regional open space strategy€¦ · foundation completed the scoping phase (phase i) for a central...

1

R E G I O N A L O P E N S PA C E S T R AT E G Y E n v i s i o n i n g a

f o r C e n t r a l P u g e t S o u n dR E G I O N A L O P E N S PA C E S T R AT E G Y E n v i s i o n i n g a

f o r C e n t r a l P u g e t S o u n d

INTRODUCTIONIn the summer and fall of 2010, the Green Futures Lab (GFL) and the Northwest Center for Livable Communities (NWCLC) with financial support from the Bullitt Foundation completed the Scoping Phase (Phase I) for a Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). The ROSS is an effort to broadly improve regional planning for open space working both from the grassroots and from governmental approaches. During this Scoping Phase the ROSS project team set out to identify and confirm with expert consultants the: effective stakeholder engagement processes, analytical methods appropriate for the ROSS process, and the resources required to complete the ROSS. This report is a supplement to the two-page report filed on November 8, 2010. This Supplemental Report describes the goals and activities of the ROSS project team during the Scoping Phase and addresses several central topics: the need for a ROSS, the scoping process used, key findings from research and scoping activities, conclusions, accomplishments, and next steps. The ROSS is an exciting project that will bridge cultural differencesto build a regional sense of community by working at scales rangingfrom local to regional and engaging everyday people as well as expertsand public officials. Throughout the report and especially in the appendices we reproduce the visual and spatial communication methods that were so important to conveying the preliminary vision of the ROSS. These include maps, drawings, diagrams, photographs, tables, and graphs.

NEED FOR A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGYThe Central Puget Sound Region is known for its world-class ecology, recreation, agriculture and forestry. This magnificent region is facing significant threats to its much-lauded open space qualities. The ROSS, however, has great potential to turn the tide in a positive direction and make the region’s open space more robust, functional, economical, and ecologically sound. There are numerous factors that make the ROSS a crucial piece in regional planning efforts:

Resource allocation and contemporary regional planning | Much of the inspiration for the ROSS draws from the need to establish regional priorities for open space planning. By collaborating with partners on funding initiatives and setting regional open space priorities, ROSS staff and collaborators can optimize resource allocation and streamline high-value project implementation. In this age of budget crises and other financial hardships there is fiscal intelligence and efficiency in assembling a regional governance structure for open space planning, pooling efforts to garner resources and identifying regional priorities for open space expenditures.

Proactive support from key collaborators | Through the course of our outreach, we successfully developed an increasingly enthusiastic base of supporters. We recognize a need for concurrent grassroots and government efforts and collaborations. In four workshops with over 65 regional open space experts and advocates, the ROSS project team found a recognized need and enthusiastic support for a ROSS. Participants provided important feedback on the project and supported the overall approaches, outreach methods, analytical methods, scope, timeline, and work plan of the ROSS.

2 3

Relevance to growth management and sustainability | Healthy, connected and proximate open space is integral to the success of growth management and sustainability. These key policy frameworks are touchstones in today’s dialogues on land use and environment in the region and the rest of the world. In order to successfully manage growth and achieve sustainability in the region, it is essential to have integrated regional-scale open space planning. Through coalescing existing efforts and organizations, the ROSS can significantly advance preservation and linking of connected open space corridors and ecological networks that balance and support population growth in compact urban centers.

Responses to current economic conditions | This region has experienced a long history of boom and bust cycles. Business cycles have driven development patterns in the region and will continue to influence these patterns. It is strategic to remember that opportunity is at its greatest when conditions are ‘worst.’ The current slowdown in market forces has created “breathing room” in which it is possible to conduct this research and have greater impact while many projects are on hold. Once business and real estate markets regain some vigor, the ROSS can readily optimize new project-level development.

Timing and opportunity | It is important to strike while the iron is hot—it is difficult to overstate the importance of timing for the ROSS project. As laid out above, there are a number of factors conspiring in favor of continuing on with the full ROSS now. In the Central Puget Sound Region there is a critical mass of interest among stakeholders. Since we have developed momentum for the project it is vital to carry forward now. There is also an important history of planning projects in the area and the ROSS would build on this legacy. The ROSS is an excellent complement to the Puget Sound Partnership’s current work in marine environments.

The unifying goal of the ROSS is to nurture a sense of regional community based on the abundant and awe-inspiring resources of the region. Some methods for developing a regional sense of community include:• Creating an educational and outreach program• Focusing on common goals and messaging• Galvanizing interests between recreation, ecology, agriculture and forestry• Working on salmon issues, but broadening the ecological horizon to include

entire ecosystems and working farm and forest lands• Building this regional sense of identity is one way to assemble political capital

and gain public approval for establishing regional priorities. Our existing networks of constituents and participants have considerable reach and community-building capacity and we only expect a snowballing effect as we move forward.

PROCESSDuring the Scoping Phase (Phase I) of the Central Puget Sound ROSS, the project team completed a variety of projects and studies, and conducted several meetings with key regional stakeholders. Analyses addressed two spatial extents: a watershed-scale study of the Lower Cedar River watershed and the preliminary scoping of a ROSS for the Central Puget Sound region.

The work in the Scoping Phase (Phase I) of the ROSS consisted of policy and planning research, outreach to potential partners and participants, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses, map production, and preparing for, facilitating and following up on meetings with experts in fields of: planning, ecology, land management, and GIS. The research process has been iterative and involved facilitating meetings, presenting our preliminary materials, and gathering and integrating responses into materials then used with larger groups.

The ROSS project team began outreach to planners, land managers, ecologists, and other open space experts by identifying contacts in a variety of roles at relevant organizations, agencies and city and county departments. We began looking at the most obvious sectors (parks and recreation, ecology, agriculture, and forestry) and were encouraged by collaborators to expand our outreach to education, public health, and food systems. Our contact list has continued to expand as participants and collaborators have given us referrals.

Mailbox Peak, Snoqualmie River Watershed Joshua Miller3

The ROSS meetings consisted of:

Cedar River Focus Group August 6, 2010 | The ROSS project team met with a group of ten scientists and land managers in a Cedar River Focus Group meeting held in the King Street Center on August 6, 2010 with King County staff members. PSRC Regional Staff Committee August 19, 2010 | The project team presented preliminary findings to fifty-three planners and staff at the PSRC Regional Staff Committee meeting on August 19, 2010. The project team also conducted a brief survey of participants regarding existing and ongoing open space planning and key staff in their jurisdictions.

Cedar River Task Force August 26, 2010 | The project team hosted the Cedar River Task Force meeting in Gould Hall at the University of Washington on August 26, 2010. This meeting had nine participants including two county employees from the previous meeting and a group of public space experts from the non-profit and private sectors.

Four County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session September 23, 2010 The Four County Stakeholder Meeting on September 23, 2010 was the final and most comprehensive meeting that ROSS project team conducted during the Scoping Phase. This meeting included forty-three experts from public, private, tribal, and non-profit enterprises, and galvanized support for the project

Washington State Chapter American Planning Association (APA) Senior Action Committee October 21, 2010 | John Owen presented a description of the ROSS proposal and scoping effort at the October 21 meeting of the APA Senior Action Committee. The small group of members in attendance was enthusiastic about the project and offered suggestions for Phase II work.

See appendices for summaries of ROSS meeting and workshop participants.

DETAILS OF THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER CASE STUDY The project team began the Scoping Phase with an emphasis on the Lower Cedar watershed study as a test case, concentrating on analyses of existing conditions and planning efforts for recreational, ecological, forestry, and agricultural land uses. This study involved interconnected processes including planning and policy analyses, multiple meetings, telephone and email correspondence, compiling data, GIS analyses, and mapping. The project team reviewed many plans, including: county and city parks and recreation plans, the State Department of Ecology Water Resource and Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Salmon Restoration Plan,

Stephen HydeMeeting attendees at ROSS Workshop and Visioning Session

the Strategic Plan of the State Recreation and Conservation Office, the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan, the King County Greenprint, The Nature Conservancy habitat maps, and the King County Comprehensive Plan.

In our Cedar River Focus Group meeting on August 6, 2010 with King County staff members, we learned some of the important historical developments in the Cedar River Watershed (CRW) as well as some details of the exceptional efforts being made in the CRW for ecological restoration, recreation access, and conservation of agricultural lands. In our Cedar River Task Force meeting on August 26, 2010 we gathered some new inputs and ideas, especially about the King County Greenprint and the activities of the Cascade Land Conservancy. In this meeting we discussed the Cascade Agenda and potential linkages between the ROSS and the Cascade Agenda.

The project team mapped various combinations of attributes including land use, land cover, ownership, planning and political boundaries, infrastructure, hydrology, and many types of open space in the Lower Cedar. Staff met with experts who gave feedback on analyses, data, and policy and management issues. Once the basic background research was complete, staff consulted experts. These experts referred staff to relevant historic plans and pointed out map updates which staff subsequently incorporated (see Cedar River Maps, page 4).

The Lower Cedar Watershed study revealed some generalizable lessons and unique attributes of the Cedar River Watershed. In particular, the workflow for the Cedar watershed research was similar to the 4-county research process and in some regards we expect it to be similar for each watershed study going forwards. We do, however, anticipate variation in each watershed study. The Cedar River is an especially data-rich drainage that has been studied and monitored for decades from various perspectives including salmon, general ecology, agriculture, and suburban and exurban development. The drainage has been managed with an eye towards conservation and the Upper Cedar Watershed is protected and carefully managed for hydrological and ecological values. Other watersheds may have limited staff and resources and fragmented or otherwise incomplete data sets and plans.

4 5

4

King County continues to manage the unincorporated county lands with an integrated and progressive approach to land use and ecology. Land managers in the Cedar are striving towards ‘best practices’ and may help to produce a set of recommendations for watershed management that are generalizable throughout the ROSS. While the regulatory frameworks of the Washington State and various counties and cities can be seen as progressive, they are also incredibly complex. We have anecdotal evidence that the complexity of a multi-layered regulatory framework is daunting and difficult to interpret from a landowner’s perspective. A preliminary finding of the Scoping Phase is that we need to not only work on messaging for the ROSS project, but also work on messaging for land use regulation and explaining land use codes, regulations, best practices, and incentives as alternatives to regulation. FOUNDATION FOR THE 4-COUNTY ROSS There were several parallels in policy, ecology, and research processes between the Lower Cedar watershed and the 4-county study areas. Similar to the Cedar River research, the 4-County scale project required planning and policy research, meetings, interviews, significant data compilation, standardizing, organizing, and mapping. The region has a significantly more complex policy framework than any given watershed. Regional planning includes the aggregate planning activities of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), including: the four counties, 75 member tribes and cities, state agencies (e.g. Ecology/WRIAs), local councils, and other entities.

During the Cedar Watershed study, staff learned that open space planning requires substantial outreach efforts to the public and to various planners and land managers. It is of central importance to understand local populations and to conduct outreach to discover concerns and generate positive interest in the planning process. The Cedar Watershed study also made it clear that it will be essential to work closely with the State Department of Ecology/ WRIA staff to coordinate with watershed planning and restoration as carried out in each WRIA. Since the watershed is the unit of study, the WRIA planning and restoration activities will be of central importance in developing the ROSS.

A potential significant difference is that some watersheds will not have a comparable density of data and planning documentation as the Cedar. This may ‘simplify’ the work and also make it harder to get information about these places. Similarly, we may not be able to get as much information from staff in some jurisdictions, simply because of a lack of dedicated staff time. Especially some smaller cities and tribes will be challenged to join in our efforts. In this regard we should make a special effort to include these stakeholders.

Map of Lower Cedar River Watershed

Lower Cedar River Watershed Gaps and Opportunities

5

Regional Open Space Strategy ROSSCENTRAL PUGET SOUND BASIN

prepared by: Heide S Martindate: September 21, 2010data source: KC WAGDA, PSRC, USDA, WSDOTprojection: Lambert Conformal Conic

citiesurban centersUGAtribal lands

parks + open spacenational parknational forestagriculture

regional trailsferryWRIAwater bodies

county outlinesMap of Central Puget Sound Region

S N O H O M I S H

K I N G

P I E R C E

K I T S A P

DEVELOPING A ROSS: BUILDING UPON KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNEDThe summer scoping and watershed study phase of the ROSS was conducted to set the foundation for a Regional Open Space Strategy. The preceding section of this report outlined those activities and processes that the ROSS project team and volunteers undertook to meet this objective, including: local policy and spatial analyses, stakeholder engagement, and research on domestic and international ROSS precedents. This portion of the report summarizes the primary findings from these actions.

Local Precedents | Staff and the project team researched regional open space planning precedents in local, national and international contexts. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference and the Puget Sound Regional Planning Council (the predecessors to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)) published a regional open space planning document titled “Project Open Space” in 1966. The 4-county spatial extent of that planning project and the subsequent organization of the PSRC establish an important precedent for the spatial scope of the current ROSS work, although if the program is highly successful it is a fully scalable to other jurisdictions.

National and International Precedents | In researching other regional open space efforts, staff learned that other entities do not involve as complex a governance structure as the Puget Sound region. One important exception is the Green River Greenway (GRG) in the St. Louis, Missouri area. This area authorized a special tax to fund the GRG, which along with Puget Sound area programs are important precedents for basic funding to implement a program such as the ROSS. ROSS staff had phone meetings and ongoing correspondence with longtime GRG staff. Please see Appendix 1i for four case summaries of other regional open space planning efforts, which include Nashua, New Hampshire, Portland, Oregon, the GRG and Auckland, New Zealand.

KEY FINDINGS FOR THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND ROSS Key findings are divided into three categories for clarity and brevity: Synthesis, Strategy, and Work Plan. The project team used these three categories to facilitate the breakout sessions at the 4-County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session and we have continued to employ these concepts as organizing categories. In the Summary Report the project team conveyed three essential points from the synthesis of the ROSS Scoping Phase in each of these categories; these are expanded upon and in some cases extended below.

6 7

6

KEY FINDINGS | SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE PLANNING + RESOURCES• Work must address a range of scales from regional to local. Local specificity

and a critical sense of the region require work ranging from the site scale to the regional scale.

• The watershed is the proper unit of analysis because it responds to fundamentalecologicalprocessesandcrossespoliticalboundariestosecurecollaboration. The watershed should continue to be the unit of analysis for understanding the region. ROSS staff and collaborators shall continue to use watersheds as the unit of analysis within the region, working across municipal boundaries as required. Our experience demonstrates the relevance and unique qualities of this hybrid approach to geographic analysis for regional planning.

• Throughout Central Puget Sound there are many applicable plans and ongoingactivitiesrelatedtoopenspace;theROSSsupportsandcoordinateswith these rather than developing new projects. To produce the ROSS it is essential to achieve an understanding of the full spectrum of existing plans and policies relevant to open space in the region. Many well-researched and well-written plans and policies relevant to open space planning already exist in Central Puget Sound. Our preliminary research on these existing documents revealed a history of planning and analysis over the past several decades although we did not achieve a complete understanding of the history of open space planning in the region. A synthesis of these plans and policies will be needed for the development of a draft ROSS that could then be refined and vetted through additional watershed-level analysis, research, and input and oversight by local experts.

KEY FINDINGS | STRATEGIES FOR EFFICACY, INCLUSION + LONG-TERM SUCCESS• Thereisacriticalneedforatoolthatassistsfundingentitiesinestablishing

prioritiesandrespondingtoopportunities.It is essential to identify and coordinate with funding partners. It is worthwhile to consider developing an open space improvement district (a levy district).

• Recreational,ecological,communitydevelopment,resourcemanagement,publichealthandeducationalobjectivesoftendovetailsothatthereareefficienciesinthegreaterintegrationofefforts.Trails can be conceived of at the nexus of multiple objectives: such as recreational, ecological, community development, resource management, public health, and educational objectives. For example, planning and building regionally significant ‘missing links’ in the regional trail network provide network connectivity, dramatically increasing public access. Our analysis of open space planning precedents highlights the usefulness of trail development as strategy that has the potential to capture public imagination and political support.

plan

plan

restoration effort

program

project

etc

PUBLIC GOV’Ts AGENCIES

NGOs

NGONGO

govtgovt

agency

shared tools

evaluation

regional advocacy

programmaticrecommendations

agency

Regional Projects & Priorities

Institutional Organization & Communication Structure

Toolsfor Planning & Policy

PRODUCTS

Gaps & Intersections

Existing Plans & Programs

1

2

3

4

Identify open space & green infrastructure efforts in terms of geography, objectives, and institutional performance

Present a clear picture of current open space conditions, identifying gaps & intersections of activities

Use results to engage broad range of interests

Through broad participation identify regional priorities, programmatic activities & organizational actions that make a comprehensive regional strategy

REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY:

BUILDING A PROCESS

LABRESEARCH GREEN FUTURES U n i ve r s i t y o f Wa s h i n g t o n C o l l e g e o f B u i l t E nv i ro n m e n t s

& DESIGN

242 Gould Hall Box 355734 | Seattle, WA 98195 | www.greenfutures.washington.eduN W C L C

Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning SessionGould Hall, University of WashingtonSeptember 23, 2010

SY

NTH

ES

ISS

TRAT

EG

Y

The generalized watershed-based open space planning process consists of first compiling existing plans to identify the gaps and intersections between current efforts (synthesis) and then, through a public process, developing an inter-organizational strategy of prioritized actions (strategy).

7

• TheROSSisareproducibleplanningframeworkthatismodularandscalableandcouldbestandardizedthroughtheproductionandpublicationoftraining programs and manuals. By working at multiple scales and using the watershed as a basic unit of analysis, the ROSS is intrinsically modular and scalable.

Some additional strategies that are important for considering are listed below. As we separate the grain from the chaff of these strategies, the ROSS project team can extend the best strategies into the work plan. A draft work plan is provided in the next section.

• Generate visual/spatial representations of cohesive open space for a given area

• Build a regional sense of community around open space• Prioritize the completion of regional trails• Achieve early tangible success--link the ROSS to projects being implemented,

even before the details of organizational structures are finalized• Focus on structuring the rural/urban interface• Use and improve existing programs like the Transfer of Development Rights

(TDR), current use programs, and farm preservation• Find and remedy critical missing links in the region (trail connectivity, habitat

conservation)• Build databases (contacts, grants, and funding)• Develop Best Practices (toolboxes at policy, planning, and project levels)• Organize Technical Advisory Committees to establish priorities for all four

areas (environmental management, recreation and trails, rural and resource lands, and urban and community development planning).

KEY FINDINGS | WORK PLAN FOR THE 4-COUNTY ROSS• Identifyinstitutionalobstaclesanddevelopstrategiestoeffectivelyovercome

them. It will be essential to find and mitigate blockages in organizations and institutions. Streamlining communication and operations will involve detective work and will require political savvy.

• Identifyandestablisheffectiveorganizationalstructuresandpathwaystoconduct,institutionalize,andimplementtheROSS. Organize an Executive Board, Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committees to assist staff in carrying out the ROSS. House the ROSS within the planning rubric of the PSRC or a consortium of Non-Profit organizations.

• Proactivelycultivatechampionsandpartnershipstobuildcapacityforoutreach,planning,andimplementation. Seek out elected officials, business and community leaders to carry and deliver the message. Building the

charismatic capital of the ROSS will prove to be of the utmost importance. Finding influential partners and champions will greatly increase the success of the ROSS.

These three work plan components are central to strategic regional open space planning. There is, however, an entire suite of other work plan themes and components. A few other themes central to the work plan that emerged or were reinforced during the ROSS Scoping Phase include the following:

• Continuetobebroadlyinclusiveincoalitionbuildingefforts. The ROSS outreach process was methodically inclusive; there is a need to continue broad outreach to county, city and tribal governments as well as state agencies, non-profit and advocacy groups, businesses and publics. We were asked to increase our outreach to public health and education experts to supplement our strong outreach to planning, recreation, ecology, agriculture, forestry, utilities, and transportation experts.

• Identifyandsupportexistinginter-agencyandinter-municipalcollaborations. Through our work, it became clear that strong inter-agency and inter-municipal collaborations exist in Central Puget Sound, but that these linkages are often ad hoc, informal, and/or politically vulnerable. Identifying and strengthening these existing collaborations would be an influential and useful product of the ROSS work plan.

• Allowforadhocandincrementalcoalitionbuilding. An important corollary to the previous point is that our project timeline and work plan must allow for the flexibility and space needed to accommodate a dynamic coalition building effort. We should simultaneously address multiple geographic scales, with varying levels of detail. With a broawd range of constituents, we need to have the ability to continually adapt to these shifting relationship patterns.

• Invite youth to carry the message. The experience of our collaborators also pointed to the strong potentials of inviting youth to help develop and carry the message of the ROSS project. Given the broad appeal of open space conservation, youth are strong potential communicators.

In Appendix 2d the work plan is addressed in greater detail.

8 9

8

and coalition-building efforts. The actual and perceived neutrality of the GFL and NWCLC allowed us to bypass potential conflicts associated with geographic or political alliances.

Thereisanimportancetobalancingthetimeneededtoconducta“synthesis”withtheneedforacomprehensive“strategy.”As we began the research and analysis of the Lower Cedar River Watershed, we were met with an unanticipated challenge – the amount of existing research, data, and planning and policy documentation of the region was beyond our expectations. The original project timeline had considered that we would need to analyze and compile many types of information at a shifting range of scales, but we had underestimated the volume of information and the time that would need to be dedicated to: identify where the information was housed, acquire the information, convert the information into compatible and comparable data frames, and vet the quality of overlapping pieces of information created in multiple spatial and temporal contexts. Through our stakeholder meetings and interviews, we came to recognize that this overproduction of knowledge was daunting, and that there was a critical need to audit and synthesize existing information before moving forward with a strategy.

Therearechallengesinarticulatingaclearvisionwhileremainingflexible,dynamic, and inclusive. During our Scoping Phase, we were determined to remain open to input from our potential collaborators in order to allow them to influence the final shape and scope of the project. What we found, however, was that in this desire to allow for openness and inclusiveness, we were met with a desire for a narrower, more clearly defined vision. Our biggest shortcoming that

GENERALIZABLE LESSONES LEARNED FROM THE ROSS SCOPING PHASEThere are several lessons that were learned through the ROSS Scoping Phase that can inform the ROSS moving forward. Some of these lessons are described below:

Thereisrobustnessinworkingsimultaneouslyatmultiplegeographicscales.This scoping process focused on a watershed-scale case study and used this study scale to inform and strengthen our understanding of the larger regional context. Working simultaneously at these two scales of reference allowed our project team to focus on the finer details and complexities of the relationships and issues we were exploring, while also giving us the opportunity to explore how they influence and are influenced by increasingly larger natural, political, and social networks.

Thereareconceptualbenefitstousingawatershedasageographicscaleofreference. The quality of a watershed as being formed by natural processes rather than political efforts allows for a conversation that is grounded in ecological principals and network thinking. By crossing political boundaries the watershed case study also provided an exercise in the type of cross-jurisdictional cooperation, outreach, and collaboration that would be required to realize a similar strategy at a regional scale.

Therearepracticalandpoliticalbenefitsofhousingaregionalplanningprojectin a university. Both the GFL and the NWCLC are housed in the University of Washington’s College of Built Environments. Our project team found that this position within an academic, non-political, and not-for-profit institution that operates at a statewide level was positively perceived throughout our outreach

Lower Cedar River Watershed John Owen

9

was identified by many of our collaborators is that we need a clearer and more concise message to answer the questions “What is the ROSS?” and “What is its value?” While we have detailed and considered responses to these questions there is an obvious need for a set of clear and marketable messages.

Visual/spatialcommunicationisimportantforconveyingthevision. In the Scoping Phase of the ROSS it was clear that communicating the vision of the ROSS to participants was most effectively accomplished by presenting conceptual models, maps, and preliminary schematic landscape renderings. The spatial nature of land use planning points us towards visual communication methods, since space is readily understood visually.

SUMMARY, NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSIONAs pointed out in the Summary Report, the most significant accomplishment of the ROSS Scoping Phase has been the production of a solid foundation for the successful completion of the 4-county Central Puget Sound ROSS. This foundation is laid on three major accomplishments:• Enthusiastic participation and engagement from key collaborators,

partners and participants from the public, tribal, private and non-profit sectors

• Essential insights about what is needed to complete the next phase of the project

• A tested methodology and work plan for completing a region-wide ROSSThese accomplishments are critical to the success of the ROSS. During the Scoping Phase, the ROSS staff and project team conducted a watershed scale study of the lower Cedar River Watershed to determine a preliminary approach for the ROSS and used lessons from the study to develop a prospectus for the full ROSS for the 4-county region. As set out in the introduction and elaborated through this report, the ROSS project team identified and confirmed with expert consultants: effective stakeholder engagement processes, analytical methods appropriate for the ROSS process, and the resources required to complete the ROSS.

Moving forward, the ROSS project team will seek funding to assemble a new organizational structure, continue watershed studies and develop preliminary regional open space planning over a two-year period. In 2011 we will form the three-tiered organizational structure of the ROSS, develop a preliminary comprehensive strategy (PCS), and conduct four watershed studies. In 2012 the ROSS will be formally institutionalized and housed in an agency, organization or coalition of organizations. Also in that year we will complete the watershed studies, and draft a regional comprehensive strategy that includes: a list of prioritized actions and implementation recommendations; an action program for

implementing open space activities including an organization and coordination structure for pursuing ROSS objectives; tools for open space enhancement; and, visualizations to support an outreach effort. For greater detail on the timeline and work plan see Appendix 2.

The ROSS is an ambitious project that will require complex organizational efforts, persistence, and follow-through. Fostering a sense of regional community around open space is a unifying goal of the ROSS. We have a strong base of constituents and collaborators in the public, tribal, private, and non-profit sectors. The successes of the ROSS project team to date have depended on the incredibly knowledgeable, wise, and intelligent group of participants from public, private, tribal, and non-profit sectors that we were able to engage in the project. They have variously spent time: pointing us to existing open space planning resources, sharing their expert knowledge of history, technical issues and political issues, and attending meetings and workshops with an implicit commitment and supportive attitude. As governments seek to cut budgets, remove redundancies, and increase efficiency the ROSS is a natural fit since it formulates a coordinated regional open space planning effort coupled with grass-roots community-based action. We will have to be strategic, effective, and efficient in order to accomplish our goals. Phase II of the Central Puget Sound ROSS holds substantial promise for the betterment of open space planning in the region.

APPENDICESAppendix 1 | Participation and Outreacha. Statistical Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaborationsb. Attendee List: 4-County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Sessionc. Attendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work Sessiond. Attendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentation and Information Gathering Sessione. Attendee List: King County and Cedar River Watershed Focus Groupf. Outreach by Organization Title and Typeg. Abbreviations and Categoriesh. Outreach and Communication: Brochure and Web Pagei. Case Studies Handout

Appendix 2 | Work Plan and Mapsa. Work Flow Diagramb. Map of Cedar River Region c. Map of 4-County Regiond. Work Plan Scope and Timeline

10 11

a. Statistical Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaborations

b. Attendee List: 4 County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session

c. Attendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work Session

g. Abbreviations and Categories

d. Attendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentation and Information Gathering Session

e. Attendee List: King County and Cedar River Watershed Focus Group

h. Outreach and Communication: Brochure and Web Page

APPENDIX 1

f. Outreach by Organization Title and Type

PARTICIPATION + OUTREACH

i. Case Studies Handout

PLA

ECO

REC

RE

TR

AG

FOR

ECON

YE

PH

UT

FOOD

FISH

ART

COUNTY

REGION

CITY

STATE

TRIBAL

NATIONAL

WATERSHED

OTHER

1.a.Statistical Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaborations*for clarifi cation of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g

SUMMARY OF OUTREACHphone calls, emails, and individuals otherwise contacted

OUTREACH BY ORGANIZATION TYPE

PUBLIC

NGO

PRIVATE

OUTREACH BY GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

PLA

ECO

REC

RE

TR

AG

FOR

ECON

YE

UT

PH

FOOD

FISH

ART

OUTREACH BY PRIMARY INTEREST

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATIONmeetings, interviews, workshop

PARTICIPATION BY ORGANIZATION TYPE

PUBLIC

NGO

PRIVATE

PARTICIPATION BY GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

COUNTY

REGION

CITY

STATE

NATIONAL

TRIBAL

WATERSHED

OTHER

PARTICIPATION BY PRIMARY INTEREST

12 13

PARTICIPATION

SOLICITATION

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

PLA

ECO

REC

RE

TR

AG

FOR

ECON

YE

UT

PH

FOOD

FISH

ART

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

COUNTY

REGION

STATE

CITY

TRIBAL

NATIONAL

WATERSHED

OTHER

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION, cont.meetings, interviews, workshop

REPEAT PARTICIPATION

4 COUNTY

4 COUNTY REGRET OR NO SHOW

CEDAR RIVER TASK FORCE

PSRC MEET

PSRC COMMENT

KING COUNTY FOCUS GROUP

INTERVIEW

PARTICIPATION BY TYPE

ONE

TWO

THREE

FOUR

PARTICIPATION NUMBERS AS PORTION OF OUTREACH

BY ORGANIZATION TYPE

0 50 100 150 200 250

PUBLIC

NGO

PRIVATE

BY GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT BY PRIMARY INTEREST

1.b.Attendee List: 4 County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning SessionSeptember 23 9-11:30 AM Gould Hall, University of Washington*for clarifi cation of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g

CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION

LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPEGEOGRAPHIC

EXTENT 4 COUNTY

4 COUNTY REGRET or NO SHOW

C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTY FOCUSGROUP INTERVIEW

Barnett ElliotCity of Tacoma, Community and Economic Development Urban Planner PUB CI x x x

Batten Leslie Green Futures Lab Manager PUB ST x

Black Todd City of Renton Parks Dept Capital Project Coordinator PUB CI x

Blaylock Roger Muckleshoot Tribe Planning PUB TR x

Bleifuhs SteveKing County DNRP/WLRD - River and Floodplain Management Section Section Manager PUB CO x x

Bradley GordonUniversity of Washington, School of Forest Resources Professor PUB ST x

Bramer Dave University of Washington Green Roofs Researcher PUB ST X

Brockhaus Amy Mountains to Sound Greenway Information Manager NGO REG x

Byers Tom Cedar River Group Founding Partner NGO WAT x x

Cartwright Suzanne University of Washington, Runstad Center Associate Director PUB ST x

Culp Carrie WASLA President Elect NGO ST x

Cushman King Bicycle Alliance of Washington Vice President NGO ST x x

Deller Mike TPL Washington State Director NGO ST x

Dewald Dan City of Bellevue Natural Resource Manager PUB CI x x x

Droge Martha Kitsap County Parks & Recreation Park Projects Coordinator PUB CO x x

Dunn Reagan 9th District of King County, Washington King County Councilman PUB CO x

Dyckman Claire King County Agriculture Program/DNRP Project Program Manager III PUB CO x

Dykstra Peter The Wilderness SocietyPacific Northwest Regional Director at The Wilderness Society NGO NAT x x

Embledon Mary Cascade Harvest Coalition Executive Director NGO REG x

Englehard Benn University of Washington Landscape Designer PUB ST X

Erickson Ara The Cascade Land Conservancy Green Cities Director NGO REG x x

Faegenberg Nancy King County Water and Land Resources Division River Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x

Fletcher Fuzzy Snoqualmie Nation Planning PUB TR x

Freeman Kimberly Pierce County Planning and Land Services Senior Planner PUB CO x x x

Frkuska Linda City of Sammamish Parks Project Manager PUB CI x

14 15


EXTENT 4 COUNTY


C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT


Fuerstenberg Bob RetiredRetired Senior Ecologist at King County Natural Resources PUB CO x x

Gage SarahState of Washington Recreation and ConservationOffice Biodiversity Executive Coordinator PUB ST x

Gaolach Brad W. Pierce County Extension County Director PUB CO x

Gould-Wesson Gloria City of Kent Planner/GIS Coordinator PUB CI x x

Inghram Paul City of Bellevue Comprehensive Planning Manager PUB CI x x x

Jander Neal Snoqualmie Nation Natural Resources PUB TR x x

Jerabek JenniferMaster Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties

South Snohomish County Mgr.of Government Affairs NGO CO, REG x

Jordan LynnPCC FarmlandTrust Development & Outreach Associate NGO NAT x

Kelly Mann ULI Seattle Executive Director NGO NAT x

Kinney Karen King County Agriculture Program/DNRP Project Program Manager II PUB CO x x

Knauer Jennifer Jones & Jones Senior Associate PRI NAT x x

Konigsmark KenBoeing, Mountains to Sound, Issaquah Alps Trails Club

Board of Directors, Mountains to Sound; Vice President Issaquah Alps Trails Club NGO REG x

Kramer Brit Washington Recreation and Park Association Executive Director PUB ST x

Kyer KrystalMetro Parks Tacoma Board and Tahoma Audubon Program manager PUB CI x

Lamensdorf-Bucher Jane King County DNRP Water Policy Unit Regional Planning Manager PUB CO x

Larsen Craig City of Redmond Director of Parks and Recreation PUB CI x

Lewandowski Roberta Futurewise President, Board of Directors NGO ST x

Lundin Ingrid King County Parks and Recreation Division Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x x

Marti Monte Snohomish Conservation District District Manager PUB CO x

Martin Heide Green Futures Lab Associate Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x

McCartney Heather City of Mukilteo Planning Director PUB CI x

McClelland Doug DNR Assistant Region Manager, Asset Operations PUB ST x

McIntosh Annika Light Table Collective Landscape Designer PRI CI X

Miller Joshua Green Futures Lab Lead Planner, ROSS PUB ST x x x x

Miller Ivan PSRCPrincipal Planner, Growth Management Planning Division PUB REG x

Monaghan Joshua King Conservation DistrictConservation Planner, Agriculture Program Lead PUB CO x x

Montgomery Dave Earth and Space Sciences Professor PUB ST x

Moorehead Lydia Kent Parks and Recreation Department Park Planner PUB CI x


EXTENT 4 COUNTY


C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT


Nilssan Judy PUB REG x

Owen John Makers Architecture and Urban Planning Principal PRI REG x x x x

Peterson Lorrie City of Bellevue Parks Property Manager PUB CI x

Pierce Danielle ESA Adolfson GIS Specialist PRI REG x

Racker Jeffrey PUB REG x

Richardson Jessi City of Sammamish Director of Parks and Recreation PUB CI x

Rottle Nancy Green Futures Lab Director PUB ST x x x x

Sanders Betty City of Redmond Senior Park Planner; Parks and Recreation PUB CI x

Smith Stacy Snohomish Conservation District Low Impact Development Specialist PUB CO x

Soliz Dominga WA State Recreation and Conservation Office Policy and Planning Specialist PUB CO x

Sterrett Jill Washington APA Board of Directors President Elect NGO NAT x

Storrar Jeff PSRC Growth Mgmt Dept PUB REG x x

Stuart Don American Farmland Trust Pacific Northwest Director NGO NAT x

Sullivan Bill Puyallup Tribe Natural Resources PUB TR x

Swenson Skip The Cascade Land Conservancy Managing Director of Policy NGO REG x x

Tucker Nancy City of Snoqualmie Planning Director PUB CI x

Turner Ron GFL and NWCLC ROSS steering committee PUB ST x

Uhl Angela Futurewise Co-Director, Development & Operations NGO ST x

Wagoner Roger BHC Principal; Director of Community Design PRI ST x

Watterson Bryant Corrie King County Conservation Futures Committee Member PUB CO x

16 17

1.c.Attendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work SessionAugust 26 23 9-11:30 AM Gould Hall, University of Washington*for clarifi cation of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g



EXTENT 4 COUNTY


C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT


Cushman King Bicycle Alliance of Washington Vice President NGO ST x x

Knauer Jennifer Jones & Jones Senior Associate PRI NAT x x






Stolnack Scott WA State Department of Ecology WRIA 8 Technical Coordinato PUB WAT x x x

Swenson Skip The Cascade Land Conservancy Managing Director of Policy NGO REG x x



EXTENT 4 COUNTY


C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT


Abbott Norman PSRC Director of Growth Management PUB REG x

Ambrose Donna Snohomish CountyDirector, Snohomish County’s Economic Development Program PUB CO x

Anderson Charlene City of Kent Planning Manager PUB CI x x

Ardussi Sean PSRC Senior Planner PUB REG x

Baker Dwight SEVA, CBA x

Barnett ElliotCity of Tacoma, Community and Economic Development Urban Planner PUB CI x x x

Bauer Leonard Dept of CommerceManaging Director, Growth Management Services PUB ST x x

Becker Wendy Snohomish County Economic and Cultural Development Officer PUB CO x

Berna Colette City of Bremerton Park Planner PUB CI x x

Bobann Fogard Snohomish County P.E., Director PUB CO x

Butler Steve City of Mill Creek Community development director PUB CI x x

Cardwell Dan Pierce County Senior Planner PUB CO x

Cioc Greg Kitsap County Transportation Planning Manager PUB CO x x

Clifton Stephen City of Edmonds Director of Economic Development PUB CI x x

Costa Dori Seattle Revenue & Capital, Development Manager PUB CI x

Dewald Dan City of Bellevue Natural Resource Manager PUB CI x x x

Freeman Kimberly Pierce County Planning and Land Services Senior Planner PUB CO x x x

Burke Dan Port of Seattle Regional Transportation Planner PUB CO x x

Gulbranson Mark PSRC Deputy Executive Director PUB REG x

Hansen Matt King County Metro Market Development Supervisor PUB CO x

Harris Ashley PSRC Assistant Planner PUB REG x

Hope Shayne City of Mountlake Terrace Community development director PUB CI x x

Howard Charlie PSRC Transportation Planning Director PUB REG x

Inghram Paul City of Bellevue Comprehensive Planning Manager PUB CI x x x

Kenworthy Craig PSCAA Executive Director NGO REG x

Kiehl Steve PSRC Principal Planner PUB REG x

1.d.Attendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentation and Information Gathering SessionAugust 19 9-11:30 AM; PSRC Conference Room*for clarifi cation of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g

18 19


EXTENT 4 COUNTY


C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT


Kitchen Matthew PSRC Council Member PUB REG x

Koenig Dave City of Everett Manager, Planning Department PUB CI x x

Kofoed Kristian Seattle Senior Urban Planner, Department of Planning and Development PUB CI x

Krawczyk Tracy Seattle Parking policy and planning manager PUB CI x


Mayhew Robin PSRC Program Manager, Transportation Planning PUB REG x

McClure, Mary Kitsap Reg’l Coordinating Council Executive Director PUB CO x

McGourty Kelly PSRC Program Manager, Transportation Planning PUB REG x


Mudget Chris Pierce County Transportation Programming Supervisor PUB CO x x

Munce Ian Tacoma Community and Economic Development PUB CO x

Naito Carol PSRC Principal Planner-Demographer PUB REG x

Olson Rick PSRCDirector of Government Relations and Communications PUB REG x


Papsdorf Peggy Suburban Cities Association Public Policy Analyst NGO REG x

Pedersen, Michael PSRC Transportation Planning Intern PUB REG x

Piro Rocky PSRC Program Manager PUB REG x

Reid Jacqueline Snohomish Co. Planner PUB CO x

Reitenbach Paul King County Senior Policy Analyst PUB CO x


Schumann Amy Public Health / Seattle & King Co. King County Physical Activity Coalition PUB CO x x

Shields Eric City of Kirkland Planning Director PUB CI x

Stanton Leslie PSCAA, Puget Sound Clean Air AgencyTeam lead, Climate Protection and Transportation Planning NGO REG x x

Storrar Jeff PSRC Growth Mgmt Dept PUB REG x x

Trussler Stacy WSDOT Eastside Corridor Deputy Director PUB ST x

Underwood-Bultmann Liz PSRC Administrative Assistant PUB REG x

West Julie Public Health / Seattle King Co Project Manager PUB CO x

1.e.Attendee List: King County and Cedar River Watershed Focus GroupAugust 6 9-11:30 AM; King-Chinook Conference Room*for clarifi cation of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g



EXTENT 4 COUNTY


C. RIVER TASK

FORCEPSRC

MEETINGPSRC

COMMENT


Beavers Tom King County Water and Land Resources Division Cedar-Lake Washington Basin Steward PUB WAT x

Creahan Kathy King County DNRAgriculture/Forestry Program Manager, Project Program Manager IV PUB CO x

Faegenberg Nancy King County Water and Land Resources Division River Project and Program Manager PUB CO x x

Lucchetti Gino King County Water and Land Resources Division Environmental Scientist PUB CO x x




Murphy Mike King County Water and Land Resources Division Land Conservation Program PUB CO x

O'Laughlin KateKing County DNRP - Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) Supervising Environmental Scientist PUB CO x



Stolnack Scott WA State Department of Ecology WRIA 8 Technical Coordinato PUB WAT x x x

Tiemann David King County Water and Land Resources Division Project/Program Manager III, PUB CO x

Vanderhoof Jen King County Water and Land Resources Division Environmental Scientist PUB CO x

20 21

1.f.Outreach by Organization Title and Type

PUBLIC NGO PRIVATE

9th District of King County, Washington American Farmland Trust BoeingAffiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Audubon Washington BHC ConsultantsAllied Arts of Seattle Bicycle Alliance of Washington David Evans and AssociatesCedar River Council Cascade Bicycle Club Earth EconomicsChinook Tribe Cascade Harvest Coalition ESA AdolfsonCity of Bellvue Cascadia Region Green Building Council Green Diamond Resource CompanyCity of Bremerton Cedar River Group Jones & JonesCity of Edmonds Citizens for a Healthy Bay K & L GatesCity of Evertt Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition Light Table CollectiveCity of Kent Ecotrust Makers Architecture and Urban PlanningCity of Kirkland Friends of the Cedar River Watershed OtakCity of Lake Forest Park Futurewise Parametrix, Inc.City of Maple Valley Futurewise Plum CreekCity of Mercer Island Hood Canal Coordinating Council Quailcroft Environmental ServicesCity of Mill Creek Issaquah Alps Trails Club WeyerhaueserCity of Mountlake Terrace Kitsap County Association of RealtorsCity of Mukilteo Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties City of Puyallup Master Builders Association of Pierce County City of Redmond Mountains to Sound GreenwayCity of Renton Nature ConservancyCity of Sammamish NW Energy Coalition City of Seattle PCC Farmland TrustCity of Seattle People for Puget Sound City of Shoreline Pierce County FARM ProgramCity of Snoqualmie Puget Sound Clean Air AgencyCity of Tacoma Seattle-King County Association of RealtorsCity of Woodinville Snohomish County Camano Association of RealtorsDuwamish Tribe Stewardship Partners Kikiallus Indian Nation Suburban Cities AssociationKing Conservation District Sustainable Communities Around Puget Sound (SCALLOPS)King County Sustainable NorthwestKing County Agriculture Commission Tacoma-Pierce County Association of Realtors King County Conservation Futures Committee Tahoma AudubonKing County Council Tatoosh Group-Sierra ClubKing County Department of Natural Resources and Parks The Cascade Chapter Sierra ClubKing County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County The Cascade Land ConservancyKing County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land The MountaineersKing County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Trout Unlimited King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Trust for Public LandKing County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water Policy Unit Urban Land Institute SeattleKing County Executive Office Washington Alpine ClubKing County Extension Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association King County GreenTools Program Washington Chapter of the American Society of Landscape King County Metro Washington Ducks Unlimited King County Parks and Recreation Division Washington Environmental CouncilKing County Water and Land Resources Division Washington Recreation and Park AssociationKitsap Conservation District Washington Rivers ConservancyKitsap County Extension Washington State Parks FoundationKitsap County Parks & Recreation Washington Trail AssociationKitsap County Public Works Washington Water TrustKitsap County Transportation Planning Washington Wilderness CoalitionKitsap Regional Coordinating Council Washington Wildlife and Recreation CoalitionMetro Parks Tacoma Board and Tahoma AudubonMountlake Terrace

PUBLIC NGO PRIVATE

Muckleshoot Indian TribeMuckleshoot Tribal CouncilMuckleshoot TribeNational Park Service Pacific West Region - SeattleNisqually TribeNorthwest Indian Fisheries CommissionPierce Conservation DistrictPierce CountyPierce County ExtensionPierce County Parks Pierce County Planning and Land ServicesPort of SeattlePublic Health Seattle and King CountyPuget Sound Regional CouncilPuget Sound Salmon CommissionPuyallup TribeSnohomish Conservation DistrictSnohomish CountySnohomish County Department of Planning and Development ServicesSnohomish County ExtensionSnohomish County Focus on FarmingSnohomish Marine Resources Committee Snohomish TribeSnoqualmie NationSound TransitSound Transit, Bicycle Advisory GroupSteilacoom TribeStillaguamish TribeSuquamish TribeTulalip TribeUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington, Department of Earth and Space SciencesUniversity of Washington, Green Futures LabUniversity of Washington, Northwest Center for Livable CommunitiesUniversity of Washington, River Systems Research GroupUniversity of Washington, Runstad CenterUniversity of Washington, School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of Washington, Urban Design and PlanningUS Environmental Protection AgencyWashington Biodiversity CouncilWashington Farm Forestry AssociationWashington State Association of CountiesWashington State Beef CommissionWashington State Commodity Commission ProgramWashington State Conservation CommissionWashington State Department of CommerceWashington State Department of EcologyWashington State Department of Natural ResourcesWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices DivisionWashington State Department of Transportation Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Services OfficeWashington State Recreation and Conservation OfficeWildlife Program Staff

22 23

ORGANIZATION PROFILE shorthand translation

ORG TYPE type of organizationPUB public entityPRI private organization or corporationPRI private organization or corporation

NGO non-governmental organization

EOGRAPHIC EXTENT geographic extentCI city

CO countyST state

WAT watershed (e.g., Cedar River, Skokomish River)RG regional (e.g.: Puget Sound, Pacific Northwest)RG regional (e.g.: Puget Sound, Pacific Northwest)TR tribal

NAT nationalO other

PRIMARY INTEREST Main research/advocacy interests of organization, and/or specialties of participant within organizationAG agriculture (farming and farmland policy)

ECO ecology, health of terrestrial and aquatic systemsECON economic developmentECON economic development

FISH fishing, fisheriesFOOD food systems, agriculture (farmer-consumer relationships)

FOR forestryPH public health

PLA planning, policy, managementRE real estate

REC parks and recreation (planning, design, advocacy, preservation)TR transportation (automobile, multi-modal, transit, bicycle and pedestrian)UT utilitiesYE youth, education, public awareness

ART public art, arts engagment

1.g.Abbreviations and Categories

1.h.Outreach and Communication: Brochure

24 25

1.h.Outreach and Communication: Web Page

1.i.Case Studies Handout

AUCKLAND, NZ | Regional Open Space Strategy

dates | 2005 (ROSS report published); 2055 geographic scope | Auckland Metro Regionfunding mechanism | a goal of the ROSS is to develop a comprehensive summary of funding optionsde ning open space | parks, beaches and sports elds, along with other public areas: e.g. town squares, streets and footpaths in urban areasfor more information | www.arc.govt.nz/plans/regional-strategies/regional-open-space-strategy.cfm

SUMMARY

KEY POINTS Broad vertical and horizontal aspect: national to local analysis + participation Clearly communicated series of action plans and planning toolsOpen space de ned and addressed within a series of de ning frames: Urban Areas, Coastal Areas, Rural Areas, and Natural Areas

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKThis report has a framework which may prove useful for developing the nal ROSS in a comprehensive and clear document:Part One: Outlines the background to the ROSSPart Two: Legislative and Policy FrameworkPart Three: The Regional Open Space ResourcePart Four: Vision for the Region’s Open Space NetworkPart Five: Action and Implementation Plans

The report’s Action Plans and accompanying Implementation Plans provide a useful framework for creating nested, measurable goals and outcomes. The report includes a comprehensive summary of how these plans can be integrated with current or proposed central, regional, or local initiatives. The Action Plans include: Research and MonitoringPolicy and GuidelinesPartnershipCommunity Engagement

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPSThe ROSS was developed through a Regional Open Space Forum (ROSF) as a partnership exercise between:Auckland Regional Council7 Territorial AuthoritiesDepartment of Conservation Ministry for the Environment

The further development and implementation of the ROSS includes an expanded list of partners:Tangata Whenua (M ori people)NGOsCommunity environmental groupsInfrastructure, health, education, and transportation organizations and governmental agenciesPrivate sector individuals and organizations such as forestry companies, farmers and tourism operators,operators of recreation facilities such as golf courses, and landowners

ROSS

PORTLAND, OR | Parks 2020 Vision

dates | 1999 (Parks 2020 Vision published); 2009 (Progress Report published); 2020geographic scope | City of Portlandfunding mechanism | Portland Parks and Recreation funds, Portland Parks Foundation fundraising, bonds, grants, general fund, fees, volunteer recruitment and entrepreneurial projectsde ning open space | broad and inclusive of recreation, resource and habitat lands - though emphasizes access and recreationfor more information | www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=40182

SUMMARY

KEY POINTS Emphasizes developing community Successfully integrated many smaller holdings into a coherent park system Includes a strong evaluation program for grading the performance of implementation and goal achievement (Published a ten year Progress Report with candid evaluations)

GOALSThe Portland Vision was based on ve central goals, which were later used as key criteria for evaluating the plan in 2009. These are: 1. Ensure Portland’s park and recreation legacy for future generations.2. Provide a wide variety of park and recreation services and opportunities for all citizens.3. Preserve, protect and restore Portland natural resources to provide nature in the city.4. Create an interconnected regional and local system of trails, paths and walks to make Portland the “walking city of the West.”5. Develop parks, recreation facilities and programs that promote community in the city.

CASE STUDY PROFILES

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKIncludes ve strategic approaches: Partnership Strategy: Develop and Maintain effective public and private partnershipsDevelopment Strategy: Design and Build Excellent Parks and Recreation FacilitiesMarketing and Communication Strategy: Develop and Implement an Effective Communication ProgramManagement Strategy: Develop Best Management Practices Funding Strategy: Provide Stable and Predictable Funding to Realize the 2020 Vision

1. Establishing and safeguarding the parks, natural resources, and urban forests that are the soul of the city, ensuring that green spaces are accessible to all2. Developing and maintaining excellent facilities and places for public recreation, building community through play and relaxation, gathering and solitude3. Providing and coordinating recreation services and programs that contribute to the health and well being of residents of all ages and abilities

ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORKPortland Parks and RecreationPortland Parks BoardPortland Parks Foundation

26 27

ST LOUIS, MO | Great Rivers Greenway DistrictNASHUA, NH | Regional Open Space Strategy

dates | 2000 (district formed); 2003 (community planning process initiated)geographic scope | St Louis City, including Saint Louis County and Saint Charles Countyfunding mechanism | 1/10th of 1 cent sales tax (ensures over 20 million annually)defi ning open space | public open space, with an emphasis on parks, greenways and trailsfor more information | www.greatrivers.info

SUMMARYdates | 2005 (ROSS report published)geographic scope | Nashua Region (Southeastern NH)funding mechanism | NH Regional Environmental Planning Program (State Dept of Environmental Services funds), NH Department of Transportationdefi ning open space | broad defi nition including working forests, agricultural land, habitat land and recreational landfor more information | des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/repp/documents/nashua_ros.pdf

SUMMARY

KEY POINTS Strong coordination between multiple county and city governments High level of community input and support + popular central project: River Ring Flexible, strong public image (formerly Metropolitan Park and Recreation District)

KEY POINTS Uses a broad defi nition of open space, including working forests, agricultural land, habitat land, as well as recreational land

The Great Rivers Greenway has a diverse and broad list of partners and collaborators. Categories include:Federal AgenciesGovernments and DistrictsMunicipalitiesNon-Profi tsParks DepartmentsState AgenciesUniversities

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPSBoard of Directors Represent Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County Appointed by the executive of the city or county they representCitizen Advisory Committee Citizens from St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles CountyCounty ExecutivesStaffTechnical Advisory Committee Added in 2003 TACs support and advise general operations and specifi c projects

KEY PROJECTS + PUBLIC INITIATIVESThe River RingA concept developed through the community planning process, this is an interconnected system of greenways, parks and trails that will encircle the St. Louis region and will encompass a 600-mile web of more than 45 greenwaysBike Tours Historic Bike Tours Tales on the Trail Hike It, Bike It, or Run!Public Awareness + EducationPoster campaign: Bicycle Public AwarenessLocal bike mapsBike Trail Planning + DesignStreet Closings + FestivalsRaces + River CleanupsWebinars + Lectures

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPSNashua Regional Planning CommissionPartnership of twelve municipalitiesRegional Resource Conservation Committee

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKContinued encouragement of concentrated public infrastructure investment in developed areasLocal open space and recreation plan implementationEncouragement of private sector open space donations and planning assistanceCreation of a Regional Open Space DistrictContinued encouragement of inter-municipal cooperation in land protectionPromote public awareness of land protection

WORK PLANTask 1. Existing Conditions AnalysisTask 2. Riparian Buffer AnalysisTask 3. Impervious Surface AnalysisTask 4. Build-out Analysis

a. Work Flow Diagram

b. Geographic Extent: Cedar River Watershed Map

c. Geographic Extent: 4 County Map

APPENDIX 2 WORKPLAN + MAPS

d. Workplan Scope and Timeline

28 29

plan

plan

restorationeffort

program

project

etc

PUBLIC GOV’Ts AGENCIES

NGOs

NGONGO

govtgovt

agency

shared tools

evaluation

regional advocacy

programmaticrecommendations

agency

RegionalProjects & Priorities

InstitutionalOrganization & Communication Structure

Toolsfor Planning & Policy

PRODUCTS

Gaps & Intersections

Existing Plans & Programs

1

2

3

4

Identify open space & green infrastructure efforts in terms of geography, objectives, and institutional performance

Present a clear picture of current open space conditions, identifying gaps & intersections of activities

Use results to engage broad range of interests

Through broad participation identify regional priorities, programmatic activities & organizational actions that make a comprehensive regional strategy

SY

NTH

ES

ISS

TRAT

EG

Y

2.a.Work Flow Diagram

2.b.Geographic Extent: Cedar River Watershed Map

30 31

citiesurban centersUGAtribal lands

parks + open spacenational parknational forestagriculture

regional trailsferryWRIAwater bodies

county outlines

2.c.Geographic Extent: 4 County Map

S N O H O M I S H

K I N G

P I E R C E

K I T S A P

2.d.Workplan Scope and Timeline

StartupS.I Identify a ROSS Executive Board and Steering Committee members. Executive

Board members would include representation of up to 20 organizations with missions most central to the ROSS effort. Steering Committee membership would encompass a broad and inclusive base of organizations active in open space planning and management (including trails and active living programs), resource land issues, and environmental protection and management.

S.2 Convene an Executive Board meeting to establish project scope, schedule and activities, communication procedures, member roles, responsibilities and other organizational items

S.3 Convene a Steering Committee meeting to discuss those issues noted above and begin to frame the tasks in Elements I and II.

Element I: Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy (Note that this would be based on input from a series of special topic workshops)I.1 Identify and contact key participants in each of the following areas: environmental

management, recreation and trails, rural and resource lands, and urban and community development planning.

I.2 Form 4 Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) (mostly composed of members of the Steering Committee but with additional participants as necessary) to address each of the four areas. Convene 4 work sessions, one for each of the focus areas to discuss issues and priorities. Identify types of current regional activities a methodology to address the challenges in each area. Discuss where a ROSS might help the effort.

I.3 Analyze the results of the 4 work sessions and analyze the issues associated with each. Check back with selected participants to refi ne the issue statements and develop conceptual solutions to address them. Conduct further research as needed.

I.4 Meet with the 4 TACs a second time to develop preliminary strategies (programs) to address the issues of each. Identify connections between the focus areas.Send results to the Executive Board and Steering Committee.

I.5 Refi ne and the sketch programs and directions and document in a report that establishes an overview of the topic areas and directions for working in the individual watersheds.

I.6 Meet with the Executive Board and members of the 4 TACs to review and refi ne the programs and directions.

I.7 Meet with the ROSS Steering Committee to review and ratify or refi ne the programs and directions.

SCHEDULEElement I: Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy

32 33

Element II: Watershed Open Space Strategies (Note that 7 are needed)II.A. Synthesis

1. Identify existing plans and key players and planning activities

2. Download existing information on GIS base and identify information gaps.

3. Secure and review current plans

4. Conduct 4 meetings with planners and groups working on open space in the watershed. The meetings could be groups of players. For example, municipalities and governments, resource scientists and managers, recreation advocates, etc.

5. Assemble and combine plans and existing information into a visual “synthesis” of existing plans. Analyze the information based on the lessons from the comprehensive sketch ROSS developed in Element I.

6. Conduct further (up to 5) interviews to follow up on other information. These might be phone calls or informal discussions.

7. Meet with planners and resource managers (generally those interviewed and involved above) to review refi ne the synthesis map. Identify those issues and opportunities that stand out as well as missing elements. Coordinate with other watersheds.

8. Revise Synthesis and add narrative information. Review with Executive Board

II.B. Strategy

9. Outreach to interested members of the public and other organizations not contacted in A, above. Rely on participating groups to inform their constituencies and associated interests. Work through local governments to provide comprehensive public information.

10. Conduct a participatory workshop to present “synthesis” of current conditions, plans and activities. Identify issues and concerns of participants. Initiate discussion of possible actions and priorities. Note: it may be necessary to conduct two workshops in different locations to achieve better participation.

11. Distill input and map, diagram and document early “strategy” proposals for action. Prepare proposals for second workshop.

12. Conduct up to 5 additional small group meetings or phone calls to follow up and refi ne input from fi rst open house.

13. Conduct a second workshop(s) to present draft proposals based on public input. At the workshop(s) refi ne strategy of proposals and identify priorities.

14. Document results of 2nd workshop and prepare watershed based open space strategy (WOSS). Review with Executive Board

SCHEDULEElement II: Watershed Open Space Strategies

Element III ImplementationIII.1 Integrate the Watershed Open Space Strategies (WOSSes) into a

draft ROSS for Board and Steering Committee review without priorities and details of implementation measures. Identify potential tools and pathways for implementation.

III.2 Meet with the Board and Steering Committee to review work of the watershed synthesis and strategies to review the collective results of the WOSS work (Draft ROSS). Establish a process for further review, refi nement and prioritization. Also begin to consider organizational management of the ROSS.

III.3 Conduct further meetings with Steering Committee members and other participants to establish priorities and implementation measures. Where needed identify costs and funding possibilities

III.4 Meet with the Executive Board to review and establish priorities. Develop alternate management and custodial methods.

III.5 Refi ne ROSS to incorporate comments and conduct further research regarding custodial management and implementation measures

III.6 Present Pre-fi nal ROSS and management options (what organization, if any, manages the ROSS and ultimately how the resources are accrued and allocated) to Board and Steering Committee for consideration.

III.7 Conduct further discussions as necessary. (Perhaps follow-up Board meetings but also some meetings with prospective implementers)

III.8 Make fi nal changes to ROSS and circulate draftIII.9 Conduct outreach and dissemination of materials

SCHEDULEElement III: Implementation

34

Two Year Schedule

Products

End of First Year:1. Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy

Challenges and opportunties associated with open space protection and enhancement for recreation, ecological, rural and resouce lands and community development objectives

General programmatic strategies to pursue in each of the watersheds

2. Two completed Watershed Open Space strategies

End of Second Year1. Five additional Watershed Open Space Strategies2. Completed ROSS with:

List of prioritized actions and implementation recommendations Action program for implementing open space activities including an

organization and coordination structure for pursuing ROSS objectives Tools for open space enhancement Visualizations to support an outreach effort.

SCHEDULERegional Open Space Strategy

regional open space strategy€¦ · foundation completed the scoping phase (phase i) for a central...

Documents