puyallup-white watershed open space strategy

1 WATERSHED OPEN SPACE STRATEGY / PUYALLUP-WHITE

Puyallup-White Watershed Open Space Strategy

CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

May 2014


PUYALLUP-WHITE WATERSHED ADVISORY GROUP (WAG)

Bryan Bowden, National Park ServiceJennifer Arnold, Bonneville Environmental FoundationDennis Canty, American Farmland Trust, Pacific Northwest DirectorRyan Dicks, Pierce County Department of Sustainability, Sustainability Manager Kimberly Freeman, Pierce County, Resource Stewardship SuperintendentJohn Garner, Metro Parks and PC Biodiversity Network, Conservation and Education ManagerAndrew Hayes, WA Department of Natural ResourcesColin Hume, WA Department of Ecology, Watershed Characterization CoordinatorTom Kantz, Pierce County Surface Water ManagementKirk Kirkland, Forever Green Council, Environmental AdvocateKyrstal Kyer, Tahoma Audubon, Executive DirectorRuss Ladley, Puyallup Tribe, Resource Protection ManagerTeresa Lewis, Puyallup River Watershed CouncilRyan Mello, Pierce Conservation District, Executive DirectorJane Moore, Forever Green Council, Executive DirectorTristan Peter-Contesse, Puget Sound Partnership, Puyallup Ecosystem Recovery Coordinator Jordan Rash, Forterra, Conservation DirectorLorin Reinelt, King County River and Floodplain Management, Managing EngineerLeslie Ann Rose, Citizens for a Healthy Bay, Senior Policy AnalystDave Seabrook, Puyallup River Watershed CoalitionMarianne Seifert, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Community LiaisonLisa Spurrier, Pierce County Surface Water Management, Lead Entity CoordinatorJeffrey Thomas, Puyallup Tribe, Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Program DirectorMichelle Tirhi, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Management BiologistRobert Warren, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, Model Watershed Program DirectorSarah Wilcox, Pierce Conservation District, Agricultural Roundtable Coordinator

ROSS LEADERSHIP + STAFF

Nancy Rottle, Green Futures Research and Design Lab, University of Washington, DirectorJohn Owen, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design, LLP, PrincipalJeffrey Raker, Lead Planner, ROSSGinger Daniel, Associate Planner, ROSSRachel Miller, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design, LLP, Associate PlannerJenny Duggan, The Natural Capital Project, Assistant PlannerPeter Booren, GIS Data InternErin Richmond, GIS Data Intern

MAJOR SUPPORTERS

The Russell Family Foundation, Holly Powers, Program OfficerBullitt Foundation, Steve Whitney, Program OfficerNational Park Service, Bryan Bowden

3BACKGROUND REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LAUNCHING THE PUYALLUP-WHITE WOSS _________________________________________________ 5

2 PROJECT OVERVIEW THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY __________________________________ 7

3 PROPOSED ACTIONS ECOSYSTEMS, HEALTH & ACTIVE LIVING, RESOURCE LANDS, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ______ 15

4 GEOGRAPHICALLY LINKED STRATEGIES & VISION _____________________________________________________ 57

A WATERSHED LISTENING TOUR NEEDS THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES + DESIRED OUTCOMES ________________________ 63


List of AbbreviationsBEF Bonneville Environmental FoundationBMA Biodiversity Management AreasCBC Cascade Bicycle ClubCOI Community of InterestDNR Washington State Department of Natural ResourcesESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FFFPP Family Forest Fish Passage ProgramNGO Non-Governmental Organization PCBA Pierce County Biodiversity AlliancePCOSTF Pierce County Open Space Task ForcePCASP Pierce County Agriculture Strategic Plan PCC Puget Consumers Co-OpPCS Preliminary Comprehensive StrategyPDF Purchase of Development RightsPRWC Puyallup River Watershed CouncilPSE Puget Sound EnergyPSRC Puget Sound Regional CouncilPWI Puyallup Watershed InitiativeRCO Washington State Recreation and Conservation OfficeRFP Request for ProposalsROSS Regional Open Space StrategyTAC Technical Advisory CommitteeTDR Transfer of Development RightsTIP Transportation Improvement ProgramTPCHD Tacoma-Pierce County Health DepartmentTRFF The Russell Family FoundationUFC Urban and Community ForestWAG Watershed Advisory GroupWOSS Watershed Open Space StrategyWRIA Puyallup-WhiteWSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

5BACKGROUND REPORT

LAUNCHING THE PUYALLUP-WHITE WATERSHED OPEN SPACE STRATEGYThis report presents the results of the Puyallup-White Watershed Open Space Strategy (WOSS) – an initiative supported by The Russell Family Foundation (TRFF) and staffed by University of Washington’s Green Futures Research & Design Lab. This initiative represents the first of multiple open space conservation strategies to be developed for the Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). These WOSS strategies will identify projects and actions that contribute to the formation of the final integrated regional open space and green infrastructure strategy and therefore merit regional and interjurisdictional efforts and resources. When completed, the WOSSes will be integrated into the ROSS which will inform decisions and increase the effectiveness of efforts to create a robust, diverse, accessible, and connected regional open space system.

The WOSS for the Puyallup-White Watershed was produced through a process led by community representatives that are dedicated to the health of the Puyallup-White watershed and its communities. It builds on previous work such as the 2009 Pierce Open Space Taskforce and Pierce County Biodiversity Network. These leaders convened as a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) that reviewed analytical work, identified priority actions, and recommended a set of priorities for open space acquisition, conservation, enhancement, protection and other measures that merit regional resources and interjurisdictional collaboration.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAP

TER

LAUNCHING THE PUYALLUP-WHITE WOSS

1


The ROSS team and the WAG worked with the “communities of interest” under the leadership of Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) as part of TRFF’s Puyallup Watershed Initiative (PWI). By convening these groups, the WAG can continue to work with local partners to develop a consistent vision and broad consensus among the “communities of interest” regarding shared priorities for open space and green infrastructure enhancements.

Generally speaking, the PWI is investing in local capacity to allow the “Communities of Interest” to determine long-term goals, providing multi-year support to help achieve these goals and pursue targeted local strategies within the watershed, while the ROSS will be identifying those local projects and actions that: 1) require outside assistance and collaboration; and 2) contribute most to the development and function of the inter-watershed, regional open space system.

This WOSS is intended to identify and elevate the most important actions identified among local partners and existing plans that merit regional, state, and national resources. The heightened level of collective prioritization will encourage decision-makers to approve these projects and will provide a rationale for attracting additional resources for open space conservation efforts in the Puyallup-White watershed and across the region. As a public information document, it also demonstrates the importance of a watershed-wide open space system to our livelihoods, health and livability.

The primary finding of the WOSS effort is that there are several measures, which if successfully undertaken, will provide the County’s residents with a stronger, multi-faceted economy, significantly improved recreational and healthy living opportunities, more livable communities, and a more resilient ecology adaptable to the impacts of climate change and a distinct, high-profile identity. But to realize these benefits, local and regional partners must collaborate across jurisdictional and agency boundaries, resolve apparent conflicts, invest in future generations, and work together toward a common vision. This watershed open space strategy provides such vision and, in conjunction with other efforts such as the Communities of Interest work and local projects, is a first step toward that direction.

.

7BACKGROUND REPORT

THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGYThe Puget Sound basin is facing significant ecological and economic pressures, which will be further exacerbated by the increasing intensity of climate change impacts. These stresses affect water quality and supply, fish, farm and forest production, flood and other environmental hazard vulnerability, biodiversity, economic opportunities, and overall quality of life. Additionally, not all of the region’s people equitably share the health, recreational, and aesthetic benefits open spaces provide. It is essential that the region recognizes and supports the value of green infrastructure provided by open space systems, positioning it alongside other foundational investments such as transportation or education as a necessary dedication of public and private resources to shape future development and ensure community well-being. Strategically coordinated action is needed in order to conserve and enhance the regional complex of open spaces on which the people of Puget Sound depend.

The Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy is an effort to address this need and to conserve and enhance open space systems that contribute to the ecological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic vitality of our region. The effectiveness of the numerous ongoing open space efforts (such as the 2009 Pierce Open Space Taskforce) can be greatly enhanced by directing added resources to the most critical priorities, and supporting individual efforts through cooperative approaches to shared challenges. By stitching together current efforts and fostering more effective collaboration among the many activities underway the ROSS will, along with its many partners, create a robust, diverse, accessible, and connected regional open space system.

THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

CHAP

TER

It is essential that the region recognizes and

supports the value of green infrastructure provided by open space systems,

positioning it along other foundational investments

such as transportation and education.


To successfully accomplish this goal, actions must be coordinated at the regional level. Ecological systems, in particular, must be considered at the watershed scale, and protecting threatened rural and resource lands, public health, and community development require inter-jurisdictional solutions.

At the regional scale, the ROSS team will employ ecosystem services identification and valuation as a tool for regional green infrastructure planning, placing an emphasis on a set of key regional challenges: climate change adaptation and mitigation, biodiversity, health, social equity and economic development. The ROSS Open Space Services Committee is developing a methodology for evaluating the benefits that open space provides to the people of our region. By evaluating the open space measures “benefits in terms of human health, economic and community development, ecological resiliency and resource land protection the ROSS will provide information needed to make better public decisions and take more effective action.

The final ROSS will support the following outcomes:

• A set of strategies to achieve an interconnected open space system linking seven watersheds,.

• Watershed and regional scaled GIS analysis and a clearinghouse of GIS data available for future regional planning.

• A strategic list of priority projects and actions that provide regional benefits and will merit regionally based resources.

• A set of prioritization criteria and a methodology for assessing the value of ecosystem services performed by open space systems with a focus on climate change, human health, social equity and economic development. A toolkit will be developed to support future prioritization efforts regionally and serve as a model for others nationally.

• A mobilized regional constituency for open space resources.

• A greater sense of a regional community and an increased capability to address other regional challenges.

These outcomes will directly assist efforts within the Puyallup/White River watershed and Pierce County as open space enhancement efforts continue. Primarily, it will help local leaders secure the resources and collaboration needed to accomplish the larger, more ambitious and interjurisdictional projects that may be beyond the capacity of an individual jurisdiction or organization. Additionally, it will uniform public policy decisions and encourage inter-agency and organization implementation towards common goals.

ROSS PROCESS + WORK PHASESTo develop an open space strategy that addresses regional needs and opportunities and is sufficiently detailed to address local activities and the intricacies of ecological systems, ROSS planning is being pursued both at the regional and watershed scale in four phases depicted in the ROSS process chart on the left.

PHAS

E 3PH

ASE 4

WATERSHED OPEN SPACE STRATEGIES

(WOSS)

REGIONALOPEN SPACE

STRATEGY

PHAS

E 1PH

ASE 2

SCOPING

PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE

STRATEGY(PCS)

STILLAGUAMISH

SNOHOMISH

CEDAR/SAMMAMISH

DUWAMISH/GREEN

PUYALLUP-WHITE

NISQUALLY

KITSAP

9BACKGROUND REPORT

Phase 1 – ScopingThe project began with a scoping process and case study to identify the inter-organizational collaboration, technical methods, time, and resources necessary to complete the ROSS.

Phase 2 – Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy (PCS)In order to provide the ROSS’s fundamental direction, the planning team assembled four Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) of experts in the fields of Ecosystems, Rural and Resource Lands, Urban and Community Development, and Recreation and Trails. Each TAC held a series of meetings to develop vision, values, strategic directions, as well as analytical tools and guiding frameworks for developing the ROSS. These results were assembled into the PCS , which guides ROSS efforts. The final PCS was advanced by the ROSS Executive Committee in August 2012.

Phase 3 – Watershed Open Space Strategies (WOSS)Individual WOSS will be incorporated into the final integrated regional strategy. The workplan for each WOSS is structured to respond to key gaps in current efforts and analysis highlighted by partner organizations in each watershed. This will ensure that the work builds on previous and current activities and advances both local and regional actions across the full array of identified priorities. The Puyallup-White River WOSS is the first of these watershed based efforts.

Phase 4 – Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)Findings from the WOSSes will frame the development of a final integrated regional open space system. The ROSS development will be guided by a set of prioritization criteria applied to the WOSSes that employ an ecosystem services framework, with a specific lens to climate change adaptation and mitigation, biodiversity, human health, social equity, and economic development. The ROSS will be a spatial vision, as well as recommended projects and policies and that can be stewarded by current and future generations.

ROSS & REGIONAL PARTNERSThe ROSS complements and supports PSRC’s Vision 2040, Forterra’s Cascade Agenda, and Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda. The ROSS is working with PSRC to implement Vision 2040 actions calling for the development of a Regional Open Space Strategy to identify, preserve, and enhance significant regional open spaces and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries.

The ROSS is also in direct partnership with other organizations working on major initiatives including the Washington State Department of Ecology watershed characterization, the Mountains to Sound Greenway, as well as county health districts’ efforts to use land use planning as a means to confront health disparities and social equity. The Phase 1 ROSS analysis found that these efforts are largely independently led or technically specific in scope. The ROSS provides a neutral and supportive forum in which these activities can be better coordinated.


PUYALLUP-WHITE WATERSHED OPEN SPACE STRATEGYThe Puyallup-White WOSS is the first of multiple watershed strategies that will comprise input for the regional strategy. Essentially, the WOSS will gather existing plans and recommendations, add new information and data in GIS format and identify those activities and projects where regional support or inter-governmental/inter-organizational collaboration would be useful. At the end of the process, local governments and organizations will have recommendations and public information tools that will help them accomplish their open space objectives – particularly those ambitious projects that warrant regional resources. Those working at the regional scale (e.g. PSRC, Forterra, Futurewise, State & Federal Agencies, etc.) will have the analysis needed to make better decisions regarding funding allocation, regulatory measures and program development.

The WOSS work is being conducted concurrently with The Russell Family Foundation’s Puyallup Watershed Initiative (PWI). These two efforts are complimentary in that the PWI project will explore local priorities to determine where to support efforts that are primarily local projects and programs within the watershed while the ROSS’s intent is to further regional scaled and interjurisdictional efforts. The two projects will maintain close communication throughout the process.

Central to this process is the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) that is made up of leaders and experts working on open space and other activities within the watershed. The WAG played an active role in the analysis of existing conditions, framing the WOSS strategy, formulating the recommendations and establishing watershed scale priorities that evaluated a regional scale prioritization framework in future phases. The planning team engaged the WAG in four work sessions and consulted with members, as appropriate. The WAG also advised the planning team regarding the most effective public outreach and engagement efforts.

Central to the process is a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) made up of leaders and experts working on open space and other activities within the watershed.

PUYALLUP-WHITE WATERSHED OPEN

SPACE STRATEGY

11BACKGROUND REPORT

WAG1

LAUNCHWOSS

AUGUST NOVEMBER

WAG2

REVIEW REPORT, DISCUSS CRITERIA

FOR KEY WOSS PROJECTS +

ACTIONS

FEB

WAG3

REVIEW + AUGMENT

IDEAS/ACTIONS, PROVIDE

DIRECTION, DISCUSS

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

WORK

EVALUATE ACTIONS, DISCUSS

IMPLEMEN-TATION

WAG4

APRSEPT/OCT DEC/JAN MAR

MEE

TIN

GSDE

LIVE

RABL

ESRO

SS S

TAFF

GATHER DATAIdentify existing

planning activities, existing GIS data

across ROSS technical areas

FORM WATERSHED ADVISORY GROUP

(WAG)Identify key

watershed leaders representing all

ROSS Technical Areas across government, NGOs, tribes, etc.

IDENTIFY INITIALNEEDS, THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES

INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS

to better under-stand implications

of data and current plans

SYNTHESISof needs, threats and opportunities

BEGINNING ECOSYSTEM

SERVICESANALYSIS

IDENTIFY PROJECTS +

ACTIONS

REFINE IDEAS/ACTIONS

BACKGROUND+ OPPORTUNITIES

REPORT

PRELIMINARY IDEAS/ACTIONS

REFINED ACTIONS, WOSS

OUTLINE

FINAL (DRAFT)WOSS

JUN/JUL

+

++

PARTIAL BACKGROUND

REPORT

+

DRAFT PUYALLUP-WHITE WOSS: WORKPLAN + TIMELINE2013 2014

KEY FOLLOW UP

++

CONTINUEECOSYSTEM

SERVICESANALYSIS

MAY/JUN

REVIEW WOSS,

DISCUSS HOW TO

MOVE FORWARD

WAG5

JUL

PRODUCE WOSS

+COMPILE

DATA, MAPS


THE PUYALLUP-WHITE RIVER WOSS PROCESSThe process to complete the WOSS is illustrated in the workplan + timeline chart on the following page and consists of the steps below.

• During summer 2013, the ROSS planning team formed the Watershed Advisory Group and conducted preliminary research regarding existing physical conditions. The August WAG meeting #1 introduced the project and participants, presented the proposed work agenda and a partial draft of the Background Report, described the project’s analytical methodology and discussed WAG members’ ideas on how the WOSS can serve their efforts. During Fall 2013 the team gathered data and went on a “Watershed Listening Tour” to learn the physical and planning context of the watershed and to understand the needs, gaps, opportunities and desired outcomes of a WOSS to develop this Background and Opportunities Report.

• At the November WAG session, the planning team presented this report and shared a draft set of criteria and guiding principles with which regionally-scaled priorities will be developed to frame an optimized open space strategy. This will include the ROSS emphasis on ecosystem services, climate change, human health, social equity, and economic development.

• In December 2013, the ROSS planning team conducted an analysis to optimize the needs and opportunities for open space measures based on this set of criteria and begin a preliminary ecosystem services analysis. Because of the comprehensive work already accomplished through a strong background in open space planning as part of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan, the Pierce County Open Space Task Force and the Biodiversity Network, this analysis was expedited. The analysis incorporated other activities such as those from the Puget Sound Partnership and PSRC’s (transportation oriented) bicycle plan.

• In early February, the ROSS team presented an array of potential priority projects and activities at the WAG #3 meeting. WAG members will review and augment the projects and select the priority measures to begin to frame an action strategy which is the core of the WOSS.

• The ROSS team continued to refine these ideas and translate them into actions.

• At the WAG #4 meeting in May 2014, the committee will review the refined projects and actions and begin to envision how to implement these actions. A draft WOSS outline will be reviewed/approved.

• At the final WAG #5 in early Summer, the team will present the Draft WOSS to the committee for final review, discuss how to move forward and identify who will present the WOSS to the ROSS Executive Committee.

• The WOSS will be revisited when developing the full ROSS to adaptively respond to regionally scaled open space priorities that incorporate key findings from ecosystem services identification and valuation and a articulated commitments to climate change mitigation, human health, social equity and economic development.

• When the analytical tools to evaluate the human and environmental benefits of actions proposed in this WOSS are ready, they will be used to help establish priorities and, when appropriate, advocate for funding.

13BACKGROUND REPORT

This WOSS will also serve as a summary of shared priorities that spans the full spectrum of open space interests, including a summary of existing conditions, plans, and other considerations that can be used to address regional and local community needs. By linking to larger scale research initiatives and both state and federal resources, the WOSS provides the County and Puyallup River Watershed Council (PRWC) with an opportunity to pursue the implementation of existing basin, flood hazard management, stormwater management, and other plans and priorities. In addition to PRWC’s and Pierce County’s planning and capital investment, the WOSS process seeks to build on multiple initiatives underway in the watershed by identifying where to target resources based on overlaps in identified needs and opportunities. This includes a full review of the following plans and activities, with support from the WAG.

• Puyallup-White (WRIA 10) Salmon Recovery Plan & Department of Ecology’s Puget Sound Characterization work

• Forterra’s conservation opportunities and priorities in WRIA 10

• PSRC’s regional bike network, County trails plans and the Foothills Rails-to-Trails Coalition priorities

• The 10 Year Pierce Open Space Taskforce priorities

• PSRC’s Growing Transit Communities Program & the Regional Equity Network

• County comprehensive, basin, parks/open space, flood, stormwater, shoreline, and solid waste plans

• Pierce County Biodiversity Network

• Tacoma Pierce County Health Department’s Environmental Health Trends

• The Nature Conservancy’s local conservation priorities

• American Farmland Trust’s evaluation of high quality & high development agricultural lands

• Proposals by WA Department of Natural Resources, National Park Service, & Trust for Public Land

• Other plans relevant to the WOSS


This page intentionally left blank.

15BACKGROUND REPORT

IntroductionThis section describes the proposed actions developed through the WOSS process described earlier. These proposals are the actions that the ROSS team and the Watershed Advisory Group identified as providing substantial regional benefits and also requiring resources outside the local jurisdiction’s ability to fund or interjurisdictional and cross-sectoral collaboration. In upcoming months, the ROSS team will evaluate at least some of the proposals with respect to open space (ecosystem) services. Ultimately they will be input into the regional open space strategy that will identify the highest priority open space protection and enhancement efforts at the regional level.

Some of the proposals are specific open space acquisition or enhancement projects. Others advocate for regulatory, programmatic or institutional measures to better protect and sustainably use resources such as forest and agricultural lands. Still other proposals address the need for better coordination or research on a given topic.

Many of the measures have already been planned or are currently underway. As noted earlier, a key ROSS objective is to support and help coordinate existing open space related projects. While this WOSS is primarily intended as input into the regional strategy, some of the proposals may also provide a more immediate local benefit. For example, some of the measures suggest county comprehensive plan policies and the ROSS team has submitted some ideas to County staff. Other proposals, such as the “Greater Rainier Coalition” can be initiated at a low cost and pursued over time for both local and regional benefit.

3 PROPOSED ACTIONS CH

APTE

R

ECOSYSTEMS, HEALTH & ACTIVE LIVING, RESOURCE LANDS, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


INTRODUCTION As noted in the background section, aquatic systems, including physical processes such as delivery and transport of water, sediment, nutrients and large wood, as well as habit and flood hazard reduction functions are a critical, if not the cornerstone, of Puget Sound’s natural ecology. Aquatic systems are mutually dependent upon the biodiversity characteristics discussed in the other section of the Ecosystems chapter. Aquatic systems are also particularly vulnerable to alteration and impacts because both their natural processes and habitat functions depend on the continuity of the systems of water bodies and their uplands. That is, alterations to one part of the system, such as the watershed’s forested uplands, can impact other parts of the ecosystem, including rural floodplains and marine habitats. For this reason, protection or enhancement of a local river corridor, wetland, or marine nearshore can have a watershed-wide or regional benefit, especially if one considers the depressed levels of many marine species in Puget Sound waters. The actions to protect and improve aquatic systems proposed in this strategy focus on special opportunities that could significantly upgrade conditions within the entire riverine/marine shoreline ecosystem.

The health of aquatic ecosystems, including rivers, streams, lakes and marine waters, depends on the conditions and uses of the uplands and the quality and quantity of the storm water run-off those lands produce. Many stretches of the Puyallup and White Rivers are flanked by productive farm land with productive agricultural activities. While many agricultural activities such as livestock or chemical application too close to the shoreline can cause harm to aquatic systems, farming and ranching as a land use is much less destructive to aquatic functions and habitats than most types of residential or urban development. And, retention of agricultural lands is an objective in its own right. Therefore, proposals to retain agricultural land, especially with sustainable practices compatible with shoreline management, are also very important to the quality of aquatic systems (see proposals EA-1 and RA-1). In the same way, recommendations for forest practices also support the protection and enhancement of aquatic systems and biodiversity (see RF-2).

The health of aquatic ecosystems also depends on the condition of the shoreline edge. Where rivers are constrained with levees, revetments, and other human made structures, their ability to accomplish their natural functions such as moderating flood events and creating habitat is restricted. Proposal EA-2, EA-3, RA-1, and RF-2 all address this important consideration.

ECOSYSTEMS: AQUATIC SYSTEMS

17BACKGROUND REPORT

Tacoma

LakewoodPuyallup

Fife

Sumner

BonneyLake

Buckley

Orting

Milton

Edgewood

AuburnPacific

Eatonville

Wilkeson

Carbonado

South Prairie

Ruston

Enumclaw

512

161

5

16

KING COUNTY

THURSTON COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

Puget Sound

Lake Tapps

Puya

llup R

iver

Carbon River

Green River

White River

LakeSawyer

Greenwater River

Stuc

k Rive

r

MudMountain

Dam

PIERCE COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Aquatic Systems ActionsCities

° 0 5 102.5Miles

Urban Growth Areas

WRIA10

County boundaries

E-A-1. Implement a “Green Heart” for urban Pierce County.

E-A-2. Construct setback levee on (purchased) Union Pacific site.

E-A-3. Establish a program to purchase development rights to riparian corridor lands along the White River.

E-A-4. Purchase Puget Sound Energy lands along the White River between the Muckleshoot Reservation and Buckley.

SOURCESPierce County

Figure 1. Aquatic Systems Proposals


EA-1. CREATE A PLAN FOR A “GREEN HEART” FOR URBAN PIERCE COUNTY ALONG PUYALLUP RIVER FLOODPLAIN SOUTH AND WEST OF INTERSTATE 5DescriptionUndertake a multi-jurisdictional action plan to conserve, enhance and celebrate the shorelines, wetlands and rural lands along the Puyallup River to create a rural/natural “oasis” in the heart of the urbanized Pierce County. The project would also draw attention to the area’s activities and special character so that it is better appreciated by Pierce County residents. Activities and elements might include:

a. Through a public process, create a public “vision” for the area.

b. Review and integrate ongoing activities by the Port, Tribe, etc.

c. Review and upgrade regulatory measures to protect farmlands and undeveloped areas.

d. Identify opportunities for environmental enhancement and recreation measures and pursue opportunities for enhancement such as setback levees.

e. Integrate trail proposals.

f. Develop a multi-jurisdictional action plan to identify and prioritize projects and measures to improve water quality that cross jurisdictional boundaries or enhance individual jurisdiction water quality initiatives.

g. Estimate the cost for a long term implementation program.

This proposed action is to complete a strategic plan for the “Green Heart” that would identify how to implement the above activities. It is a first step in the Lower Puyallup “Green Heart” proposal described in the Geographically Linked Strategy section of this report.

Coordination measuresThe strategy will address ecological, agricultural, recreation and flood hazard management activities, so groups working toward all these objectives should be included. One issue is that some of the agricultural land in this area is planned for setback levees (see EA-2). There is also the question of how much of the roughly 6,000 acres identified by the Agriculture Round Table is in the Green Heart area. The map in the Resource Lands proposals indicates that at least some of the land identified by the Pierce County Open Space Task Force is targeted for agricultural preservation in this area.

Cost and Other Requirements$200,000 for the strategic plan.

Timing2 to 3 years.

ParticipantsActive members would include all applicable jurisdictions and property owners, Tribes, etc., as well as conservation and recreation organizations. Focusing and coordinating activities is at the core of this effort. The Agriculture Roundtable might lead this effort.

Figure 2. The lower Puyallup Valley still retains some agricultural lands and other resources that could provide an excellent ecological resource and multi-use amenity close to Tacoma

Figure 3. A closer view of the lower Puyallup showing a mix of activities and the channelized river

19BACKGROUND REPORT

Figure 4. There still are active places in the proposed “Green Heart” area that offer the opportunity for “City Dwellers” to visit - only minutes from Downtown Tacoma

ProductA multi-jurisdictional action strategy to conserve and enhance the ecological functions, rural character and recreational opportunities of this area.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis area is unique in that it is a rural area mostly surrounded by urban lands. It could be a model for enhancements of rural-urban edge conditions. Water quality and BIBI reports identify degraded conditions for the Puyallup and its tributaries in this area, so water quality enhancement would have a significant impact. Additionally, because of the access from I-5, this area might provide excellent opportunities for agri-tourism. There are already a number of farms with shops and visitor activities.

Ecosystems Services Analysis OpportunitiesIf a sketch plan could be developed during the ROSS process, analysis could be applied to the results of this multi-objective proposal. The scenarios would be:

1. Development to the zoned potential of all lands and no shoreline restoration; and

2. Protection of existing agricultural land and construction of selected setback levees, multi-purpose trail sections and parklands.

This analysis would be especially useful in providing a sense of the project’s benefits.


EA-2. CONSTRUCT SETBACK LEVEES ALONG THE PUYALLUP AND WHITE RIVERSAdvance key proposals for setback levees on the White and Puyallup Rivers (see map). The North Levee Road setback levee just north of I-5 would provide flood risk reduction up to the 200-year level of protection. The Clear Creek Levee would minimize the impact of flooding on the lowlands behind the existing levee while preserving existing farmland and providing intertidal rearing habitat for spring run Chinook salmon. Design and feasibility studies have been completed for the Lynden Golf Course setback levee as a key multi-benefit project with willing land owners at the confluence of the Puyallup and White rivers. Finally, Pierce County has identified the McCutcheon Road & 128th St. E. setback levee as a key project for flood management.

Coordination MeasuresThe N. Levee Rd. and Clear Creek setback levee projects are in the Green Heart area and could be a keystone part of that effort – and the Green “Y” Geographically Linked Strategy. The Tribes may be working on this already.

Cost and Other RequirementsApproximately $218-264 million for the full set of projects prioritized for this area: $150 million for the UP/North Levee Road setback levee, $56 million for Clear Creek Levee, $43 million for the Lynden Golf Course project, and $15 million for the McCutcheon Rd. & 128th St. E. setback levee according to estimates in 2011.

TimingInitial phases over the next 3-4 years can target those projects with feasibility and design efforts underway or complete, willing land owners and public support due to repetitive flood losses, and lower acquisition costs. Signature regional projects might require a 10 year plus investment.

ParticipantsThe Pierce County Flood Control District and Pierce County Surface Water Management are the leads on this effort. Tribes, and conservation NGO’s may also be partners and federal partners such as Army Corps of Engineers will be essential in carrying forward the signature regional projects in this geography.

Product• N. Levee Rd: A setback levee providing approximately 90 acres of intertidal habitat.

• Clear Creek: A setback levee providing approximately 400 acres of floodplain reconnection.

• Linden Golf Course: A setback levee reconnecting 3 to 18 acres of floodplain habitat.

• McCutcheon Rd. & 128th St. E: Setback levee and acquisition of flood prone properties.

Figure 5. Levee setback proposals on the Puyallup and White Rivers. From an evaluation by GeoEngineers

Figure 6. Proposed setback levees on UP property

Figure 7. Close view of UP property looking west showing current channelization and land use

21BACKGROUND REPORT

Regional Benefits or SignificanceIt will be essential to advance this combined set of setback levee projects with respect to proposals from the Pierce County Agriculture Roundtable, local to federal priorities for salmon recovery, recreation trails, and economic development. By facilitating regional attention and investment, implementing this package of proposals can provide multiple watershed and regional scale benefits: flood management, floodplain reconnection, farmland protection and agritourism, low water velocity/high prey habitat that juvenile salmon require for survival, as well as opening opportunities for regional trail connections.

The Clear Creek and N. Levee Rd. projects would provide much needed rearing habitat for spring run Chinook salmon which is critical for their life cycle. The Puyallup estuary once featured thousands of acres of such intertidal rearing habitat, but all but a few restored shorelines have been lost to development. This project would augment current restoration efforts with a unique riverine intertidal habitat. Additionally, if viewing areas and limited public access were provided, it might also be a convenient birding and wildlife observation site for visitors throughout the region.

Ecosystem Services Analysis Opportunities

This proposal offers an excellent opportunity for evaluation of ecosystems services. Two scenarios are:

1. No restoration.

2. Construction of setback levees and restoration of more than 100 acres of intertidal riverine and wetland habitat with supporting shoreline restoration.

Note that the return on Investment Analysis of Flood Risk Management Solutions for Pierce County report by Earth Economics may provide a model for this kind of evaluation – without monetization.


EA-3. ESTABLISH PROGRAM TO PURCHASE RIPARIAN CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF LANDS ALONG THE WHITE RIVER DescriptionIn the 1970’s King County began purchasing properties on either side of the Green River. Over the next several decades, many segments of the river corridor, including substantial forested uplands were purchased so that the ecological functions and biodiversity of much of the river has been protected. The White River provides equally significant aquatic systems and biodiversity resources but most of the land is not in public ownership or otherwise protected. A strategy for protecting the corridor’s ecological functions is needed. This proposal is to develop a long term multi-county strategy for protection the White River corridor, especially the segments upstream from the Muckleshoot Reservation.

Coordination MeasuresThis proposal is directly supported by EA-4. Purchase Puget Sound Energy Lands along the White River between the Muckleshoot Reservation and Buckley and EB-3. Provide Support for Implementation of the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan.

Cost and Other RequirementsEstimating the value of properties or the costs to purchase easements would be a first step in developing a program strategy. The cost of developing a strategy might be $75,000 to $100,000 depending on the amount of overhead support needed. For example, if an established organization or agency department initiated the strategy, the overhead might be less than if a new organization was created

TimingThis is a long term effort but coordination should begin in the near term. Developing a strategy might take one to one and a half years.

ParticipantsThis will require the participation of Pierce and King Counties, applicable municipalities, appropriate Tribes, non-governmental organizations, state agencies, and local land holders. A NGO such as Forterra might lead the project.

ProductA long term strategy to acquire lands or development rights of properties along the White River and its tributaries.

Figure 8. Public land ownership comparison between Green River (upper corridor) and White River (lower corridor)

Figure 9. White River corridor upstream of Sumner. Note that the corridor is still largely forested

Figure 10. Hancock “--Tree Farm” properties purchased by Muckleshoot Tribe in 2013

23BACKGROUND REPORT

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis sub-basin is especially important because of the spring-run Chinook sub-species. The White River Spring Chinook is the only remaining early run population in the South/Central geographic region and must achieve low risk status over time to meet Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) recovery goals. The White River watershed is also very important for fall Chinook, and bull trout, along with the White River Elk herd, one of the 10 formally documented and monitored elk herds in the state.

The Department of Ecology Watershed Characterization analysis rating system indicates “highest potential for restoration and preservation” along this corridor. Additionally, the Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment indicates that this corridor is of high conservation value and is vulnerable to development or other impacts.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesEcosystem Services could be run on two development scenarios:

1. Development of the river corridor under current regulations; that is, determine what could be developed under current land use and forest practices regulations and then assess the impacts to natural systems.

2. Protection of the corridor upstream of the Muckleshoot Reservation.

See also Proposal EA-4 which deals with only one set of properties. It may make sense to analyze EA-4 first and apply the lessons learned to the whole corridor.

Figure 11. Flooding on the Puyallup Jan. 7, 2009 -- Flood hazards mitigation is an important ecosystem service performed by forests, wetlands, some agricultural lands and shoreline ecosystems

Figure 12. The Washington State Department of Ecology has recently posted a preliminary test version an interactive watershed characterization request that describes aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem conductions for Puget Sound. This highly useful tool indicates a high level of terrestrial habitat functions on the White River corridor. The characterization display is at https://test-fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/wc/LandingPage.html


EA-4. PROTECTION OF PUGET SOUND ENERGY LANDS ALONG THE WHITE RIVER BETWEEN THE MUCKLESHOOT RESERVATION AND BUCKLEYDescriptionThis proposal is a first step in the protection of the White River corridor described in EA-4; namely to purchase the development rights or otherwise protect the riverine corridor from the Muckleshoot Reservation to Buckley. This section of the corridor owned by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and is a priority river stretch in the Pierce County Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan.

Cost and Other RequirementsUnknown at this time. Land or easement value should be estimated as part of the strategy developed in EA-3.

TimingWhen available. The PSE land should be pursued in the short term.

ParticipantsPierce and King Counties, Muckleshoot Tribe, NGO’s.

ProductAcquisition of the development rights by the public or the Muckleshoot Tribe of development rights of PSE’s properties between the Muckleshoot Reservation and Buckley.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis sub-basin is especially important because of the spring-run Chinook sub-species. The Department of Ecology Watershed Characterization analysis rating system indicates “highest potential for restoration and preservation” along this corridor. Additionally, the Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment indicates that this corridor is of high conservation value and is vulnerable to development or other impacts.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesEcosystem Services could be run on two development scenarios:

1. Development of PSE land under current land use regulations; that is, determine what could be developed under current land use regulations and then assess the impacts to natural systems.

2. Protection of PSE land.

Figure 13. Puget Sound Energy Properties (shown in red) south of Muckleshoot Reservation

Figure 14. Portion of the PSE Property showing the braided stream channels and forested uplands characteristic of natural river corridors channelization

25BACKGROUND REPORT

BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity is the amount of variety in the number of species within a given area. This section focuses on terrestrial species while the Aquatic Systems section addressed aquatic species. However the two are intimately related and mutually supportive. In this Watershed Open Space Strategy, aquatic systems and biodiversity each have a section primarily because: 1) aquatic systems address other objectives such as flood hazard management; and 2) through the efforts of the Pierce County Biodiversity Alliance (PCBA), an organization of governments, agencies, academic and non-profit organizations, and interested citizens, the County has prepared the Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment, which identifies areas of high biodiversity resources called Biodiversity Management Areas. The PCBA has also prepared Biodiversity Management Plans for the Lower White River and Crescent Valley. These plans document the biodiversity resources, threats to their viability and recommendations to conserve them.

One of the most important intersections of biodiversity and aquatic systems activities is protection of the White River corridor described in EA-3 and EA-4. Both the Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment and the Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment identify portions of this corridor as critical biodiversity resources. And the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan notes that most of the species in that BMA depend on the water environment for part of their life cycles. Additionally, proposals in several other sections contribute to biodiversity objectives; especially those related to agricultural lands (see RA-1) and forestry (see RF-1 and RF-2).

When seen from the air or on an aerial photograph, the watershed appears to feature large tracts of connected forested habitat. However, much of what appears dark green in the photo is not the specific types of Puget Sound lowland habitats that provide much of the region’s biodiversity. In reality, there is only a small fringe of quality lowland habitat remaining, so protection of this last bit of the region’s ecological legacy is critical.


Puget Sound

Lake Tapps

Puya

llup R

iver

Carbon River

Green River

White River

LakeSawyer

Greenwater River

Stuc

k Rive

r

Tacoma

LakewoodPuyallup

Fife Sumner

BonneyLake

Buckley

Orting

Milton

Edgewood

AuburnPacific

Eatonville

Wilkeson

Carbonado

South Prairie

Ruston

Enumclaw5

161

512

16

KING COUNTY

THURSTON COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

PuyallupRiver

Upland

GreenwaterRiver

White River

NisquallyDelta

LowerWhiteRiver

WRIA10

Cities

SOURCES

° 0 5 102.5Miles

County boundaries

2003 Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment

E-B-3. Provide support for the implementation of the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan.

E-B-4. Complete a BMA Stewardship Plan for the Carbon River.

Biodiversity Actions10-YEAR BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AREA PRIORITIES

Note: Would like to add assessment from The Nature Conservancy

Corridors

Connectors

Tacoma corridors

Figure 15. Biodiversity Management Areas Priorities and Proposals

27BACKGROUND REPORT

EB-1. CONDUCT A THREAT ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PIERCE COUNTY BIODIVERSITY NETWORK ASSESSMENTDescription:The Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment identifies 17 Biodiversity Management Areas (BMA’s), 5 of which are in the Puyallup/White watershed. While the importance of these BMA’s has been documented and ground-truthed, the degree to which these areas are threatened by development or other impacts has not been evaluated. This proposal is to complete an analysis to identify which BMA’s are most at risk and where priorities for protection should be assigned.

Coordination MeasuresThe analysis should be coordinated with the work in the Aquatic Systems section (see EA-3 and EA-4).

Cost and Other RequirementsThe analysis might cost in the range of $50 to $100,000.

TimingThis assessment is needed in the short term because it will provide the basis for establishing conservation priorities. An initial target is set to complete the analysis by the end of 2017.

ParticipantsPierce County, the Biodiversity Community of Interest and other leaders that contributed to the Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment with technical assistance from other partners as needed.

ProductAn assessment of threats to identified BMA’s on which to base priorities for conservation.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis assessment will take the work of the Pierce County Biodiversity Alliance further by identifying sites and activities that are regionally significant for biodiversity so that the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife has a model for application and prioritization.

This proposal also incorporates interjurisdictional collaboration between King County and Pierce County to address lands along the White River and the identification of Biodiversity Management Areas initiated is instructional for other counties in the Central Puget Sound.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesWhile an ecosystem services evaluation of the various BMA’s would be useful along with the threat assessment in setting conservation priorities, the threat assessment analysis itself does not provide opportunities for an ecosystem services evaluation.


EB-2. INITIATE AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITYDescription:To many, biodiversity is a desirable but not essential feature. This proposal would prepare information materials describing biodiversity’s human benefits. The materials should be in a variety of media and formats with different pieces aimed at different audiences, especially children and youths.

Coordination MeasuresThis effort should be coordinated with related work in EA-3, EA-4 and RF-2 as well as ecological service evaluation for BMA’s. This action should address public education needs identified in the ROSS Biodiversity Task Force as well as Stewardship Actions for each BMA.

Cost and Other RequirementsThe cost might be $50 to $100,000, depending on the extent of the effort.

TimingThis effort could begin as soon as funding is secured.

ParticipantsThe Pierce County Biodiversity Alliance should be the core entity driving this project forward as it would build on the successful educational and outreach efforts that they have initiated in the past.. The Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment work might also be folded into the project. Also, schools and educational organizations should also be involved.

ProductWorkshops, signage, information packets, and other materials describing the importance of biodiversity and highlighting the value of specific efforts to enhance supporting habitats and ecological integrity. Such an effort should support identified public education needs such as highlighting opportunities for property owners to participate in national programs to certify properties as backyard wildlife sanctuaries, outreach to the private development and real estate sector regarding vegetation removal and earth moving, along with a public educational program coordinating with schools and other organizations.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThe materials will be applicable to all parts of the Central Puget Sound region. This work would support the ROSS Biodiversity Task Force in testing identified public education recommendations at a more localized scale.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesEcosystem service analysis of different habitat types and biodiversity in general would add greatly to this proposal.

Figure 16. PCBA activites during the preparation of the Lower White BMA Stewardship Plan (from the Plan’s Cover)

29BACKGROUND REPORT

EB-3. PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOWER WHITE RIVER BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AREA STEWARDSHIP PLANDescription:Implementation of the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan (Lower White BMA Stewardship Plan).

Coordination MeasuresThe Lower White BMA Stewardship Plan provides a comprehensive set of localized actions that support and are integral to EA-3 and EA-4 (Purchase Riparian Corridor Development Rights of Lands along the White River). The recommendations in the Stewardship Plan all contribute to the White River Geographically Linked Strategy.

Cost and Other RequirementsUnknown.

TimingThis is a long term, multi-phase effort. The Lower White BMA Stewardship Plan includes a phased implementation strategy.

ParticipantsThe core entity to pursue this action is the Pierce County Biodiversity Alliance (PCBA). Recommended actions are identified in the Cities of Auburn, Buckley, Pacific, Sumner, as well as restoration opportunities on properties managed by Muckleshoot Tribe. The initiative will significantly benefit from active involvement from these jurisdictions.

ProductA series of short- and long-term actions to support implementation of needed planning amendments, zoning revisions, acquisitions, land management, restoration activities, surveying/mapping, and community stewardship by engaging local city councils and commissions, organizations and community members in efforts to protect the Lower White River Corridor.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThe Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan (Lower White BMA Stewardship Plan) is instructional for other counties and jurisdictions in the region as they seek to improve incentives, regulations, zoning, conservation priorities, and community stewardship. This approach could serve as a model for other watersheds.

This sub-basin is especially important because of the spring-run Chinook sub-species. The Department of Ecology Watershed Characterization analysis rating system indicates “highest potential for restoration and preservation” along this corridor. Additionally, the Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment indicates that this corridor is of high conservation value and is vulnerable to development or other impacts.

Figure 17. Lower White River BMA (in yellow)

Figure 18. Habitat Resources in the Lower White River BMA

Figure 19. Potentially developable lands along the Lower White River BMA (outlined in red)


Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesEcosystem service analysis for retention of the BMA could provide substantial benefits. The scenarios and methodology would be the same as for EA-4 but would also include any portions of the BMA that are not within the immediate stream corridor.

EB-4. COMPLETE A BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AREA STEWARDSHIP PLAN FOR THE CARBON RIVERDescription:The PCBA indicated that the Carbon River BMA might be the highest priority for additional planning. This plan would be modeled on the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan.

Coordination MeasuresThis effort should be coordinated with work on agricultural and forest lands proposals, most notably RA-1 and RF-2 along with specific connection to proposals identified by the Agriculture and Forest Roundtables and participating organizations.

Cost and Other RequirementsEstimate to be established based on the previous work on the Lower White River BMA Stewardship Plan.

TimingAn initial target of 1-2 years for completion of the Stewardship Plan once funding is available.

ParticipantsThe PCBA would lead this effort.

ProductA Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan for the Carbon River.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis project is instructional for other counties and jurisdictions in the region as the PCBA seeks to advance on regionally significant biodiversity enhancement efforts.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesEcosystems service analysis could be conducted for the BMA to identify the value of biodiversity within that area.

Figure 20. Segment of the Carbon River

31BACKGROUND REPORT

HEALTH, ACTIVE LIVING & RECREATION

INTRODUCTIONThis section addresses open space actions that contribute to peoples ability to recreate and pursue a more active, healthy lifestyle. While active living is best supported by a broad spectrum of open space resources from neighborhood parks to regional trails and wildness areas, the WOSS focuses on regional facilities. Other proposals also have a substantial recreation benefit.

The preponderance of proposals in this section are multipurpose trails to provide links in large multi-county and state-wise trail networks. Such trails provide both transportation and recreational benefits, which expands funding opportunities.

Additonal regional trail connections not covered in the WOSS are to the Cushman Trail in Gig Harbor and the Scott Pierson Trail, which follows Highway 16 and crosses the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Once the two get connected the region will have a trail from downtown Tacoma across the Narrows Bridge and all the way through Gig Harbor to the Kitsap County line.

In order to access RCO funds used within Washington State Department of Transportation Right of Way, trail projects must demonstrate a benefit to motorized transport (including a reduced conflict between modes or reduced VMT) and such an allowance requires an air space lease with a cost based on prevailing land values/rents in the area. Additionally, trail surfaces induce different costs (including variable mitigation requirements). Note: PSRC is applying for TIGR funds to build out the regional bike network with a primary emphasis on non-motorized access to transit centers. There may be an opportunity to inform prioritization discussions at Regional Staff Committee in early Summer 2014.


Tacoma

Lakewood Puyallup

Fife

Sumner

BonneyLake

Buckley

Orting

Milton

Edgewood

AuburnPacific

Eatonville

Wilkeson

Carbonado

South Prairie

Ruston

Enumclaw

UniversityPlace

Gig Harbor

Fircrest

Roy

512

161

5

16

NW Trek

rail corrid

or

Several outdoor recreation venues being developed in this vicinity

Mt Rainier

Increase healthy recreation opportunties in this area

To Cedar River Trail

Existing foothills trail

To Seattle, Mountains to Sound, etc.

Interpretive system for Naches Trail

KING COUNTY

THURSTON COUNTY

LEWIS COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

Recreation & Trails Actions

Cities

KEY REGIONAL LINKS

° 0 5 102.5Miles

Urban Growth Areas

WRIA10

County boundaries

Parks

Existing trails

H-3 South link of cross-state trail to Olympia & south

H-4a Connection to Cedar River Trail via Maple ValleyH-6 Naches Trail interpretive system

H-2 Alder/Elbe/Paradise Trail connecting several recreational improvements by NPS, State, & others

H-1 North segment of cross-state trail (Seattle - Tacoma - Mt. Rainier)

Other open space & recreation activities

H-5 Increased recreational opportunities

Figure 21. Health, active living, and recreation proposals

33BACKGROUND REPORT

H-1. COMPLETE THE SEATTLE-TACOMA-RAINIER LINK OF THE CROSS STATE TRAIL.DescriptionBy completing a few critical links between the Interurban Trail and the Foothills Trail into downtown Tacoma (at Freight house Square) the region could produce a continuous multi-purpose trail between Seattle (and all its connections), Tacoma, Kitsap County and the Foothills Trail. With the extension of the Foothills Trail to Mount Rainier National Park a connection could be provided from two metropolitan cities to Mount Rainier. By filling in a final gap of the Cushman Trail in Gig Harbor, these connections would link in Kitsap County to the regional trail system. Furthermore, these trail connections leverage the existing assets of trails and proposed recreation improvements west of Mount Rainier National Park. All of these links were identified by the Piece County Open Space Task Force (PCOSTF) and are included in the adopted Pierce County Trail Plan.

Coordination measuresCoordination is needed with Puget Sound Regional Council to highlight these linkages as ROSS priorities that align to specific components of the regional bike network. The implementation of these trail linkages will need to be coordinated with setback levee proposals and other land owner and jurisdiction activities to manage access appropriately through the Green Heart (see EA-1 and EA-2).

Since there is a dearth of parks in this area and analysis indicates that most of the missing links are located in an area that has limited access to recreation opportunities, coordinating with parks and open space proposals should be initiated to ensure complementary recreation facility development is coordinated to the trail system if feasible.

The Cascade Bicycle Club (CBC) trail proposals in Left By The Side of The Road: Puget Sound Regional Bicycle Network Study: Assessment & Recommendations (2005), (http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/PugetSoundBikeSystem.pdf), Pages: 14-19 (pass/fail maps of segments), 25 (high priority improvements), and 30 (Signage/Routing of Regional Bike Network). CBC identifies connections into Tacoma from Foothills Trail and up to Interurban as priority corridor improvements. It also highlights long-distance regional bicycle routing supported by signage (Cascade Foothills Route – skirts foothills of the cascades, Rainier Chinook Route – back end of watershed along white into Interurban, Puget Sound Route – encircling Lake Washington and extending south to Olympia connections, and Kitsap Peninsula Route – Tacoma to north end of Kitsap.)

An effort is underway to connect the Interurban Trail through the Town of Pacific, south through Sumner and into Puyallup and the Foothills Trail. Sumner has completed nearly 95% of their trail.

Cost and Other RequirementsUnknown, there are a number of short but critical links to be connected. Additionally, an agreement between King County and PSE must be reached in order to secure permanent access to the Green River Trail.

TimingTo be determined. Initial target should coincide with PSRC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as well as County & City Capital Investment Plans.

Figure 22. Interurban Trail

Figure 23. Southern terminus of the Interurban Trail


ParticipantsPierce County, King County, Washington State, the City of Tacoma, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, PSRC, Metro Parks Tacoma, the Town of Pacific and the National Park Service, Trust for Public Land are appropriate participants. Additionally, Puget Sound Energy, who owns the Interurban Trail ROW, must be involved.

ProductCompleted trail system. Planning is needed as a first step.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis project would provide a critical link through Pierce County in the envisioned cross-state trail and be the premier inter-city trail in the state, if not the Northwest.

H-2. COMPLETE THE FOOTHILLS TRAIL FROM THE CARBON RIVER ENTRANCE OF MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK TO THE RUSTON WAY WATERFRONT IN TACOMA DescriptionThis link takes advantage of trail connections from Freight house Square in downtown Tacoma to Orting and estends these connections toward Lake Kapowsin, Eatonville, Alder, Elbe and the Nisqually entrance to Mount Rainier National Park. The trail would provide access to and a connection between several existing and planned recreation attractions of regional significance, including Northwest Trek, the Peterson Farm, the Pioneer farm, the Mount Tahoma Trail (a hut to hut snowshoe and cross-country ski trail), a planned State Park (in partnership with the Nisqually Tribe that could include a tribal Cultural Center), Alder Lake and UW’s Pack Forest. This link was identified by the Piece County Open Space Task Force (PCOSTF) and is included in the adopted Pierce County Trail Plan.

Coordination MeasuresThis project is mostly in the Nisqually Watershed. With the number of other recreation facilities being developed along this corridor, including land for a state park on the Nisqually and Mashell Rivers, a team should be built to initiate this action. The immediate possibility exists of negotiating an agreement with the City of Tacoma allowing for the development of a trail within the rail corridor right-of-way. This action could be done at very little cost and would secure the right of way for future trail development. Securing trail corridor right-of-way is one of the most difficult tasks in the business of planning and building trails.

This trail proposal is an important supporting action for the Greater Rainier proposal (C-1) and trail planning should address objectives for rural community development and recreation tourism. The City of Eatonville has plans for a trail system between their downtown and the proposed Nisqually State Park.

Cost and Other RequirementsA feasibility study was conducted in 2007 by Parametrix for this ‘Rail-with-Trail’ project with an estimated cost of $72.5 million.

TimingInitial target should coincide with PSRC TIP as well as County & City Capital Investment Plans.

Figure 24. Tacoma-area links

35BACKGROUND REPORT

ParticipantsBecause this trail would provide a regional connection to a number of federal, state, county, local and private attractions it is likely that a team of these interests should participate. The rail corridor is owned by the City of Tacoma. They purchased it in the early 90’s from Weyerhauser with the idea of reestablishing passenger train service from Tacoma to Mount Rainier.

ProductA completed trail

Regional Benefits or SignificanceA completed trail supporting the recreation proposals extending from Mount Rainier National Park (see proposal C-1).

H-3. CREATE A LINK IN THE CROSS STATE TRAIL THROUGH PIERCE COUNTY FROM THE TOWN OF BUCKLEY TO YELM AND EVENTUALLY TO OLYMPIADescriptionThis trail proposal traverses the Nisqually Prairie and it could be called “Prairie Gateway Trail”. The alignment follows the same as identified by the Pierce County Open Space Task Force. From Buckley the trail would connect north to the Cedar River Trail via other existing and proposed trail facilities. From Yelm the trail would connect to the Western-Chehalis Trail that goes to Olympia. While portions of this segment are in the Nisqually Watershed, it is described here as it is integral to the network in the Puyallup/White County and Pierce County would likely be a leader in the implementation.

Coordination MeasuresThis project is mostly in the Nisqually Watershed. Coordination with Thurston County would be a first step.

Cost and Other RequirementsUnknown at this stage.

TimingUndetermined. Preliminary steps in year one could be to link Forever Green Council and Pierce County with agencies and organizations in Thurston County.

ParticipantsBecause this trail would provide a regional connection to a number of federal, state, county, local and private attractions it is likely that a team of these interests should participate.

ProductA completed trail.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThis would be a link in a state wide trail and a connection to the Pacific coast.

Figure 25. Existing section of Foothills Trail

By completing sections of the Foothills Trail and connecting it to King County’s Interurban Trail, the western Puyallup Watershed could become a regional hub for recreational and commuter cycling, linking city centers and recreational attractions.

Figure 26. Section of the Yelm-Tenino Trail


Figure 27. Sections of the cedar River Trail which extends from rural areas around Maple Valley (top) to downtown Renton with connections into Seattle and Bellevue

H-4. CONNECT THE FOOTHILLS TRAIL TO THE CEDAR RIVER TRAIL FROM BUCKLEY TO MAPLE VALLEY DescriptionThis trail proposal would interconnect the existing trail system in the Puyallup-White watershed with key trail connections across the White River and north into the Green-Duwamish.

Coordination MeasuresNegotiations have been underway for several years between King and Pierce Counties, the Town of Buckley, and the City of Enumclaw to develop a pedestrian trail bridge across the White River to link the Foothills Trail to Enumclaw and on to the Cedar River Trail. A viable solution has been developed to utilize a highway bridge in Puyallup that is scheduled for replacement. Finding funding to pay for the cost of relocating and refurbishing this bridge is the final hurdle.

Cost and Other RequirementsA feasibility study for the White River Pedestrian Bridge was conducted in 2006. Cost estimates ranged from $4-6 million for trail and bridge structure alternatives.

TimingKing County’s Capital Improvement Plan indicates that a soft-surface trail connection within direct proximity of the river crossing was complete in 2011 and work is underway to pave the trail.

ParticipantsWSDOT, PSRC, Forever Green Council, City of Enumclaw, City of Buckley, King County, & Pierce County.

ProductA completed trail and pedestrian trail bridge.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceConnecting to the Cedar River Trail would provide an inter-watershed connection between the communities East of Lake Washington in the Green-Duwamish watershed and with Mount Rainier National Park as well as southern linkages to the City of Tacoma via existing and proposed trails in the Puyallup-White watershed.

37BACKGROUND REPORT

H-5. ADDRESS THE DEFICIT OF RECREATIONAL RESOURCES IN THE NORTH PUYALLUP, PACIFIC, MILTON AND LAKE TAPPS VICINITY DescriptionDemographic data analyzed by PSRC suggests that this vicinity has a lower level of health supportive resources. A more detailed analysis of the extent of this need the type of facilities most appropriate would be a first step in addressing any deficits.

Coordination MeasuresBecause the area in question encompasses several jurisdictions and two counties, inter-jurisdictional coordination will be necessary. A first step will be to coordinate with Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) to determine specific needs and opportunities – particularly in connection to proposals for a Health Impact Assessment associated with conservation proposals.

The ROSS Health Task Force will identify recommendations for approaching this topic.

Cost and Other RequirementsUnknown. Estimate of $50-100,000.

Timing1-2 years for report and action strategy development.

ParticipantsPotential leadership through TPCHD, parks planning organizations and agencies at jurisdictions in the vicinity and relevant community organizations.

ProductA report identifying the needs and the most effective measures for meeting those needs as well as an action strategy for taking necessary measures.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThe project area spans several municipalities and county lands, requiring inter-jurisdictional collaboration and provide a model for other such areas in the region.

Figure 28. PSRC’s growing transit communities analysis indicates that people living in the Northwest cover of the watershed have lower access to recreational and other facilities


H-6. DEVELOP AN INTERPRETIVE SYSTEM FOR THE HISTORIC NACHES TRAILDescriptionThe historic (and pre-historic) Naches Trail is unmarked and little known among the general public. However, it was once a well-used alternative spur route from the Oregon Trail between Walla Walla and Tacoma (Fort Steilacoom). An interpretive system for this regionally significant historic feature would call attention to the historic importance of this branch of the Oregon Trail. Stone-pyramid markers are located along Military Road at several locations in Spanaway, the path west of Buckley and Fort Steilacoom park in Lakewood.

Coordination MeasuresThe trail extends from Steilacoom to Walla Walla and additional work to evaluate historic routing, feasibility and signage or other interpretive system needs would need to be developed through collaboration among multiple jurisdictions and organizations.

Cost and Other RequirementsThis work should expand on a 2011 Feasibility Study conducted by the Oregon-California Trails Association. (See Oregon-California Trails Association resources.)

Timing1-2 years to complete a localized feasibility study and action plan.

ParticipantsThe Oregon-California Trails Association could serve as lead along with the National Park Service, other state agencies, VisitRainier, and several municipalities, counties, Tribes, and community/historic advocates.

ProductA localized feasibility study and action plan to develop a variety of features from markers to interpretive stops or web based information. The interpretive system and treatments would be similar to those used on the Oregon and/or Pony Express National Historic Trails. Historic sites within the watershed were coordinated into a tour in 2012.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThe Naches Trail represents a significant part of the state’s and region’s natural and human history. Such an initiative would be instructional to other organizations and agencies seeking to elevate cultural and historic resources and link this work to planning and development for the open space system.

39BACKGROUND REPORT

RESOURCE LANDS WORKING LANDSCAPES

Resource lands and “working landscapes”, including agricultural lands, working forests and certain mining sites, comprise an important component of the regions open space resources. It is important to state at the outset that by identifying these lands as “open space”, there is no intention of diminishing their economic function or value. Quite to the contrary, the objective of this watershed open space strategy is to encourage the long term viability of resource based activities. In addition to the direct economic benefits they produce, agricultural and working forest lands also provide important ecological services and public benefits such as storm water management, flood hazard reduction, wildlife habitat, aesthetic and recreation attractions and carbon sequestration. This section’s proposals acknowledge these benefits and take action to ensure that they are not significantly diminished. Ultimately, this may mean compensating property owners and managers to fairly pay for the public benefits that their lands provide. However, the focus of the proposal is to first see what measures can be taken to conserve the full range of private and public benefits by finding mutually beneficial solutions.


INTRODUCTIONThe Puyallup River Watershed Council (PRWC) Watershed Assessment indicates that between 1950 and 2007, Pierce County experienced a loss of more than 115,000 acres of agriculture land. There is now less than 50,000 acres of agriculture land remaining in Pierce County with approximately 29,000 acres still in production. Nearly 30% of Pierce County’s total agricultural lands are within the Puyallup River watershed. The Bonney Lake-Buckley Plateau has approximately 3,700 acres used for agricultural activities. The Puyallup Valley features 4,900 acres of farmland with some of the richest agricultural soils in the region. It is estimated that within the next ten years about 78% of the land will be sold when older farmers retire. As the Pierce County Agriculture Strategic Plan (PCASP) indicates, strong action is needed to protect the remaining agricultural resources. Other entities, such as the Pierce Conservation District are working hard to improve the viability of local agricultural activities, but as the PCASP notes, successful land conservation will require a coordinated action strategy that includes stronger land use regulations, enhanced tax incentives, an enhanced Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and/or Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, upgraded agricultural infrastructure (food processors, distribution centers, etc.), a coherent County food policy, and other assistance. The proposals in this section either support or are conceptually included in the PCASP, but they also focus on the important role agricultural lands play in the greater network of open space resources, especially their impact on the ecology and the ecosystem services they provide.

Besides the proposals in this section proposal EA-1. Create a Plan for a Green “Y” for Urban Pierce County along Puyallup River Floodplain will help to retain some farm land near Tacoma. This represents a significant opportunity to establish a demonstration farm or initiate other education or agricultural-recreation activities in this area because of the location’s convenient access.

ACTIONS AGRICULTURAL LANDS

41BACKGROUND REPORT

Puget Sound

Lake Tapps

Puya

llup R

iver

Carbon River

Green River

Chester MorseLakeW

hite River

Greenwater River

Stuc

k Rive

rMud

MountainDam

Tacoma

LakewoodPuyallup

Fife Sumner

BonneyLake

Buckley

Orting

Milton

Edgewood

AuburnPacific

Eatonville

Wilkeson

Carbonado

South Prairie

Ruston

Enumclaw

512

161

5

16

KING COUNTY

THURSTON COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Agricultural LandsPriority agricultural land for conservation(from Pierce County Open Space Task Force)Conserved agricultural land

Other agricultural land

Special agricultural soils

Parks

WRIA10

Cities

SOURCES

° 0 5 102.5Miles

County boundaries

Pierce County Open Space Task Force

Figure 29. Agricultural lands


RA-1. INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AQUATIC SYSTEMS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMDescriptionThis proposal is to initiate a comprehensive agricultural lands/aquatic systems enhancement program with an emphasis on addressing the relationship of agricultural lands on aquatic systems. The intent is to integrate with a number of rural land conservation or restoration efforts that mitigate for the impacts of agriculture, identify the ecosystem services they provide and find solutions for protecting those services while maintaining agricultural activities and ensuring that farming and ranching activities are not significantly diminished. A balanced approach is needed to achieve related ecological, economic, and community objectives. This is clearly a complex challenge, and so this proposal is to build on the activities recommended in the PCASP. While the result would be an action strategy, the focus would be on building a consensus for action among all parties and securing political commitment for implementation. Activities and issues would include:

a. Evaluation of ecosystem services provided by the rural lands. (Building on Earth Economics study).

b. Examination of how to leverage existing TDR and PDR programs. According to regional allocations of allowable transferable development rights (RCW 39.108.070), there are 2,614 TDRs and 10,951 acres of agricultural lands in Pierce County.

c. Analysis and recommendations for Riparian edge strategies:

• CREP program.• Regulatory buffers.• Compensatory wetland mitigation strategies that do not take viable agricultural land.

d. Recommendations for upgrading land use and zoning provisions and agricultural land use policies, especially defining the criteria for the Agricultural Resource Land (ARL) classification.

e. Identifying opportunities and hurdles for restoration activities such as set-back levees.

f. Improved management of regulatory hurdles to environmental restoration:

• JARPA process.• Planned action EIS and programmatic permitting for ecological enhancements.

g. Flood hazard management activities (Floodplains by Design).

h. Effects of forest practices.

i. Effects of climate change.

j. Building on these collaborative efforts to take advantage of agri-tourism opportunities. With the watershed’s agricultural land so proximate to urban centers and transportation corridors, it seems that the area provides an excellent opportunity for people to visit working farms and gain a better appreciation for agriculture’s benefits in terms of environmental stewardship, flood hazard reduction and other ecosystem services besides the obvious importance of food production. Proposals EA-1 and C-1 both support this objective.

Figure 30. Agricultural lands in river valleys are ecologically tied to their river corridors

43BACKGROUND REPORT

Coordination MeasuresThere has been a lot of work already accomplished on this topic. Coordination with organizations already engaged will be especially important, particularly as a complement to work underway by The Nature Conservancy and participants on the Agriculture Roundtable. This group of farmland activists, county staff, Farm Bureau, conservation organizations and land trust is implementing the 2006 Pierce County Farm Plan. In a related and overlapping effort, the Russell Foundation convened a “Community of Interest” that outlined six strategies for protecting farmland and improving markets for local farm products. Funding for this ten-year program will start in July 2014. Other open space activities that must be considered include:

• Forest practices regulations and reform (Forest and Fish agreement).

• Flood hazard management activities.

• Other rural lands measures.

Note that this proposal should be integrated into the current activities implementing the PCASP and other organizations such as the Pierce Conservation District. While this watershed based strategy is specifically for the Puyallup/White Watershed, proposal RA-1 might be more effectively accomplished at the county-wide or multi-county strategy.

Cost and Other Requirements$2-500,000. Plus general commitment on the part of Pierce County and King County to implement the findings (i.e. strong interest on the part of Pierce and King County Executives and Council members is needed at the outset). For, example, implementation will take staff efforts over time just to coordinate the activities so decision makers need to know that this will not be just a shelf ornament.

Timing2-3 years.

ParticipantsThe County Executive has made agricultural preservation a priority. A farm advocate/coordinator has been added to the Planning Department. Many parties will be involved in this effort, including the American Farmland Trust, Farm bureau, Forterra, Puget Consumers Co-Op (PCC) Farmland Trust, Pierce County Conservation District and the Audubon Society.

Product• An action strategy for protecting and improving the ecological functions provided by rural lands in

the Puyallup Watershed. (Note that it may be better to include all of Pierce County and affected portions of King County.)

• A tool kit of actions and techniques for implementing the action strategy.

• Supporting scientific and planning analysis through an ecosystem services evaluation.


Regional Benefits or SignificanceMaintaining ecological functions of rural lands is essential to the environmental health and viability of the watershed. As growth and development increases, these lands will be increasingly at risk. An integrated action strategy, with commitment for implementation will be necessary to conserve the most important environmental resources while enhancing opportunities for resource based economic activities. Additionally, this effort could serve as a model for other watersheds (as well as benefit from examples in other watersheds).

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesIt might be valuable to evaluate the ecosystem services provided by all or selected agricultural lands in Pierce County. A case study analysis of a few areas might be the best way to conduct the evaluation (see RA-2). Create a Fund to Purchase the Development Rights of Key Agricultural Lands.

45BACKGROUND REPORT

IntroductionPierce County is blessed with extensive forest lands, including those in National Parks and Forests, other public and Tribal land and private commercial forestry holdings. Most of the private forests are in timber production. In addition to the obvious economic benefits, these forests provide important ecosystem services, including regulating the flow, quality and temperature of water bodies (that greatly reduces flood hazard and supports aquatic species), carbon sequestration, habitat and temperature moderation. The proposals for forest lands directly support aquatic systems and biodiversity objectives. As in the case of agricultural lands, the intent of the proposals for forest lands are intended to protect and enhance these ecological functions as well a ensure a sustainable and vibrant timber industry.

FOREST LANDS


Figure 31. Forest Land Ownership

47BACKGROUND REPORT

RF-1. FACILITATE AN INTERAGENCY FOREST MANAGEMENT STRATEGYDescriptionForest management is a complex, multi-faceted subject involving a number of activities, agencies, regulations, and players as well as difficult technical issues. Participants representing a broad spectrum of organizations and interests have met recently to share perspectives and identify common issues. From discussions in these meetings, it is clear that forest management practices could benefit, both in terms of resource sustainability and economic production, from a more comprehensive and consistent approach to forest practices. Such an approach might include:

• Greater consistency between Federal, State and local regulations.

• Better monitoring and enforcement.

• Integration of stormwater management efforts.

• Coordination between local land use regulations and forest practice standards.

• Addressing the impacts of forest conversion.

• Application of new science and best practice techniques.

• Education and awareness regarding the effects of forest management on human activities and environmental conditions.

• Addressing the full range of forest practice geographies from the “lower urban” to the “mid-rural” and “upper forested” settings.

This proposal is to support the process to comprehensively address the above concerns with some technical and staff assistance to organize and facilitate the process. Such a process has begun in the Forest Roundtable, and this might be the embryo around which to build the effort. Detailed issues to be examined include:

• Service roads.

• Critical area protection in forests.

• Loss of riparian vegetation.

• Cultural and spiritual access.

• Scientific research needs.

• Small property owner concerns.

• Harvesting on wetlands.

• Replanting.

• Sediment Management (run-off from timber harvesting impacting streams/rivers).

Figure 32. Typical conditions in forested areas along the Puyallup River

Figure 33. Typical conditions in forested areas along the Puyallup River


Coordination MeasuresIt will be important to coordinate this effort with the Forest Roundtable/Community of Interest efforts. That organization is working on a series of proposals and they may take the lead or play a major role in coordinating forest practices measures.

This comprehensive and non-geographically specific proposal will support a number of other proposals, and is a critical keystone effort for maintaining aquatic systems and biodiversity.

According to regional allocations (RCW 39.108.070), there is 230,507 sending area acreage and 5,371 allowable TDRs in Pierce County. This includes 2,757 TDRs and 219,556 sending area acres for forest lands.

Cost and Other RequirementsThe cost would need to be ascertained after a careful scoping of the process.

TimingThe work should build on current activities.

ParticipantsForest Roundtable participants plus others. Note that this might be a multi-county activity because many of the issues extend to all the region’s watersheds. On the other hand, it may be more effective to keep the discussion local and then use it as a model for regional discussions.

ProductAn action strategy for a more consistent and integrated approach for forest resource management.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceIf the envisioned strategy were implemented, the effects would provide a regionally significant improvement in forested ecosystems and more efficient administrative procedures. Additionally, the process could be a model for other watersheds or an integrated region-wide effort.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesAn analysis identifying the general ecosystem services provided by different forest conditions would be very useful in advocating for more sustainable practices. Scenarios might compare different forest types, different terrains, forests at different ages, etc.

49BACKGROUND REPORT

RF-2. SUPPORT COMMUNITY TRUST FOREST EFFORTS THROUGH AN IMPLEMENTATION STUDYDescription:Note that this proposal was taken largely from Forest Round Table meeting on November 19, 2013. Further communication with the Community of Interests (COI) team is needed.

The Washington legislature passed a bill in 2011 that allows the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to partner with the local governments and residents to transfer problematic state trust lands into a community forest status, where a community board would partner with DNR to make management decisions that integrate commercial forest objectives and other social and ecological objectives, such as recreational access and wildlife habitat. The program was originally envisioned as a program to transfer problematic state trust lands into community forest status, but DNR is now considering expanding the scope of the program to potentially include newly acquired lands not already in state trust land status. DNR is working on a new strategic plan, in which they are considering their responsibility for retention of working forestlands.

There are a number of unknowns – Who would own the land? Who would manage it? What would the minimum size parcels be and what would be the minimum level of economic production to make a community forest feasible? How would these expectations change if private investors were involved? DNR has an open request for proposals (RFP) to create a community forest trust, but the timing seems to close. They will have another open RFP in two years.

This proposal is to gather the information necessary and facilitate the activities necessary to identify a “path forward” for creating community forests. Work would include working directly with DNR regarding their strategic plan, identifying a case study as a model, and determining the basic parameters for establishing and maintaining community forests. Such a model might allow for direct purchase of available forest land by entities other than DNR.

Coordination MeasuresThe Forest Roundtable has identified phased objectives and activities that are needed to develop a Community Forest Trust in the Puyallup River watershed.

This proposal is only one part of a multi-dimensional sustainable forestry strategy and might be include as part of RF-1.

Cost and Other Requirements$50 to $150,000. For the organizational and technical tasks to conduct the study.

Timing2016.

ParticipantsThis effort would be advanced by Members of the Forest Round table, DNR, and other applicable state agencies.

Product

Figure 34. Volunteers sand bag the Puyallup River Shoreline near Sumner; Forest practices can have a substantial effect on downstream flooding and water quality


An action program for creating a community forest under the new DNR strategy procedures.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceThe results of this study might be useful throughout the region.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesA generalized ecosystem services analysis for Puget Sound forests would be useful in determining the public benefit from potential community forests. More useful would be an analytical tool for evaluating ecosystem services for a specific forested property.

RF-3. INITIATE AN INTERJURISDICTIONAL AND CROSS-SECTORIAL APPROACH TO URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENTDescription:Urban forestry can be an effective means to increase the ecological performance of urban areas and can contribute to climate change, community development and human health objectives. However, an effective urban forest management program requires technical expertise and sustained effort that not all local governments can afford. An interjurisdictional entity that combines (perhaps a “tree maintenance district” or inter-jurisdictional service such as the Sno-Isle library system) resources from local governments might be an effective way to provide urban forest management services that would otherwise be outside the capabilities of local governments. Additionally, such an entity could acquire and leverage other resources, such as the current USFS/DNR Urban and Community Forest (UCF) Program, the Evergreen Communities Program, Tree City USA Program grants and WSU extension services.

This proposal would build on, rather than replace existing programs such as those being accomplished by the individual municipalities and current state and federal assistance programs. One benefit might be a more efficient and comprehensive monitoring program. Also, the study might look at measures to reuse and extract more economic benefit from urban trees that have been removed.

Coordination MeasuresThis proposal is basically a coordinating action undertaken by local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of providing arborist and tree maintenance services.

Cost and Other Requirements$20 to $40,000. For facilitating the inter-governmental discussions and developing an action plan with an agreement.

TimingThis could begin any time. It might take 1 to 3 years for the agreement to be prepared and adopted.

ParticipantsForterra and Pierce County and local municipalities, particularly those in the northwest portions of the watershed. Also WA DNR, the USFS, and the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force.

Figure 35. Urban forestry practices in a new neighborhood with street trees, greenbelt (at left), and protected stream vegetation

51BACKGROUND REPORT

INTRODUCTIONBesides providing direct economic benefits through the production of timber and agricultural products, open space supports community and economic development in at least two ways. First, and most obviously, parks and open spaces greatly enhance a community’s livability. While this watershed open space strategy focuses on regionally significant efforts, it acknowledges and supports local efforts to enhance parks, trails, shorelines, greenswards and other open space resources. Secondly, regional recreational open spaces can provide substantial economic benefits to local communities. In its 2010 Conservation Economics Study, the Trust for Public Land found that active outdoor recreation contributes over $8.5 billion in annual retail sales and about $650 million in retail tax revenue. Statewide, active outdoor recreation in Washington state supports 115,000 jobs. In their November 10, 2013 article in the Seattle Times former Congressman Norm Dicks and former Governor Dan Evans noted that for each day Mount Rainier National Park was closed, Washington State lost an average of more than $90,000 in tourism revenue. A Seattle Chamber of Commerce 2011 survey of its organization’s members found that a majority of Puget Sound area businesses ranked our region’s quality of life and environmental surroundings as top assets for retaining quality staff.

The one proposal in this section builds on the economic potential found in the watershed’s extensive wild lands and recreational resources and leverages several other proposals listed under Coordination Measures below.

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Tacoma

LakewoodPuyallup

Fife

Sumner

BonneyLake

Buckley

Orting

Milton

Edgewood

AuburnPacific

Eatonville

Wilkeson

Carbonado

South Prairie

Ruston

Enumclaw

University PlaceFircrest

512

161

5

16

NW Trek

rail corrid

or

Trail to Olympia & Tenino

Planned Nisqually State Park

UW Pack Forest Scenic corridor

purchase by Nisqually Land Trust

Pioneer Farm Peterson Farm

800 acre park expansion NPS/County

Tahoma Trails hut to hut snowshoe trail

Mt Rainier National Park

Existing Interurban Trail to Seattle, Mountains to Sound Trail, etc.

KING COUNTY

THURSTON COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Puget Sound

Lake Tapps

Puya

llup R

iver

Carbon River

Green River

White River

LakeSawyer

Greenwater River

Stuc

k Rive

r

MudMountain

Dam

Mt Rainier National Park

Cities

° 0 5 102.5Miles

Urban Growth Areas

WRIA10

County boundariesOther parks

National or State forests

Proposed Greater Rainier Conservation & Recreation Initiative - general area

Major regional trails

Private forests

Figure 36. Community Development

53BACKGROUND REPORT

C-5. ESTABLISH A “GREATER RAINIER” (OR “MOTHER MOUNTAIN”) COALITION TO COORDINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL EFFORTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARKDescriptionThis proposal is the formation of a coalition of involved jurisdictions, tribes, agencies and non-governmental organizations as well as affected communities and private recreational attractions. This coalition would further resource enhancement and recreational development in the Puyallup and Nisqually Watersheds and weave the numerous governmental, organizational and private efforts into a reinforcing strategy. Ultimately it would help enhance the edges around the National Park, protect the areas rich ecological resources and elevate the identity of the area as a nationally significant multi-functional recreational destination. Given the sensitive nature of the ecological resources, the area’s recreational activities might focus on ecotourism. However, cyclists, motorcyclists and others already enjoy the area so that any plan for the area should focus on both recreation and conservation. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition is an example of what can be accomplished through such a collaborative effort. Such a coalition might have three objectives:

• Strengthen the tourist and recreational economy in rural communities by:• Building on VisitRainier web based marketing• Assisting local communities in economic development activities • Connecting attractions with trails• Adding visitors activities• Enhancing the setting

• Support working farms and forests by:• Protecting agricultural land and other activities per the Pierce County Farm Plan

and the Agriculture Roundtable efforts• Taking action to achieve sustainable forestry and increase small mill operations• Supporting agri-tourism and local food processing• Informing the public regarding the importance of these economic sectors

• Conserve economic and ecological resources by:• Coordinating agency and government forest management practices for greater

efficiency• Enhancing a “Green Heart” of agricultural lands and productive streams in the

center of Pierce County’s urbanizing communities• Protecting key river corridors as both economic and ecological resources.

Figure 37. Greater Yellowstone Coalition map has helped to enhance that area’s economic development as well as protect natural resources

Figure 38. Fishing on Lake Kapowsin


The first step would be to organize the coalition and formulate a collective vision, identify goals and objectives, and begin to create a list of collaborative activities to achieve those objectives. It may be that an existing organization could manage this effort, as there are a number of active groups working in the area. First steps in that regard might include:

1. Conduct a coordinating symposium with the Russell Family Foundation Communities of Interest.

2. Acquire seed funding and hire a project manager.

3. Engage partners such as,: VisitRainier, PSRC EDD, Tacoma Convention and Visitors Bureau, US EDA, applicable governments and local communities, WA Dept. of Commerce, etc.

4. With partners, develop an action plan and identify sustaining funding.

The project should include the Nisqually Watershed to incorporate the unique and valuable prairie habitats, because many of the recreation attractions and conservation efforts are actually in that watershed.

Coordination MeasuresThis proposal builds on and supports a number of other proposals including:

EB-1. Conduct a Threat Assessment of Biodiversity Management Areas identified in the Pierce County Biodiversity Assessment.

EB-2. Initiate an Educational Program Stressing the Importance of Biodiversity.

EB-3. Provide Support for Implementation of the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan.

EB-4. Complete a Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan for the Carbon River.

H-2. Create a Trail from the Foothills Trail to the Mount Rainier National Park’s Western Entrance.

H-3. Create a Link in the Cross State Trail through Pierce County from the Town of Buckley to Yelm and eventually to Olympia.

H-5. Connect the Foothills Trail to the Cedar River Trail from Buckley to Maple Valley.

H-6. Develop an interpretive System for the Historic Naches Trail.

RA-1. Initiate a Comprehensive Agricultural Lands and Aquatic Systems Enhancement Program.

RF-1. Facilitate an Interagency Forest Management Strategy.

RF-2. Support Community Trust Forest Efforts through an Implementation Study.

Figure 39. This effort should be considered an economic development program for local communities in the southern Pierce of Northern Thurston Counties

Figure 40. The area is already a popular touring destination

Figure 41. This proposal would enhance ecosystems on the National Park’s perimeter

55BACKGROUND REPORT

Figure 42. There are several recreational and cultural attractions in the area

Cost and Other RequirementsIdeally, this program might be run by one or two full time employees with supporting resources; perhaps $60,000 to $100,000 per year. Or, this project might be managed by an existing organization for a lesser cost. The idea is that the program would be self-supporting in that it would generate additional revenue for businesses and governments.

TimingProject organization could start in the short term. Organizing the group and developing a vision and list of objectives might be a good first year goal.

ParticipantsThis would involve an alliance of local governments, state and federal agencies, and business, recreation, conservation and community interests.

ProductThe first milestone would be an action plan identifying objectives, activities and means of providing resources. Ultimately, the proposal is for an ongoing series of activities to enhance and promote local recreational and ecological resources.

Regional Benefits or SignificanceAnchored by Mount Rainier and including several attractions this area is already one of the region’s richest outdoor recreation destinations. However, because it lacks a cohesive identity, it is relatively unknown outside Pierce County. At the same time, uncoordinated development could degrade the area’s environmental and aesthetic assets. A strategic set of conservation, marketing and economic development measures could boost the economy of the County’s rural commutes, elevate this area as a regional recreational resource and support additional conservation efforts.

Ecosystem Services Analysis OpportunitiesIf a better definition of the potential efforts, resources and developments could be identified, then the ecoservices analysis could be quite interesting, as it would include significant economic benefit to local communities as well as environmental enhancements.

57BACKGROUND REPORT

4 GEOGRAPHICALLY LINKED STRATEGIES & VISION CH

APTE

R

INTRODUCTIONMany of the proposed actions cluster around specific geographies and are mutually reinforcing. If properly integrated into comprehensive strategies, they could have a transformative effect on the watershed’s ecology, economy and livability.

• Combining trail and recreational development, shoreline restoration, and agricultural land conservation in the lower Puyallup river Valley would create a Green “Y” for urbanized Pierce County. This Green “Y” would provide breathing space, recreational opportunities and community definition for the surrounding communities.

• Protection and enhancement of the forested lands along the White River and its tributaries would conserve one of the region’s most ecologically important corridors.

• A collaborative program of public and private conservation/recreational development efforts would build on Mount Rainier National Park and nearby recreational activities to create an outdoor recreation area destination of regional if not national, stature.

These three strategies are outlined below. One unexpected finding of this work is that several of the proposals are mutually supporting and cluster in the specific geographic areas identified in the next section, Toward an Integrated Strategy. This conclusion tends to support one of the ROSS’s assumptions – that is: Greater benefits can be achieved by actions that are coordinated into an integrated strategy than can be achieved by isolated efforts.


Federal Way

Tacoma

AuburnAlgona

PacificMilton

Fife Edgewood

Sumner

Puyallup Bonney LakeEnumclaw

Buckley

South Prairie

Orting Wilkeson

Carbonado

Wa. Dept. of Ecology, GIS Technical Services 02/26/02 Land Use/Land Cover lc10a

Puyallup/White Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) #10

0 3 6

Miles

Geographically Linked Strategies

WRIA10

GENERALIZED AREAS

Lower Puyallup Green Core

White River Corridor

Greater Rainier Conservation and Recreation Initiative

Lower Puyallup Green Core

Greater Rainier Conservation and Recreation Initiatives

White River Corridor

Figure 43. Geographically Linked Strategies

59BACKGROUND REPORT

The Lower Puyallup Green CoreThe Green Core strategy seeks to retain the lower Puyallup Valley’s remaining agricultural activities, improve the river’s ecological functions connect regional bicycle trails and enhance the area’s open, “semi-rural” character. Creating a multifaceted open space resource in the center of Pierce County’s urbanizing communities will do more than add a regionally unique amenity and protect some of its richest farmland, it will provide a unifying landscape feature that will shape the larger pattern of urbanization. By constraining urban growth in this central area, each of the surrounding communities will be more able to keep their distinct identities instead of being subsumed in homogenous sprawl. The Green Core strategy integrates the following proposals:

EA-1. Create a plan for a Green Core for urban Pierce County along the Puyallup River floodplain. This is the first step in actually achieving the organized cluster of open space resources.

EA-2. Construct setback levees along the Puyallup and White Rivers. This is a critical ecological improvement which could foster other enhancements.

H-1. Complete the Seattle-Tacoma-Rainier link of the Cross State Trail. Several critical trail connection occur in this area and constructing the missing links would make this section an enjoyable trail for a quick family outing but also greatly increase access for Northern Pierce-Southern King County commuters.

RA-1. Initiate a comprehensive agricultural lands and aquatic systems enhancement program. This is essentially a team building effort to address fundamental concerns regarding agricultural land conservation while improving habitat. At a minimum, it should identify those key regulatory and acquisition measures are needed to prevent further loss of farmland and to reduce flood hazards.


The White River CorridorAs noted in several places within this document, the White River and its tributaries is a particularly valuable river corridor and is not sufficiently protected from intrusive development. This strategy focuses on that threat/opportunity and integrates the following proposals:

EA-3. Establish a program to purchase the development rights of riparian corridor properties. This activity would initiate a long term effort that might take decades.

EA-4. Purchase Puget Sound Energy Lands along the White River between the Muckleshoot Reservation and Buckley. This purchase would be an appropriate first step in the program proposed by EA-3.

EB-3. Provide support for implementation of the Lower White River Biodiversity Management Area Stewardship Plan. The plan features a number of activities.

EB-1. Conduct a threat evaluation of Biodiversity Management Areas identified in the Pierce County Biodiversity Assessment. This would allow an alliance of interested parties to focus resources toward lands that are most at risk.

H-4. Connect the Foothills Trail to the Cedar River Trail from Buckley to Maple Valley. While this is not an environmental enhancement, it would increase recreational access to this part of the watershed and perhaps foster an appreciation for its assets.

RF-1. Facilitate an interagency forest management strategy. Sustainable forest management practices on both public and private lands is essential to protecting the ecological functions of this river corridor.

61BACKGROUND REPORT

The Greater Rainier (Mother Mountain) Conservation and Recreation InitiativeMount Rainier’s western foothills and the prairies to the west have the potential to become (along with the National Park itself) a premier outdoor recreation attraction if the area’s natural ecology is conserved and public and private recreational development and conservation activities can be coordinated into an effective strategy. The regionally based activities that could support this effort include:

C-1. Establish a “Greater Rainier” (or “Mother Mountain”) Coalition to Coordinate the Environmental and Recreational Efforts on the West Side of Mount Rainier National Park. This, of course is the necessary first step in this strategy.

EB-4. Complete a Biodiversity Stewardship Plan for the Carbon River. An important step in conserving this critical river corridor would be a plan similar to the one prepared for the White River.

H-2. Create a multi-purpose trail from the current terminus of the foothills trail tithe the Mount Rainier National Park entrance. Although it will be difficult to implement, this trail would link a number of recreational attractions and do much to connect the area, both in physical and perceptual terms.

RF-1. Facilitate an interagency forest management strategy. Sustainable forest management practices on both public and private lands is also essential to maintaining the ecological and aesthetic qualities of this area.

RF-2. Support community trust forest efforts through an implementation study. As noted in the proposal description, a study is a necessary first step, but ultimately this area may be provide excellent opportunities for Community Trust forests.


A Vision for the FutureWhat will open space systems be like in, say, 20 years? More to the point how will they help make local communities and the region more healthy and livable? Will they provide essential ecosystem services such as flood reduction, climate change adaptation, and maintenance of water quality? Will there still be the farms and forests to support a robust resource based economic sector with family wage jobs? And when families go for a ride in the country (perhaps on bikes), will there still be rural areas and forests for them to visit?

The answer lies in the action we take in the next decade or so. Much depends on local efforts to restore shorelines, develop parks, establish appropriate regulations and accomplish other public and private measures. But if the watershed’s ecology is to be really conserved and enhanced, recreational opportunities connected and the economic benefits of open spaces realized, then there are a few larger, comprehensive and regionally scaled actions that we must take. And, the results of these efforts could provide priceless benefits for the County’s residents, a stronger, multi-faceted economy, a more resilient ecology adaptable to the impacts of climate change and a distinct, high-profile identity. Some of the most obvious benefits would include:

• Healthier rivers and shorelines that provide a reduction of flood damage worth millions of dollars, a viable salmon population, enhanced biodiversity and increased recreational opportunities.

• A viable agricultural economy, conserving the region’s richest farmlands which, in turn support a variety of agriculture based industries.

• Sustainable forests that provide continuous employment for loggers, and mill and forest products workers.

• A trail that connects Downtown Tacoma with Mount Rainier, the Kitsap Peninsula, Downtown Seattle, and the Mountains to Sound Greenway all the way to Ellensburg – and one day serve as a pivotal link in a cross-state trail.

• A Green Core of agricultural lands, accessible shorelines, regional trail connections and recreation resources in the heart of urbanized Pierce County – a unique and exemplary resource for the nation, if not the world.

• An international recreation attraction focused on Mount Rainier National Park but also encompassing numerous other unique recreational attractions, special events, inviting communities, and opportunities to support working farms and forest-based activities, all within a stunning rural and wilderness setting.

What would other places across the country give for such opportunities? But to realize these benefits, we must collaborate across jurisdictional and agency boundaries, resolve apparent conflicts, invest in future generations, and work together toward this vision.

63BACKGROUND REPORT

Next StepsMany of the proposals contained in the Puyallup-White Watershed Open Space Strategy (WOSS) are already being advanced by active local partners. Over the next year, the ROSS Team will support these efforts by improving our understanding of the impact of the proposals, evaluating how the proposals support the region in responding to key regional challenges, and orienting funding and decision-making to advance such proposals.

The ROSS Ecosystem Services Committee will be assessing the WOSS proposals for their impact on a broad set of regional priorities as well as their ability to address five key regional challenges: biodiversity management, climate mitigation and adaptation, economic development, human health, and social justice and equity. This will involve working with students and researchers at the University of Washington as well as other partner institutions to highlight the specific benefits and services that can be saved or acquired by acting on these proposals.

The ROSS Governance and Finance Committee will be exploring opportunities to elevate these activities among state and federal partners as compelling packages of investment that benefit the region as well as identifying how the ROSS approach can be embedded into how the region makes its decisions regarding investments in conservation and green infrastructure.

As work proceeds in other watersheds, the ROSS team will be building a constituency across the region to elevate these and other local proposals for regional attention and investment. The Puyallup-White WOSS serves as an early model for what can be achieved across the region.

65BACKGROUND REPORT

A WATERSHED LISTENING TOUR

APPE

ND

IX

INTRODUCTIONThroughout the months of September and October 2013, ROSS leadership and staff initiated a Watershed Listening Tour to learn directly from the experts who have been working on various open space issues for years, often decades, in order to draw out pertinent information from the many published reports and plans put forth in various technical areas across the watershed. Many of these experts serve on the Watershed Advisory Group and others were engaged to ensure a full range of opinions and visions for the Puyallup-White. In an effort to understand multiple opinions of various initiatives, the ROSS team also arranged for and participated in gatherings with multiple experts at the same table to begin to understand overlaps, conflicts and opportunities that exist in the watershed that could support the optimization of open space investments.

While the WOSS/ROSS process is committed to addressing barriers between technical areas, this listening tour was dedicated to learning about key priorities within individual interest areas in order to build competency and perspective. In the next phases of the WOSS and ROSS process, these interests will be connected to preliminary criteria to identify regionally significant endeavors and combined into proposals that knit together these key topical interests in order to layer and multiply open space benefits.

NEEDS THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES + DESIRED OUTCOMES


TECHNICAL AREAS + EXPERTSThe ROSS team is gathering knowledge from experts around the following open space interests:

Aquatic SystemsMultiple Puyallup Watershed Initiative Communities of Interest in formative stages (To be engaged)Leslie Ann Rose (Citizens for a Healthy Bay)Lorin Reinelt (King County Flood Center + Pierce County Surface Water Management - Previous)Teresa Lewis (Pierce County Surface Water Management + Puyallup River Watershed Council)Tom Kantz (Pierce County Surface Water Management)Russ Ladley (Puyallup Tribe)

Biodiversity + HabitatPuyallup Watershed Initiative Biodiversity Community of InterestJordan Rash (Forterra)Michelle Tirhi (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife)John Garner (Point Defiance Zoo)

AgriculturePuyallup Watershed Initiative Agriculture RoundtableSarah Wilcox (Pierce Conservation District)Dennis Canty (American Farmland Trust)

Forest LandsPuyallup Watershed Initiative Forest RoundtableJordan Rash (Forterra)Andrew Hayes (WA Department of Natural Resources - DNR)Jeffrey Thomas (Puyallup Tribe)

Recreation + TrailsPuyallup Watershed Initiative Recreation RoundtableBryan Bowden (National Park Service)Jane Moore (Forever Green Council)

Urban + Community DevelopmentPuyallup Watershed Initiative Social Equity Community of Interest (To be engaged)Amy Bates (To be engaged)Jeffrey Thomas (Puyallup Tribe)Marianne Seifert (Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department)Richard Gelb (King County) + Heidi Hall (Impact Capital) - In preparation for regional Social Equity efforts.

GEO | SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIESA set of preliminary Desired Outcomes, Threats, Needs or Gaps, and Opportunities are captured on the following pages. Specific geo-spatial references have been noted using the 10-year Composite Priorities Map of the 2009 Pierce County Open Space Task Force as a base map. These mapping exercises will support the identification of opportunities for open space synergies and optimization in future phases.

Interaction through the Communities of Interest & a Watershed Listening Tour have been initiated, seeking input from local experts on desired outcomes, threats, gaps, + opportunities. Additional outreach is underway in connection to urban and community development issues.

67BACKGROUND REPORT

AQUATIC SYSTEMS

AQUATIC SYSTEMSProperly functioning aquatic systems are essential to the health of the Puyallup-White Watershed. Historically, the major rivers have been dredged and forced into narrow channels. Land management practices have contributed to poor water quality which dramatically impacts salmon populations. In addition, the Puyallup-White is an urbanized river system that is beginning to experience impacts from climate change, resulting in sedimentation and increased threat of flooding associated with melting glaciers on Mount Rainier.

There are multiple layers of natural benefits associated with aquatic systems and the open space or natural green infrastructure that makes them function properly:• Provisioning a regulated supply of water for irrigation and industrial use as well as clean water for

drinking, swimming, and fishing.• Supporting the health of commercially harvested seafood.• Maintaining habitat and migratory passage for birds and other species such as salmon, which serve

as both a cultural resource and a recreational asset.• Facilitating effective surface water management and preventing or mitigating for severe flooding

events and climate adaptation.• Providing opportunities for education and scientific discovery.

An early summary of priorities for aquatic systems as a component of the WOSS are included in this section. ROSS staff have drawn upon input from the Puyallup River Watershed Council, staff from Pierce & King County, Citizens for a Healthy Bay, Puyallup Tribe, Puyallup Watershed Coalition, and WA Department of Ecology’s Puget Sound Characterization Project. Identified priorities have been drawn primarily from engagement with the above staff and the following reports:• 2009 Pierce County Open Space Task Force (OST) 10 Year Priorities.• Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan.• Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.• The Nature Conservancy Floodplains by Design materials.

The Puyallup-White watershed is unique in

that it is an urbanized river system exhibiting impacts

from climate change as glaciers on Mount Rainier

melt and contribute to sedimentation and other

impacts in lower river reaches.


10-YEAR COMPOSITE PRIORITIES - 2009 PIERCE OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE

Port of

Tacom

a

Tacoma

Lakewood

Fife

Puyallup

Sumner

Edgewood

DuPont

BonneyLake

UniversityPlace

Buckley

Orting

GigHarbor

Steilacoom

Eatonville

Roy

Wilkeson

Carbonado

SouthPrairie

Ruston

Fircrest

MiltonPacific Auburn

Nisq

ua l l y

Ri v

e r

Little M

ash e l River

N i s q u a l l y R i v e r

M a s h e l R i v e r

S o u t h P u y a l l u p R i v e r

M o w i c h R i v e r

N i s q u a l ly

Ri v

e r

O h a n a p e c o s h R i v e r

C a r b o n R i v e r

P u y a l l u p R i v e r


Ca r b o n R i v e r

C l earw at e r R ive r

W hi te R iver

Clove r Cr eek

Tanwax

Cree

k

Ta

hom

a Cr

eek

Huc

kleb

erry

Creek

Voi ght Creek

South Creek

Muck Creek


Wilk es o n C ree k

South Prairie Creek

Wh

it e River

Whi t e Ri v e r

W

e s t F o r k W h i t e R

i ve r

W hit e R i v er

G r e e n w a t e r R i v e r

Kautz Cre

ek

N i squ a l l y R i v e r

Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Murray C reek

Hor n

Cree

k

Ohop Creek

Berg Cr eek

Lync h Creek

North Fork Ohop Cr eek

Twentyfive Mile Creek

Midw

ay Cre e k

Beaver Creek

Busy Wild Creek

Deer Creek

Rushingwater Creek

Swift River

Evans C reek

Tolmie Creek

C henius Cr eek

East Fork South Prairie Creek

Lily Creek

Copla r Creek

Gale C

reekFrame Creek

Bear Creek

Voight Creek

McGuire Creek

South Prairie Creek

Fo x Creek

Kings Creek

Cayada

Creek

McGuir e Cre

ek

Saint Andrews Creek

Falls

Cre

ek

Ranger

Cr e

ek

Ipsut C reek

Cataract C

re

ek

Mineral Creek

Byron Cree k

Milky CreekLyle

Cree

k

Lily

Creek

Pinochle Creek

Viola Creek

Pi geon Creek

Mule Creek

Elea

nor

Cree

k

Lost Creek

Ada Creek

Josephine Creek

Prospector Creek

Su

nris

e

Creek

Minnehaha Creek

Buck

C

reek

Do

e Cre

ek

Ranger

Creek

Dry C

reek

Deep Creek

Goat Creek

Silver Creek

Crystal Cr eek

Boundary Creek

Kotsuck Creek

Panther Creek

Chin

ook

Cree

k

Nickel Creek

Wi lliwakas Cree k

Tenas C ree k

Big

Creek

Pyramid C

reek

N o r t h P u y a l l u p R i v e r

Page

Creek

New Pond Creek

Old Pond Creek

Canyo n Creek

Cam

p C

reek

Twentyeight Mile Creek George Creek Lo

st C

reek

Maggie Creek

Gree n

wa

ter

R

i ver

Flett Cr e ek

Chambers Creek Leach

Cre

e k

Clover Creek

C l a r ks R

i ver

Rocky Creek

Huge Cr eek

Crescen t Cr eek

Whi te R

iver

LakeKapowsin

OhopLake

SteilacoomLake

SpanawayLake

TanwaxLake

MowichLake

GravellyLake

NisquallyLake Chambers

Lake

LewisLake

LakeLouise

WaughopLake

SurpriseLake

PrintzBasin

CedarLake

LakeEthel

LakeGeorge

ClearLake

RapjohnLake

CranberryLake

SilverLake

KregerLake

HartsLake

TuleLake

SequalitchewLake

Allen Pt.

Treble Pt.

Browns Pt.

Penrose Pt.

Pt.Richmond

Scott Pt.

Devil'sHead

Lyle Pt.

Fox Pt.

Hyde Pt.

Baldwin Pt.

South Head

Ca se

In

let

Ni sq ua l l y R ea c h

Puge

t

S

ound

Th

e N a

r ro

ws

Car

r

In l

e tHenderson

Bay

CommencementBay

RockyBay

FoxIsland

AndersonIsland

H e r r o nI s l a n d

K e t r o nI s l a n d

R a f tI s l a n d

M o u n t B a k e r - S n o q u a l m i e

N a t i o n a l F o r e s tC l e a r w a t e r

W i l d e r n e s s

N o r s e

P e a k

W i l d e r n e s s

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

NationalForest

GiffordPinchotNational

Forest

GlacierView

Wilderness

M o u n t R a i n i e r

N a t i o n a l P a r k

NisquallyNationalWildlife

Refuge

PackExperimental

Forest

E l b e H i l l sS t a t e F o r e s t

South Puget Sound

Wildlife Area -McNeil Island Unit

J o i n t B a s eL e w i s - M c C h o r d

?x@

?¤@

!"̀$

?z@

?z@

?¾@

?à@

?Ã@

?Ó@

?ä@

?á@?ä@

?æ@

?â@

?¤@

?z@

?ä@

?à@

?â@

?̈@

!"̀$

?à@

?à@

?̈@

!"̀$

?z@

?Á@

TyeePeak

Paul Peak

LongHill

KempHill

Hugo Peak

GovePeak

FossHill

Echo Rock

CohnHill

CarrHill

BellHill

Mt.Wow

SweetPeak

NobleKnob

DavisHill

BurkeHill

BrownPeak

BlairHill

Anvil Rock

TumtumPeak

TravisHill

TolandHill

TirzahPeak

Mt.Ruth

PigeonPeak

MillerHill

McCallHill

MarcusPeak

ListerHill

LarsonHill

KickerHill

JansenHill

IndianHill

DoublePeak

CastlePeak

BrooksHill

BriggsHill

AuroraPeak

SeymourPeak

OldDesolate

Hoffma n�Hill

GlacierView

BransonHill

RelianceHill

RedstonePeak

LangstonHill

SparPoleHill

DobbsMtn.

Mt.Beljica

MuttonMtn.

MotherMtn.

CopperMtn

ClearWestPeak

TamanosMtn

CowlitzChimneys

BearheadMtn.Old

BaldyMtn.

LittleRanger

Peak

BurroughsMtn.

SkyscraperMtn.

Mt.Rainier

Mt.Fremont

PuyallupPt.

TheThreeSisters The

Palisades

CastleMtn.

CrystalMtn.

FrogMtn.

SlideMtn.

SourdoughMtn.

PitcherMtn.

ChenuisMtn.

CrescentMtn.

VirginiaPeak

TolmiePeak

CayadaMtn.

MineralMtn.

GleasonHill

ThreePeaks

ShrinerPeak

BaldRock

CowlitzRockPyramid

Peak

Mt.Ararat

Da l l e s R i d g e

S u n r i s e R

i dg e

Ra

m

p a r t Ri d

ge

E m e r a l d R i d g e

Cowl in

g R idge

P t a r m i g a n R i d g e

Go

ve

r no

r s R

i dg e

P u y a l l u p C l e a v e r

I nd e p e n d e n c e R i d g e

PointDefiance

Park

LakeTapps

AmericanLake

AlderLake

Alder LakeOp

en S

pac

e T

ask

Fo

rce

10-y

ear

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Pri

ori

ties

Co

mp

osi

te

PIE

RC

E C

OU

NT

Y

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles

Cartography byCascade Land Conservancy

June 2011

Administrative or Political

County Boundary

City or Town

LE

GE

ND

Transportation

Other Road

State or U.S. Highway

Interstate Highway

Public or Protected Land

Tribal or Conserved Private Land

Public Land

Hydrography

River or Stream

Waterbody

10-year Conservation Priorities

Park Acquisition Focus Area

Biodiversity Habitat

Existing Park Expansion

Freshwater Shoreline Corridor

1000 ft Marine Priority Area

Agricultural Land

Forest Land

Missing Trail Section

Marine Shoreline Parcel of Interest

10

11

12

9

1 2

3

45

67

8

69BACKGROUND REPORT

Not enough consideration for functions and values of ecological systems in planning for dense development in UGAs.

Levees and straightening of river channel in lower Puyallup presents threat to flood storage capabilities, water quality, osmo-regulatory transition and rearing areas for juvenile salmon and Chum/Pink spawning.

Salmon Bearing streams in agricultural areas highlight conflicting needs.

Major obstacles to fish passage along White River threaten ESA-listed Spring Chinook at Bypass Reach on White River.

Major obstacles to fish passage along Puyallup River (e.g. Electron Reservoir Dam).

Climate change is melting glaciers on Mount Rainier, presenting current and future communities with key challenges to address flooding and sedimentation, including impacts to heavily urbanized areas in the watershed.

Too much development is occurring on lower elevation channel corridors which are prime linkages for restoration.

Implement all six proposed setback levees and projects identified in Pierce County River Flood Hazard Management Plan to address salmon rearing and spawning.

AQUATIC SYSTEMS: GEO / SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIES

Major obstacles to fish passage and water

management conditions along the White River

heavily threaten a key Spring run of Chinook

salmon.

THREATS

OPPORTUNITIES

12345

6

7

9

8Correct fish passage challenges (e.g. improvements to Buckley Diversion Dam and collection facilities replacement project and improvements to Electron Dam).

Improve urban forestry & target riparian restoration on smaller tributaries (10-15 ft. width) to address rising water temperatures.

Restore river functions in heavily leveed portion of Lower Puyallup (e.g. existing Shaddadax restoration site, proposed completion of restoration project for Clear Creek between River Rd. & Gay Rd.).

Restoration of historic estuarine system by stitching together restoration sites (e.g. reducing shoreline armoring along Ruston Way, Port of Tacoma Salt Chuck Site, Wapato Creek, WSDOT Mitigation Site – 167)

10

1112

71BACKGROUND REPORT

BIODIVERSITY + HABITAT

BIODIVERSITY + HABITATGenetic and biological diversity is the basis for most other ecosystem functions. Strategic protections for habitat that maintains biodiversity for the watershed provides a number of benefits to the region.

• Providing pollination for agricultural production and ecosystem integrity and subsequently supports all of the other natural benefits.

• Soil nutrient regulation that impacts our air, climate, and water.

• Scientific exploration that reveals medicinal and other practical applications from nature.

• Wildlife that provides inspiration for future generations.

A summary of identifiable priorities for biodiversity are included in this section. ROSS staff have drawn upon input from the Puyallup Watershed Initiative Biodiversity Community of Interest and representatives of the Pierce County Biodiversity Alliance (staff from WA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium), and staff from Forterra. Identified priorities from the following reports have also been incorporated into this summary:

• 2009 Pierce County Open Space Task Force 10 Year Priorities.

• 2004 Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment.

• 2009 Lower White River Biodiversity Management Areas (BMA) Stewardship Plan.

• Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group materials (To be incorporated in future phase).

A strategic investment in wildlife habitat

conservation that protects genetic and biological

diversity is the basis for a broad array of natural benefits and ecosystem

functions.


Port of

Tacom

a

Tacoma

Lakewood

Fife

Puyallup

Sumner

Edgewood

DuPont

BonneyLake

UniversityPlace

Buckley

Orting

GigHarbor

Steilacoom

Eatonville

Roy

Wilkeson

Carbonado

SouthPrairie

Ruston

Fircrest


Nisq

ua l l y

Ri v

e r

Little M

ash e l River





N i s q u a l ly

Ri v

e r







W hi te R iver

Clove r Cr eek

Tanwax

Cree

k

Ta

hom

a Cr

eek

Huc

kleb

erry

Creek

Voi ght Creek

South Creek

Muck Creek


Wilk es o n C ree k

South Prairie Creek

Wh

it e Ri ver

Whi t e Ri v e r

W


i ve r

W hit e R i v er


Kautz Cre

ek


Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Murray C reek

Hor n

Cree

k

Ohop Creek

Berg Cr eek

Lync h Creek



Midw

ay Cre e k

Beaver Creek

Busy Wild Creek

Deer Creek

Rushingwater Creek

Swift River

Evans C reek

Tolmie Creek

C henius Cr eek


Lily Creek

Copla r Creek

Gale C

reekFrame Creek

Bear Creek

Voight Creek

McGuire Creek

South Prairie Creek

Fo x Creek

Kings Creek

Cayada

Creek

McGuir e Cre

ek

Saint Andrews Creek

Falls

Cre

ek

Ranger

Cr e

ek

Ipsut C reek

Cataract C

re

ek

Mineral Creek

Byron Cree k

Milky CreekLyle

Cree

k

Lily

Creek

Pinochle Creek

Viola Creek

Pi geon Creek

Mule Creek

Elea

nor

Cree

k

Lost Creek

Ada Creek

Josephine Creek

Prospector Creek

Su

nris

e

Creek

Minnehaha Creek

Buck

C

reek

Do

e Cre

ek

Ranger

Creek

Dry C

reek

Deep Creek

Goat Creek

Silver Creek

Crystal Cr eek

Boundary Creek

Kotsuck Creek

Panther Creek

Chin

ook

Cree

k

Nickel Creek

Wi lliwakas Cree k

Tenas C ree k

Big

Creek

Pyramid C

reek


Page

Creek

New Pond Creek

Old Pond Creek

Canyo n Creek

Cam

p C

reek


st C

reek

Maggie Creek

Gree n

wa

ter

R

i ver

Flett Cr e ek


Cre

e k

Clover Creek

C l a r ks R

i ver

Rocky Creek

Huge Cr eek

Crescen t Cr eek

Whi te R

iver

LakeKapowsin

OhopLake

SteilacoomLake

SpanawayLake

TanwaxLake

MowichLake

GravellyLake


Lake

LewisLake

LakeLouise

WaughopLake

SurpriseLake

PrintzBasin

CedarLake

LakeEthel

LakeGeorge

ClearLake

RapjohnLake

CranberryLake

SilverLake

KregerLake

HartsLake

TuleLake

SequalitchewLake

Allen Pt.

Treble Pt.

Browns Pt.

Penrose Pt.

Pt.Richmond

Scott Pt.

Devil'sHead

Lyle Pt.

Fox Pt.

Hyde Pt.

Baldwin Pt.

South Head

Ca se

In

let


Puge

t

S

ound

Th

e N a

r ro

ws

Car

r

In l

e tHenderson

Bay

CommencementBay

RockyBay

FoxIsland

AndersonIsland



R a f tI s l a n d



W i l d e r n e s s

N o r s e

P e a k

W i l d e r n e s s

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

NationalForest


Forest

GlacierView

Wilderness




Refuge

PackExperimental

Forest


South Puget Sound



?x@

?¤@

!"̀$

?z@

?z@

?¾@

?à@

?Ã@

?Ó@

?ä@

?á@?ä@

?æ@

?â@

?¤@

?z@

?ä@

?à@

?â@

?̈@

!"̀$

?à@

?à@

?̈@

!"̀$

?z@

?Á@

TyeePeak

Paul Peak

LongHill

KempHill

Hugo Peak

GovePeak

FossHill

Echo Rock

CohnHill

CarrHill

BellHill

Mt.Wow

SweetPeak

NobleKnob

DavisHill

BurkeHill

BrownPeak

BlairHill

Anvil Rock

TumtumPeak

TravisHill

TolandHill

TirzahPeak

Mt.Ruth

PigeonPeak

MillerHill

McCallHill

MarcusPeak

ListerHill

LarsonHill

KickerHill

JansenHill

IndianHill

DoublePeak

CastlePeak

BrooksHill

BriggsHill

AuroraPeak

SeymourPeak

OldDesolate

Hoffma n�Hill

GlacierView

BransonHill

RelianceHill

RedstonePeak

LangstonHill

SparPoleHill

DobbsMtn.

Mt.Beljica

MuttonMtn.

MotherMtn.

CopperMtn

ClearWestPeak

TamanosMtn

CowlitzChimneys

BearheadMtn.Old

BaldyMtn.

LittleRanger

Peak

BurroughsMtn.

SkyscraperMtn.

Mt.Rainier

Mt.Fremont

PuyallupPt.

TheThreeSisters The

Palisades

CastleMtn.

CrystalMtn.

FrogMtn.

SlideMtn.

SourdoughMtn.

PitcherMtn.

ChenuisMtn.

CrescentMtn.

VirginiaPeak

TolmiePeak

CayadaMtn.

MineralMtn.

GleasonHill

ThreePeaks

ShrinerPeak

BaldRock

CowlitzRockPyramid

Peak

Mt.Ararat


S u n r i s e R

i dg e

Ra

m

p a r t Ri d

ge


Cowl in

g R idge


Go

ve

r no

r s R

i dg e



PointDefiance

Park

LakeTapps

AmericanLake

AlderLake

Alder LakeOp

en S

pac

e T

ask

Fo

rce

10-y

ear

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Pri

ori

ties

Co

mp

osi

te

PIE

RC

E C

OU

NT

Y

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles


June 2011


County Boundary

City or Town

LE

GE

ND

Transportation

Other Road


Interstate Highway



Public Land

Hydrography

River or Stream

Waterbody







Agricultural Land

Forest Land




1

3

2

4

5

6

73BACKGROUND REPORT

TIER 1: Highest potential biodiversity loss in or near UGA (Western BMAs 8 + 17, city level habitat corridors) and BMAs with higher percentage of private lands.

TIER 2: Low conversion pressure in BMA 11 - Upper Puyallup, but threatened by industrial approach to forestry.

Areas with extreme development pressures impair connections between BMAs (e.g. Between Buckley/Bonney Lake + Orting/Carbonado).

Linear geography of BMA 17 – Lower White inhibits ability to organize community around shared stewardship plan.

Key biodiversity corridors along Carbon River in and adjacent to BMA 16 – White River (e.g. major wildlife corridor for Elk).

Highly threatened Biodiversity Management Areas (BMAs) selected for Stewardship Plans and Bioblitzes - Lower White (BMA 17) & Crescent Valley (BMA 3).

BIODIVERSITY: GEO / SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIES

All the BMAs (Biodiversity Management Areas)

are equally important to protect to maintain

biodiversity, but it is important to target those

most threatened by development and those

with high percentages of private lands with poor management practices.

THREATS

OPPORTUNITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

75BACKGROUND REPORT

FOREST LANDS

FOREST LANDSThe Puyallup-White watershed is blessed to have large parcels of both protected and working forests in upland areas. This combination of federal, state, and privately owned and managed forest land is a primary component of the regional open space system. If properly managed, these natural lands can provide essential benefits to the watershed and region.

• Providing a secure, local supply of timber, fiber, and energy

• Serving a role in maintaining biodiversity by provisioning diverse habitats.

• Providing tree canopy that contributes to breathable air and helps mitigate for climate change.

• Regulating water flows and water quality, supporting irrigation, fish populations and reduced flood events.

• Providing scenic landscapes and opportunities to experience nature.

This section contains forestland priorities, based on stakeholder engagement in the watershed and previous studies. ROSS staff have drawn upon input from the Forest Roundtable and staff from Pierce County, WA State DNR, Pierce Conservation District and Forterra. Some key resources were reviewed in preparing this summary:

• 2009 PC Open Space Taskforce 10 Year Priorities.

• 1986 Timber Fish Wildlife Agreement.

• Family Forest Fish Passage Program (FFFPP) materials.

• USDA Urban & Community Forests of the Pacific Region report.

A sustainable approach to forest land management

that preserves a large percentage of the tree

canopy can support climate stability along with the provisioning of diverse

wildlife habitats and recreation opportunities for

the watershed.



Port of

Tacom

a

Tacoma

Lakewood

Fife

Puyallup

Sumner

Edgewood

DuPont

BonneyLake

UniversityPlace

Buckley

Orting

GigHarbor

Steilacoom

Eatonville

Roy

Wilkeson

Carbonado

SouthPrairie

Ruston

Fircrest


Nisq

ua l l y

Ri v

e r

Little M

ash e l River





N i s q u a l ly

Ri v

e r







W hi te R iver

Clove r Cr eek

Tanwax

Cree

k

Ta

hom

a Cr

eek

Huc

kleb

erry

Creek

Voi ght Creek

South Creek

Muck Creek


Wilk es o n C ree k

South Prairie Creek

Wh

it e River

Whi t e Ri v e r

W


i ve r

W hit e R i v er


Kautz Cre

ek


Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Murray C reek

Hor n

Cree

k

Ohop Creek

Berg Cr eek

Lync h Creek



Midw

ay Cre e k

Beaver Creek

Busy Wild Creek

Deer Creek

Rushingwater Creek

Swift River

Evans C reek

Tolmie Creek

C henius Cr eek


Lily Creek

Copla r Creek

Gale C

reekFrame Creek

Bear Creek

Voight Creek

McGuire Creek

South Prairie Creek

Fo x Creek

Kings Creek

Cayada

Creek

McGuir e Cre

ek

Saint Andrews Creek

Falls

Cre

ek

Ranger

Cr e

ek

Ipsut C reek

Cataract C

re

ek

Mineral Creek

Byron Cree k

Milky CreekLyle

Cree

k

Lily

Creek

Pinochle Creek

Viola Creek

Pi geon Creek

Mule Creek

Elea

nor

Cree

k

Lost Creek

Ada Creek

Josephine Creek

Prospector Creek

Su

nris

e

Creek

Minnehaha Creek

Buck

C

reek

Do

e Cre

ek

Ranger

Creek

Dry C

reek

Deep Creek

Goat Creek

Silver Creek

Crystal Cr eek

Boundary Creek

Kotsuck Creek

Panther Creek

Chin

ook

Cree

k

Nickel Creek

Wi lliwakas Cree k

Tenas C ree k

Big

Creek

Pyramid C

reek


Page

Creek

New Pond Creek

Old Pond Creek

Canyo n Creek

Cam

p C

reek


st C

reek

Maggie Creek

Gree n

wa

ter

R

i ver

Flett Cr e ek


Cre

e k

Clover Creek

C l a r ks R

i ver

Rocky Creek

Huge Cr eek

Crescen t Cr eek

Whi te R

iver

LakeKapowsin

OhopLake

SteilacoomLake

SpanawayLake

TanwaxLake

MowichLake

GravellyLake


Lake

LewisLake

LakeLouise

WaughopLake

SurpriseLake

PrintzBasin

CedarLake

LakeEthel

LakeGeorge

ClearLake

RapjohnLake

CranberryLake

SilverLake

KregerLake

HartsLake

TuleLake

SequalitchewLake

Allen Pt.

Treble Pt.

Browns Pt.

Penrose Pt.

Pt.Richmond

Scott Pt.

Devil'sHead

Lyle Pt.

Fox Pt.

Hyde Pt.

Baldwin Pt.

South Head

Ca se

In

let


Puge

t

S

ound

Th

e N a

r ro

ws

Car

r

In l

e tHenderson

Bay

CommencementBay

RockyBay

FoxIsland

AndersonIsland



R a f tI s l a n d



W i l d e r n e s s

N o r s e

P e a k

W i l d e r n e s s

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

NationalForest


Forest

GlacierView

Wilderness




Refuge

PackExperimental

Forest


South Puget Sound



?x@

?¤@

!"̀$

?z@

?z@

?¾@

?à@

?Ã@

?Ó@

?ä@

?á@?ä@

?æ@

?â@

?¤@

?z@

?ä@

?à@

?â@

?̈@

!"̀$

?à@

?à@

?̈@

!"̀$

?z@

?Á@

TyeePeak

Paul Peak

LongHill

KempHill

Hugo Peak

GovePeak

FossHill

Echo Rock

CohnHill

CarrHill

BellHill

Mt.Wow

SweetPeak

NobleKnob

DavisHill

BurkeHill

BrownPeak

BlairHill

Anvil Rock

TumtumPeak

TravisHill

TolandHill

TirzahPeak

Mt.Ruth

PigeonPeak

MillerHill

McCallHill

MarcusPeak

ListerHill

LarsonHill

KickerHill

JansenHill

IndianHill

DoublePeak

CastlePeak

BrooksHill

BriggsHill

AuroraPeak

SeymourPeak

OldDesolate

Hoffma n�Hill

GlacierView

BransonHill

RelianceHill

RedstonePeak

LangstonHill

SparPoleHill

DobbsMtn.

Mt.Beljica

MuttonMtn.

MotherMtn.

CopperMtn

ClearWestPeak

TamanosMtn

CowlitzChimneys

BearheadMtn.Old

BaldyMtn.

LittleRanger

Peak

BurroughsMtn.

SkyscraperMtn.

Mt.Rainier

Mt.Fremont

PuyallupPt.

TheThreeSisters The

Palisades

CastleMtn.

CrystalMtn.

FrogMtn.

SlideMtn.

SourdoughMtn.

PitcherMtn.

ChenuisMtn.

CrescentMtn.

VirginiaPeak

TolmiePeak

CayadaMtn.

MineralMtn.

GleasonHill

ThreePeaks

ShrinerPeak

BaldRock

CowlitzRockPyramid

Peak

Mt.Ararat


S u n r i s e R

i dg e

Ra

m

p a r t Ri d

ge


Cowl in

g R idge


Go

ve

r no

r s R

i dg e



PointDefiance

Park

LakeTapps

AmericanLake

AlderLake

Alder LakeOp

en S

pac

e T

ask

Fo

rce

10-y

ear

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Pri

ori

ties

Co

mp

osi

te

PIE

RC

E C

OU

NT

Y

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles


June 2011


County Boundary

City or Town

LE

GE

ND

Transportation

Other Road


Interstate Highway



Public Land

Hydrography

River or Stream

Waterbody







Agricultural Land

Forest Land


Marine Shoreline Parcel of Interest1

2

3

4

56

7

77BACKGROUND REPORT

Inconsistent approach to urban forestry among cities is resulting in piecemeal protections for urban ecological functions in the watershed.

Inconsistent state and local forest practices regulations impacts wetlands, stream buffers and other resources, especially on small forest lands in rural zoned areas.

10-year divestment of major forestland holdings (e.g. Kapowsin Tree Farm).

Loss of forest land as a result of conversion to development and other non-forest uses. State forest practices allows impacts to critical areas and county regs. make it easy to be exempted from development moratorium.

Opportunity to work with Muckleshoot Tribe to improve forest practices on White River Tree Farm.

Explore Community Forest Trust opportunities to return ownership to the local scale and encourage residents to be involved in resource management activities.

Systematic approach/standards across jurisdictions to address urban forestry + protect forest cover.

FOREST LANDS: GEO / SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIES

Fostering inter-jurisdictional standards

or tailored approaches to urban forest management

among different cities offers the opportunity to

preserve/restore important ecological functions in

developed areas.

THREATS

OPPORTUNITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

79BACKGROUND REPORT

AGRICULTURAL LANDSAgricultural lands are a key component of the Puyallup-White Watershed Open Space System. The watershed contains some of the most productive farmland in Washington State. In addition to their role in providing jobs to rural communities, these farmlands can function as part of the natural green infrastructure system:

• Providing a secure, local supply of food, fuel, fiber, fertilizer, and energy.

• Contributing to surface water management and climate stability.

• Supporting surface water management and preventing or mitigating for severe flooding events.

• Serving a role in supporting biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

• Exposing urban populations to rural experiences and maintaining rural cultures and economies.

A summary of identifiable priorities for agricultural lands as a component of the WOSS are included in this section. ROSS staff have drawn upon input from the Pierce County Agriculture Roundtable and staff from Pierce County, American Farmland Trust, Pierce Conservation District, and Forterra. Identified priorities from the following reports have been incorporated into this summary:


• 2006 Pierce County Agriculture Strategic Plan.

• 2004 American Farmland Trust Study.

• 2008 Pierce Conservation District Agricultural Capacity Study (to be incorporated).

AGRICULTURE

The Puyallup-White watershed has some of the most productive farmland

in Washington State. Proposals for agricultural

preservation must be paired with provisions

that reduce the costs and barriers to farming.


Port of

Tacom

a

Tacoma

Lakewood

Fife

Puyallup

Sumner

Edgewood

DuPont

BonneyLake

UniversityPlace

Buckley

Orting

GigHarbor

Steilacoom

Eatonville

Roy

Wilkeson

Carbonado

SouthPrairie

Ruston

Fircrest


Nisq

ua l l y

Ri v

e r

Little M

ash e l River





N i s q u a l ly

Ri v

e r







W hi te R iver

Clove r Cr eek

Tanwax

Cree

k

Ta

hom

a Cr

eek

Huc

kleb

erry

Creek

Voi ght Creek

South Creek

Muck Creek


Wilk es o n C ree k

South Prairie Creek

Wh

it e River

Whi t e Ri v e r

W


i ve r

W hit e R i v er


Kautz Cre

ek


Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Murray C reek

Hor n

Cree

k

Ohop Creek

Berg Cr eek

Lync h Creek



Midw

ay Cre e k

Beaver Creek

Busy Wild Creek

Deer Creek

Rushingwater Creek

Swift River

Evans C reek

Tolmie Creek

C henius Cr eek


Lily Creek

Copla r Creek

Gale C

reekFrame Creek

Bear Creek

Voight Creek

McGuire Creek

South Prairie CreekFo x Creek

Kings Creek

Cayada

Creek

McGuir e Cre

ek

Saint Andrews Creek

Falls

Cre

ek

Ranger

Cr e

ek

Ipsut C reek

Cataract C

re

ek

Mineral Creek

Byron Cree k

Milky CreekLyle

Cree

k

Lily

Creek

Pinochle Creek

Viola Creek

Pi geon Creek

Mule Creek

Elea

nor

Cree

k

Lost Creek

Ada Creek

Josephine Creek

Prospector Creek

Su

nris

e

Creek

Minnehaha Creek

Buck

C

reek

Do

e Cre

ek

Ranger

Creek

Dry C

reek

Deep Creek

Goat Creek

Silver Creek

Crystal Cr eek

Boundary Creek

Kotsuck Creek

Panther Creek

Chin

ook

Cree

k

Nickel Creek

Wi lliwakas Cree k

Tenas C ree k

Big

Creek

Pyramid C

reek


Page

Creek

New Pond Creek

Old Pond Creek

Canyo n Creek

Cam

p C

reek


st C

reek

Maggie Creek

Gree n

wa

ter

R

i ver

Flett Cr e ek


Cre

e k

Clover Creek

C l a r ks R

i ver

Rocky Creek

Huge Cr eek

Crescen t Cr eek

Whi te R

iver

LakeKapowsin

OhopLake

SteilacoomLake

SpanawayLake

TanwaxLake

MowichLake

GravellyLake


Lake

LewisLake

LakeLouise

WaughopLake

SurpriseLake

PrintzBasin

CedarLake

LakeEthel

LakeGeorge

ClearLake

RapjohnLake

CranberryLake

SilverLake

KregerLake

HartsLake

TuleLake

SequalitchewLake

Allen Pt.

Treble Pt.

Browns Pt.

Penrose Pt.

Pt.Richmond

Scott Pt.

Devil'sHead

Lyle Pt.

Fox Pt.

Hyde Pt.

Baldwin Pt.

South Head

Ca se

In

let


Puge

t

S

ound

Th

e N a

r ro

ws

Car

r

In l

e tHenderson

Bay

CommencementBay

RockyBay

FoxIsland

AndersonIsland



R a f tI s l a n d



W i l d e r n e s s

N o r s e

P e a k

W i l d e r n e s s

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

NationalForest


Forest

GlacierView

Wilderness




Refuge

PackExperimental

Forest


South Puget Sound



?x@

?¤@

!"̀$

?z@

?z@

?¾@

?à@

?Ã@

?Ó@

?ä@

?á@?ä@

?æ@

?â@

?¤@

?z@

?ä@

?à@

?â@

?̈@

!"̀$

?à@

?à@

?̈@

!"̀$

?z@

?Á@

TyeePeak

Paul Peak

LongHill

KempHill

Hugo Peak

GovePeak

FossHill

Echo Rock

CohnHill

CarrHill

BellHill

Mt.Wow

SweetPeak

NobleKnob

DavisHill

BurkeHill

BrownPeak

BlairHill

Anvil Rock

TumtumPeak

TravisHill

TolandHill

TirzahPeak

Mt.Ruth

PigeonPeak

MillerHill

McCallHill

MarcusPeak

ListerHill

LarsonHill

KickerHill

JansenHill

IndianHill

DoublePeak

CastlePeak

BrooksHill

BriggsHill

AuroraPeak

SeymourPeak

OldDesolate

Hoffma n�Hill

GlacierView

BransonHill

RelianceHill

RedstonePeak

LangstonHill

SparPoleHill

DobbsMtn.

Mt.Beljica

MuttonMtn.

MotherMtn.

CopperMtn

ClearWestPeak

TamanosMtn

CowlitzChimneys

BearheadMtn.Old

BaldyMtn.

LittleRanger

Peak

BurroughsMtn.

SkyscraperMtn.

Mt.Rainier

Mt.Fremont

PuyallupPt.

TheThreeSisters The

Palisades

CastleMtn.

CrystalMtn.

FrogMtn.

SlideMtn.

SourdoughMtn.

PitcherMtn.

ChenuisMtn.

CrescentMtn.

VirginiaPeak

TolmiePeak

CayadaMtn.

MineralMtn.

GleasonHill

ThreePeaks

ShrinerPeak

BaldRock

CowlitzRockPyramid

Peak

Mt.Ararat


S u n r i s e R

i dg e

Ra

m

p a r t Ri d

ge


Cowl in

g R idge


Go

ve

r no

r s R

i dg e



PointDefiance

Park

LakeTapps

AmericanLake

AlderLake

Alder LakeOp

en S

pac

e T

ask

Fo

rce

10-y

ear

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Pri

ori

ties

Co

mp

osi

te

PIE

RC

E C

OU

NT

Y

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles


June 2011


County Boundary

City or Town

LE

GE

ND

Transportation

Other Road


Interstate Highway



Public Land

Hydrography

River or Stream

Waterbody







Agricultural Land

Forest Land




2

3

4

1

5

6

81BACKGROUND REPORT

Multiple areas with fragmented acreage with no ARL zoning (e.g. one 17 acre farm divided among 4 parcels).

High threat of land conversions adjacent to UGAs (e.g. land prices in the Puyallup Valley are substantially above the economic value for farm production).

Aging demographic of farmers (avg. age is70-80) indicates high potential for land conversion without mechanisms to support the next generation of farmers.

Close to 25% of agricultural land in Puyallup Valley is contained in incorporated areas and UGA, indicating high potential for conflict with urbanized land uses.

Adjustments to ARL (Agricultural Resource Lands) and other agricultural zoning as part of Pierce County Comprehensive Plan update to capture farmland with productive soils under 10 acres, large farms spread over multiple parcels, and close loopholes.

Explore applications of LCLIP/TDR + PDR for areas with urgent land conversion threats (e.g. Matlock Farm).

AGRICULTURE: GEO / SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIES

Farmland is being converted to development

due to poor land use decisions and high land

prices that exceed the economic value for farm

production.

THREATS

OPPORTUNITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

83BACKGROUND REPORT

RECREATION + TRAILSThe Puyallup-White Watershed Open Space Strategy needs to be organized around a proposed network of interconnected recreation lands and trail systems as a means to ensure communities interact with nature and to advance the understanding as to how open space can support broader community objectives. A diverse grouping of communities and interests can embrace the need for parks and recreational opportunities and this often serves as an entry point for a more full understanding regarding the value of the open space system and the need to be stewards of natural lands.

This network of recreation lands and trails provides a number of benefits to communities at all scales:

• Exposing people to opportunities for healthy recreation and inspiring outdoor experiences.

• Serving as an introduction to scientific exploration and environmental education at all ages.

• Forming connections in and between communities and the natural treasures of the region.

• Providing opportunities for cultural and artistic expression.

• Supporting growth and economic development by using parks and trails to organize development into more complete communities and support recreational tourism.

Identified priorities for recreation and trails are included in this section. ROSS staff have drawn upon input from the Puyallup Watershed Initiative Recreation Roundtable and staff from Pierce County, ForeverGreen Council, MetroParks, Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium, and the National Park Service. This summary draws primarily from the following resources.


• Draft Pierce County Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Element (anticipated adoption early 2014).

• PSRC Regional Bike Network.

RECREATION + TRAILS

People can embrace the need for parks and

recreational opportunities and this often serves as an entry point for a more full

understanding regarding the value of open space and

the need to be stewards of natural lands.



Port of

Tacom

a

Tacoma

Lakewood

Fife

Puyallup

Sumner

Edgewood

DuPont

BonneyLake

UniversityPlace

Buckley

Orting

GigHarbor

Steilacoom

Eatonville

Roy

Wilkeson

Carbonado

SouthPrairie

Ruston

Fircrest


Nisq

ua l l y

Ri v

e r

Little M

ash e l River





N i s q u a l ly

Ri v

e r







W hi te R iver

Clove r Cr eek

Tanwax

Cree

k

Ta

hom

a Cr

eek

Huc

kleb

erry

Creek

Voi ght Creek

South Creek

Muck Creek


Wilk es o n C ree k

South Prairie Creek

Wh

it e River

Whi t e Ri v e r

W


i ve r

W hit e R i v er


Kautz Cre

ek


Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Murray C reek

Hor n

Cree

k

Ohop Creek

Berg Cr eek

Lync h Creek



Midw

ay Cre e k

Beaver Creek

Busy Wild Creek

Deer Creek

Rushingwater Creek

Swift River

Evans C reek

Tolmie Creek

C henius Cr eek


Lily Creek

Copla r Creek

Gale C

reekFrame Creek

Bear Creek

Voight Creek

McGuire Creek

South Prairie Creek

Fo x Creek

Kings Creek

Cayada

Creek

McGuir e Cre

ek

Saint Andrews Creek

Falls

Cre

ek

Ranger

Cr e

ek

Ipsut C reek

Cataract C

re

ek

Mineral Creek

Byron Cree k

Milky CreekLyle

Cree

k

Lily

Creek

Pinochle Creek

Viola Creek

Pi geon Creek

Mule Creek

Elea

nor

Cree

k

Lost Creek

Ada Creek

Josephine Creek

Prospector Creek

Su

nris

e

Creek

Minnehaha Creek

Buck

C

reek

Do

e Cre

ek

Ranger

Creek

Dry C

reek

Deep Creek

Goat Creek

Silver Creek

Crystal Cr eek

Boundary Creek

Kotsuck Creek

Panther Creek

Chin

ook

Cree

k

Nickel Creek

Wi lliwakas Cree k

Tenas C ree k

Big

Creek

Pyramid C

reek


Page

Creek

New Pond Creek

Old Pond Creek

Canyo n Creek

Cam

p C

reek


st C

reek

Maggie Creek

Gree n

wa

ter

R

i ver

Flett Cr e ek


Cre

e k

Clover Creek

C l a r ks R

i ver

Rocky Creek

Huge Cr eek

Crescen t Cr eek

Whi te R

iver

LakeKapowsin

OhopLake

SteilacoomLake

SpanawayLake

TanwaxLake

MowichLake

GravellyLake


Lake

LewisLake

LakeLouise

WaughopLake

SurpriseLake

PrintzBasin

CedarLake

LakeEthel

LakeGeorge

ClearLake

RapjohnLake

CranberryLake

SilverLake

KregerLake

HartsLake

TuleLake

SequalitchewLake

Allen Pt.

Treble Pt.

Browns Pt.

Penrose Pt.

Pt.Richmond

Scott Pt.

Devil'sHead

Lyle Pt.

Fox Pt.

Hyde Pt.

Baldwin Pt.

South Head

Ca se

In

let


Puge

t

S

ound

Th

e N a

r ro

ws

Car

r

In l

e tHenderson

Bay

CommencementBay

RockyBay

FoxIsland

AndersonIsland



R a f tI s l a n d



W i l d e r n e s s

N o r s e

P e a k

W i l d e r n e s s

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

NationalForest


Forest

GlacierView

Wilderness




Refuge

PackExperimental

Forest


South Puget Sound



?x@

?¤@

!"̀$

?z@

?z@

?¾@

?à@

?Ã@

?Ó@

?ä@

?á@?ä@

?æ@

?â@

?¤@

?z@

?ä@

?à@

?â@

?̈@

!"̀$

?à@

?à@

?̈@

!"̀$

?z@

?Á@

TyeePeak

Paul Peak

LongHill

KempHill

Hugo Peak

GovePeak

FossHill

Echo Rock

CohnHill

CarrHill

BellHill

Mt.Wow

SweetPeak

NobleKnob

DavisHill

BurkeHill

BrownPeak

BlairHill

Anvil Rock

TumtumPeak

TravisHill

TolandHill

TirzahPeak

Mt.Ruth

PigeonPeak

MillerHill

McCallHill

MarcusPeak

ListerHill

LarsonHill

KickerHill

JansenHill

IndianHill

DoublePeak

CastlePeak

BrooksHill

BriggsHill

AuroraPeak

SeymourPeak

OldDesolate

Hoffma n�Hill

GlacierView

BransonHill

RelianceHill

RedstonePeak

LangstonHill

SparPoleHill

DobbsMtn.

Mt.Beljica

MuttonMtn.

MotherMtn.

CopperMtn

ClearWestPeak

TamanosMtn

CowlitzChimneys

BearheadMtn.Old

BaldyMtn.

LittleRanger

Peak

BurroughsMtn.

SkyscraperMtn.

Mt.Rainier

Mt.Fremont

PuyallupPt.

TheThreeSisters The

Palisades

CastleMtn.

CrystalMtn.

FrogMtn.

SlideMtn.

SourdoughMtn.

PitcherMtn.

ChenuisMtn.

CrescentMtn.

VirginiaPeak

TolmiePeak

CayadaMtn.

MineralMtn.

GleasonHill

ThreePeaks

ShrinerPeak

BaldRock

CowlitzRockPyramid

Peak

Mt.Ararat


S u n r i s e R

i dg e

Ra

m

p a r t Ri d

ge


Cowl in

g R idge


Go

ve

r no

r s R

i dg e



PointDefiance

Park

LakeTapps

AmericanLake

AlderLake

Alder LakeOp

en S

pac

e T

ask

Fo

rce

10-y

ear

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Pri

ori

ties

Co

mp

osi

te

PIE

RC

E C

OU

NT

Y

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles


June 2011


County Boundary

City or Town

LE

GE

ND

Transportation

Other Road


Interstate Highway



Public Land

Hydrography

River or Stream

Waterbody







Agricultural Land

Forest Land



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

85BACKGROUND REPORT

RECREATION + TRAILS: GEO / SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIES

Freighthouse Square in Tacoma can serve as a

major hub for the region’s recreation trail system and form connections to other communities and natural

assets in the region.

Multiple gaps in regional recreation trail system (e.g. conflicts with other existing uses or landowners unable or unwilling to provide ROW).

Freighthouse Square as a hub for the southern Puget Sound recreation trail system.

Form recreational trail corridors to other WRIAs, CPS counties/cities, & Mountains-to-Sound Greenway (connect to Interurban Trail + Cedar River Trail).

Historic Naches Trail - a branch of The Oregon Trail that could be developed into an interpretative trail system across the watershed.

Use trails to form interstate recreation corridors by forming connections with trails extending from Mount Rainier National Park to areas as far as Olympic National Park and Idaho.

Multiple existing and proposed outdoor recreation lands and proposed Pierce County parks that could be pooled together into a major recreation corridor.

N-S rail corridor to link Tacoma and Mount Rainier National Park with existing recreation trail to Tenino & Western Chehalis Trail to Yelm.

Proposed non-motorized linkages between Steilacoom and DuPont and along I-5 that could provide recreation trail connection between Tacoma and Olympia.

THREATS

OPPORTUNITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

87BACKGROUND REPORT

URBAN + COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTInvestmentts in open space can help organize, orient, and reinforce objectives for growth and community development. Urban green space can help address key public health challenges by providing opportunities for recreation and helping to improve air and water quality. Open space can also serve as a buffer or provide protections to communities that experience more severe impacts from natural disasters due to their location (e.g. in more affordable areas). However, open space planning must be coordinated with planning for community development and social equity or there can be unintended impacts such as existing communities and businesses being outpriced and displaced or exposing people to criminal activity among parks in areas with poor criminal enforcement.

As work proceeds on the ROSS & WOSS, it will be necessary to explore the link between open space investments, growth and affordability, public health, social equity, and cultural heritage. As a first step, a charter has been established to convene a regional Equity + Social Justice Task Force to explore how to engage all communities in the ROSS and identify specific links between open space investments and outcomes for diverse, underserved, and disadvantaged communities.

At the watershed scale, ROSS staff will seek input from the Puyallup Watershed Initiative Social Equity Community Interest and will seek direction from the Puyallup-White Watershed Advisory Group on whether to set additional convenings or individual meetings. Such interaction would involve engagement with planners and other key staff from the cities and counties as well as key community development organizations and development interests in the watershed to better understand priorities for open space that reinforce growth/economic development and community development objectives, highlight un-met needs among diverse and underserved communities, explore how to address equity considerations such as impacts on affordability and displacement, and highlight how the regional actions could help them coordinate or address these outcomes more effectively.

Existing interactions with partners in the watershed and known sources of data have resulted in some preliminary identification of desired outcomes, threats, needs or gaps, opportunities, and geo-spatial observations associated with the link between open space and both social equity and cultural resource needs. This will need to be expanded to identify more precisely how open space can reinforce urban and community development.

URBAN + COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The next step of the Watershed Listening Tour

will seek input from city and county staff, health

agencies, and participants of the Social Equity

Community of Interest to explore the link between open space investments, growth and affordability, community development,

and cultural heritage.



Port of

Tacom

a

Tacoma

Lakewood

Fife

Puyallup

Sumner

Edgewood

DuPont

BonneyLake

UniversityPlace

Buckley

Orting

GigHarbor

Steilacoom

Eatonville

Roy

Wilkeson

Carbonado

SouthPrairie

Ruston

Fircrest


Nisq

ua l l y

Ri v

e r

Little M

ash e l River





N i s q u a l ly

Ri v

e r







W hi te R iver

Clove r Cr eek

Tanwax

Cree

k

Ta

hom

a Cr

eek

Huc

kleb

erry

Creek

Voi ght Creek

South Creek

Muck Creek


Wilk es o n C ree k

South Prairie Creek

Wh

it e River

Whi t e Ri v e r

W


i ve r

W hit e R i v er


Kautz Cre

ek


Muck Creek

Lacamas Creek

Murray C reek

Hor n

Cree

k

Ohop Creek

Berg Cr eek

Lync h Creek



Midw

ay Cre e k

Beaver Creek

Busy Wild Creek

Deer Creek

Rushingwater Creek

Swift River

Evans C reek

Tolmie Creek

C henius Cr eek


Lily Creek

Copla r Creek

Gale C

reekFrame Creek

Bear Creek

Voight Creek

McGuire Creek

South Prairie Creek

Fo x Creek

Kings Creek

Cayada

Creek

McGuir e Cre

ek

Saint Andrews Creek

Falls

Cre

ek

Ranger

Cr e

ek

Ipsut C reek

Cataract C

re

ek

Mineral Creek

Byron Cree k

Milky CreekLyle

Cree

k

Lily

Creek

Pinochle Creek

Viola Creek

Pi geon Creek

Mule Creek

Elea

nor

Cree

k

Lost Creek

Ada Creek

Josephine Creek

Prospector Creek

Su

nris

e

Creek

Minnehaha Creek

Buck

C

reek

Do

e Cre

ek

Ranger

Creek

Dry C

reek

Deep Creek

Goat Creek

Silver Creek

Crystal Cr eek

Boundary Creek

Kotsuck Creek

Panther Creek

Chin

ook

Cree

k

Nickel Creek

Wi lliwakas Cree k

Tenas C ree k

Big

Creek

Pyramid C

reek


Page

Creek

New Pond Creek

Old Pond Creek

Canyo n Creek

Cam

p C

reek


st C

reek

Maggie Creek

Gree n

wa

ter

R

i ver

Flett Cr e ek


Cre

e k

Clover Creek

C l a r ks R

i ver

Rocky Creek

Huge Cr eek

Crescen t Cr eek

Whi te R

iver

LakeKapowsin

OhopLake

SteilacoomLake

SpanawayLake

TanwaxLake

MowichLake

GravellyLake


Lake

LewisLake

LakeLouise

WaughopLake

SurpriseLake

PrintzBasin

CedarLake

LakeEthel

LakeGeorge

ClearLake

RapjohnLake

CranberryLake

SilverLake

KregerLake

HartsLake

TuleLake

SequalitchewLake

Allen Pt.

Treble Pt.

Browns Pt.

Penrose Pt.

Pt.Richmond

Scott Pt.

Devil'sHead

Lyle Pt.

Fox Pt.

Hyde Pt.

Baldwin Pt.

South Head

Ca se

In

let


Puge

t

S

ound

Th

e N a

r ro

ws

Car

r

In l

e tHenderson

Bay

CommencementBay

RockyBay

FoxIsland

AndersonIsland



R a f tI s l a n d



W i l d e r n e s s

N o r s e

P e a k

W i l d e r n e s s

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

NationalForest


Forest

GlacierView

Wilderness




Refuge

PackExperimental

Forest


South Puget Sound



?x@

?¤@

!"̀$

?z@

?z@

?¾@

?à@

?Ã@

?Ó@

?ä@

?á@?ä@

?æ@

?â@

?¤@

?z@

?ä@

?à@

?â@

?̈@

!"̀$

?à@

?à@

?̈@

!"̀$

?z@

?Á@

TyeePeak

Paul Peak

LongHill

KempHill

Hugo Peak

GovePeak

FossHill

Echo Rock

CohnHill

CarrHill

BellHill

Mt.Wow

SweetPeak

NobleKnob

DavisHill

BurkeHill

BrownPeak

BlairHill

Anvil Rock

TumtumPeak

TravisHill

TolandHill

TirzahPeak

Mt.Ruth

PigeonPeak

MillerHill

McCallHill

MarcusPeak

ListerHill

LarsonHill

KickerHill

JansenHill

IndianHill

DoublePeak

CastlePeak

BrooksHill

BriggsHill

AuroraPeak

SeymourPeak

OldDesolate

Hoffma n�Hill

GlacierView

BransonHill

RelianceHill

RedstonePeak

LangstonHill

SparPoleHill

DobbsMtn.

Mt.Beljica

MuttonMtn.

MotherMtn.

CopperMtn

ClearWestPeak

TamanosMtn

CowlitzChimneys

BearheadMtn.Old

BaldyMtn.

LittleRanger

Peak

BurroughsMtn.

SkyscraperMtn.

Mt.Rainier

Mt.Fremont

PuyallupPt.

TheThreeSisters The

Palisades

CastleMtn.

CrystalMtn.

FrogMtn.

SlideMtn.

SourdoughMtn.

PitcherMtn.

ChenuisMtn.

CrescentMtn.

VirginiaPeak

TolmiePeak

CayadaMtn.

MineralMtn.

GleasonHill

ThreePeaks

ShrinerPeak

BaldRock

CowlitzRockPyramid

Peak

Mt.Ararat


S u n r i s e R

i dg e

Ra

m

p a r t Ri d

ge


Cowl in

g R idge


Go

ve

r no

r s R

i dg e



PointDefiance

Park

LakeTapps

AmericanLake

AlderLake

Alder LakeOp

en S

pac

e T

ask

Fo

rce

10-y

ear

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Pri

ori

ties

Co

mp

osi

te

PIE

RC

E C

OU

NT

Y

0 1 2 3 4 50.5Miles


June 2011


County Boundary

City or Town

LE

GE

ND

Transportation

Other Road


Interstate Highway



Public Land

Hydrography

River or Stream

Waterbody







Agricultural Land

Forest Land



1

2 3

4

5

89BACKGROUND REPORT

URBAN + COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: GEO / SPATIAL THREATS + OPPORTUNITIES

These preliminary observations will be

augmented with data and information from partners

working on growth, community development,

and social equity issues to highlight associated

regional priorities.

Key areas with high percentage of diverse populations.

Key areas with low median household income (under $38,000).

Loss of resource-based employment threatens rural communities and economies (e.g. Carbonado).

Regional opportunity mapping indicates these communities score low in health and environment indices: in close proximity to toxic site release and/or have limited access to parks and healthy food.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

1

2

4

5

Historic Naches Trail - example of important cultural resources in need of mapping.3

Puyallup-White Watershed Open Space Strategy May 2014

BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORTCentral Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

puyallup-white watershed open space strategy

Documents

puyallup tribe

pierce conservation

puyallupwhite woss

king county river

washington department

wa department of ecology

green council

urban design