Regional Open Space Strategy Scoping Report

8/11/2019 Regional Open Space Strategy Scoping Report

1/18

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

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

INTRODUCTION

In the summer and fall of 2010, the Green Futures Lab (GFL) and the Northwest

Center for Livable Communies (NWCLC) with nancial support from the Bulli

Foundaon completed the Scoping Phase (Phase I) for a Central Puget Sound

Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). The ROSS is an eort 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 idenfy and conrm with expert consultants the: eecve stakeholder

engagement processes, analycal methods appropriate for the ROSS process, and

the resources required to complete the ROSS. This report is a supplement to the

two-page report led on November 8, 2010. This Supplemental Report describes

the goals and acvies of the ROSS project team during the Scoping Phase and

addresses several central topics: the need for a ROSS, the scoping process used,

key ndings from research and scoping acvies, conclusions, accomplishments,

and next steps. The ROSS is an excing project that will bridge cultural dierences

to build a regional sense of community by working at scales ranging

from local to regional and engaging everyday people as well as experts

and public ocials. Throughout the report and especially in the appendices we

reproduce the visual and spaal communicaon methods that were so important

to conveying the preliminary vision of the ROSS. These include maps, drawings,

diagrams, photographs, tables, and graphs.

NEED FOR A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

The Central Puget Sound Region is known for its world-class ecology, recreaon,

agriculture and forestry. This magnicent region is facing signicant threats to

its much-lauded open space qualies. The ROSS, however, has great potenal

to turn the de in a posive direcon and make the regions open space more

robust, funconal, economical, and ecologically sound. There are numerous

factors that make the ROSS a crucial piece in regional planning eorts:

Resource allocaon and contemporary regional planning | Much of the

inspiraon for the ROSS draws from the need to establish regional priories for

open space planning. By collaborang with partners on funding iniaves and

seng regional open space priories, ROSS sta and collaborators can opmize

resource allocaon and streamline high-value project implementaon. In this

age of budget crises and other nancial hardships there is scal intelligence and

eciency in assembling a regional governance structure for open space planning,

pooling eorts to garner resources and idenfying regional priories for open

space expenditures.

Proacve support from key collaborators | Through the course of our outreach,

we successfully developed an increasingly enthusiasc base of supporters.

We recognize a need for concurrent grassroots and government eorts and

collaboraons. In four workshops with over 65 regional open space experts and

advocates, the ROSS project team found a recognized need and enthusiasc

support for a ROSS. Parcipants provided important feedback on the project and

supported the overall approaches, outreach methods, analycal methods, scope,

meline, and work plan of the ROSS.


2/18

PROCESS

During the Scoping Phase (Phase I) of the Central Puget Sound ROSS, the project

team completed a variety of projects and studies, and conducted several

meengs with key regional stakeholders. Analyses addressed two spaal 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 potenal partners and parcipants, Geographic

Informaon Systems (GIS) analyses, map producon, and preparing for, facilitang

and following up on meengs with experts in elds of: planning, ecology, land

management, and GIS. The research process has been iterave and involved

facilitang meengs, presenng our preliminary materials, and gathering and

integrang 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 idenfying contacts in a variety of roles at

relevant organizaons, agencies and city and county departments. We began

looking at the most obvious sectors (parks and recreaon, ecology, agriculture,and forestry) and were encouraged by collaborators to expand our outreach to

educaon, public health, and food systems. Our contact list has connued to

expand as parcipants and collaborators have given us referrals.

MailboxPeak, Snoqualmie River Watershed

The ROSS meengs consisted of:

Cedar River Focus Group August 6, 2010| The ROSS project team met with a

group of ten sciensts and land managers in a Cedar River Focus Group meeng

held in the King Street Center on August 6, 2010 with King County sta members.

PSRC Regional Staf Commiee August 19, 2010| The project team presented

preliminary ndings to y-three planners and sta at the PSRC Regional Sta

Commiee meeng on August 19, 2010. The project team also conducted a brief

survey of parcipants regarding exisng and ongoing open space planning and

key sta in their jurisdicons.

Cedar River Task Force August 26, 2010| The project team hosted the Cedar

River Task Force meeng in Gould Hall at the University of Washington on A ugust

26, 2010. This meeng had nine parcipants including two county employees

from the previous meeng and a group of public space experts from the non-

prot and private sectors.

Four County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session September 23, 2010

The Four County Stakeholder Meeng on September 23, 2010 was the nal and

most comprehensive meeng that ROSS project team conducted during the

Scoping Phase. This meeng included forty-three experts from public, private,

tribal, and non-prot enterprises, and galvanized support for the project

Washington State Chapter American Planning Associaon (APA) Senior Acon

Commiee October 21, 2010| John Owen presented a descripon of the ROSS

proposal and scoping eort at the October 21 meeng of the APA Senior Acon

Commiee. The small group of members in aendance was enthusiasc about

the project and oered suggesons for Phase II work.

See appendices for summaries of ROSS meeng and workshop parcipants.

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, concentrang on analyses of exisng condions

and planning eorts for recreaonal, ecological, forestry, and agricultural land

uses. This study involved interconnected processes including planning and policy

analyses, mulple meengs, telephone and email correspondence, compiling

data, GIS analyses, and mapping. The project team reviewed many plans,

including: county and city parks and recreaon plans, the State Department of

Ecology Water Resource and Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Salmon Restoraon Plan,

Meeng aendeesat ROSSWork

shopand Visioning Session

the Strategic Plan of the State Recreaon and Conservaon Oce, 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 meeng on August 6, 2010 with King County

sta members, we learned some of the important historical developments in

the Cedar River Watershed (CRW) as well as some details of the exceponal

eorts being made in the CRW for ecological restoraon, recreaon access, and

conservaon of agricultural lands. In our Cedar River Task Force meeng on

August 26, 2010 we gathered some new inputs and ideas, especially about the

King County Greenprint and the acvies of the Cascade Land Conservancy. In

this meeng we discussed the Cascade Agenda and potenal linkages betweenthe ROSS and the Cascade Agenda.

The project team mapped various combinaons of aributes including land

use, land cover, ownership, planning and polical boundaries, infrastructure,

hydrology, and many types of open space in the Lower Cedar. Sta met with

experts who gave feedback on analyses, data, and policy and management issues.

Once the basic background research was complete, sta consulted experts. These

experts referred sta to relevant historic plans and pointed out map updates

which sta subsequently incorporated ( see Cedar River Maps, page 4).

The Lower Cedar Watershed study revealed some generalizable lessons and

unique aributes of the Cedar River Watershed. In parcular, the workow 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, ancipate variaon in each watershed study. The Cedar River

is an especially data-rich drainage that has been studied and monitored for

decades from various perspecves including salmon, general ecology, agriculture,

and suburban and exurban development. The drainage has been managed with

an eye towards conservaon and the Upper Cedar Watershed is protected and

carefully managed for hydrological and ecological values. Other watersheds may

have limited sta and resources and fragmented or otherwise incomplete data

sets and plans.


3/18

King County connues 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 pracces and may help to produce a set of

recommendaons for watershed management that are generalizable throughout

the ROSS. While the regulatory frameworks of the Washington State and

various counes and cies can be seen as progressive, they are also incredibly

complex. We have anecdotal evidence that the complexity of a mul-layered

regulatory framework is daunng and dicult to interpret from a landowners

perspecve. A preliminary nding 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 regulaon and explaining land use codes, regulaons, best pracces, and

incenves as alternaves to regulaon.

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,

meengs, interviews, signicant data compilaon, standardizing, organizing, andmapping. The region has a signicantly more complex policy framework than any

given watershed. Regional planning includes the aggregate planning acvies of

the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), including: the four counes, 75 member

tribes and cies, state agencies (e.g. Ecology/WRIAs), local councils, and other

enes.

During the Cedar Watershed study, sta learned that open space planning

requires substanal outreach eorts to the public and to various planners and

land managers. It is of central importance to understand local populaons and

to conduct outreach to discover concerns and generate posive interest in the

planning process. The Cedar Watershed study also made it clear that it will be

essenal to work closely with the State Department of Ecology/ WRIA sta to

coordinate with watershed planning and restoraon as carried out in each WRIA.

Since the watershed is the unit of study, the WRIA planning and restoraon

acvies will be of central importance in developing the ROSS.

A potenal signicant dierence is that some watersheds will not have a

comparable density of data and planning documentaon as the Cedar. This may

simplify the work and also make it harder to get informaon about these places.

Similarly, we may not be able to get as much informaon from sta in some

jurisdicons, simply because of a lack of dedicated sta me. Especially some

smaller cies and tribes will be challenged to join in our eorts. In this regard we

should make a special eort to include these stakeholders.

Mapof Lower Cedar River Watershed

Lower Cedar River WatershedGaps andOpportunies

i n l n c tr t y

r r y : i r ti n

t : t m r ,t ur c: C , C , U ,

r j c t i n : L m r t C n f r m l C n i c

cities

urbancenters

UGA

triballands

parks + openspace

national park

national forest

agriculture

regional trails

ferry

WRIA

water bodies

county outlines

Mapof CentralPuget SoundRegion

SNOHOM I SH

K I N G

P I ER C E

K I T SAP

DEVELOPING A ROSS: BUILDING UPON KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED

The summer scoping and watershed study phase of the ROSS was conducted to

set the foundaon for a Regional Open Space Strategy. The preceding secon of

this report outlined those acvies and processes that the ROSS project team and

volunteers undertook to meet this objecve, including: local policy and spaal

analyses, stakeholder engagement, and research on domesc and internaonal

ROSS precedents. This poron of the report summarizes the primary ndings

from these acons.

Local Precedents | Sta and the project team researched regional open space

planning precedents in local, naonal and internaonal 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 tled Project Open Space in 1966. The

4-county spaal extent of that planning project and the subsequent organizaon

of the PSRC establish an important precedent for the spaal scope of the current

ROSS work, although if the program is highly successful it is a fully scalable to

other jurisdicons.

Naonal and Internaonal Precedents | In researching other regional open space

eorts, sta learned that other enes do not involve as complex a governance

structure as the Puget Sound region. One important excepon 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

sta had phone meengs and ongoing correspondence with longme GRG sta.

Please see Appendix 1i for four case summaries of other regional open space

planning eorts, which include Nashua, New Hampshire, Portland, Oregon, the

GRG and Auckland, New Zealand.

KEY FINDINGS FOR THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND ROSS

Key ndings 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 connued to employ these concepts as organizing

categories. In the Summary Report the project team conveyed three essenal

points from the synthesis of the ROSS Scoping Phase in each of these categories;

these are expanded upon and in some cases extended below.


4/18

KEY FINDINGS | SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE PLANNING + RESOURCES

Work must address a range of scales from regional to local.Local specicity

and a crical sense of the region require work ranging from the site scale to

the regional scale.

The watershed is the proper unit of analysis because it responds to

fundamental ecological processes and crosses polical boundaries to secure

collaboraon. The watershed should connue to be the unit of analysis for

understanding the region. ROSS sta and collaborators shall connue to use

watersheds as the unit of analysis within the region, working across municipal

boundaries as required. Our experience demonstrates the relevance and

unique qualies of this hybrid approach to geographic analysis for regional

planning.

Throughout Central Puget Sound there are many applicable plans and

ongoing acvies related to open space; the ROSS supports and coordinates

with these rather than developing new projects. To produce the ROSS it is

essenal to achieve an understanding of the full spectrum of exisng plans

and policies relevant to open space in the region. Many well-researched

and well-wrien plans and policies relevant to open space planning already

exist in Central Puget Sound. Our preliminary research on these exisngdocuments 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 dra ROSS that could then be rened

and veed through addional watershed-level analysis, research, and input

and oversight by local experts.

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

There is a crical need for a tool that assists funding enes in establishing

priories and responding to opportunies. It is essenal to idenfy and

coordinate with funding partners. It is worthwhile to consider developing an

open space improvement district (a levy district).

Recreaonal, ecological, community development, resource management,

public health and educaonal objecves oen dovetail so that there are

eciencies in the greater integraon of eorts. Trails can be conceived of at

the nexus of mulple objecves: such as recreaonal, ecological, community

development, resource management, public health, and educaonal

objecves. For example, planning and building regionally signicant missing

links in the regional trail network provide network connecvity, dramacally

increasing public access. Our analysis of open space planning precedents

highlights the usefulness of trail development as strategy that has the

potenal to capture public imaginaon and polical support.

plan

plan

restorationeffort

program

project

etc

PUBLIC GOVTs AGENCIES

NGOs

NGONGO

govtgovt

agency

sharedtools

evaluation

regionaladvocacy

programmaticrecommendations

agency

RegionalProjects& Priorities

InstitutionalOrganization& Communication

Structure

ToolsforPlanning& Policy

PRODUCTS

Gaps &Intersections

ExistingPlans &Programs

1

2

3

4

Identify openspace& greeninfrastructureefforts interms ofgeography, objectives, andinstitutionalperformance

Present aclearpicture of current openspaceconditions, identifyinggaps &

intersections of activities

Useresults toengagebroadrangeofinterests

Throughbroad participationidentifyregionalpriorities, programmaticactivities& organizationalactions that makeacomprehensiveregionalstrategy

:

n i v e r s i t y o f a s h i n g t o n o l l e g e o f u i l t E n v i r o n e n t s

242 ould all ox 355734 | Seattle, 98195 | .greenfutures.ashington.eduL

t h l r r h n i i nin i nu l H l l , U n iv r i t y f h i n t nt r 3, 1

SYNTHESIS

STRATEGY

The generalizedwatershed-basedopen space planning processconsists ofrst compiling exisng plansto

idenfy the gapsand interseconsbetween current eorts(synthesis) andthen, throughapublic process,

developing aninter-organizaonalstrategy ofpriorizedacons (strategy).

The ROSS is a reproducible planning framework that is modular and scalable

and could be standardized through the producon and publicaon of

training programs and manuals. By working at mulple scales and using the

watershed as a basic unit of analysis, the ROSS is intrinsically modular and

scalable.

Some addional strategies that are important for considering are listed below. As

we separate the grain from the cha of these strategies, the ROSS project team

can extend the best strategies into the work plan. A dra work plan is provided in

the next secon.

Generate visual/spaal representaons of cohesive open space for a given

area

Build a regional sense of community around open space

Priorize the compleon of regional trails

Achieve early tangible success--link the ROSS to projects being implemented,

even before the details of organizaonal structures are nalized

Focus on structuring the rural/urban interface

Use and improve exisng programs like the Transfer of Development Rights(TDR), current use programs, and farm preservaon

Find and remedy crical missing links in the region (trail connecvity, habitat

conservaon)

Build databases (contacts, grants, and funding)

Develop Best Pracces (toolboxes at policy, planning, and project levels)

Organize Technical Advisory Commiees to establish priories for all four

areas (environmental management, recreaon and trails, rural and resource

lands, and urban and community development planning).

KEY FINDINGS | WORK PLAN FOR THE 4-COUNTY ROSS

Idenfy instuonal obstacles and develop strategies to eecvely overcome

them. It will be essenal to nd and migate blockages in organizaons

and instuons. Streamlining communicaon and operaons will involve

detecve work and will require polical savvy.

Idenfy and establish eecve organizaonal structures and pathways to

conduct, instuonalize, and implement the ROSS. Organize an Execuve

Board, Steering Commiee and Technical Advisory Commiees to assist sta

in carrying out the ROSS. House the ROSS within the planning rubric of the

PSRC or a consorum of Non-Prot organizaons.

Proacvely culvate champions and partnerships to build capacity for

outreach, planning, and implementaon. Seek out elected ocials, business

and community leaders to carry and deliver the message. Building the

charismac capital of the ROSS will prove to be of the utmost importance.

Finding inuenal 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 enre 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:

Connue to be broadly inclusive in coalion building eorts.The ROSS

outreach process was methodically inclusive; there is a need to connue

broad outreach to county, city and tribal governments as well as state

agencies, non-prot and advocacy groups, businesses and publics. We were

asked to increase our outreach to public health and educaon experts to

supplement our strong outreach to planning, recreaon, ecology, agriculture,

forestry, ulies, and transportaon experts.

Idenfy and support exisng inter-agency and inter-municipa l collabora ons.

Through our work, it became clear that strong inter-agency and inter-

municipal collaboraons exist in Central Puget Sound, but that these linkagesare oen ad hoc, informal, and/or polically vulnerable. Idenfying and

strengthening these exisng collaboraons would be an inuenal and useful

product of the ROSS work plan.

Allow for ad hoc and incremental coalion building. An important corollary to

the previous point is that our project meline and work plan must allow for

the exibility and space needed to accommodate a dynamic coalion building

eort. We should simultaneously address mulple geographic scales, with

varying levels of detail. With a broawd range of constuents, we need to have

the ability to connually adapt to these shiing relaonship paerns.

Invite youth to carry the message. The experience of our collaborators also

pointed to the strong potenals of inving youth to help develop and carry

the message of the ROSS project. Given the broad appeal of open space

conservaon, youth are strong potenal communicators.

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


5/18

and coalion-building eorts. The actual and perceived neutrality of the GFL and

NWCLC allowed us to bypass potenal conicts associated with geographic or

polical alliances.

There is an importance to balancing the me needed to conduct a synthesis

with the need for a comprehensive strategy. As we began the research and

analysis of the Lower Cedar River Watershed, we were met with an unancipated

challenge the amount of exisng research, data, and planning and policy

documentaon of the region was beyond our expectaons. The original project

meline had considered that we would need to analyze and compile many

types of informaon at a shiing range of scales, but we had underesmated

the volume of informaon and the me that would need to be dedicated to:

idenfy where the informaon was housed, acquire the informaon, convert

the informaon into compable and comparable data frames, and vet the

quality of overlapping pieces of informaon created in mulple spaal and

temporal contexts. Through our stakeholder meengs and interviews, we came

to recognize that this overproducon of knowledge was daunng, and that there

was a crical need to audit and synthesize exisng informaon before moving

forward with a strategy.

There are challenges in arculang a clear vision while remaining exible,

dynamic, and inclusive. During our Scoping Phase, we were determined to

remain open to input from our potenal collaborators in order to allow them to

inuence the nal 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 dened vision. Our biggest shortcoming that

GENERALIZABLE LESSONES LEARNED FROM THE ROSS SCOPING PHASE

There are several lessons that were learned through the ROSS Scoping Phase that

can inform the ROSS moving forward. Some of these lessons are described below:

There is robustness in working simultaneously at mulple geographic scales. This

scoping process focused on a watershed-scale case study and used this study

scale to inform and strengthen our understanding of the larger regional context.

Working simultaneously at these two scales of reference allowed our project

team to focus on the ner details and complexies of the relaonships and issues

we were exploring, while also giving us the opportunity to explore how they

inuence and are inuenced by increasingly larger natural, polical, and social

networks.

There are conceptual benets to using a watershed as a geographic scale of

reference. The quality of a watershed as being formed by natural processes

rather than polical eorts allows for a conversaon that is grounded in

ecological principals and network thinking. By crossing polical boundaries the

watershed case study also provided an exercise in the type of cross-jurisdiconal

cooperaon, outreach, and collaboraon that would be required to realize a

similar strategy at a regional scale.

There are praccal and polical benets of housing a regional planning project

in a university. Both the GFL and the NWCLC are housed in the University of

Washingtons College of Built Environments. Our project team found that this

posion within an academic, non-polical, and not-for-prot instuon that

operates at a statewide level was posively perceived throughout our outreach

Lower Cedar River Watershed

was idened by many of our collaborators is that we need a clearer and more

concise message to answer the quesons What is the ROSS? and What is its

value? While we have detailed and considered responses to these quesons

there is an obvious need for a set of clear and marketable messages.

Visual/spaal communicaon is important for conveying the vision. In the

Scoping Phase of the ROSS it was clear that communicang the vision of the

ROSS to parcipants was most eecvely accomplished by presenng conceptual

models, maps, and preliminary schemac landscape renderings. The spaal

nature of land use planning points us towards visual communicaon methods,

since space is readily understood visually.

SUMMARY, NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSION

As pointed out in the Summary Report, the most signicant accomplishment of

the ROSS Scoping Phase has been the producon of a solid foundaon for the

successful compleon of the 4-county Central Puget Sound ROSS. This foundaon

is laid on three major accomplishments:

Enthusiasc parcipaon and engagement from key collaborators,

partners and parcipants from the public, tribal, private and non-protsectors

Essenal insights about what is needed to complete the next phase of the

project

A tested methodology and work plan for compleng a region-wide ROSS

These accomplishments are crical to the success of the ROSS. During the Scoping

Phase, the ROSS sta 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 introducon and elaborated through this

report, the ROSS project team idened and conrmed with expert consultants:

eecve stakeholder engagement processes, analycal 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

organizaonal structure, connue watershed studies and develop preliminary

regional open space planning over a two-year period. In 2011 we will form

the three-ered organizaonal structure of the ROSS, develop a preliminary

comprehensive strategy (PCS), and conduct four watershed studies. In 2012 the

ROSS will be formally instuonalized and housed in an agency, organizaon

or coalion of organizaons. Also in that year we will complete the watershed

studies, and dra a regional comprehensive strategy that includes: a list of

priorized acons and implementaon recommendaons; an acon program for

implemenng open space acvies including an organizaon and coordinaon

structure for pursuing ROSS objecves; tools for open space enhancement; and,

visualizaons to support an outreach eort. For greater detail on the meline

and work plan see Appendix 2.

The ROSS is an ambious project that will require complex organizaonal eorts,

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 constuents

and collaborators in the public, tribal, private, and non-prot sectors. The

successes of the ROSS project team to date have depended on the incredibly

knowledgeable, wise, and intelligent group of parcipants from public, private,

tribal, and non-prot sectors that we were able to engage in the project. They

have variously spent me: poinng us to exisng open space planning resources,

sharing their expert knowledge of history, technical issues and polical issues,

and aending meengs and workshops with an implicit commitment and

supporve atude. As governments seek to cut budgets, remove redundancies,

and increase eciency the ROSS is a natural t since it formulates a coordinated

regional open space planning eort coupled with grass-roots community-basedacon. We will have to be strategic, eecve, and ecient in order to accomplish

our goals. Phase II of the Central Puget Sound ROSS holds substanal promise

for the beerment of open space planning in the region.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 | Parcipaon and Outreach

a. Stascal Report of ROSS Outreach and Collaboraons

b. Aendee List: 4-County Stakeholder Workshop and Visioning Session

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

d. Aendee List: Puget Sound Regional Council Presentaon and Informaon

Gathering Session

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

f. Outreach by Organizaon Title and Type

g. Abbreviaons and Categories

h. Outreach and Communicaon: Brochure and Web Page

i. Case Studies Handout

Appendix 2 | Work Plan and Maps

a. Work Flow Diagram

b. Map of Cedar River Region

c. Map of 4-County Region

d. Work Plan Scope and Timeline


6/18

a. Statistical Reportof 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 Reportof ROSS Outreach and Collaborations*for clarification 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


7/18

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 COUNTYREGRETORNO SHOW

CEDARRIVERTASK FORCE

PSRC MEET

PSRC COMMENT

KINGCOUNTYFOCUS 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 clarification of abbreviations and categories, see 1.g

CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION

LAST FIRST ORGANIZATION TITLE ORG TYPEGEOGRAPHIC

E XT EN T 4 C OU NT Y

4COUNTY

REGRET orNO SHOW

C. RIVER

TASKFORCE

PSRCMEETING

PSRCCOMMENT

K. COUNTY

FOCUSG RO UP I NT ER VI EW

Barnett Elliot

City of Tacoma, Communityand Economic

Development Urban Planner PUB CI x x x

Batten Leslie Green Futures Lab Manager PUB ST x

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

Blaylock Roger Muckleshoot Tribe Planning PUB TR x

Bleifuhs Steve

KingCountyDNRP/WLRD -Riverand Floodplain

Management Section Section Manager PUB CO x x

Bradley Gordon

University of Washington, Schoolof Forest

Resources Professor PUB ST x

Bramer Dave University of Washington Green Roofs Researcher PUB ST X

Brockhaus Amy Mountains to Sound Greenway Information Manager NGO REG x

Byers Tom Cedar River Group Founding Partner NGO WAT x x

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

Culp Carrie WASLA President Elect NGO ST x

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

Deller Mike TPL Washington State Director NGO ST x

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

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

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

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

Dykstra Peter The Wilderness Society

PacificNorthwest RegionalDirectorat 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


8/18



4COUNTYREGRET or

NO SHOW

C. RIVERTASK

FORCE

PSRC

MEETING

PSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTY


Fuerstenberg Bob Retired

RetiredSenior Ecologist at KingCounty

Natural Resources PUB CO x x

Gage Sarah

Stateof WashingtonRecreation andConservation

Office Biodiversity Executive Coordinator PUB ST x

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

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

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

Jander Neal Snoqualmie Nation Natural Resources PUB TR x x

Jerabek Jennifer

MasterBuilders Associationof Kingand

SnohomishCounties

SouthSnohomish County Mgr.of Government

Affairs NGO CO, REG x

Jordan Lynn

PCCFarmland

Trust Development & Outreach Associate NGO NAT x

Kelly Mann ULI Seattle Executive Director NGO NAT x

Kinney Karen King County A griculture Program/DNRP Project P rogram Manager II PUB CO x x

Knauer Jennifer Jones & Jones Senior Associate PRI NAT x x

Konigsmark KenBoeing, Mountains toSound, Issaquah AlpsTrailsClub

Boardof Directors, Mountains toSound; VicePresident Issaquah Alps Trails Club NGO REG x

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

Kyer Krystal

MetroParks TacomaBoardandTahoma

Audubon Programmanager PUB CI x

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

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

Lewandowski Roberta Futurewise President, Board of Directors NGO ST x

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

Marti Monte Snohomish Conservation District District Manager PUB CO x

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

McCartney Heather City of Mukilteo Planning Director PUB CI x

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

McIntosh Annika Light Table Collective Landscape Designer PRI CI X

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

Miller Ivan PSRC

PrincipalPlanner, GrowthManagement

Planning Division PUB REG x

M on ag ha n J os hu a K in gC on se rv at io nD is tr ic t

ConservationPlanner, AgricultureProgram

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



4COUNTYREGRET or

NO SHOW

C. RIVERTASK

FORCE

PSRC

MEETING

PSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTY


Nilssan Judy PUB R EG 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 S tate Recreation and Conservation Office Policy a nd 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


9/18

1.c.

Attendee List: Cedar River Watershed Task Force Work SessionAugust 26 23 9-11:30 AM Gould Hall, University of Washington


CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE SCOPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION



4COUNTYREGRET or

NO SHOW

C. RIVERTASK

FORCE

PSRC

MEETING

PSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTYFOCUS

GROUP INTERVIEW

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

CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE S COPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION



4COUNTY

REGRET or

NO SHOW

C. RIVER

TASK

FORCE

PSRC

MEETING

PSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTY

FOCUS

GROUP INTERVIEW

Abbott Norman PSRC Directorof Growth Management PUB REG x

Ambrose Donna SnohomishCounty

Director, SnohomishCountys Economic

Development Program PUB CO x

Anderson Charlene Cityof Kent PlanningManager PUB CI x x

Ardussi Sean PSRC SeniorPlanner PUB REG x

Baker Dwight SEVA, CBA x

Barnett Elliot

City of Tacoma, Community andEconomic

Development Urban Planner PUB CI x x x

Bauer Leonard Dept of Commerce

ManagingDirector, GrowthManagement

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



10/18


E XT EN T 4 C OU N TY

4COUNTY

REGRET or

NO SHOW

C. RIVER

TASK

FORCE

PSRC

MEETING

PSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTY

FOCUS

GROUP INTERVIEW

Kitchen Matthew PSRC Council Member PUB REG x

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

Kofoed Kristian Seattle

SeniorUrban 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 Regl 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 PSRC

Directorof Government Relations and

Communications PUB REG x

Owen John Makers A rchitecture and Urban Planning Principal PRI REG x x x x

Papsdorf Peggy Suburban Cities Association Public Policy Analyst NGO REG x

Pedersen, Michael PSRC Transportation Planning Intern PUB REG x

Piro Rocky PSRC Program Manager PUB REG x

Reid Jacqueline Snohomish Co. Planner PUB CO x

Reitenbach Paul King County Senior Policy Analyst PUB CO x


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

S ta nt on L es li e P SC AA, P ug et S ou nd Cl ea nA ir Ag en cy

Teamlead, ClimateProtectionand

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


CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZATION PROFILE S COPE OF ROSS PARTICIPATION



4COUNTY

REGRET or

NO SHOW

C. RIVER

TASK

FORCE

PSRC

MEETING

PSRC

COMMENT

K. COUNTY

FOCUS

GROUP INTERVIEW

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

C re ah an K at hy K in g Co un ty D NR

Agriculture/Forestry ProgramManager, 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 Kate

KingCounty DNRP -Water andLandResources

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


11/18

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 Economics

Chinook 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 Planning

City 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 Weyerhaueser City 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 CountyCity of Redmond Mountains to Sound GreenwayCity of Renton Nature Conservancy

City of Sammamish NW Energy CoalitionCity of Seattle PCC Farmland TrustCity of Seattle People for Puget SoundCity of Shoreline Pierce County FARM Program

City 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 PartnersKikiallus Indian Nation Suburban Cities AssociationKing Conservation District Sustainable Communities Around Puget Sound (SCALLOPS)King County Sustainable Northwest

K ing C ou nt y A gri cu ltu re C ommi ss io n T ac om a- Pie rce C ou nt y A ss oc ia ti on of R ea lto rsKing 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 AssociationK ing C ou nt y Gr een Too ls P ro gr am W as hi ng ton C ha pt er o f t he A mer ica n S oc ie ty of La ndsc ap eKing County Metro Washington Ducks UnlimitedK ing Cou nt y P ark s a nd Re cr eat ion Di vi si on W as hi ng ton En vi ron me nt al Cou nc il

K in g Cou nt y Wat er a nd L an d Res ou rc es D iv is io n Was hi ng to n Rec re at io n a nd Park Ass oc ia ti onKitsap 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 CoalitionK it sa p R eg ion al C oo rd ina ti ng C ou nc il W as hi ng ton W ild li fe a nd R ecr eat ion Co ali tio n

Metro Parks Tacoma Board and Tahoma Audubon

Mountlake Terrace

PUBLIC NGO PRIVATE

Muckleshoot Indian TribeMuckleshoot Tribal CouncilMuckleshoot Tribe

National Park Service Pacific West Region - SeattleNisqually TribeNorthwest Indian Fisheries CommissionPierce Conservation DistrictPierce County

Pierce County ExtensionPierce County ParksPierce County Planning and Land ServicesPort of SeattlePublic Health Seattle and King County

Puget Sound Regional CouncilPuget Sound Salmon CommissionPuyallup TribeSnohomish Conservation DistrictSnohomish CountySnohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services

Snohomish County Extension

Snohomish County Focus on FarmingSnohomish Marine Resources CommitteeSnohomish TribeSnoqualmie Nation

Sound TransitSound Transit, Bicycle Advisory GroupSteilacoom TribeStillaguamish TribeSuquamish TribeTulalip Tribe

University 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 Group

University of Washington, Runstad CenterUniversity of Washington, School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of Washington, Urban Design and PlanningUS Environmental Protection AgencyWashington Biodiversity CouncilWashington Farm Forestry Association

Washington State Association of CountiesWashington State Beef CommissionWashington State Commodity Commission ProgramWashington State Conservation CommissionWashington State Department of Commerce

Washington State Department of EcologyWashington State Department of Natural ResourcesWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices DivisionWashington State Department of TransportationWashington State Department of Transportation Environmental Services Office

Washington State Recreation and Conservation OfficeWildlife Program Staff


12/18

ORGANIZATIONPROFILEshorthandtranslation

ORG TYPEtypeof organization

PUBpublicentity

PRIprivate organizationorcorporationpriv r ni i n r rp r i n

NGOnon-governmentalorganization

EOGRAPHICEXTENTgeographicextent

CI city

CO county

ST state

WATwatershed (e.g., CedarRiver, SkokomishRiver)

RG regional(e.g.: PugetSound, PacificNorthwest)r i l . . , i i r

TR tribal

NAT national

O other

PRIMARY INTERESTMain research/advocacyinterestsof organization, and/or specialties of participant withinorganization

AGagriculture (farmingand farmlandpolicy)

ECOecology, healthof terrestrialand aquatic systems

ECONeconomic developmentmi l m

FISHfishing, fisheries

FOODfood systems, agriculture(farmer-consumerrelationships)

FORforestry

PHpublic health

PLAplanning, policy, management

RErealestate

RECparks andrecreation (planning, design, advocacy, preservation)

TRtransportation (automobile, multi-modal, transit, bicycleandpedestrian)

UTutilities

YEyouth, education, publicawareness

ARTpublic art, arts engagment

1.g.

Abbreviations and Categories

1.h.

Outreach and Communication: Brochure


13/18

1.h.

Outreach and Communication: Web Page

1.i.

Case Studies Handout

AUCKLAND, NZ | Regi onal Open Space Strategy

dates | 2005 (ROSS report published); 2055geographic scope |Auckland Metro Regionfunding mechanism |a goal of the ROSS is to develop a comprehensive summary of funding optionsdening open space | parks, beaches and sports elds, along with other public areas: e.g. townsquares, streets and footpaths in urban areas

for more information | www.arc.govt.nz/plans/regional-strategies/regional-open-space-strategy.cfm

SUMMARY

KEY POINTS

Broad vertical and horizontal aspect: national to local analysis + participationClearly communicated series of action plans and planning toolsOpen space dened and addressed within a series of dening frames: Urban Areas, Coastal Areas,Rural Areas, and Natural Areas

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

This report has a fr amework which may prove useful for developing the nal ROSS in acomprehensive and clear document:Part One: Outlines the background to the ROSS

Part Two: Legislative and Policy FrameworkPart Three: The Regional Open Space ResourcePart Four: Vision for the Regions Open Space NetworkPart Five: Action and Implementation Plans

The reports Action Plans and accompanying Implementation Plans provide a useful framework forcreating 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 + PARTNERSHIPS

The ROSS was developed through a Regional Open Space Forum (ROSF) as a partnership exercisebetween:Auckland Regional Council7 Territorial Authorities

Department of ConservationMinistry for the Environment

The further development and implementation of the ROSS includes an expanded list of partners:Tangata Whenua (Mori people)NGOsCommunity environmental groupsInfrastructure, health, education, and transportation organizations and governmental agencies

Private sector individuals and organizations such as forestry companies, farmers and tourism operators,operators of recreation facilities such as golf courses, and landowners

ROSS

PORTLAND, OR | Parks 2020 Vision

dates | 1999 (Parks 2020 Vision published); 2009 (Progress Report published); 2020geographic scope |City of Portlandfunding mechanism | Portl and Parks and Recreation funds, Portland Parks Foundationfundraising, bonds, grants, general fund, fees, volunteer recruitment and entrepreneurial projectsdening 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 communitySuccessfully integrated many smaller holdings into a coherent park systemIncludes a strong evaluation program for grading the performance of implementation and goal

achievement (Published a ten year Progress Report with candid evaluations)

GOALS

The Portland Vision was based on ve central goals, which were later used as key criteria forevaluating the plan in 2009. These are:1. Ensure Portlands park and recreation legacy for future generations.

2. Provide a wide variety of park and recreation services and opportunities for all citizens.3. Preserve, protect and restore Portland natural resources to provide nature in the city.4. Create an interconnected regional and local system of trails, paths and walks to make Portlandthe walking city of the West.5. Develop parks, recreation facilities and programs that promote community in the city.

CASE STUDY PROFILES

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Includes 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 PracticesFunding 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 communitythrough play and relaxation, gathering and solitude3. Providing and coordinating recreation services and programs that contribute to the health and wellbeing of residents of all ages and abilities

ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK

Portland Parks and RecreationPortland Parks BoardPortland Parks Foundation


14/18

ST LOUIS, MO | Great Rivers Greenway DistrictNASHUA, NH | Regio nal 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)defining open space |publi c open space, with an emphasis on parks, greenways and trailsfor more information | www.greatrivers.info

SUMMARY

dates |2005 (ROSS report published)

geographic scope | Nashua Region (Southeastern NH)funding mechanism |NH Regional Environmental Planning Program (State Dept of EnvironmentalServices funds), NH Department of Transportationdefining open space | broad definition including working forests, agricultural land, habitat land andrecreational 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 RingFlexible, strong public image (formerly Metropolitan Park and Recreation District)

KEY POINTS

Uses a broad definition of open space, including working forests, agricultural land, habitat land, aswell as recreational land

The Great Rivers Greenway has a diverse and broad list of partners and collaborators. Categoriesinclude:Federal AgenciesGovernments and DistrictsMunicipalitiesNon-Profits

Parks DepartmentsState AgenciesUniversities

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK + PARTNERSHIPS

Board of DirectorsRepresent Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County

Appointed by the executive of the city or county they representCitizen Advisory CommitteeCitizens from St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles CountyCounty ExecutivesStaffTechnical Advisory CommitteeAdded in 2003

TACs support and advise general operations and speci fic projects

KEY PROJECTS + PUBLIC INITIATIVES

The River RingAconcept 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 webof more than 45 greenwaysBike ToursHistoric Bike ToursTales on the TrailHike It, Bike It, or Run!Public Awareness + Education

Poster 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 FRAMEWORK

Continued encouragement of concentrated public infrastructure investment in developed areas

Local 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 PLAN

Task 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


15/18

plan

plan

restorationeffort

program

project

etc

PUBLIC GOVTs AGENCIES

NGOs

NGONGO

govtgovt

agency

shared tools

evaluation

regional advocacy

programmaticrecommendations

agency

RegionalProjects & Priorities

InstitutionalOrganization & CommunicationStructure

Toolsfor Planning & Policy

PRODUCTS

Gaps &Intersections

Existing Plans &Programs

1

2

3

4

Identify open space & greeninfrastructure efforts in terms ofgeography, objectives, and institutionalperformance

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

Use results to engage broad range ofinterests

Through broad participation identifyregional priorities, programmatic activities& organizational actions that make acomprehensive regional strategy

SYNTHESIS

STRATEG

Y

2.a.

Work Flow Diagram

2.b.

Geographic Extent: Cedar River Watershed Map


16/18

cities

urbancenters

UGA

triballands

parks + openspace

national park

national forest

agriculture

regional trails

ferry

WRIA

water bodies

countyoutlines

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

Boardmembers would include representation of up to 20 organizations with

missions most central to the ROSS effort. Steering Committeemembershipwould 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 itemsS.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 addresseach 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 ROSSmight 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 refine the issue statements

and develop conceptual solutions to address them. Conduct further research asneeded.

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 Refine and the sketch programs and directions and document in a report that

establishes an overview of the topic areas and directions for working in theindividual watersheds.

I.6 Meet with the Executive Board and members of the 4 TACs to review and refine

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

programs and directions.

SCHEDULE

Element I: Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy


17/18

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 andinvolved above) to review refine the synthesis map. I dentify those issues and

opportunities that stand out as well as missing elements. Coordinate with otherwatersheds.

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 notcontacted 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. Initiatediscussion 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 andrefine input from first open house.

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

14. Document results of 2nd

workshop and prepare watershed based open spacestrategy (WOSS). Review with Executive Board

SCHEDULE

Element 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 prioritiesand details of implementation measures. Identify potential tools andpathways for implementation.

III.2 Meet with the Board and Steering Committee to review work of thewatershed synthesis and strategies to review the collective results ofthe WOSS work (Draft ROSS). Est ablish a process for further review,refinement and prioritization. Also begin to consider organizationa lmanagement of the ROSS.

III.3 Conduct further meetings with Steering Committee members and otherparticipants to establish priorities and implementation measures. Whereneeded 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 Refine ROSS to incorporate comments and conduct further researchregarding custodial management and implementation measures

III.6 Present Pre-final ROSS and management options (what organization, ifany, manages the ROSS and ultimately how the resources are accruedand 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 final changes to ROSS and circulate draftIII.9 Conduct outreach and dissemination of materials

SCHEDULE

Element III: Implementation


18/18

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 andcommunity development objectives

General programmatic strategies to pursue in each of the watersheds

2. Two completed Watershed Open Space strategies

End of Second Year

1. Five additional Watershed Open Space 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.

SCHEDULE

Regional Open Space Strategy

Documents

Regional Open Space Strategy Scoping Report