1

REGI ONAL OPEN SPACE ST RAT EGY

En v i s i o n i n g a
f o r Ce n t r a l Pu g e t So u n d
REGI ONAL OPEN SPACE ST RAT EGY
En v i s i o n i n g a
f o r Ce n t r a l Pu g e t So u n d
INTRODUCTION
In the summer and fall of 2010, the Green Futures Lab (GFL) and the Northwest
Center for Livable Communites (NWCLC) with fnancial support from the Bullit
Foundaton completed the Scoping Phase (Phase I) for a Central Puget Sound
Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). The ROSS is an efort to broadly improve
regional planning for open space working both from the grassroots and from
governmental approaches. During this Scoping Phase the ROSS project team set
out to identfy and confrm with expert consultants the: efectve stakeholder
engagement processes, analytcal methods appropriate for the ROSS process, and
the resources required to complete the ROSS. This report is a supplement to the
two-page report fled on November 8, 2010. This Supplemental Report describes
the goals and actvites of the ROSS project team during the Scoping Phase and
addresses several central topics: the need for a ROSS, the scoping process used,
key fndings from research and scoping actvites, conclusions, accomplishments,
and next steps. The ROSS is an excitng project that will bridge cultural diferences
to build a regional sense of community by working at scales ranging
from local to regional and engaging everyday people as well as experts
and public ofcials. Throughout the report and especially in the appendices we
reproduce the visual and spatal communicaton methods that were so important
to conveying the preliminary vision of the ROSS. These include maps, drawings,
diagrams, photographs, tables, and graphs.
NEED FOR A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
The Central Puget Sound Region is known for its world-class ecology, recreaton,
agriculture and forestry. This magnifcent region is facing signifcant threats to
its much-lauded open space qualites. The ROSS, however, has great potental
to turn the tde in a positve directon and make the regions open space more
robust, functonal, economical, and ecologically sound. There are numerous
factors that make the ROSS a crucial piece in regional planning eforts:
Resource allocaton and contemporary regional planning | Much of the
inspiraton for the ROSS draws from the need to establish regional priorites for
open space planning. By collaboratng with partners on funding initatves and
setng regional open space priorites, ROSS staf and collaborators can optmize
resource allocaton and streamline high-value project implementaton. In this
age of budget crises and other fnancial hardships there is fscal intelligence and
efciency in assembling a regional governance structure for open space planning,
pooling eforts to garner resources and identfying regional priorites for open
space expenditures.
Proactve support from key collaborators | Through the course of our outreach,
we successfully developed an increasingly enthusiastc base of supporters.
We recognize a need for concurrent grassroots and government eforts and
collaboratons. In four workshops with over 65 regional open space experts and
advocates, the ROSS project team found a recognized need and enthusiastc
support for a ROSS. Partcipants provided important feedback on the project and
supported the overall approaches, outreach methods, analytcal methods, scope,
tmeline, and work plan of the ROSS.
2 3
Relevance to growth management and sustainability | Healthy, connected and
proximate open space is integral to the success of growth management and
sustainability. These key policy frameworks are touchstones in todays dialogues
on land use and environment in the region and the rest of the world. In order to
successfully manage growth and achieve sustainability in the region, it is essental
to have integrated regional-scale open space planning. Through coalescing
existng eforts and organizatons, the ROSS can signifcantly advance preservaton
and linking of connected open space corridors and ecological networks that
balance and support populaton growth in compact urban centers.
Responses to current economic conditons | This region has experienced a
long history of boom and bust cycles. Business cycles have driven development
paterns in the region and will contnue to infuence these paterns. It is strategic
to remember that opportunity is at its greatest when conditons are worst. The
current slowdown in market forces has created breathing room in which it is
possible to conduct this research and have greater impact while many projects
are on hold. Once business and real estate markets regain some vigor, the ROSS
can readily optmize new project-level development.
Timing and opportunity | It is important to strike while the iron is hotit is
difcult to overstate the importance of tming for the ROSS project. As laid out
above, there are a number of factors conspiring in favor of contnuing on with
the full ROSS now. In the Central Puget Sound Region there is a critcal mass
of interest among stakeholders. Since we have developed momentum for the
project it is vital to carry forward now. There is also an important history of
planning projects in the area and the ROSS would build on this legacy. The ROSS
is an excellent complement to the Puget Sound Partnerships current work in
marine environments.
The unifying goal of the ROSS is to nurture a sense of regional community based
on the abundant and awe-inspiring resources of the region. Some methods for
developing a regional sense of community include:
Creatng an educatonal and outreach program
Focusing on common goals and messaging
Galvanizing interests between recreaton, ecology, agriculture and forestry
Working on salmon issues, but broadening the ecological horizon to include
entre ecosystems and working farm and forest lands
Building this regional sense of identty is one way to assemble politcal capital
and gain public approval for establishing regional priorites. Our existng
networks of consttuents and partcipants have considerable reach and
community-building capacity and we only expect a snowballing efect as we
move forward.
PROCESS
During the Scoping Phase (Phase I) of the Central Puget Sound ROSS, the project
team completed a variety of projects and studies, and conducted several
meetngs with key regional stakeholders. Analyses addressed two spatal extents:
a watershed-scale study of the Lower Cedar River watershed and the preliminary
scoping of a ROSS for the Central Puget Sound region.
The work in the Scoping Phase (Phase I) of the ROSS consisted of policy and
planning research, outreach to potental partners and partcipants, Geographic
Informaton Systems (GIS) analyses, map producton, and preparing for, facilitatng
and following up on meetngs with experts in felds of: planning, ecology, land
management, and GIS. The research process has been iteratve and involved
facilitatng meetngs, presentng our preliminary materials, and gathering and
integratng responses into materials then used with larger groups.
The ROSS project team began outreach to planners, land managers, ecologists,
and other open space experts by identfying contacts in a variety of roles at
relevant organizatons, agencies and city and county departments. We began
looking at the most obvious sectors (parks and recreaton, ecology, agriculture,
and forestry) and were encouraged by collaborators to expand our outreach to
educaton, public health, and food systems. Our contact list has contnued to
expand as partcipants and collaborators have given us referrals.
Mailbox Peak, Snoqualmie River Watershed Joshua Miller
3
The ROSS meetngs consisted of:
Cedar River Focus Group August 6, 2010 | The ROSS project team met with a
group of ten scientsts and land managers in a Cedar River Focus Group meetng
held in the King Street Center on August 6, 2010 with King County staf members.

PSRC Regional Staf Commitee August 19, 2010 | The project team presented
preliminary fndings to ffy-three planners and staf at the PSRC Regional Staf
Commitee meetng on August 19, 2010. The project team also conducted a brief
survey of partcipants regarding existng and ongoing open space planning and
key staf in their jurisdictons.
Cedar River Task Force August 26, 2010 | The project team hosted the Cedar
River Task Force meetng in Gould Hall at the University of Washington on August
26, 2010. This meetng had nine partcipants including two county employees
from the previous meetng and a group of public space experts from the non-
proft and private sectors.
Four County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session September 23, 2010
The Four County Stakeholder Meetng on September 23, 2010 was the fnal and
most comprehensive meetng that ROSS project team conducted during the
Scoping Phase. This meetng included forty-three experts from public, private,
tribal, and non-proft enterprises, and galvanized support for the project
Washington State Chapter American Planning Associaton (APA) Senior Acton
Commitee October 21, 2010 | John Owen presented a descripton of the ROSS
proposal and scoping efort at the October 21 meetng of the APA Senior Acton
Commitee. The small group of members in atendance was enthusiastc about
the project and ofered suggestons for Phase II work.
See appendices for summaries of ROSS meetng and workshop partcipants.
DETAILS OF THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER CASE STUDY
The project team began the Scoping Phase with an emphasis on the Lower Cedar
watershed study as a test case, concentratng on analyses of existng conditons
and planning eforts for recreatonal, ecological, forestry, and agricultural land
uses. This study involved interconnected processes including planning and policy
analyses, multple meetngs, telephone and email correspondence, compiling
data, GIS analyses, and mapping. The project team reviewed many plans,
including: county and city parks and recreaton plans, the State Department of
Ecology Water Resource and Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Salmon Restoraton Plan,
Stephen Hyde Meetng atendees at ROSS Workshop and Visioning Session
the Strategic Plan of the State Recreaton and Conservaton Ofce, the King
County Flood Hazard Management Plan, the King County Greenprint, The Nature
Conservancy habitat maps, and the King County Comprehensive Plan.
In our Cedar River Focus Group meetng on August 6, 2010 with King County
staf members, we learned some of the important historical developments in
the Cedar River Watershed (CRW) as well as some details of the exceptonal
eforts being made in the CRW for ecological restoraton, recreaton access, and
conservaton of agricultural lands. In our Cedar River Task Force meetng on
August 26, 2010 we gathered some new inputs and ideas, especially about the
King County Greenprint and the actvites of the Cascade Land Conservancy. In
this meetng we discussed the Cascade Agenda and potental linkages between
the ROSS and the Cascade Agenda.
The project team mapped various combinatons of atributes including land
use, land cover, ownership, planning and politcal boundaries, infrastructure,
hydrology, and many types of open space in the Lower Cedar. Staf met with
experts who gave feedback on analyses, data, and policy and management issues.
Once the basic background research was complete, staf consulted experts. These
experts referred staf to relevant historic plans and pointed out map updates
which staf subsequently incorporated (see Cedar River Maps, page 4).
The Lower Cedar Watershed study revealed some generalizable lessons and
unique atributes of the Cedar River Watershed. In partcular, the workfow for
the Cedar watershed research was similar to the 4-county research process and in
some regards we expect it to be similar for each watershed study going forwards.
We do, however, antcipate variaton in each watershed study. The Cedar River
is an especially data-rich drainage that has been studied and monitored for
decades from various perspectves including salmon, general ecology, agriculture,
and suburban and exurban development. The drainage has been managed with
an eye towards conservaton and the Upper Cedar Watershed is protected and
carefully managed for hydrological and ecological values. Other watersheds may
have limited staf and resources and fragmented or otherwise incomplete data
sets and plans.
4 5
4
King County contnues to manage the unincorporated county lands with an
integrated and progressive approach to land use and ecology. Land managers in
the Cedar are striving towards best practces and may help to produce a set of
recommendatons for watershed management that are generalizable throughout
the ROSS. While the regulatory frameworks of the Washington State and
various countes and cites can be seen as progressive, they are also incredibly
complex. We have anecdotal evidence that the complexity of a mult-layered
regulatory framework is dauntng and difcult to interpret from a landowners
perspectve. A preliminary fnding of the Scoping Phase is that we need to not
only work on messaging for the ROSS project, but also work on messaging for
land use regulaton and explaining land use codes, regulatons, best practces, and
incentves as alternatves to regulaton.

FOUNDATION FOR THE 4-COUNTY ROSS
There were several parallels in policy, ecology, and research processes between
the Lower Cedar watershed and the 4-county study areas. Similar to the Cedar
River research, the 4-County scale project required planning and policy research,
meetngs, interviews, signifcant data compilaton, standardizing, organizing, and
mapping. The region has a signifcantly more complex policy framework than any
given watershed. Regional planning includes the aggregate planning actvites of
the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), including: the four countes, 75 member
tribes and cites, state agencies (e.g. Ecology/WRIAs), local councils, and other
enttes.
During the Cedar Watershed study, staf learned that open space planning
requires substantal outreach eforts to the public and to various planners and
land managers. It is of central importance to understand local populatons and
to conduct outreach to discover concerns and generate positve interest in the
planning process. The Cedar Watershed study also made it clear that it will be
essental to work closely with the State Department of Ecology/ WRIA staf to
coordinate with watershed planning and restoraton as carried out in each WRIA.
Since the watershed is the unit of study, the WRIA planning and restoraton
actvites will be of central importance in developing the ROSS.
A potental signifcant diference is that some watersheds will not have a
comparable density of data and planning documentaton as the Cedar. This may
simplify the work and also make it harder to get informaton about these places.
Similarly, we may not be able to get as much informaton from staf in some
jurisdictons, simply because of a lack of dedicated staf tme. Especially some
smaller cites and tribes will be challenged to join in our eforts. In this regard we
should make a special efort to include these stakeholders.
Map of Lower Cedar River Watershed
Lower Cedar River Watershed Gaps and Opportunites
5
Regional Open Space Strategy ROSS
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND BASIN
prepared by: Heide S Martin
date: September 21, 2010
data source: KC WAGDA, PSRC, USDA, WSDOT
projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
cities
urban centers
UGA
tribal lands
parks + open space
national park
national forest
agriculture
regional trails
ferry
WRIA
water bodies
county outlines
Map of Central Puget Sound Region
SNOHOMI SH
KI NG
PI ERCE
KI T SAP
DEVELOPING A ROSS: BUILDING UPON KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The summer scoping and watershed study phase of the ROSS was conducted to
set the foundaton for a Regional Open Space Strategy. The preceding secton of
this report outlined those actvites and processes that the ROSS project team and
volunteers undertook to meet this objectve, including: local policy and spatal
analyses, stakeholder engagement, and research on domestc and internatonal
ROSS precedents. This porton of the report summarizes the primary fndings
from these actons.
Local Precedents | Staf and the project team researched regional open space
planning precedents in local, natonal and internatonal contexts. The Puget
Sound Governmental Conference and the Puget Sound Regional Planning Council
(the predecessors to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)) published a
regional open space planning document ttled Project Open Space in 1966. The
4-county spatal extent of that planning project and the subsequent organizaton
of the PSRC establish an important precedent for the spatal scope of the current
ROSS work, although if the program is highly successful it is a fully scalable to
other jurisdictons.
Natonal and Internatonal Precedents | In researching other regional open space
eforts, staf learned that other enttes do not involve as complex a governance
structure as the Puget Sound region. One important excepton is the Green River
Greenway (GRG) in the St. Louis, Missouri area. This area authorized a special
tax to fund the GRG, which along with Puget Sound area programs are important
precedents for basic funding to implement a program such as the ROSS. ROSS
staf had phone meetngs and ongoing correspondence with longtme GRG staf.
Please see Appendix 1i for four case summaries of other regional open space
planning eforts, which include Nashua, New Hampshire, Portland, Oregon, the
GRG and Auckland, New Zealand.
KEY FINDINGS FOR THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND ROSS
Key fndings are divided into three categories for clarity and brevity: Synthesis,
Strategy, and Work Plan. The project team used these three categories to
facilitate the breakout sessions at the 4-County Stakeholder Workshop and
Visioning Session and we have contnued to employ these concepts as organizing
categories. In the Summary Report the project team conveyed three essental
points from the synthesis of the ROSS Scoping Phase in each of these categories;
these are expanded upon and in some cases extended below.
6 7
6
KEY FINDINGS | SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE PLANNING + RESOURCES
Work must address a range of scales fromregional to local. Local specifcity
and a critcal sense of the region require work ranging from the site scale to
the regional scale.
The watershed is the proper unit of analysis because it responds to
fundamental ecological processes and crosses politcal boundaries to secure
collaboraton. The watershed should contnue to be the unit of analysis for
understanding the region. ROSS staf and collaborators shall contnue to use
watersheds as the unit of analysis within the region, working across municipal
boundaries as required. Our experience demonstrates the relevance and
unique qualites of this hybrid approach to geographic analysis for regional
planning.
Throughout Central Puget Sound there are many applicable plans and
ongoing actvites related to open space; the ROSS supports and coordinates
with these rather than developing new projects. To produce the ROSS it is
essental to achieve an understanding of the full spectrum of existng plans
and policies relevant to open space in the region. Many well-researched
and well-writen plans and policies relevant to open space planning already
exist in Central Puget Sound. Our preliminary research on these existng
documents revealed a history of planning and analysis over the past several
decades although we did not achieve a complete understanding of the history
of open space planning in the region. A synthesis of these plans and policies
will be needed for the development of a draf ROSS that could then be refned
and veted through additonal watershed-level analysis, research, and input
and oversight by local experts.
KEY FINDINGS | STRATEGIES FOR EFFICACY, INCLUSION + LONG-TERMSUCCESS
There is a critcal need for a tool that assists funding enttes in establishing
priorites and responding to opportunites. It is essental to identfy and
coordinate with funding partners. It is worthwhile to consider developing an
open space improvement district (a levy district).
Recreatonal, ecological, community development, resource management,
public health and educatonal objectves ofen dovetail so that there are
efciencies in the greater integraton of eforts. Trails can be conceived of at
the nexus of multple objectves: such as recreatonal, ecological, community
development, resource management, public health, and educatonal
objectves. For example, planning and building regionally signifcant missing
links in the regional trail network provide network connectvity, dramatcally
increasing public access. Our analysis of open space planning precedents
highlights the usefulness of trail development as strategy that has the
potental to capture public imaginaton and politcal support.
plan
plan
restoration
effort
program
project
etc
PUBLIC GOVTs AGENCIES
NGOs
NGO
NGO
govt
govt
agency
shared tools
evaluation
regional advocacy
programmatic
recommendations
agency
Regional
Projects & Priorities
Institutional
Organization & Communication
Structure
Tools
for Planning & Policy
PRODUCTS
Gaps &
Intersections
Existing Plans &
Programs
1
2
3
4
Identify open space & green
infrastructure efforts in terms of
geography, objectives, and institutional
performance
Present a clear picture of current open
space conditions, identifying gaps &
intersections of activities
Use results to engage broad range of
interests
Through broad participation identify
regional priorities, programmatic activities
& organizational actions that make a
comprehensive regional strategy
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY:
BUILDING A PROCESS
LAB
RESEARCH
GREEN FUTURES
Uni ver s i t y of Was hi ngt on Col l ege of Bui l t E nv i r onment s
& DESIGN
242 Gould Hall Box 355734 | Seattle, WA 98195 | www.greenfutures.washington.edu
NWCL C
Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session
Gould Hall, University of Washington
September 23, 2010
S
Y
N
T
H
E
S
IS
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
Y
The generalized watershed-based open space planning process consists of frst compiling existng plans to
identfy the gaps and intersectons between current eforts (synthesis) and then, through a public process,
developing an inter-organizatonal strategy of prioritzed actons (strategy).
7
The ROSS is a reproducible planning framework that is modular and scalable
and could be standardized through the producton and publicaton of
training programs and manuals. By working at multple scales and using the
watershed as a basic unit of analysis, the ROSS is intrinsically modular and
scalable.
Some additonal strategies that are important for considering are listed below. As
we separate the grain from the chaf of these strategies, the ROSS project team
can extend the best strategies into the work plan. A draf work plan is provided in
the next secton.
Generate visual/spatal representatons of cohesive open space for a given
area
Build a regional sense of community around open space
Prioritze the completon of regional trails
Achieve early tangible success--link the ROSS to projects being implemented,
even before the details of organizatonal structures are fnalized
Focus on structuring the rural/urban interface
Use and improve existng programs like the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR), current use programs, and farm preservaton
Find and remedy critcal missing links in the region (trail connectvity, habitat
conservaton)
Build databases (contacts, grants, and funding)
Develop Best Practces (toolboxes at policy, planning, and project levels)
Organize Technical Advisory Commitees to establish priorites for all four
areas (environmental management, recreaton and trails, rural and resource
lands, and urban and community development planning).
KEY FINDINGS | WORK PLAN FOR THE 4-COUNTY ROSS
Identfy insttutonal obstacles and develop strategies to efectvely overcome
them. It will be essental to fnd and mitgate blockages in organizatons
and insttutons. Streamlining communicaton and operatons will involve
detectve work and will require politcal savvy.
Identfy and establish efectve organizatonal structures and pathways to
conduct, insttutonalize, and implement the ROSS. Organize an Executve
Board, Steering Commitee and Technical Advisory Commitees to assist staf
in carrying out the ROSS. House the ROSS within the planning rubric of the
PSRC or a consortum of Non-Proft organizatons.
Proactvely cultvate champions and partnerships to build capacity for
outreach, planning, and implementaton. Seek out elected ofcials, business
and community leaders to carry and deliver the message. Building the
charismatc capital of the ROSS will prove to be of the utmost importance.
Finding infuental partners and champions will greatly increase the success of
the ROSS.
These three work plan components are central to strategic regional open space
planning. There is, however, an entre suite of other work plan themes and
components. A few other themes central to the work plan that emerged or were
reinforced during the ROSS Scoping Phase include the following:
Contnue to be broadly inclusive in coaliton building eforts. The ROSS
outreach process was methodically inclusive; there is a need to contnue
broad outreach to county, city and tribal governments as well as state
agencies, non-proft and advocacy groups, businesses and publics. We were
asked to increase our outreach to public health and educaton experts to
supplement our strong outreach to planning, recreaton, ecology, agriculture,
forestry, utlites, and transportaton experts.
Identfy and support existng inter-agency and inter-municipal collaboratons.
Through our work, it became clear that strong inter-agency and inter-
municipal collaboratons exist in Central Puget Sound, but that these linkages
are ofen ad hoc, informal, and/or politcally vulnerable. Identfying and
strengthening these existng collaboratons would be an infuental and useful
product of the ROSS work plan.
Allow for ad hoc and incremental coaliton building. An important corollary to
the previous point is that our project tmeline and work plan must allow for
the fexibility and space needed to accommodate a dynamic coaliton building
efort. We should simultaneously address multple geographic scales, with
varying levels of detail. With a broawd range of consttuents, we need to have
the ability to contnually adapt to these shifing relatonship paterns.
Invite youth to carry the message. The experience of our collaborators also
pointed to the strong potentals of invitng youth to help develop and carry
the message of the ROSS project. Given the broad appeal of open space
conservaton, youth are strong potental communicators.
In Appendix 2d the work plan is addressed in greater detail.
8 9
8
and coaliton-building eforts. The actual and perceived neutrality of the GFL and
NWCLC allowed us to bypass potental conficts associated with geographic or
politcal alliances.
There is an importance to balancing the tme needed to conduct a synthesis
with the need for a comprehensive strategy. As we began the research and
analysis of the Lower Cedar River Watershed, we were met with an unantcipated
challenge the amount of existng research, data, and planning and policy
documentaton of the region was beyond our expectatons. The original project
tmeline had considered that we would need to analyze and compile many
types of informaton at a shifing range of scales, but we had underestmated
the volume of informaton and the tme that would need to be dedicated to:
identfy where the informaton was housed, acquire the informaton, convert
the informaton into compatble and comparable data frames, and vet the
quality of overlapping pieces of informaton created in multple spatal and
temporal contexts. Through our stakeholder meetngs and interviews, we came
to recognize that this overproducton of knowledge was dauntng, and that there
was a critcal need to audit and synthesize existng informaton before moving
forward with a strategy.
There are challenges in artculatng a clear vision while remaining fexible,
dynamic, and inclusive. During our Scoping Phase, we were determined to
remain open to input from our potental collaborators in order to allow them to
infuence the fnal shape and scope of the project. What we found, however, was
that in this desire to allow for openness and inclusiveness, we were met with a
desire for a narrower, more clearly defned vision. Our biggest shortcoming that
GENERALIZABLE LESSONES LEARNED FROMTHE ROSS SCOPING PHASE
There are several lessons that were learned through the ROSS Scoping Phase that
can inform the ROSS moving forward. Some of these lessons are described below:
There is robustness in working simultaneously at multple geographic scales. This
scoping process focused on a watershed-scale case study and used this study
scale to inform and strengthen our understanding of the larger regional context.
Working simultaneously at these two scales of reference allowed our project
team to focus on the fner details and complexites of the relatonships and issues
we were exploring, while also giving us the opportunity to explore how they
infuence and are infuenced by increasingly larger natural, politcal, and social
networks.
There are conceptual benefts to using a watershed as a geographic scale of
reference. The quality of a watershed as being formed by natural processes
rather than politcal eforts allows for a conversaton that is grounded in
ecological principals and network thinking. By crossing politcal boundaries the
watershed case study also provided an exercise in the type of cross-jurisdictonal
cooperaton, outreach, and collaboraton that would be required to realize a
similar strategy at a regional scale.
There are practcal and politcal benefts of housing a regional planning project
in a university. Both the GFL and the NWCLC are housed in the University of
Washingtons College of Built Environments. Our project team found that this
positon within an academic, non-politcal, and not-for-proft insttuton that
operates at a statewide level was positvely perceived throughout our outreach
Lower Cedar River Watershed John Owen
9
was identfed by many of our collaborators is that we need a clearer and more
concise message to answer the questons What is the ROSS? and What is its
value? While we have detailed and considered responses to these questons
there is an obvious need for a set of clear and marketable messages.
Visual/spatal communicaton is important for conveying the vision. In the
Scoping Phase of the ROSS it was clear that communicatng the vision of the
ROSS to partcipants was most efectvely accomplished by presentng conceptual
models, maps, and preliminary schematc landscape renderings. The spatal
nature of land use planning points us towards visual communicaton methods,
since space is readily understood visually.
SUMMARY, NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSION
As pointed out in the Summary Report, the most signifcant accomplishment of
the ROSS Scoping Phase has been the producton of a solid foundaton for the
successful completon of the 4-county Central Puget Sound ROSS. This foundaton
is laid on three major accomplishments:
Enthusiastc partcipaton and engagement from key collaborators,
partners and partcipants from the public, tribal, private and non-proft
sectors
Essental insights about what is needed to complete the next phase of the
project
A tested methodology and work plan for completng a region-wide ROSS
These accomplishments are critcal to the success of the ROSS. During the Scoping
Phase, the ROSS staf and project team conducted a watershed scale study of the
lower Cedar River Watershed to determine a preliminary approach for the ROSS
and used lessons from the study to develop a prospectus for the full ROSS for
the 4-county region. As set out in the introducton and elaborated through this
report, the ROSS project team identfed and confrmed with expert consultants:
efectve stakeholder engagement processes, analytcal methods appropriate for
the ROSS process, and the resources required to complete the ROSS.
Moving forward, the ROSS project team will seek funding to assemble a new
organizatonal structure, contnue watershed studies and develop preliminary
regional open space planning over a two-year period. In 2011 we will form
the three-tered organizatonal structure of the ROSS, develop a preliminary
comprehensive strategy (PCS), and conduct four watershed studies. In 2012 the
ROSS will be formally insttutonalized and housed in an agency, organizaton
or coaliton of organizatons. Also in that year we will complete the watershed
studies, and draf a regional comprehensive strategy that includes: a list of
prioritzed actons and implementaton recommendatons; an acton program for
implementng open space actvites including an organizaton and coordinaton
structure for pursuing ROSS objectves; tools for open space enhancement; and,
visualizatons to support an outreach efort. For greater detail on the tmeline
and work plan see Appendix 2.
The ROSS is an ambitous project that will require complex organizatonal eforts,
persistence, and follow-through. Fostering a sense of regional community around
open space is a unifying goal of the ROSS. We have a strong base of consttuents
and collaborators in the public, tribal, private, and non-proft sectors. The
successes of the ROSS project team to date have depended on the incredibly
knowledgeable, wise, and intelligent group of partcipants from public, private,
tribal, and non-proft sectors that we were able to engage in the project. They
have variously spent tme: pointng us to existng open space planning resources,
sharing their expert knowledge of history, technical issues and politcal issues,
and atending meetngs and workshops with an implicit commitment and
supportve attude. As governments seek to cut budgets, remove redundancies,
and increase efciency the ROSS is a natural ft since it formulates a coordinated
regional open space planning efort coupled with grass-roots community-based
acton. We will have to be strategic, efectve, and efcient in order to accomplish
our goals. Phase II of the Central Puget Sound ROSS holds substantal promise
for the beterment of open space planning in the region.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 | Partcipaton and Outreach
a. Statstcal Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaboratons
b. Atendee List: 4-County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session
c. Atendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work Session
d. Atendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentaton and Informaton
Gathering Session
e. Atendee List: King County and Cedar River Watershed Focus Group
f. Outreach by Organizaton Title and Type
g. Abbreviatons and Categories
h. Outreach and Communicaton: Brochure and Web Page
i. Case Studies Handout
Appendix 2 | Work Plan and Maps
a. Work Flow Diagram
b. Map of Cedar River Region
c. Map of 4-County Region
d. Work Plan Scope and Timeline
10 11
a. Statistical Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaborations
b. Attendee List: 4 County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session
c. Attendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work Session
g. Abbreviations and Categories
d. Attendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentation and Information Gathering Session
e. Attendee List: King County and Cedar River Watershed Focus Group
h. Outreach and Communication: Brochure and Web Page
APPENDIX 1
f. Outreach by Organization Title and Type
PARTICIPATION + OUTREACH
i. Case Studies Handout
PLA
ECO
REC
RE
TR
AG
FOR
ECON
YE
PH
UT
FOOD
FISH
ART
COUNTY
REGION
CITY
STATE
TRIBAL
NATIONAL
WATERSHED
OTHER
1.a.
Statistical Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaborations
*for clarication of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH
phone calls, emails, and individuals otherwise contacted
OUTREACH BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
PUBLIC
NGO
PRIVATE
OUTREACH BY GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT
PLA
ECO
REC
RE
TR
AG
FOR
ECON
YE
UT
PH
FOOD
FISH
ART
OUTREACH BY PRIMARY INTEREST
SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION
meetings, interviews, workshop
PARTICIPATION BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
PUBLIC
NGO
PRIVATE
PARTICIPATION BY GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT
COUNTY
REGION
CITY
STATE
NATIONAL
TRIBAL
WATERSHED
OTHER
PARTICIPATION BY PRIMARY INTEREST
12 13
PARTICIPATION
SOLICITATION
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
PLA
ECO
REC
RE
TR
AG
FOR
ECON
YE
UT
PH
FOOD
FISH
ART
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
COUNTY
REGION
STATE
CITY
TRIBAL
NATIONAL
WATERSHED
OTHER
SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION, cont.
meetings, interviews, workshop
REPEAT PARTICIPATION
4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY REGRET OR NO SHOW
CEDAR RIVER TASK FORCE
PSRC MEET
PSRC COMMENT
KING COUNTY FOCUS GROUP
INTERVIEW
PARTICIPATION BY TYPE
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
PARTICIPATION NUMBERS AS PORTION OF OUTREACH
BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
0 50 100 150 200 250
PUBLIC
NGO
PRIVATE
BY GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT BY PRIMARY INTEREST
1.b.
Attendee List: 4 County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session
September 23 9-11:30 AM Gould Hall, University of Washington
*for clarication of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g
CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Barnett Elliot
City of Tacoma, Community and Economic
Development Urban Planner PUB CI x x x
Batten Leslie Green Futures Lab Manager PUB ST x
Black Todd City of Renton Parks Dept Capital Project Coordinator PUB CI x
Blaylock Roger Muckleshoot Tribe Planning PUB TR x
Bleifuhs Steve
King County DNRP/WLRD - River and Floodplain
Management Section Section Manager PUB CO x x
Bradley Gordon
University of Washington, School of Forest
Resources Professor PUB ST x
Bramer Dave University of Washington Green Roofs Researcher PUB ST X
Brockhaus Amy Mountains to Sound Greenway Information Manager NGO REG x
Byers Tom Cedar River Group Founding Partner NGO WAT x x
Cartwright Suzanne University of Washington, Runstad Center Associate Director PUB ST x
Culp Carrie WASLA President Elect NGO ST x
Cushman King Bicycle Alliance of Washington Vice President NGO ST x x
Deller Mike TPL Washington State Director NGO ST x
Dewald Dan City of Bellevue Natural Resource Manager PUB CI x x x
Droge Martha Kitsap County Parks & Recreation Park Projects Coordinator PUB CO x x
Dunn Reagan 9th District of King County, Washington King County Councilman PUB CO x
Dyckman Claire King County Agriculture Program/DNRP Project Program Manager III PUB CO x
Dykstra Peter The Wilderness Society
Pacific Northwest Regional Director at The
Wilderness Society NGO NAT x x
Embledon Mary Cascade Harvest Coalition Executive Director NGO REG x
Englehard Benn University of Washington Landscape Designer PUB ST X
Erickson Ara The Cascade Land Conservancy Green Cities Director NGO REG x x
Faegenberg Nancy King County Water and Land Resources Division River Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x
Fletcher Fuzzy Snoqualmie Nation Planning PUB TR x
Freeman Kimberly Pierce County Planning and Land Services Senior Planner PUB CO x x x
Frkuska Linda City of Sammamish Parks Project Manager PUB CI x
14 15
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Fuerstenberg Bob Retired
Retired Senior Ecologist at King County
Natural Resources PUB CO x x
Gage Sarah
State of Washington Recreation and Conservation
Office Biodiversity Executive Coordinator PUB ST x
Gaolach Brad W. Pierce County Extension County Director PUB CO x
Gould-Wesson Gloria City of Kent Planner/GIS Coordinator PUB CI x x
Inghram Paul City of Bellevue Comprehensive Planning Manager PUB CI x x x
Jander Neal Snoqualmie Nation Natural Resources PUB TR x x
Jerabek Jennifer
Master Builders Association of King and
Snohomish Counties
South Snohomish County Mgr.of Government
Affairs NGO CO, REG x
Jordan Lynn
PCC Farmland
Trust Development & Outreach Associate NGO NAT x
Kelly Mann ULI Seattle Executive Director NGO NAT x
Kinney Karen King County Agriculture Program/DNRP Project Program Manager II PUB CO x x
Knauer Jennifer Jones & Jones Senior Associate PRI NAT x x
Konigsmark Ken
Boeing, Mountains to Sound, Issaquah Alps Trails
Club
Board of Directors, Mountains to Sound; Vice
President Issaquah Alps Trails Club NGO REG x
Kramer Brit Washington Recreation and Park Association Executive Director PUB ST x
Kyer Krystal
Metro Parks Tacoma Board and Tahoma
Audubon Program manager PUB CI x
Lamensdorf-Bucher Jane King County DNRP Water Policy Unit Regional Planning Manager PUB CO x
Larsen Craig City of Redmond Director of Parks and Recreation PUB CI x
Lewandowski Roberta Futurewise President, Board of Directors NGO ST x
Lundin Ingrid King County Parks and Recreation Division Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x x
Marti Monte Snohomish Conservation District District Manager PUB CO x
Martin Heide Green Futures Lab Associate Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
McCartney Heather City of Mukilteo Planning Director PUB CI x
McClelland Doug DNR Assistant Region Manager, Asset Operations PUB ST x
McIntosh Annika Light Table Collective Landscape Designer PRI CI X
Miller Joshua Green Futures Lab Lead Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Miller Ivan PSRC
Principal Planner, Growth Management
Planning Division PUB REG x
Monaghan Joshua King Conservation District
Conservation Planner, Agriculture Program
Lead PUB CO x x
Montgomery Dave Earth and Space Sciences Professor PUB ST x
Moorehead Lydia Kent Parks and Recreation Department Park Planner PUB CI x
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Nilssan Judy PUB REG x
Owen John Makers Architecture and Urban Planning Principal PRI REG x x x x
Peterson Lorrie City of Bellevue Parks Property Manager PUB CI x
Pierce Danielle ESA Adolfson GIS Specialist PRI REG x
Racker Jeffrey PUB REG x
Richardson Jessi City of Sammamish Director of Parks and Recreation PUB CI x
Rottle Nancy Green Futures Lab Director PUB ST x x x x
Sanders Betty City of Redmond Senior Park Planner; Parks and Recreation PUB CI x
Smith Stacy Snohomish Conservation District Low Impact Development Specialist PUB CO x
Soliz Dominga WA State Recreation and Conservation Office Policy and Planning Specialist PUB CO x
Sterrett Jill Washington APA Board of Directors President Elect NGO NAT x
Storrar Jeff PSRC Growth Mgmt Dept PUB REG x x
Stuart Don American Farmland Trust Pacific Northwest Director NGO NAT x
Sullivan Bill Puyallup Tribe Natural Resources PUB TR x
Swenson Skip The Cascade Land Conservancy Managing Director of Policy NGO REG x x
Tucker Nancy City of Snoqualmie Planning Director PUB CI x
Turner Ron GFL and NWCLC ROSS steering committee PUB ST x
Uhl Angela Futurewise Co-Director, Development & Operations NGO ST x
Wagoner Roger BHC Principal; Director of Community Design PRI ST x
Watterson Bryant Corrie King County Conservation Futures Committee Member PUB CO x
16 17
1.c.
Attendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work Session
August 26 23 9-11:30 AM Gould Hall, University of Washington
*for clarication of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g
CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Cushman King Bicycle Alliance of Washington Vice President NGO ST x x
Knauer Jennifer Jones & Jones Senior Associate PRI NAT x x
Lundin Ingrid King County Parks and Recreation Division Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x x
Martin Heide Green Futures Lab Associate Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Miller Joshua Green Futures Lab Lead Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Owen John Makers Architecture and Urban Planning Principal PRI REG x x x x
Rottle Nancy Green Futures Lab Director PUB ST x x x x
Stolnack Scott WA State Department of Ecology WRIA 8 Technical Coordinato PUB WAT x x x
Swenson Skip The Cascade Land Conservancy Managing Director of Policy NGO REG x x
CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Abbott Norman PSRC Director of Growth Management PUB REG x
Ambrose Donna Snohomish County
Director, Snohomish Countys Economic
Development Program PUB CO x
Anderson Charlene City of Kent Planning Manager PUB CI x x
Ardussi Sean PSRC Senior Planner PUB REG x
Baker Dwight SEVA, CBA x
Barnett Elliot
City of Tacoma, Community and Economic
Development Urban Planner PUB CI x x x
Bauer Leonard Dept of Commerce
Managing Director, Growth Management
Services PUB ST x x
Becker Wendy Snohomish County Economic and Cultural Development Officer PUB CO x
Berna Colette City of Bremerton Park Planner PUB CI x x
Bobann Fogard Snohomish County P.E., Director PUB CO x
Butler Steve City of Mill Creek Community development director PUB CI x x
Cardwell Dan Pierce County Senior Planner PUB CO x
Cioc Greg Kitsap County Transportation Planning Manager PUB CO x x
Clifton Stephen City of Edmonds Director of Economic Development PUB CI x x
Costa Dori Seattle Revenue & Capital, Development Manager PUB CI x
Dewald Dan City of Bellevue Natural Resource Manager PUB CI x x x
Freeman Kimberly Pierce County Planning and Land Services Senior Planner PUB CO x x x
Burke Dan Port of Seattle Regional Transportation Planner PUB CO x x
Gulbranson Mark PSRC Deputy Executive Director PUB REG x
Hansen Matt King County Metro Market Development Supervisor PUB CO x
Harris Ashley PSRC Assistant Planner PUB REG x
Hope Shayne City of Mountlake Terrace Community development director PUB CI x x
Howard Charlie PSRC Transportation Planning Director PUB REG x
Inghram Paul City of Bellevue Comprehensive Planning Manager PUB CI x x x
Kenworthy Craig PSCAA Executive Director NGO REG x
Kiehl Steve PSRC Principal Planner PUB REG x
1.d.
Attendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentation and Information Gathering Session
August 19 9-11:30 AM; PSRC Conference Room
*for clarication of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g
18 19
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Kitchen Matthew PSRC Council Member PUB REG x
Koenig Dave City of Everett Manager, Planning Department PUB CI x x
Kofoed Kristian Seattle
Senior Urban Planner, Department of Planning
and Development PUB CI x
Krawczyk Tracy Seattle Parking policy and planning manager PUB CI x
Martin Heide Green Futures Lab Associate Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Mayhew Robin PSRC Program Manager, Transportation Planning PUB REG x
McClure, Mary Kitsap Regl Coordinating Council Executive Director PUB CO x
McGourty Kelly PSRC Program Manager, Transportation Planning PUB REG x
Miller Joshua Green Futures Lab Lead Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Mudget Chris Pierce County Transportation Programming Supervisor PUB CO x x
Munce Ian Tacoma Community and Economic Development PUB CO x
Naito Carol PSRC Principal Planner-Demographer PUB REG x
Olson Rick PSRC
Director of Government Relations and
Communications PUB REG x
Owen John Makers Architecture and Urban Planning Principal PRI REG x x x x
Papsdorf Peggy Suburban Cities Association Public Policy Analyst NGO REG x
Pedersen, Michael PSRC Transportation Planning Intern PUB REG x
Piro Rocky PSRC Program Manager PUB REG x
Reid Jacqueline Snohomish Co. Planner PUB CO x
Reitenbach Paul King County Senior Policy Analyst PUB CO x
Rottle Nancy Green Futures Lab Director PUB ST x x x x
Schumann Amy Public Health / Seattle & King Co. King County Physical Activity Coalition PUB CO x x
Shields Eric City of Kirkland Planning Director PUB CI x
Stanton Leslie PSCAA, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Team lead, Climate Protection and
Transportation Planning NGO REG x x
Storrar Jeff PSRC Growth Mgmt Dept PUB REG x x
Trussler Stacy WSDOT Eastside Corridor Deputy Director PUB ST x
Underwood-Bultmann Liz PSRC Administrative Assistant PUB REG x
West Julie Public Health / Seattle King Co Project Manager PUB CO x
1.e.
Attendee List: King County and Cedar River Watershed Focus Group
August 6 9-11:30 AM; King-Chinook Conference Room
*for clarication of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g
CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION
LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPE
GEOGRAPHIC
EXTENT 4 COUNTY
4 COUNTY
REGRET or
NO SHOW
C. RIVER
TASK
FORCE
PSRC
MEETING
PSRC
COMMENT
K. COUNTY
FOCUS
GROUP INTERVIEW
Beavers Tom King County Water and Land Resources Division Cedar-Lake Washington Basin Steward PUB WAT x
Creahan Kathy King County DNR
Agriculture/Forestry Program Manager, Project
Program Manager IV PUB CO x
Faegenberg Nancy King County Water and Land Resources Division River Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x
Lucchetti Gino King County Water and Land Resources Division Environmental Scientist PUB CO x x
Lundin Ingrid King County Parks and Recreation Division Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x x
Martin Heide Green Futures Lab Associate Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Miller Joshua Green Futures Lab Lead Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x
Murphy Mike King County Water and Land Resources Division Land Conservation Program PUB CO x
O'Laughlin Kate
King County DNRP - Water and Land Resources
Division (WLRD) Supervising Environmental Scientist PUB CO x
Owen John Makers Architecture and Urban Planning Principal PRI REG x x x x
Rottle Nancy Green Futures Lab Director PUB ST x x x x
Stolnack Scott WA State Department of Ecology WRIA 8 Technical Coordinato PUB WAT x x x
Tiemann David King County Water and Land Resources Division Project/Program Manager III, PUB CO x
Vanderhoof Jen King County Water and Land Resources Division Environmental Scientist PUB CO x
20 21
1.f.
Outreach by Organization Title and Type
PUBLIC NGO PRIVATE
9th District of King County, Washington American Farmland Trust Boeing
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Audubon Washington BHC Consultants
Allied Arts of Seattle Bicycle Alliance of Washington David Evans and Associates
Cedar River Council Cascade Bicycle Club Earth Economics
Chinook Tribe Cascade Harvest Coalition ESA Adolfson
City of Bellvue Cascadia Region Green Building Council Green Diamond Resource Company
City of Bremerton Cedar River Group Jones & Jones
City of Edmonds Citizens for a Healthy Bay K & L Gates
City of Evertt Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition Light Table Collective
City of Kent Ecotrust Makers Architecture and Urban Planning
City of Kirkland Friends of the Cedar River Watershed Otak
City of Lake Forest Park Futurewise Parametrix, Inc.
City of Maple Valley Futurewise Plum Creek
City of Mercer Island Hood Canal Coordinating Council Quailcroft Environmental Services
City of Mill Creek Issaquah Alps Trails Club Weyerhaueser
City of Mountlake Terrace Kitsap County Association of Realtors
City of Mukilteo Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties
City of Puyallup Master Builders Association of Pierce County
City of Redmond Mountains to Sound Greenway
City of Renton Nature Conservancy
City of Sammamish NW Energy Coalition
City of Seattle PCC Farmland Trust
City of Seattle People for Puget Sound
City of Shoreline Pierce County FARM Program
City of Snoqualmie Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
City of Tacoma Seattle-King County Association of Realtors
City of Woodinville Snohomish County Camano Association of Realtors
Duwamish Tribe Stewardship Partners
Kikiallus Indian Nation Suburban Cities Association
King Conservation District Sustainable Communities Around Puget Sound (SCALLOPS)
King County Sustainable Northwest
King County Agriculture Commission Tacoma-Pierce County Association of Realtors
King County Conservation Futures Committee Tahoma Audubon
King County Council Tatoosh Group-Sierra Club
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks The Cascade Chapter Sierra Club
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County The Cascade Land Conservancy
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land The Mountaineers
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Trout Unlimited
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Trust for Public Land
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water Policy Unit Urban Land Institute Seattle
King County Executive Office Washington Alpine Club
King County Extension Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association
King County GreenTools Program Washington Chapter of the American Society of Landscape
King County Metro Washington Ducks Unlimited
King County Parks and Recreation Division Washington Environmental Council
King County Water and Land Resources Division Washington Recreation and Park Association
Kitsap Conservation District Washington Rivers Conservancy
Kitsap County Extension Washington State Parks Foundation
Kitsap County Parks & Recreation Washington Trail Association
Kitsap County Public Works Washington Water Trust
Kitsap County Transportation Planning Washington Wilderness Coalition
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition
Metro Parks Tacoma Board and Tahoma Audubon
Mountlake Terrace
PUBLIC NGO PRIVATE
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Muckleshoot Tribal Council
Muckleshoot Tribe
National Park Service Pacific West Region - Seattle
Nisqually Tribe
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Pierce Conservation District
Pierce County
Pierce County Extension
Pierce County Parks
Pierce County Planning and Land Services
Port of Seattle
Public Health Seattle and King County
Puget Sound Regional Council
Puget Sound Salmon Commission
Puyallup Tribe
Snohomish Conservation District
Snohomish County
Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services
Snohomish County Extension
Snohomish County Focus on Farming
Snohomish Marine Resources Committee
Snohomish Tribe
Snoqualmie Nation
Sound Transit
Sound Transit, Bicycle Advisory Group
Steilacoom Tribe
Stillaguamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Tulalip Tribe
University of Washington
University of Washington, Department of Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington, Green Futures Lab
University of Washington, Northwest Center for Livable Communities
University of Washington, River Systems Research Group
University of Washington, Runstad Center
University of Washington, School of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Urban Design and Planning
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington Biodiversity Council
Washington Farm Forestry Association
Washington State Association of Counties
Washington State Beef Commission
Washington State Commodity Commission Program
Washington State Conservation Commission
Washington State Department of Commerce
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Division
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Services Office
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
Wildlife Program Staff
22 23
ORGANIZATION PROFILE
shorthand translation
ORG TYPE type of organization
PUB public entity
PRI private organization or corporation PRI private organization or corporation
NGO non-governmental organization
EOGRAPHIC EXTENT geographic extent
CI city
CO county
ST state
WAT watershed (e.g., Cedar River, Skokomish River)
RG regional (e.g.: Puget Sound, Pacific Northwest) RG regional (e.g.: Puget Sound, Pacific Northwest)
TR tribal
NAT national
O other
PRIMARY INTEREST Main research/advocacy interests of organization, and/or specialties of participant within organization
AG agriculture (farming and farmland policy)
ECO ecology, health of terrestrial and aquatic systems
ECON economic development ECON economic development
FISH fishing, fisheries
FOOD food systems, agriculture (farmer-consumer relationships)
FOR forestry
PH public health
PLA planning, policy, management
RE real estate
REC parks and recreation (planning, design, advocacy, preservation)
TR transportation (automobile, multi-modal, transit, bicycle and pedestrian)
UT utilities
YE youth, education, public awareness
ART public art, arts engagment
1.g.
Abbreviations and Categories
1.h.
Outreach and Communication: Brochure
.|t
:::|:
:::\ |::
. :- : . | j :| w:: . ,| : ::. . -,- :| t.. . | : : . :z-| :
t :::.:\
tIt ::.. :.. t:: :::i:I :-:||.- w| t|: xxx,--|.|.-:x::.,|:-.
ROSS Processes and Strategies Anticipated ROSS Products and Outcomes
How can we create regional strategies?
NWCL C
"The ecological resources (including aquatic resources), trails and
recreational facilities, resource lands and other elements of the
region's green infrastructure systems."
Open Space
Project Timeline
Much planning and analysis has been conducted in
our region; the ROSS will incorporate, synthesize,
and summarize existing plans, including:
GreenPrint for King County
The Trust for Public Land, 2005
Vision 2040
Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009
The Cascade Agenda
Cascade Land Conservancy, 2005
BuiIding upon past success
Geographic Scope
As envisioned, the ROSS will include King,
Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties in the Puget
Sound Basin. This summer's efforts will focus on a
portion of the Cedar River watershed as a case study
to identify potential challenges, opportunities, and
participants for the ROSS process.
ROSS
ROSS Partners and Scope
Open space in King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties
2010
Summer Scoping for Cedar River Study
Scoping for 4-County Area
Fall 4-County Funding Proposal
Reach out to organizations and agencies
Engage the public
dentify problems and opportunities
Establish goals, objectives and basic concepts
Overlay the various needs, efforts and ideas
dentify roles for key players
Start with one watershed pilot project
Undertake an ambitious educational program
Seek funding
With the generous support of the Bullitt Foundation,
the Green Futures Lab (GFL) and the Northwest
Center for Livable Communities (NWCLC) of the
UW College of Built Environments are conducting
a scoping study to develop a Regional Open Space
Strategy (ROSS). Through a process of working
together with local and regional partners and
stakeholders, the ROSS will identify measures to
conserve and enhance open space systems that
contribute to the ecological, economic, recreational
and aesthetic vitality of our region.
Key Partners Regional implementation strategies
Graphic mapping analysis of gaps and
opportunities
Establishment of partnerships andcommunication
networks
dentifcation of challenges and pathways to an
integrated open space system
Public awareness of regional goals and strategies
Regi onal Open Space Strategy
2011
Spring Establish 4-County Working
Strategies
Collaborate with Partners Summer
Fall Continue Collaboration with Partners
Public Outreach and Education
2012
Develop and Publish mplementation
Plan
Public Outreach and Education
Winter a conceprua| examp|e ol |nrer-ur|so|cr|ona| open space srrareg, como|n|ng
mu|r|p|e acr|ons ro acn|eve mu|r|p|e ooecr|ves
08-26-20'0
24 25
1.h.
Outreach and Communication: Web Page
1.i.
Case Studies Handout
AUCKLAND, NZ | Regional Open Space Strategy
dates | 2005 (ROSS report published); 2055
geographic scope | Auckland Metro Region
funding mechanism | a goal of the ROSS is to develop a comprehensive summary of funding options
dening open space | parks, beaches and sports elds, along with other public areas: e.g. town
squares, streets and footpaths in urban areas
for more information | www.arc.govt.nz/plans/regional-strategies/regional-open-space-strategy.cfm
SUMMARY
KEY POINTS
Broad vertical and horizontal aspect: national to local analysis + participation
Clearly communicated series of action plans and planning tools
Open space dened and addressed within a series of dening frames: Urban Areas, Coastal Areas,
Rural Areas, and Natural Areas
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
This report has a framework which may prove useful for developing the nal ROSS in a
comprehensive and clear document:
Part One: Outlines the background to the ROSS
Part Two: Legislative and Policy Framework
Part Three: The Regional Open Space Resource
Part Four: Vision for the Regions Open Space Network
Part Five: Action and Implementation Plans
The reports Action Plans and accompanying Implementation Plans provide a useful framework for
creating nested, measurable goals and outcomes. The report includes a comprehensive summary of
how these plans can be integrated with current or proposed central, regional, or local initiatives.
The Action Plans include:
Research and Monitoring
Policy and Guidelines
Partnership
Community Engagement
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPS
The ROSS was developed through a Regional Open Space Forum (ROSF) as a partnership exercise
between:
Auckland Regional Council
7 Territorial Authorities
Department of Conservation
Ministry for the Environment
The further development and implementation of the ROSS includes an expanded list of partners:
Tangata Whenua (Mori people)
NGOs
Community environmental groups
Infrastructure, health, education, and transportation organizations and governmental agencies
Private sector individuals and organizations such as forestry companies, farmers and tourism operators,
operators of recreation facilities such as golf courses, and landowners
ROSS
PORTLAND, OR | Parks 2020 Vision
dates | 1999 (Parks 2020 Vision published); 2009 (Progress Report published); 2020
geographic scope | City of Portland
funding mechanism | Portland Parks and Recreation funds, Portland Parks Foundation
fundraising, bonds, grants, general fund, fees, volunteer recruitment and entrepreneurial projects
dening open space | broad and inclusive of recreation, resource and habitat lands - though
emphasizes access and recreation
for more information | www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=40182
SUMMARY
KEY POINTS
Emphasizes developing community
Successfully integrated many smaller holdings into a coherent park system
Includes a strong evaluation program for grading the performance of implementation and goal
achievement (Published a ten year Progress Report with candid evaluations)
GOALS
The Portland Vision was based on ve central goals, which were later used as key criteria for
evaluating the plan in 2009. These are:
1. Ensure Portlands park and recreation legacy for future generations.
2. Provide a wide variety of park and recreation services and opportunities for all citizens.
3. Preserve, protect and restore Portland natural resources to provide nature in the city.
4. Create an interconnected regional and local system of trails, paths and walks to make Portland
the walking city of the West.
5. Develop parks, recreation facilities and programs that promote community in the city.
CASE STUDY PROFI LES
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Includes ve strategic approaches:
Partnership Strategy: Develop and Maintain effective public and private partnerships
Development Strategy: Design and Build Excellent Parks and Recreation Facilities
Marketing and Communication Strategy: Develop and Implement an Effective Communication Program
Management Strategy: Develop Best Management Practices
Funding Strategy: Provide Stable and Predictable Funding to Realize the 2020 Vision
1. Establishing and safeguarding the parks, natural resources, and urban forests that are the soul of the
city, ensuring that green spaces are accessible to all
2. Developing and maintaining excellent facilities and places for public recreation, building community
through play and relaxation, gathering and solitude
3. Providing and coordinating recreation services and programs that contribute to the health and well
being of residents of all ages and abilities
ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Portland Parks and Recreation
Portland Parks Board
Portland Parks Foundation
26 27
ST LOUIS, MO | Great Rivers Greenway District NASHUA, NH | Regional Open Space Strategy
dates | 2000 (district formed); 2003 (community planning process initiated)
geographic scope | St Louis City, including Saint Louis County and Saint Charles County
funding mechanism | 1/10th of 1 cent sales tax (ensures over 20 million annually)
dening open space | public open space, with an emphasis on parks, greenways and trails
for more information | www.greatrivers.info
SUMMARY
dates | 2005 (ROSS report published)
geographic scope | Nashua Region (Southeastern NH)
funding mechanism | NH Regional Environmental Planning Program (State Dept of Environmental
Services funds), NH Department of Transportation
dening open space | broad denition including working forests, agricultural land, habitat land and
recreational land
for more information | des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/repp/documents/nashua_ros.pdf
SUMMARY
KEY POINTS
Strong coordination between multiple county and city governments
High level of community input and support + popular central project: River Ring
Flexible, strong public image (formerly Metropolitan Park and Recreation District)
KEY POINTS
Uses a broad denition of open space, including working forests, agricultural land, habitat land, as
well as recreational land
The Great Rivers Greenway has a diverse and broad list of partners and collaborators. Categories
include:
Federal Agencies
Governments and Districts
Municipalities
Non-Prots
Parks Departments
State Agencies
Universities
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPS
Board of Directors
Represent Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County
Appointed by the executive of the city or county they represent
Citizen Advisory Committee
Citizens from St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles County
County Executives
Staff
Technical Advisory Committee
Added in 2003
TACs support and advise general operations and specic projects
KEY PROJECTS + PUBLIC INITIATIVES
The River Ring
A concept developed through the community planning process, this is an interconnected system of
greenways, parks and trails that will encircle the St. Louis region and will encompass a 600-mile web
of more than 45 greenways
Bike Tours
Historic Bike Tours
Tales on the Trail
Hike It, Bike It, or Run!
Public Awareness + Education
Poster campaign: Bicycle Public Awareness
Local bike maps
Bike Trail Planning + Design
Street Closings + Festivals
Races + River Cleanups
Webinars + Lectures
ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPS
Nashua Regional Planning Commission
Partnership of twelve municipalities
Regional Resource Conservation Committee
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Continued encouragement of concentrated public infrastructure investment in developed areas
Local open space and recreation plan implementation
Encouragement of private sector open space donations and planning assistance
Creation of a Regional Open Space District
Continued encouragement of inter-municipal cooperation in land protection
Promote public awareness of land protection
WORK PLAN
Task 1. Existing Conditions Analysis
Task 2. Riparian Buffer Analysis
Task 3. Impervious Surface Analysis
Task 4. Build-out Analysis
a. Work Flow Diagram
b. Geographic Extent: Cedar River Watershed Map
c. Geographic Extent: 4 County Map
APPENDIX 2 WORKPLAN + MAPS
d. Workplan Scope and Timeline
28 29
plan
plan
restoration
effort
program
project
etc
PUBLIC GOVTs AGENCIES
NGOs
NGO
NGO
govt
govt
agency
shared tools
evaluation
regional advocacy
programmatic
recommendations
agency
Regional
Projects & Priorities
Institutional
Organization & Communication
Structure
Tools
for Planning & Policy
PRODUCTS
Gaps &
Intersections
Existing Plans &
Programs
1
2
3
4
Identify open space & green
infrastructure efforts in terms of
geography, objectives, and institutional
performance
Present a clear picture of current open
space conditions, identifying gaps &
intersections of activities
Use results to engage broad range of
interests
Through broad participation identify
regional priorities, programmatic activities
& organizational actions that make a
comprehensive regional strategy
S
Y
N
T
H
E
S
I
S
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
Y
2.a.
Work Flow Diagram
2.b.
Geographic Extent: Cedar River Watershed Map
30 31
cities
urban centers
UGA
tribal lands
parks + open space
national park
national forest
agriculture
regional trails
ferry
WRIA
water bodies
county outlines
2.c.
Geographic Extent: 4 County Map
SNOHOMI SH
KI NG
PI ERCE
KI T SAP
2.d.
Workplan Scope and Timeline
Startup
S.I Identify a ROSS Executive Board and Steering Committee members. Executive
Board members would include representation of up to 20 organizations with
missions most central to the ROSS effort. Steering Committee membership
would encompass a broad and inclusive base of organizations active in open
space planning and management (including trails and active living programs),
resource land issues, and environmental protection and management.
S.2 Convene an Executive Board meeting to establish project scope, schedule and
activities, communication procedures, member roles, responsibilities and other
organizational items
S.3 Convene a Steering Committee meeting to discuss those issues noted above
and begin to frame the tasks in Elements I and II.
Element I: Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy
(Note that this would be based on input from a series of special topic
workshops)
I.1 Identify and contact key participants in each of the following areas: environmental
management, recreation and trails, rural and resource lands, and urban and
community development planning.
I.2 Form 4 Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) (mostly composed of members of
the Steering Committee but with additional participants as necessary) to address
each of the four areas. Convene 4 work sessions, one for each of the focus
areas to discuss issues and priorities. Identify types of current regional activities
a methodology to address the challenges in each area. Discuss where a ROSS
might help the effort.
I.3 Analyze the results of the 4 work sessions and analyze the issues associated
with each. Check back with selected participants to rene the issue statements
and develop conceptual solutions to address them. Conduct further research as
needed.
I.4 Meet with the 4 TACs a second time to develop preliminary strategies (programs)
to address the issues of each. Identify connections between the focus areas.
Send results to the Executive Board and Steering Committee.
I.5 Rene and the sketch programs and directions and document in a report that
establishes an overview of the topic areas and directions for working in the
individual watersheds.
I.6 Meet with the Executive Board and members of the 4 TACs to review and rene
the programs and directions.
I.7 Meet with the ROSS Steering Committee to review and ratify or rene the
programs and directions.
SCHEDULE
Element I: Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy
32 33
Element II: Watershed Open Space Strategies
(Note that 7 are needed)
II.A. Synthesis
1. Identify existing plans and key players and planning activities
2. Download existing information on GIS base and identify information gaps.
3. Secure and review current plans
4. Conduct 4 meetings with planners and groups working on open space in
the watershed. The meetings could be groups of players. For example,
municipalities and governments, resource scientists and managers, recreation
advocates, etc.
5. Assemble and combine plans and existing information into a visual synthesis
of existing plans. Analyze the information based on the lessons from the
comprehensive sketch ROSS developed in Element I.
6. Conduct further (up to 5) interviews to follow up on other information. These
might be phone calls or informal discussions.
7. Meet with planners and resource managers (generally those interviewed and
involved above) to review rene the synthesis map. Identify those issues and
opportunities that stand out as well as missing elements. Coordinate with other
watersheds.
8. Revise Synthesis and add narrative information. Review with Executive Board
II.B. Strategy
9. Outreach to interested members of the public and other organizations not
contacted in A, above. Rely on participating groups to inform their constituencies
and associated interests. Work through local governments to provide
comprehensive public information.
10. Conduct a participatory workshop to present synthesis of current conditions,
plans and activities. Identify issues and concerns of participants. Initiate
discussion of possible actions and priorities. Note: it may be necessary to
conduct two workshops in different locations to achieve better participation.
11. Distill input and map, diagram and document early strategy proposals for action.
Prepare proposals for second workshop.
12. Conduct up to 5 additional small group meetings or phone calls to follow up and
rene input from rst open house.
13. Conduct a second workshop(s) to present draft proposals based on public input.
At the workshop(s) rene strategy of proposals and identify priorities.
14. Document results of 2
nd
workshop and prepare watershed based open space
strategy (WOSS). Review with Executive Board
SCHEDULE
Element II: Watershed Open Space Strategies
Element III Implementation
III.1 Integrate the Watershed Open Space Strategies (WOSSes) into a
draft ROSS for Board and Steering Committee review without priorities
and details of implementation measures. Identify potential tools and
pathways for implementation.
III.2 Meet with the Board and Steering Committee to review work of the
watershed synthesis and strategies to review the collective results of
the WOSS work (Draft ROSS). Establish a process for further review,
renement and prioritization. Also begin to consider organizational
management of the ROSS.
III.3 Conduct further meetings with Steering Committee members and other
participants to establish priorities and implementation measures. Where
needed identify costs and funding possibilities
III.4 Meet with the Executive Board to review and establish priorities.
Develop alternate management and custodial methods.
III.5 Rene ROSS to incorporate comments and conduct further research
regarding custodial management and implementation measures
III.6 Present Pre-nal ROSS and management options (what organization, if
any, manages the ROSS and ultimately how the resources are accrued
and allocated) to Board and Steering Committee for consideration.
III.7 Conduct further discussions as necessary. (Perhaps follow-up Board
meetings but also some meetings with prospective implementers)
III.8 Make nal changes to ROSS and circulate draft
III.9 Conduct outreach and dissemination of materials
SCHEDULE
Element III: Implementation
34
Two Year Schedule
Products
End of First Year:
1. Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy
Challenges and opportunties associated with open space protection and
enhancement for recreation, ecological, rural and resouce lands and
community development objectives
General programmatic strategies to pursue in each of the watersheds
2. Two completed Watershed Open Space strategies
End of Second Year
1. Five additional Watershed Open Space Strategies
2. Completed ROSS with:
List of prioritized actions and implementation recommendations
Action program for implementing open space activities including an
organization and coordination structure for pursuing ROSS objectives
Tools for open space enhancement
Visualizations to support an outreach effort.
SCHEDULE
Regional Open Space Strategy