Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LAND ACQUISITION EVALUATION
REPORT
For The
White River Corridor
(River Mile 8.5 to 24.5)Auburn to Buckley
March 2002
Prepared by:
King County Department of Natural Resources and ParksWater and Land Resources Division
Flood Hazard Reduction Services Section201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104206-296-8001
2 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS STAFF:
Project Managers/Principal AuthorsJeanne Stypula, White River Watershed Coordinator,
Flood Hazard Reduction Services Section,Water and Land Resources DivisionDave Clark, Manager, Flood Hazard Reduction Services Section, Water and Land Resources Division
Contributing StaffDave Monthie, Regional Water Policy Analyst, Water Resources UnitFaith Roland, Acquisition Supervisor, Open Space Acquisition Unit, Water and Land Resources DivisionGary Blanchard, Acquisition Agent, Open Space Acquisition Unit, Water and Land Resources DivisionTom Eksten, Program Manager, Parks and Recreation Division
GIS Analysis:Ken Rauscher, GIS Analyst, DNRP GIS
Graphics and Cartography:Wendy Collins, Communications Specialist,
Visual Communications & Web Unit, Water and Land Resources DivisionMegann Devine, Communications Specialist,
Visual Communications & Web Unit, Water and Land Resources DivisionSandra Kraus, Communications Specialist,
Visual Communications & Web Unit, Water and Land Resources DivisionLaurel Preston, Communications Specialist,
Visual Communications & Web Unit, Water and Land Resources Division
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 5
Background ....................................................................................................................... 6White River Hydroelectric Project ................................................................................. 6Lake Tapps Task Force.................................................................................................... 6PSE Wildlife Management Plan ..................................................................................... 7King County FERC Intervenor Status ........................................................................... 8
Evaluation Approach ......................................................................................................... 9
FERC Conditions and Restrictions ................................................................................. 10
Real Estate Information .................................................................................................. 11PSE White River Lands................................................................................................ 11Other Privately Owned Lands ...................................................................................... 11Public and Tribal Lands................................................................................................ 12
King County and Washington State Land-Use Regulations ............................................. 18King County Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................... 18Agricultural Production District ................................................................................... 18King County Sensitive Areas Designations ................................................................... 18Endangered Species Act 4(d) Rule ................................................................................ 19King County Shoreline Management Master Program ................................................. 20Washington State Forest Practices ................................................................................ 22
Recreation and Public Use .............................................................................................. 23
Findings .......................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 27
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 28
TABLES
1A. General Real Estate Information for the Puget Sound Energy White RiverLands within the Study Area ........................................................................................ 13
1B. General Real Estate Information for Private Lands within the Study Area .................... 161C.General Real Estate Information for Public and Tribal Lands within the
Study Area ................................................................................................................... 172. Number of King County parcels within the study area and approximate
acreage within environmentally regulated areas. ........................................................... 213. Parcels Recommended for Potential Open Space Acquisition ....................................... 25
4 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
FIGURES
1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. Figure Section2. Base Map ................................................................................................... Figure Section3. Enumclaw Plateau Agricultural Production District ................................... Figure Section4. King County Sensitive Areas 1 ................................................................... Figure Section5. King County Sensitive Areas 2 ................................................................... Figure Section6. King County Shoreline Management Areas ................................................ Figure Section7. Parcels Recommended For Acquisition ...................................................... Figure Section
PLATES (Aerial photographs with parcel boundaries and identification numbers)
Plate 1 ................................................................................................................ Plate SectionPlate 2 ................................................................................................................ Plate SectionPlate 3 ................................................................................................................ Plate SectionPlate 4 ................................................................................................................ Plate SectionPlate 5 ................................................................................................................ Plate SectionPlate 6 ................................................................................................................ Plate Section
APPENDICES (Not attached to report - available upon request)
A. Designated Task Force Representatives and AlternatesB. Order Granting Stay, July 30, 1999C. Agreement-In-Principle, December 27, 2000D. Joint Motion to Extend Temporary Stay of License, April 27, 2001E. Order Granting Extension of Stay, June 28, 2001F. Letter from the Washington Department of Ecology to PSE, March 20, 2001G. The News Tribune, Article, October 27, 2000H. King County Petition to Intervene, July 20, 1994I. Order Issuing Original License, December 19, 1997J. PSE White River Lands – King CountyK. Standard Deed for PSE Wildlife Lands
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 5
The report provides background information,including a brief summary of the PSE White RiverHydroelectric Project and the involvement of theLake Tapps Task Force in the Federal Energy Regula-tory Commission (FERC) licensing process. Thereport also reviews elements of the Wildlife Manage-ment Plan that was established in September 1990by FERC in its licensing negotiations with PSE andincluded as a condition of the 1997 White RiverProject FERC License under Article 411. The reportexamines the physical attributes and describescurrent regulations that apply to the various parcelsalong the river corridor. Findings and conclusionsprovide the basis for recommendations for thepotential acquisition of specific parcels. An appendixcontaining reference material cited in the text ofreport is available upon request.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this acquisition evaluation report isto review the feasibility of King County acquiringproperty along the White River corridor and toprovide specific recommendations for potentialacquisitions. King County’s 2001 Budget provided$100,000 in Conservation Futures Tax (CFT)revenues to fund an evaluation and potential openspace land acquisition along a specific portion of theWhite River. The area included for the acquisitionevaluation, shown in Figure 1, extends from theAuburn Game Farm Wilderness Park upstream tothe Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Diversion dam,which is approximately a 16-mile corridor of theWhite River lying between the Cities of Auburn andBuckley. This reach of the river is commonly referredto as the “bypass reach” due to the flow diversionfrom the White River to Lake Tapps for the opera-tion of PSE’s White River Hydroelectric Project.This corridor includes lands encompassed in the PSEWildlife Management Plan (WMP). Within thisriver reach, the WMP covers 2,079 acres lying bothin Pierce and King Counties. This report includes anassessment of parcels along the White River corridorwithin King County, including about 1,100 acres ofPSE lands and about 580 acres of other privatelyowned land.
The report is also intended to meet the requirementsof the 2001 County budget Ordinance (Ordinance14018), which appropriated funds for this project. Itincludes evaluation of options for land acquisition inaccordance with State and County statutory provi-sions establishing the authorized use and expenditureof CFT funds.
6 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
BACKGROUND
White River Hydroelectric ProjectThe White River Hydroelectric Project is owned andoperated by Puget Sound Energy. The project has aninstalled capacity of 70-megawatts with a proposednew 14-megawatt powerhouse. The project wasconstructed in 1911, prior to the enactment of theFederal Power Act of 1920. The project diverts up to2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the WhiteRiver near Buckley into Lake Tapps in PierceCounty, which provides reservoir storage for thehydroelectric facility. Water from Lake Tapps thenflows into the Dieringer powerhouse and back intothe White River near the City of Sumner. Thebypassed reach of the White River is approximately21 river miles long. For this land acquisitionevaluation, the study limits only include the rivercorridor areas from the PSE Diversion damdownstream to the City of Auburn Game FarmWilderness Park (Figure 2).
In 1962, the FERC ordered PSE to license theWhite River Project under the Federal Power Act.Legal questions raised by PSE relating to the FERC’sjurisdiction over the project were not settled until1981. Puget Sound Power and Light (now PSE)subsequently filed a license application for theproject in November 1983. King County petitionedto intervene in July 1994 on the basis of KingCounty’s statutory and code responsibility for landuse and environmental planning and review. Adiscussion of King County’s intervenor status isprovided below.
After a lengthy period of data submittal and disputeresolution, the FERC issued a License with condi-tions in December 1997. The 1997 license wasappealed by the Washington Departments of Fishand Wildlife (WDFW) and Ecology (WDOE), theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as PSE.
PSE has claimed that the 1997 FERC Licenseconditions make the White River HydroelectricProject uneconomical to continue operating. They
contend that the license conditions result in a cost tothe company ranging from $35 to $80 milliondollars over the first 20 years of the license term.While economic and power market conditions areregularly changing in pricing of power, PSE hascontinued to maintain that the project is not eco-nomical, based on 2001 market prices. If PSE wereto cease operation of the project, water diverted fromthe river into Lake Tapps would not be permittedbecause PSE’s water right for the diversion is autho-rized as a non-consumptive use for power generationonly.
Lake Tapps currently has approximately 1,800waterfront homes on the lake and some 17,000dwelling units in the greater Lake Tapps community.Pierce County studies indicate that Lake Tapps is thefourth busiest recreational lake in the State ofWashington, with user visits of over 250,000 personsper year at its most popular public park (North LakeTapps Park). The Lake Tapps Task Force (LTTF),discussed below, contracted with the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers to conduct a Gallup Poll survey,to assess community interest and use of Lake Tapps.The survey found that community interest and use islargely localized to the area immediately surroundingthe lake, and predominantly from Pierce County andparts of South King County near the City ofAuburn.
Lake Tapps Task ForceThe LTTF formed in April 1999 in response toconcerns that PSE would abandon the hydroelectricproject due to the cost of complying with the FERClicense conditions. The LTTF has consistentlyexpressed concern over the potential loss of LakeTapps and the economic value it provides to the localeconomy, municipal tax base, community aestheticsand the park and water use recreational interests inthe area. The LTTF consists of 38 separate entities,including homeowners groups, federal regulatoryagencies, state and local governments, and PSE(Appendix A). The Task Force has established as itsprimary mission as “Saving Lake Tapps.” Funding for
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 7
the LTTF comes primarily from PSE and PierceCounty, which chairs the Task Force, and from someof the other municipalities represented on the TaskForce (e.g., Bonney Lake). King County is not aformal member of the Task Force, nor has KingCounty requested formal membership. However,representatives of King County Department ofNatural Resources and Parks, Water and LandResources Division attend LTTF meetings.
In June 1999, PSE and the LTTF submitted amotion to the FERC requesting a two-year stay ofthe 1997 license. State and federal agencies that hadinitially appealed the FERC License provided lettersof support for the motion. In July 1999, the FERCgranted a stay of the license for the White RiverHydroelectric Project. The “collaborative processstay” included a number of interim conditionsrelating to minimum flows, ramping rates andoperating conditions for the power plant (AppendixB). After the stay, the LTTF has continued to workon a settlement plan involving a combination ofprojects and options that are deemed to have revenueand/or economic benefit to Lake Tapps and PSE.The most prominent of these options are embodiedin an Agreement in Principle (AIP) which has beenendorsed by the LTTF (Appendix C).
On April 27, 2001, the LTTF and PSE formallyrequested of FERC a 2-year continuation of the staythrough June 2003 (Appendix D). The request wasbased upon the complexities of the various compo-nents of settlement and the internal resource con-straints (regulatory, legal and legislative) that partici-pants face in completing and endorsing a settlementagreement. As part of the development the request,King County provided a letter clarifying the statuto-ry requirements of CFT funding, noting that thisevaluation project is not directly linked to the AIP orFERC license. The request for the extension of thestay for two years was granted by the FERC on June28, 2001 (Appendix E).
A prominent element of the AIP is the proposal for anew municipal water right. Currently, PSE holds aclaim to divert 2000 cfs of river water for hydropow-er purposes. This proposed new water right would
use a portion (100 cfs) of this existing claim as aconsumptive use for municipal water supply purpos-es. PSE applied for this water right and has executedan agreement with the Cascade Water Alliance(CWA) to develop and use the water for this pur-pose. The WDOE has issued a preliminary permit toPSE with conditions (Appendix F) that call for avariety of additional studies necessary for review ofthe application.
PSE Wildlife Management PlanThe Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) was pub-lished in September 1990 after the FERC directedPSE to prepare a detailed plan to mitigate theimpacts of the hydroelectric project on habitat fordeer and other wildlife species in the project vicinity.The WMP was negotiated with the WDFW and theUSFWS. FERC included the WMP as a licensecondition of the 1997 License for the White RiverHydroelectric Project. The WMP includes an imple-mentation budget of $750,000 for each of the first 5years, and $75,000 per year for years 6 through 40.The WMP has not been implemented during thestay in the license.
The WMP includes 2,700 acres of reservoir and2,993 acres of forest meadow and wetland dedicatedand managed for wildlife habitat. According to theWMP, the 2,993 acres comprise 2,079 acres alongthe White River corridor, which PSE acquired tosecure water rights, and 914 acres surrounding oradjacent to the project components, such as settlingbasins and flume. Of primary interest in this reportare about 1,100 acres along the White River corridorwhich are located in King County and which meetthe definition of open space under RCW 84.34. Thebalance of the WMP lands in the White Rivercorridor lie in Pierce County. Although LTTFmembers representing the Pierce County Councilhave expressed significant interest in acquisition ofopen space lands, they have also indicated that PierceCounty has no available financial capability toconsider acquisition at this time (Appendix G).
PSE has expressed an interest in the selling theselands or otherwise derive revenue from them. As aresult, the question of the future use of these lands is
8 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
included as a component in the AIP offered to theFERC by the LTTF. The AIP directs the LTTF toevaluate less costly means to preserve importanthabitat in the project vicinity. During AIP discus-sions in year 2000, PSE valued the lands, with theirtimber and other resource elements, at $20 to $30million. Representatives of the WDFW on the LTTFhave noted that they would be agreeable to someother public agency purchasing and managing theselands, provided that the provisions of the WMP areadhered to.
King County FERC Intervenor StatusPrior to FERC’s issuance of the proposed license toPSE, King County filed a petition seeking to inter-vene in the Commission’s license proceeding(Appendix H). The basis for King County’s interven-tion request was threefold: (1) to assert, whereappropriate, County permit authority over portionsof the Project that would either involve use ofCounty property or location of development activi-ties within the County’s unincorporated jurisdiction-al limits; (2) to provide input regarding Projectconsistency with federally-adopted State of Washing-ton coastal zone management program requirements;and (3) to provide general substantive informationregarding the Project’s associated impact on localconditions in order to assist FERC in its evaluationof Project compliance with federal license standards.The County’s intervention request was granted in aFERC decision dated August 16, 1994.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 9
EVALUATION APPROACH
The evaluation approach to consider lands forpotential acquisition had the goal of identifying landareas appropriate for preservation as open space.Open space acquisitions protect the ecologicalattributes of private land from land-use impactsthrough outright public acquisition or public pur-chase of conservation easements. This type of ap-proach has been used by King County to identifyand protect a network of high quality fish andwildlife habitat in county watersheds.
Lands recognized as significant, and potentiallyworth public investment have ecological characteris-tics that include:
• Concentrated salmonid rearing and spawning areas
• Areas of biotic and habitat richness, including rarespecies and habitat
• Forested riparian zones with limited road orhuman habitation
• Process areas, such as braided reaches, confluences,sources of water supply, gravels and woody debris
• Areas adjacent, or with intact connections, to otherhabitats especially among riparian and uplandforest and wetlands.
The potential for multiple-use benefits was alsotaken into account. Finally, the lands were evaluatedfor the reasonableness of the projected cost ofacquisition and for the availability of funds for thatpurpose.
The parcels in the study area were evaluated for theirpotential for acquisition by considering the followingquestions:
• Does the parcel have ecologically importantattributes?
• Would the parcel provide adequate size to sustainecological function over time?
• Do current uses of the parcel and adjacent landsignificantly impact the ecological viability of theparcel?
• Is the parcel connected to tracts of existing pro-tected land in public ownership?
• Does the potential acquisition cost reasonablyrelate to the available funding?
• Is there a high likelihood for the parcel to beconverted from a natural to developed condition?
• Would the acquisition implement the intent ofother adopted county plans, programs, or projects?
• Would the acquisition facilitate the future imple-mentation of salmon recovery actions?
• Is the landowner willing to sell the parcel?
Available property information and general physicalcharacteristics of the parcels in King County werereviewed in the context of pertinent FERC-relatedconditions and restrictions and with King County’sland-use regulations. This assessment of regulatoryprotections and constraints, along with the questionsabove, provided the criteria for identifying parcelspotentially appropriate for acquisition.
Although the evaluation area extends through theMuckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) Reservation,parcels within the Reservation were not includedbecause of their protection and preservation undertreaty rights. As noted earlier in this report, parcelswithin Pierce County were not included in theevaluation.
10 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
FERC CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
On December 19, 1997, FERC issued a condi-tioned, original license for the continued mainte-nance and operation of the White River Hydroelec-tric Project for a term of 50 years (Appendix I).Articles 305 and 411 specifically address the WildlifeManagement Plan (WMP). Article 411 specifies thatthe licensee shall implement the WMP. As the WMPis implemented, the licensee must coordinate withWDFW and USFWS to review management andmonitoring activities, and develop site-specificmanagement practices. The long–term wildlifemanagement prescriptions specified in section 5.0 ofthe WMP are to be in effect for the term of thelicense. Periodic reports on these activities arerequired to be provided by the licensee to WDFWand USFWS for review and comment, and foragency recommendations. The FERC reserves theright to require changes to the WMP based on thesereports and recommendations.
The WMP is intended to provide significant protec-tion to certain wildlife species in the White Rivercorridor and to restrict the uses that PSE may makeof its property in the area. Because FERC has twicestayed its Licensing Order, however, compliance withthe WMP by PSE is not yet mandated by FERC.
If the WMP were eventually made a condition ofPSE’s White River license, it may not be sufficientprotection of resources from the County’s perspec-tive. First, its habitat protection provisions are notclearly proscriptive, given that some are insteaddescribed as “guidelines for management.” Second, itmay allow some timber harvest and the sale of someof the property. Third, because the WMP wasprepared in 1990, it does not protect the ESA-listedsalmonid species.
ESA Section 7 consultations for the White RiverHydroelectric Project are ongoing. These consulta-tions may well result in additional wildlife andhabitat protections as permit conditions.
PSE might be able to sell some or all of its WhiteRiver lands, but only with some consequential riskto the company’s license application. Assuming PSEeventually accepts the FERC license, a subsequentpurchaser might be subject to the WMP and otherlicense conditions.
King County’s shorelines and sensitive areas regula-tions, and State regulations affecting land use activi-ties are discussed later in this report.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 11
REAL ESTATE INFORMATION
The evaluation included an assessment of 136parcels totaling 1859 acres along the White Rivercorridor. The parcels were organized into three majorlandowner categories: PSE White River Lands, otherprivate lands, and public and tribal lands outside thereservation boundary. Tables 1A through 1C list theparcels and provide general real estate informationfor each parcel, including the present land use,zoning, jurisdiction, King County assessed value andthe parcel acreage. Assessed valuations are used inthis report because of the cost and lengthy time foracquiring title reports, conducting timber cruisesand obtaining specific appraisals for the numerousparcels included in the evaluation. Tables 1Athrough 1C cross-reference each parcel location toPlates 1 through 6. These plates are digital aerialphotographs with parcel numbers and boundariesfor all 136 parcels.
PSE White River LandsThe total acreage of PSE parcels included in theevaluation is about 1,107 acres in 50 parcels(Table 1A). The current zoning for PSE lands ismostly A35 (agricultural, one dwelling unit [DU]per 35 acres) with 11 parcels zoned RA10 (rural area,one DU per ten acres) and one parcel zoned R1(residential, one DU per acre). Information on thePSE White River Lands provided by PSE(Appendix J) and obtained from FERC documentswas reviewed to ensure that Table 1A is as accurate aspossible. For the purposes of this assessment, it wasassumed that all PSE owned lands along theevaluation area river reach are those lands associatedwith the 1990 WMP. Moreover, PSE has indicatedthey have been holding these lands aside inconjunction with the 1990 WMP. The PSE lands areconditioned by the WMP under the FERC Article411. Review of deeds indicates no existing formal orpermanent deed restriction that would preserve and/or maintain these lands in accordance with theWMP. Appendix K contains one example of astandard deed for these lands.
PSE has indicated that it believes the harvest oftimber would be permissible on these lands, even ifthe lands had permanent deed restrictions for openspace.
Using the most recent King County Department ofAssessments records, the assessed value of all the PSElands is approximately $3,911,400 for land valueand $1,275,000 of improvements, totaling$5,186,400. Two PSE parcels have land improve-ments; all other parcels appear to be undevelopedland. Based on King County information, agricul-ture lands are typically valued at between $3,500 to$5,000 per acre. Using this per acre estimate, thevalue of the undeveloped PSE lands in total could bebetween $3,702,825 and $5,289,750.
PSE has estimated the value of the timber to bebetween $5 and $10 million, based on timber cruiseestimates from several years ago. If timber valueswere added to the land value estimates, the proper-ties would be valued between $8.7 and $15.3 mil-lion. PSE has indicated that their estimate of totalland and resource value is between $20 and $30million, which may include potential mineral rightsand extracted ore value.
Other Privately Owned LandsThere are 77 privately owned parcels in the evalua-tion area. Two-thirds of these parcels are zonedRA10 and A35 with one-third zoned either R1 orR2. Also, with the exception of 22 parcels and onechurch, all have improvements that are residentialhousing. The assessed value, including both the landand improvements, for residential parcels rangesfrom about $40,000 to $450,000. The 22 undevel-oped parcels total nearly 120 acres with only 23 acreszoned residentially. Assessed land value for theseundeveloped, residential properties is approximately$242,000. Undeveloped properties with RA10 andA35 zoning total about 52 acres with an assessedvalue of $650,000. No timber or other resource
12 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
values for any of these lands were readily available foruse in this report.
Public and Tribal LandsInformation on public lands and parcels owned byMIT are included only to assist in understanding theadjacent land uses and continuity of similar owner-ships. The larger of the two MIT parcels is contigu-ous with the reservation boundary and is locatedalong SR 169. No MIT lands are being consideredfor acquisition.
There are eight parcels in public ownership, held bythe State of Washington, King County, the City ofAuburn and the City of Seattle. Publicly ownedlands within the assessment area total approximately135 acres.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 13
TA
X-
PR
OP.
CU
RR
EN
TL
AN
DIM
PR
OV
E-
LO
T S
IZE
PL
AT
EP
INPA
YE
RT
YP
EP
RE
SE
NT
US
EZ
ON
ING
JUR
ISD
ICT
ION
VA
LU
EM
EN
TS
(Acr
es)
NO
.
0006
4000
04PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$4,4
00$0
2.20
500
0640
0005
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
5,00
0$0
9.19
4, 5
1120
0590
01PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
68,0
00$0
41.7
53
1120
0590
02PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
26,0
00$0
34.7
53
1120
0590
03PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$4
3,00
0$0
7.25
3
1320
0590
02PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$170
,000
$042
.90
313
2005
9003
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
68,0
00$0
41.9
03
1320
0590
05PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$34,
000
$06.
303,
413
2005
9006
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$2
25,0
00$0
40.0
03,
413
2005
9007
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
51,0
00$0
40.0
03,
413
2005
9008
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
49,0
00$0
27.0
04
1320
0590
09PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$225
,000
$040
.00
413
2005
9011
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
00$0
1.08
3
1920
0690
07PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$25,
000
$09.
054
1920
0690
09PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$43,
000
$013
.80
419
2006
9010
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$7
7,00
0$0
37.9
04
1920
0690
11PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$73,
000
$035
.80
419
2006
9012
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$7
8,00
0$0
38.9
04
2420
0590
01PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$300
,000
$071
.54
424
2005
9002
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$3
00,0
00$0
71.6
44
2721
0590
17PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
1A
UBU
RN
$280
,000
$073
.00
1
2920
0690
06PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$28,
000
$017
.28
529
2006
9007
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$5
,000
$03.
485
2920
0690
08PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$1,9
00$0
3.36
529
2006
9009
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$7
,000
$03.
155
2920
0690
10PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$47,
000
$015
.64
529
2006
9011
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
1,00
0$0
8.33
529
2006
9012
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$4
4,00
0$0
22.9
75
3020
0690
01PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$55,
000
$016
.40
430
2006
9002
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$7
8,00
0$0
28.2
54
3020
0690
03PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$41,
000
$010
.00
4, 5
3020
0690
04PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$83,
000
$034
.00
4, 5
TA
BL
E 1
A.
Gen
eral
Rea
l Est
ate
Info
rmat
ion
for
the
Pug
et S
oun
d E
nerg
y W
hite
Riv
er L
ands
wit
hin
the
Stu
dy A
rea
Info
rmat
ion
in Ta
bles
1A
thro
ugh
1C w
as g
ener
ated
by
King
Cou
nty
DN
RP G
IS u
sing
King
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ass
essm
ents
’ dat
a.
14 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
3020
0690
05PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$84,
000
$033
.40
430
2006
9006
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
7,00
0$0
6.05
4
3220
0690
01PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$40,
000
$012
.20
5
3320
0690
06PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$160
,000
$040
.00
533
2006
9007
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$2
6,00
0$0
6.68
533
2006
9008
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$8
4,00
0$0
25.2
95
3320
0690
10PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$5,6
00$0
3.24
5, 6
3320
0690
11PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$2,5
00$0
0.32
5, 6
3320
0690
12PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$53,
000
$015
.62
5, 6
3420
0690
19PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$9,3
00$0
3.10
634
2006
9026
PSE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
RA
10K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$9,3
00$0
3.12
6
3520
0690
20PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
01,0
00$0
25.4
86
3520
0690
21PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$7
00$0
2.49
635
2006
9023
PSE
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$6
1,00
0$1
50,0
0014
.77
635
2006
9024
PSE
CFa
rmR
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
39,6
00$1
,125
,000
34.9
26
3520
0690
25PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$4
5,00
0$0
19.5
06
6427
0004
35PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
6,00
0$0
12.3
06
6427
0004
50PS
ER
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$2
,000
$00.
356
Sub
tota
l:$3
,911
,400
$1,2
75,0
001,
107.
64
TA
BL
E 1
A.
Gen
eral
Rea
l Est
ate
Info
rmat
ion
for
the
Pug
et S
oun
d E
nerg
y W
hite
Riv
er L
ands
wit
hin
the
Stu
dy A
rea
(Con
tinue
d)
TA
XP
RO
P.C
UR
RE
NT
LA
ND
IMP
RO
VE
-L
OT
SIZ
EP
LA
TE
PIN
PAY
ER
TY
PE
PR
ES
EN
T U
SE
ZO
NIN
GJU
RIS
DIC
TIO
NV
AL
UE
ME
NT
S(A
cres
)N
O.
A35
Agr
icul
tura
l, on
e dw
ellin
g un
it pe
r 35
acr
esI
Indu
stri
alR
1R
esid
entia
l, on
e dw
ellin
g un
it pe
r ac
reR
2R
esid
entia
l, tw
o dw
ellin
g un
its p
er a
cre
R3
Res
iden
tial,
thre
e dw
ellin
g un
its p
er a
cre
RA
10R
ural
are
a, on
e dw
ellin
g un
it pe
r 10
acr
esR
MH
PR
esid
entia
l mul
tifam
ily h
igh
dens
ity p
lan
UN
CL
Unc
lass
ified
CU
RR
EN
T Z
ON
ING
CO
DE
KE
Y
Info
rmat
ion
in Ta
bles
1A
thro
ugh
1C w
as g
ener
ated
by
King
Cou
nty
DN
RP G
IS u
sing
King
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ass
essm
ents
’ dat
a.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 15
TA
BL
E 1
B. G
ener
al R
eal E
stat
e In
form
atio
n fo
r P
riva
te L
ands
wit
hin
the
Stu
dy A
rea
0006
4000
09R
ITC
HIE
JOH
N G
& W
AM
POLD
TH
OM
AS
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$6
38,9
00$7
5,10
010
9.70
500
0640
0012
FRO
ST JA
CK
& C
ARO
LR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
.$2
,800
$01.
555
1320
0590
04LO
CK
E BO
B E
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$2
25,0
00$1
48,0
0040
.00
3
2721
0590
127T
H D
AY A
DV
ENT
IST
CC
hurc
h/W
elfa
re/R
elig
Srv
cI
AU
BUR
N$1
05,1
00$1
,246
,600
7.01
127
2105
9016
SKO
RET
Z B
RA
D &
DEB
BIE
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
1A
UBU
RN
$47,
000
$157
,000
0.97
127
2105
9020
JOH
NSO
N F
RA
NC
ES E
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
2A
UBU
RN
$100
,000
$121
,000
5.56
127
2105
9046
TU
CK
ER JO
HN
A JR
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
1A
UBU
RN
$38,
000
$82,
000
0.35
127
2105
9048
SAVO
IE G
REG
ORY
L &
DA
PHN
E R
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
1A
UBU
RN
$68,
000
$191
,000
2.33
127
2105
9054
CA
REN
ST
EVEN
HR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R2
AU
BUR
N$3
8,00
0$1
19,0
000.
341
2721
0590
65M
ITC
HEL
L ST
AN
LEY
C &
LA
UR
A B
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
2A
UBU
RN
$86,
000
$122
,000
4.80
127
2105
9076
RU
AN
E JO
HN
PR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$5
8,00
0$1
00,0
001.
861
2721
0590
78K
RA
USE
GEO
RG
ER
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$3
7,00
0$6
,000
0.29
127
2105
9101
HU
MPH
REY
S C
HA
RLE
S A
ND
MA
RY M
.R
Sinl
ge F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$4
2,00
0$1
14,0
000.
741
2721
0591
03K
ING
MA
N JO
HN
ER
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$5
9,00
0$1
31,0
001.
911
2721
0591
05RO
LLIN
S RO
BERT
C JR
& JA
NIC
ER
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$8
1,00
0$7
3,00
04.
231
2721
0591
11A
NTO
NY
UK
VLA
DIM
IR A
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
1A
UBU
RN
$48,
000
$110
,000
1.08
127
2105
9118
SOPE
R F
AM
ILY
TRU
STR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
1A
UBU
RN
$51,
000
$01.
301
2721
0591
30Y
DE
MIC
HA
ELR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$4
0,00
0$1
23,0
000.
601
2721
0591
31SP
EAR
S J F
RA
NK
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
R1
AU
BUR
N$2
5,00
0$0
0.46
127
2105
9132
BRES
EE R
ALP
H E
& M
ARY
LR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R2
AU
BUR
N$3
8,00
0$1
39,0
000.
361
2721
0591
34BR
ATSC
H S
CO
TT
C &
APR
IL M
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
2A
UBU
RN
$52,
000
$152
,000
1.40
127
2105
9137
CO
OPE
R M
YRT
LEN
E T
RUST
EER
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R2
AU
BUR
N$4
5,00
0$1
50,0
000.
501
2721
0591
49W
OO
D H
OM
ER D
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
2A
UBU
RN
$54,
000
$195
,000
1.57
127
2105
9150
PAT
NO
DE
DA
VID
LR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R2
AU
BUR
N$4
3,00
0$1
54,0
000.
751
2721
0591
54A
MM
ON
GER
ALD
DR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R2
AU
BUR
N$3
7,00
0$1
25,0
000.
291
2721
0591
63C
OO
PER
JEFF
REY
B E
T A
LR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
2A
UBU
RN
$37,
000
$02.
981
2721
0591
86H
END
RIC
KSO
N L
OR
AN
CVa
cant
(M
ulti-
fam
ily)
R2
AU
BUR
N$7
9,30
0$0
1.82
127
2105
9188
AD
KIN
S D
ON
ALD
E &
CH
RIS
TIN
E M
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
1A
UBU
RN
$46,
000
$118
,000
0.95
127
2105
9189
TOR
RES
CH
AR
LES
A &
JUA
NIT
AR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
R1
AU
BUR
N$4
7,00
0$1
41,0
001.
041
2721
0591
90PI
ON
EER
FED
ERA
L T
ITLE
INC
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
R1
AU
BUR
N$3
1,00
0$0
2.73
1
2820
0690
19R
EMIT
Z R
OBE
RT R
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$1
91,0
00$1
53,0
0020
.00
528
2006
9020
SAM
PSO
N S
CO
TT
& S
AR
AH
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$1
88,0
00$1
66,0
0019
.50
5
2920
0690
14JO
HN
SON
O A
RTH
UR
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$2
19,0
00$9
6,00
024
.91
5
PR
OP.
CU
RR
EN
TJU
RIS
-L
AN
DIM
PR
OV
E-
SIZ
EP
LA
TE
PIN
TA
XPA
YE
RT
YP
EP
RE
SE
NT
US
EZ
ON
ING
DIC
TIO
NV
AL
UE
ME
NT
S(A
cres
)N
O.
LO
T
Info
rmat
ion
in Ta
bles
1A
thro
ugh
1C w
as g
ener
ated
by
King
Cou
nty
DN
RP G
IS u
sing
King
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ass
essm
ents
’ dat
a.
16 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
2921
0590
01LA
PIA
NTA
LP
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
R3
AU
BUR
N$5
,000
$04.
911
2921
0590
02LA
PIA
NTA
LP
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
UN
CL
AU
BUR
N$1
4,00
0$0
13.9
01
2921
0590
06LA
PIA
NTA
LP
CVa
cant
(M
ulti-
fam
il y)
RM
HP
AU
BUR
N$1
71,2
00$0
38.9
21
3020
0690
07W
ALL
IN R
OBE
RT W
& W
ALL
IN C
ARO
LIN
E J
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$2
42,0
00$2
09,0
0035
.30
4
3320
0690
13VO
SS D
AN
IEL
JR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
A35
KIN
G C
O.
$145
,000
$142
,000
10.0
06
3320
0690
14W
EIG
EL P
AM
ELA
& JA
YR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
A35
KIN
G C
O.
$116
,000
$94,
000
10.0
05,
633
2006
9016
JOH
NSO
N G
LEN
O &
GEN
EVIE
VE
JR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
A35
KIN
G C
O.
$135
,000
$249
,000
12.8
75,
6
3420
0690
17VO
SS D
AN
IEL
JR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
.$1
56,0
00$0
24.0
86
3420
0690
18VO
SS D
OU
GLA
S JA
MES
& D
ON
ITA
LR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
A35
KIN
G C
O.
$113
,000
$78,
000
13.1
86
3420
0690
45D
VOR
AK
DA
VID
A D
DS
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$28,
900
$79,
000
7.10
634
2006
9070
DVO
RA
K D
AV
ID A
DD
SR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)A
35K
ING
CO
.$3
4,00
0$0
1.75
634
2006
9085
DVO
RA
K D
AV
ID A
DD
SR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$35,
000
$02.
146
3520
0690
33K
ING
WIL
LIA
M E
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
.$9
5,00
0$1
11,0
009.
386
3521
0590
34FO
X JO
HN
GR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$3
8,00
0$9
8,00
00.
432
3521
0590
56SH
EEN
FR
AN
CIS
L (
TRU
STEE
)R
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$30,
000
$02.
452
3521
0590
60SK
AA
R L
AYN
E L
& T
AM
I LR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$1
00,0
00$4
,000
7.21
235
2105
9061
BLA
CK
BUR
N C
AR
LR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$7
7,00
0$1
64,0
007.
012
3521
0590
62BL
AC
KBU
RN
HER
SCH
EL A
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$123
,000
$182
,000
12.9
72
3521
0590
63D
IDD
Y JO
ELLE
N &
MER
TR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$45,
000
$06.
232
3521
0590
66D
EMEE
RLE
ER JE
FFR
EY A
& S
USA
NR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$1
20,0
00$3
35,0
0011
.10
235
2105
9084
POG
GEN
SEE
ART
HU
R D
& S
HIR
LEY
A R
EV T
RR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$4
9,00
0$4
1,00
01.
662
3521
0590
88A
RP
DEA
N &
AR
P W
AN
DA
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$38,
000
$50,
000
0.41
235
2105
9095
DID
DY
JOEL
LEN
& M
ERT
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$86,
000
$257
,000
5.00
235
2105
9096
BLA
CK
BUR
N C
HA
RLE
S C
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$35,
700
$249
,000
4.91
235
2105
9101
SKA
AR
LAY
NE
L &
TA
MI L
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$105
,000
$15,
000
10.1
12
3521
0591
03H
OEN
ISC
H JE
AN
ER
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$1
08,0
00$2
01,0
009.
432
3521
0591
04SI
MPL
ER M
OR
RIN
E M
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$8
5,00
0$0
4.94
235
2105
9119
OLI
NE
RON
ALD
SR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$21,
000
$03.
812
3521
0591
20O
LIN
E RO
NA
LD S
CO
TT
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$92,
000
$156
,000
5.00
235
2105
9121
PIC
AZ
O R
AFA
ELR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$9
7,00
0$2
49,0
006.
642
3521
0591
22D
EL V
ALL
E SA
RA
SR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$1
11,0
00$2
16,0
0010
.84
235
2105
9123
CLY
DE
JER
RY L
& K
ATH
LEEN
RR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$1
10,0
00$2
85,0
007.
532
3521
0591
34SK
AA
R L
AYN
E L
& T
AM
I LR
Sing
le F
amily
(R
es U
se/Z
one)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$7
3,00
0$2
52,0
005.
002
TA
BL
E 1
B. G
ener
al R
eal E
stat
e In
form
atio
n fo
r P
riva
te L
ands
wit
hin
the
Stu
dy A
rea
(
Con
tinue
d)
PR
OP.
CU
RR
EN
TJU
RIS
-L
AN
DIM
PR
OV
E-
SIZ
EP
LA
TE
PIN
TA
XPA
YE
RT
YP
EP
RE
SE
NT
US
EZ
ON
ING
DIC
TIO
NV
AL
UE
ME
NT
S(A
cres
)N
O.
LO
T
Info
rmat
ion
in Ta
bles
1A
thro
ugh
1C w
as g
ener
ated
by
King
Cou
nty
DN
RP G
IS u
sing
King
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ass
essm
ents
’ dat
a.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 17
TA
BL
E 1
C. G
ener
al R
eal E
stat
e In
form
atio
n fo
r P
ublic
and
Tri
bal L
ands
wit
hin
the
Stu
dy A
rea
AP
PR
OX
.A
PP
RO
X.
LO
T
PAR
CE
LC
UR
RE
NT
JUR
IS-
LA
ND
IMP
RO
VE
SIZ
EP
LA
TE
NU
MB
ER
TA
XPA
YE
RT
YP
EP
RE
SE
NT
US
EZ
ON
ING
DIC
TIO
NV
AL
UE
VA
LU
E(A
cres
)N
O.
1320
0590
01M
UC
KLE
SHO
OT
IND
IAN
TR
IBE
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$238
,000
$232
,000
36.9
23
3521
0591
06M
UC
KLE
SHO
OT
IND
IAN
TR
IBE
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
RA
10K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$47,
000
$01.
952
2721
0590
47C
ITY
OF
AU
BUR
NR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
1A
UBU
RN
$47,
000
$01.
001
2721
0591
06C
ITY
OF
AU
BUR
NC
Util
ity -
Pub
licR
1A
UBU
RN
$50,
000
$535
,200
2.30
1
3320
0690
02C
ITY
OF
SEAT
TLE
PA
RK
S D
EPT
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$560
,000
$343
,000
118.
065,
6
3420
0690
41ST
ATE
OF
WA
SHIN
GTO
NR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$87,
000
$08.
006
3420
0690
32K
ING
CO
UN
TY
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
RA
10K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$17,
000
$04.
106
3420
0690
86K
ING
CO
UN
TY
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
RA
10K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$33,
000
$01.
496
3520
0690
38K
ING
CO
UN
TY
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$1
00$0
0.10
664
2700
0635
KIN
G C
OU
NT
YR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$7
00$0
0.26
6
To
tals
:$1
,079
,800
$1,1
10,2
0017
4.18
TA
BL
E 1
B. G
ener
al R
eal E
stat
e In
form
atio
n fo
r P
riva
te L
ands
wit
hin
the
Stu
dy A
rea
(Con
tinue
d)
6427
0002
25H
AN
SEN
JER
RY D
& L
AVA
UG
HN
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$57,
000
$142
,000
0.83
6
6427
0003
20H
AN
SEN
JER
RY D
& L
AVA
UG
HN
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$56,
000
$5,0
000.
716
6427
0003
60FR
EEM
ON
T R
AR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$6,0
00$0
0.18
6
6427
0004
00K
IME
JIMR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$59,
000
$00.
976
6427
0004
10K
IME
JIMR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$64,
000
$01.
126
6427
0004
20K
IME
JIMR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amil y
)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$63,
000
$01.
066
6427
0004
40H
AN
SEN
JER
RY D
& L
AVA
UG
HN
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
il y)
RA
10K
ING
CO
.$4
,700
$00.
146
6427
0008
90C
OO
PER
VER
A T
RUST
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$57,
000
$133
,000
0.85
6
6427
0009
00JO
LLIF
FE JE
RRY
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$54,
000
$87,
000
0.56
6
6427
0009
10M
OO
RE
DA
VID
P &
SU
ZA
NN
E J
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$58,
000
$136
,000
0.93
6
6427
0009
20FR
EMO
NT
R A
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
O.
$56,
000
$76,
000
0.73
6
T
ota
l:$6
,265
,600
$8,8
02,7
0057
8.17
PR
OP.
CU
RR
EN
TJU
RIS
-L
AN
DIM
PR
OV
E-
LO
T S
IZE
PL
AT
EP
INT
AX
PAY
ER
TY
PE
PR
ES
EN
T U
SE
ZO
NIN
GD
ICT
ION
VA
LU
EM
EN
TS
(Acr
es)
NO
.
Info
rmat
ion
in Ta
bles
1A
thro
ugh
1C w
as g
ener
ated
by
King
Cou
nty
DN
RP G
IS u
sing
King
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ass
essm
ents
’ dat
a.
18 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
KING COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE LAND-USE REGULATIONS
King County Comprehensive PlanThe King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP)provides specific policies guiding growth and devel-opment throughout the unincorporated areas of theCounty. Specific chapters of the KCCP pertinent tothis report are the Chapter Three—Rural Legacy andNatural Resource Lands, Chapter Four—Environ-ment, and Chapter Five—Parks, Open Space andCultural Resources.
Within the above named chapters of the KCCP,there are a number of policies pertinent to thisevaluation report for both the management andregulation of the White River corridor for its naturaland ecological values and for the acquisition of openspace lands.
These policies include:Chapter 3, Rural Legacy
R-101, R-104, R-107, R-511, R-514,R-529, R-530
Chapter 4, EnvironmentE-105, E-107, E-108, E-116, E-123, E-124,E-128, E146, E-147, E-167, E-168, E-203
Chapter 5, Parks, Open Space and CulturalResourcesP-123 and P-134
The KCCP 2000 contains the full text of thesepolicies.
The adopted KCCP identifies the White Rivercorridor as an area containing significant natural andecological resources requiring the application ofpolicies, regulations and management programs in amanner that protects and enhances these naturalresource values. The KCCP policies summarizedabove more specifically prescribe County policyguidance that favors protection and conservation ofthe natural resources in the corridor through regula-tions, incentives and acquisition. This land acquisi-tion report and the evaluation approach used hereinwere developed consistent with the KCCP and itspolicy directives.
Agricultural Production DistrictFigure 3 shows the Enumclaw Agricultural Produc-tion District (APD) that extends along the rivercorridor from the MIT Reservation upstream to theCity of Enumclaw at State Route (SR) 410. Parcelswithin the APD are zoned A35 with limited usesother than those associated with agricultural practic-es and activities. In 1985, King County establishedAPDs with large lot zoning and specified agricultureas the preferred use in these areas. Lands zoned A35allow construction of one dwelling unit per 35 acres.The highest and best use (from an appraisal perspec-tive) for these lands would likely be single-familyrural residences with adjacent farmlands. The KCCPalso includes several policies regulating activities inAPDs.
Forest management and timber harvest are allowedwithin an APD. The harvest of timber would besubject to state Forest Practices regulations, includ-ing moratoria on development after any timberharvest. Where land use is being converted fromforested to developed uses, a six-year developmentmoratorium follows the timber harvest.
Nearly 75 percent of the PSE lands and 50 percentof other private lands in the corridor study area arewithin the Enumclaw APD. Not included in theAPD are parcels in the downstream portion of theevaluation area and adjacent to the MIT Reserva-tion, and parcels just upstream of SR 410.
Only a small number of parcels are in the FarmlandPreservation Program (FPP) within the evaluationarea. These lands, for which development rights havebeen purchased by King County, amount to about4 acres of PSE land and 84 acres of other privatelands. One large parcel (120 acres) in public owner-ship is also in the FPP.
King County Sensitive Areas DesignationsThe King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO)imposes restrictions on grading and clearing activi-ties in designated SAO areas. The SAO areas are
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 19
regulated under Chapter 21A.24.275 of the KingCounty Code (KCC). Designated sensitive areasalong this river reach include the 100-year floodplainand wetlands (Figure 4) and seismic, landslide anderosion hazards (Figure 5). There is no data for coalmine hazard areas for this portion of the WhiteRiver.
Another type of hazard area regulated under KCC isthe Channel Migration Hazard Zone (CMZ). CMZsare those areas subject to risk due to stream bankdestabilization, rapid stream incision, stream bankerosion and shifts in locations of stream channels asshown on King County’s Channel Migration Hazardmaps. Maps depicting the channel migration areasfor the White River are not yet available. These mapsare expected to be available by the end of 2002 atwhich time the CMZs for the White River will beregulated by KCC.
Figure 4 does not completely depict current floodhazard areas. The floodplain mapping for the WhiteRiver is somewhat out-dated due to the channelmigration of the river, and does not fully overlay theexisting channel location in some reaches. However,using the available SAO mapping, it is clear thatsignificant portions (over 85 percent) of the PSELands on the King County side of the river areregulated as sensitive areas. Of the other privatelands, SAO regulations affect about 40 percent of theland because the bulk of this acreage lies on theplateau above the floodplain and set back from steepslope areas.
Endangered Species Act 4(d) RuleSpecies addressed in the 1990 Wildlife ManagementPlan include bald eagle, great blue heron, pileatedwoodpecker, waterfowl (dabbling ducks) and severalnon-game species (Vaux’s swift, purple martin,western pond turtle spotted frog and yellow-billedcuckoo). Of these, only the bald eagle has receivedprotection as a threatened species under the ESA.The yellow-billed cuckoo has been proposed forlisting as threatened in the western United States.
In May 1999, NMFS listed Puget Sound chinook asthreatened and in December 1999, USFWS listed
Puget Sound bull trout as threatened. Both agenciesissued protective rules for these fish species under theESA. The White River has both spring and fallchinook, and bull trout, and is therefore subject to allcurrent ESA regulations that protect listed species.Boise Creek, a major tributary within the evaluationarea, is also utilized by chinook and several othersalmonids.
The NMFS 4(d) prohibits take of 14 groups ofsalmon and steelhead (including the Puget Soundchinook) listed as threatened under the ESA. Howev-er, the rule also limits the effect of that prohibition asto 13 categories of activities that NMFS determinedto be adequately regulated, or unlikely to causeprohibited “take” if executed in a manner approvedby NMFS.
One such “limit” applies to municipal, residential,commercial and industrial (MRCI) development. Alocal government response effort has developed adraft Tri-County Model for MRCI activities in localjurisdictions that contribute to the conservation oflisted salmonids under the NMFS final 4(d) rule.
A biological review of the Tri-County Model is inprogress. The goal of the review is to determinewhether the Model:
• contributes to the persistence of existing habitatfunctions and the restoration of additional habitatfunctions, sufficient to support sustainable,harvestable salmon populations and
• conserves listed salmonid species consistent withthe ESA and the NMFS 4(d) rule for threatenedsalmonids.
One element of the draft Tri-County model is theManagement Zone. The “Management Zone” refersto an area of real property that is immediately adja-cent to a defined water body (fresh, brackish andmarine), both aquatic and nearshore areas, that eitherprovides salmonid habitat or is important to theproper functioning of salmonid habitat, such that theregulation of development on that real property isnecessary. The width of the Management Zone (MZ)varies depending on a variety of factors. These factors
20 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
include the nature of the aquatic area as habitat for,or its effect on, habitat of salmonids, the nature ofthe surrounding area, including the level of develop-ment, and the presence or absence of a channelmigration zone, associated wetlands or steep slopes.
Under this proposed Tri-County program, partici-pating local governments would have three optionsfor regulating development within the ManagementZone. Under the Fixed Regulations Option, develop-ment proposals would comply with a standard set ofdevelopment regulations. The regulations prescribeinner and outer Management Zones, and develop-ment regulations for each zone, to protect habitatfunctions from adverse effects of developmentprojects. The fixed regulations would generallyprohibit development activity in the area closest tothe aquatic environment. Under the Site-specificHabitat Evaluation Option, development proposalswould be reviewed based on a Habitat Evaluation(HE) that evaluates the habitat functions that arelikely to be affected by the development proposal.Using this approach, the development proponentwould be required to analyze the impacts of thedevelopment proposal and provide conservationmeasures, consistent with the program’s habitat goalsand objectives, designed to protect habitat functionsand mitigate for impacts to those functions. Underthe Programmatic Regulations Option, a county orcity would conduct a HE on a specific geographicarea or specific type or category of developmentactivity. Based on the results of the HE, the jurisdic-tion would identify allowable activities and appropri-ate protection and mitigation measures, consistentwith the program’s habitat goals and objectives.
Given the limits of local government authority andthe mandates of state law, local jurisdictions thatchoose to implement the regulations described inthis element of the Tri-County model would need touse a variety of local regulatory tools to implementthis program. For example, a local jurisdiction mayinclude the management zone regulations in itscritical areas regulations adopted under the GrowthManagement Act (RCW 36.70A), shoreline masterprograms and shoreline development regulationsadopted under the Shoreline Management Act
(RCW 90.58), or Class IV forest practices regula-tions adopted pursuant to RCW 76.09.240.
King County Shoreline Management MasterProgramThe White River, Boise Creek and Tributary 0050are designated as Shorelines of the State and areregulated by the King County Shoreline Manage-ment Master Program (SMMP). The White River,due to its size, is designated as a Shoreline of State-wide Significance under RCW 90.58.030.
For Shorelines of Statewide Significance, RCW90.58 requires King County to give preference in thefollowing order to management and uses that:
(1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interestover local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shore-line;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas ofthe shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the publicin the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined inRCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate ornecessary.
The statute continues that “In the implementationof this policy, the public’s opportunity to enjoy thephysical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelinesof the state shall be preserved to the greatest extentfeasible consistent with the overall best interest of thestate and the people generally. “
Under King County’s SMMP, four shoreline envi-ronments are designated: Urban, Rural, Conservancyand Natural. Figure 6 illustrates the location of theseSMMP designated environments for the WhiteRiver within the evaluation area. There are noreaches designated as Urban within the evaluationarea.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 21
Rural EnvironmentAlong the north bank of the mainstem of the WhiteRiver, from the PSE Diversion dam to a downstreampoint at the west section line of Section 34, Township20 North, Range 5 East is designated as a RuralEnvironment. Boise Creek is also a designated RuralEnvironment. The SMMP states that the purpose ofthe Rural Environment is “to restrict intensive devel-opment, function as a buffer between urban areas,and maintain open spaces and opportunities forrecreational uses, within the ecological carryingcapacity of the land and water resource.”
Conservancy EnvironmentDownstream reaches adjoining but outside of theMIT Reservation area are designated as a Conservan-cy Environment. The Conservancy areas are intended“to maintain their existing character.” This designa-tion is designed to protect, conserve, and manageexisting natural resources and valuable historic andcultural areas. The preferred uses are those non-consumptive of the physical and biological resourcesof the area. Forest practices may be permitted underspecific criteria, including the retention of bufferstrips. The criteria for forest practices in the Conser-vancy Environment include the same requirements asfor the Rural Environment.
Natural EnvironmentFrom the downstream end of the Rural Environmenton the White River to the beginning of the MITReservation, the north bank is designated as a NaturalEnvironment. Tributary 0050 is also designated as aNatural Environment. The SMMP states the purpose
of the Natural Environment is “to preserve and restorethose natural resource systems existing relatively freeof human influence. These systems require severerestrictions of intensities and types of uses permittedso as to maintain the integrity of the Natural Environ-ment.” The Natural Environment is the most restric-tive environment category in the SMMP. It includesspecific prohibitions of forest management, agricul-tural, aquaculture and practices. Commercial, multi-family and accessory development is also prohibited.Recreational development may be permitted but onlyif very minor filing, excavation or re-grading is in-volved.
The degree to which the SMMP and other land useregulations (APD and SAO) affect the various parcelsof land, the number of parcels and the approximateaerial coverage of each type of development restrictionis shown in Table 2.
For the PSE lands, half of the 50 parcels have someportion of acreage with the Natural Environment, andnine other parcels have area within the Rural Environ-ment. Only one PSE parcel lies within the Conser-vancy Environment.
Regulation of other privately owned lands under theSMMP is less extensive. Only four parcels haveacreage within in the Natural Environment and nineparcels are within the less restrictive Rural Environ-ment. There are five parcels of other private lands thatlie within the Conservancy Environment. Theseparcels are adjacent to the MIT Reservation.
TABLE 2. Number of King County parcels within the study area and approximateacreage within environmentally regulated areas
Land SMMP SMMP SMMPOwner Natural Rural Conservancy APD SAO Total
PSE No. of Parcels 25 9 1 41 49 50No. of Acres 408 75 15 863 984 1,107
Other Private No. of Parcels 4 9 5 24 48 77Lands No. of Acres 16 26 6 218 211 578
22 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
Nearly all the PSE parcels are within the APD andalmost all parcels (49 out of 50) include somesensitive areas that would be subject to King CountySAO regulations. The significance of the SAOregulations is demonstrated by the approximateacreage. Of the 1,107 acres of PSE land, approxi-mately 984 acres are regulated sensitive areas.
For private lands, much fewer are within the APDthan PSE lands. The SAO would affect more thanhalf the parcels. The acreage affected, however, is lessthan half of the total private land area. These esti-mates of regulated acreage do not include bufferareas required for streams and wetlands.
Washington State Forest PracticesPlates 1 through 6 are aerial photographs taken inthe summer of 2000 that show the vegetation coverof the river corridor and adjacent Enumclaw Plateau.The plates also illustrate parcel boundaries andownership. The forest coverage along the rivercorridor is extensive. Areas with much less tree coverare residential and agricultural lands.
The Forest Practices Act (FPA) governs all forestpractices in Washington State, including any activityconducted on or directly pertaining to forest landand related to growing, harvesting, or processingtimber. The FPA has been amended to implementthe Forest and Fish Report that was developed toachieve compliance with ESA for aquatic and ripari-an-dependent species on non-federal forest lands.Publishing the Forest and Fish Report resulted inLimit No. 13 to the prohibitions of the 4(d) rule.New regulations were adopted by the Forest PracticesBoard but have not yet been approved by theNMFS, so a forest practices applicant must stillcomply with the ESA. The new regulations promul-gated under the Forest Practices Act are clearlyintended to provide substantial protection to endan-gered species and their critical habitat. Despite this,the Forest Practices Act program might permittimber harvest in some portions of the White Riverevaluation area.
Developing specific estimates of the harvestabletimber is beyond the scope of this report. Potentialtimber harvest is significantly limited due to theextent of lands restricted by the SMMP NaturalEnvironment designation and by application of theFPA within the SMMP Rural and ConservancyEnvironments.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 23
RECREATION AND PUBLIC USE
The evaluation included an assessment of the poten-tial for passive recreation opportunities. Passiverecreation includes activities such as fishing, hiking,observation of nature, non-motorized boating andpicnicking. Public education and stewardship areother related public uses. King County currently hasno other related developed public recreation facilitieswithin the evaluation area. The Enumclaw PlateauTrail alignment does lie perpendicular to the WhiteRiver and along Boise Creek, adjacent to privately-owned parcels.
The ability for a particular area to accommodatesuch activities is generally determined by assessingthe site characteristics such as topography, culturalsignificance, access, size and zoning in conjunctionwith any positive or negative impacts on fish andwildlife resources and other sensitive areas.
As the initial step in determining recreational oppor-tunities, the existing road network and river corridortopography (Figure 2 and Plates 1 through 6) werereviewed. For the PSE lands that are contiguousalong the north bank from the MIT Reservation toapproximately SR 410 crossing, there appears to noestablished access from the plateau down to thefloodplain valley. These properties appear to beaccessible only along the plateau area from publicand private residential roads. Both the topographyshown in Figure 2 and the SAO hazard areas shownin Figure 5 indicate that any new roads would beprohibited, or would be extremely difficult orexpensive to construct due to the steep valley wallsand bluffs. PSE lands located at the upper end of theevaluation area above SR 410 are more readilyaccessible from Mud Mountain Road.
Many of the other privately owned lands lie along,or are directly adjacent to, established State routesand residential roads such Stuck River Drive, SR 164(Auburn-Enumclaw Road), SR 410 and MudMountain Road. In addition, these private lands arelocated on the plateau except parcels along Stuck
River Drive at the downstream end of the evaluationarea and those located just upstream of SR 410bridge crossing.
Acquisition of lands for public use may allow stew-ardship of the aquatic and wildlife resources. Theexisting, significant resource value of the rivercorridor within the evaluation area is demonstratedin the 1990 WMP, the King County SAO andSMMP designations, and supported by the presenceof ESA listed species, including chinook and bulltrout as threatened species. With the exception ofresidential parcels having a reduced quality of naturalhabitats, nearly all undeveloped lands in the evalua-tion area have high-quality habitats. Consistent withthe regulations affecting these lands, access to thesehabitats would need to be controlled so only appro-priate uses, those that are not detrimental to the siteresources, are allowed.
24 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
FINDINGS
The evaluation area includes parcels owned by PSE,other private landowners, public lands or MITowned property. Land owned by the MIT is notbeing considered for acquisition.
An acquisition budget of $100,000 was appropriatedfor “White River Land Acquisition” in the 2001Conservation Futures Tax fund. These funds arerestricted to the purchase of lands to be preserved asopen space as defined in RCW 84.34. No otherdetailed scope or budget proviso accompanied thisKing County appropriation.
At public meetings held in the area in early in 2001,local residents expressed a preference for the landsalong the White River to remain in their current use.
PSE ownership includes approximately 1,107 acreson the north side of the White River in unincorpo-rated King County and the City of Auburn; thevalue of these lands far exceeds this King Countyappropriation to acquire any substantial portion ofthese lands.
King County has many competing priorities toaddress in its budgets for 2002 and subsequent years.Consequently, acquisition of these lands in total,even with 2002 project funding, is not deemedfeasible at present or in the foreseeable future.
Purchase of individual PSE parcels within thosecovered by the 1990 WMP is not practical until theFERC licensing process is completed, the conditionsplaced on the property are finalized and accepted bythe license holder. Sale of PSE property during thelicensing proceeding would probably require approv-al by FERC. The County might not wish to taketitle if it were required to comply with the WMPand other FERC license conditions.
Significant land-use policy and regulatory protec-tions under federal, state and local law currentlyapply to a majority of the PSE lands along the White
River downstream from the SR 410 Enumclaw andBuckley area.
Lands lying near the SR 410 crossing up to the PSEDiversion Dam have a SMMP Rural designation.This SMMP designation is less protective than theNatural or Conservancy Environments, and allowsmore extensive shoreline development. Although theresource values of the White River and Boise Creekremain significant here, this area is experiencing agreater development potential given that someparcels are not within the APD or FPP. The RuralEnvironment designation allows substantial shore-line development such as residential and commercialuse, industrial development and forest practices.
The current threat of conversion of natural lands todeveloped uses is greater for privately owned parcelsthan for any one of the PSE parcels which may havea variety of FERC restrictions or conditions.
None of the parcels within the White River corridorconsidered within this evaluation area lie withinEnumclaw Urban Growth Area.
Most of the PSE lands have no or very limited accessdue to the lack of a road network or due to the steepslopes from the plateau to the floodplain areas. Thisfurther protects these resource areas and makes themless desirable for development. Adjacent landownersto the PSE properties have expressed their desire thatpublic access remain limited.
A total of 137 parcels were included in the evalua-tion. Ten parcels are in public or tribal ownership,50 parcels are owned by PSE and 77 parcels areprivately owned. Applying the various criteriadescribed in this report, only a limited number ofthese undeveloped parcels would be appropriate foracquisition using CFT funding.
Parcels with substantial value for their potential asopen space acquisitions are listed in Table 3.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 25
TA
BL
E 3
. P
arce
ls R
eco
mm
ende
d f o
r P
ote
ntia
l Ope
n S
pace
Acq
uisi
tio
n
2921
0590
02LA
PIA
NTA
LP
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
UN
CL
AU
BUR
N$1
4,00
0$0
13.9
01
3420
0690
45D
VOR
AK
DA
VID
A D
DS
RSi
ngle
Fam
ily (
Res
Use
/Zon
e)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$2
8,90
0$7
9,00
07.
106
3420
0690
70D
VOR
AK
DA
VID
A D
DS
RVa
cant
(Si
ngle
Fam
ily)
A35
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$3
4,00
0$0
1.75
634
2006
9085
DVO
RA
K D
AV
ID A
DD
SR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)R
A10
KIN
G C
OU
NT
Y$3
5,00
0$0
2.14
6
3420
0690
17VO
SS D
AN
IEL
JR
Vaca
nt (
Sing
le F
amily
)A
35K
ING
CO
UN
TY
$156
,000
$024
.08
6
LO
TP
RO
P.C
UR
RE
NT
JUR
IS-
LA
ND
IMP
RO
VE
-S
IZE
PL
AT
EP
INT
AX
PAY
ER
TY
PE
PR
ES
EN
T U
SE
ZO
NIN
GD
ICT
ION
VA
LU
EM
EN
TS
(Acr
es)
NO
.
26 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
The La Pianta parcel (Plate 1, Parcel Number2921059002) lies between two publicly ownedparcels, the Auburn Wilderness Park and KingCounty open space that is within the MIT reserva-tion boundary. Acquiring this parcel would connectand permanently protect the riparian area along thesouthern bank floodplain corridor. The 14-acreparcel has an assessed value of $14,000. Based on theappraised per-acre value ($5,000) of the adjacentKing County open space purchase in 1999, theappraised value for the La Pianta parcel could becloser to $70,000. Other adjacent La Pianta parcels(Plate 1, 29211059001 and 29211059006) are notrecommended based on the steep slopes present onthe north bank and the altered land surface of theparcel lying to the south. Although the southerlyLa Pianta parcel would provide complete connectionbetween the adjacent public lands, extensive re-vegetation and land management costs would benecessary. The recommended La Pianta parcel alsohas public access for passive recreation from theadjacent public lands. This parcel is also whollywithin the floodplain and erosion hazard areas, andits natural resource characteristics would receiveprotection under the City of Auburn regulations.
The Voss parcel (Plate 6, Parcel Number3420069017) adjoins public property owned by theWashington Department of Transportation and alsoabuts SR410. In addition, the site is also accessedfrom a residential road, SE 473rd Street. This parcelis well vegetated and appears to contain high-qualityhabitat. It is however, within the Farmlands Preserva-tion Program, and would not experience futuredevelopment since King County owns the develop-ment rights. Sixty percent of the property is withinthe delineated floodplain. Some landslide hazardareas are also present.
The Dvorak parcels (Plate 6, Parcel Numbers3420069045, 3420069070 and 34200699085) totalapproximately 11 acres. They are bounded bySR410, Mud Mountain Road, Boise Creek andpublic land. King County Department of Transpor-tation and King County DNRP, Parks and Recre-ation Division currently own the two upstream
contiguous properties. A single-family residence islocated on Parcel 9045. The owner recently passedaway and the property is being offered for sale aspart of the probate of the estate. The parcels includea single-family residence that was recommended foracquisition and removal in the 1993 adopted KingCounty Flood Hazard Reduction Plan due to theWhite River and Boise Creek flood hazards. Thedelineated floodplain area covers about half of theproperty, including the residential structure. TheCounty Parks parcel was acquired in association withthe Enumclaw Plateau Trail Project. These parcelsare being offered at $235,000. An appraisal by KingCounty would be required prior to any purchaseoffer. The Dvorak parcels include significant riparianareas and aquatic habitat related to the confluence ofthe White River and Boise Creek. Acquisition ofthese parcels would protect the existing open spaceattributes. Removal of the structure would be a keystep to future habitat restoration. Restoration workmay be accomplished by King County or in con-junction with other project actions, such as TacomaPublic Utilities removal of the grade control struc-ture and replacement of Pipeline Number 1 in theWhite River channel.
Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor 27
• The appropriated CFT funding of $100,000 wasnot intended to buy the PSE White River Lands intotal.
• King County does not have any realistic capabilitynow or in the immediate future to fund thepurchase of all the PSE White River Lands.
• Acquisition of individual parcels of PSE lands byKing County would likely require increasedinvolvement in the FERC licensing process. Anysale of PSE property during the license proceedingwould almost certainly require FERC approval.FERC might insist the County or another pur-chaser comply with the WMP and other FERClicense conditions. It is unlikely King Countywould wish to undertake the required and costlymanagement responsibilities.
• PSE lands are currently subject to substantialwildlife and environmental protections under thedescribed federal, state and local programs. At thesame time, the regulatory processes, consultationsand a variety of lawsuits make the eventual use ofthese properties a continuing question. Thepossibility remains that this property could eventu-ally be subject to some timber harvest, or to sale orother development. However, regulatory tools areavailable to help protect these areas.
• Topography and physical access limitations providefurther significant restrictions to the potentialdevelopment of these properties and also limit anypotential for developing new access for the pur-poses of passive recreation.
• Many of the lands in the evaluation area (PSELands, public and other private lands) are withinthe Enumclaw APD, restricting their use to thoserelated to farm practices. A small number ofparcels are fully protected from future develop-ment due to their inclusion in the FarmlandsPreservation Program. The only parcels not in theAPD and FPP are those within the City of Auburnand a few parcels upstream of SR 410 crossing ofthe White River.
• An opportunity sale is currently available for threekey parcels at the confluence of the White and BoiseCreeks that adjoin other publicly owned lands.Acquisition of these parcels would achieve multiplebenefits, including the protection of the existingnatural resources, implementation of the 1993FHRP recommendation and the future restorationof salmon habitat.
CONCLUSIONS
28 Land Acquisition Evaluation Report for the White River Corridor
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. King County Should Not Consider Acquisitionof the PSE White River Lands
There are no compelling reasons for King Countyto consider acquiring any of the 1,100 acres ofPSE White River lands lying within King County.The lands exclusive of any timber, mineral orother resource value are assessed by the KingCounty Assessor in 2001 at over $5 milliondollars. The timber value could raise the value toover $15 million. This estimate may be high,given the current regulatory environment im-posed by the WMP, State Fish and Forest Regula-tions and King County SMMP regulations.Regardless of the timber and other unquantifiedresource value that these parcels may have, KingCounty’s current expense (CX) budget deficit thisyear and the expected continuation of CountyCX revenue shortfalls and associated budgetproblems in future years, makes acquisition of thePSE lands fiscally impractical.
The PSE White River lands are inextricably tiedto the FERC license that PSE is attempting toobtain for its hydropower project on the WhiteRiver. The lands are currently part of a FERClicense condition that requires that they bemaintained and managed as wildlife lands. Basedon review of the FERC licensing documents, itappears that King County could become subjectto the FERC license conditions affecting theselands if it were to acquire any of the lands in-cluded in the WMP. This eventuality should beavoided because of the potential cost to theCounty.
2. King County should utilize the CFT fundingof $100,000 to proceed with the opportunitysale for three Dvorak parcels.
These parcels (Figure 7) have ecologically impor-tant attributes such as intact riparian buffers andsignificant aquatic features related to the
confluence of the White River and Boise Creek.Acquisition of these parcels connects the adjacentlands that are already held by King County andother public ownership. The CFT funding can beutilized to purchase the two undeveloped parcels.Other DNRP programmed funding, availablemainly from the River Improvement Fund, ofapproximately $135,000 could be used to pur-chase and remove a flood prone structure, asrecommended by the 1993 King County FloodHazard Reduction Plan. Acquisition of theseparcels would provide multiple benefits of pro-tecting natural resources, reducing flood damageand providing passive recreation opportunities.
3. King County should continue to pursueassessment of potential open space acquisitionsalong the White River, including the seeking ofgrant funding, identifying willing sellers, andprioritizing potential acquisition sites thatsupport ESA salmon recovery efforts, withinthe availability of funds appropriated for thesepurposes.
Other potential acquisition sites may be identifiedthat are outside the geographic limits of thisevaluation. As part of King County’s participationwith Pierce County in supporting near-termactions for salmon recovery, King County shouldcontinue to identify acquisitions that will preserveand protect existing critical riparian and aquatichabitats. King County should actively apply forSalmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grantsto leverage resources to acquire such habitat areasthat are identified through watershed assessmentsand continue to participate with Pierce County,cities and other watershed entities to recoversalmon populations in WRIA-10.
![LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - PRS Legislative Research Acquisition... · LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [1 OF 1894] An Act to amend the law for the acquisition of land for public purposes](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5af9118c7f8b9a44658d392e/land-acquisition-act-1894-prs-legislative-acquisitionland-acquisition-act.jpg)
