Squirrels before the homeless? Opponents of micro village argue habitat might be at risk

The county did not do its job to protect sensitive habitat and endangered species when approving the plan for a micro village for the homeless near Spanaway Lake, according to lawyers for Spanaway Concerned Citizens

An environmental attorney representing local residents who oppose the project spent a large part of the hearing’s closing arguments trying to convince the hearing examiner that the county undervalued critical wetland habitat on the property and failed to identify the impact it might have on the endangered western gray squirrel.

The Pierce County Village has been proposed by Tacoma Rescue Mission , which purchased the property with plans to run the village. Tacoma Rescue Mission plans to build over 280 units of housing to offer permanent support to hundreds of primarily elderly, chronically homeless people.

The project has been the subject of a public land-use hearing, which ran April 29 to May 9, during which opponents have argued it would have adverse impacts on surrounding wetlands .

“The county completely failed to analyze or consider the project’s likely impacts on the endangered western gray squirrel or its primary habitat,” said Zack Griefen, an attorney representing Spanaway Concerned Citizens, during the hearing’s closing arguments on May 9.

Alex Sidles is the hearing examiner who will ultimately decide the future of the Pierce County Village. He questioned whether there was any evidence that western gray squirrels live on the property.

The hearing lasted nearly two weeks, but no witness or exhibit offered concrete evidence that western gray squirrels call the more than 85-acre property home.

Rachel Hyland is a wetland ecologist who was part of the team that conducted an analysis of the wetlands on the property. She works for Soundview Consultants, which was hired by Tacoma Rescue Mission to assess wetlands on the property.

Hyland testified that the last recorded sighting of a western gray squirrel in the area was a half-a-mile away in 2008, with no recorded or confirmed sightings on the property.

In response to questions from Sidles about the sparsity of confirmed sightings in recent decades, Hyland said it is possible either people are not around to see them or have stopped looking for them.

“The applicant does not mention western gray squirrel once in any of its application materials,” said Griefen. “That’s a failure of the county to have sufficient information to assess the impacts on threatened or endangered western gray squirrels.”

Sidles asked Griefen what should have prompted the applicants and the county to assess the project’s impacts on western gray squirrels

“What should these people have seen?” Sidles asked.

At the time that Tacoma Rescue Mission applied for permits, the western gray squirrel was listed as “threatened.” It was not listed as “ endangered ” until fall 2023.

“They should have realized that there is potential western gray squirrel habitat on the site because of the oak trees and because they were listed at the time [as] threatened,” Griefen said. “And they are less than half-a-mile away from the site on the same kind of oak tree habitat that is present on the site and that western gray squirrels rely upon.”

Hyland testified the habitat on the property was not consistent with western gray squirrel habitat.

Griefen pointed to testimony from previous witnesses during the hearing, one of whom testified she had seen squirrels on the site but could not confirm what kind, and another who had reportedly seen squirrel nests but also could not confirm what species they belonged to.

He argued that if the county and the applicant had done a proper habitat assessment, there would be clearer answers as to whether the protected squirrels were living on the property.

The hearing examiner expressed skepticism that the endangered squirrels exist on the property in lieu of what he considered to be any credible evidence or testimony.

“You are beating them up for not doing this assessment, but I am saying maybe it was forgivable because there was not a reason to do one,” Sidles told Griefen.

Another key argument made by Griefen at the closing of the hearing was that wetland habitat on the property was undervalued by the biologists that assessed it, and that the wetlands actually require more space from the development than originally determined.

Throughout the hearing, a point of contention was Hyland’s assessment that the property constituted “disturbed habitat,” with Sidles questioning the definition that she used to make the determination.

Hyland testified that land that has any sort of human use or trace, such as a building, road or trail, is by definition disturbed. She said that those types of infrastructure have both perceivable and imperceptible impacts on habitat and the wildlife that live in their proximity.

The property has a paved road through it, which Griefen argued is relatively unused. Griefen’s argument that the road was not a “major roadway” was to convince the hearing examiner that the habitat around the road was undisturbed and deserving of a higher habitat score.

A higher habitat score would increase the required buffer preventing the development from being built as close to the wetland as currently planned.

One of the land-use attorneys representing the Tacoma Rescue Mission was Andrew Schutz. Schutz pointed out that the property had a residence on it, which had its own habitat disturbances — such as pets, a lawn that needed to be mowed, noise and light pollution.

At the conclusion of the hearing on May 9, Sidles said he would have his decision before the end of May.

Editor’s note: The western gray squirrel was listed as “threatened” at the time of the Tacoma Rescue Mission’s application for the project. This article has been corrected to reflect that.