Gopher-rule work is still far from finished

There’s angst in some quarters of our community over gopher-protection rules that affect development in south Thurston County.

At issue in the big picture is the county’s response to the federal listing of four subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Critics have complained the review process adopted by the county was in effect a planning law amendment that lacked adequate public participation. Last week, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board agreed, in a ruling that found fault with the fourth step of the county’s four-part screening process.

Lack of a public process is also a complaint in a pending lawsuit in Lewis County brought by the same parties that challenged the county rule at the hearings board level. These include the Olympia Master Builders, the Thurston Chamber and Hinkle Homes.

Despite the board’s ruling, the majority of Thurston County’s process for handling development applications in possible gopher-habitat areas remains in place.

County Manager Cliff Moore says the local government also is moving ahead to draft a habitat conservation plan that, if adopted, could simplify development in gopher areas and protect both the county and landowners from liability under the federal ESA.

But what the county does now in response to the hearings board ruling is a question. Commissioners Bud Blake, Sandra Romero and Cathy Wolfe could appeal the ruling or ask for reconsideration. Or they could open a process to formally amend their critical areas development ordinance with public hearings.

A redo might actually cool the temperature — if it helps critics understand that the county needs to get in alignment with federal rules protecting threatened species.

The county adopted its building-permit review process last June, using elements recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This has created push-back from some county residents and builders who are negatively affected by the rules.

Troy Nichols, executive officer for Olympia Master Builders, says some permits in the gopher habitat areas can take two years to obtain.

On the other hand, county officials say few parcels are actually affected. Of more than 4,000 development applications in 2015, Moore said, just over two dozen actually had to deal with gophers.

In a dozen cases, landowners were able to bring forward a mitigation plan that allowed development; of 15 cases that needed more work, Moore said five were speculative queries by real-estate interests that had no actual developments to propose.

“We’re really talking about a handful of applications,” he argues.

But for those who do have gophers, the situation literally can be a headache.

If gophers are spotted on a property, the landowner must work with the federal agency on ways to limit habitat damage, or wait for the county’s habitat conversation plan to be completed. This can also get costly, according to some landowners.

As many as three property site visits can be required and these must take place between June 1 and Oct. 30. This puts tremendous pressure on those who want to build a barn or home, add on to an existing structure or make other improvements.

Unfortunately, the county’s habitat conservation plan, which could simplify the entire process, is not due as a draft until this fall. It’s a long, slow process that can take three or four years, and in this case is about halfway through, Moore says.

When the plan, or HCP, does come online, it should speed the process, and Moore says it will provide certainty for development for 30 years.

That is because the plan would clarify where development can occur and how damage to habitat can be mitigated.

One option is to have land-owners pay a mitigation fee that would be used to help pay for the maintenance of prairie lands for the gophers.

Another approach is to pay for mitigation using county conservation dollars, adding a fee to permits, using general county funds or enacting a property tax or real-estate excise tax.

Whether habitat costs should be borne only by those developing near sensitive areas, or shared by all of the county’s residents, remains to be decided.

In the meantime, county residents who dislike the county’s actions need to recognize that a plan is needed. Denigrating the Mazama gopher, which is also found in Clallam, Mason and Pierce counties, doesn’t help anyone.

Federal law requires protection of the species, and the county must adopt a plan to deal with that fact.

In the long run, our county needs a plan that protects habitats and development.

This story was originally published May 24, 2016 at 6:58 PM with the headline "Gopher-rule work is still far from finished."