Thursday, October 1, 2026
The City of Tumwater and Port of Olympia’s joint habitat conservation plan is under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a step before the project formally enters the environmental review stage.
To take the project toward its potential finish line, the Tumwater City Council authorized amending a contract with the firm working on the plan at a meeting on June 2.
The amendment added $445,108 to ICF Environmental Inc.’s contract, bringing its total to $954,108, and extending the agreement through 2027.
Tumwater Community Development Director Brad Medrud told the council that funds were previously allocated to complete the plan and environmental review. But the money was exhausted after ICF had to restructure the plan to align with Thurston County's habitat conservation plan (HCP).
An HCP is a framework that allows for development and other activities in areas where species are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The city and the port have been working since 2016 to complete a HCP that details strategies for protecting, recovering and mitigating negative impacts on four species: Olympia pocket gopher, Oregon spotted frog, Oregon vesper sparrow and streaked horned lark.
Strategies include acquiring conservation lands, habitat restoration efforts and restrictive covenants on properties.
Without the plan, individual projects within affected areas would have to go through the lengthy process of preparing individual HCPs.
Medrud said the plan was submitted at the end of April and staff expect to meet with USFWS officials in August.
If the agency deems the plan acceptable, the plan would proceed to formal review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Medrud said that stage of the project would allow people to review the documents and provide feedback.
Depending on the outcome of the review, the plan could require a full environmental impact statement, which would further extend the project’s timeline.
Port Enivronmental Director Sean Gilbertson told the Port of Olympia Commission in a May 26 presentation that USFWS staff told them the project would likely not need a full environmental impact statement. He said he was “very hopeful” the additional money would get them through the end of the entire HCP process.
The cost of the ICF Environmental’s contract is evenly split by the city and the port based on the terms of an interlocal agreement first established in 2016.
The Port of Olympia Commission passed an amendment to the agreement on Monday, June 8, that updated the cost-sharing terms to reflect the expanded contract.
Both parties are each on the hook for $100,000 this year and $122,554 in 2027.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
The_Armed_Gardener
It's a miracle!!! Pocket Gophers have made such a comeback!!! Cities and Thurston County saved them!! Now they can build and zone freely without worry. Praise their LORD SATAN for this miracle!!!!!
Thursday, June 11 Report this
2theroots
Some people reading this article might mean the four endangered species listed will actually be protected. BUT no! What this really means is the city will be allowed to let builder's destroy their habitat as long as the city buys "mitigation land" else where. Which is total nonsense because studies show gophers do not survive transper and the lark nest on the ground in prairie soil so good luck telling them the new location to fly to and nest! So really this is just an agreement to doom them.
Thursday, June 11 Report this
JW
Let the dumb gophers die.
Friday, June 12 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@JW, many people may not care about pocket gophers themselves. But if the Olympia Mazama pocket gophers had disappeared years ago, the airport likely would have expanded by now. The species and its habitat protections have been among the most significant constraints on increased air traffic at Olympia Regional Airport.
That matters to those of us who live under the flight paths. Increased air traffic brings more noise and greater exposure to ultrafine particulate matter from aircraft. I live near downtown Olympia, and even there aircraft noise can be disruptive when I'm working outside in my yard. If you want an example of how aircraft noise can affect a community, talk to the residents of Burien, who have experienced the impacts of increased air traffic over their homes.
The debate is about more than gophers; it is also about the kind of community we want to live in.
Friday, June 12 Report this
northbeachcomm
June 14
Yes, the only way this HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN will work, is with the Port of Oly. and other agencies, buying property with the correct characteristics, that the Pocket gopher can live on; this is called "mitigation". The Port will kill all the existing gopher populations on their property, near the Olympia Airport on Capitol Way. Then this new property will be set aside for the gophers; (until the " powers that be" decide to again, have them be destroyed?)
These gophers are designated "Endangered Species", meaning they have been studied for decades, and humans realize that we are killing off entire populations of animals, in our greed for ever more land for humans.
Sunday, June 14 Report this
Yeti1981
I'm encouraged to see Tumwater and the Port working toward a more predictable habitat conservation framework. If this plan truly streamlines permitting and avoids requiring every individual project to complete its own habitat conservation process, that could be a benefit for both conservation and development.
That said, I hope the public review process includes a serious discussion about housing affordability and land supply. Thurston County is already facing a housing shortage, and every additional regulation, mitigation requirement, fee, or restriction ultimately affects the cost of building homes. Those costs don't disappear, they are passed on to renters and homebuyers.
The conversation also deserves more nuance than simply being "for" or "against" pocket gophers. The question is how we protect sensitive habitat while still allowing enough housing to be built for current and future residents. Environmental protection and housing affordability should not be treated as competing goals.
As the plan moves forward, I'd like to see clear answers about how much land will be removed from development, what the anticipated costs will be, whether permitting timelines will actually improve, and how the impacts on housing production will be addressed. If conservation measures reduce development opportunities, local governments should also be looking at ways to offset those impacts through higher densities, faster permitting, and other housing-friendly policies.
A successful Habitat Conservation Plan should provide measurable environmental benefits while also recognizing the region's need for attainable housing.
Wednesday, June 17 Report this
Wesley
It's bizarre that people fail to recognize that Man's habitat is anywhere his two feet or ingenuity can take him, and he is the dominant, therefore prioritized, species.
Thursday, June 18 Report this