional acres impacted for each habitat type and in each service area of

the County. In interim years, there may be slight mismatches between where and how much

habitat has been conserved and where and how much has been impacted.

The County is responsible for reporting, annually, functional acres impacted by habitat type and service area to USFWS.

Providing enhancement funds and maintenance endowments for existing conservation

lands—taking functional acre “credit” proportional to the additional habitat value created

by the HCP conservation program funds or other eligible funding invested in the project.

The County will also conduct the required compliance and effectiveness monitoring described

in Section 5.7.2 of the HCP.

New Conservation Lands

USFWS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Service have mapped Reserve Priority

Areas (Figure iii) that are important for conservation. All new acquisitions and easements will be

targeted to these areas wherever feasible. New conservation lands will also be prioritized where

multiple habitats are provided for multiple covered species (e.g., across the three subspecies of

Mazama pocket gopher or with both wet and upland prairie to support frog and butterfly habitat).

For each conservation site, the County or its designee will prepare a site management plan that

describes:

The current habitat conditions on the site;

The planned habitat enhancement and desired future conditions;

The functional acres of habitat provided by the site;

A plan for the ongoing maintenance and performance standards for the site;

Adaptive management parameters; and

Assurances and contingency plans for maintaining habitat quantity and value in perpetuity.

Each site management plan will be reviewed by an HCP Implementation Team. It is estimated that

3,420 functional acres of new conservation lands, secured in perpetuity via working lands

easement, conservation easement, or fee title, will be used as mitigation for unavoidable,

permanent impacts from covered activities under the HCP.

Legacy Conservation Lands

There are a number of publicly-owned lands currently managed for habitat, but with gaps in

resources needed to enhance habitat value and maintain that value in perpetuity. Under the HCP,


xvi

the County will provide enhancement and maintenance endowment funds for only up to 756

functional acres of existing conservation land. It is estimated that this equates to 1,800 acres (728

ha) of enhanced or maintained Legacy Lands, since the County cannot take mitigation credit for the

portion of a project funded by state or federal conservation funds.

The County will select existing conservation lands in coordination with current land managers and

the HCP Implementation Team. Each existing conservation land site will be subject to the same site

management plan and other requirements expected for new conservation lands in order to be used

as mitigation for unavoidable impacts under the HCP.

Working Lands

The good stewardship of Thurston County’s agriculture, forest, and other rural landowners is a big

reason why remaining habitat exists, and an essential element of any type of conservation strategy.

There needs to be an easy way to work with landowners to provide habitat in a way compatible

with how they’ve managed their land for years. This HCP’s working lands strategy is designed to

recognize the good stewardship of landowners and provide the resources and assurances they need

to continue supporting habitat on their lands.

The working lands strategy includes:

Neighboring landowner assurances for all landowners contiguous and adjacent to a new or

existing conservation land site. The County assurances allow a landowner to establish a

baseline/current habitat value for their property with the certainty that after 15 years, and

habitat value has increased, they can impact habitat on their property back to the value

established by the baseline. The County or its designee will work with the landowners to

establish the baseline, and the County will provide HCP Participation Agreements to willing

neighboring landowners;

Incentive payments for 15-year working lands easements that protect habitat and uses

compatible with habitat (e.g., managed grazing or other compatible uses for Mazama pocket

gopher); and

Access to technical assistance enhancing and maintaining habitat for landowners enrolled in an assurances or working lands easement program.

The HCP will prioritize working lands 15-year agreements within Reserve Priority Areas for about

585 functional acres of a diverse set of habitats. Those 585 functional acres will be used to mitigate

for the temporary impacts generated by ongoing road maintenance activities.

Minimizing Impacts

The HCP defines a set of best management practices (BMPs) for a number of covered activities

designed to minimize projected impacts. For example, the County’s Critical Areas Ordinance,

County outreach, and limited buildability is likely to avoid impacts in much of the core wetland

habitat suitable for Oregon spotted frog. Similarly, County public works will integrate the HCP

BMPs with existing measures and protocols to minimize the impacts of its maintenance activities

within existing road right of ways and waterways.


xvii

Yet, most impact minimization is likely to come from the ongoing and coordinated efforts of

partners in Thurston County that have been working for many years to protect, enhance, and

restore prairie, oak, and wetland/riparian habitat. Millions have been invested and will likely

continue to be invested by partners like Department of Defense and USDA’s Natural Resource

Conservation Service. When a land trust acquires 100 acres (40 ha) of habitat that the HCP had

predicted would be used for commercial development, then there are 100 fewer acres (40 ha) the

County will need to assure mitigation for.

Avoiding impacts is one of the most cost-effective conservation strategies for the County. It is

projected that the following programs will actively achieve conservation in Thurston County, and

acquire 2,804 or more functional acres (or 3,115 acres/1,261 ha) of habitat in the next 30 years:

Army Compatible Use Buffer Program;

USDA Agriculture Conservation Easement Program;

WWRP and RCO acquisitions through Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; and

In addition, the County wide HCP, once in place, will make entities in the County eligible to compete

for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund HCP Land Acquisition Grants, to acquire

land associated with the HCP.

Implementation: How Will it All Work?

Thurston County’s Resource Stewardship Department, under direction of the Board of County

Commissioners, will oversee implementation of the HCP. The County will convene an HCP

Implementation Team to support selection of conservation sites and advise on other aspects of HCP

implementation. The elements of implementation include:

Review of permit applications that intersect habitat for covered species (Resource Stewardship);

Application of BMPs and other measures to minimize impacts (County Departments and County permit applications);

Assessment of relevant fees in lieu of land dedication (Resource Stewardship);

Recruitment, enhancement, and maintenance for conservation sites (Land management

partners);

Selecting conservation projects and distributing funds to secure, enhance, and maintain habitat (County in coordination with its HCP Implementation Team); and

Overseeing monitoring and submitting required HCP reports (Resource Stewardship).

Permit Review

Resource Stewardship will provide habitat screening information that allows permit applicants to

identify potential habitat within their site proposed for development. If there is no habitat, the

permit goes through normal County review procedures. If there is habitat, the County will review

permits as detailed in Section 6. Applicants will have the option of an expedited or expanded

review. Expedited review will rely on mapped data whereas an expanded review will include site

surveys following specific protocol.

Applying Minimization Measures


xviii

The HCP describes several best management practices to avoid and minimize impacts for a subset

of covered activities. County departments (e.g., public works) or permittees (e.g., utility companies)

are responsible for implementing these BMPs.

Implementing the Conservation Program

Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department, in close coordination with an HCP

Implementation Team, will oversee the Conservation Program. It is expected that private

landowners, conservation organizations, private business, and government land managers will all

play a role in recruiting conservation lands, enhancing habitat, and maintaining conservation lands

in perpetuity. From time to time, the County will issue a call for conservation projects that include

new conservation lands and improvements to existing conservation lands. Anyone is welcome to

respond to that call for projects. The County, with advice from the HCP Implementation Team, will

select from submitted project ideas, review and approve site management plans, recommend

funding distributions, and review monitoring reports and mitigation credit release schedules. The

County will record all conservation benefits and report those benefits to USFWS.

The Working Lands Strategy will be overseen by the County, but implemented in close coordination

with Thurston Conservation District and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The County

and its partners will work with willing landowners, and will develop site management plans,

document baseline conditions, and enter into agreements with landowners.

Funding the Conservation Program and Administration of the HCP

The County is required to provide USFWS with assurances that the HCP can be funded and

implemented. The County anticipates using a number of funding sources that shares responsibility

for implementing the HCP with new development and existing residents that benefited from past

development. The financing projections for the HCP were based on funding the Conservation

Strategy described above, shown if figure v. and described in greater detail in Section 5.

The funding estimates in this HCP are not worst or best case scenario, but they are intended to

cover the true 30-year costs of HCP implementation with some room for unanticipated

circumstances.

Projected 30-year costs for the HCP

The full cost of implementing the HCP is expected to be about $5.1 million per year, or

$154,050,189 over the full 30-year plan period (see Figure vi).


xix

Figure vi. HCP cost estimates by category over time.

The County will use a portfolio of funding sources to implement the HCP. Thurston County is fully

committed to fund and implement the HCP in its entirety. Although the measures may be modified

during the term of the Incidental Take Permit, the County shall ensure that adequate, reliable

funding is in place for the life of the HCP and measures are in place to deal with unforeseen

circumstances. The HCP financing plan represents two likely scenarios, but the County can use any

combination of financing tools so long as the conservation program continues to keep pace with

impacts under the HCP. The financing plan represents a commitment to shared responsibility

between existing and new development, and a commitment by Thurston County communities to

invest in a network of open spaces that support economic activity, community amenities, and a

legacy of protected habitat.

Financing the HCP

Funding will be sourced from development-based funding, and/or other local, and state and federal

funding. It is anticipated that the County will implement a payment in lieu of land dedication (called

a Voluntary Agreement under Washington law) for new development to fund acquisition of new

conservation lands. Other local funding (e.g., a property tax lid lift, a Real Estate Excise Tax, or a

Local Improvement District) will provide funds for habitat enhancement and ongoing maintenance.

State and federal sources will contribute to the avoidance conservation strategy, but will not be

used for mitigation unless expressly eligible for that purpose. Some of these funding sources will

depend on voter approval or authorization from County partners. Financing the HCP is described in

detail in Section 7.


xx

Figure vii. HCP annual financing by funding source (Shared Responsibility & County Sources

Scenarios).

Using the HCP

The full HCP that follows provides additional detail on each of the topics discussed below. Those

details provide a dual purpose of meeting USFWS’ requirements for an HCP and the accompanying

incidental take permit, and providing a blueprint to the County and its partners for implementation.

Table iii summarizes the important USFWS permit issuance criteria with each major element of the

HCP. Sections 1 and 2 of the HCP describe the geographic extent of the HCP, covered species, and

the environmental context for the HCP. Sections 3 and 4 describe the County-led or permitted

activities covered by the HCP and the anticipated take and impacts from those covered activities

over the 30-year life of the HCP. Sections 5 and 6 describe the HCP Conservation Program and

Implementation measures that will minimize, then mitigate for any unavoidable take of covered

species. Section 7 describes the HCP’s anticipated costs and the County’s funding assurances to

implement the HCP. A number of Appendices provide additional detail to sections of the HCP. The

County will also provide implementation tools and other information on its website (WEBLINK).


xxi

Table iii. USFWS Permit Issuance Criteria and HCP Plan Summary

Issuance Criteria HCP Plan Section and Short Description

Taking will be incidental

Covered activities are clearly defined (Section 3), and

associated incidental impacts are quantified and described

(Section 4)

Impacts of taking are minimized

and mitigated to the maximum

extent practicable

The HCP defines minimization BMPs for several covered

activities (Section 4), incorporates minimization into County

permit reviews (Section 6), and provides for mitigation of all

remaining impacts (Section 5 and 6).

Ensure adequate funding for the

HCP and procedures to deal with

unforeseen circumstances

The County is committed to funding the HCP in full through A)

sources currently under its control, or B) a countywide

funding measure (Section 7). The County has articulated

actions if unforeseen circumstances affect funding adequacy

(Section 7.3.4).

Taking will not appreciably

reduce the likelihood of survival

and recovery of the species in the

wild

The HCP’s Impact Analysis (Section 4) defines take quantities

and impacts to remaining habitat for each covered species.

Impacts are largely to lower quality habitat. The HCP’s

Conservation Program (Section 5) articulates strategies for

conserving significant acreage in reserve priority areas with

adequate funding for enhancement to high quality habitat and

management in perpetuity (Section 7).

Other measures USFWS has

required as necessary and

appropriate will be provided

To be determined by USFWS.

The Service has received other

assurances that the HCP will be

implemented

Prior to issuance of the Incidental Take Permit, the County will

adopt an Implementing Ordinance for the HCP that enacts the

Conservation Program (including mitigation requirements),

commits funding, and activates the other Implementation

sections of the HCP (Section 6).

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Introduction and Background

1

Section 1 Introduction and Background

Thurston County is located in western Washington, south of the major metropolitan areas of Seattle

and Tacoma (Figure 1.1). The County population increased substantially in the last 50 years (from

64,400 residents in 1965 to 267,400 residents in 2015). These growth rates, some of the fastest in

the nation (TRPC 2012b), support an important economy. Thurston County is projected to grow

71,200 jobs from 128,500 in 2010 to nearly 200,000 in 2045, and it will take about 62,000 new

homes to support those people and businesses (TRPC 2014). Thurston County is a great place to

live, work, and play. People value the County’s rural character, its farms, and its cities. People also

value its open spaces.

Although Thurston County’s growth has brought many benefits to the area, it has also fragmented

the natural mosaic of wetland and riparian habitat, prairies, oak savannas, woodlands, and conifer

forests. As people built homes and businesses, and communities built schools, water and sewer

lines, and roads, prairie habitat that once covered more than 180,380 acres (ac) (73,000 hectares

(ha)) before Euro-American settlement declined to less than 17, 300 ac (7,000 ha) (Crawford and

Hall 1997). Those declines in prairie habitat occurred commensurate with reductions in associated

oak and wetland/riparian habitats.

As the quantity of prairie habitat has declined, quality of remaining prairie habitat has also

decreased. Of the remaining prairie habitat in the South Puget Sound, estimates suggest that only

2-3% is still dominated by native prairie species (Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011). Part of this decline

in prairie habitat quality is due to the cessation of regular burning of prairie ecosystems and

encroachment from nonnative invasive species, but development has also played a significant role

(Crawford and Hall 1997). Invasive species (e.g., reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea) have also

impacted wetland and riparian habitat quality and function, and has altered hydrology across the

landscape of Thurston County.

Multiple prairie-oak dependent species have declined to the extent that they have been listed as

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et

seq., ESA). Others are identified as endangered, threatened, or sensitive by the state of Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Many species persist on a limited number of protected

natural areas managed by state and federal resource agencies or conservation organizations (e.g.,

the Center for Natural Lands Management; CNLM), which are not sufficient to support functioning

and sustainable populations of these species into the future.

The County is proactively addressing ESA compliance concerns on behalf of its citizens, and

anticipating another 30 years of growth in the County. That growth will have unavoidable impacts

for prairie-oak and wetland/riparian habitat and species dependent on them, and the County wants

to provide certainty for transportation safety and development consistent with the ESA. This

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is being developed as a component of an application to the US Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for an incidental take permit (ITP) for activities conducted and/or

approved by Thurston County. The ITP will limit liability under the ESA, provide long-term

regulatory certainty for the County and landowners, and increase predictability and local control,


2

while also providing for the establishment of a network of open space and habitat lands intended to

conserve prairie ecosystems and their associated inhabitants into perpetuity.

Figure 1.1 Location of Thurston County in Washington, USA.

1.1 HCP Vision, Goals, Purpose, and Need

This HCP is designed to provide: predictability for the next 30 years of development in Thurston

County, conservation measures to contribute to the conservation of rare, threatened and

endangered species by establishing and managing a system of conservation lands that assist in the

recovery of these species to such an extent that federal or state listing status is no longer necessary,

and the actions necessary for issuance of an incidental take permit from the USFWS. The HCP aims

for a balance—providing for the viability of rare species and the habitats they rely on and thriving

economies and communities that make Thurston County a great place to live.

The overarching goals1 of this HCP are to:

1 The specific biological goals and objectives of this HCP, per USFWS 5 Point Policy, are included in Section 5: Conservation Program.


3

• Create a common sense approach to conservation that protects and enhances the lands

needed to support viable prairie-oak and wetland/riparian ecosystems;

• Protect a network of working lands that retain value as habitat for rare species while

also supporting agriculture and the County’s rural character;

• Provide certainty for economic growth and development; and

• Achieve compliance with ESA protections and regulations to provide long-term

certainty for growth and economic development in Thurston County.

The purpose of this HCP is to fulfill the requirements necessary to obtain an ITP. The HCP also

establishes and describes the program of conservation measures Thurston County commits to

implement for the protection and enhancement of prairie-oak and wetland/riparian ecosystems,

and to offset any impacts to species (called incidental take2) resulting from the activities covered by

the HCP (called covered activities, see Section 3: Covered Activities). Implementation of the HCP will

require creative partnerships among the County, its local citizens, local entities, and USFWS—the

primary regulatory authority.

An ITP can be issued to the County that allows a limited amount of impacts to the covered species, if

the following criteria are satisfied: (i) the taking will be incidental; (ii) the applicant will, to the

maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (iii) the applicant

will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (iv) the taking will not appreciably

reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (v) the measures, if

any, required under subparagraph (A)(iv) will be met (ESA, Section 10(a)(1)(B)).

The County is voluntarily seeking an ITP from USFWS to cover activities it takes, permits, or funds

which have the potential to incidentally impact listed species (see Section 3: Covered Activities and

Section 4: Impacts Analysis for more on coverage and limitations of coverage). The County is not

required to obtain an ITP but must comply with the ESA. Participation in the County’s HCP is also

voluntary. County permittees, departments, and partners may choose to pursue consultation

directly with the USFWS and development of an HCP as part of their own application for an ITP. The

County HCP is intended to save time and money through more certain development timelines and

requirements.

Thurston County will implement the conservation measures spelled out in this HCP upon issuance

of the requested ITP. The HCP identifies how the County intends to avoid, or minimize and mitigate

to the maximum extent practicable, impacts to the HCP covered species and their habitats (prairie-

oak and wetland/riparian) from the covered activities identified in the ITP.

The County’s HCP will cover four listed species in addition to a diversity of rare and sensitive, but

currently unlisted species (see Table 1.1 and Section 1.2.2). By including both listed species and

2 Defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. Harm may include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures a listed species through impairment of essential behavior (e.g., nesting or reproduction).


4

currently unlisted but sensitive species in the HCP, the County is taking proactive steps to provide

30 years of development certainty and conservation action at a programmatic and landscape scale.

1.2 Proposed Action

1.2.1 Geographic Scope- HCP Plan and Permit Area

The plan area for this HCP is the entirety of Thurston County, and includes all areas that may be

influenced by HCP implementation regardless of ownership, political boundaries, or whether take is

likely to occur. The plan area includes sites such as those where off-site mitigation may occur,

downstream or down-slope areas where erosion or sedimentation effects could result from covered

activities, or where benefits resulting from HCP implementation are expected.

The permit area for this HCP includes lands over which Thurston County has permitting authority

and where the covered activities and resulting take will occur—approximately 403,925 ac (163,463

ha) (Figure 1.2). The permit area excludes the areas that lie within the incorporated boundaries of

the County’s seven cities and towns that are not owned or under the jurisdiction of Thurston

County as of December 31, 2015. The coverage area also excludes tribal lands and federal lands,

including those held and managed by the Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) military base. Federal

wildlife refuges, national forests, and the Department of Defense and JBLM consult directly with

USFWS for actions under their control which may affect listed species or their habitats in

accordance with their obligations under Section 7 of the ESA.

Figure 1.2 Thurston County HCP Permit Area.


5

1.2.2 Habitats and Species to be Covered by the Permit

The HCP includes 12 species (Table 1.1) that rely on prairie-oak habitats in much of the County and

wetland/riparian habitat in the Black River watershed including two mammals, three birds, one

amphibian, and six butterflies.

Table 1.1 Covered species and primary habitats of the Thurston County HCP.

Common Name Scientific Name

Status Federal

Status State*

Prairie – Oak Habitat

Mazama pocket gopher

(3 subspecies)**

Thomomys mazama, including spp. yelmensis, tumuli, and pugetensis

Threatened Threatened

Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris

strigata Threatened Endangered

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

Euphydryas editha taylori

Threatened Endangered

Oregon vesper sparrow

Pooecetes gramineus Candidate Candidate

Puget blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides

blackmorei Candidate Candidate

Hoary elfin Callophrys polios SCGN

Oregon branded skipper

Hesperia colorado oregonia

SGCN

Mardon skipper Polites mardon Species of Concern

Endangered

Valley silverspot butterfly

Speyeria zerene Species of Concern

-

Slender-billed white-breasted nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis aculeate

Candidate Candidate

Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus Species of Concern

Threatened

Wetland/Riparian Habitat

Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa Threatened Endangered

* SCGN: Species of Greatest Conservation Need

**An area of the County contains an unknown subspecies, presumed to be either T. m. pugetensis or T. m.

yelmensis. This area is temporarily identified as “unknown subspecies”, and impacts occurring in that area won’t

be assigned to either Olympia or Yelm pocket gopher.

1.3 Plan Development

Thurston County began the HCP development process in 2010, and obtained funding through a

Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance grant under the Cooperative Endangered Species

Conservation Fund administered by WDFW with funds from USFWS. A broad overview of the

major steps in the HCP plan development process is illustrated in (Figure 1.3).


6

Figure 1.3 Steps undertaken in the HCP planning, development, and review process.

Complete field

surveys and

assess habitat

assessment

methods

Develop Habitat

Assessment Mechanisms

Identify HCP Coverage

Area and Covered

Activities

Stakeholder

and Technical

Input

Develop Draft HCP

NEPA

Process

Quantify Estimated

Impacts from Future

Covered Activities

Identify Conservation

Measures and Strategy

Complete Public and USFWS

Review

Finalize HCP

Incidental Take Permit Issued

Identify Implementation

Process and Funding

Mechanisms


7

The Thurston Board of County Commissioners3 designated the Thurston County Resource

Stewardship Department to lead the HCP development process. The County used input from

technical advisors, consultants, stakeholders, and interested members of the public to identify

covered lands, activities, and develop the Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology (PHAM) as one

of the quantification tools of the HCP. Thurston County worked closely with the Thurston Regional

Planning Council (TRPC) and multiple departments within Thurston County to ensure the HCP

would address the County’s forecasted population growth, development, and land use needs within

the requested term of the HCP.

Thurston County contracted with Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE) and Willamette Partnership

(WP) to assist with the development of the HCP. The County and consultants also worked with

USFWS and WDFW to provide technical assistance and advice.

1.3.1 Public Outreach

Thurston County provided public outreach opportunities through workshops and presentations

throughout the development of the HCP. Such opportunities are listed in Appendix A: HCP

Outreach Summary.

1.3.2 Public Meetings

Public meetings were held to encourage public comment during the HCP development process.

Meetings held are listed in Appendix A: HCP Outreach Summary.

1.4 Regulatory Framework

The HCP is designed primarily to comply with the ESA as described below. The HCP is consistent

with other federal and state wildlife and related laws and regulations described in this subsection.

1.4.1 Federal Laws

1.4.1.1 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

those species under its jurisdiction. The ESA and its implementing regulations in Title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 17 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] §

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

3 The Board of County Commissioners is the County's legislative authority and is made up of three commissioners elected to four-year terms. The County Commission is expected to formally adopt the HCP and incorporate its components into the County’s Comprehensive Plan, local ordinances, and processes.


8

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 are not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, but could adversely affect the

species or result in a 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.

The USFWS is required to respond to all applicants seeking permits, which would allow incidental

take of listed species if approved. It is necessary for the USFWS to assure that the HCP 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 Applicants 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 Applicants and the reasons why

such alternatives are not proposed to be used; and

• Other measures that may be required as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of

the plan.


9

To issue an incidental take permit, the USFWS must find that [ESA § 10(a)(2)(B)]:

• The taking will be incidental;

• The Applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the

impacts of such taking;

• The Applicants 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 Applicants will ensure that other measures as may be required by USFWS as

necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP will be implemented.

The HCP Handbook Addendum (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2000),

referred to as the "5-point policy,” provides additional guidance and recommendations for the

development of HCPs (65 FR 250-256). The five points are as follows:

1. Defined conservation goals and objectives;

2. An adaptive management strategy;

3. Compliance and effectiveness monitoring;

4. An established permit duration; and

5. Opportunities for public participation.

1.4.1.2 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). This analysis can take the form of an Environmental

Assessment (EA) and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The issuance of an ITP is a

Federal action subject to NEPA compliance. Before it can decide whether to approve an ITP under

Section 10(a)(1)(B), the USFWS will prepare and distribute an EA or EIS that addresses the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects of the incidental take authorized by permit issuance, and the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the implementation of mitigation and minimization

measures described in the HCP.

1.4.1.3 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


10

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.

1.4.1.4 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act protects the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters,

including lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal waters. Programs conducted under the Clean Water

Act are directed at both point source pollution (e.g., waste discharged from outfalls and filling of

waters) and nonpoint source pollution (e.g., runoff from parking lots). Under the Clean Water Act,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington Department of Ecology set

effluent limitations and issue permits under Clean Water Act Section 402 governing point-source

discharges of wastes to waters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), applying its regulations

under EPA guidelines and oversight, issues permits under Clean Water Act Section 404 governing

under what circumstances dredged or fill material may be discharged to waters. These Section 402

and 404 permits are the primary regulatory tools of the Clean Water Act.

Under Clean Water Act Section 401, Washington Department of Ecology has the authority to certify

federal permits for discharges to waters under state jurisdiction. Washington Department of

Ecology may review proposed federal permits (e.g., Section 404 permits) for compliance with state

water quality standards. The permit cannot be issued if the state denies certification. Compliance

with the conditions on covered activities described in this Plan are consistent with the

requirements of the Clean Water Act.

1.4.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds or

any parts, nests, or eggs of such birds (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 703). Take under the MBTA

includes only the death or injury of individuals of a migratory bird species or their eggs, and

guidance is provided in Appendix 5 in the HCP Handbook (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries

Service 1996). According to these guidelines, an incidental take permit can function as a Special

Purpose Permit under the MBTA (50 CFR 21.27) for the take of all ESA-listed covered species in the

amount and/or number and subject to the terms and conditions specified in an HCP. Any such take

will not be in violation of the MBTA (16 USC 703-12). The streaked horned lark and Oregon vesper

sparrow are protected by the MBTA.

The HCP’s incidental take permit will automatically function as a Special Purpose Permit under the

MBTA, as specified under 50 CFR Sec. 21.27. Should any other of the covered birds become listed

under ESA during the permit term, the ESA permit would also constitute a Special Purpose Permit

under the MBTA for that species as specified under 50 CFR 21.27. The creation of the Conservation

Lands System4 and subsequent enhancement and management will also be a significant “benefit to

the migratory bird resource” as required by the Special Purpose Permit. Compliance with the

conditions on covered activities described in this Plan are consistent with the requirements of the

MBTA for the covered migratory birds.

4 Conservation Lands System is described in Section 5.4.


11

The creation of the Conservation Lands System and subsequent enhancement and management will

also be a significant “benefit to the migratory bird resource” as required by the Special Purpose

Permit. Compliance with the conditions on covered activities described in this Plan are consistent

with the requirements of the MBTA for the covered migratory birds.

1.4.2 State and Local Laws

1.4.2.1 Washington State Listing Regulations

Fish, wildlife, and shellfish in Washington State are managed by WDFW, which operates under Title

77 of the Revised Code of Washington and Chapter 232 of the Washington Administrative Code.

The department is charged with conserving wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish

resources. The Fish and Wildlife Commission, made up of nine members appointed by the Governor

and confirmed by the Senate, sets policy and direction for WDFW and has authorized the taking of

wildlife resources in manners and quantity that will not impair the supply of these resources

(Chapter 77.04 RCW). The Director of the Department may also recommend species to be

protected from hunting, and may also determine that a species is threatened with extinction in the

state of Washington and request that the Commission designate the species as endangered (Chapter

77.12 RCW).

State endangered species are listed in WAC 232-12-014. Classification of wildlife as endangered,

threatened, or sensitive is addressed in WAC 232-12-297. The intent of this rule is to ensure

survival of these species as free-ranging populations in Washington and to define the process by

which listing, management, recovery, and delisting is implemented (WAC 232-12-297). WDFW

writes recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened.

1.4.2.2 Washington State Growth Management Act

The Washington State Growth Management Act was adopted by the state Legislature in 1990. In

the findings of the Act, it is stated:

“The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common

goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a

threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high

quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities,

local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in

comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that

economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic

growth.” (RCW 36.70A.010)

The Act outlines fourteen goals that must be balanced during development of state-mandated

comprehensive plans and development regulations. The goals are not prioritized. Of particular

relevance to the HCP are the following goals:

“…(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,

including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of

productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.


12

(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve

fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks

and recreation facilities.

(10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air

and water quality, and the availability of water.

…” (RCW 36.70A.020)

The Growth Management Act requires all cities and counties in Washington State to identify and

protect five types of environmentally sensitive areas, known as critical areas, using best available

science5. These include wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, critical

aquifer recharge areas; and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. In Thurston County,

protections for these areas are created at the county level and integrated into County Development

Code in a set of development regulations known as a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The most

recent update to the Thurston County CAO was adopted in July 2012, and the County is in the

process of another state-required update, which began in 2015.

In Thurston County’s CAO, prairie, oak savanna, oak woodland and wetland/riparian habitats

receive protection through provisions for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Thurston

County CAO Chapter 24.25), and wetland habitat, through wetland protections (Thurston County

CAO Chapter 24.30). During land use application review, the County uses screening tools such as

GIS mapping to indicate the potential presence of prairie, oak, or wetland/riparian habitat or

species. If screening tools indicate that these habitats or sensitive fish and wildlife species may be

present, staff perform site visits to determine the nature and extent of habitat and/or species

presence. If fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are detected on site, applicants must hire a

qualified professional to complete a habitat survey. When fish and wildlife habitat conservation

areas cannot be avoided, a habitat management plan is required as well as on-site mitigation. The

CAO will be revised to be consistent with the HCP, and defer to the HCP for covered species.

1.4.2.3 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

Land use activity and development are also subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),

which provides a way to identify possible environmental impacts that may result from state and

local government decisions. The elements of the environment that are evaluated during the SEPA

review process include earth, air, water, plants, animals, energy, environmental health, land use,

transportation, cultural resources, public services, agriculture, and utilities. A lead agency

determines if completion of an environmental checklist may result in a change to a proposal to

reduce likely impacts, or to condition or deny a proposal when adverse environmental impacts are

identified that cannot be appropriately mitigated (WA Department of Ecology 2004).

The HCP will undergo the SEPA review process concurrently with the NEPA review process

discussed earlier. Initial scoping by the SEPA lead agency (Thurston County) and the NEPA lead

agency (USFWS) determined the HCP will require an environmental impact statement (EIS). A joint

5 The minimum guidelines for classifying and designating critical areas can be found in WAC 365-195. Counties and cities must include the "best available science" when developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas as specified under WAC 365-190.


13

EIS will be prepared for the lead agencies and published for comment in accordance with applicable

authorities and regulations. After the close of the draft EIS comment period, the lead agencies will

determine and incorporate necessary modifications into the final EIS based on input received

during the public review and comment period. The joint EIS is intended to comply with all

provisions of NEPA and SEPA, however, each lead agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring

compliance with its governing authorities and regulations.

1.4.2.4 State Historic Preservation

Chapter 10 of the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan contains the goals and policies that guide

the regulatory framework for identifying and protecting archaeological and historic resources in

Thurston County. A 12-member Historic Commission provides review and comment on proposals

that affect properties or districts on the County register, land use actions considered under SEPA,

and applications for special property tax valuation.

Chapter 2.106 of the Thurston County Code outlines development standards pertaining to the

preservation of historic resources. A comprehensive survey of historic resources located in

Thurston County was prepared in the 1980s and is updated and maintained in an accessible

database by the County. Identification of sites or resources or sites adjacent to these resources on

the database serve as the initial basis for review and comment on land use permits submitted to the

County.

1.4.2.5 Shoreline Management Act

The Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, is a Washington state law administered by the

Department of Ecology. The goal of the Shoreline Management Act is to coordinate and prevent

piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines while allowing preferred shoreline uses, protecting

the shoreline environment, and providing public access (RCW 90.58.020). The Shoreline

Management Act applies to the state’s shorelines which includes all marine waters; streams and

rivers with greater than 20 cubic feet per second mean annual flow; lakes 20 acres or larger; upland

areas called shorelands that extend 200 feet landward from the edge of these waters; and biological

wetlands and river deltas as well as some or all of the 100-year floodplain (including all wetlands

within the 100-year floodplain) associated with the state’s shorelines.

Each local government must prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program, or SMP, that is

essentially a shoreline specific comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit

system. The SMP must be approved by the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology is

also required to review certain kinds of permits such as conditional use and variance permits for

compliance with state law.

The intersection of the HCP and the SMP will most likely be specific to wetland and riparian habitat

for Oregon spotted frog, within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction and associated riparian areas.

Most Oregon spotted frog habitat is primarily protected under the county SMP and Critical Areas

Ordinance. Oregon spotted frog habitat that is not covered under these regulations will require

HCP coverage.


14

1.4.2.6 State Hydraulic Code

Hydraulic Project Approvals, or HPAs, are a state permit authorized by the Hydraulic Code and

administered by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The Hydraulic

Code was specifically designed to protect fish life and HPAs are required for some construction

projects in waters of the state. A common list of activities requiring an HPA include work on

bulkheads, piers, docks, culverts, bridges, dredging, aquatic plant removal and control, water

diversions and intakes, mineral prospecting, and pond construction.

Thurston County does not issue HPAs, but does require applicants have all necessary permits

before issuing a building permit. In addition, most people who apply for an HPA must submit

documentation with their application showing that they have complied with SEPA; SEPA reviews

are usually conducted with the county permit. Typically road maintenance activities are exempt

from the SEPA process under WAC 197-11-800, 468-12-800(1)(u), 173-27-040 9(2)(b), 40 CFR

232.3 and some Nationwide Permits (depending on location and activity)

Thurston County must also have an individual, general or programmatic HPA for any work it

performs under the Hydraulic Code Rule WAC 220-660. WDFW has issued 4 general permits to

Thurston County public works that covers specific routine maintenance activities, which includes

Beaver Management, Non-Fish Bearing Culvert Maintenance, Drift Removal and Bridge

Maintenance. The general permits streamlines the process, saves time and money by eliminating

the need to apply for a new permit each time the work is performed. It is good for five years and

includes timing limitations, contributes to conservation of these species by following the Regional

Road Maintenance ESA Guidelines that promotes using best management practices. Many of the

activities requiring take authorization under this plan are also subject to WDFW approval under the

HPA general permits.

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Setting/Biological Resources

15

Section 2 Description of the Area to be Analyzed

2.1 Environmental Setting

Thurston County is located in Western Washington at the terminus of Puget Sound (Figure 2.1).

The County has a total land mass of 736 square miles (mi) (1,906 square kilometers (km)), with

approximately 14% of the land area incorporated into cities (Thurston Regional Planning Council

2011), and roughly 4% owned and managed by the Department of Defense, as part of Joint Base

Lewis-McChord. The County is generally bisected by Interstate 5. This section broadly describes

the climate, topography, geology, soils, surface water, land use, conserved lands, and ESA listed

species occurring in the County but not covered in the HCP.

Figure 2.1 Land cover in Thurston County as defined by National Land Cover Data (Homer et al 2015).


16

2.1.1 Climate

Thurston County has a marine type climate with mild temperatures year-round. In summer, the

average high temperature ranges between 70 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) (21-25 degrees

Celsius (oC)) and average low temperatures range from 45 to 50oF (7-10oC)(WRCC 2014). Winter

average high temperatures range from 44 to 54oF (6-12oC) while winter low temperatures range

from 30-34oF (-1-1oC) (WRCC 2014). Generally, the County’s weather is characterized by sunny,

mild summers and wet, mild winters (Thurston Regional Planning Council 2011).

At the City of Olympia Airport, average (records from 1949-2013) total precipitation is 51 inches

(in) (130 centimeters (cm)) (WRCC 2014). Precipitation occurs throughout the year in Thurston

County, but is greatest between November to January, and lowest in July (WRCC 2014). More than

a trace of rain falls on almost half of the days of the year (Thurston Regional Planning Council

2011).

The University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group has documented that all but six years of the

period 1980-2014 were above the century’s average temperature in the Puget Sound. By the 2050s,

or near the end of the HCP, temperatures are expected to increase 4° to 6°F with more common

extreme heat events. Over that same period, climate models predict 22% less rain during summer

and increased rain in other seasons (Mauger et. al 2015). There is little data on how climate

changes might affect HCP covered species and habitat, but the conservation program will respond

to changed circumstances such as altered hydrology, changes to fire frequency, etc. Climate change

is listed explicitly as an adaptive management trigger in Section 5.8.

2.1.2 Topography, Geology, and Soils

The topography of the County ranges from coastal lowlands to prairie flat lands and the foothills of

the Cascades. The lowest areas of the County lie at sea level along the shoreline of Puget Sound.

Peaks ranging in size from 1,700 - 3,000 feet (ft) (518 - 914 meters (m)) in elevation are found in

the northwest and southeast corners of the County (Thurston Regional Planning Council 2011).

Generally speaking, the County is bordered on the west, south, and east by mountains, with Puget

Sound along the northern boundary of the County.

A unique landform in Thurston County are the Mima mounds: large earthen circular mounds that

are typically 8 - 40 ft (2.5 - 12 m) in diameter and 1 - 6 ft (0.3 - 2 m) in height. Prairie vegetation is

often associated with the Mima mounds. The Mima mounds consist of gravelly sandy loam on top of

thick outwash sand and gravel. The exact origins of these mounds are unknown (Nelson 1994).

Thurston County contains a variety of soil types. Soils on floodplains make up approximately 5% of

the County, and are level, deep, and well-drained. Soils on glacial uplands comprise approximately

60% of the County, ranging from level to steep, moderately to very deep, and moderately to

somewhat excessively well-drained. Soils on uplands and mountains make up approximately 26%

of the County, ranging from nearly level to very steep, moderately deep to very deep, and

moderately well drained and well drained. Soils on sedimentary uplands and glacial drift plains

comprise approximately 9% of the County. These soils are nearly level to steep, deep and very

deep, and moderately well drained to well drained (Pringle 1990).

Specific soils critical to the covered species are described in Section 2.2.1.


17

2.1.3 Surface Water

The southwestern third of Thurston County is in the Chehalis subbasin (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code

(HUC) 17100103), the north portion of the County is in the Puget Sound subbasin (17110019), and

the remaining eastern third of the County is in either the Deschutes subbasin (17110016) or the

Nisqually subbasin (HUC 17110015) (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Subbasins in Thurston County.

The Chehalis River subbasin is the largest river subbasin in western Washington. The basin

extends over eight counties, including parts of Grays Harbor, Lewis, and Thurston counties, and

smaller parts of Mason, Pacific, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, and Jefferson counties. The subbasin is

bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Deschutes River subbasin, on the north

by the Olympic Mountains, and on the south by the Willapa Hills and Cowlitz River subbasin.

Major rivers and tributaries in Thurston County include the Nisqually, Deschutes, Black,

Skookumchuck, and Chehalis Rivers (Pringle 1990; Thurston Regional Planning Council 2011).

Several smaller streams are also found throughout the County, along with over 400 lakes, ponds,

and bogs. The northernmost part of the County is defined by several inlets of Puget Sound: Budd,

Henderson, and Eld Inlets, with Totten Inlet dividing Thurston and Mason Counties (Thurston

Regional Planning Council 2011).

Every two years, the Clean Water Act requires all states to perform a water quality assessment of

surface waters, including all the rivers, lakes, and marine waters where data are available. Waters

that have uses (including aquatic habitat) that are impaired by pollutants are placed in the polluted

water category, or 303(d) list (as described in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act). These water

bodies do not meet state surface water quality standards and are not expected to improve within

the next two years. As of the 2012 water quality assessment completed by the Washington


18

Department of Ecology and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), multiple

water bodies in Thurston County are classified as 303(d) water quality limited (Washington

Department of Ecology 2012). These include Black River, listed for pH, temperature, dissolved

oxygen, ammonia, mercury, and bacteria, and Black Lake, listed for total phosphorous and a

number of toxics.

2.1.4 Existing Land Use

Thurston County features a wide array of land uses, ranging from open space and agricultural uses

to urban development and military training and base facilities (Table 2.1; Figure 2.3). The northern

end of the County is generally the most developed, as the County’s three largest cities of Olympia,

Lacey, and Tumwater are located there. Four other cities—Yelm, Rainier, Tenino, and Bucoda, in

addition to the Grand Mound area—are found in the middle to southern portions of Thurston

County.

An analysis completed by Thurston Regional Planning Council indicates that between 1991 and

2006, approximately 23,500 ac (9,510 ha) of land were converted from forest stands, agriculture, or

open space to urban landscapes. This area represents roughly 5% of the entire County, and

approximately equal in size to the current acreage of the Urban Growth Areas in the County

(Thurston Regional Planning Council 2011).

Table 2.1 Land use by zoning in Thurston County as of 2013.

Land Use Hectares Acres %

Cities 15,600 38,532 8%

Urban Growth Areas 9,500 23,465 5%

Military Reservation (Joint Base Lewis-McChord) 7,541 18,626 4%

Long term Agriculture 5,951 14,699 3%

Long Term Forestry 58,284 143,961 30%

Open Space, Parks, Trails, Preserves 3,193 7,887 2%

McAllister Geologically Sensitive Area 3,769 9,309 2%

Rural, Commercial, Industrial and Developable Land 87,352 215,759 46%

Total 191,190 472,239 100%

(Source: Thurston Geodata 2013a) THIS TABLE TO BE UPDATED BEFORE FINAL DRAFT.

2.1.5 Protected or Publicly Owned Lands

A variety of protected or publicly owned lands support the covered species or their habitats

throughout the middle and southern portions of the County (Table 2.2). These lands are owned,

under conservation easement, or managed by Thurston County and a variety of state, federal, and


19

private conservation entities. Some of these lands might not currently be managed specifically to

maintain or enhance the distribution and abundance of HCP covered species.

2.2 Covered Species and Habitats

The permit area includes prairies and grasslands, oak woodland, and riparian/wetland habitats

that provide suitable habitat for the HCP covered species (Table 1.1). Eleven of the covered species

occupy prairie-oak habitats, and one is found in riparian/wetland habitat. Detailed descriptions of

the covered species’ biology and ecology, along with habitat descriptions, is available in Addendum

A: Species and Habitat Descriptions. Brief summaries of this information are included in this

section, along with the methods used to delineate each habitat type within the permit area.

Figure 2.3 Land use zoning in Thurston County as of 2015.


20

Table 2.2 Partial list of protected, conserved, managed, or publicly owned lands containing covered species in Thurston County.

Site Name Acres Ownership/ Management HCP Habitats

Black River Farm 721 Capitol Land Trust, Thurston

County

Riparian/Wetland,

Oak

Mima Creek/Baker Prairie 246 The Nature Conservancy Riparian/Wetland,

Oak

Black River Unit, Nisqually Wildlife

Refuge 1,000+ USFWS

Riparian/Wetland,

Prairie

Bald Hills Prairie Natural Area Preserve 306 WDNR Prairie, Oak

Deschutes River Preserve 153 CNLM Prairie

Glacial Heritage Preserve 1,020 Thurston County (owner),

CNLM (manager)

Prairie,

Riparian/Wetland

Mazama Meadows 140 CNLM Prairie

Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve 637 WDNR Prairie

Tenalquot Prairie- Morgan 135 TNC Prairie

Rocky Prairie Natural Area Preserve 35 WDNR Prairie

Scatter Creek Wildlife Area 1,140 WDFW Prairie, Oak

Tenalquot Prairie - Weir-Johnson 1973 JBLM- CNLM, WDFW Prairie, Oak

West Rocky Wildlife Area 846 WDFW Riparian/Wetland,

Prairie, Oak

Wolf Haven 79 Wolf Haven International Prairie, Oak

Rocky Prairie Conservation Futures

Properties 550 Thurston County

Prairie, Oak,

Riparian/Wetland

2.2.1 Prairie–Oak Species

2.2.1.1 Prairie–Oak Habitat Guilds

Eleven of the species covered in this plan occur in prairie and associated oak habitats. For the

purposes of the take analysis and planning the conservation strategy, we assigned these covered

species to habitat guilds based on their life form, life history, and the best available information

describing their habitat requirements. This is consistent with an approach to select evaluation

species and habitat to best represent affected species and aspects of the environment. The guilds

are described in Table 2.3. Detailed covered species descriptions are included in Addendum A:

Species and Habitat Descriptions.

Thurston County prairie and oak ecosystems formed on excessively well-drained soils generated

from glacial outwash (Ugolini and Schlichte 1973) over 10,000 years ago. Some prairies developed

on flat or mounded plains with deep but well drained and uncompacted soils, whereas others

developed on shallow, rocky soils of balds or bluffs, often with steep slopes and south or west facing

aspects (Chappell et al. 2001). Historically, prairies persisted in an open state and avoided


21

succession to coniferous forest though their tendency toward drought and frequent but patchy

burning by native peoples (Boyd 1999).

Table 2.3 Prairie–Oak Habitat Guilds in the Thurston County HCP.

Guild Species Basic Habitat and Location Attributes Estimated Area In

County Jurisdiction

1 Mazama pocket gopher (MPG), including the Olympia (OPG), Tenino (TPG), and Yelm (YPG) subspecies

• East of Black River

• Prairie soils that support the burrowing of MPGs, with documented use (Table 4.2) identify the habitat for this species. These soils are ranked in terms of gopher preference, which was determined through analysis of Thurston County soils, known MPG occurrences, and the frequency and rate of occurrence within soil types (USFWS 2016).

102,040 Acres

(843 ac (341 ha) of which is federally designated critical habitat for the Tenino and or Yelm subspecies)

2 Taylor’s checkerspot

Valley silverspot

Puget blue

Hoary elfin

Mardon skipper

Oregon branded skipper

• Habitat may include upland prairie and wet prairie (uncommon) areas within dispersal distance of current populations of the butterfly species within this guild (e.g., within 328 ft (100 m) of Puget blue or Hoary elfin populations, within 1,312 ft (400 m) of Mardon skipper, Oregon branded skipper, or Taylor’s checkerspot populations, or within 3,280 ft (1000 m) of a Valley silverspot population).*

9,545 Acres (Overall)

(1,053 ac (426 ha) of which is federally designated critical habitat (78 FR 61506-61584))

4,650 ac outside Guild 1

3 • Streaked

horned lark

• Oregon vesper

sparrow

• Flat, open, treeless grasslands with suitable habitat context (e.g., areas of 90 ac (36 ha) or greater of flat, open habitat context lacking vertical barriers).

10,956 Acres (Overall)

4,747 ac outside Guild 1

4 • Slender billed –

white breasted

nuthatch

• Western gray

squirrel

• Mature, open savanna grown oaks adjacent to or within prairie.

• Groves of mature oaks within prairie habitat.

• Oak woodland perimeter/ecotone around prairie habitats.

4,106 Acres (Estimated as 4% of Guild 1 Area + 4% of Guild 2 area outside Guild 1)

*Dispersal distances were determined based on best available information and personal communication from Ann Potter, Lepidopterist, WDFW and Ted Thomas, Biologist, USFWS.


22

Table 2.4 Prairie soils with documented use by MPG subspecies in Thurston County (USFWS 2016).

Preference by MPG Description

High Nisqually loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes Spanaway-Nisqually complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes

Med1,2

Cagey loamy sand Indianola loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes

Low1

Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes Indianola loamy sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes Kapowsin silt loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes Kapowsin silt loam 3 to 15 percent slopes McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Norma fine sandy loam Norma silt loam Spana gravelly loam Spanaway stony sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Spanaway stony sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes Yelm fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Yelm fine sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes

1 MPG use only documented South of I-5. 2 Medium preference soils included for HCP coverage north of I-5 pending conclusions of 2016 survey season.

High quality examples of South Puget Sound prairies have a diversity of native plant species that

support ecological functions (e.g., through food sources, host or nectar plants, nesting habitat).

There are frequent native perennial grasses (graminoids), including Roemer’s fescue (Festuca

roemeri), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), long stolon sedge (Carex inops spp. inops), and

prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha). Interspersed with the native grasses are a suite of native

annual and perennial forbs, including yarrow (Achillea millefolium), camas (Camassia quamash),

wooly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), white-top aster

(Sericocarpus rigidus), buttercup (Ranunculus occidentalis) and violet (Viola adunca). The low

shrub kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) is also found in most prairies (Dundwiddie et al.

2006). This grouping of plants has been described by the WDNR Natural Heritage program as the

Festuca roemeri-Sericocarpus rigidus plant association, and Chappell (2006) suggests most

remaining native prairies in the South Puget Sound include this plant association. High quality

examples of this type are located on Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), Mima Mound and Rocky

Prairie Natural Area Preserves, Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and Glacial Heritage Preserve listed in

Table 2.2.

Since Euro-American settlement, high quality native prairies in the Puget Sound region have

declined to 2-4% of their pre-Euro-American settlement extent, due to losses from urban


23

development, agricultural conversion, and fire suppression (Crawford and Hall 1997). Prairies that

persist are threatened by invasion from aggressive introduced species (e.g., Scotch broom) that out-

compete native species. The grasslands and open woodlands are also being invaded by non-native

grasses, often including perennials such as tall oatgrass (Arrhenatherum elatius), bentgrass

(Agrostis tenuis), and velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), or annuals such as silver or yellow hairgrass

(Aira caryophyllea or A. praecox) (Dunwiddie et al. 2006). The extent and diversity of non-native

annual grasses often relates to ecological disturbance from past (or on-going) land management

practices.

Oak woodlands and savanna in Thurston County can result from ecological succession (the process

by which the structure of a biological community evolves over time) in areas that were once fire-

maintained oak savannas or prairies, and hence often occur on prairie soils, and are frequently

surrounded by patches of prairie habitat. Oregon white oak often occurs with an understory of long

stolon sedge (Carex inops), common camas (Camassia quamash), snowberry (Symphoricarpos

albus), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Oak woodland plant community types that have

been classified in Thurston County are described in detail in Addendum A: Species and Habitat

Descriptions. Known oak habitats on public lands in Thurston County include Bald Hill Natural

Areas Preserve, Glacial Heritage, Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and JBLM listed in Table 2.2.

2.2.1.2 Prairie–Oak Area of Interest (AOI)

Habitat within the greater HCP Permit area for the covered species that occupy prairie and oak

habitats is hereafter referred to as the Prairie–Oak area of interest (Prairie-Oak AOI), and is

identified in Figure 2.4. Specific zones of the Prairie-Oak AOI are identified for Prairie-Oak Guilds 1,

2, and 3. The area of Guild 4: Oak woodland and savanna was estimated using aerial photos and

limited existing mapping of oak habitats (e.g., Chappell et al (2003)). From this incomplete sample,

it was projected that, on average, 4% of the Prairie-Oak AOI is oak savanna, groves of oak trees, or

adjacent oak woodland. This estimate of oak occurrence in the Prairie-Oak AOI was used to project

potential impacts in the HCP.

2.2.2 Oregon Spotted Frog Wetland and Riparian Habitats

The permit area of the HCP also includes known and potential riparian and wetland habitat for

Oregon spotted frog (OSF) (Rana pretiosa). Washington’s remaining populations of OSF occupy

wetland habitats connected by an aquatic network of streams, ditches, rivers, and flooded wetlands.

Habitat requirements for OSF vary with life stage and season (non-breeding, breeding, rearing,

overwintering). Breeding habitat is characterized as shallow water (<12 in (<30 cm)) emergent

(sedge, rush, and grass vegetation) wetlands which are relatively unshaded and that ideally have an

aquatic connection to perennial waters. The extent of this habitat can vary inter and intra-annually

with fluctuating water levels. Non-breeding habitat can include characteristics of breeding habitat

but also includes slow moving deeper and shaded waters with floating and submerged vegetation.

This can include springs, ponds, lakes, sluggish streams or rivers, irrigation canals, shrub wells, or

roadside ditches. If the entire area is in a shaded conifer dominated riparian area, has primarily

coarse inorganic substrates (gravel, cobble, etc.), and has swiftly flowing waters it is a not habitat

used by the OSF.

The perennial creeks and associated network of intermittent tributaries provide aquatic

connectivity between breeding sites, rearing, and overwintering habitat. The seasonally inundated


24

wetland margins are frequently hay fields and pasture. Some occupied sites are formed by

American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity. Currently known OSF sites often have habitat

alteration including a history of cattle grazing and/or hay production as well as encroaching or

established rural residential development. Hydrology has been altered to some extent at all sites. A

detailed description of OSF and its habitat is included in Addendum A: Species and Habitat

Descriptions.

Figure 2.4 Prairie–Oak AOI of the Thurston County HCP.

2.2.2.1 Potential Habitat for Oregon Spotted Frog

Potentially suitable habitat was mapped using an OSF Habitat Screen (Figure 2.3). The OSF Habitat

Screen includes 39,493 ac (15,982 ha) and intersects 5,718 tax parcels. Of this area, 4,773 ac (1,931

ha) are federally designated critical habitat (79 FR 53384). The OSF Habitat Screen was developed

with technical assistance from USFWS and WDFW. The steps in development are described below.

1. OSF suitable wetland areas were identified using the WA Department of Ecology (2011)

modeled wetland layer, with the following classes:

Grid Code 1, Class_Name Potentially Disturbed Wetlands

Grid Code 2, Class_Name Palustrine Forested Wetland

Grid Code 3, Class_Name Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland


25

Grid Code 4, Class_Name Palustrine Emergent Wetland

Grid Code 9, Class_Name Water

Grid Code 10, Class_Name Palustrine Aquatic Bed

Figure 2.5 Oregon spotted frog Habitat Screen for the Thurston County HCP.

2. From the wetlands in step 1, those with the needed hydrological connections to be OSF

habitat were identified by selecting wetlands within 984 ft (300 m) of mapped streams

(using a combination of the WA state hydrography dataset streams and Thurston Geodata

streams).

3. The resulting coverage was clipped to the extent of the Black River watershed (HUC 12

units - Upper Black River, Lower Black River, Beaver Creek, Mima Creek, and Waddell

Creek).

4. Selected wetlands were buffered by 328 ft (100 m), and merged the layer with the USFWS

proposed critical habitat for the species (PCH) in Thurston County.

5. We merged the buffered wetlands with streams (WA state hydrography and Thurston

Geodata streams) buffered by 328 ft (100 m).

6. The resulting layer was presented in a larger scale map for comment at the 2015 OSF

Washington Working Group. At the recommendation of WDFW biologists, we

added specific additional areas, including 1.4 mi (~2.25 km) of the Black Lake Ditch

(buffered by 328 ft (100 m)) north of Black Lake, the area of Lamberts Corner west to the

Olympia substation, the area around Trosper Lake/Bush Prairie, and a section between


26

Blooms Ditch and Salmon Creek. These additional areas were added due to OSF egg mass

detection in certain locations and because biologists felt these areas contain habitat suitable

for the OSF that was not captured using remote sensing (GIS screens) or provide important

connections between known OSF populations or potential habitat. The areas of Mima and

Waddell Creek drainages on Capitol State Forest (WDNR) lands and a small inclusion of

surrounded private land were removed from the OSF Screen for the HCP. The activities that

the County is responsible for on that property are limited and the land is zoned for long

term forestry.

7. The resulting final OSF screen was then buffered by 200 ft (61 m), with USFWS and WDFW

technical assistance that activities within this distance of OSF habitat could result in

impacts.

A portion of the OSF Habitat Screen (15,005 ac/6072 ha) overlaps the Prairie-Oak AOI habitat for

Guild 1. Some of these areas are within the 200 ft (61 m) set back (buffer) on potential OSF habitat.

Pre-project surveys for OSF habitat in the OSF Habitat Screen will ascertain whether suitable

conditions for the species are present (described in Section 6: Implementation).

2.3 Federally Listed Species Not Proposed for Coverage

Although federally listed, the species in Table 2.5 either have no federal protection from take on

non-federal lands in the HCP permit area (e.g., golden paintbrush, water howellia), or have little or

no overlap with the lands or the activities covered under this plan (e.g., marbled murrelet), and are

therefore not proposed for HCP coverage.

Table 2.5. Federally listed species not proposed for coverage in the Thurston County HCP.

Group Name Status

Birds Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Threatened

Birds Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Threatened

Birds Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Threatened

Fishes Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened

Flowering Plants Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) Endangered

Flowering Plants Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) Threatened

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Activities

27

Section 3 Proposed Action

3.1 Covered Activities

This section describes the activities and projects within the planning area for which Thurston

County is seeking incidental take coverage. They include a variety of activities for which the County

issues permits or approvals, or that it otherwise carries out through the course of its normal

business. The HCP conservation measures (Section 5) describe how the County and plan

participants will avoid, or minimize and mitigate impacts to covered species and their respective

habitats that may be impacted by activities described in this section.

Activities are only covered under this HCP if the impacts proposed are of the type discussed in

Section 4, Impacts Analysis, and:

• There is sufficient take coverage available under the incidental take permit issued to

Thurston County for that activity;

• The activity does not preclude achieving the biological goals and objectives of this HCP;

• The activity is an action under the jurisdiction of Thurston County, or is authorized by

Thurston County;

• The activity occurs within the HCP permit area; and

• The activity occurs within the term of the incidental take permit

3.1.1 Residential Development

Dwelling construction and related activities covered by this HCP include, but are not limited to:

• Site-built dwellings and manufactured homes. The site is typically graded with a

bulldozer or grader prior to construction. Construction involves delivery of supplies or

the manufactured home by large truss truck or other vehicle, and a cement mixer is

used to pour the foundation. A laydown, or storage, area and scaffolding could

potentially be half the size of the home, depending on construction practices. Workers

involved with home construction may park personal vehicles on site. Building

construction or placement occurs year-round, though seasonal restrictions may be put

in place with respect to erosion control and protecting natural resources such as

streams.

• Residential accessory structures (accessory dwelling units, unattached garage, shop,

shed, pool, etc.). These buildings can range in size and composition, and construction

methods will vary, but will be similar to those for site built dwellings. This category

includes structures ranging from small garden sheds to full-size barns or

garages/workshops.


28

Within lots with one or both of these activities occurring, the following associated actions

may occur within a 60 ft (18.3 m) buffer surrounding the footprint:

o Private roads created to access small or large lot subdivisions and driveways, if

associated with a County-issued permit. Driveways are typically required to be

wide enough and of suitable material to allow for emergency vehicle access.

Driveways may be gravel or pavement.

o Installation, maintenance or removal of underground or above ground plumbing,

heating fuel, mechanical, and utility facilities.

o Additions to existing structures on existing legal lots (e.g., attached garage, added

room, etc.).

o Water supplies (wells) – monitoring and construction and septic system feasibility

studies, installation and testing, removal, moving, replacement, alterations, and

repairs.

Due to a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA a subset of noncommercial activities that occur

in or adjacent to MPG habitat on existing single family residential properties are exempt from

incidental take because certain activities promote the maintenance or restoration of habitat

conditions required by the Mazama pocket gopher (79 FR 19760-19796). These activities are not

exempt from incidental take for the other species in the HCP. These activities include the following:

(i) Harvest, control, or other management of noxious weeds and invasive plants through mowing,

herbicide6 and fungicide application, fumigation, or burning. Use of herbicides, fungicides,

fumigation, and burning must occur in such a way that non-target plants are minimized to the

maximum extent practicable;

(ii) Construction and placement of fencing, garden plots, or play equipment; and

(iii) Construction and placement of dog kennels, carports, or storage sheds less than 1207 ft2

(11.15 m2) in size.

Projected affected area for residential development, and accessory structures added to existing

developments (pre-HCP) are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Covered activity summary for residential development.

Activity Summary – Residential Development

Duration Year Round

Intensity Complete habitat loss

Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent

Projected Area Affected per Unit UGA Undeveloped Lots: Entire Lot

6 All herbicide use for noxious weed control addressed in the HCP will be completed in this manner, such that impacts to non-target plants are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 7 Structures under 200 sf do not require a Thurston County building permit. This ruling was based on a previous version of Thurston County Code.


29

Rural Undeveloped Lots: 2.0 ac (0.8 ha)

Projected Total Area Affected: New residential homes (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares)

YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF

6,689 1,152 1,333 3,109 735 1,357 498 235

Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 12,718

3.1.2 Added Accessory Structures

Impacts will occur from development of additional accessory structures on parcels developed in

advance of the HCP and outside of the 60 ft (18 m) buffer that is assumed to already be impacted

around driveways and existing structures. Added accessory structures could be barns, detached

structures, or other accessory structures requiring a County permit.

County staff projected the total number of such actions to occur based on County-wide records for a

10 year period (2004-2014). The average size of accessory structures is 1000 ft2 (93 m2) each, with

an added 60 ft (18 m) buffer, as was used for Residential Development projections (Section 3.1.1).

It was assumed that on average, 50% of the added accessory structures and buffer would be located

within the 60 ft (18 m) buffer of an existing structure or road, not adding any additional impact

beyond the existing residential construction. It was also assumed the area affected by these

structures was unforested (within NLCD Prairie-Oak Habitat), 68% of the time, following the

approximate proportion of the Permit Area in NLCD Prairie-Oak Habitat. The estimated area

affected is included in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Covered activity summary for accessory structures added to existing (pre-HCP) residential development.

Activity Summary – Added Accessory Structures, Extended Septic Installation/Repair and

Home Heating Oil Tank Removal

Duration Year Round



Projected Area Affected per Unit Rural Added Accessory Structures/Additions: 1000 ft2

(93 m2) each

Projected Total Area Affected: Added accessory structures (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares)


364 55 91 125 29 68 26 36

Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 700

3.1.3 Septic Repair or Extension & Home Heating Oil Tank Removal

Two additional activities occurring on residential lots that are anticipated to affect the covered

species are:

1. Placement of septic systems that must be installed outside the 60 ft (18 m) development

buffer or repair or alteration of septic systems existing prior to HCP implementation

(both actions, on average, affecting 2,500 ft2 (232 m2) per residential unit). Installation


30

of these systems occurs with similar equipment and process to standard septic

installations addressed in Section 3.1.1).

2. Removal of above or below ground home heating oil tanks (affecting ~450 ft2 (42 m2)

per unit). This activity involves use of excavation equipment to remove home heating

oil tanks and any adjacent concrete pad or contaminated soil.


10 year period (2004-2014). The area affected was projected based on the proportion of the

County within the Prairie-Oak Guilds and the OSF Habitat Screen, and is included in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Covered activity summary for extended septic system installation or repair and home heating oil tank removal.

Activity Summary – Extended Septic Installation/Repair, Home Heating Oil Tank Removal

Duration Year Round

Intensity Soil disturbance and replacement

Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary

Projected Area Affected per Unit Extended Septic System Installation or Repair : ,500 ft2

(232 m2) per residential unit

Projected Total Area Affected: Extended Septic Installation/Repair and Home Heating Oil

Tank Removal (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares)


132 20 33 45 10 25 9 42


3.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Development

Commercial and industrial development covered under this HCP may include, but is not limited to

construction of business facilities for retail shopping, offices, restaurants, barber/beauty shops,

veterinary clinics and hospitals, laundry, dry cleaning, motels, greenhouses, service stations, car

wash, automotive and mechanical sales, auction yards, community centers, recreational uses,

churches, libraries, museums, schools, and other public facilities in addition to facilities for research

and development, factories, warehousing, wholesale, processing, storage, fabrication, printing, and

other commercial or industrial uses. General building construction activities will include those

described for residential development, and may also include establishment of signs, parking lots,

and other facilities, affecting the entire lot. Estimated affected area for commercial and industrial

development are summarized in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Covered activity summary for commercial and industrial development.

Activity Summary – Commercial/Industrial Development

Duration Year Round



Projected Area Affected per Unit Entire Lot

Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares)



31

556 659 89 42 - - 54 44


3.1.5 Public Service Facility Construction

The projected area to be affected by Public Service Facility construction is included in Table 3.5.

3.1.5.1 Schools

Thurston County encompasses a total of nine school districts under County jurisdiction, including

Olympia, North Thurston, Tumwater, Tenino, Rainier, Rochester, Griffin, and Yelm. All of these

except Griffin are located at least in part within the HCP permit area. Construction of new facilities

or refurbishment and expansion of existing facilities is an activity covered under this HCP. At this

time there are eight public school campuses in the county. Sites are 10 -20 ac (4-8 ha) in size with

the exception of the 77 ac (31 ha) campus in the Rochester School District.

School construction or refurbishment can include but is not limited to establishment of buildings

and associated walkways and outbuildings, parking lots and associated driveways, landscaping, and

outdoor sports fields (including but not limited to soccer, baseball, softball, football), tennis courts,

and outdoor pools. New school building coverage is limited to 6,000 ft2 (557 m2) on parcels 5 to 10

ac (2-4 ha) in size and 20,000 ft2 (1,858 m2) on parcels larger than 10 ac (4 ha). Typical coverage by

school buildings is about one acre per site. This does not include ball fields and other accessory

structures and uses. Existing schools can expand as needed with a special use permit and thorough

environmental review.

• School expansion is expected during the permit term at the Rochester Primary through

High School complex, with a total affected area of up to 42 ac (17 ha) of the Prairie-Oak

AOI.

• Refurbishment of existing schools (e.g., Littlerock Elementary, East Olympia

Elementary) are expected to affect up to 15 ac (6 ha) of the Prairie-Oak AOI.

• Newly constructed schools in the Tumwater UGA and Rochester District are anticipated

to affect 63 ac (25.5 ha) of the Prairie-Oak AOI.

3.1.5.2 Fire Stations

Construction of fire stations is an activity covered under this HCP. Unincorporated Thurston

County currently includes approximately 47 fire stations (some of these are not currently

functional). Fire facilities have no building coverage limit. Size is approved project by project

through a special use permit and environmental review. The parcels on which these fire facilities

are currently established average 1.9 ac (0.4 ha) in size, with a range from 0.9 to 7 ac (0.4 -2.8 ha).

Population expansion outside current city limits and urban growth areas is expected to require

additional fire facilities.

Ten new rural fires stations (2 ac (0.5 ha) each) are expected be constructed over the permit term,

to affect 20 ac (8 ha) of habitat in the Prairie-Oak AOI. Specific locations are not known at this time,

but facilities are expected to be distributed across the Permit Area.


32

Table 3.5 Covered activity summary for public service facility construction.

Activity Summary – Public Service Facilities: Schools & Rural Fire Stations Duration Year Round Intensity Complete habitat loss Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent Projected Area Affected per Unit Entire Lot



110 4 8 12 6 14 5 -


3.1.6 Transportation Capital Projects

Transportation construction projects within the permit area will be covered activities under this

HCP. Activities with the potential to affect the covered species include those capital improvement

activities occurring beyond the currently modified area of existing road, trail, or path prism and

gravel shoulder8, which add bridge, culvert, road or shoulder surface. Thurston County public

works staff used information from regular work plans and their 20-year Capital Facilities Plan

(CFP) to identify the types of projects and extrapolate areas to be affected during the HCP term

(Table 3.7 and Table 3.6).

These projects can occur at any time of year, and include:

• Construction of new roads: This activity involves heavy equipment for leveling, grading,

and stabilizing to construct road beds, plus establishment of the road surface.

• Widening of existing roads: This activity uses a process similar to road construction to

add additional road prism to an existing road, or to widen an existing road shoulder. It

can occur year round, but is typically in the drier months (varies by year, generally June

– September).

• Improvements of existing roads: This activity includes upgrade of roads and

intersections to add turn lanes, sidewalks, bike paths, and realignments where needed.

This will involve addition of road prism (described above), modification of the gravel

shoulder to add sidewalks, or extension of the gravel shoulder.

• Bridge and culvert installation or replacement. This typically involves heavy equipment

for excavation to remove the existing structure, installation of the replacement

structure, and repair of the adjacent roadway, shoulder and drainage systems.

8 While MPG may infrequently occur and may be impacted in the currently modified gravel road shoulder of the active ROW, these areas are excluded from the analysis because the area is already modified by past activities and has extremely low suitability and long term viability as habitat for the species.


33

Table 3.6 Transportation projects expected to occur in HCP habitats as identified by the 20 year Capital Facilities Plan with extrapolated estimates from years 20 through 30. Annual impact areas are unknown, but can be estimated as 1/30th of the 30-year projections.

*1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

YPG OPG TPG UNK

153rd Ave SE (Vail Rd to Lawrence Lake Rd) x x 6.6 0.3

183rd Ave SW - Old Hwy99 to SR12 x x 22.0 7.27 1.2

Albany Rd SW (James Rd to Littlerock Rd) x x 4.1 0.2

Bald Hill Road Upgrade - Smith Prairie to Clear Lake Rd x x 19.9 0.8

Black Lake - Belmore Rd. Upgrade 49th to Sapp Rd. x x 1.6 0.1 1.6

Delphi Road Upgrade - Phase 2/3 - 62nd to McLane Creek x x 0.0 1.7

Elderberry Rd Upgrade - SR 12 to 196th Ave x x 0.8 0.0

Henderson Blvd. Upgrade - Old Hwy 99 to Tumwater Blvd. x x 5.3 0.2

Kinwood Road Project (Pacific to Martin Way) x x 3.5 0.1

Lawrence Lake Rd (153rd Ave to Bald Hill Rd) x x 4.7 0.2

Littlerock Rd / 113th Ave. x 0.7 0.0 10.0

Marvin Rd (Pac Ave/SR510 to Mullen) x 16.6 0.7

Maytown Rd. Upgrade SW - Littlerock Rd. to I-5 x x 10.0 0.4 10

McCorkle Rd SE (113th Ave SE to Old Hwy 99) & 113th Ave SE

(SR121 to McCorkle Rd SE) x x 10.7 0.4 10.7

Meridian Rd (Martin Way to I-5) x x 1 0.0

Mullen Rd. Upgrade - Vicinity of 46th Ave. SE x x 1.6 0.1

Mullen Road - W. City Limits to Marvin Rd x x 5.7 0.2

Mullen Road Upgrade - Lacey City Limits to Carpenter Rd SE x x 5.7 0.2

Old Hwy 99 / Tilley Rd. Intersection x 0.6 0.0

Old Hwy 99 Bridge O-7 Replacement x 0.7 0.0

Old Hwy 99 Rural Capacity Project (S. UGA Boundary to SR12) x x 3.7 0.1

Pacific Ave Capacity Project (Unions Mills to SR510) x x 3.0 0.1

Rich Road SE (Rixie Rd - Yelm Hwy) x x 2.1 0.1

Rich Road Upgrade - Phase 2-89th to Normandy Street x x 2.0 0.1

Sargent Rd. Upgrade x x 8.1 0.3 0.8

SR12 Grand Mound West UGA Boundary to US99 - Access

Road x 1.2 0.0

Steilacoom Road - Phase 1 - Pacific to Marvin/SR510 3.9 0.2

Steilacoom Road / Phase 2 - Marvin/SR510 to Duterrow x x 3.7 0.1

Tilley Road (T-2) Bridge Replacement Project x 1.3 0.1 50.0

Vail Rd. Upgrade - 138th to Bald Hill Rd x x 5.8 0.2

Vail Rd. Phase 2 (138th to 153rd) x x 5.9 0.2

Yelm Hwy / Meridian Intersection x 0.7 0.0

Yelm Hwy Capacity Project 4-Lacey City Limits to West of

Meridian/Phase1 (O-12 Bridge) x x x 8.3 0.3

TOTAL 20-Year CFP 85 7 22 58 7 0 7 85

TOTAL 30-Year CFP: ESTIMATE (1.5 * 20 yr CFP) 127 10 33 86 11 0 11 127

Acres Affected

Wid

en

ing

Imp

rove

me

nts

Co

nst

ruct

ion

/

Re

pla

cem

en

t

Project Location in Thurston County Guild 1 Guild

2

Guild

3

Guild

4

OSF

Habitat

Screen


34

Table 3.7 Covered activity summary for transportation capital projects construction.

Activity Summary – Transportation Construction

Duration Year Round



Projected Area Affected per Unit Entire Lot



127 10 33 87 11 - 11 127


3.1.7 Transportation Maintenance & Work in Right-of-Way

This section includes overlapping activities that occur within Thurston County right-of-way under

County jurisdiction. Thurston County maintains 1,035 mi (1,666 km) of County roadway and

adjacent right-of-way. Within the County’s owned and managed roads, 52 km (32 mi) are gravel

and the remainder are paved. A typical road cross section is shown in Figure 3.1. In the Prairie-Oak

AOI, there are approximately 502 mi (808 km) of road right-of-way in Guild 1 habitat, 18 mi (29

km) of right-of-way in Guild 2 habitat, and 90 mi (145 km) of right-of-way in the OSF Habitat

Screen9.

Multiple overlapping covered activities with temporary impacts will occur in the portion of right-of-

way which contains habitat for the covered species. This area will be affected by transportation

maintenance activities multiple times over the course of the HCP. Emergency response and utility

activities are more difficult to project, but will occur in the area already affected by transportation

maintenance. The County will include the area affected by all covered activities in the Annual

Compliance report.

3.1.7.1 Transportation Maintenance

Maintenance of existing paved or graveled road surface are not expected to have impacts to

associated habitats. The County also maintains the land from the edge of the road surface to the

outer edge of County’s right-of-way (Figure 3.1), using the maintenance operations described

below. Additional detail is available in the Regional Road Maintenance Guidelines (RRMG ADD

CITATION).

9 Across all transportation maintenance and work in right-of-way, it was assumed that 50% of the right-of-way in the OSF Habitat Screen was suitable OSF habitat.


35

Figure 3.1 Typical road and bridge maintenance cross sections.


36

Through a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA a subset of routine maintenance activities10 on

roadside rights-of-way of highways and roads are exempt from incidental take for Guild 1 MPG (79

FR 19760-19796), other transportation maintenance activities that are not exempt from take will

occur in these areas, and impacts for the entire affected area are requested.

Transportation maintenance activities carried out by the County within the right-of-way with

potential to impact one or more of the HCP covered species and their habitats include:

(1) Vegetation maintenance: This activity consists of mowing, trimming bushes/branches and tree

removal.

Mowing and trimming that may impact HCP species occurs from the outer edge of the gravel

shoulder to the top of the back of the roadside ditch (average of 10.5 ft (3.2 m), Figure 3.1).

Additional vegetation management includes inlets and outlets of culverts for making

necessary repairs and inspections.

• Mowing is completed using a tractor mower deck not exceeding 8 ft (2.4 m) in diameter

attached to a boom arm of heavy machinery (such as a backhoe excavator or large

tractor) and cut to an average height of roughly 2-6 in (5-15 cm) high above the soil or

substrate. Trimming brush can be done using a mower as described above or by an

individual on the ground or in a bucket truck with small mechanical hand tools (i.e.,

chainsaw, weed eaters, etc.). Larger limbs and vegetation will be chipped in a large

chipper truck (see figure below) and the resulting chips will either be returned to the

road right-of-way or taken to an off-site facility. Occasionally mowing and trimming will

extend to the right-of-way edge if there is a sight distance safety issue or if it is

adversely affecting the stream channel adjacent to a bridge. Mowing and chipping will

not occur in standing water. Mowing and trimming activities will follow Best

Management Practices (Appendix B).

• Herbicide spraying is used in right-of-way vegetation management in Thurston County

over approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) of roadside; these areas are treated in spring with a

glyphosate herbicide to control vegetation on the roadside (Roger Giebelhaus, Thurston

County Public Works, Personal Communication, June 2015), and all of these road

sections are in the Prairie-Oak AOI. Site and weed specific spot application of broadleaf

herbicide is used for control of invasive and/or problematic species periodically during

May and June.

• Trees are typically only removed if found to be sight distance safety issue, if trees have

potential to hit vehicles/pedestrians, if trees block traffic signs and if decaying trees

create a hazard with the potential to fall as verified by a certified arborist. Trees are

also removed if they divert stream water in a way that compromises the integrity of a

bridge.

10 Such routine maintenance activities of roadside rights-of-way of highways and roads are limited to the following, and must be conducted in a way that impacts to non-target plants are minimized to the maximum extent practicable: (i) Mowing; (ii) Mechanical removal of noxious weeds or invasive plants; (iii) Selective application of herbicides for removal of noxious weeds or invasive plants; and (iv) Repair or maintenance of fences.


37

• This activity occurs year round, but primarily these activities occur in June through

September as the vegetation grows. All right of way in the Permit Area will require

vegetation maintenance during the HCP permit term.

• Additional Information on vegetation management including BMPs,

mowing/brushing/trimming heights can be found in the RRMG Maintenance Category

#15 (Vegetation Maintenance) and the Thurston County Integrated Vegetation

Management Program

(http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehipm/ipm_cntyimp.html).

Activity Component Summary – Road Right-of-Way Vegetation Maintenance Duration Year round, primarily June-September Intensity Shortening or removal of vegetation Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, recurring (1x per year) Projected Area Affected 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide band of right-of-way Projected Total Area Affected All right-of-way

(2) Open Drainage System Maintenance (Ditching): This activity consists of re-establishing the flow

of ditches, swales and infiltration galleries.

• The ditches and swales accumulate sediment, garbage and debris over time and the

material needs to be removed to re-establish flow or the infiltration of a gallery. Before

materials are removed vegetation maintenance as described above will be conducted to

improve visibility and safety of this operation. The typical depth of soil removed is 6 in

(15 cm). Material from the ditch will be removed by backhoe or other mechanical

means. The material will be moved to an off-site location. No wetlands will be filled or

drained as a result of this activity. All open drainage systems maintenance activities will

follow standard road work safety operating procedures and Best Management Practices

(Appendix B). The area affected by ditching is a 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide section of the right of

way.

• This activity occurs year round, but primarily in the summer months when ditches are

dry or have little to no standing water. All right-of-way in the Permit Area will require

ditching during the HCP permit term.

• Additional information on Open Drainage Systems Maintenance including BMP’s are

located in the RRMG Maintenance Category #4. Per the Washington Department of

Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 Permit for

Thurston County section S.5.C5 subsection c.ii (2) when inspections identify

maintenance needs the work is required to be performed within 6 months for open

drainage systems within new developments/projects and 1 year for all other open

drainage systems. Thurston County Public Works follows the maintenance standards

established in the NPDES II permit, Thurston County Drainage & Design Manual

(Thurston County 2009) and the RRMG.

Activity Component Summary – Road Right-of-Way Open Drainage Maintenance (Ditching)


38

Duration Year round, primarily June-September Intensity Removal of vegetation, sediment, debris and garbage Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, recurring (At least 1x per 30 years) Projected Area Affected 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide band of right-of-way Projected Total Area Affected All right-of-way

(3) Guardrail Maintenance: This activity consists of repairing guardrail after it is damaged by

vehicles or as it ages.

• Posts are buried in the shoulder or slope adjacent to the shoulder at a depth of 3.5 to 8.5

feet. The soil around the posts may be disturbed during post replacement. This work is

performed using a backhoe or excavator with auger attachment, a vactor truck and

posthole diggers/shovels.

• This activity occurs year round as damaged by vehicles or as degradation is discovered.

All guardrail sections will require maintenance at least once during the 30 year HCP.

Activity Component Summary – Road Right-of-Way Existing Guardrail Maintenance Duration March-June Intensity Disruption and removal of gravel and sediment Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, recurring at least 1x per 30 years Projected Area Affected Occasional < 3 ft (0.9 m) radius within the vegetation

maintenance area. Projected Total Area Affected All right-of-way

(4) Sign maintenance and Installation: This activity consists of repairing signs after they are

damaged by vehicles or installing new signs. Posts are buried in the shoulder or slope adjacent

to the shoulder at a depth of 32 inches. The soil around the posts may be disturbed during post

replacement. This work is performed using a truck mounted auger or posthole diggers and rock

bars.

This activity occurs year round, and all signs will be replaced at least once during the 30

year HCP.

Activity Component Summary – Road Right-of-Way Sign Installation Duration March-June Intensity Disruption and removal of gravel and sediment to replace

existing signs. Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, occurring at least 1x per 30 years Projected Area Affected Occasional < 3 ft (0.9 m) radius within the vegetation

maintenance area. Projected Total Area Affected All right-of-way

(5) Enclosed Drainage System Maintenance: This activity consists of repair, replacement,

installation, and maintenance tasks performed on enclosed drainage systems (see Table 3.6).

• This activity occurs year round, and the majority of culverts in Thurston County will

require maintenance or replacement within the HCP term.


39

• Additional Information on Enclosed Drainage System Maintenance including BMPs are

located in the RRMG Maintenance Category #2 & 3. Per the DOE NPDES Phase 2 Permit

for Thurston County section S.5.C5.A subsection c.ii (2) when inspections identify

maintenance needs the work is required to be performed within 6 months for catch

basins and 1 year for all other drainage facilities.

Table 3.8 Drainage System Types

Drainage System Type Description of Maintenance Activities

Retention/Detention

facilities

Mostly vegetation maintenance (described in Section 3.5.2

above) and clearing debris/obstructions by hand with shovels.

Manholes/Catch

Basins/Vaults

Vactor trucks and jetter trucks are used to clean and remove

accumulated debris/materials that are then hauled to a County

Decant Facility where there is no impact to habitat. Mini-

excavators/backhoes are used occasionally to adjust, replace

or repair an inadequate structure.

Pipes/Culverts/Box Culverts Jetter trucks and vactor trucks are used to clean and remove


Decant Facility. Mini-excavators/backhoes are used

occasionally to adjust, replace or repair an inadequate

structure.

Inlets/Outlets Vactor trucks or hand work with shovels is used to remove


Decant Facility or a County pit site. During high flow storm

water events a trash truck will be used to remove debris.

Low Impact Development

Underground Injection

System

Vactor trucks are used to clean and remove accumulated

debris/materials that are then hauled to a County Decant

Facility.

Activity Component Summary – Road Right-of-Way Enclosed Drainage System Maintenance Duration Year round, primarily in June-September Intensity Disruption and removal of vegetation, gravel, debris, and

sediment that may alter water flow in right-of-way Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, occurring at least 1 x per 30 years Projected Area Affected Varies by drainage system, within open drainage system

area. Projected Total Area Affected All right-of-way

(6) Bridge Maintenance: These activities include inspecting, testing, repairing, replacing,

maintaining, painting or resurfacing components of the bridge such as the electrical system,

substructure, superstructure, surface footings, piers, supports, access roads, abutments, bridge

rail, ramps, and vegetation management.


40

• Bridge repair, abutment repair, replacement, installation, and maintenance activities are

performed to provide a safe roadway system for the traveling public, and to protect

bridge infrastructure according to local, state and federal regulations. This, in turn,

protects the stream, riparian habitat, and stream bank by limiting the number of

crossings through the habitat area.

• In advance of abutment repair, a site inspection and reach assessment is conducted,

which will determine the best engineering design to protect the bridge. Before work

begins a Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) is obtained. Typically, Thurston County uses

excavators or cranes for placing large rocks where it is able to reach, and in other areas

rock is placed by hand. If a void exists beneath the bridge approach from scour, the

asphalt is cut and the void is filled with clean dry fill.

• Bridge scour protection consists of replacing or installing rock or pre-cast devices

around bridge piers to prevent the erosion of material. If too much material erodes the

bridge could fail. If water is present, Thurston County staff will use Maintenance

Category #6 Stream Crossings BMPs.

• Drift removal involves removing built up branches and debris that have collected near

or against the structure of the bridge. The debris is typically removed by boat using

pole saws or from the bridge itself using a crane, trash truck, or an excavator. Typically

it builds up around the piers and abutments. If left in place, the material could cause the

bridge to fail or result in flooding issues.

• Maintenance needs are discovered during annual inspections. The timing of these

activities are determined by General Hydraulic Permit Provisions; each element has

specific conditions. This activity occurs in June-August or other times if immediate

attention is required. All bridges crossing waterways will require bridge abutment

protection at least once during the 30 year HCP.

• For additional information see the bridge cleaning, painting, general maintenance and

repair Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) in Appendix C.

Activity Component Summary – Bridge Maintenance Duration Year round Intensity Variable. Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, occurring at least 1x per 30 years Projected Area Affected Varies by bridge, but within the right of way width. Projected Total Area Affected 86 bridges in Guild 1 Habitat, 1 bridge in Guild 2 habitat,

32 bridges in OSF Habitat Screen

(7) Beaver Dam Management: This activity consists of beaver dam notching or removal, and shall

occur in a manner to ensure the gradual, slow release of impounded water.

Frequently, beaver dams block roadside ditch or stream areas and result in flooding of

adjacent roads, creating a safety hazard. Work to reduce flooding includes using manual or

mechanical means to loosen and remove woody material and debris, or use of a mechanical


41

saw to create narrow paths through the dam to restore partial water flow through the dam

to reduce flooding. Depending on site specific conditions material and debris are usually

placed to the side in riparian vegetation, or may be taken to the road for removal from the

site and habitat. The area affected by beaver dam removal varies with the beaver dam.

Further information describing the County management of beaver dams is included in the

Beaver Dam Management Plan (Appendix D). This activity can occur year round as needed,

county-wide.

Activity Component Summary – Beaver Dam Management Duration Year round

Intensity Disruption/Removal of accumulated debris Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, occurring at least 1x per 30 years Projected Area Affected Varies by bridge, but within the right of way width. Projected Total Area Affected

(8) Watercourse and Stream Maintenance: Repair, replacement, installation, and maintenance

tasks are performed on watercourses or streams.

These activities may include structural repair/replacement, slope stabilization, sediment

removal, vegetation management, debris removal, access road maintenance, habitat

maintenance and improvements (for example, fish ladders, weirs, and large woody

material). Some roadside ditches and storm water facilities can be watercourses or

streams.

Watercourses and streams can be located within the road ROW, on easements, tracts, and

public property or on private property. Proposed maintenance activities within waters of

the state will be reviewed prior to work with WDFW staff to ensure HPA compliance. In

addition to project-specific HPA requirements, road crews will adhere to the provisions of

these Guidelines to ensure compliance with the Regional Program. Environmental support

staff will review the planned work and contact WDFW to determine if the facility meets the

definition above.

Ditches or storm water facilities that are watercourses or streams are maintained when

sediment, debris, or vegetation impede flows, or storage of water and sediment to a point

where safety or the ROW structure is compromised.

Maintaining ditches or storm water facilities that are watercourses or streams includes

activities to preserve line and grade, depth and cross section, and inflow and outflow of

culverts (in compliance with federal, state and local regulations).

This activity can occur year round as discovered during annual inspection or emergencies.

Maintenance activities within waters of the state will be reviewed with WDFW, and

permitted with an HPA, as necessary.

Activity Component Summary – Watercourse and stream maintenance


42

Duration Year round

Intensity Disruption/Removal of accumulated debris Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Temporary, occurring at least 1x per 30 years Projected Area Affected Varies by bridge, but within the right of way width. Projected Total Area Affected

3.1.7.2 Emergency Response

County emergency management actions in response to traffic accidents, hazardous waste spills,

spot flooding, illicit discharges, or other accidental and unpredictable events have the potential to

impact HCP covered species in County right-of-way. The area for such impacts cannot accurately be

estimated, therefore the county will put in place a process that assesses any impacts that occur to

the covered species post-action, and include those impacts in the Annual Compliance report.

3.1.7.3 Utilities

Utility infrastructure includes overhead and underground facilities in right-of-way as well as on

private property to the service meter (typically found on the side of the business or residential

building). Common practices on installing overhead or underground utilities on private property

are a combination of the following:

• Trench method: Excavation/trenching: Excavation typically uses a backhoe. Equipment

is usually staged on the pavement and excavation spoils are directly loaded into trucks

for disposal off site, either outside of HCP habitat or out of County. Excavations are

minimized to the extent practical, both to control cost and minimize restoration

requirements. Service installations and repairs are limited to minimal ground

disturbance necessary for work.

• Bore method: Use of a bore machine, which involves a placing the boring machinery and

initiating a bore pit where a bore head is inserted into the ground and a receive pit

where the bore head ends. Communications cable and/or conduit is attached and pulled

back through the hole created by the bore head.

The area for utility impacts cannot accurately be estimated, therefore the County will put in place a

process that assesses any impacts that occur to the covered species post-action, and include those

impacts in the Annual Compliance Report.

Table 3.9 Covered activity summary for transportation maintenance and work in right-of-way.

Activity Summary – All Transportation Maintenance & Work in Right-of-Way



607 100 151 165 49 - 42 115



43

3.1.8 Landfill and Solid Waste Management

Waste management activities that will impact HCP covered species through conversion of habitat to

alternate uses include:

• Expansion of recycling centers in Rochester and Rainier (1 ac (0.4 ha) each in the

Prairie-Oak AOI). Addition of graveled or paved area to existing facilities.

• Solid waste clean-up and remediation activities involving use of excavation equipment

to remove affected soil. The projected affected area is 5,000 ft2 (464 m2) per site and is

projected to occur at 18 sites in the OSF Habitat Screen (50% were assumed to be

suitable OSF habitat), and 156 sites in the Prairie-Oak AOI, specific locations unknown.

• Construction of two new solid waste facilities (landfill or transfer stations)- one small (5

ac (2 ha), location unknown) and one large (up to 40 ac (16 ha), location southern

Thurston County). Solid waste facility (landfill) construction involves use of excavation

equipment to remove excess material and stockpile on site, establishment of

groundwater control trenches and placement of protective plastic liner and geotextile

protector, placement of leachate pipe system, establishment of a gravel layer prior to

use. Roads are established as needed on site. Transfer stations are created by paving

the area, and establishing piles of materials and buildings on site for facility needs.

Table 3.10 Covered activity summary for landfill and solid waste management.

Activity Summary – Landfill and Solid Waste Management

Duration Year Round



Projected Area Affected per Unit Variable, up to 1 ac (0.4 ha) per dropbox expansion, 5,000

ft2 (464 m2) per solid waste clean-up site, 5 ac (2 ha) per

small solid waste facility and up to 40 ac (16 ha) per large

solid waste facility.



49 1 2 3 2 6 2 1


3.1.9 Water Resources Management

Water resources management activities that are anticipated to occur over the 30 year HCP and

affect covered species and their habitats include:

• Water conveyance, flow, runoff, treatment, retention flow control projects are

anticipated to affect 118.8 ac (47.5 ha) of the Prairie-Oak AOI and 4.7 ac (1.9 ha) of the

OSF Habitat Screen, of which 2.3 ac (0.9 ha) was assumed to be suitable OSF habitat.

These activities include:


44

o Conveyance Upgrades

Generally involves the replacement of storm pipes with newer and resized

pipes. Such work typically requires excavation of existing conveyance and

replacement of pipe.

o Installation or Repair of Runoff Treatment Facilities

Treatment/Constructed Wetlands are placed to intercept stormwater

running in roadside ditches before it discharges into a stream. Treatment

wetlands are constructed by excavating a water storage area. Wetland

vegetation is planted in the water storage area.

Treatment Vaults are large concrete structures with a filter canister.

Installation involves excavation.

o Installation or Repair of Flow Control Facilities

Infiltration facilities come in multiple forms; the most common is an

underground infiltration piping system. Such a system is installed by

excavating, placing a large diameter perforated pipe, then backfilling around

the pipe with gravel. Water enters the pipe and slowly percolates out.

Detention ponds are placed at the end of a water drainage path, with the

purpose of holding water and slowly releasing it into a pipe or to stream.

These structures are created by excavation with a backhoe.

Roadside bioretention structures are constructed by excavating a roadside

ditch to a wider width and in some cases installing under piping, back filling

that excavation with gravel, adding filter fabric and a bioretention soil. This

typically involves working in a 16 ft (4.9 m) wide strip of the right-of-way.

The structures increase water infiltration, then pick up excess water in a

drain pipe.

• Installation of water and sewer lines.

o Construction of water treatment system and related water reservoir near existing

sewage treatment plants (e.g., the sewage treatment plant in Grand Mound). This

activity is anticipated to affect 5.7 ac (2.3 ha) of the Prairie-Oak AOI.

• Installation of groundwater wells.

o Wells are typically drilled with a well drilling rig, and a concrete pad is placed over

the top of the well. Impacts from this activity include compression of soil and

vegetation by vehicles and equipment. Each well is estimated to affect up to 2,000

ft2 (186 m2) each, specific locations unknown. Specific locations are unknown,

County projections anticipate 25 wells to occur in the Prairie-Oak AOI, affecting up

to 1.2 ac (0.5 ha), and 25 wells to occur in the OSF Habitat Screen, affecting up to 1.2

ac (0.5 ha), of which 0.6 ac (0.25 ha) would in fact be suitable OSF habitat.


45

Table 3.11 Covered activity summary for water resources management.

Activity Summary – Water Resources Management

Duration Year Round



Projected Area Affected per Unit Varies by project



72 11 18 25 6 13 5 3


3.1.10 County Parks, Trails, and Land Management

Thurston County conducts management activities on parks and other county lands that may impact

covered species or their habitats, including:

Thurston County owns and maintains paved trails, and additional trail development is

anticipated over the duration of the proposed permit. These trails are designed for multiple

uses, including cycling, walking, jogging, and other forms of recreation. Associated trail

activities that are covered in this HCP include trail maintenance and trail development.

o Trail maintenance, including ditch and stormwater conveyance system and bridge

maintenance, which may involve disturbance of soil and vegetation outside the trail

itself, and vegetation management in trail rights-of-way for the Chehalis-Wester

Trail (11.3 mi in Prairie-Oak habitat in the Plan Area) and Yelm-Tenino Trail (10 mi

in Prairie-Oak habitat in the Plan Area): This includes mowing approximately 3 ft

(0.9 m) on each side of the trail once per month in the growing season, spraying

and/or wiping herbicides, tree removal, and tree plantings (including Oregon white

oak trees) that can involve soil and vegetation disturbance.

o Construction of new trails, including the Gate-to-Belmore Trail, a trail connecting

the Gate area in south Thurston County to the vicinity of Kenneydell County Park in

Tumwater. The footprint of this multiuse path is a decommissioned railroad track,

which is not habitat for HCP covered species. Construction of the trail will not affect

or remove habitat for the HCP covered species, except at stream crossings. Potential

altered hydrology from the construction project near the Mima Creek crossing will

potentially affect an estimated 25 ac (10 ha) of OSF habitat (Teal Waterstrat,

USFWS, Personal Communication, April 27, 2016).

• During the term of the HCP, in Prairie-Oak habitat, the County anticipates completing

public park improvements, potentially adding a new picnic shelter and educational area

at Glacial Heritage Preserve (2 ac (0.8 ha) area), plus potential small (1 ac (0.4 ha) each)

improvement projects at County Parks, that could include expansion of parking areas,

trail head facilities, or interpretive areas.


46

Table 3.12 Covered activity summary for County parks, trails, and land management.

Activity Summary – County Parks, Trails, and Land Management

Duration Year Round


Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent (extremely frequent maintenance, treated as

permanent impact)

Projected Area Affected per Unit 6 ft (1.8 m) wide trail maintenance, 1 ac (0.4 ha)park

improvements, 2 ac (0.8 ha) picnic/educational area.



12 1 - 4 2 2 1 25


3.2 Permit Duration

Thurston County is seeking a 30-year ITP from USFWS (permit term). Thirty years was chosen as

the permit duration because it is a reasonable timeframe in which to forecast local growth. All

assessments and projections in the Plan are based on a 30-year time period. Prior to permit

expiration, Thurston County may choose to apply to renew or amend the Plan and the associated

ITP to extend their terms in accordance with USFWS regulations.

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Impacts Analysis

47

Section 4 Analysis of Impacts Likely to Result from the Taking

4.1 Introduction

This section projects the unavoidable impacts to covered species (incidental take) over the 30-year

term of the HCP. Incidental take projections are predicted for covered activities across the entire

permit area. Thurston County has submitted an application for an ITP covering the impacts

estimated in this section. Any impacts to covered species beyond this estimate will require

separate negotiations with USFWS, either for a new HCP, or an amendment to the ITP and HCP.

This would include adding conservation measures to mitigate the impacts of the taking, along with

possible additional NEPA review. A summary of the impacts analysis process is described in Figure

4.1. A summary of the projected impacts to covered species and associated obligations for

minimization and mitigation are presented in Table 4.1.

4.2 Methods of Quantifying Habitat Area and Value for the HCP

Species

HCPs must quantify impacts to covered species and their habitats resulting from the Plan’s covered

activities. This ensures that minimization and mitigation actions meet statutorily required

standards and allows monitoring of the HCP’s Conservation Program. This section presents the

methods used to identify:

• Important habitat characteristics and their value for the covered species in prairie-oak

and wetland-riparian habitat.

• Where, over what area, and to what degree the covered activities will impact the

important habitat characteristics in the HCP permit area over the permit term.

All quantification methods were intended to:

• Provide information for impacts at the site and County-wide scales.

• Quantify both habitat impacts and benefits in a consistent way.

• Provide transparent and predictable assessments for County permit applicants to

estimate impacts.

Lands provide different habitat values, and covered activities affect habitat differently. To enable

quantification and tabulation of the impacts, for example, of a 100 ac (40 ha) development on low

quality habitat and a 20 ac (8 ha) development on very high quality habitat, the HCP uses a

standard unit of measure, a functional acre for the combination of habitat quality (or value) and

quantity (or area). Habitat value is based on habitat characteristics for each covered species, e.g.,

presence of and proximity to prairie and gopher soils and species.


48

Figure 4.1 HCP impacts analysis process summary.


49

Table 4.1 Covered Activities and Projected Take of Habitat

*1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

What is a functional acre of habitat?

One functional acre is equivalent to one acre of very high value habitat. The impact analyses and

projections applied a suite of tools to assess the habitat value of any parcel for each HCP covered

species, producing an index score between 1 (very high value) to 0 (very low or no habitat value).

That habitat value score was multiplied by the acreage of impact to generate a functional acreage

of impact. In an equation: Habitat Value x Habitat Area Impacted = Functional Acres Impacted.

4.2.1 Quantifying Impacts in Prairie-Oak Habitats

4.2.1.1 Mapping Habitat Area for each of the Prairie-Oak Guilds

For this HCP, Prairie-Oak habitat is the land in unincorporated Thurston County (permit area) with

potential to support the covered species that reside in prairie-oak habitats (Prairie-Oak AOI;

mapped in Figure 2.4; described in Section 2.2.1). Different habitat conditions translate to different

suitability and value for the covered species. Two steps were taken to refine the greater Prairie-

Oak AOI into the area that is currently most likely to support HCP species:

1) Spatially identify prairie-oak habitat areas. Prairie-oak habitat was identified using the

National Land Cover Dataset11 (NLCD; Homer et al 2015) classes of: Barren Land

(Rock/Sand/Clay), Shrub/Scrub, Grassland/Herbaceous, Pasture/Hay, Cultivated Crops,

and Developed Open Space, Low intensity, Medium Intensity and High intensity (collectively

hereafter referred to as NLCD Prairie-Oak Habitat).

2) Partition of Prairie-Oak AOI into areas of potential habitat for the species guilds. The

species guilds (Table 2.3) each have different known and potential distributions within

Prairie-Oak Habitat. The combination of NLCD land cover and species-specific areas were

used to analyze projected impacts by guild and to build a conservation lands system (see

11 The NLCD dataset is the most complete and accurate countywide dataset for land cover in Thurston County.

Covered Activity 30-year Projected

Area of Activity (acres)

30-year Projected

Impacts (functional acres)

To Minimize

(func. acres)

To Mitigate

(func. acres)

Residential Development 12,718 5,331 1,919 3,412

Added Accessory Structures 700 290 104 185

Septic extension or repair, heating oil tank

decommission (temporary)

273 123 44 79

Commerical & Industrial Development 1347 955 344 611

Public Service Facilities 143 89 30 57

Landfill/Solid Waste Management 59 24 8 15

Transportation Projects 342 184 63 118

Transportation Maintenance & Work in right of

way (temporary)

1101 474 161 303

Water Resources Management 136 55 19 35

County Parks, Trails, and Land Management 47 39 13 25

TOTAL 16,866 7,564 2,647 4,916


50

Section 5: Conservation Program). Criteria used to identify guild habitat areas are included

in Table 2.3.

4.2.1.2 Assigning Habitat Values for Guild 1

The USFWS developed a matrix to describe the value of habitat for all sub-species of MPG using a

combination of two factors (Table 4.2): soil type (MPG soil preference) and occupancy/proximity to

lands occupied by MPG and presence/absence of barriers to movement that were broadly

observable in aerial imagery.

Soil type (Table 2.4) is the most important factor for determining the value of a site for MPG. MPG

soils are not known to be restorable, and are a finite resource in Thurston County. High, medium,

and low preference categories indicate the relative preference of MPG for these soils. The higher

the preference, the higher the habitat value and associated score for each soil category (Table 4.2).

Preferences were determined through analysis of Thurston County soils, known MPG occurrences,

and the frequency and rate of MPG occurrence within soil types (USFWS 2016).

Table 4.2 Factors used to determine the value of a site for MPGs, and the scores used for each factor in the analysis of habitat value. Based on USFWS guidance (August 2015).

Value (relative %) of habitat for Mazama pocket gopher

MPG Soil Preference

High Medium Low

Occ

up

ancy

/ P

roxi

mit

y C

ate

gory

Category 1: Occupied

Site is occupied by Mazama pocket gophers. 100% 100% 100%

Category 2: Adjacent/ Proximal to Occupancy

Site occupancy is unknown, but site is within 656 ft (200 m) of an occupied area (MPG soils are present on project site, and there are no barriers to MPG movement between project site and occupied area).

100% 90% 75%

Category 3: Low proximity/ occupancy

Site occupancy is unknown, and site is more than 656 ft (200 m) of an occupied area (MPG soils are present on project site, and there are no barriers to MPG movement between project site and occupied area).

90% 30% 15%

Category 4: Suitable with Barriers

Occupancy is unknown, and there are barriers to MPG movement between project site and a known occupied area, but there are suitable soils on the project site.

60% 20% 10%


51

Occupancy of a site by MPG, and proximity to MPG-occupied sites, determines the likelihood of

negative impacts to MPGs and their habitat, and therefore the potential for take and the potential

for impeding recovery. There are two methods for determining occupancy: 1) MPG mound surveys

or 2) using USFWS criteria for determining the relative likelihood of MPG without surveys. Current

survey methods can determine occupancy, but cannot prove MPG is not using the site because

mounding activity may vary with season, moisture, vegetation, and other factors. For the

countywide impact analysis for this HCP, all portions of a site with known MPG use detected at any

point, on which soils are suitable, were considered occupied for the purposes of this analysis. High,

medium, and low likelihood of occupancy categories were assigned in relation to known occupancy

on or near the site, known MPG movement distances (656 feet (200 m)), and barriers to MPG

movement.

Known areas of MPG occupancy and underlying soil preference were mapped to the extent possible

using the criteria described in Table 4.2, WDFW MPG location data from the Priority Habitats and

Species Dataset (PHS; WDFW, as of June 2014), and MPG detections that occurred during on the

ground surveys completed in 2014 and 2015. When MPGs were detected on a parcel, we assigned

all contiguous (i.e., without obvious physical barriers) MPG soils on the parcel the value they would

receive if occupied for the purposes of this analysis.

The total functional acres of impact for Guild 1 (the combination of habitat value and area

impacted) was calculated looking at the intersection of impacts with the value of each MPG habitat

category combination in Table 4.2. The distribution of land in MPG habitat categories across

Prairie-Oak habitat in County jurisdiction is shown in Table 4.3.

For residential development, commercial development, and school construction, where project

locations were pinpointed to specific parcels, the proportions of MPG habitat category impacted in

the development were assumed to reflect the proportions of each MPG habitat category present on

the parcel. For other activities, where location in the County was unknown or widely distributed, to

convert affected area to functional acres for Guild 1, we assumed their distribution was

proportional to Prairie–Oak habitat distribution across the MPG subspecies habitat value categories

(Table 4.3).

4.2.1.3 Assigning habitat values for Guilds 2 and 3

Habitat values for Guilds 2 and 3 were assigned from PHAM (Addendum B Prairie Habitat

Assessment Methodology Documentation), which describes how suitable a set of habitat types

(PHAM habitat types: Table 4.4) are for covered species. PHAM uses two factors to determine

habitat value, including: 1) habitat classes defined by vegetation and 2) likelihood of occupancy.

PHAM was calibrated for the habitat needs of Taylor’s checkerspot (similar to the other species

needs in Guild 2) and streaked horned lark (similar to the other species needs in Guild 3).

Within the Prairie-Oak AOI, habitat classes for PHAM were identified using high-resolution aerial

imagery from 2012 and 2013 (Google Earth, <1m) to estimate the distribution of the PHAM habitat


52

types at 200 randomly selected points via Google Earth12. The resulting sample distribution is

shown in Table 4.513.

Table 4.3 Distribution of prairie-oak habitat in County jurisdiction across MPG habitat categories for each MPG subspecies.

Distribution of Prairie-Oak Habitat in County Jurisdiction

Occupancy or Proximity to Known MPG

Category 1: Occupied Category 2: Adjacent/ Proximal to occupancy

Category 3: Low Proximity/ Occupancy

T. m. pugetensis (OPG)

High Preference Soil 0.0% 0.4% 0.2%

Medium Preference Soil 0.3% 1.0% 1.1%

Low Preference Soil 0.1% 1.0% 4.4%

T. m. tumuli (TPG)




Unk Subspecies (UNK)




T. m. yelmensis (YPG)




Sum 5.8% 17.4% 76.9% *For HCP analysis projections, we were not able to estimate when barriers would occur to MPG movement.

Therefore, Category 4 from Table 4.2 was not used in HCP projections, though it will apply during HCP

implementation (See Section 6 Implementation).

12 Each of the sample points were classified as one of the six PHAM habitat types, or assigned to an “other, none of the above” type if the point did not fit any of the classes. Reference habitat polygons were used to support the sampler’s classification of the random points into the PHAM habitat types. Reference habitat polygons were provided for each PHAM habitat type, using existing habitats already described (e.g., Chappell et al. (2003)) or classified during previous mapping (e.g., during the development of PHAM). The confidence in the classification of each sample point was also ranked (i.e., low, medium, or high confidence); the final distribution of PHAM habitat types is based on sample points that were classified with medium or high confidence. 13 For projecting impacts at the Countywide level, the proportional distribution of PHAM habitat types was used to determine the proportional habitat values impacted within the Prairie-Oak AOI for Guilds 2 and 3 during the permit term.


53

Table 4.4 Potential occupancy values from PHAM (Addendum B: Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology Documentation), which indicate the predicted likelihood (0= Zero likelihood, 1 = 100% likelihood) that a habitat type’s physical and biological resources can support the species in the prairie-oak guilds.

Occupancy Likelihood

Habitat Type

Description Species Guild

2 3

High-Quality Native Grassland

Areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, which includes both annual and perennial grasses and forbs, where less than 25 percent of total vegetative cover is comprised of shrubs, and less than 5 percent is comprised of trees. Native herbaceous species comprise 30 percent or more of total cover. These grasslands are most often located on glacial outwash soils (prairies) and shallow soils on rock outcrops (balds).

80% 80%

Native Grassland

Areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, where less than 50 percent of total vegetative cover is comprised of shrubs, and less than 5 percent is comprised of trees. Native herbaceous species comprise 10 to 30 percent of total cover. These grasslands are most often located on glacial outwash soils (prairies) and shallow soils on rock outcrops (balds).

50% 40%

Degraded Grassland

Areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, where less than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover is comprised of shrubs and less than 5 percent is comprised of trees. Native herbaceous species comprise less than 10 percent of total cover. This habitat type includes herbaceous vegetation that is located on soil survey map units that may have supported pre-settlement grasslands. This habitat type also includes herbaceous vegetation that is located in areas that are regularly mowed and, in some cases, have remnant native grassland plant species. Some of these grasslands provide habitat for rare animal and plant species.

40% 40%

Shrub-Dominated Vegetation

Areas that have 50 percent or more of total vegetative cover as shrubs at least 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall and total tree cover less than 5 percent. Vegetation is native or non-native. This habitat type is located on soil survey map units that may have supported pre-settlement grasslands.

10% 10%

Oak Savanna

Areas where total tree canopy cover is 5 to 25 percent and at least half of the total canopy cover is Oregon white oak. The understory consists of native and non-native shrubs, herbs, and graminoids.

20% 10%

Oak-Dominant Forest

Areas where total canopy cover exceeds 25 percent and more than 25 percent of total canopy cover is comprised of Oregon white oak in the main and upper canopy layers and less than 25 percent is comprised of conifers in the main and upper canopy layers. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) may be co-dominant with oak on wetter soils. Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), madrone (Arbutus menziesii)), and/or cherry (Prunus spp.) may also be present.

0% 0%


54

4.2.1.4 Assigning habitat value for Guild 4 Oak Species

Based on analysis of aerial imagery as described in Section 4.2.1.3 above and limited existing

mapping of oak habitats (e.g., Chappell at al 2003), it is estimated that, on average, 4% of the

Prairie-Oak AOI is oak savanna, groves of oak trees, or adjacent oak woodland. In the absence of

data describing oak habitat quality, it assumed that all Oak Guild habitat is providing good habitat

value (90% functionality).

Table 4.5 Distribution of 200 randomly selected points within PHAM habitat types across the Prairie–Oak AOI.

Overall Habitat Type Distribution Based on Sample Point Analysis

PHAM Habitat Type % Frequency in Prairie–Oak AOI

High quality native grassland 0%

Native Grassland 6%

Degraded Grassland 57%

Shrub-dominated vegetation 20%

Oak Savanna 0%

Oak Dominant Forest 4%

Other/None of the above 12%

4.2.2 Oregon Spotted Frog (OSF)

Countywide impacts for OSF were projected within the 39,493 ac (15,982 ha) OSF Habitat Screen

(Figure 2.5). Impacts that result in permanent degradation or loss of suitable OSF habitat in the

OSF Habitat Screen are categorized as permanent. Impacts that degrade habitat for an interim

period are categorized as temporary. For OSF, it is assumed the majority of impacts will be

minimized, due in part to unsuitable building conditions (permanent water or flooded several

months of the year) in OSF habitat and existing wetland protections (see Section 1.4.2.2).

On-the-ground surveys for OSF locations in Thurston County to date have been focused only on the

areas immediately around known locations. The OSF Habitat Screen identifies a mix of known and

potential habitat for OSF. The County acknowledges the entire OSF Habitat Screen is not suitable

OSF habitat. Therefore, it is anticipated that prior to any covered activity occurring under this HCP

in the OSF Habitat Screen except routine right-of-way maintenance, an on-the-ground OSF habitat

verification, potentially with a follow up species survey and technical assistance comments from

USFWS on survey results will be completed. Impacts will only be assessed where suitable OSF

habitat is verified. See Appendix E: Thurston County HCP Oregon Spotted Frog Survey System.


55

4.3 Projected Impacts of the Taking Resulting from Covered Activities

Anticipated countywide impacts of the taking to each of the covered species resulting from covered

activities over the 30-year permit term are summarized in Table 4.6 and described in this section.

Impacts were quantified using methods described in Section 4.2. All impacts are assumed to be

permanent unless otherwise indicated.

Indirect impacts are those impacts that may occur at a different time or in a different place than the

direct impacts (e.g., increased traffic, fragmentation of habitat, etc.) are discussed for each activity

after the description of direct impacts.

The overall effects of the taking on each species guild from each covered activity, described as the

estimated percent (%) of current (2015) habitat area (acres) for each species (subspecies) guild in

the HCP Plan Area that will be impacted by each covered activity. For each MPG subspecies in Guild

1, we also estimated the % of current habitat area in functional acres to be impacted by each

covered activity.

• Guild 1: Total current habitat in the HCP Plan Area was estimated as the area in each

MPG subspecies area within lots14 plus the area of roadside right-of-way (outer edge of

the gravel shoulder to the top of the back of the roadside ditch (average of 10.5 ft (3.2 m)

per side, Figure 3.1)) with MPG soils in NLCD Prairie-Oak Habitat15. Total functional

acres were estimated using methods consistent with those in Section 4.2.1.

• Guild 2: Total current habitat in the HCP Plan Area was estimated as Guild 3 habitat area

(Figure 2.4) within lots and road right-of-way (outer edge of the gravel shoulder to the

top of the back of the roadside ditch (average of 10.5 ft (3.2 m) per side, Figure 3.1)).

• Guild 3: Total current habitat in the HCP Plan Area was estimated as the area of the

Guild 3 habitat area (Figure 2.4), which does not include road right-of-way.

• Guild 4 (Oak): Total current habitat in the HCP Plan Area was estimated as 4% of the

total current habitat for Guild 1, plus the total current habitat for Guild 2 that does not

overlap Guild 1.

• OSF: Total current habitat in the HCP Plan Area was estimated as the area of the OSF

Habitat Screen within lots and road right-of-way (outer edge of the gravel shoulder to

the top of the back of the roadside ditch (average of 10.5 ft (3.2 m) per side, Figure 3.1)).

Over time, covered activities are anticipated to ebb and flow with the pace of growth, but on

average over a 5-year period, it is anticipated the projected area of activity and associated take will

follow a fairly linear pattern (see Table 4.6 for a summary of projecting timing of take across all

14 Lot estimates were based on June 2015 Assessor’s parcel data. 15 All road right-of-way was assumed to be open habitat equating to NLCD Prairie-0ak Habitat.


56

activities and Appendix M for a summary of impacts projected to occur from covered activities over

the HCP permit term.

Table 4.6 Projected impacts for all covered activities over the 30-year HCP.

All Activity Projected Take (functional acres)

Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL

Habitat 2015-25 2025-35 2035-45 2015-25 2025-35 2035-45 TOTAL

Guild 1 2,382 2,382 2,382 7,147

Guild 2 43 43 43 22 22 22 195

Guild 3 84 84 84 23 23 23 253

Guild 4 145 145 145 3 3 3 443

Wetland/Riparian 117 117 117 92 92 92 352

Take (all species; functional acres) 7,564

Activity extent (all species; acres) 16,866

Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected:


Acres Habitat 22.6% 34.8% 18.1% 27.3% 8.7% 13.5% 15.8% 1.4%

Functional Acres 23.9% 45.2% 17.8% 30.2% - - - - *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

4.3.1 Residential Development

Impact estimates for new residential development in the HCP permit area relied on development

projections from Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC 2012a).16 The difference between

2014 and 2045 projections is the development expected to occur during the HCP permit term, and

for which take estimates are provided in Table 4.7.

4.3.1.1 Prairie-Oak Habitat

Direct impacts to each species guild from new residential development (Table 4.7) were estimated

looking at 1) the intersection of habitat within the Prairie-Oak AOI (Section 4.2.1.1) with TRPC’s

anticipated development maps for individual parcels and 2) the typical area affected by new

residential development. The following planning assumptions were used for the countywide

analysis:

• Within urban growth areas (UGA), complete habitat loss was assumed over 100% of

parcel.

16 TRPC’s 2012 “Population and Employment Land Supply Assumptions, For Thurston County” publication and dataset for residential capacity (TPRC 2012a). TRPC data from 2014, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035 were used, and 2045 projections were extrapolated from 2035 zoning capacity.


57

• A typical rural residential dwelling unit and all accessory buildings affect, on average, 2

ac (0.81 ha) over the 30-year HCP.17

• Where NLCD Prairie-Oak Habitat intersects less than 10% of a parcel 5 ac (2 ha) or

greater outside the UGA, it was assumed impacts would be avoided by siting the

development footprint outside of habitat.

• Habitat values for Guilds 1, 2, and 3 were assigned for each parcel using the methods

described in Section 4.2.1.

• Impacts to Guild 4 (oak species) were estimated as 4% of the habitat area affected for

Guilds 1 and 2.

Indirect effects of residential development on the prairie-oak species listed in Table 1.1 are

expected to include:

• Habitat degradation is expected to occur within the areas proximal to driveways and

structures (inside the 60 ft (18 m) buffer). This degradation may include increased

noise and light disturbance, disturbance/displacement/trampling/predation by

domestic animals, vehicular disturbance/displacement/crushing/strike, introduction or

spread of diseases or non-native plant and animal species, placement of small structures

(dog houses, children’s play houses) trash dumping, compaction of soil from foot and

vehicular travel, parking of vehicles, piling of wood or other materials, conversion of

habitat to landscaping, or contamination from accidental spills of hazardous materials.

These indirect effects may be temporary but recurring, and will vary with the type of

residential development and the nature of the dwelling occupants.

• Increased habitat fragmentation, as remaining pieces of habitat are either made smaller

due to losses from development, or are further separated from each other. Increased

fragmentation may result in further genetic isolation of individuals of the prairie-oak

species. Habitat fragmentation effects are expected to be permanent in nature, and

increase in intensity as remaining habitat is developed.

Modification of prairie-oak habitat from construction of homes on prairie-oak habitats in

the quantity projected to occur in the 30 year permit term will result in loss of biological

diversity as habitat loss and degradation occur and species may be removed from the area.

Reductions in biological diversity have already occurred from existing development in

Thurston County, and further reductions may indirectly (and directly) affect the covered

species through decreasing the remaining overall ecosystem function in prairie-oak and

17 The typical area affected by a new residential dwelling unit, including home, driveways, and other County permitted structures was estimated by mapping a sample of developed area footprints (structures and driveways) from a random sample of 40 Thurston County parcels across 3, 5, 10, and 15 ac lots, using aerial imagery. A 60 ft (18 m) radius buffer was used to identify the area around the residential footprint that would potentially be impacted during home construction, septic placement (if applicable), and landscaping (mathematically modified from the 150 ft (46 m) buffer with 25% habitat loss used in PHAM (Addendum B). The buffer area includes areas likely to experience indirect effects. Across all the sample of 40 lots, the average area affected, including buffer, was 2.3 ac (0.9 ha). Given the incentive to cluster buildings and reduce impact area for mitigation, in our projections we reduced this full area to 2 ac (0.8 ha) per development unit.


58

wetland/riparian habitats. The effects of biological diversity loss may be permanent, but

restorable through strategic habitat protection and restoration.

4.3.1.2 Oregon Spotted Frog

Impacts to OSF habitat from new residential development (Table 4.7) were projected using 1) the

intersection the OSF Habitat Screen (Figure 2.5) with TRPC’s anticipated development maps for

individual parcels, 2) the typical area affected by new residential development, and 3) the following

analysis assumptions derived from County records and technical assistance from USFWS and

WDFW:

• Where OSF habitat intersects less than 10% of a parcel 5 ac (2 ha) or greater outside the

UGA, it was assumed impacts would be avoided by siting the development footprint

outside of habitat.

• Ninety percent (90%) of the mapped wetland core areas were suitable for OSF, and 95%

of impacts would be avoided in those areas. Many of these core areas are flooded part of

the year and unsuitable for construction, and the County’s outreach would help avoid

impacts (see Section 1.4.2.2)..

• Fifty percent (50%) of the wetland/riparian buffer areas were suitable habitat for OSF,

or were within the 200 ft (61 m) setback from suitable habitat.

• In the wetland/riparian buffers, 80% of impacts would be avoided as a result of

outreach by the County, existing CAO regulations (CAO Chapter 24.30), and financial

incentives to avoid or reduce mitigation.

• Outside the UGA, an average area of 1 ac (0.4 ha) is assumed to be completely impacted

by each residential dwelling construction (0.24 ac (0.1 ha) footprint and 0.76 ac (0.31

ha) associated buffer area). This area of projected impact is smaller than that for prairie

habitats due to expected minimization/limiting of impacts by the CAO, and because land

uses in riparian/wetland areas are expected to differ from those in upland grasslands.

• Where the OSF Habitat Screen intersects urban growth areas, and minimization would

not occur, complete habitat loss was assumed for the entire parcel since the entire

parcel is likely to be graded prior to construction.

Indirect effects of residential development in OSF habitat are expected to include:

• Habitat degradation within the areas proximal to roads and structures (inside the 60 ft

(18 m) buffer), similar to those discussed in Section 4.3.1.1 Specifically for OSF, habitat

degradation may include altered hydrology, and water quality degradation from runoff

from driveways and roads associated with development. These indirect effects may be

temporary but recurring, and will vary with the type of residential development and the

nature of the dwelling occupants.

• Increased habitat fragmentation, as remaining pieces of habitat are either made smaller

due to losses from development, or are further separated from each other. Increased

fragmentation may result in further genetic isolation of individuals of the prairie-oak


59



Table 4.7 Impacts from new residential development.

New Residential Development Projected Take (functional acres)

Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL

Guild 1

YPG OPG TPG UNK 2,730 512 469 1,450 5,161

Guild 2 156 49 205

Guild 3 318 51 369

Guild 4 442 6 449

Wetland/Riparian 171 64 235

Take (all species; functional acres) 5,331


Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity:


Acres Habitat 17.4% 20.0% 13.8% 23.6% 7.7% 12.4% 12.1% 0.6%


4.3.2 Added Accessory Structures for Residential Development

Impacts will occur from development of additional accessory structures on parcels developed in

advance of the HCP and outside of the 60 ft (18 m) buffer that is assumed to already be impacted

around driveways and existing structures. These structures could be barns, detached structures, or

other accessory structures requiring a County permit. County staff projected the total number of

such actions to occur based on County-wide records for a 10 year period (2004-2014). Habitat

impacted was projected based on the proportion of the County within the Prairie-Oak Guilds and

the OSF Habitat Screen, and habitat values were assigned using the proportional methods described

in Section 4.2. Impacts (Table 4.8) were estimated using the average footprint for these structures,

with an added 60 ft (18 m) buffer. It was assumed that on average, 50% of the added accessory

structures and buffer would be located within the 60 ft (18 m) buffer of an existing structure or

road, not adding any additional impact beyond the existing residential construction. It was also

assumed the area affected by these structures was unforested (within NLCD Prairie-Oak Habitat),

68% of the time, following the approximate proportion of the Permit Area in NLCD Prairie-Oak

Habitat.

Impacts from added accessory structures are summarized in Table 4.8.

Indirect effects from added accessory structures for residential development are expected to be the

similar to those for residential development, but on a smaller scale due to the smaller size of added

accessory structures, and their addition in already developed areas.


60

Table 4.8 Impacts from added accessory structures.

Added Accessory Structures

Projected Take (functional acres)


Guild 1 YPG OPG TPG UNK 148 23 32 52 255

Guild 2 4 4 8

Guild 3 11 8 19

Guild 4 23 - 23

Wetland/Riparian 14 22 36 Take (all species; functional acres) 290 Activity extent (all species; acres) 700



Acres Habitat 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% <0.1%


4.3.3 Septic Repair or Extension & Home Heating Oil Tank Removal

Added to the TRPC projections for new residential developments are impacts resulting from:

1. Septic systems that must be installed outside the 60 ft (18 m) development buffer or

repair or alteration of septic systems existing prior to HCP implementation (both

actions, on average, affecting 2,500 ft2 (232 m2) per residential unit).

2. Home heating oil tank decommissioning (affecting ~450 ft2 (42 m2) per unit) and

addition of new County-permitted accessory structures to existing developments

(affecting ~ 1000 ft2 (93 m2) per unit).


10 year period (2004-2014). Habitat impacted was projected based on the proportion of the

County within the Prairie-Oak Guilds and the OSF Habitat Screen, and habitat values were assigned

using the proportional methods described in Section 4.2. Impacts are included in Table 4.9.

Indirect effects from septic repair or extension and home heating oil tank decommission in areas of

high quality or native prairie habitat may include:

• Habitat degradation resulting from non-native species establishment in areas of

disturbed soil.


61

Table 4.9 Impacts from septic system extension or repair and home heating oil tank decommission.

Septic extension or repair, heating oil tank removal




Guild 2 1 1 3

Guild 3 4 3 7

Guild 4 8 0 8




Acres Habitat 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%


4.3.4 Commercial and Industrial Development

Impacts from commercial and industrial development were projected using the intersection of

mapped habitat and TRPC’s dataset for likely commercial, industrial, and mixed use development

(TPRC 2012b)18. The countywide assessment assumes commercial/industrial development will

impact 100% of habitat within a parcel based on aerial photography review of existing

commercial/industrial developments in Thurston County. To be consistent with analysis methods

for residential development, it was assumed parcels 5 ac (2 ha) or greater outside the UGA where

mapped habitat intersects less than 10% of the parcel would avoid impacts. Impacts are included in

Table 4.10.

Indirect effects of commercial and industrial development are expected to include:

• Habitat degradation within areas proximal to the commercial development may include

increased noise and light disturbance, vehicular

disturbance/displacement/crushing/strike, introduction or spread of diseases or non-

native plant and animal species, trash dumping, or contamination from accidental spills

of hazardous materials. Specifically for OSF, habitat degradation may include altered

18 In the TRPC dataset, the likelihood of development in parcels zoned for commercial or industrial use is assigned to categories (low, medium high, very high, and vacant) based on the existing amount of development per parcel and the ratio of assessed building value to land value. County Resource Stewardship staff identified the medium, high, very high, and vacant development potential classes as likely for development during the HCP permit term.


62

hydrology, and water quality degradation from runoff from impervious surfaces

associated with commercial and industrial development. These indirect effects may be

temporary but recurring, and will vary with the type of commercial and industrial

development.

• Increased habitat fragmentation may also occur, as commercial development impacts

remaining pieces of habitat, makes them smaller, or makes remaining habitat patches

further separated from each other. Increased fragmentation may result in further

genetic isolation of individuals of the covered species. Habitat fragmentation effects are

expected to be permanent in nature, and increase in intensity as remaining habitat is

developed.

• Modification of prairie-oak habitat from commercial and industrial development on

prairie-oak habitats in the quantity projected to occur in the 30 year permit term will

result in loss of biological diversity as habitat loss and degradation occur and species

may be removed from the area. Reductions in biological diversity have already

occurred from existing development in Thurston County, and further reductions may

indirectly (and directly) affect the covered species through decreasing the remaining

overall ecosystem function in prairie-oak and wetland/riparian habitats. The effects of

biological diversity loss may be permanent, but restorable through strategic habitat

protection and restoration.

Table 4.10 Impacts from commercial and industrial development.

Commercial/ Industrial Projected Take (functional acres)


Guild 1

YPG OPG TPG UNK 373 536 23 22 954

Guild 2 - - -

Guild 3 - - -

Guild 4 48 - 48


Take (all species; functional acres) 955




Acres Habitat 1.4% 11.4% 0.9% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% 1.3% 0.1%



63

4.3.5 Public Service Facility Construction

Unavoidable impacts from public service facilities are expected to occur only in the Prairie-Oak AOI.

No impacts to OSF are anticipated. For the purpose of this analysis, 100% of habitat is assumed

impacted in areas developed for public service facilities. Impacts are included in Table 4.11.

4.3.5.1 Schools

Impacts for expanded (42 ac (17 ha)) and newly constructed schools (60 ac (24 ha)) were based on

projections from the Rochester and Tumwater School Districts (all school districts within the

permit area were invited to provide information). Impacts were estimated using the intersection of

parcels with mapped habitat.

4.3.5.2 Fire Stations

Ten new rural fire stations (2 ac (0.5 ha) each) are expected to affect 20 ac (8 ha) of habitat in the

Prairie-Oak AOI. Specific locations are not known at this time. To assess the distribution of impacts

across all Prairie-Oak guilds, impact was estimated based on the proportions of land in Prairie-Oak

habitat identified through NLCD and aerial imagery combined with MPG habitat value factors

within the Prairie-Oak AOI, depicted in Table 4.2.

Indirect effects of public service facility construction are expected to include:

Habitat degradation within areas proximal to the school or fire station may include

increased noise and light disturbance, vehicular disturbance/displacement/crushing/strike,

introduction or spread of diseases or non-native plant and animal species, trash/litter

spread, or contamination from accidental spills of hazardous materials related to fire

fighting. These indirect effects may be temporary but recurring, and will vary with the type

of commercial and industrial development.

Increased habitat fragmentation may also occur, as public service facility construction

impacts remaining pieces of habitat, makes them smaller, or makes remaining habitat

patches further separated from each other. Increased fragmentation may result in further

genetic isolation of individuals of the covered species. Habitat fragmentation effects are

expected to be permanent in nature, and increase in intensity as remaining habitat is

developed.

Table 4.11 Impacts from public service facility construction.

Public Service Facilities Projected Take (functional acres)


Guild 1

YPG OPG TPG UNK

79 4 2 2 86

Guild 2 1 1 2

Guild 3 2 2 4

Guild 4 5 0 5


64

Wetland/Riparian - - -

Take (all species; functional acres) 89

Activity extent (all species; acres) 143



Acres Habitat 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.1% 0.1% <0.1%

Functional Acres 0.5% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% - - - - *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

4.3.6 Transportation Capital Projects

Thurston County public works staff used information from regular work plans and their 20-year

Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to estimate impacts from activities implemented or permitted by the

public works division, and then extrapolated those impacts (150% of 20-year projections) to what

is likely to occur over the 30-year permit term. Estimated affected areas are included in Table 3.6

for transportation related projects. Affected areas were estimated on a project by project basis by

County staff. Impacts are summarized in Table 4.12.

Areas around existing, established transportation infrastructure already experience indirect effects

of habitat degradation and fragmentation. Expected increases in indirect effects of transportation

capital projects (e.g., intersection widening, sidewalk addition) are expected to include:

Temporary habitat degradation in areas proximal to construction projects such as increased

noise and light disturbance during the construction, vehicular

disturbance/displacement/crushing/strike, introduction or spread of diseases or non-

native plant and animal species from equipment, trash/litter spread, or contamination from

accidental spills of hazardous materials from equipment.

Recurring habitat degradation in areas proximal to construction projects that increase road

width or capacity, may include increased noise and light disturbance from increased vehicle

use or number, increased vehicular disturbance/displacement/crushing/strike risk, and

increased introduction or spread of diseases or non-native plant and animal species, greater

trash/litter spread, or higher likelihood of contamination from accidental spills of

hazardous materials resulting from higher levels of vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

Table 4.12 Impacts from transportation projects.

Transportation Projects




Guild 2 2 1 3

Guild 3 - - -


65

Guild 4 9 0 9




Acres Habitat 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7% 0.1% <0.1% 0.3% 0.3%


4.3.7 Transportation Maintenance and Work in Right-of-Way

Transportation maintenance and work occurring in the roadside right of way, as described in

Section 3, are covered by the HCP throughout the County. The area of the road right-of-way outside

the road surface/gravel prism where soil disturbing activities are likely (an average of 10.5 ft (3.2

m) on both sides of the road), and all culverts will be affected by a maintenance activity at least

once during the permit term of the HCP. Impacts to the covered species from transportation

maintenance activities will be minimized as practicable through application of the Best

Management Practices (Appendix B). Impacts from transportation maintenance are expected to be

temporary in nature, and are included in Table 4.13.

Utility work and emergency response actions will also occur in the same area of right-of-way

already affected by transportation maintenance, therefore additional temporary impacts from

utility work and emergency response activities are not projected individually here. All right-of-way

impacts will be categorized by activity and included in the annual HCP reports to USFWS.

Indirect effects of public transportation maintenance and work in right-of-way are expected to

include:

Temporary but recurring habitat degradation (beyond that already occurring from regular

road traffic) in areas proximal to the road right-of-way may include increased noise and

light disturbance during periodic maintenance equipment operation (e.g., mowing

equipment), introduction or spread of diseases or non-native plant and animal species from

equipment, trash/litter spread, or contamination from accidental spills of hazardous

materials from equipment.

Table 4.13 Impacts from transportation maintenance and all work in County road right-of-

way.

Transportation Maintenance and Work in Right of Way



66



Guild 2 8 6 14

Guild 3 - - -

Guild 4 37 1 38

Wetland/Riparian 59 56 115 Take (all species; functional acres) 474 Activity extent (all species; acres) 1,101



Acres Habitat 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% <0.1% 1.0% 0.3%


4.3.8 Landfill and Solid Waste Management

Based on the Capital Facilities Plan and past activities, County Public Works and Environmental

Health staff estimated areas that would be affected by waste management-related covered activities

implemented or permitted by the County. Where specific locations were not known, the

distribution of impacts across all Prairie-Oak guilds was estimated based on the proportions of

Prairie-Oak habitat identified through NLCD and aerial imagery combined with MPG habitat value

factors within the Prairie-Oak AOI, depicted in Table 4.2.

Projected impacts from landfill and solid waste management are included in Table 4.14.

Indirect effects of landfill and solid waste management activities are expected to include:

Habitat degradation within areas proximal to the newly constructed facilities may include

increased noise and light disturbance, introduction or spread of diseases or non-native

plant and animal species, trash/litter spread, or contamination from accidental spills of

hazardous materials. These indirect effects may be temporary but recurring, and will vary

with the type of facility constructed.

Habitat degradation in areas disturbed for solid waste clean-up may include temporarily

increased noise and light disturbance from equipment during the clean-up process,

introduction or spread of diseases or non-native plant and animal species from equipment,

trash/litter spread, or contamination from accidental spills of hazardous materials from

equipment.

Increased habitat fragmentation may also occur, as solid waste management facilities

impact remaining pieces of habitat, makes remaining habitat patches smaller, or makes

remaining habitat patches further separated from each other. Increased fragmentation may

result in further genetic isolation of individuals of the covered species. Habitat


67

fragmentation effects are expected to be permanent in nature, and increase in intensity as

remaining habitat is developed.

Table 4.14 Impacts from landfill and solid waste management.

Landfill/Solid Waste Management



Guild 1

YPG OPG TPG UNK

20 0.5 0.6 1 22

Guild 2 0 0 1

Guild 3 1 1 2

Guild 4 2 - 2




Acres Habitat 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%

Functional Acres 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% - - - - *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

4.3.9 Water Resources Management

County public works, water resources, and environmental health staff estimated impact areas for

water and wastewater management related covered activities implemented or permitted by the

County. Where specific locations were not known, the distribution of impacts across the Prairie-

Oak guilds was estimated using the proportions of guild habitat and habitat value distributions (for

Guild 1; Table 4.2) in the Prairie-Oak AOI.

Projected impact areas are summarized in Table 4.15.

Indirect effects of water resources management activities are expected to include:

Habitat degradation within areas proximal to the newly constructed facilities may include

increased noise and light disturbance, introduction or spread of diseases or non-native

plant and animal species from construction or maintenance equipment, trash/litter spread,

or contamination from accidental spills of hazardous materials. These indirect effects may

be temporary but recurring, and will vary with the type of facility constructed.

• Increased habitat fragmentation may also occur, as water resource management

facilities impact remaining pieces of habitat, make remaining habitat patches smaller, or


68

make remaining habitat patches further separated from each other. Increased

fragmentation may result in further genetic isolation of individuals of the covered



Table 4.15 Impacts from water resources management.

Water Resources Management



Guild 1

YPG OPG TPG UNK 29 5 6 10 51

Guild 2 1 1 2

Guild 3 2 2 4

Guild 4 5 0 5




Acres Habitat 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% <0.1% 0.1% 0.1% <0.1%


4.3.10 County Parks, Trails and Land Management

County public works and parks staff identified trail and park management activities expected to be

implemented or permitted by the County in the 30-year permit term.

Projected impact from trail maintenance, trail construction, and park improvements and

summarized in Table 4.16.

Indirect effects of County parks, trails, and land management activities are expected to include:

Habitat degradation within areas proximal to the newly constructed trails or parks

improvements may include increased noise disturbance from non-motorized public use,

noise disturbance from trail maintenance (e.g. mowing) equipment, introduction or spread

of diseases or non-native plant and animal species, increased predation or harassment by

domestic pets, trash/litter spread or contamination from accidental spills of hazardous

materials from maintenance equipment. These indirect effects may be temporary but

recurring, and will vary with season (increasing in drier months (June-September)).

Increased habitat fragmentation is not expected from trail maintenance, construction (on

railway), or small parks improvements.


69

Table 4.16 Impacts from County parks, trails, and land management.

County Parks, Trails, and Land Management Projected Take (functional acres)


Guild 1

YPG OPG TPG UNK

7.7 0.2 - 2.5

10

Guild 2 - 1.6 1.6

Guild 3 - 1.6 1.6

Guild 4 0.6 0.1 0.7


Take(all species; functional acres) 39

Activity extent (all species; acres) 47



Acres Habitat <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%

Functional Acres <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% - - - - *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares

4.4 Effects on Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is designated by the USFWS for specific areas that have the physical and biological features essential to the conservation and recovery of listed species (Primary Constituent Elements: See Appendix F: Covered Species Critical Habitat PCEs). The HCP’s effect on critical habitat must be evaluated during the USFWS review of the HCP, and are summarized in the sections below and in


70

Table 4.7.


71

Table 4.17 Summary of anticipated effects to critical habitat from HCP covered activities. Application of Best Management Practices and avoidance will minimize impacts.

Species Activity Critical Habitat

Affected (ac)

Critical Habitat

Affected (ha)

OSF 69 Dwelling Units 69 28

Road Projects 1.6 0.65

Right-of-Way

Maintenance

5.6 2.3

Trail (2.5 miles) unknown

Subtotal 76.2 30.8

Olympia pocket gopher n/a 0 0

Tenino pocket gopher 53 Dwelling Units 124 50.1

Right-of-Way

Maintenance

1.2 0.5

Yelm pocket gopher 38 Dwelling Units 89.7 36.3

Right of Way

Maintenance

3.6 1.5

Subtotal 218.5 88.4

Taylor’s checkerspot

butterfly

22.7 Dwelling Units 61 24.7

Right-of-Way

Maintenance

2.4 1

Subtotal 63.4 25.7

Grand Total 358.1 144.9

Critical habitat for five of the species covered by this HCP (OSF, Olympia pocket gopher, Tenino

pocket gopher, Yelm pocket gopher, and Taylor’s checkerspot) is found within the Plan Area (no

critical habitat for streaked horned lark or UNK MPG is present in the Plan Area (78 FR 61506-

61584). In general, federally-designated critical habitat areas are high priority for habitat

conservation and acquisition under the HCP or by partners, and are often located within Reserve

Priority Areas (see Section 5: Conservation Program). Impacts will be avoided or minimized as

practicable through implementation of the Best Management Practices (Appendix B). Potential

impacts on critical habitat are evaluated below.

4.4.1 Oregon Spotted Frog

In August 2013, USFWS proposed critical habitat for OSF (79 FR 53384), then in June 2014 it

reopened the comment period, with changes to critical habitat units in Oregon (no change to

Washington). This designation has not yet been revised or finalized.

There are approximately 4,773 ac (1,931 ha) of proposed critical habitat in unincorporated

Thurston County. All critical habitat lies within the OSF Habitat Screen. Potential adverse impacts

to critical habitat may occur from a subset of the covered activities, which are described below.

4.4.1.1 Development

Critical habitat outside city limits intersects 434 lots. Of those, 85 lots are under conservation

easement or public ownership and will not have impacts covered under the HCP.

Of the remaining 349 lots with critical habitat, 62 have development capacity of one or more

dwelling units. Of the lots with development capacity, 26 have critical habitat outside mapped


72

wetland core areas (in which buildability is limited and the County will encourage avoidance

through its CAO and BMPs). In the 26 lots, we project a total of 69 new dwelling units, each

affecting up to one acre of critical habitat, for a total potential impact of 69 ac (28 ha). This impact

is expected to remove Primary Constituent Elements, or PCEs from the critical habitat. For more

information on PCEs, please see Appendix F.

4.4.1.2 Transportation Projects and Maintenance

Transportation projects (Tilley Rd Bridge replacement, Maytown Road Upgrade) are anticipated to

permanently affect 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of critical habitat. In addition regular roadside maintenance is

expected to have temporary, recurring effects to 5.6 ac (2.3 ha) of critical habitat (11,689 ft (3,562

m) of roads at 21 ft (6.4 m) width of combined right-of-way). This activity may affect refugia if

large woody debris is being removed and mowing down to the substrate occurs (cover removed).

4.4.1.3 Parks and County Land Management

The Gate to Belmore trail will modify an existing railroad line, intersecting roughly 2.5 mi (4 km) in

critical habitat. Work is not anticipated to affect PCEs. Specific conservation measures for this

project are included in Section 5: Conservation Program.

4.4.2 Mazama Pocket Gopher

In April 2014, USFWS finalized critical habitat for the Thurston/Pierce subspecies of MPG (79 FR

19712-19756).

4.4.2.1 Olympia Pocket Gopher

Olympia pocket gopher has approximately 676 ac (273 ha) of critical habitat in Thurston County,

which is entirely on land owned by the Port of Olympia at the Olympia Airport. These lands are not

in County jurisdiction or covered by this HCP.

4.4.2.2 Tenino Pocket Gopher

Tenino pocket gopher has approximately 400 ac (162 ha) of critical habitat in Thurston County,

located in the Rocky Prairie vicinity. Potential adverse impacts to critical habitat may occur from a

subset of the covered activities, which are described below.

Development

The critical habitat is within the Prairie-Oak Habitat identified for Guilds 1, 2, and 3, on a 593 ac

(240 ha) privately owned tax parcel. County records indicate there is currently one dwelling, and

projections (88% build out) through 2045 indicate 53 dwelling units could be added to this parcel

during the HCP term, with up to 124 ac (50 ha) of habitat affected.

Transportation Projects and Maintenance

Roadside maintenance activities are expected to have temporary effects to 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) of critical

habitat for Tenino pocket gopher.

4.4.2.3 Yelm Pocket Gopher

Yelm pocket gopher has two units of critical habitat in unincorporated Thurston County, totaling

roughly 443 ac (179 ha). Potential adverse impacts to critical habitat may occur from a subset of

the covered activities, which are described below.


73

Development

• All 289 ac (117 ha) of subunit 1-YPG-A (Tenalquot Prairie area) is in County jurisdiction,

and within Prairie-Oak habitat. The critical habitat is spread over 9 lots. Three of the

lots (135 ac (54.6 ha) of critical habitat) are protected by The Nature Conservancy as

part of Tenalquot Prairie, and will not have impacts covered under the HCP. The

remaining 6 lots have 154 ac (62.3 ha) of critical habitat, and under HCP projections and

development assumptions, these lots could have a total of 21.3 dwelling units added in

the critical habitat, affecting up to 49.7 ac (20.1 ha).

• Approximately 154 ac (62.3 ha) of subunit 1-YPG-B (Rock Prairie vicinity) is in County

jurisdiction, and within Prairie-Oak Habitat. The critical habitat is spread over 6 lots. A

total of 16.7 dwelling units are projected for construction in the critical habitat, affecting

40 ac (16.2 ha).

Transportation Projects and Maintenance

Roadside right of way maintenance activities are expected to have temporary effects to 1.7 ac (0.69

ha) of 1-YPG-A and 1.9 ac (0.77 ha) of 1-YPG-B.

4.4.3 Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly

In October 2013, USFWS finalized critical habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (78 FR 61506-

61584).

Seven subunits of critical habitat, covering approximately 1,053 ac (426 ha), are within

unincorporated Thurston County. Potential impacts to critical habitat may occur from a subset of

the covered activities, which are described below.

4.4.3.1 Development

Potential impacts from development to critical habitat are summarized across all subunits in Table

4.. Approximately 330 ac (133.5 ha) of subunit 1-D and 1-E (East and West) are on developable

private lands. Anticipated development in critical habitat, is approximately 23 dwelling units

affecting 61 ac (24.7 ha).

4.4.3.2 Transportation Projects and Maintenance

Roadside maintenance activities are expected to have temporary effects to 0.6 ac (0.24 ha) of

subunit 1-B and 1.8 ac (0.7 ha) of subunit 1-D.


74

Table 4.18 Anticipated potential effects to Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly critical habitat from development covered under the HCP.

SUBUNIT Total Acres* Critical Habitat Outside City

and Federal Landowner

Projected Dwelling

Units

Affected Critical Habitat (acres)*

1-A (Rocky Prairie) 15 WDNR -- --

1-A (Wolf Haven) 28 Wolf Haven -- --

1-B (Reserve) 135 TNC -- --

1-C (Glacial Heritage) 545 Thurston County

-- --

1-D (Rock Prairie) 154 Private 16.7 40

1-E (Bald Hills E + W) 176 Majority private

6 21

Total 1,053 22.7 61

* 1 acre =0.4 ha

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation

75

Section 5 Conservation Program

5.1 Overview

This section presents the overall HCP conservation program (Figure 5.1), including biological goals

and objectives, minimization measures, mitigation measures, monitoring plan, and adaptive

management plan—all of which are designed to meet the regulatory requirements of the ESA and to

be consistent with state species and habitat requirements. The conservation program provides for

the conservation of covered species in Thurston County and includes the minimization and

mitigation of impacts necessary under Section 10 of the ESA to allow covered activities in the

County to continue. The conservation program will build on and work in concert with existing local,

state, and federal conservation actions in the County. The intent is to contribute to the recovery of

the HCP covered species and to improve overall status of prairie-oak and riparian/wetland

ecosystems in Thurston County.

Figure 5.1 Primary strategies of the HCP Conservation Program.


76

Central to the HCP conservation program are mitigation measures to build the Thurston County

Conservation Lands System (Conservation Lands System), expanding on the existing network of

protected lands managed for covered species and their habitat. The Conservation Lands System

identifies the priority places, tools, and processes to protect the habitats important to the HCP

covered species. The Conservation Lands System incorporates key areas for conservation

throughout Thurston County. Conservation Lands System terminology and currently identified

Focal Areas and RPAs are mapped in Figure 5.2, and described below:

• Focal Areas are general geographic areas associated with a specific subspecies of MPG,

or associated with one or more of the other covered species. The HCP identifies ten

Focal Areas in prairie-oak habitat: eight were identified in the County for Guild 1: MPG

as a surrogate species in the initial conservation lands planning process, and two

additional Focal Areas for other prairie-oak guilds not overlapping with Guild 1 habitat

were identified during the HCP process.

• Reserve Priority Areas (RPAs) are specific areas nested within Focal Areas where

biological and physical conditions are favorable for the conservation of covered species

and where conservation actions will be focused. One or more RPAs are identified in

each Focal Area.

• Reserves are conglomerates of individual and adjacent parcels in each RPA that are

engaged and protected (e.g., as HCP Conservation Lands). Reserves are assemblages of

permanently protected parcels, composed of Core areas and connecting Corridors, that

are of sufficient collective size and connectivity to enable HCP covered species survival

in numbers adequate for long-term sustainability.

Figure 5.2 Focal Areas and Reserve Priority Areas in the Conservation Lands System.


77

5.2 Biological Goals and Objectives

Biological goals, objectives, and conservation measures are intended to illustrate the vision and

commitments of the conservation program. Goals describe what the conservation program will

accomplish by the end of the incidental take permit duration. Biological objectives provide the

specific, measurable actions that will be implemented to achieve each of the Biological Goals. The

objectives serve as benchmarks by which to measure progress in achieving Biological Goals across

temporal and spatial scales.

5.2.1 Biological Goals

The biological goals for each covered species in the HCP are listed in


78

Table 5.1. The goals are designed to A) minimize a significant amount of projected impact, B) create

a base of working and core habitat lands to support covered species populations, and C) enhance

and maintain habitat values on those lands necessary to compensate for the impact of unavoidable

take.

The biological goals are linked to protecting high quality habitat, which is assumed to provide about

90% of the of possible habitat value for covered species. In other words, every acre of high quality

habitat protected in the conservation program will provide about 0.9 functional acres of credit on

average. The 90% is based on the habitat value provided in USFWS’ spreadsheet for MPG described

in Section 4.2.1.2.

5.2.2 Biological Objectives

Thurston County has designed biological objectives to achieve each biological goal. Figures 5.3-5.5

link the Biological Goals to the measurable Biological Objectives for each covered species. Sections

5.3-5.5 provide additional detail on how the Biological Objectives will be met.


79

Table 5.1 HCP biological goals by species guild.

Overall Goal Guild 1 Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4: OSF

Habitat

Goal 1: Minimize impacts of

the covered activities Limit habitat fragmentation and degradation.

Goal 2: Retain a network of

working conservation lands

to preserve habitat

functionality and connectivity

in areas known to be

important for covered

species.

Create compatible land uses with

landowners to support habitat

Achieve habitat-friendly

management of lands

important to OSF

Goal 3: Permanently protect,

enhance, and maintain

important habitat for the

covered species in a system of

conservation lands to

compensate for the impact of

unavoidable take. This

includes new and existing

conservation lands.

Protect

adequate

area of

suitable

soils AND

core

reserves for

each MPG

subspecies.

Protect and expand

core reserves of

habitat. Enhance

habitat quality on

those reserves.

Protect

adequa

te area

of oak

to

support

species

Protect and

expand core

reserves of

habitat.

Enhance

habitat

quality on

those

reserves.


80

* 1.0 acres = 0.4 hectares

Figure 5.3 Biological objectives for Goal 1.


81




82




83

5.3 Minimization Measures

Section 4 and Appendix B: Best Management Practices provides much of the detail on

minimization measures for each covered activity. This section describes some of the specific,

measurable steps that will be taken to minimize the impacts that result in take to the extent

possible (Table 5.2). The two broad categories of minimization measures are A) the actions taken

by partners, such as resource agencies and non-profit land trusts, to permanently protect habitat

so that no impacts occur, and B) best management practices applied to covered activities to

minimize impacts.

Figure 5.6 Projected timing of impact minimization over the permit term of the HCP. (1.0 ac = 0.4 ha).

Table 5.2 HCP minimization measures.

Minimization Measures by Objective

OBJECTIVE 1-1: Coordinate with partners (e.g., landowners, DoD, USDA, USFWS, and land trusts) to protect habitat so that impacts on those lands do not occur.

Over the 30-year HCP, partners will work together to avoid at least 3,115 ac (1,260 ha) of

projected impacts while working with willing landowners to conserve habitat. Funds

from US Department of Defense’s Army Compatible Use Program (ACUB), USDA’s

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Washington Wildlife and

Recreation Program, and USFWS’s Section 6 HCP Land Acquisition or Recovery Land

Acquisition funds are some example sources of funding for these minimization actions.

The Sentinel Lands program will target 3,236 ac (1,310 ha) of new acquisition in the

2016-2019 period.

Work with NRCS and the Thurston County Conservation District to prioritize investment

in prairie – oak and OSF conservation on working lands within the Thurston County

Conservation Lands System (see Section 5.4) (e.g., Environmental Quality Incentives

Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other Farm Bill incentive programs).

Encourage landowners within the Reserve Priority Areas (see Section 5.1) to participate

in Thurston County’s Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as enabled by the Growth

Management Act, RCW 36.70A.700, or the state enabled Open Space Tax Program that

provides a reduced tax assessment for conservation lands (Chapter 84.34 RCW).

The HCP assumes that many of these secured habitat lands could otherwise be subject to

development and are therefore part of the projected take analysis. If development

impacts can be minimized through the County’s support of and coordination with these


84

acquisition efforts, then potentially less mitigation would be needed to offset impacts of

covered activities.

If less minimization is achieved by partners’ conservation than anticipated, the County

will increase the quantity and quality of habitat secured under its mitigation measures

described in Section 5.4. The County is not relying on partner efforts (e.g., federal

programs) that are beyond its control for mitigation measures.

OBJECTIVE 1-2: Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs; Appendix B) to minimize impacts to the HCP-covered habitats and species from the covered activities. 19

The County and its permittees will adhere to the BMPs to minimize impacts to the extent

possible. BMPs will be reviewed and updated as new information becomes available, at

least every 5 years.

The County will minimize impacts as much as possible from the construction of trails,

interpretive structures, and other recreation related facilities such as restrooms, picnic

areas, and parking lots (See Appendix B: Best Management Practices).

The County will identify Special Management Areas (Appendix B: Best Management

Practices) for OSF in County roadside right-of-way that supports or is proximal to known

OSF locations, and develop BMPs for Special Management Areas, including actions under

emergency conditions (e.g., road flooding), and non-emergency conditions (regular

activities).

Maintain a Beaver Dam Management Plan (Appendix D: Beaver Dam Management Plan)

that aims for neutral to positive effects for OSF and allows for preservation of

transportation safety and private property.

OBJECTIVE 1-4: Implement the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) provisions for avoidance and

minimization.

Update the CAOs, as needed, continue to implement the avoidance and minimization

criteria included in the CAO, and monitoring the effectiveness of these measures.

5.4 Mitigation Measures: Building the Thurston County Conservation Lands System

All mitigation measures are targeted to the Conservation Lands System, which will include areas

identified to contribute to the recovery (down-listing or delisting) of the covered species in

Thurston County. The proposed mitigation measures are designed to produce:

A net conservation gain for covered species;

An appropriate sequence to avoid, minimize, then mitigate impacts;

19 Draft only – DISUCSSION NOTE TO USFWS – Ch 4 Impacts Analysis includes all impacts, without a % removed for minimization via BMPs. Any minimization here will reduce overall impacts needing coverage.


85

A commitment to conservation in the landscape context; and

Transparent and science-based mitigation that is durable and effective.

5.4.1 Integration with Conservation Strategies

Protection, enhancement, and stewardship of land in the Conservation Lands System is central to

the four main conservation strategies designed to achieve the biological goals of the HCP (Figure

5.7). For any land being used as mitigation under this HCP, there will be:

A Conservation Land Agreement recorded with the property, that ensures land uses

compatible with the habitat values and objectives defined for that land (e.g., see Appendix

G: Model Conservation Easement);

A site management plan (Appendix H: Site Management Plan Template), reviewed and

approved by the HCP Implementation Team, that sets site-specific objectives, performance

standards, and management actions to protect covered species and their habitat; and

Funding assurances to cover management for the life of the conservation agreement.

By focusing key aspects of the conservation strategies on the Conservation Lands System, the

County will establish a functioning network of conservation lands important to the health of prairie

ecosystems. That will include habitat for each of the covered species on lands that are higher

quality, less fragmented, and able to support greater biodiversity than the lands impacted by the

covered activities of the HCP:

Minimization Strategy: Protection of lands in the Conservation Lands System through

federal, state, or other funding mechanisms will result in minimization of impacts to the

covered species. These lands will not be used for mitigation, but are likely to be focused in

core habitat.

Working Lands and Outreach Strategy: Engagement of working lands within the

Conservation Lands System will retain open space and promote land stewardship that is

compatible with the covered species, and complement or provide connectivity between

permanently protected lands. This Strategy includes 15-yr Working Lands Agreements as

mitigation for temporary impacts, and are likely to contribute to habitat corridors within

the Conservation Lands System.

New Conservation Lands Strategy: Acquisition, easements, enhancement, and long-term

management of new HCP Conservation Lands in the Conservation Lands System through

HCP mitigation funds will secure, stabilize, and expand species strongholds, while also

building the framework for species recovery in the future. This Strategy includes

permanent protection, enhancement, and maintenance of both core habitat and habitat

corridors.

Legacy Lands Support Strategy: Support of existing protected lands within or adjacent to

the Conservation Lands System, through implementing habitat restoration, enhancement

and maintenance, will increase the long term habitat stability and conservation benefit of

these lands, and provide essential support for their covered species populations.

Mitigation credit will only be taken for County actions that are additional, which means

measures that A) improve upon the baseline condition of the existing protected land (e.g.,

via enhancing habitat quality and/or providing for long-term management to prevent


86

degradation), and B) are demonstrably new and would not have occurred without the

County’s mitigation measure.

Figure 5.7 Integration of the HCP conservations strategies into the Conservation Lands System.

5.4.2 Criteria for HCP Conservation Lands System

The Conservation Lands System concept and general priorities for land acquisition were developed

by USFWS, Thurston County, and WDFW, based on the best available science and professional

judgment of agency personnel knowledgeable in the areas of species biology, conservation biology,

species recovery, and ESA regulations. For this HCP, the Conservation Lands System represents the

places where A) avoiding and minimizing impacts provide the greatest conservation benefit, B)

Thurston County and partners should prioritize conservation incentives and voluntary

conservation measures to work with private landowners, and C) protection and enhancement of

new HCP Conservation Lands for mitigation will have the greatest benefit to the covered species.

This section sets forth general criteria for engaging lands (e.g., new HCP Conservation Lands

acquired and enhanced for mitigation) in the Conservation Lands System in the future. Species-

specific criteria (included in Appendix I: Conservation Lands Prioritization Criteria) can then be

overlain on these overall criteria to achieve the mix of habitat types needed for all the covered

species. Many species have overlapping or similar habitat needs, which will complement each

other to form a mosaic of protected habitat types.


87

All HCP Conservation Lands proposed for mitigating permanent impacts:

Must be recommended by the HCP Implementation Team to qualify as a mitigation site, and

will be legally and permanently protected for conservation (permanently conserved),

enhanced above baseline condition, managed, and endowed to help ensure their long-term

ecological value, and will be consistent with current USFWS mitigation policy.

Will be located in Reserve Priority Areas, or in areas deemed critical for OSF. Lands

proposed outside these areas may be considered on a case-by-case basis applying the same

criteria used to identify the Reserve Priority Areas and in conjunction with review by the

HCP Implementation Team, but may incur a longer review process and may be subject to

additional requirements.

Across all species and sites proposed for integration into the Conservation Lands System, Thurston

County and the HCP Implementation Team will apply the criteria presented in Appendix I:

Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria to prioritize possible conservation land locations for the

HCP species during HCP implementation. Those criteria, in approximate order of importance,

include:

Species presence: High priority sites will have larger current extents of covered species

occupation on the site or will have greater likelihood of prior occupation of the site by

covered species. Several of the HCP species have extremely limited distributions (e.g., guild

2 and guild 3), and opportunities to secure land with these species are extremely important.

Species adjacency or connectivity: High priority sites will be adjacent or connected to

offsite populations of the covered species, with few to no barriers to species movement or

dispersal among protected sites and within reserve priority areas. Species specific

dispersal distances and barrier definitions are presented in Appendix I: Conservation Land

Prioritization Criteria.

Parcel size: Larger parcels or parcel conglomerates are preferred, especially where

combined tracts of protected land are 300 ac or more, but a parcel of any size supporting

covered species can be important. Minimum size will vary with species and site context (see

Appendix I for more detail).

Current habitat quality and potential for habitat improvement: High priority sites will

have high cover and diversity of native plants (both forbs and grasses). They will have low

cover of invasive species, or cover of less problematic invasive species. High priority sites

will also have vegetation composition, soils, and topography that suggest the potential for

successful habitat enhancement.

Habitat location or connectivity: High priority sites will be within, adjacent, functionally

connected20 to or provide functional connection to designated critical habitat for a covered

species, permanently conserved land managed for the covered species, species strongholds

(e.g., areas with documented populations of covered species for multiple years), or lands

identified in a focal area for reserves.

20 Within dispersal distance of the HCP covered species (See Section 2.2).


88

Surrounding land use: High priority sites will be surrounded by compatible land uses that

minimize threats to the species (e.g., factors such as pesticide drift, predation risk, impacts

with vehicles, or other locales with high species mortality).

Management feasibility: High priority sites must have reasonable and reliable long term

and year round accessibility for habitat restoration equipment and monitoring. Location in

a setting that would permit use of herbicides and prescribed fire for vegetation

management is preferred. Incompatible human access or proximate location to invasive

species make long-term management more difficult and costly.

Site Resiliency: The Conservation Lands System is intended to restore, maintain, and

conserve the HCP species in perpetuity. Sites should be as resilient to environmental

variation, climate change, and extreme events as possible. Sites with a variety of soil depths

and drainages, topographic aspects, tree densities, and those that include ecotones between

differing habitat types (e.g., transitions from riparian to wet prairie or upland prairie to oak

savanna) are preferred. Such sites are likely to be the most beneficial to species survival

over time.

5.5 Mitigation Measures: County Commitments

After the County has implemented the minimization measures described in Section 5.3, there may still be unavoidable take that occurs. The County will implement three broad categories of mitigation measures to build the Conservation Lands System described in Section 5.1 and to compensate for the impact of that unavoidable take: A) Build a network of working lands that support habitat values and connectivity, B) Secure new conservation lands in priority areas to form of core of high quality habitat, and C) Enhance the full system of conservation lands to their potential habitat value and fund maintenance of habitat value in perpetuity. All County mitigation commitments will be consistent with the principles and prioritization criteria described in Section 5.4 and Appendix I.

Figure 5.8 Projected timing of securing working lands agreements in over the permit term of the HCP (1.0 ac = 0.4 ha).


89

Table 5.3 HCP working lands and outreach strategy objectives and conservation measures.

Working Lands and Outreach Strategy

OBJECTIVE 2-1: Offset temporary impacts in roadside right-of-way, septic repair and heating tank decommissioning, and indirect habitat degradation impacts by engaging at least 650 ac (263 ha) of working lands in minimum 15- year voluntary Working Lands Stewardship Agreements to conserve habitat, focusing on Reserve Priority Areas.

Enroll enough working lands in 15-year or 30-year Working Lands Stewardship Agreements

(see Appendix G for model agreement) to compensate for a portion of the projected

temporary impacts in roadside right-of-way (projected to be 447 functional ac in Prairie-Oak

habitat, and 56 ac (23 ha) in wetland/riparian habitat), temporary impacts from septic

repairs (projected to be 59 functional ac in Prairie-Oak habitat, and 26 ac (10 ha) in

wetland/riparian habitat) and to compensate for indirect and temporary habitat

degradation impacts resulting from transportation maintenance and work in road right-of-

way.

By year 10 of the HCP, enroll enough working lands to compensate for the full, 30-year

projected temporary impacts from transportation maintenance and work in the right-of-

way (650 acres).

Participants in Working Lands Stewardship Agreements would be eligible for County funding

of land rental payments, habitat enhancement, and 15 or 30 years of habitat maintenance.

The County may leverage funding from USDA and other incentive programs, but can only

take mitigation credit based on the proportion of eligible funds generated by HCP

implementation and above and beyond the minimum match requirements and additionality

criteria described in USFWS mitigation policy (similar to the Legacy Lands Strategy described

below).

By year 1 of the HCP, develop A) Working Lands Stewardship Agreements that allow land

uses compatible with HCP species and habitats (e.g., grazing) and B) enough enrolled acres

to compensate for temporary impacts. Landowners may come in and out of the working

lands program over the 30-year HCP, but the County must maintain at least 650 ac (263 ha)

between years 10 and 30 of the HCP. Working Lands Stewardship Agreements will use

agriculture and habitat easements created by the Washington Recreation and Conservation

Office. The difference between a Working Lands Agreement and a permanent conservation

easement for core habitat is A) the 15-yr term, and B) more permissive allowed uses

consistent with a farm’s current operations (see Appendix G for model easement and

Appendix J for performance criteria by conservation land type). Agreements would be

recorded with the land, so that they transfer if land ownership changes hands.

The County or its designee (e.g., Thurston Conservation District) on behalf of the County,

will recruit, enroll, develop site management plans (Appendix H), and help landowners

manage and/or enhance habitat.

Landowners enrolled in Working Lands Stewardship Agreements will receive County

assurances to support that enhancement (see Section 5.6).


90

The County or its designee will develop site management plans on lands enrolled in

Working Lands Stewardship Agreements to document current habitat conditions based on a

site assessment, planned uses of the lands, and habitat stewardship goals and objectives.

USFWS and WDFW will have the opportunity to provide technical assistance on these site

management plans.

Ensure the County or its designee (e.g., Thurston Conservation District or NRCS) will have

access to lands enrolled in Working Lands Stewardship Agreements to conduct necessary

monitoring and compile data for reporting.

No temporary credits can be released until a Site Management Plan has been approved by

the HCP Implementation Team. No credits to offset permanent impacts can be produced by

term Working Lands Agreements.

OBJECTIVE 2-2: Reduce disincentives to conservation of HCP species.

Provide County assurances to landowners adjacent to conservation lands through County

Landowner Assurances (see Section 5.6). County will document the baseline habitat value of

neighboring lands and provide HCP Participation Agreements (Appendix K: Thurston County

HCP Participation Agreement Template) tied to that baseline habitat value.

Encourage landowners with HCP covered species that wish to conduct voluntary habitat

restoration to participate in USFWS programs (e.g., Safe Harbor Agreements with

Assurances, Candidate Conservation Agreements, Partners for Fish and Wildlife). These

agreements promote habitat restoration, and can provide associated regulatory assurances.

OBJECTIVE 2-3: Promote management to control and reduce invasive species on private lands throughout the County but especially in the Reserve Priority Areas (see Section 5.1).

The County will not use this broad invasive species control program to offset take from

direct impacts, but feels it is important to manage the long-term cost and effectiveness of

the conservation program.

Conduct outreach to the public about invasive species, their biology and management.

Provide landowners technical assistance to control problem species—especially Scotch

broom, reed canarygrass, tall oatgrass, and encroaching Douglas-fir. Coordinate via USFWS

and WDFW technical assistance to adaptively update control strategies for use in areas with

covered species.

Update County Noxious Weed Program list to include Scotch broom, reed canarygrass, tall

oatgrass, and other non-native plants that have disproportion impacts to native prairies in

Thurston County.

Hold workshops about invasive species management within Reserve Priority Areas.

Maintain the Noxious Weed Program’s website, which provides a wealth of information

about species biology and control.

OBJECTIVE 2-4: Facilitate voluntary prairie – oak restoration activities in the County to offset indirect

impacts from habitat degradation due to increased development in the HCP Permit Area.

These actions will not be used as mitigation for permanent or temporary impacts.


91

The County will maintain information on its website regarding prairie-oak species and

habitats, conservation measures and programs. The website will be updated at least every

12 months.

The County and partners will host an annual workshop/field day on prairie-oak or

wetland/riparian habitat management for landowners.

The County will provide permittees who have prairie-oak ecosystems early information on

how best to avoid and minimize impacts to habitat and offer opportunities to participate in

conservation programs.

Figure 5.9 Projected timing of permanently protecting new lands over the permit term of the HCP.

Table 5.4 HCP new conservation lands strategy objectives and conservation measures.

NEW CONSERVATION LANDS STRATEGY

OBJECTIVE 3A-1: Protect core habitat lands with prairie-oak habitat within the Reserve Priority Areas to offset the21 unavoidable impacts caused by the covered activities.

Work with willing landowners to acquire new core habitat Conservation Lands (via fee title

acquisition or permanent conservation easement) for the Conservation Lands System to

mitigate and keep pace with permitted impacts. Over 30 years, up to 2,000 ac (809 ha) of

new conservation lands would be needed to mitigate 1,800 functional ac (728 ha) of

impact in prairie-oak systems. Lands will be prioritized for acquisition using criteria in

Section 5.4.2 and Appendix I: Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria and working with

the HCP Implementation Team.

These core habitat lands will be managed intensively for covered species habitat. All

conservation lands will be enhanced to a mix of native and high quality habitat (measured

by the methods defined in Section 5.4.2) and ensure funding for permanent stewardship of

these lands (See Section 7.2.4 for cost projections).

21 Residential development impacts were calculated using a 60 ft (18 m) buffer around the development footprint to include likely indirect effects. See Section 4.3.1.1.


92

Develop a Site Management Plan for each conservation area within 12 months of securing

the land that identifies actions necessary to achieve high quality habitat, the number of

conservation credits expected to be provided by the site, performance standards,

monitoring protocol, and long-term stewardship of the site to ensure habitat function.

Each Site Management Plan will be implemented in accordance with the terms and

conditions of the Incidental Take Permit. No credits can be released until a Site

Management Plan has been approved by the HCP Implementation Team.

OBJECTIVE 3A-2: Protect working lands with important prairie-oak habitat within the Reserve Priority Areas to offset the22unavoidable impacts caused by the covered activities.

Work with willing landowners to secure permanent working lands easements on lands with

important habitat for the Conservation Lands System to mitigate and keep pace with

permitted impacts. Over 30 years, up to 1,800 ac (728 ha) of new, permanent working

lands easements would be needed to mitigate 1,620 functional ac of impact in prairie-oak

systems. Lands will be prioritized for easements using criteria in Section 5.4.3 and

Appendix I: Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria and approved by the HCP

Implementation Team.

These working lands easements will be managed for both covered species habitat and the

agricultural uses currently supporting habitat. The HCP has allocated funds for

enhancement of habitat values for each working lands easement (measured by the

methods defined in Section 5.6.1) and ensure funding for permanent stewardship of these

lands (See Section 7.2.4 for cost projections).

Develop a Site Management Plan for each working lands easement within 12 months of securing the land that identifies actions necessary to achieve habitat values, the number of conservation credits expected to be provided by the site, performance standards, monitoring protocol, and long-term stewardship of the site to ensure habitat function. Each Site Management Plan will be implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Permit. No credits can be released until a Site Management Plan has been approved by the HCP Implementation Team.

OBJECTIVE 3A-3: Protect habitat in wetland/riparian areas for OSF around oviposition habitat, non-breeding juvenile and adult habitat, and winter refugia.

Acquire setbacks, core habitat lands, conservation easements, and working lands

easements in OSF habitat (anticipated to be ~69 ac (28 ha) to offset 69 ac (28 ha) of

impact), including lands secured via the County’s Conservation Futures program during

HCP development. Known oviposition sites and areas within federally designated critical

habitat will be prioritized. Additional criteria for acquisition are in Section 5.4.

22 Residential development impacts were calculated using a 60 ft (18 m) buffer around the development footprint to include likely indirect effects. See Section 4.3.1.1.


93

Figure 5.10 Projected timing of securing additional habitat value for legacy existing conservation lands over the permit term of the HCP (1.0 ac = 0.4 ha).

Table 5.5 HCP legacy lands support strategy objectives and conservation measures.

LEGACY LANDS SUPPORT STRATEGY

OBJECTIVE 3B-1: For existing conservation lands, fund and implement habitat enhancement activities, including

prescribed burning, targeted herbicide application, invasive species management, mowing, and seeding, and

establish endowments for the long-term management of those lands. The Legacy Lands Strategy is intended as a

“jump-ahead” strategy to generate rapid habitat value during the first years of the HCP. On average, it is assumed

the County will be able to fund about 42% of the additional habitat value improvements for a Legacy Lands

project, and therefore take that same percentage of possible habitat credit. The 42% is based on a conservative

estimate of funding gaps for existing conservation lands the County could fill. Actually credits will vary by project.

Increase the overall habitat function within existing protected natural areas for up to 1,800

ac (728 ha), and track habitat enhancement using similar performance measures to new

conservation lands (see Section 5.5).

Establish long-term management endowments or other funding at levels and commitments

needed to maintain habitat function in perpetuity (See Section 7.2.4).

In order to generate mitigation credit from an existing conservation land, the County must

secure an agreement with the landowner that A) clearly provides rights to the County to

mitigation credits, B) establishes a Site Management Plan consistent with the requirements

for new, core habitat lands (Objective 3A-1), C) demonstrates the additionality of the

mitigation measure, and D) is approved by the HCP Implementation Team.

Determine conservation credit for covered activities in proportion to the funds provided by

the HCP (e.g., if USDA funded $500,000 for an easement, and the HCP funds $500,000 for

habitat enhancement and an endowment, then the County could take 50% of credit

generated).

All creditable mitigation measures must be additional. This means measures need to

improve on the baseline condition of the existing protected area AND be demonstrably new

and would not have occurred without the mitigation measure. A Legacy Lands’ Site

Management Plan needs to clearly document A) the funding sources used to fund

protection and any habitat enhancement, B) the habitat value requirements from those

funding sources, C) the baseline habitat conditions, and D) the additional habitat value

provided by the mitigation measures generating credit.


94

OBJECTIVE 3B-2: Manage and improve breeding habitat quality for OSF on County controlled lands.

Manage oviposition areas to maintain short emergent (herbaceous) vegetation in shallow

water containing open areas with full sun exposure and with connectivity to permanent

water (see Appendix B: Best Management Practices).

Control reed canarygrass or keep it short during the breeding season (see Appendix B: Best

Management Practices).

Maintain and/or improve aquatic connectivity between shallow breeding habitat and

deeper permanent water, through water control to maintain shallow water from winter

through late summer and maintenance of a gradual slope between seasonal shallow water

(< 12 in (<30 cm)) habitats and permanent water so tadpoles can follow receding water to

areas that retain water year round.

Remove creosote treated infrastructure within OSF habitat where possible.

5.6 County Landowner Assurances

Concern for their own liability under the ESA or the fear of increasing liability for neighbors often

reduces the willingness of private landowners to implement conservation for listed species on their

land. Community support for local conservation land acquisition can be diminished when spread of

ESA listed species from conservation lands to neighboring properties could add to mitigation costs

for neighbors. In this HCP, Thurston County will provide two sets of assurances for landowners to

reduce these disincentives, described below.

5.6.1 HCP Neighboring Landowner Assurances

The HCP provides County assurances for Neighboring Lands within 1,500 ft (457 m) 23 of properties

that are enrolled in the Thurston County Conservation Lands System via the HCP conservation

strategies described in Section 5.3 and 5.4 (e.g., Working Lands, New Conservation Lands, and

Legacy Conservation Lands). The objective of these assurances is to create certainty for

landowners neighboring conservation lands, and to reduce the disincentive to participate in the

HCP conservation program out of fear of adding ESA restrictions to neighboring landowners. Any

owner of land contiguous and adjacent to a conservation land site will be eligible to receive a HCP

Participation Agreement (Appendix G) from the County that assures:

Their property has a baseline habitat functional value for the HCP species (used in

calculating any mitigation obligations) that remains fixed even if habitat improvement on

neighboring conservation lands contiguous and adjacent to results in elevated HCP species

abundance or habitat quality on their private land (e.g., resulting from dispersal of species

from the conservation land to their property, or increased proximity value). Baseline

23 See Table 2.3 for discussion of species dispersal distances. A zone of 1500 ft covers the anticipated dispersal distance for MPG, five of the six butterflies, and approximately half the dispersal distance for Valley silverspot butterfly.


95

habitat values on land will be established via the habitat and species mapping in use by the

County for HCP implementation (the HCP Basemap), and locked in at the time a property

within 1,500 ft (457 m) becomes part of the Thurston County Conservation Lands System.

Allow the landowner to continue to implement existing activities on their property without

being responsible for any mitigation for HCP covered species beyond the baseline habitat

functional value of their land—The HCP Participation Agreement (Appendix G) will state

that the County will assume responsibility for any negligible take likely associated with

these activities.

Imposes no additional restrictions on the use of land or property or requirements to

enhance habitat beyond the minimization and mitigation of impacts that would have been

required when the baseline habitat value was set.

The Neighboring Landowner Assurances differ from the Working Lands Stewardship Agreements

with Assurances (Section 5.3.2; Objective 2-1) in that they do not restrict uses, and the County

cannot use these lands as mitigation under the HCP. The County will encourage landowners

neighboring the Thurston County Conservation Lands System to enter into Working Lands

Stewardship Agreements.

5.6.2 Working Lands Stewardship Agreements

This HCP also provides County assurances for lands enrolled in Working Lands Stewardship

Agreements. These assurances are integrated into the Agreement, provide certainty to landowners,

includes a HCP Participation Agreement (Appendix G) for any potential take, and incentivize

voluntary stewardship. These assurances:

Establish baseline habitat values on the land at the beginning of the agreement via surveys

and other documentation conducted by the County or its designee to establish covered

species abundance and habitat quality.

Allow the landowner to maintain or improve those habitat values for 15 years, and at the

end of 15 years, implement activities that may bring the habitat value back down to baseline

with no mitigation required, if desired.

Impose no additional restrictions on the use of land or property beyond those in the

Working Lands Stewardship Agreement.

5.7 Monitoring

Monitoring and adaptive management are crucial to a successful HCP. Thurston County will adopt a

monitoring program with three components (Compliance Monitoring Plan, Effectiveness

Monitoring Plan, and Validation Monitoring Plan). Monitoring allows the County, USFWS, and

stakeholders to track progress toward implementing the terms of the incidental take permit

(Compliance), meeting biological objectives and goals (Effectiveness), and using sound tools and

assumptions (Validation).


96

5.7.1 Compliance Monitoring

Thurston County shall annually evaluate its compliance with the terms and conditions of the

County’s incidental take permit and HCP and compile the information into its Annual HCP

Compliance Report, which is due to the USFWS by March 31st of the following year for each year

the incidental take permit is in effect (see Appendix L: Sample Annual Compliance Report). This

report will provide the information to demonstrate to USFWS that the HCP is being implemented in

line with its terms and conditions, present any needed modifications to HCP implementation, and

identify administrative or minor changes to the HCP required to improve success.

At a minimum, annual HCP reports should include the following information:

Reporting year and cumulative (from the start of the permit term) summary of:

All impacts (acres affected and functional acres) from covered activities implemented,

categorized by activity type (i.e., development, transportation projects) and by Service

Area for Guild 1.

All conservation measures implemented, categorized by Conservation Strategy and by

Service Area for Guild 1.

All revenues received, by type (e.g., development fees, County funds, etc.).

All revenues expended.

Assessment of mitigation credit-debit balance (see Section 6.4.1).

Assessment of the rates of return and other performance for conservation land

endowment funds (e.g., 5-8% earnings on endowment fund investments).

A summary of all land management activities undertaken on HCP Conservation Lands

and a discussion of the management issues facing the manager at each conservation land.

A description of the effectiveness monitoring undertaken during the reporting period

and a summary of monitoring results.

An assessment of the effectiveness of the monitoring methods and recommended

changes to the program based on interpretation of monitoring results or outside

research.

A description of the adaptive management process utilized during the reporting period

(e.g., technical assistance from USFWS, WDFW, convening of Technical Teams).

An assessment of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement and maintenance methods in

achieving performance standards and recommended changes.

An assessment of the functionality of the performance standards based on the results of

effectiveness monitoring, and recommended changes to performance standards.

An evaluation of the economic assumptions on which the Plan was based (e.g., land

acquisition, monitoring, etc.)

A description of any changed circumstances, including remedial actions.

A summary of any HCP administrative changes, minor modifications, or major

amendments proposed or approved during the reporting year (see Section 6.11).


97

5.7.2 Effectiveness Monitoring

The purpose of effectiveness monitoring24 is to determine the success of habitat enhancement and

maintenance, as measured by tracking species status and habitat condition. Effectiveness

monitoring will be conducted on all HCP Conservation Lands, with objectives including:

Tracking covered species population and habitat quality.

Determining what management actions are necessary.

Measuring success of habitat enhancement activities (i.e., evaluate effects of mowing,

burning, herbicide application, seeding, etc.).

Measuring progress (habitat enhancement) towards performance measures for mitigation

credit releases.

Early detection of invasive plants and animals.

Providing feedback for adaptive management.

Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified biologists or natural resource specialists in possession

of any permits required by regulatory agencies (state or federal) for the monitoring activities they

are conducting. These specialists may be County staff or their designees.

5.7.2.1 Effectiveness Monitoring Protocols for Prairie-Oak Habitats

Effectiveness monitoring on HCP Conservation Lands will be based on the PHAM protocol

(Addendum B: Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology Documentation). The PHAM protocol is

targeted towards the current federally listed species, however it will be updated before the

final take permit is issued to incorporate measures to document the status of the other Guild 2

butterfly species, Guild 3 bird species, and oak habitat quality25. The PHAM protocol measures

the occurrence of habitat types and species across sites. Each PHAM survey will yield a direct

assessment of the ecological status of the conservation lands, and indicate whether the site is

meeting the performance standards (see Appendix J).

Effectiveness monitoring will be conducted no less frequently than every 3-4 years. Conservation

land managers may implement monitoring at different intervals depending on the phase of

management, needs for credit release, and eventually on the stability of trends concerning the

habitat and species at the site.

The PHAM field protocol is a census of habitat quality within a grid of 82 ft x 82 ft (25 m x 25 m)

cells (each cell is 625 m2 in total area) distributed contiguously across the prairie-oak habitat at a

site. Percent cover of tree, shrub, native herbaceous vegetation and bare ground is visually

estimated by category. The presence of species or specific habitat (e.g., pocket gopher mounds,

nectar/host plants for butterflies, presence and structure of oaks) is recorded within each cell.

These data are then used to categorize each cell as to its habitat type and presence or potential for

24 Compliance monitoring is discussed in Chapter 6: Implementation. 25 Oak habitat quality assessment will integrate the CAO protocol for oak habitats under development by Thurston County.


98

covered species. Addendum B: Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology Documentation describes

the PHAM protocol in more depth.

5.7.2.2 Effectiveness Monitoring Protocols for OSF Habitat

Monitoring protocols for OSF are currently under development by the USFWS (Waterstradt,

USFWS, Personal Communication April 2016) and will be integrated into HCP implementation in

collaboration with the HCP Implementation Team, inclusive of technical assistance from WDFW and

USFWS, when they are complete, and adaptively updated over time. These protocols are likely to

include measures of water inundation depth, vegetation type and structure, and frog abundance

and use.

5.7.2.3 Performance Standards and Credit Release Schedules

Performance standards describe the habitat conditions or target species status necessary to release

mitigation credits from conservation lands during the phases of their enhancement and

management over the life of the property. Performance standards are tied to site specific

thresholds in habitat condition within the configuration of different habitat types, habitat qualities,

and soil types at each site. Variables included in performance standards may include, but are not

limited to, restored prairie-oak or OSF habitat spatial extent, native plant species cover, native plant

species richness, host or food-source plant species abundance, covered species abundance, covered

species occupied area, and non-native or invasive plant species cover. Appendix J includes

performance standards that can be used throughout Thurston County at HCP conservation lands.

However, each conservation land site will be unique, therefore some specific performance

standards, consistent with Appendix J, will be established in the individual management plans and

conservation bank documentation for each conservation land property from which mitigation

credits will be sold, and reviewed by the HCP Implementation team.

Prior to selling or using any credits, a credit producer must have an approved site-management

plan and provided legal protection for the land’s conservation values. The program administrator

should conduct a final, pre-sale check-in with all relevant regulatory and permitting agencies to

ensure full agreement on debit and credit amounts. Credits will be calculated on 100% of the

potential habitat value, and released on the following schedule (the credit release schedule may be

altered to fit site-specific conditions on approval from the HCP Implementation team):

Phase I: 20% of total site credits will be released on approval of a site management plan and

recording of the conservation land protection agreement;

Phase 2: Up to 20% of total site credits will be released at end of year 1 if A) the site management

plan measures have been implemented, B) endowment funds adequate to manage the site to

baseline conditions have been set aside, and C) appropriate progress toward performance

standards is documented and verified;

Phase 3: Up to 20% of total site credits will be released at end of year 5 if the site management plan

measures have been implemented and appropriate progress toward performance standards is

documented and verified;


99

Phase 4: UP to 20% of total site credits are released when the stewardship endowment is fully

funded, provided appropriate progress toward performance standards is documented and verified;

and

Phase 5: All remaining credits are released when the site has met all of its final performance

standards for 3 consecutive growing seasons.

5.7.2.4 Monitoring Plans

Monitoring plans will be developed for HCP Conservation Lands, by the manager of the property,

within 1 year of property acquisition. The HCP Implementation Team will review and approve all

monitoring plans. The monitoring plan may be added to any existing management plans or

guidelines, such that the required levels of monitoring for the HCP are included. Monitoring plans

will be developed by qualified biologists/natural resource specialists, and in some cases, sites may

already have a monitoring plan established as part of a site management plan.

At a minimum, each monitoring plan will include:

1. Name of site.

2. Management goals and objectives (e.g., control of invasive species) for the site.

3. Subject of the monitoring program (e.g., habitat and/or species status).

4. Description of what is being monitored (e.g., habitat and/or species status), including a site

description (which may be generated using the first year’s monitoring data and any prior

surveys) with information about the abundance of HCP species, if present.

5. Variables to be measured and how data will be collected (e.g., the PHAM protocol and any

adaptations)

6. Frequency (minimum of three year cycle), timing (dependent on species being monitored),

duration (minimum of six years), and intensity (number of sample plots) of the sampling.

7. Sampling locations/layout.

8. How data will be analyzed, who will conduct analysis (e.g., qualified biologist, statistician),

and how results will determine whether the HCP goals and objectives are being met through

the conservation measures.

9. Adaptive management process (such as use of the results to update management methods).

10. Monitoring equipment needs.

11. Personnel responsible for implementing monitoring program.

12. Process for reviewing/modifying monitoring plan.

5.7.2.5 Data Management

HCP data management, including monitoring data, is included in Chapter 6: Implementation.

5.7.3 Validation Monitoring

Over the course of the HCP, and as part of the HCP Implementation team’s regular review of the

conservation program, the County will coordinate with partners (e.g., WDFW, those implementing

conservation projects, and those providing technical and science assistance to habitat conservation

in the area) validate the accuracy, sensitivity, and repeatability of the habitat models and


100

performance standards incorporated into the HCP. Specific elements needing validation monitoring

include:

The habitat quality values built into the Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology;

Performance standard criteria and thresholds;

Location, size, and spatial distribution of reserve priority areas; and

Location and need for particular service areas.

Review of validation monitoring will occur no less frequently than in years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30

of the HCP.

5.8 Adaptive Management

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.

Some specific sources of uncertainty to be addressed by the County’s Adaptive Management Plan

include:

Lack of recovery plans and other important information necessary for the optimal

conservation of covered species;

Missing information on the effects of climate change on species and habitat conditions;

Changing demands for development and other covered activities; and

The effectiveness of certain minimization and mitigation measures for meeting Biological

objectives.

5.8.1 Adaptive Management to Update and Improve the Conservation Program

Adaptive management actions will be taken at the site and program scales using the likely

responses outlined in Table 5.6. The HCP Implementation Team will review annual monitoring

information for these adaptive management triggers, and make recommendations for program

improvement no less than annually in years 1-5 of the HCP, and no less than every five years in

years 5-30 of the HCP.


101

Table 5.6 Adaptive management triggers and responses.

Source of

Uncertainty

Adaptive

Management Trigger

Site Response Program Response

Missing recovery

plans

Recovery Plan issued Consider amendments to

Management Plans for

Conservation Lands

Adjust Reserve Priority

Area Maps and Criteria

Climate change Change to recovery

plans or reserve

priority criteria

Consider amendments to


Conservation Lands

Adjust Reserve Priority

Area Maps and Criteria;

Adjust habitat valuation

tools

Changing

development

demand

A 20% increase or

decrease in 5-yr

development

projections

No change Adjust mix of mitigation

and minimization

measures to stay within

take permit conditions

Effectiveness of

minimization and

mitigation

measures

Evidence of better

BMPs and habitat

enhancement

strategies

Consider amendments to


Conservation Lands;

Amend minimization

measures

No change

5.8.2 Monitoring Interface with Adaptive Management

The objective of the effectiveness monitoring for purposes of adaptive management is to determine

whether the quality of a HCP covered habitat or population of HCP covered species is declining.

Declines may be due to HCP covered activities or changes in habitat conditions. Through adaptive

management, managers may detect changes in habitat conditions (e.g., increasing invasive species

populations) prior to a resulting decline in HCP covered habitat quality or covered species

populations.


102

Section 6 Implementation

6.1 Introduction

This section describes the roles and responsibilities of Thurston County in implementing the HCP. An

Implementation Guide is provided in Appendix N.

6.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Thurston County

For the duration of the incidental take permit, Thurston County will provide the staff and resources

necessary for implementation of the HCP. The Thurston County Board of Commissioners has overall

responsibility to ensure the HCP is implemented. The Thurston County Planning Commission, with

support from Resource Stewardship Department staff, will act as the body responsible for reviewing

and advising the BOCC that there is adequate mitigation in place to cover take authorized by County

HCP Participation Agreements (Appendix G). The County will also convene a HCP Implementation

Team composed of county permittees (e.g., home builders and public works department), stakeholders

(e.g., business, conservation, and agriculture organizations), and technical experts (e.g., WDFW and

USFWS staff). The HCP Implementation Team will provide recommendations to the County on A)

prioritizing conservation lands to add to the Conservation Lands System, B) reviewing annual reports

on HCP progress (Appendix L), and C) helping the County adaptively manage the program for best

results.

6.2.1 Thurston County Board of Commissioners

The Thurston County Board of Commissioners has overall responsibility for implementation of the

HCP. Many of the tasks to be performed by the County will be delegated to staff in the Resource

Stewardship Department. The following tasks will be performed by the Board of County

Commissioners, or designee:

Program Supervision.

Review and approve Resolution for adoption of HCP.

Review and approve Implementing Ordinance.

Review and approve amendments to the HCP and incidental take permit.

Provide guidance and approval for acquisition of lands and/or conservation easements.

Biennially, Thurston County will prepare a budget and work plan for implementation of the

HCP. Each department with responsibility for implementation of the HCP will submit their

budgets to the County’s budget office. The County Commissioners have the overall

responsibility for adopting the County’s budget. The budget will be completed consistent

with the current county budget process or cycle which may be annually or biennially.

Adopting final code amendments to meet requirements of the HCP.

Approval of major amendments to the HCP and implementation plan.

The Board of Commissioners shall by resolution amend the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and

related joint plans with cities, and by ordinance amend the County’s Development Code, to include


103

procedures and requirements for implementation of the HCP and incidental take permit. The

ordinance will be finalized and adopted no later than one year after issuance of the incidental take

permit by USFWS. The ordinance may be amended over time based on HCP amendments and changes

to applicable federal and state laws.

The responsibilities for each department outlined below may change over time as do department

names, responsibilities, and staffing appointments and levels. Thurston County will inform USFWS of

any changes.

6.2.2 Resource Stewardship Department

The Resource Stewardship Department will designate a staff person to be the County’s HCP

Coordinator with the task of providing overall program implementation oversight. An implementation

guide (Appendix N) will be developed by the final HCP that describes implementation tasks and

responsibilities, which will include:

Administration

Mitigation Program Management

Reviewing Field Surveys

Reviewing Habitat Management Plans

Implement and record Participation

Agreements

Contractor Management

Data Management

Compliance and Effectiveness

Monitoring

Reporting

Grant Applications

HCP Amendments

Coordination with land

management partners

Issue a call for reserve priority area

conservation projects

Land Acquisition

Management Guidelines and Plans

Permitting

Implementing the BMPs

Staff Training

Coordination with other County

Departments

Staff support to the Implementation

Team

Drafting work plans and budgets for

BOCC approval

Drafting code revisions for Planning Commission and BOCC approval

including public review of amendments

Maintain and provide to permittees a list of surveyors and their qualifications

and links to up-to-date survey protocol

Application of BMPs and other measures to minimize impacts

Work with applicants to reduce impacts

through site design

Maintain and approve Cooperative Agreements with landowner for on-site

mitigation

Maintain and approve Conservation

Lands Agreements with conservation

partners

Provide for permanent habitat protection of a site through acquisition,

conservation easement, or a permanent

working lands easement held by a third

party

Develop a long-term management plan

for the property

Establish and maintain an endowment for each property

Consider alternative mitigation proposals on a case by case basis using

the County’s Expanded Review process.


104

6.2.3 Thurston County Planning Commission

The Planning Commission will act as the advisory committee to the BOCC and regularly review the

County’s authorized impacts and HCP Participation Agreements (Appendix K) and associated

mitigation to ensure consistency with the terms of this HCP and the Incidental Take Permit. Those

tasks will include:

Regular review of take authorized under the HCP;

Reviewing progress on the conservation program to ensure adequate mitigation for take

being authorized; and

Making recommendations to the County Commission on any needed adaptive management

measures needed to improve operation of the conservation strategy.

6.2.4 HCP Implementation Team

A group convened regularly by Resource Stewardship Department staff to advise and help implement

the HCP and the terms of the Incidental Take Permit. The HCP Implementation Team will be composed

of: Representatives of County permittees, HCP stakeholders, and technical experts with background in

the needs of covered species, conservation in Thurston County, and other skills as needed. The HCP

Implementation Team will be tasked with:

Helping the County prioritize conservation land additions to the Conservation Lands

System using and adaptively managing the criteria defined in Appendix I: Conservation

Lands Prioritization Criteria.

Reviewing the County’s progress toward meeting HCP commitments and Incidental Take

Permit Conditions; and review annual reports prior to submission to USFWS

Making adaptive management recommendations for HCP Implementation to County staff,

the Planning Commission, and the County Commission.

6.2.5 Public Works Department

Responsibilities of the Public Works Department regarding implementation of the HCP for Public

Works activities will include:

Administration


Field Surveys

Contractor Management

Reporting

Permitting


departments

Reporting Activities to Resource

Stewardship

Staff Training

6.2.6 Public Health and Social Services Department

Responsibilities of the Public Health and Social Services Department, particularly the Environmental

Health Division, regarding HCP implementation will include:

Administration


Permitting


105


departments

Reporting

Staff Training

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Costs and Funding

106

6.2.7 Thurston GeoData

GeoData will coordinate with all departments to analyze and maintain spatial data related to the HCP,

including, but not limited to impact areas, survey records, and habitat management actions.

6.2.8 Public Information Personnel

Public information personnel will be responsible for working with other Thurston County departments

in the dissemination of information about the HCP and about prairie conservation in general.

6.2.9 Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is responsible for the legal review of documents to ensure the County

is adequately covered for legal liability purposes.

6.3 Process to Obtain Incidental Take Coverage

6.3.1 Overview

The County proposes to issue HCP Participation Agreements (take authorization) to those needing a

County permit for specific activities resulting in impacts to the covered species. This process will be

similar for private landowners and county partners, such as utility companies, county school and rural

fire districts. A template HCP Participation Agreement is included in Appendix K: Thurston County HCP

Participation Agreement.

At any time during the term of the incidental take permit, if there is no remaining incidental take

authorization available for the County to allocate, no take authorization will be issued and the permit

applicant will need to work with the USFWS to obtain incidental take authorization. In such an event

the County may elect to amend its permit (see Section 6.11). The County also reserves the right to

refuse take authorization to any party, if the activity would not leave enough take coverage for other

permittees, if there is not adequate mitigation in place, or based on other criteria published by the

County.

When issued, take authorization will be incorporated with building or other County permits, and will:

Describe the proposed project and document that it is a covered activity;

Identify and quantify anticipated impacts to the HCP habitats and species; and

Set forth the requirements of the parties, including mitigation commitments and costs.

Resource Stewardship will provide HCP species screening information in the HCP Basemap that allows

permit applicants to identify potential habitat within their site proposed for development. If there is no

habitat, the permit goes through normal County review procedures. An applicant with covered

activities on habitat may seek a HCP Participation Agreement (Appendix K) from the County under its

HCP, and continue the permit application process (as outlined in Figure 6.1 and described below). An

applicant may also choose two paths that would not require take coverage under the County HCP:

1. Conduct soil and/or habitat surveys to show there is no habitat on or near the site (see

survey procedure in Section 6.3.2.2.); or


107

2. Obtain take authorization directly from the USFWS, then proceed with the County permit

application process.

HCP Covered Activity

Land Use requiring County Permit

Land in HCP habitat screen Land outside HCP habitat screen

Proceed

with activity

Determine if habitat

is present *

No habitat

Present

Covered habitat

present

Avoid

habitat,

implement

BMPs

Calculate mitigation required to offset covered activity effects.

Pay fee in lieu to

mitigate impacts

Complete alternative

mitigation mechanism that is

approved by both USFWS and

Thurston County (see Section

6.4.2)

Receive HCP Participation Agreement for

incidental take authorization

Complete normal

permit process

*For Prairie AOI, this involves GIS assessment of property. For OSF, this involves a field survey.


108

Figure 6.1 Diagram of process to receive a Thurston County HCP Participation Agreement. All projects need to meet other normal County permitting requirements. Land use projects that do not require a county permit, but may impact listed species should work with USFWS to determine whether a proposed project or action is likely to result in take.

6.3.2 Pre-Project Permit Review – Expedited vs Expanded Review

County permit applicants seeking take authorization from the County may follow one of two paths for

the permit review process: Expedited or Expanded. The expedited permit review process is strongly

preferred. Once a permit applicant has selected the expanded permit review process, they may not

revert to the expedited process.

6.3.2.1 Expedited Permit Review

Thurston County Resource Stewardship uses the HCP Basemap to work with the applicant

to identify the habitat area and value unavoidably impacted by the covered activity to

assign a functional acre quantity of impact26.

If impacts will occur in the OSF Habitat Screen, permittees will need to complete a process

to verify OSF habitat (Appendix E: Proposed HCP OSF Survey System) and may need to take

additional measures to minimize impacts. No surveys are required for any of the other

covered species in the HCP.

The permittee pays the associated fee in lieu of land dedication to the County based on the

cost of maintaining, in perpetuity, an equivalent area and value of habitat. If local funding

measures are approved (see Section 7.3.2), the County will contribute funds toward land

acquisition and enhancement for each functional acre of impact as part of its shared

responsibility commitment.

Once the fee has been paid, the permittee continues normal County permitting processes.

The County records the impact and reports permitted impacts and commensurate

mitigation to USFWS on an annual basis.

6.3.2.2 Expanded Permit Review

Thurston County Resource Stewardship uses the HCP Basemap to work with the applicant

to identify the habitat area and value unavoidably impacted by the covered activity to

assign a functional acre quantity of impact;

The permit applicant can choose to complete A) a site-specific soils survey rather than

relying on USDA soil series data integrated in the HCP Basemap for Guild 1, or B) a site-

specific habitat survey to determine habitat suitability for Guild 2/prairie, Guild

3/grassland, or Guild 4/oak HCP covered species. The surveys need to be conducted by a

County-approved, qualified natural resource professional using methods approved by the

County with technical assistance from USFWS and WDFW27. The County and HCP

Implementation team will review survey results, and use the results to adjust any

mitigation or minimization requirements based on increased or decreased habitat area.

26 The analysis will follow the same methods used in the HCP impacts analysis (Section 4.2.1), but instead of using NLCD land cover data, staff will use current aerial photos to identify Prairie-Oak suitable habitat types. 27 Thurston County will maintain a list of qualifications for surveyors, in addition to links to up to date survey protocol that is available upon request at any time, and is regularly reviewed by the HCP Implementation Team.


109

If impacts will occur for potential OSF habitat (Appendix E: Proposed HCP OSF Survey

System), permittees will need to complete a process to verify OSF habitat, and may need to

take additional measures to minimize impacts. No surveys are required for any of the other

covered species in the HCP;

The permittee pays the associated fee in lieu of land dedication to the County based on 38%

of the cost of conserving an equivalent area and value of habitat (see Section 7 for more on

costs and financing). The County will cover a portion of each functional acre of impact as

part of its shared responsibility commitment;

The permittee may also be able to dedicate land as mitigation for impacts instead of a fee

(see Section 6.4.2). The permittee submits a proposal for land dedication describing the

habitat area and value of the site, a site enhancement and management plan, and how the

site will be secured and managed in perpetuity. The site plan must be approved by the

County in coordination with the HCP Implementation Team, inclusive of technical

assistance from USFWS and WDFW.

Once the fee has been paid or an approved land dedication has been completed, the

permittee continues on with normal County permitting processes.

The County records the impact and reports permitted impacts and commensurate

mitigation to USFWS on an annual basis.

6.3.3 Applying BMPs and Minimizing Impacts

The County will work with County permit applicants to ensure BMPs are applied for applicable covered

activities as practicable (see Appendix B: Best Management Practices). The County will also work with

applicants to inform them how siting activities differently (e.g., clustering development, or moving

activities off of high value habitat) will reduce impacts and their mitigation obligations.

6.4 Mitigation

6.4.1 Specific Mitigation Requirements

All HCP Conservation Lands will be secured under the advisement of the HCP Implementation Team,

and in partnership with landowners, nonprofits, businesses, agency partners or others. Specific criteria

for prairie-oak and OSF mitigation lands are described below.

6.4.1.1 Prairie-Oak

New HCP Conservation Lands acquired for mitigation of Prairie-Oak species will be located in

Reserve Priority Areas. Lands proposed outside these areas may be considered on a case-by-

case basis in conjunction with the HCP Implementation Team, but may incur a longer review

process and may be subject to additional requirements.

Pre-acquisition surveys will document that new HCP Conservation Lands are occupied by or

proximal to and suitable for one or more of the covered species. Lands will be acquired using

the prioritization criteria described in Appendix I: Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria.

Mitigation should occur on conservation lands proximal to where the impacts occur and

provide similar habitat to the habitat being impacted. Mitigation for impacts to Guild 1 will


110

occur in Reserve Priority Areas within the same Guild 1 Service Area28 (Figure 6.2) as the

impact. Mitigation for Guild 2, 3, and 4 impacts should occur in the nearest Reserve Priority

Area with suitable habitat.

During the first 5 years of the HCP, the County will have some flexibility in where mitigation

occurs and the types of habitat included in mitigation projects. However, for every fifth year

(i.e., Years 5, 10, 15, etc.), debits and credits must align within each Guild 1 Service Area and for

each of the Guilds.

Figure 6.2 Guild 1 Mazama pocket gopher service areas in Thurston County.

6.4.1.2 Oregon Spotted Frog (OSF)

Land protection or enhancement for OSF will first prioritize known oviposition areas within critical

habitat for the species (79 FR 53384). Secondary priorities are perennial water with emergent

vegetation (still or lightly flowing water) for protecting juveniles and adults during both the dry season

and cold, wet weather. These can include pools, springs, ponds, lakes, streams, canals, or ditches. To

serve as overwinter sites, it should remain inundated with water from October to March.

28 Service Areas for Guild 1 are designed around the six approximate geographic areas in Thurston County occupied by each Mazama pocket gopher subspecies, and including an area where the identification of a specific subspecies is currently unclear.


111

6.4.2 Mitigation Mechanisms

6.4.2.1 Mitigation in lieu of land dedication

The most common form of mitigation is anticipated to be a fee paid by County permit applicants to the

County for mitigation that is already secured. Permit applicants that pay a mitigation fee will use the

County’s Expedited Permit Review process. This fee will be deposited into a dedicated County account

for HCP implementation and will be used to secure habitat credits from Conservation Lands approved

by the County with review from its HCP Implementation Team. Typically, each site generating credits

will, at a minimum:

Enter into a cooperative agreement with the County to define the relationship of the site to

the Thurston County HCP;

Provide for permanent habitat protection of the site (e.g., through acquisition, a

conservation easement, or a permanent working lands easement held by a third party

restricting certain land uses) (e.g., Appendix G: Model Conservation Easement);

Develop a long-term management plan (e.g., Appendix H: Site Management Plan Template)

for the site; and

Provide funding for monitoring and long-term management of the site through

establishment of an endowment, or similar financial mechanism.

6.4.2.2 Mitigation via land dedication

A permit applicant may request to mitigate on an unaffected portion of the property where impacts

occurred or mitigate on adjacent lands also owned by the same landowner (land dedication). This form

of mitigation is subject to the County’s Expanded Review process (see Section 6.3.2.2). Thurston

County, in coordination with the HCP Implementation Team, will determine whether such mitigation is

allowable under the HCP on a case by case basis. Criteria to determine if land dedication may be used

include, but are not limited to the following:

The site must be under permanent protection of a conservation easement, or equivalent

legal protection, that includes protection of the covered species and habitat to be mitigated

as an objective.

The site must be supported by an endowment, or equivalent funding mechanism, for

management of the property in perpetuity.

The site must be located within a Reserve Priority Area or be determined by the mitigation

site criteria (Section 5.4.3, Section 6.4.1, and Appendix I: Conservation Land Prioritization

Criteria) and the HCP Implementation Team to be key for conservation of the covered

species or habitats.

The site must have sufficient size and spatial extent of the covered species habitat or

proximity to the covered species to satisfy the mitigation requirement (see Appendix I:

Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria).

The site owner/manager must enter into a cooperative agreement with Thurston County

that outlines the mitigation and long-term maintenance commitment, in addition to

monitoring and reporting requirements.


112

6.4.2.3 Alternative forms of mitigation

A permit applicant may propose an alternative form of mitigation that provides greater habitat benefits

than either land dedication or payment in lieu. The County may consider alternative mitigation

proposals on a case by case basis using the County’s Expanded Review process. Thurston County, in

coordination with the HCP Implementation Team, will determine whether such mitigation is allowable

under the HCP on a case by case basis using criteria similar to those described in Sections 6.4.1.

Additional review fees may apply to recover costs if any additional review is required.

6.5 Implementing the Conservation Program

Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department, in coordination with the HCP Implementation

Team, will oversee the Conservation Program. It is expected that private landowners, conservation

organizations, private business, and government land managers will all play a role in recruiting

conservation lands, enhancing habitat, and maintaining conservation lands in perpetuity. From time to

time, the County will issue a call for conservation projects that include new HCP Conservation Lands

and improvements to existing conservation lands (Legacy Lands). Anyone is welcome to respond to

that call for projects (e.g., land trusts, private conservation banks, tribes, individual landowners,

homebuilders, etc.). The process will follow these steps:

County issues a call for new HCP Conservation Lands and conservation credit needs by

service area and habitat type (inclusive of needs for new conservation lands, management

of existing conservation lands, and 15-year Working Lands Stewardship Agreements).

Interested parties submit letters of inquiry describing site location, habitat type, habitat

objectives, project cost, and estimated credit types and quantities.

County, working with the HCP Implementation Team, review letters of inquiry to invite a

subset of eligible projects for full proposals.

Project proposals are selected, and enter into a Conservation Lands Agreement with the

County to develop the project. The Agreement might simply be a credit purchase agreement

from a private conservation bank, or could be a closer partnership to develop a project

together with a landowner.

The County and the HCP Implementation Team will review and approve site management

plans, recommend funding distributions, and review monitoring reports and mitigation

credit release schedules.

The County will record all conservation benefits and report those benefits to USFWS (see

Appendix L: Sample HCP Annual Compliance Report).

The Working Lands Strategy will be overseen by the County, but implemented in close coordination

with partners familiar to landowners and farmers (e.g., Thurston Conservation District and USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service). Willing landowners will work with the County and its

designees to develop site management plans, document baseline conditions, and enter into agreements

with landowners.

HCP Conservation Lands will be prioritized for acquisition using the criteria described in Appendix I:

Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria.


113

6.5.1 Land/or Conservation Easement Acquisition Policies

Protection, enhancement and management of habitat is paramount to conservation and recovery of the

covered species.

Properties or conservation easements acquired as part of the HCP will only be acquired from willing

sellers. Thurston County will not condemn land to satisfy the conservation measures in the HCP, nor

will the County partner with any organization to condemn land for the HCP, including contributing

funding towards condemnation.

Thurston County may accept land or conservation easements as a gift or charitable donation. The

County will evaluate the conservation benefit of the lands donated relative to the goals, objectives, and

requirements of the HCP. Donated land not meeting these goals, objectives, and requirements may be

sold or exchanged, subject to any restrictions imposed by the donating entity, to enable acquisition of

land or conservation easements that do meet these goals, objectives, and requirements.

If Thurston County contracts with a landowner subject to the terms of a conservation easement or

another party to manage property for conservation of covered species, Thurston County may employ

third party monitoring to ensure compliance with the terms of the conservation easement.

Public access to properties with conservation easements will only be allowed with the easement holder

and landowner’s consent and where access does not result in harm to the covered species or their

habitat.

6.6 Data Management

Thurston County will maintain a data management system to track incidental take permit compliance,

monitoring data, and all appropriate aspects of the HCP. The data repository will be updated as

needed, and queried for annual reporting to the USFWS (see Section 6.7). The County will ensure

quality assurance/quality control of the data and provide adequate metadata documentation for all

data (i.e., why, how, and where data were collected). Spatial data will be maintained by Thurston

GeoData. The primary types of information to be included in the County’s data management system for

the HCP include, but are not limited to, the information needed for the annual HCP Compliance Report

(see Section 6.7).

6.7 Schedule and Reporting

Milestones for HCP implementation are outlined in Table 6.1. This schedule does not prevent Thurston

County from accomplishing these milestones earlier than anticipated. Compliance and other

monitoring report requirements are described in Section 5.7.

Table 6.1 Milestones for HCP implementation. (Milestones for conservation program’s biological objectives are provided in Sections 5.4 and 5.5)

Yea

r 1

Programmatic:

1. Pass local resolution and ordinance to implement HCP.


114

2. Train staff on HCP requirements, particularly BMPs for County actions and permit

issuance.

3. Establish databases to track the elements set forth in Section 6.7.

Conservation:

1. Create Site Management Plans for Conservation Lands acquired since 2013 and

establish Conservation Land Agreements with land managers for credits.

2. Create Site Management Plans and/or guidelines for Working Lands Stewardship

Agreements, Legacy Conservation Lands, and HCP Conservation Lands newly

secured by the County with covered species or habitat.

3. Secure properties from willing sellers to establish HCP Conservation Lands and

prepare associated Site Management Plans.

4. Conduct public outreach activities (Section 5.5., Objective 2-4).

Development:

1. Begin receiving and reviewing requests for take authorization.

Yea

rs 2

-3

Programmatic:

1. Prepare annual Compliance Reports.

Conservation:

1. Secure properties from willing sellers to establish new HCP Conservation Lands and


2. Conduct public outreach activities (Section 5.5., Objective 2-4).

3. Implement habitat restoration and enhancement projects at newly secured HCP

Conservation Lands.

4. Begin Effectiveness and Compliance Monitoring (see Section 5.7).

Development:

1. Continue receiving and reviewing requests for take authorization.

Yea

rs 4

-30

Program Operation:

1. Prepare annual Compliance Reports.

Conservation:

1. Secure properties from willing sellers to establish new HCP Conservation Lands and


2. Conservation 4: Conduct public outreach activities.

3. Conservation 5: Implement habitat restoration and enhancement projects at HCP

Conservation Lands.

4. Conservation 6: Complete Effectiveness and Compliance Monitoring.

5. Conservation 7: Follow management guidelines at HCP Conservation Lands and

update Site Management Plans and guidelines as needed through Adaptive

Management.


115

Development:

1. Continue receiving and reviewing requests for take authorization.

6.8 Changed Circumstances

If circumstances change during the term of the incidental take permit, Thurston County may modify its

activities and amend the HCP to address such changes. Possible changed circumstances are discussed

in Table 6.2. The County is committed to implement the responses outlined in Table 6.2 and has

projected sufficient incidental take to provide permit coverage for many of these changed

circumstances (e.g., increase in covered area), and has built funding assurances in the plan to cover the

costs of perpetual endowments for long-term maintenance to control circumstances such as invasive

species and recovery from fire or drought. If any of these circumstances permanently degrades the

habitat value of an HCP conservation land generating credit, the County will ensure alternative sites

with similar habitat types are available to offset the current level of incidental take from covered

activities.

Table 6.2 Summary of possible changed circumstances during the term of the incidental take permit.

Category Circumstance /Scenario

Potential Impact on Covered Species or Habitat Response

Species Status

Additional, non-HCP Covered Species Listed in the HCP Covered Area

Additional habitat protections may be enacted for new species.

The County will evaluate need for incidental take coverage, and consider amending this HCP or seeking an additional incidental take permit.

Species Status

Covered Species Delisted by the USFWS

Species protections will be removed.

The County will consider altering its mitigation and other requirements for delisted species. Management of existing Conservation Lands with habitat for the species shall continue.

Covered Area Previously Undiscovered Covered Species Population found, not accounted for in the HCP impacts analysis

Insufficient incidental take may be available under the County’s incidental take permit.

For activities covered by the HCP, if insufficient incidental take coverage is available, the County may elect to amend the HCP to add the needed anticipated impacts and mitigation to be fulfilled, or refer the affected landowners seeking incidental take authorization to the USFWS. All non-HCP covered activities will be regulated at the discretion of the USFWS.

Invasive Species or Diseases

Invasive plant population unexpectedly expands to threaten HCP covered species

Loss of native species

HCP effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management include measures to address invasive species. In the event that conditions change to favor a disease affecting HCP species or promote rapid expansion of an invasive species, and the invasive species does not respond to regular


116

and associated habitat

control and eradication measures, the County will discuss with USFWS.

Natural Catastrophes

Drought, wildfire or windstorm in Prairie-Oak AOI or OSF Habitat Screen

Unavoidable damage to habitat at HCP Conservation Lands may occur.

The County will minimize impacts as much as possible with technical assistance from USFWS, the County will evaluate the effects from the drought, fire or windstorm, and modify mitigation Site Management Plans as needed.

6.8.1 Additional Federally Listed or State Listed Species

Should additional species not covered by the HCP be listed, proposed, or petitioned for listing, Thurston

County may request that USFWS add such species to the incidental take permit and the HCP. To

determine whether to make this request, Thurston County may consider whether the species is present

in the permit area covered by the HCP and if it is likely to be affected by the covered activities. If

incidental take coverage is desired by Thurston County, the County will seek to amend the incidental

take permit and HCP. Alternatively, Thurston County may apply for a new and separate incidental take

permit. Procedures for amending the HCP are outlined in Section 6.11. Alternatively, the County may

elect to refer affected parties seeking a County permit to the USFWS.

6.8.2 Delisting

In the event that a HCP covered species is recovered and delisted by the federal government, Thurston

County will consider altering its mitigation and other requirements for delisted species. Management

of existing Conservation Lands with habitat for the species shall continue.

6.8.3 Newly Discovered Populations of Covered Species in Thurston County

By taking a habitat-based approach, Thurston County intended to address habitat conservation on a

County-wide scale, reducing the need to modify the HCP as species occupancy across the landscape

may change during the HCP permit term. The analysis and projections completed for the HCP reflect

the best available information of where the covered species and their habitat occur. Therefore, the

likelihood of discovering a new wild population of a HCP covered species outside their currently

identified ranges (the Prairie-Oak AOI and the OSF Habitat Screen) is low. However, if a new wild

population is found during the 30-year permit term, the County may not have sufficient take coverage

to cover additional impacts in the new location in addition to previously projected impacts. The County

will evaluate the incidental take remaining under its permit. In the event the County does not have

sufficient incidental take coverage, Thurston County may consider amending the HCP to add the

needed additional impacts and mitigation to be fulfilled, or Thurston County may elect to refer affected

parties seeking a County permit to the USFWS.

6.8.4 New Invasive Species

Invasive species are a continuing threat to native prairie habitat. Additional invasive species could

further stress areas already threatened by invasive species. The County will work with regional

partners on an early detection and control program for any new invasive species likely to threaten

habitat in the HCP Conservation Lands.


117

6.8.5 Natural Catastrophes

A number of natural catastrophes could occur during the term of the Permit, including flooding,

drought, wildfires, and windstorms.

6.8.5.1 Flooding

If any HCP Conservation Lands are flooded beyond regular seasonal flows during the permit term,

Thurston County will evaluate the site during the field season following the flood to determine any

negative effects the flooding may have had on the site, and the County will take appropriate action, with

technical assistance from USFWS, to determine effectiveness of restoring or enhancing the site.

6.8.5.2 Drought

Extreme and prolonged drought may threaten drinking water, water supplies for fire suppression,

water-dependent agriculture, industry, and fish, wildlife, and plants. Drought is a serious problem for

all covered species, but particularly for the butterfly species. If their host and/or nectar sources do not

produce sufficient food at the right time, mortality of butterfly adults and larvae occur. During drought

conditions some plants do not produce seed, which could further affect the continued existence of the

population of that species. If drought conditions threaten covered species in HCP Conservation Lands,

Thurston County, in collaboration with the HCP Implementation Team and the conservation land

manager(s), may determine if water is reasonably available elsewhere and coordinate to transport it to

the affected sites for drought abatement in key restoration areas. Thurston County, in collaboration

with the HCP Implementation Team and the conservation land manager(s), may also consider

enhancing populations of more drought-tolerant plants.

6.8.5.3 Wildfires

When managed, prescribed fires are a useful tool for conserving or enhancing native prairie species.

However, uncontrolled wildfires may negatively affect covered species populations either directly by

burning the organisms or indirectly through firefighting actions (trampling of plants, eggs, or larvae;

potential harm from fire retardants). If a fire occurs and fire fighters attempt to control it, human

health and safety will take precedence over protection of covered species. Within one year of a wildfire

affecting HCP Conservation Lands, the County will determine the status of the site and the need for

restoration and/or enhancement efforts. Any restoration/enhancement work needed will be

performed pursuant to the contingency measures in the Site Management Plan (Appendix H).

6.8.5.4 Windstorms

The Pacific Northwest may experience strong windstorms in the fall and winter months. These

windstorms can damage trees, buildings, and structures. Following a windstorm, Thurston County will

assess the damage to the HCP Conservation Lands within six months. Any fallen trees negatively

affecting the covered species or its habitat will be removed with care to minimize further impacts to

the species. Sites will be restored or enhanced, as needed.

6.8.5.5 Other Unanticipated Catastrophes

Thurston County will respond to additional natural catastrophes to protect or conserve one or more of

the covered species to the extent possible.


118

6.9 Unforeseen Circumstances

Unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered

by an HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the applicant or the USFWS at the time of

an HCP’s development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered

species. The USFWS is responsible for determining if an unforeseen circumstance has occurred, and

notifying Thurston County. In the event of an unforeseen circumstance, Thurston County will not be

required to increase the amount of mitigation required under the HCP, but the USFWS may request the

County re-allocate resources in an appropriate manner.

6.10 Amendments

The County requests an incidental take permit with a 30-year duration based upon actions to be

implemented in the HCP. During that period the County may seek to amend or modify the HCP or the

incidental take permit.

6.10.1 Amendments to the HCP or Incidental Take Permit

Thurston County and the USFWS may propose minor or major amendments to the HCP or the

incidental take permit. The party proposing the amendments shall provide the other parties with a

written statement of the reasons for the amendments and analysis of the effects of the amendments on

(1) the covered habitats and species, and (2) implementation of the HCP. The incidental take permit

may be amended in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

6.10.1.1 Minor Amendments

Thurston County may make minor amendments to the incidental take permit or HCP. Minor

amendments may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Correction of any maps or exhibits to correct errors in mapping or to reflect previously

approved changes in the incidental take permit or HCP.

Modifications to credit quantification methods (e.g., PHAM).

Changes in land ownership.

Changes to survey, monitoring, or reporting protocols.

Modifications to or adoption of additional conservation measures likely to improve the

conservation of covered species.

Discontinuing any conservation measures determined through monitoring and adaptive

management to be ineffective.

Any other types of modifications clarifying components of the incidental take permit or

HCP.

The party proposing the amendment must provide the other parties with written notice, except when

another process is specifically identified under the terms of the HCP with respect to a particular

amendment. The parties agree to use their best efforts to respond to proposed amendments within

sixty (60) days of receipt of such written notice. The amendment shall be approved upon written

agreement of both parties. Minor amendments do not require an amendment of the incidental take

permit, but require approval from USFWS before being implemented. If the USFWS concurs with the


119

minor amendments proposed by Thurston County, they will submit such approval in writing in

accordance with applicable regulations and policies. If the USFWS does not send notice or approval or

disapproval, the amendment is approved automatically. The modifications will be considered effective

on the date of USFWS’ written authorization or after 120-days if USFWS fails to send notice of approval

or disapproval. A record of any minor amendments to the HCP or incidental take permit shall be

documented in writing by Thurston County.

Minor modifications to the HCP or incidental take permit do not require amendment of the County’s

Implementing Ordinance. Minor amendments do not include actions:

Resulting in obligations under the modified HCP significantly different from those analyzed

in connection with the original HCP.

Resulting in adverse effects on the environment significantly different from those analyzed

in connection with the original HCP.

Allowing additional take not analyzed in connection with the original HCP.

Reducing the number of mitigation credits (functional acres) required.

6.10.1.2 Major Amendments

A major amendment to the HCP is a change affecting the impact analysis, need for additional incidental

take coverage, or the required Conservation Measures. Major amendments require amending the HCP

or the incidental take permit following a formal review process similar to that used for the original HCP

and incidental take permit, including USFWS review, NEPA review and internal USFWS Section 7

consultation.

Major amendments to the HCP or incidental take permit may require amendment of the County’s

Implementing Ordinance pertaining to the HCP or incidental take permit.

Major amendments may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Adding or removing one or more species to the list of covered species.

Increasing the amount of take allowed under the incidental take permit.

Adding one or more activities to the list of covered activities if that activity will result in

greater adverse effects to the covered species than those analyzed through the NEPA

documentation.

Modifying a conservation measure so substantially as to affect the level of authorized take,

the covered activities, funding, or the nature and scope of the conservation measures.

Extending the Permit term beyond 30 years.

Thurston County will submit requests for major amendments to the USFWS. The request shall include

a description of the proposed amendment, the need for the amendment, and an assessment of its

impacts.

6.10.1.3 Amendments for Future Species Listings

If a species not currently included in the HCP is federally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant

to the ESA during the term of the HCP, and Thurston County desires incidental take coverage for

activities in Thurston County that may impact these newly listed species, Thurston County may


120

coordinate with the USFWS on an HCP and incidental take permit amendment to include the newly

listed species.

The process to amend the HCP and incidental take permit shall include a review of the HCP to

determine if the Conservation Measures identified in the HCP are adequate for conservation of the

newly listed species. If the USFWS and Thurston County determine the Conservation Measures are

adequate, then Thurston County shall request an amendment to the HCP and incidental take permit to

include the newly listed species.

If the Conservation Measures in the HCP do not adequately cover the newly listed species, Thurston

County may submit a revised or supplementary HCP and supporting documentation with the request to

amend the incidental take permit. The USFWS is responsible for completing environmental compliance

documents under NEPA and for all internal compliance under Section 7 of the ESA.

Amending the HCP to add one or more additional species is considered a “major” amendment to the

HCP and incidental take permit.

6.11 HCP and Incidental Take Permit Renewal

Once the incidental take permit expires (30 years), take is no longer available under Thurston County’s

permit for the covered activities it conducts or authorizes on land it owns or manages or for issuing

County permits.

Thurston County may apply to USFWS for a renewal of its incidental take permit and HCP. If a written

request for renewal is on file with USFWS at least 30 days prior to the HCP/incidental take permit

expiration, the incidental take permit will continue to be valid while the renewal request is processed.

The renewal request must certify the statements and information in the original HCP are correct or

include a list of changes. The renewal request must also specify what take has occurred under the

incidental take permit/HCP and the covered activities still likely to occur during the renewal time

period. The USFWS will process the renewal application in accordance with applicable statutes and

regulations.

6.12 Enforcement

The provisions in this HCP are enforceable by the USFWS through the terms and conditions of the

incidental take permit. For further details, see the incidental take permit.

6.13 Notice

Any notice required to be given by USFWS pursuant to the terms and conditions of the HCP and

incidental take permit must be given to the Thurston County Board of Commissioners by personal

delivery or by certified mail/return receipt requested as described in the incidental take permit.

6.13.1 Suspension/Revocation

The USFWS may suspend or revoke the incidental take permit if Thurston County fails to implement

the HCP in accordance with the terms and conditions of the incidental take permit or federal law


121

requires suspension or revocation. Suspension or revocation of the incidental take permit, in whole or

in part, by the USFWS shall be in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.

Thurston County may suspend or revoke a HCP Participation Agreement to any party if that party fails

to comply with the terms and conditions of the HCP Participation Agreement (Appendix K).


122

Section 7 Costs and Funding This chapter provides planning-level estimates of the costs to implement the HCP and identifies all

necessary funds to pay for an estimated $5,135,006/year in implementation costs. The HCP proposes

two funding alternatives to meet the $5,135,006 funding target: 1) A default scenario that uses funding

measures currently available to the Commission (e.g., mitigation fees, Conservation Futures, and permit

fees), and 2) a scenario that incorporates a countywide funding measure (e.g., a property tax levy, real

estate excise tax, or local improvement district). Thurston County is fully committed to fund and

implement the HCP in its entirety. Although the measures may be modified during the term of the

Incidental Take Permit, the County shall ensure that adequate, reliable funding is in place for the life of

the HCP.

7.1 Cost to Implement the HCP

The cost analysis was based on a number of assumptions regarding the eventual, total, 30-year

development of the HCP and the unit cost of many items. Cost estimates were based on the best

available information and represent average unit costs in 2015 dollars. The costs of individual items

will fluctuate above and below these averages. Therefore, costs in this plan should be considered

planning-level estimates. Table 7.1 summarizes the costs likely to be necessary to implement the HCP.

Cost categories are listed below.

Program administration.

Conservation Lands easements and acquisition.

Habitat enhancement.

Conservation Lands management and maintenance.

Costs are summarized by 5-year periods. Costs estimates are for the 30- year permit term of the HCP

assuming 7,564 functional acres of habitat impact across all covered species and covered activities.

Table 7.1 Projected HCP costs by category and implementation period (2015 dollars).

Implementation Period (Years)

Cost Category Annual costs 5-year costs 30-year costs

Program Administration & Reporting $400,000 $2,000,000 $12,000,000

Conservation lands Acquisition and Easements $2,104,667 $10,523,333 $63,140,000

Habitat Enhancement $670,000 $3,350,000 $20,100,000

Conservation lands Management and

Maintenance (includes endowments)

$1,960,340 $9,801,698 $58,810,189

TOTALS $5,135,006 $25,675,032 $154,050,189


123

Prior to the issuance of each take authorization, the County will ensure that all funds are in place for

conservation land acquisition, habitat enhancement, and at least the first 10 years of management and

maintenance funds. To balance costs, the County may allow for some delay in securing all the funds for

long-term management. All necessary funding commitments needed to implement this plan will be in

place before using 50% of all authorized take (= 50% of 6,817 functional ac (2,759 ha), or 3,408

functional ac (1,379 ha) or at the end of year 15 of implementation, whichever occurs first.

7.2 Cost Estimate Methodology

This section provides an explanation of each cost category and the methods that were used to develop

the HCP cost estimate. Total, 30-year costs are rounded to the nearest thousand, and per acre costs are

rounded to the nearest hundred.

7.2.1 Program Administration

Program administration costs involve the support of employees, facilities, equipment, and vehicles to

oversee the HCP. Administration also includes the required data collection and reporting for USFWS

and the public. Annual program administration costs are estimated to be, on average, $400,000 during

the permit term (Table 7.1). Some program administration costs will be necessary beyond the permit

term. The County may choose to assign some of its HCP administration functions to designees. Employee

costs comprise the annual salaries for program administration personnel. For the purposes of the cost

estimate, it is assumed that the following positions would be staffed within the County: HCP Coordinator

(Program Lead) and HCP Conservation Associate (see job description in Appendix N Implementation

Guide). A salary multiplier is used for each employee (program administration and non–program

administration staff) to include the cost of benefits such as health insurance, payroll taxes, training, and

a retirement plan.

7.2.2 Land Acquisition

Land acquisition costs are divided into two broad categories. The first entails the cost of the land

transaction (operational cost). The second is the price of the land or conservation easement itself

(capital cost).

Land transaction costs include landowner recruitment, due diligence, reconnaissance-level biological

surveys (pre-acquisition surveys), and initial site improvements. The process of investigating a parcel of

land before acquiring it is considered due diligence. It is assumed that 25% more parcels will be

investigated than will be acquired. Due diligence costs include the costs for appraisal, preliminary title

report, Phase 1 Site Assessment, and legal description. Due diligence costs also include the cost of a

boundary survey and documentation, if necessary. To determine the cost of boundary surveys and

other costs that are dependent on parcel size, an average parcel size and perimeter length was

developed using GIS analysis.

Prior to acquisition land will be surveyed for land cover type, vegetation quality, soils, and covered

species populations. The cost of these surveys is based on the estimated number of hours per acre

required to gather data and the cost per hour for contracting biologists to conduct the surveys (the cost

per hour includes travel costs for the contractors).


124

Land transaction costs are expected only during the 30-year permit term of the HCP.

7.2.2.1 Land Acquisition Costs

Total land acquisition costs, including due diligence and site improvements, are estimated at

approximately $63,140,000 ($2,104,667 annually) for fee title acquisitions or conservation easements

over 30 years (Table 7.1). Acquisition costs range from $4,000/acre in south County to $50,000/acre in

north County. The HCP uses a blended average of $22,180/acre for acquisition based on more impacts

likely to occur in south County than north County.

To ensure that cost estimates do not understate actual costs, and to reflect the limited number of

easement sales in this area, it was assumed that all of the land will be acquired in fee title. For the

purposes of this analysis, no dedications of conservation lands by means of gift or transfer of a

conservation easement associated with a development project were assumed. Actual costs will be

lower if such dedications occur (however, because dedications associated with a development project

are likely to offset fees, no net financial advantage would be expected in such situations).

The County consulted with real estate professionals for both north and south Thurston County, defined

as areas north or south of Tumwater, Olympia and Lacey Urban Growth Areas. All land value estimates

represent average planning-level estimates. Actual sales prices of individual properties will vary

considerably around these averages. Per-acre values were applied to the conservation lands acquisition

goals outlined in the conservation program (see Section 5 Conservation Program).

Easement costs for permanent Working Lands Easements were estimated at the $10,000/acre

maximum used by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for critical habitat for threatened and

endangered species (Dave Kreft, NRCS, personal communication January 12, 2016). Land rental rates

for 15-yr Working Lands Agreements were calculated using a common Conservation Reserve Program

rate for Thurston County ($40/acre/year) and doubling the rental rate to $80/acre/year (Jeff Swotek,

NRCS, personal communication, January 11, 2016).

Fee title and conservation easement land acquisitions are assumed to occur evenly through time over

the course of the permit term, keeping pace with the actual rate of development impacts. Land costs

will likely increase over time; mechanisms for addressing these increases are described in Section 7.3,

Funding Sources and Assurances.

7.2.3 Habitat Enhancement

It is assumed that all HCP Conservation Lands will be enhanced to high quality prairie, costing, on

average and in total, $20,100,000 ($670,000 annually) during the permit term. The HCP estimates

$500/acre/year for the first five years of a project for habitat enhancement based on a range of $300-

$750/acre for the first three to nine years experienced by recent prairie habitat enhancement projects

in Thurston County. Habitat enhancement activities include:

Preparing Site Management Plans for HCP Conservation Lands, including plans for

application of herbicides and prescribed fire.

Removing invasive plants and restoring native prairie vegetation, which may require

licensed herbicide applications, fire crews and insurance, necessary state permits, etc.


125

It is assumed that enhancement will occur on 75% of Working Lands Easements and 50% of 15-yr

Working Lands Agreement lands. It is also assumed that only 75% of legacy lands will need habitat

enhancement.

7.2.4 Conservation Land Management and Maintenance

HCP conservation land management and maintenance costs are estimated to be, on average and in total,

$58,810,189 ($1,960,340 annually) once all conservation lands are secured. That number is based on a

per acre maintenance cost of $200-$500 ($300 planning estimate) and per acre management cost of

$200-$600 ($300 planning estimate)29 after initial site enhancement has occurred (e.g., after five

years).

The cost is based on establishing maintenance endowments, assuming 3.2% annual inflation, and an

average of 8.5% rate of return over time30. Per acre management costs are expected to decrease as the

size and number of conservation lands gets larger. Conservation land management and maintenance

will be required in perpetuity. Costs related to management and maintenance activities could include

those listed below.

Costs related to land management staff.

Construction and maintenance of field facilities.

Control of invasive species.

Managing public access and information.

Monitoring and reporting on habitat quality and other performance standards.

Remedial measures needed to address site performance.

Annual reporting during the permit term will include a status report of endowment fund(s) (see

Section 6.7); including receipts, disbursements, earnings, and balance.

For 15-year Working Lands Agreements, maintenance and management costs are included for years 5-

15 after the first 5-yr enhancement period. It is assumed about 75% of Legacy Lands and permanent

Working Lands easements will need long-term maintenance funds.

7.3 Funding Sources and Assurances

This section describes methods for assembling the $5,135,006/year in revenue needed to implement

the HCP, and offers a balanced approach to conserving species and habitats while equitably distributing

the costs. The analysis explored several new and existing funding sources for the HCP, which are

described in a pair of funding scenarios in Table 7.2.

Plan funding will come from a number of different sources, which fall into one of three categories.

Development-Based Funding Sources. These include a permit applicant’s mitigation fees

or land dedications.

29 These costs are based on the average costs of five recent prairie habitat projects in Thurston County. 30 These estimates are based on actual experience of conservation endowment managers in Thurston County.


126

Other Local Funding. Non-fee-based local funding can complement development-based

funding and state and federal grants. Local funding will take many forms, including

continued contributions from Conservation Futures (funded from property tax) and local

partners, and a possible real estate excise tax or local improvement district.

State and Federal Funding. These include federal and state grant programs (e.g., USFWS

grants under Section 6 of the ESA and WDFW grants). Some of these funding sources are

generally available throughout the state and nation, while others can only be used to

implement an approved HCP. State and federal funding can only be used for portions of the

Plan that contribute to avoiding impacts or to species recovery (not for mitigation). Potential

state and federal funding sources for HCPs are described in detail in Table 7.3 HCP Funding

Sources.

The HCP funding plan combines these sources into two funding scenarios. The first (“Shared

Responsibility” scenario) relies on a new, voter-approved countywide funding measure and existing

County sources. In the event the countywide measure is not approved, the County will use its existing

funding sources for the HCP (“County Sources” scenario). Throughout the section, revenue projections

are presented for either funding scenario. Table 7.2 presents expected revenue sources by funding

source for each scenario.

In the event that any of the projected funding sources are not approved and/or are not generating

adequate revenue, the County will work with developers and other partners to increase conservation

provided through development-based funding AND augmented minimization strategies.

Table 7.2 HCP revenue by funding source for two HCP funding scenarios.

Estimated Annual Revenue

Funding Source Scenario A: Shared

Responsibility Scenario B: County Sources

Development-based Funding (Subtotals)

$1,960,340 $3,875,533

Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication $1,960,340 $3,475,533

Permit fee $0 $400,000

Local Funds (Subtotals)

$3,174,667 $1,259,473

Conservation Futures $500,000 $1,259,473

New Countywide Funding Measure

$2,674,667 $0

TOTALS $5,135,006 $5,135,006


127

Table 7.3 HCP funding sources.

Program Name & Administrator Description Eligibility Thurston HCP Potential

MITIGATION FEES

Fee in Lieu of Land

Dedication

Thurston

County

Fees paid by permit applicants in lieu of

dedicating land for conservation

Allowable for all HCP costs Strong

Permit fee The County can assess permit fees to recover its

costs of issuing permits

Allowable for cost of staff

time to issue the permit

Strong

LOCAL FUNDS

Conservation Futures Thurston

County

Property tax levy of up to 6.25 cents per $1,000

of assessed value.

Allowable for capital

improvements and land

acquisitions.

Strong

Other property tax Other property taxes may be allowable, but are

limited by Washington law.

Would be allowable for

multiple HCP costs.

Very limited

Real Estate Excise Tax County voters can approve a tax on the sale of

real property up to 1% of the sales price, to be

paid by the buyer.

Allowable for the acquisition

and maintenance of

conservation areas

Moderate—voter approval

required

Purchase of development

rights

The County can purchase development rights. Acquisition of development

rights

Limited-funding comes

from other sources

Open space tax program Landowners can apply to reduce property tax

rates by committing to keep land in open space.

Minimization of impacts Strong, in cooperation with

other programs.

Utility /solid waste

management charges

Utilities Limited


128

STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS

Section 6 Acquisition

Grants

USFWS Grants for land acquisition to compliment HCPs. Minimization of impacts, not

for mitigation

Strong

Army Compatible Use

Buffer

DoD Purchase and management of lands to maintain

military readiness at JBLM.

Land and Water

Conservation Fund

RCO Matching grants for land acquisition exclusively

for public outdoor recreation.

Salmon Recovery Funding RCO Riparian protection and enhancement.

Agricultural Conservation

Easement Program

NRCS/FSA Permanent easements on working lands to

protect conservation values.

Washington Wildlife

Recreation Program

RCO Grants to state and local entities for Habitat area

acquisition.


129

7.3.1 Development-Based Funding

This Plan utilizes a variety of development-based fees to fund mitigation that will offset losses of land

cover types, covered species habitat, and other biological values. The County plans to use the Voluntary

Agreement sections in Washington code (RCW 82.02.020) to implement a Fee In Lieu of land dedication. This

section also describes fee and land dedication requirements and the process for adjusting mitigation

fees over time. The Shared Responsibility scenario anticipates about $1,960,340 in annual revenue

from mitigation fees and no additional fees for permit review. The County Sources scenario anticipated

$3,475,533 in annual mitigation fee revenue and $400,000 per year in permit review fees.

7.3.1.1 Fee In Lieu of Land Dedication

Development proponents with impacts to prairie habitat have the option of dedicating land, with

County approval and HCP Implementation Team review, that is in line with HCP Conservation Land

criteria (see Appendix I: Conservation Land Prioritization Criteria), including:

Is within a Reserve Priority Area;

Has been surveyed for covered species and is currently occupied; and

Meets any other criteria for conservation lands.

A permit applicant can choose to pay a fee in lieu of setting aside land based on the acreage of land

permanently disturbed by covered activities and the quality of habitat within that disturbed area. The

in lieu fee for the first year of the HCP, under the Shared Responsibility scenario, will be set at cost of

protecting and managing one acre of high quality habitat, called a functional acre. It is anticipated that a

majority (~77%) of permitted impacts will impact 0.02 to 0.30 functional ac31 (0.008 to 0.12 ha)(i.e., a

fee of $965 to $4,588 per residential unit on average). Under the Shared Responsibility scenario the fee

would be $15,987/functional acre. Under the County Sources scenario, the fee would be

$28,608/functional acre. Fees will be reviewed regularly based on the actual cost of providing

conservation lands. The fee is based on a proportional, “fair share” allocation of costs based on impacts

from both new and past development. The initial fee level, under the Shared Responsibility scenario, is

linked to 38% of the total cost of acquiring, enhancing, and maintaining conservation lands. It is

anticipated countywide financing tools will fund 62% of the costs of the conservation program to

account for the open space and recreational value of those lands and the impacts of past development

prior to the HCP.

The applicant receives take authorization for the entire, permitted project area for all covered activities

(proposed and future) at the time the first covered activity is proposed on the site. If subsequent

covered activities are proposed outside the project area on the same parcel, the County will review the

project to see whether additional mitigation is needed.

31 Most projected impacts will be in medium to low quality prairie soils greater than 650 feet from known HCP covered species locations. Lots in the UGA are assumed to impact 6,000-8,000 square feet and residential lots in rural areas are assumed to impact 1 acre on a 5-acre parcel on average.


130

7.3.1.2 Collection of Mitigation Fees

All fees paid by County permit applicants will be placed into a separate, single account administered by

the County. Records of all fee payments collected will be kept by the County and provided to USFWS

and the public.

7.3.1.3 Adjustment of Mitigation Fees

The dynamic nature of the costs associated with HCP implementation, including land acquisition costs

and operating, maintenance, and management costs, requires a flexible approach to funding through

time. To ensure that the fees generated by development and other covered activities are adequately

covering their share of Plan costs, the County will review fees by March 15 of years 2, 3, 6, 10, 15, 20,

and 25, where year 1 is the first full calendar year of Plan implementation. Updated fee schedules will be

provided to USFWS in the County’s annual report. This schedule was developed to balance the need for

frequent assessments with the need to accumulate enough data on which to base a meaningful audit

and contain administrative costs.

The cost review process will include a review of the costs and their underlying assumptions that were

developed as part of this original funding plan. If fees are found to be lower than needed to offset the fee

share of actual costs, that fee will be increased. If fees are found to be higher than needed to offset the

fee share of actual costs, then the fees will be reduced.

7.3.1.4 Timing of Mitigation Fee Payment

Mitigation fees are required to be paid before any development activity is permitted. If there are

covered activities that do not require land use permits (e.g., certain maintenance activities), fees must

be paid before the covered activity is performed. Take authorization is also granted at the time

mitigation and other necessary fees are paid as long as the conditions described in Section 6.3 are also

met.

7.3.2 Local Funding

Under the Shared Responsibility scenario (Table 7.2), approximately 62% of the funds for HCP

implementation will come from local sources. Potential local funding sources are described below.

7.3.2.1 Conservation Futures

Conservation Futures funds are generated by a County property tax and are restricted to use for capital

improvements (e.g., land acquisition). The Shared Responsibility scenario anticipates the County will

allocate $500,000/year of Conservation Futures funds to acquire core habitat lands in

wetland/riparian and working lands easements in prairie-oak ecosystems, which is similar to current

funding priorities. The County Sources scenario anticipates $1,259,473/year in Conservation Futures

revenue for the HCP targeted at the same habitat types and actions. Conservation Futures revenue is

anticipated to grow as the County’s tax base grows, but the tax rate cannot grow much more because of

state tax rate restrictions.

7.3.2.2 New Countywide Funding Measure

The County is considering a new, countywide funding measure in the form of either A) a property tax

lid lift, B) a conservation real estate excise tax (REET) (authorized in RCW 82.46.070) which is assessed


131

to sales of real property and paid by the buyer in Washington State, or C) a local improvement district.

Any of these new countywide measures must be referred by the Board of County Commissioners, or

from a voter petition, and approved by the voters, and can be used to acquire and maintain

conservation lands. The Shared Responsibility scenario (Table 7.2) is based on a proposed new

measure that would generate $2.6 million a year in revenue. Funds can be used for acquisition,

enhancement, and maintenance of conservation lands. The Shared Responsibility Scenario assumes

that $2,674,667/year will be used for conservation land acquisition and enhancement. The County

Sources scenario does not assume any new countywide source of revenue.

The County may access other local funding alternatives over the course of the HCP. To be eligible as

mitigation under the HCP, the funding source must be eligible to fund mitigation.

7.3.2.3 Mitigation Funding from Activities Not Covered by the Plan

There may be a number of benefits to addressing the mitigation needs of non-covered projects through

the implementing structure of the HCP (e.g., allowing neighboring cities to use the County’s mitigation

program to meet their incidental take permit requirements). USFWS may wish to use the conservation

strategy and implementing structure of the County HCP to maximize the conservation benefits to

covered species and natural communities. Project proponents may wish to utilize the mitigation

approach of the Plan to facilitate their mitigation obligations under a variety of state and federal

regulations. The County may benefit from the additional flexibility to implement the Plan afforded by

access to revenue early in the permit term.

Mitigation funds collected from non-covered activities must augment the mitigation and conservation

obligations of the Plan (i.e., they may not offset these requirements). To achieve this, the County, the

project proponent, and USFWS will meet to discuss a mutually acceptable mitigation funding

arrangement.

7.3.3 State and Federal Funding

The U.S. Congress and the State of Washington have determined that conserving species and their

natural habitats is an issue of both national and state importance. The federal and state governments

will fulfill their responsibilities for conservation by assisting local governments and property owners to

assemble, manage, and monitor conservation lands. This assistance will contribute to the land

acquisition goals of the Plan, contribute to recovery of listed species in the Plan area, and reduce or

avoid the need to list additional species as threatened or endangered. The state government has land

under its jurisdiction in the HCP area. The management and enhancement of the conservation values on

state lands is generally consistent with the goals of the HCP and will further the conservation of covered

species.

State and federal contributions to the Plan will only be used to minimize impacts (see Section 5.3) through

the land conservation funded by those sources. State and federal contributions cannot be used to fund

mitigation measures of the Plan (see Section 5.4) unless mitigation is explicitly authorized by the state or

federal funding source (e.g., federal highway funds).

Implementation of the HCP is subject to the federal Anti-Deficiency Act and the availability of

appropriated funds. Nothing in this Plan will require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of

any money from the United States Treasury. USFWS will not be required to expend any federal agency’s


132

appropriated funds until an authorized official of that agency commits these funds in writing. Similarly,

WDFW will not be required to expend any state agency’s appropriated funds until an authorized official

of that agency commits these funds in writing. The state and federal agencies will use their best effort

to contribute the acreage identified in Table 7.4.

7.3.3.1 State and Federal Funding Sources

The Sentinel Lands program, a partnership across many state and federal funding sources, is projecting

$53,347,304 in conservation expenditures in the 2016-2019 period to acquire roughly 3,236 acres of

conservation lands with enhancement and endowment funds.

Federal ESA Section 6 Program

The Section 6 grant program is generally divided into three funding categories: HCP Planning

Assistance (for development of HCPs), HCP Land Acquisition, and Recovery Land Acquisition grants. In

2015, there was $20.3 million available for HCP Land Acquisition Grants nationwide. Grants are

applied for and administered via WDFW or WDNR.

Federal USDA NRCS Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)

The Sentinel Lands program is anticipating 1,100 acres of working lands conservation easements

under the ACEP program between 2016 and 2019. Exact funding allocations will depend on landowner

interest and funding availability.

Federal Department of Defense funds (ACUB and REPI)

Between 2006 and 2015, Department of Defense invested roughly $18 million in conservation of

prairie and oak habitat in areas surrounding Joint Base Lewis McCord. The Sentinel Lands program has

requested $27.5 million in additional conservation lands funding for the 2016-2019 period.

State Funding Sources

The Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) administers the Washington Wildlife

Recreation Program (WWRP) that provides about $55 million biennially statewide for a broad range of

land protection and outdoor recreation. About half those funds are allocated to habitat conservation,

and 75% of those funds are available for critical habitat and natural area protection. The RCO office

administers other grants that may support HCP implementation (e.g., Aquatic Lands Enhancement and

Estuary and Salmon Restoration).

7.3.4 Funding Adequacy

As shown in Table 7.4, funding sources will meet all expected costs of the HCP. Many of the costs

assumptions built into this plan are conservative, making it more likely that HCP costs will be lower

than anticipated. This section discusses some contingencies in case costs are higher than expected.

7.3.4.1 Additional Funds Needed Acquisitions, Enhancement, Management, or Monitoring

Costs could be higher than anticipated if some of the following conditions occur:

Long-term management costs grow (e.g., new invasive species).

Endowment returns are lower than expected (e.g., prolonged, low rates on invested

endowment monies).


133

Land acquisition prices increase significantly.

In the event these conditions cause HCP costs to increase significantly, the County will:

Consider slowing or stopping local permit issuance under the HCP until additional funding is

secured.

Consider reduction of take authorization limits, covered activities, or permit duration.

Consider raising HCP fees to cover some or all additional costs.

Develop alternative strategies for long-term funding.


134

Table 7. 4 HCP revenue by funding source in 2015 dollars.

Funding Source Annual revenue 30-year revenue

projections Notes Actions Needed

30-yr Total Cost of HCP: $154,050,189

Mitigation Fees (Subtotals)

$1,960,340 $58,810,189

Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication

$1,960,340 $58,810,189 Based on 100% of the annual habitat maintenance costs; Or about 41% of the annual HCP costs.

County Commission adopting a Voluntary Agreement and fee in lieu structure.

Permit fee $0 $0 Based on 50% of the annual HCP administration cost; Or about 4% of the annual HCP costs.

County Commission adopting a permit fee.

Local Funds (Subtotals) $3,174,667 $95,240,000

Conservation Futures $500,000 $15,000,000 Based on about ½ of Conservation Futures unallocated revenue; Or about 9% of the annual HCP costs.

County Commission counts a large portion of Conservation Futures toward HCP implementation.

New Countywide Funding Measure

$2,674,667 $80,240,000

Based on 100% of the annual acquisition cost less the $500,000 in Conservation Futures Revenue and 100% of the habitat enhancement costs; Or about 46% of the annual HCP costs.

County Commission referring a countywide measure to voters, and voters approving the measure.

TOTALS $5,135,006 $154,050,189

State and Federal Funds (Subtotals)

$3,786,302 $113,589,057 These are the amounts needed to fund 3,000 acres of acquisition

Section 6 Acquisition Grants

? $15,526,000 Estimate for the acquisition costs of 700 ac (e.g., 4 x 175 acres each).

Grant applications submitted to USFWS.

Army Compatible Use Buffer

$3,619,731 $108,591,930 Based on average annual DoD expenditures between 2006 and 2015.

Approval of the Sentinel Lands work plan by DoD.

Land and Water Conservation Fund

? $4,000,000 Estimate for the acquisition costs of 175 ac (e.g., 1 x 175 ac).

Grant applications submitted to RCO.


135

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

$739,333 $22,180,000 Based on the acquisition costs of 1,000 acres of conservation easement.

Landowner recruitment by NRCS.

Washington Wildlife Recreation Program

? $12,000,000 A placeholder estimate for the acquisition costs of about 500 acres (e.g., 5 x 100 acres each).

Grant applications submitted to RCO.

TOTALS

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Alternatives

136

Section 8 Alternatives 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 and prairie-oak and wetland/riparian habitats would be to not complete the covered activities where the covered species may occur. Thurston County has decided not to select this alternative since it would strongly limit economic growth, development, and sustainability within the County and inhibit maintenance of County transportation infrastructure. The covered activities are otherwise lawful activities, and the County has decided to complete the HCP so that these activities may be conducted over the term of the requested permit. There are no final plans or construction timelines for the majority of the proposed covered activities at this time. The County anticipates that some covered activities will be able to be completed in a manner that will avoid impacts to listed species or their habitats, however there is no way to know at the current time how each activity will eventually be completed throughout the County. To facilitate the greatest flexibility, the County has proposed minimization and mitigation measures intended to mitigate for the incidental take of Covered Species and their habitats where covered activities are completed, with the understanding that impacts will be avoided to the extent possible.

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan References

137

Section 9 References Anderson, H.E. and S.F. Pearson. 2015. Streaked Horned Lark Habitat Characteristics. Report

prepared by Center for Natural Lands Management and Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife. 23 p.

Boyd, R. 1999. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Chappell, C. B., M. Gee, B. Stephens, R. Crawford, and S. Farone. 2001. Distribution and decline of

native grassland and oak woodlands in the Puget Sound lowland and Willamette Valley ecoregions,

Washington. pp. 124-139 in S. H. Reichard, P. Dunwiddie, J. Gamon, R. Kruckerberg, and D. Salstrom

(eds.). Conservation of Washington’s Rare Plants and Ecosystems. Washington Native Plant Society,

Seattle. 223 pp.

Chappell, C.B., M.S. Gee, & B. Stephens. 2003. A geographic information system map of existing grasslands and oak woodlands in the Puget Lowland and Willamette Valley ecoregions, Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Updated April 24, 2008.

Chappell, C. B. 2006. Plant associations of balds and bluffs of western Washington. Natural Heritage Report 2006-02. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia. 70 pp.

Chappell, C. B. 2006. Upland plant associations of the Puget Trough ecoregion, Washington. Natural

Heritage Rep. 2006-01. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program,

Olympia, Washington.

Crawford, R. and H. Hall. 1997. Changes in south Puget Sound Landscape, Pp. 11-15. In Dunn, P.

and K. Ewing (editors),. Ecology and Conservation of the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape.

The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. 289 pp.

Dunwiddie, P. W. and J. Bakker. 2011. The future of restoration and management of prairie-oak

ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science 85: 83–92.

Giebelhaus, Roger. Thurston County Public Works, Personal Communication (Phone conversation

to discuss herbicide use in County Right-of-way), June 2015.

Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham,

J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the

conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change

information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354

Larsen, E. M., and J. T. Morgan. 1998. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority

habitats: Oregon white oak woodlands. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 37pp.

Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely

Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover, 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound.


138

Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. Doi:10.7915/CIG93777D

Nelson, R.E. 1997. Implications of subfossil coleopteran for the evolution of the Mima mounds of

southwestern Puget Lowland, Washington. Quaternary Research. 47: 356-58.

Potter, Ann. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal Communication (phone call to

discuss and establish HCP covered butterfly species dispersal distances), April 2015.

Pringle, R. F. 1990. Soil survey of Thurston County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service,

Olympia, Washington.

Slater, G. and B. Altman. 2006. Feasibility Assessment for Reintroducing the Slender-Billed White-

Breasted Nuthatch to South Puget Sound, Washington. Report prepared for Pacific Coast Joint

Venture and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 61 p.

Thomas, Ted. USFWS. Personal Communication (phone call to discuss and establish HCP covered

butterfly species dispersal distances), April 2015.

Thurston County. 2009. Thurston County Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual. Prepared

by the Water Resources Division Department of Resource Stewardship. Adopted August 2009.

1122 pp plus appendices.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2011. The Profile. http://www.trpc.org/391/The-Profile-

Thurston-County-Statistics-D. (Accessed December 2011).

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2012a. Population and Employment Land Supply Assumptions

for Thurston County: Final Report. 41 pp.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2012b. Population Forecast Allocations for Thurston County:

Final Report. 50 pp.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. Population, Housing, and Employment Data Tables. 2015.

http://www.trpc.org/480/Population-Housing-and-Employment-Data-T. (Accessed May 2016).

Ugolini, F. C., and A. K. Schlichte. 1973. The effect of Holocene environmental changes on selected

western Washington soils. Soil Science 116:218-227.

USFWS and WDFW. 2014. Reserves for Mazama Pocket Gopher Conservation: Considerations for

the Thurston County HCP. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife

Office, Lacey, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Programs,

Olympia, WA. 14 p.

USFWS. 2014. Mazama Pocket Gopher 4(d) Special Rule Summary. April 2014. 4pp.

USFWS. 2015. Mazama Pocket Gopher Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance. Memo from

State Supervisor, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to Washington Fish and Wildlife

Office Staff and Interested Parties. July 1, 2015.

http://www.trpc.org/391/The-Profile-Thurston-County-Statistics-D

http://www.trpc.org/391/The-Profile-Thurston-County-Statistics-D

http://www.trpc.org/480/Population-Housing-and-Employment-Data-T


139

USFWS. 2016. Results of 2015 Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening in Thurston County. Prepared by

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. 15p plus

appendices.

Warchola, N., C. Bastianelli, C.B. Schultz, and E. Crone. 2015. Fire increases ant-tending and survival

of the Fender’s blue butterfly larvae. Journal of Insect Conservation 19: 1063-1073.

Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. Modeled Wetlands Inventory GIS

Layer. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/StatusAndTrends.html (accessed

December 2015).

Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. EPA Approved 303 (d) list. Approved December 31,

2012. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/Wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. (Accessed

January 2015).

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Habitat Management Recommendations:

Mazama Pocket Gopher. 11 pp.

Waterstrat, F. Teal. USFWS Personal Communication (Email describing current status of OSF

Monitoring Protocols). April 29, 2016.

Western Regional Climate Center. 1981-2010. Monthly Climate Summary for Olympia Airport

(Station 456114). Available online at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. (accessed October 2014).

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/StatusAndTrends.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/Wq/303d/currentassessmt.html

DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary

140

Section 10 Glossary Action: An activity or program of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part,

by a federal agency in the United States.

Action area: All areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the

immediate area involved.

Adaptive management: A cyclical process whereby managers treat actions as experiments from

which they improve management actions.

Buffer: Distance outside the footprint that defines the area indirectly impacted by an activity.

Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA): A voluntary agreement between

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a non-federal property owner who agrees to manage lands or

waters to remove threats to candidate or proposed species, with assurances that the property

owner’s conservation efforts will not result in future regulatory obligations that exceed those

agreed to at the time the agreement is signed. The CCAA authorizes take through a section 10

Permit if the species is later listed.

Candidate species: Candidate species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a

proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Community: A group of interacting plants and animals inhabiting a particular area.

Compliance monitoring: An evaluation of whether the process did what it said it would

accomplish.

Conservation: As defined by Section 3 of the ESA, to use and the use of all methods and

procedures necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the

measures provided are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not

limited to, all activities associated with scientific resource management such as research, census,

law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and

transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given

ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, regulated taking.

Conservation action/measure: A specific conservation tool employed in a specific location. May

include, but is not limited to, habitat acquisition and habitat restoration.

Consultation: The process required of a federal agency under Section 7 of the ESA when any

activity authorized, carried out, or conducted by that agency may affect a listed species or

designated critical habitat. Consultation is with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or National

Marine Fisheries Service) and may be formal or informal.


141

Covered Activity: These are activities that are included in the HCP and covered for incidental take

by the incidental take permit.

Covered Species: These are species that are included in the HCP and covered for incidental take by

the incidental take permit.

Credits: Quantified, verified, and tradable units of environmental benefit from conservation or

restoration action.

Critical Areas Ordinance: Is a set of regulations that govern how land is developed in

environmentally sensitive areas and in areas where development would pose a threat to humans or

wildlife. Critical areas include important fish and wildlife habitat areas (prairies, rivers,

streams);wetlands; aquifer recharge areas; frequently flooded areas; and geologically hazardous

areas. The state Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) requires protection of these areas.

Critical habitat: Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are

found those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which

may require special management considerations or protection.

Debits: Quantified, verified, and tradable units of environmental impact, calculated as the

difference between the functional scores of the pre-project and anticipated post-project conditions.

Delist: To remove a plant or animal species from the list of endangered or threatened species.

Ecology: The study of the inter-relationship among organisms and between organisms and

between all aspects, living and nonliving, of their environment.

Ecoregion: A relatively large land and water area containing geographically distinct assemblages

of natural communities, with approximate boundaries. These communities share a large majority

of their species, dynamics, and environmental conditions, and function together effectively as a

conservation unit at the continental and global scales.

Ecosystem: A discrete unit that consists of living and nonliving parts, interacting to form a stable

system.

Effectiveness Monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether the restoration or enhancement

techniques are meeting the management objective.

Endangered species: Those species threatened with extinction throughout all, or a significant

portion, of their range. Species can be listed as endangered or threatened for a number of reasons,

including disease or predation. Natural or human factors affecting chances for survival: over

utilization for commercial, scientific, or recreational purposes, or current or threatened destruction

of habitat or range.

Federal Register: The official daily publication for actions taken by the Federal government, such

as rules, proposed rules, and Notices of Federal agencies and/organizations, as well as Executive

Orders and other Presidential documents.

Graminoids: Grasses, sedges, and rushes.


142

Habitat: The living place of a species or community characterized by its physical or biotic

properties.

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): A plan that outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and

protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species. The plan usually includes measures to

minimize impacts, and may include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat,

and relocating plants or animals to other areas. The HCP is required before an incidental take

permit will be issued.

Harass: To intentionally or negligently, through act or omission, create the likelihood of injury to

wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as

breeding, feeding, and sheltering.

Harm: To perform an act that kills or injures wildlife; may include significant modification of

habitat or degradation when it kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Historic range: The geographic area where a species was known to or believed to occur within

historic time.

Host plant: A particular plant species required of butterflies during egg laying and for food during

the larvae and pupae life stage.

Impacts: Impacts may be negative or positive. Negative impacts are ecological stresses to a

species and the source of that stress. Positive impacts are impacts whose net effect is beneficial to

the species, and may include such activities as mowing or burning.

Incidental take: Take that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful

activity.

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 a threatened or

endangered species. An application for an incidental take Permit is subject to certain requirements,

including preparation of habitat conservation plan.

Indirect effect: An effect caused by a proposed action taking place later in time than the action, but

is still reasonably certain to occur (Section 7 of ESA).

Listed species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population segment that has been added to the

federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.

Mitigation: The offset of an environmental impact with a compensatory environmental benefit,

typically generated through ecological protection, restoration, or enhancement and verified

through a crediting program.

Monitoring: Repeated measurements carried out in a consistent manner so that observations are

comparable over time.


143

Native species: Those species present in part or all of a specified range without direct or indirect

human intervention, growing within their native range and natural dispersal potential.

Nectar Plant: A particular plant species required of adult butterflies for food/energy.

Non-native species: Those species present in a specified region only as a direct or indirect result

of human activity.

Participation Agreement: This is a document issued by Thurston County that enrolls a landowner

into the HCP for purposes of obtaining coverage under the county’s incidental take permit.

Persons: Includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, limited liability corporations, limited

liability partnerships.

Petition: A formal request from an interested individual or organization to list, reclassify, or delist

a species, or to revise critical habitat for a listed species.

Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology: A tool to help standardize a method for mitigating

impacts to prairie ecosystems through Thurston County’s Critical Areas Ordinance.

Population: A group of individuals of a species living in certain areas maintaining some degree of

reproductive isolation.

Potential Occupancy: A parameter that ranges from zero to one that models the likelihood for

occupation of a habitat type by a target prairie-associated species.

Range: The geographic area a species is known to or believed to occupy.

Recovery: A reduction of the risk of extinction to the point that, based upon best available science,

it is reasonably sure that the species will remain secure into the foreseeable future.

Recovery plan: A document drafted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service serving as a guide for

activities to be undertaken by federal, state, or private entities in helping to recover and conserve

endangered and threatened species.

Secured: Habitat of local populations are (1) owned or managed by a government agency or

private conservation organization identifying maintenance of the species and its habitat as the

primary management objective for the site, or (2) private land is protected by a long term or

permanent conservation easement committing the landowner to conservation of the species.

Senescencing: Dying off at the end of a season (annuals) or approaching dormancy (perennials).

Sink population: A population with a higher mortality rate than birth rate.

Source population: A population with a higher birth rate than mortality rate; a self sustaining

population capable of dispersing to other populations.

Species: A group of organisms resembling one another, and includes subspecies of fish or wildlife

or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate, fish, or wildlife that

interbreeds when mature.


144

Species of Concern: An informal term referring to a species that may need conservation action

due to declining population sizes. Similar terms include “species at risk” and “imperiled species”.

Such species receive no legal protection, nor is there any guarantee that the species will be listed in

the future.

Subspecies: A taxonomic rank below species, usually recognizing individuals with certain

heritable characteristics distinct from other subspecies of a species.

Take: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to

engage in such conduct; may include significant habitat modification or degradation if it kills or

injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding,

and sheltering.

Terms and conditions: Required actions described in an incidental take permit under section 10

or Incidental Take Statement intended to implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures under

section 7.

Threatened species: A species that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

Viable: A viable population has a sufficient number of individuals, reproduction by those

individuals, and habitat conditions to persist over time.

Watershed: An area of land draining to a common point.

draft thurston county habitat conservation plan · 2016. 5. 3. · capital facilities plan with...

Documents