DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan

Transcription

1 DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan VERSION 0.9 UPDATED MAY 3, 2016 Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department THURSTON COUNTY 2000 LAKERIDGE DRIVE SW OLYMPIA, WA

2 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 HCP Vision, Goals, Purpose, and Need Proposed Action Plan Development Regulatory Framework... 7 Section 2 Description of the Area to be Analyzed Environmental Setting Covered Species and Habitats Federally Listed Species Not Proposed for Coverage Section 3 Proposed Action Covered Activities Permit Duration Section 4 Analysis of Impacts Likely to Result from the Taking Introduction Methods of Quantifying Habitat Area and Value for the HCP Species Projected Impacts of the Taking Resulting from Covered Activities Effects on Critical Habitat Section 5 Conservation Program Overview Biological Goals and Objectives Minimization Measures Mitigation Measures: Building the Thurston County Conservation Lands System Mitigation Measures: County Commitments County Landowner Assurances Monitoring Adaptive Management Section 6 Implementation Introduction Roles and Responsibilities of Thurston County Process to Obtain Incidental Take Coverage Mitigation Implementing the Conservation Program Data Management Schedule and Reporting Changed Circumstances Unforeseen Circumstances Amendments HCP and Incidental Take Permit Renewal

3 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 6.12 Enforcement Notice Section 7 Costs and Funding Cost to Implement the HCP Cost Estimate Methodology Funding Sources and Assurances Section 8 Alternatives Section 9 References Section 10 Glossary ii

4 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of Thurston County in Washington, USA Figure 1.2 Thurston County HCP Permit Area... 4 Figure 1.3 Steps undertaken in the HCP planning, development, and review process Figure 2.1 Land cover in Thurston County as defined by National Land Cover Data (Homer et al 2015) Figure 2.2 Subbasins in Thurston County Figure 2.3 Land use zoning in Thurston County as of Figure 2.4 Prairie Oak AOI of the Thurston County HCP Figure 2.5 Oregon spotted frog Habitat Screen for the Thurston County HCP Figure 3.1 Typical road and bridge maintenance cross sections Figure 4.1 HCP impacts analysis process summary Figure 5.1 Primary strategies of the HCP Conservation Program Figure 5.2 Focal Areas and Reserve Priority Areas in the Conservation Lands System Figure 5.3 Biological objectives for Goal Figure 5.4 Biological objectives for Goal Figure 5.5 Biological objectives for Goal Figure 5.6 Projected timing of impact minimization in over the permit term of the HCP Figure 5.7 Integration of the HCP conservations strategies into the Conservation Lands System Figure 5.8 Projected timing of securing working lands agreements in over the permit term of the HCP (1.0 ac = 0.4 ha) Figure 5.9 Projected timing of permanently protecting new lands over the permit term of the HCP 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) 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 Figure 6.2 Guild 1 Mazama pocket gopher service areas in Thurston County iii

5 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan List of Tables Table 1.1 Covered species and primary habitats of the Thurston County HCP Table 2.1 Land use by zoning in Thurston County as of Table 2.2 Partial list of protected, conserved, managed, or publicly owned lands containing covered species in Thurston County Table 2.3 Prairie Oak Habitat Guilds in the Thurston County HCP Table 2.4 Prairie soils with documented use by MPG subspecies in Thurston County (USFWS 2016) Table 2.5. Federally listed species not proposed for coverage in the Thurston County HCP Table 3.1 Covered activity summary for residential development Table 3.2 Covered activity summary for accessory structures added to existing (pre-hcp) residential development Table 3.3 Covered activity summary for extended septic system installation or repair and home heating oil tank removal Table 3.4 Covered activity summary for commercial and industrial development Table 3.5 Covered activity summary for public service facility construction 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 1/30 th of the 30-year projections Table 3.7 Covered activity summary for transportation capital projects construction Table 3.8 Drainage System Types Table 3.9 Covered activity summary for transportation maintenance and work in right-of-way Table 3.10 Covered activity summary for landfill and solid waste management Table 3.11 Covered activity summary for water resources management Table 3.12 Covered activity summary for County parks, trails, and land management Table 4.1 Covered Activities and Projected Take of Habitat 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) Table 4.3 Distribution of prairie-oak habitat in County jurisdiction across MPG habitat categories for each MPG subspecies 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 Table 4.5 Distribution of 200 randomly selected points within PHAM habitat types across the Prairie Oak AOI Table 4.6 Projected impacts for all covered activities over the 30-year HCP Table 4.7 Impacts from new residential development Table 4.8 Impacts from added accessory structures Table 4.9 Impacts from septic system extension or repair and home heating oil tank decommission Table 4.10 Impacts from commercial and industrial development Table 4.11 Impacts from public service facility construction iv

6 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Table 4.12 Impacts from transportation projects Table 4.13 Impacts from transportation maintenance and all work in County road right-of-way Table 4.14 Impacts from landfill and solid waste management Table 4.15 Impacts from water resources management Table 4.16 Impacts from County parks, trails, and land management Table 4.17 Summary of anticipated effects to critical habitat from HCP covered activities. Application of Best Management Practices and avoidance will minimize impacts Table 4.18 Anticipated potential effects to Taylor s checkerspot butterfly critical habitat from development covered under the HCP Table 5.1 HCP biological goals by species guild Table 5.2 HCP minimization measures Table 5.3 HCP working lands and outreach strategy objectives and conservation measures Table 5.4 HCP new conservation lands strategy objectives and conservation measures Table 5.5 HCP legacy lands support strategy objectives and conservation measures Table 5.6 Adaptive management triggers and responses Table 6.1 Milestones for HCP implementation. (Milestones for conservation program s biological objectives are provided in Sections 5.4 and 5.5) Table 6.2 Summary of possible changed circumstances during the term of the incidental take permit Table 7.1 Projected HCP costs by category and implementation period (2015 dollars) Table 7.2 HCP revenue by funding source for two HCP funding scenarios Table 7.3 HCP funding sources v

7 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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) Addendum A. Species and Habitat Descriptions Addendum B. Prairie Habitat Assessment Methodology Documentation List of Addendums Acknowledgements vi

8 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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 vii

9 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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 viii

10 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Background and Purpose Executive Summary 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 of the HCP, and exclude city jurisdictions and federal lands such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord. ix

11 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Wetland/Riparian 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 Guild 1 Prairie Soils Guild 2 Native Prairie Vegetation Guild 3 Open Space Prairies Guild 4 Oak Savanna and Woodland Wetland/Riparian ESA listed species (Common Name) Mazama pocket gopher (3 subspecies) Taylor s checkerspot butterfly Streaked horned lark Oregon spotted frog Other rare species (Common Name) Other butterflies (Puget blue butterfly; valley silverspot butterfly; hoary elfin; Oregon branded skipper; Mardon skipper) Oregon vesper sparrow Slender-billed white-breasted nuthatch; Western gray squirrel x

12 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Table ii. Covered Activities and Projected Take of Habitat Covered Activity * 1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 30-year Projected Area of Activity (acres) Covered Activities and Projected Impacts 30-year Projected To Minimize Impacts (functional acres) (func. acres) Residential Development 12,718 5,331 1,919 3,412 Added Accessory Structures Septic extension or repair, heating oil tank decommission (temporary) Commerical & Industrial Development Public Service Facilities Landfill/Solid Waste Management Transportation Projects Transportation Maintenance & Work in right of way (temporary) Water Resources Management County Parks, Trails, and Land Management To Mitigate TOTAL 16,866 7,564 2,647 4,916 (func. acres) 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 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 prairieoak 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. xi

13 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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 Figure ii. Focal and Reserve Priority Areas. xii

14 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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. xiii

15 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Figure iv. HCP conservation strategies, all targeted to Reserve Priority Areas. Functional Acres by Conservation Strategy ,804 1,620 1,800 Minimization New Lands: WorkingLandsEasements Working Lands New Lands: Core Existing Lands Figure v. Likely distribution of functional acre targets by conservation strategy. xiv

16 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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 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, xv

17 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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. xvi

18 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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 xvii

19 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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). xviii

20 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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. xix

21 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan 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). xx

22 Draft Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Table iii. USFWS Permit Issuance Criteria and HCP Plan Summary Issuance Criteria HCP Plan Section and Short Description Taking will be incidental Impacts of taking are minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable Covered activities are clearly defined (Section 3), and associated incidental impacts are quantified and described (Section 4) 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 Taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival 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). 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 and recovery of the species in the conserving significant acreage in reserve priority areas with wild 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 The Service has received other assurances that the HCP will be implemented To be determined by USFWS. 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). xxi

23 Introduction and Background 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, 1

24 Introduction and Background 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 goals 1 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. 2

25 Introduction and Background 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 take 2 ) 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 (prairieoak 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). 3

26 DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Introduction and Background 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 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, 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. 4

27 Introduction and Background 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. Prairie Oak Habitat Common Name Mazama pocket gopher (3 subspecies)** Streaked horned lark Taylor s checkerspot butterfly Oregon vesper sparrow Puget blue butterfly Scientific Name Thomomys mazama, including spp. yelmensis, tumuli, and pugetensis Eremophila alpestris strigata Euphydryas editha taylori Status Federal Threatened Threatened Threatened Status State* Threatened Endangered Endangered Pooecetes gramineus Candidate Candidate Icaricia icarioides blackmorei Candidate Candidate Hoary elfin Callophrys polios SCGN Oregon branded skipper Hesperia colorado oregonia Mardon skipper Polites mardon Species of Concern Endangered Valley silverspot Species of Speyeria zerene butterfly Concern - Slender-billed whitebreasted nuthatch aculeate Sitta carolinensis 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 SGCN 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). 5

28 Introduction and Background Develop Habitat Assessment Mechanisms Complete field surveys and assess habitat assessment methods Identify HCP Coverage Area and Covered Activities Quantify Estimated Impacts from Future Covered Activities Identify Conservation Measures and Strategy Stakeholder and Technical Input Identify Implementation Process and Funding Mechanisms Develop Draft HCP NEPA Process Complete Public and USFWS Review Finalize HCP Incidental Take Permit Issued Figure 1.3 Steps undertaken in the HCP planning, development, and review process. 6

29 Introduction and Background The Thurston Board of County Commissioners 3 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 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 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 Federal Laws 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. 7

30 Introduction and Background 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 (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. 8

31 Introduction and Background 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 ). 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 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C 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 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 9

32 Introduction and Background 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 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 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 ). 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 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 The creation of the Conservation Lands System 4 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

33 Introduction and Background 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 State and Local Laws 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 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 RCW). State endangered species are listed in WAC Classification of wildlife as endangered, threatened, or sensitive is addressed in WAC 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 ). WDFW writes recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened Washington State Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act was adopted by the state Legislature in 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. 11

34 Introduction and Background (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 science 5. 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 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 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 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

35 Introduction and Background 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 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 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 Shoreline Management Act The Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 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 ). 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. 13

36 Introduction and Background 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 , (1)(u), (2)(b), 40 CFR 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 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. 14

37 DRAFT Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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). 15

38 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 ( o F) (21-25 degrees Celsius ( o C)) and average low temperatures range from 45 to 50 o F (7-10 o C)(WRCC 2014). Winter average high temperatures range from 44 to 54 o F (6-12 o C) while winter low temperatures range from o F (-1-1 o C) (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 ) 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 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 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) ( 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 ( 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

39 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources Surface Water The southwestern third of Thurston County is in the Chehalis subbasin (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) ), the north portion of the County is in the Puget Sound subbasin ( ), and the remaining eastern third of the County is in either the Deschutes subbasin ( ) or the Nisqually subbasin (HUC ) (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 17

40 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 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 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, ,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, ,759 46% Total 191, , % (Source: Thurston Geodata 2013a) THIS TABLE TO BE UPDATED BEFORE FINAL DRAFT 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 18

41 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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

42 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 Mima Creek/Baker Prairie 246 The Nature Conservancy Black River Unit, Nisqually Wildlife Refuge 1,000+ USFWS Riparian/Wetland, Oak Riparian/Wetland, Oak Riparian/Wetland, Prairie Bald Hills Prairie Natural Area Preserve 306 WDNR Prairie, Oak Deschutes River Preserve 153 CNLM Prairie Thurston County (owner), Prairie, Glacial Heritage Preserve 1,020 CNLM (manager) 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 Prairie Oak Species Prairie Oak Habitat Guilds 550 Thurston County 20 Prairie, Oak, Riparian/Wetland 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

43 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 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). Estimated Area In County Jurisdiction 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 3 Streaked horned lark Oregon vesper sparrow 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).* 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). 9,545 Acres (Overall) (1,053 ac (426 ha) of which is federally designated critical habitat (78 FR )) 4,650 ac outside Guild 1 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. 21

44 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources Table 2.4 Prairie soils with documented use by MPG subspecies in Thurston County (USFWS 2016). Preference by MPG Description Nisqually loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes High Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes Spanaway-Nisqually complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes Cagey loamy sand Med 1,2 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 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 Low 1 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 22

45 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 outcompete 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 firemaintained 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 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 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 23

46 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 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 24

47 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 25

48 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources 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 26

49 Covered Activities 3.1 Covered Activities Section 3 Proposed Action 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 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. 27

50 Covered Activities 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 o o 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. Installation, maintenance or removal of underground or above ground plumbing, heating fuel, mechanical, and utility facilities. Additions to existing structures on existing legal lots (e.g., attached garage, added room, etc.). 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 ). 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, herbicide 6 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 ft 2 (11.15 m 2 ) 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 Intensity Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Projected Area Affected per Unit Year Round Complete habitat loss Permanent 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. 28

51 Covered Activities 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, , Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 12, 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 ( ). The average size of accessory structures is 1000 ft 2 (93 m 2 ) 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 Intensity Complete habitat loss Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent Projected Area Affected per Unit Rural Added Accessory Structures/Additions: 1000 ft 2 (93 m 2 ) each Projected Total Area Affected: Added accessory structures (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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 ft 2 (232 m 2 ) per residential unit). Installation 29

52 Covered Activities 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 ft 2 (42 m 2 ) per unit). This activity involves use of excavation equipment to remove home heating oil tanks and any adjacent concrete pad or contaminated soil. County staff projected the total number of such actions to occur based on County-wide records for a 10 year period ( ). 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 ft 2 (232 m 2 ) per residential unit Projected Total Area Affected: Extended Septic Installation/Repair and Home Heating Oil Tank Removal (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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 Intensity Complete habitat loss Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent Projected Area Affected per Unit Entire Lot Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF 30

53 Covered Activities Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 1, Public Service Facility Construction The projected area to be affected by Public Service Facility construction is included in Table 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 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 ft 2 (557 m 2 ) on parcels 5 to 10 ac (2-4 ha) in size and 20,000 ft 2 (1,858 m 2 ) 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 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 ( 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. 31

54 Covered Activities 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 Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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 shoulder 8, 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. 32

55 Covered Activities 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 1/30 th of the 30-year projections. Project Location in Thurston County Guild 1 Construction/ Old Hwy 99 Rural Capacity Project (S. UGA Boundary to SR12) x x Pacific Ave Capacity Project (Unions Mills to SR510) x x Rich Road SE (Rixie Rd - Yelm Hwy) x x Rich Road Upgrade - Phase 2-89th to Normandy Street x x Sargent Rd. Upgrade x x SR12 Grand Mound West UGA Boundary to US99 - Access Road x Steilacoom Road - Phase 1 - Pacific to Marvin/SR Steilacoom Road / Phase 2 - Marvin/SR510 to Duterrow x x Tilley Road (T-2) Bridge Replacement Project x Vail Rd. Upgrade - 138th to Bald Hill Rd x x Vail Rd. Phase 2 (138th to 153rd) x x Yelm Hwy / Meridian Intersection x Yelm Hwy Capacity Project 4-Lacey City Limits to West of Meridian/Phase1 (O-12 Bridge) x x x TOTAL 20-Year CFP TOTAL 30-Year CFP: ESTIMATE (1.5 * 20 yr CFP) *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares YPG OPG TPG UNK Acres Affected 153rd Ave SE (Vail Rd to Lawrence Lake Rd) x x rd Ave SW - Old Hwy99 to SR12 x x Albany Rd SW (James Rd to Littlerock Rd) x x Bald Hill Road Upgrade - Smith Prairie to Clear Lake Rd x x Black Lake - Belmore Rd. Upgrade 49th to Sapp Rd. x x Delphi Road Upgrade - Phase 2/3-62nd to McLane Creek x x Elderberry Rd Upgrade - SR 12 to 196th Ave x x Henderson Blvd. Upgrade - Old Hwy 99 to Tumwater Blvd. x x Kinwood Road Project (Pacific to Martin Way) x x Lawrence Lake Rd (153rd Ave to Bald Hill Rd) x x Littlerock Rd / 113th Ave. x Marvin Rd (Pac Ave/SR510 to Mullen) x Maytown Rd. Upgrade SW - Littlerock Rd. to I-5 x x McCorkle Rd SE (113th Ave SE to Old Hwy 99) & 113th Ave SE (SR121 to McCorkle Rd SE) x x Meridian Rd (Martin Way to I-5) x x Mullen Rd. Upgrade - Vicinity of 46th Ave. SE x x Mullen Road - W. City Limits to Marvin Rd x x Mullen Road Upgrade - Lacey City Limits to Carpenter Rd SE x x Old Hwy 99 / Tilley Rd. Intersection x Old Hwy 99 Bridge O-7 Replacement x Replacement Widening Improvements Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Habitat Screen 33

56 Covered Activities Table 3.7 Covered activity summary for transportation capital projects construction. Activity Summary Transportation Construction Duration Year Round Intensity Complete habitat loss Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent Projected Area Affected per Unit Entire Lot Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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 Screen 9. Multiple overlapping covered activities with temporary impacts will occur in the portion of right-ofway 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 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. 34

57 Covered Activities Figure 3.1 Typical road and bridge maintenance cross sections. 35

58 Covered Activities Through a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA a subset of routine maintenance activities 10 on roadside rights-of-way of highways and roads are exempt from incidental take for Guild 1 MPG (79 FR ), 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. 36

59 Covered Activities 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 ( 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) 37

60 Covered Activities Duration Intensity Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Projected Area Affected Projected Total Area Affected Year round, primarily June-September Removal of vegetation, sediment, debris and garbage Temporary, recurring (At least 1x per 30 years) 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide band of right-of-way 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. 38

61 Covered Activities 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 Retention/Detention facilities Manholes/Catch Basins/Vaults Pipes/Culverts/Box Culverts Inlets/Outlets Low Impact Development Underground Injection System Description of Maintenance Activities Mostly vegetation maintenance (described in Section above) and clearing debris/obstructions by hand with shovels. 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. Miniexcavators/backhoes are used occasionally to adjust, replace or repair an inadequate structure. Jetter trucks and vactor trucks are used to clean and remove accumulated debris/materials that are then hauled to a County Decant Facility. Mini-excavators/backhoes are used occasionally to adjust, replace or repair an inadequate structure. Vactor trucks or hand work with shovels is used to remove accumulated debris/materials that are then hauled to a County Decant Facility or a County pit site. During high flow storm water events a trash truck will be used to remove debris. 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. 39

62 Covered Activities 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 40

63 Covered Activities 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 41

64 Covered Activities Duration Intensity Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Projected Area Affected Projected Total Area Affected Year round Disruption/Removal of accumulated debris Temporary, occurring at least 1x per 30 years Varies by bridge, but within the right of way width 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 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 Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 1,101 42

65 Covered Activities 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 ft 2 (464 m 2 ) 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 Intensity Complete habitat loss Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent Projected Area Affected per Unit Variable, up to 1 ac (0.4 ha) per dropbox expansion, 5,000 ft 2 (464 m 2 ) 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. Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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 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: 43

66 Covered Activities 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 ft 2 (186 m 2 ) 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. 44

67 Covered Activities Table 3.11 Covered activity summary for water resources management. Activity Summary Water Resources Management Duration Year Round Intensity Complete habitat loss Frequency/Permanence of Impacts Permanent Projected Area Affected per Unit Varies by project Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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 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. 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. 45

68 Covered Activities Table 3.12 Covered activity summary for County parks, trails, and land management. Activity Summary County Parks, Trails, and Land Management Duration Year Round Intensity Complete habitat loss 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. Projected Total Area Affected (acres) (1.0 acres= 0.4 hectares) YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Total extent (all species together, excluding overlaps): 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. 46

69 Impacts Analysis 4.1 Introduction Section 4 Analysis of Impacts Likely to Result from the Taking 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 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. 47

70 Impacts Analysis Figure 4.1 HCP impacts analysis process summary. 48

71 Impacts Analysis Table 4.1 Covered Activities and Projected Take of Habitat Covered Activity *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 30-year Projected Area of Activity (acres) 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 Quantifying Impacts in Prairie-Oak Habitats Mapping Habitat Area for each of the Prairie-Oak Guilds 30-year Projected To Minimize Impacts (functional acres) (func. acres) Residential Development 12,718 5,331 1,919 3,412 Added Accessory Structures Septic extension or repair, heating oil tank decommission (temporary) Commerical & Industrial Development Public Service Facilities Landfill/Solid Waste Management Transportation Projects Transportation Maintenance & Work in right of way (temporary) Water Resources Management County Parks, Trails, and Land Management To Mitigate TOTAL 16,866 7,564 2,647 4,916 (func. acres) 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 Dataset 11 (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. 49

72 Impacts Analysis Section 5: Conservation Program). Criteria used to identify guild habitat areas are included in Table 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). Category 1: Occupied Value (relative %) of habitat for Mazama pocket gopher MPG Soil Preference High Medium Low Site is occupied by Mazama pocket gophers. 100% 100% 100% Occupancy/ Proximity Category Category 2: Adjacent/ Proximal to Occupancy Category 3: Low proximity/ 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). 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). 100% 90% 75% 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% 50

73 Impacts Analysis 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 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) 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 51

74 Impacts Analysis types at 200 randomly selected points via Google Earth 12. The resulting sample distribution is shown in Table 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) High Preference Soil 0.8% 1.1% 0.3% Medium Preference Soil 0.1% 0.3% 1.1% Low Preference Soil 0.2% 0.7% 9.7% Unk Subspecies (UNK) High Preference Soil 0.5% 1.7% 1.6% Medium Preference Soil 0.3% 0.8% 5.0% Low Preference Soil 0.1% 1.0% 8.8% T. m. yelmensis (YPG) High Preference Soil 1.1% 1.8% 3.8% Medium Preference Soil 1.7% 5.4% 14.2% Low Preference Soil 0.5% 2.2% 26.7% 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. 52

75 Impacts Analysis 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. Habitat Type High- Quality Native Grassland Native Grassland Degraded Grassland Shrub- Dominated Vegetation Oak Savanna Oak- Dominant Forest Description 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. Occupancy Likelihood Species Guild % 80% 50% 40% 40% 40% 10% 10% 20% 10% 0% 0% 53

76 Impacts Analysis Assigning habitat value for Guild 4 Oak Species Based on analysis of aerial imagery as described in Section 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% 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 ). 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. 54

77 Impacts Analysis 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 lots 14 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 Habitat 15. Total functional acres were estimated using methods consistent with those in Section 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. 55

78 Impacts Analysis 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 TOTAL Guild 1 2,382 2,382 2,382 7,147 Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian 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: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF 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 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 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 ) 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. 56

79 Impacts Analysis 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 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. 57

80 Impacts Analysis wetland/riparian habitats. The effects of biological diversity loss may be permanent, but restorable through strategic habitat protection and restoration 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 ).. 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 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 58

81 Impacts Analysis species. Habitat fragmentation effects are expected to be permanent in nature, and increase in intensity as remaining habitat is developed. Table 4.7 Impacts from new residential development. New Residential Development Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 1 2, ,450 5,161 Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 5,331 Activity extent (all species; acres) 12,718 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 17.4% 20.0% 13.8% 23.6% 7.7% 12.4% 12.1% 0.6% Functional Acres 17.5% 20.4% 13.8% 26.4% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 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 ( ). 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. 59

82 Impacts Analysis Table 4.8 Impacts from added accessory structures. Added Accessory Structures Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 290 Activity extent (all species; acres) 700 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% <0.1% Functional Acres 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 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 ft 2 (232 m 2 ) per residential unit). 2. Home heating oil tank decommissioning (affecting ~450 ft 2 (42 m 2 ) per unit) and addition of new County-permitted accessory structures to existing developments (affecting ~ 1000 ft 2 (93 m 2 ) per unit). County staff projected the total number of such actions to occur based on County-wide records for a 10 year period ( ). 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. 60

83 Impacts Analysis Table 4.9 Impacts from septic system extension or repair and home heating oil tank decommission. Septic extension or repair, heating oil tank removal Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 123 Activity extent (all species; acres) 273 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% Functional Acres 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 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 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 nonnative 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. 61

84 Impacts Analysis 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) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL Guild 1 YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 955 Activity extent (all species; acres) 1,347 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 1.4% 11.4% 0.9% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% 1.3% 0.1% Functional Acres 2.4% 21.3% 0.7% 0.4% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 62

85 Impacts Analysis 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 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 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) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Guild

86 Impacts Analysis Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 89 Activity extent (all species; acres) 143 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF 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 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 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 nonnative 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 Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild

87 Impacts Analysis Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 184 Activity extent (all species; acres) 342 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7% 0.1% <0.1% 0.3% 0.3% Functional Acres 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 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 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-ofway. Transportation Maintenance and Work in Right of Way Projected Take (functional acres) 65

88 Impacts Analysis Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 474 Activity extent (all species; acres) 1,101 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% <0.1% 1.0% 0.3% Functional Acres 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 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 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 66

89 Impacts Analysis 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 Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL Guild 1 YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 24 Activity extent (all species; acres) 59 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF 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 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 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 67

90 Impacts Analysis make 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 4.15 Impacts from water resources management. Water Resources Management Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL Guild 1 YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take (all species; functional acres) 55 Activity extent (all species; acres) 136 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF Acres Habitat 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% <0.1% 0.1% 0.1% <0.1% Functional Acres 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% *1.0 acre= 0.4 hectares 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 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. 68

91 Impacts Analysis Table 4.16 Impacts from County parks, trails, and land management. County Parks, Trails, and Land Management Projected Take (functional acres) Habitat Overlap with Guild 1 Outside Guild 1 TOTAL YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild Guild Guild Guild Wetland/Riparian Take(all species; functional acres) 39 Activity extent (all species; acres) 47 Effect of the Taking - Estimated % of Habitat in County Jurisdiction Affected by Activity: YPG OPG TPG UNK Guild 2 Guild 3 Guild 4 OSF 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 69

92 Impacts Analysis Table

93 Impacts Analysis 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 Road Projects Right-of-Way Trail (2.5 miles) unknown Subtotal Olympia pocket gopher n/a 0 0 Tenino pocket gopher 53 Dwelling Units Right-of-Way Yelm pocket gopher 38 Dwelling Units Right of Way Subtotal Taylor s checkerspot butterfly 22.7 Dwelling Units Right-of-Way Subtotal Grand Total 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 ). 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 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 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 71

94 Impacts Analysis 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 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) 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 Mazama Pocket Gopher In April 2014, USFWS finalized critical habitat for the Thurston/Pierce subspecies of MPG (79 FR ) 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 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 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. 72

95 Impacts Analysis 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 Taylor s Checkerspot Butterfly In October 2013, USFWS finalized critical habitat for Taylor s checkerspot butterfly (78 FR ). 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 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) 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. 73

96 Impacts Analysis 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 A (Wolf Haven) 28 Wolf Haven B (Reserve) 135 TNC Thurston 1-C (Glacial Heritage) County -- 1-D (Rock Prairie) 154 Private E (Bald Hills E + W) 176 Majority private 6 21 Total 1, * 1 acre =0.4 ha 74

97 Implementation 5.1 Overview Section 5 Conservation Program 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. 75

98 Implementation 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. 76

99 Implementation 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 Biological Goals The biological goals for each covered species in the HCP are listed in 77

100 Implementation 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 Biological Objectives Thurston County has designed biological objectives to achieve each biological goal. Figures link the Biological Goals to the measurable Biological Objectives for each covered species. Sections provide additional detail on how the Biological Objectives will be met. 78

101 Implementation 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 Goal 2: Retain a network of working conservation lands to preserve habitat functionality and connectivity in areas known to be important for covered species. 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. Limit habitat fragmentation and degradation. Create compatible land uses with landowners to support habitat 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. Achieve habitat-friendly management of lands important to OSF Protect adequa te area of oak to support species Protect and expand core reserves of habitat. Enhance habitat quality on those reserves. 79

102 Implementation * 1.0 acres = 0.4 hectares Figure 5.3 Biological objectives for Goal 1. 80

103 Implementation * 1.0 acres = 0.4 hectares Figure 5.4 Biological objectives for Goal 2. 81

104 Implementation * 1.0 acres = 0.4 hectares Figure 5.5 Biological objectives for Goal 3. 82

105 Implementation 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 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 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 83

106 Implementation 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. 84

107 Implementation A commitment to conservation in the landscape context; and Transparent and science-based mitigation that is durable and effective 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 85

108 Implementation 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 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. Speciesspecific 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. 86

109 Implementation 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 connected 20 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). 87

110 Implementation 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). 88

111 Implementation 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-ofway. 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-ofway (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). 89

112 Implementation 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. 90

113 Implementation 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 the 21 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 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 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

114 Implementation 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 the 22 unavoidable 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 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 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, nonbreeding 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 Residential development impacts were calculated using a 60 ft (18 m) buffer around the development footprint to include likely indirect effects. See Section

115 Implementation 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. 93