Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-19-2011 Planning Commission Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. May 19, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 21, 2011 IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone (1911 N. 20th Avenue) (Philip Richardson) (MF# Z 2011-004 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Code Amendment PMC 25.46 C-3 General Business District provisions to include Contractor Facilities (MF# CA 2011-001) VI. OTHER BUSINESS: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision Plan VII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING April 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was tailed to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. e Kurt Lukin s No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Lisa Gemig APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding any of the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that State law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hay moved to adopt the March 17, 2011 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) to allow for auto sales (624 W. Lewis Street) (Shane Fast) (MF# Z 2011-001) -1 - Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner, provided a brief history of the past discussion on the matter and then summarized the staff report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Mr. Adams also pointed out staff had provided the Commission with an alternate set of findings and motion to approve the rezone request with a concomitant agreement. Commissioner Levin asked a number of questions for clarification of the zoning and past uses in the area. Shane Fast, 3109 West 46th Avenue, Kennewick supported Option "B". Commissioner Lukins asked Mr. Fast if the conditions of Option "B" were acceptable. Mr. Fast stated they were. Commissioner Levin recommended the Planning Commission go with Option «B„ Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt Findings of Fact, "Option B" and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lukins further moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business), with the conditions listed in the report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone (3300 Block west of Wernett Road) (Vinh Pham) (MF# Z 2011-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff reviewed the recommended conditions included in the proposed concomitant agreement. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. -2 - Commissioner Lukins further moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council Rezone the site from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with a Concomitant Agreement limiting the number of dwelling units to 21 and requiring minimal architectural features on each dwelling units. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Expand and continue resource recovery operation in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (215 E. Ainsworth Avenue) (Ray Poland & Sons, Inc.) (MF# SP 2011-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway further moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, based on the Findings of Fact an Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to Ray Poland & Sons Inc. for the operation of a concrete crushing/hog fuel production facility with conditions as listed in the April 28, 20 11 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. D. Special Permit Location of a church in a R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone (316 N. 11th Avenue) (Mario Rivera) (MF# SP 2011-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file slumber and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway further moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to Mario Rivera for the operation of a church with conditions as listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. -3 - E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Ranger Heights, an 11-lots subdivision located at 1621 Road 80 (Basswood, LLC) (MF# PP 2011-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner indicated that at the hearing in March there were some questions raised about the School District requesting the developer enter into a voluntary agreement for the imposition of impact fees. Mr. Adams indicated the School District has withdrawn the request for impact fees on the proposed plat. Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing for additional public comment. Roger Lenk, 1817 N Road 72, was present to speak in opposition to the proposed plat. Mr. Lenk made a number of comments related to the lack of classroom space available in local schools and read a portion of the previous letter the School District provided explaining the same. Mr. Lenk stated the public would be negatively impacted if the plat was approved. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director indicated the City was not in the business of providing educational services and defers to the School District to comment on those needs. It was pointed out again that the School District withdrew their request for impact fees for any plat submitted prior to April 1, 2011. Mr. White also pointed out the School District is in the process of installing portable classrooms at Livingston and McLoughlin. Gene Batey, 9800 Maple Drive, stated he understands the School District has difficulties but it is hard to tell if the future buyers of lots within the proposed plat will have school children or whether of not they will move from other parts of town. Commissioner Greenaway stated she understood the School District capacity problems but there was no way of knowing if only retired people would move in or if existing families are just changing homes. Chairman Cruz indicated he thought there should be some policy direction before impact fees are required. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning -4 - Commission recommend City Council approve a Preliminary Plat for Ranger Heights Subdivision with the conditions as listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. The appeal process was briefly explained by staff for the benefit of the audience. F. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change from Low- Amendment Density Residential to Mixed Residential (Corner of Charles Avenue and Clark Street) (Beacon Development) (MF# CPA 10-004) (CLOSED RECORD HEARING) REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, explained that the proposed Plan Amendment had been remand by the City Council with instructions that the Planning Commission consider the amendment without consideration of a specific development proposal for the site in question. The application for the proposed amendments must be reviewed as a standalone process absent current ownership or development plans. Mr. Adams then reviewed various plan policies that were applicable to the proposed amendment. Mr. White, Community and Economic Development Director encouraged the Planning Commission to provide comments as Mr. Adams explained the applicable Plan policies. Mr. White also indicated the Planning Commission remand was to address a concern that there may have been undue reliance of on the applicant's reputation or similarity with other project developed by the applicant. From that point Chairman Cruz read through the policy analysis contained in the written report. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map MF# CPA 10-004 staff memo dated April 28, 2011. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment under Master File number CPA 10-004. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: -5 - A. Special Permit Location of a park in the Linda Loviisa Subdivision (5520 Salem Drive) (City of Pasco) (MF# SP2011-006) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, stated the City of Pasco was the applicant for the proposed five-acre neighborhood park in the Linda Loviisa subdivision. Mr. O'Neill explained a neighborhood meeting was held on April 12, 2 011 to explain the park proposal to the neighborhood. Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting. Dan Dotta, Facility Services Manager, stated the proposal consists of a walking path through the park leaving a majority of the park open for soccer. A playground and basketball court will be located on the eastern portion of the park. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the hearing on the proposed park and initiate deliberations. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to the City of Pasco for the location of a neighborhood park with conditions as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone (1911 N. 20th Avenue) (Philip Richardson) (MF# Z2011-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner, explained the applicant requested the rezone to eliminate the illegal non-conforming status. Mr. Adams reviewed the surrounding zoning and land use for the benefit of the Planning Commission. David Richardson, 11115 176th Ave E. Bonnie Lake, WA, stated the house was built in 1949 and his family lived there for decades. Richardson Park was built on land provided by his family. His family is seeking to rezone the house because they are having difficulty selling the house due to the zoning. He is not in favor of turning this house into an office. -6 - Commissioner Khan questioned the outlet from the residence and the possible use of the alley in the back. Mr. Richardson stated the alley in the back is a maintenance service road. He also added the house is in perfect condition and they have been unsuccessful in attempts to sell the house as an office. Commissioner Khan called for staff to address this issue as a condition in the rezone to use the alley as their sole driveway. Chairman Cruz asked staff if there were other houses with only alley access. Mr. McDonald stated yes, there are many houses in the city with access to garages solely from an alley. Commissioner Greenaway questioned Mr. Richardson if he has made attempts to sell the house and asked banks if they would loan on this house. Mr. Richardson stated yes, the house was appraised at $145,000.00 and they have not had any offers. The last realtor stated the problem was that banks will not loan on this as a house in an office zone. Chairman Cruz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to close the hearing on the proposed Rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 19, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Cruz reopened the public hearing for clarification on conditions for approval. Mr. Richardson stated the daycare to the south and the house share the driveways so cars do not back out on 20th. The house has a separate driveway next to the daycare access. Chairman Cruz closed the public hearing. Following additional discussion amongst the Commission Chairman Cruz asked whether or not the Commission was in favor of the rezone. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to close the hearing on the proposed Rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 19, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: -7 - Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, provided a brief summary of the RROSN Vision Plan and stated a presentation would be made at the May Planning Commission. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. David McDonald, SecretarV -8 - REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-004 APPLICANT: Philip Richardson HEARING DATE: 4/28/2011 6150 Canoga Ave #214 ACTION DATE: 5/19/2011 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to allow current SFDU development to conform with Zoning 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Richardson Addition Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, except the South 25' of Lot 4, together with the vacated west half of the north/south alley; and except the portion to the City of Pasco & except the portion for Pacific States Highway 395. Location: 1911 North 20th Avenue Property Size: Approximately .33 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from 20th Avenue along the west property line and from an alley to the east. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned "O" (Office). The site is developed with a single-family home. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North "O" Office - Vacant South "O" Office - Daycare Center East R-1 Low Density Residential - City Park West "O" Office - Eye Clinic 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for low-density residential uses. However Land Use Policy LU-4-A Policy states that the City should "Locate commercial facilities at major street intersections to... avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods". 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, city development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of 1 Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS Subject property was owned by Leland Richardson until he passed away in 2008. His sons are attempting to sell it as part of his estate. The sons feel that it will be very difficult to sell the property, because lenders will not approve loans for residential use in an "O" (Office) zone. The City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be within a low density residential designation; however it has been surrounded by Office zoning on three sides for over 30 ,years. The sons are therefore seeking a zone change from "O" to R-1. There is no project associated with the proposed zone change. The subject property is located on a major arterial (20th Avenue) adjacent the freeway interchange of State Highway 395/I-182. It is zoned "O" (Office) and is surrounded by "O" zoning except for the residential area to the east which is zoned R-1. The property to the north is vacant; there is a City park (Richardson Park) to the east; properties to the west are fully developed with offices, and to the south a day care facility and residential uses. The City's Land Use Plan indicates the property in question should be utilized for low density residential uses. Rezoning the site would support the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. However it would run contrary to Land Use Policy LU-4-A of the Comprehensive Plan which indicates that major street intersections should be used for more intensive uses, rather than residential. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: The medical/appraisal office to the south is now used for a daycare facility. Otherwise there have been no changes in the general vicinity in the last few years. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: A rezone from "O" to R-1 would permit the single-family unit currently located on the property to be a legal use without nonconforming status. The property owners claim that the property will probably become a nuisance to the community if not rezoned because it cannot be improved or upgraded as a residence and banks generally do not loan against nonconforming uses. However, maintenance and repair of nonconforming uses is allowed as per PMC 25.72.050(1). Residential use would be less intensive than current zoning allows. However residential uses along an arterial street and surrounded by office uses may increase the health and safety risks to residents of the property. As well, good planning practice discourages placing residential uses in with more intensive uses or immediately adjacent major arterials and freeway interchanges. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: Because the residence has been in place since around 1949 it is unlikely that returning the property to a residential zoning designation would affect surrounding property values, as the nonconforming residential use would simply continue, but as a conforming use. However good planning practice does not encourage locating residences in more intensive use areas such as office blocks and immediately adjacent major arterials and freeway interchanges. Nor is it good planning practice to legitimize nonconformity for its own sake. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: The residential use would simply continue as a nonconforming use. However the property cannot be altered or extended as a residence in the current zone. As well, some banks will not loan against the property for residential use (it can still be maintained and repaired as per PMC 25.72.050(1)). The owners could still use, lease or sell the property as an office use, however tenant improvements such as ADA and parking requirements would likely be required. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential uses. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential uses. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land directly across 20th Avenue for public uses, such as schools and civic facilities. 3. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling unit, built around 1949. 4. The site is zoned "O" (Office), and is surrounded on three sides by office zoning. 5. The site borders an R-1 Zone to the east, which is developed with a City park. 6. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1949. 3 7. The site has been zoned "O" (Office) for over 30 ,years. 8. The purpose of the "O" (Office) Zone is to "provide areas of adequate size and appropriate locational characteristics for the development and operation of professional and administrative offices and certain complementary uses...[and to] serve as a buffer or transition between residential districts and commercial districts." 9. The purpose of the R-1 Zone is "to provide a low density residential environment...with smaller lots and useful ,yard spaces." CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan, however, it is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-4-A Policy ("Locate commercial facilities at major street intersections to... avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods"). This property faces an arterial street and is near a freeway interchange. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. Because the residence has been in place since around 1949 it is unlikely that returning the property to a residential zoning designation would be materially detrimental, as the nonconforming residential use would simply continue, but as a conforming use. However good planning practice does not encourage locating a solitary residence in the middle of more intensive (office) zoning. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is no real merit to or value in the proposal for the community as a whole in locating a solitary residence in the middle of a more intensive (office) zone. Nor is it wise to legitimize nonconformity for its own sake. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The City should not pursue the rezone, and as such, no conditions would apply. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. The City should not pursue the Rezone, and as such, a Concomitant Agreement would not be necessary. 4 RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 19, 2011 staff report. MOTION for Denial: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the rezone of the site from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential). Option "B" OPTION "B" CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Although this property faces an arterial street and is near- a freexuay interchange, and the proposal is not consistent ruith Comprehensive Plan Policy LU--4-A Policy ("Locate commercial facilities at major street intersections to... avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods"), it is consistent ruith the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. Although good planning practice does riot encourage locating a solitary residence in the middle of more intensive (office) zoning, the residence has been in place since around 1949 and it is unlikely that returning the property to a residential zoning designation xuould be materially detrimental to the surrounding properties. The nonconforming residential use xuould simply continue, but as a conforming use. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. While it is unruise to legitimize nonconformity for- its orun sake, rezoning a single property to R-1 Residential in the middle of an Office zone auould likely be "value- neutral" and "merit-neutral" to the community as a whole. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. 5 No conditions should be imposed, os no sign.ificont odver-se impocts ore expected f1-om the proposed rezone. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. No ConcomitantAgr-eement is necessary for- this proposed rezone. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Option "B" Conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 19, 2011 staff report. MOTION for Approval: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential). 6 It em: Rezone - "o�� to R- 1 Vk' 1I11ty Applicant: Philip Richardson x Map File # : z 2011 -004 uu Z N c C HA RM4S?' :Nt SITE :r7-- . .� W � _ a lwJ J • �� • I � ! u w --- � •. `�... -may. r � �-' ��, some Ab i Ar oP Land Use Item: Rezone - "O" to R- 1 Applicant: Philip Richardson x Map File #: Z 2011 -004 Frost W � z SFDU s 4 Elementary 4 0 T 0 Z o RICHARDSON ST SITE " vac. : - W - Richardson 'a Park Aptsw offic Day- r. Care i PEARL ST w - - - — SFDU's 0 Apts. _ � - PAL ST Zoning Item: Rezone - "O" to R- 1 Applicant: Philip Richardson x Map File #: Z 2011 -004 0 a R-1 4 � R-1 1 L Z N W101V , RICHARDSON ST N SITE LU a X vV01V .E R=3- - PEARL Rml w vlovv R-1 y PAL ST .*A 1' illy It � �-✓.sir.... 'A± r1�° -a, � •f .r °., 10 PIA� R �i; y -r � t .� •,in � �•—�yr w i +011.5 4: p may' Al f ` ,41 f a a IF XV Looking South at Footbridge in Front Yard D �r Tj e' .low - r ��.. .1e.•ra.•p�� l 1 / Y • l .0 ~ ! ./ • .• ,r M aim Oi �4��{� � � '� •� �1 �� +i...—'yam, '+���!• �> R v '.� 4�`0>r,�;,: .'C � w .� :'� � � ,3 �� t1�9r ^'-r1l{{r�r`w +C•' � �!''�! t,� At r i�y 1 A r F i.1r��. E `- +.r t•y�' +�" } e I' y� Tye ,y►•'- e.r'i'! • '' { •x� . r fAi �/' Y .� ! �FIf ,.!/ /.,e(7ss !f r'l�a/P/j6 9 • , y n ,` Ao • X ►+ e NN 4 `s S? M` f ,!, _ M i aR al _,v .w Allk lot' la a 'r' of .. s ' ; ♦% �• LA e ,�L tr r �\ �y=khj c 1 i�l � aar' ��'d.J;,• .T Yeti.- .. � ! �• s'��S�' .. �' b ,fir' �� � �.ei � '.�� A� � .• �� 7�,r� i i i � �� MY W . u `"ef►. .. , `� .�lT a . 'x_ , L. '•� + 4'� / • ' X At IV 4 jr o ����� ,t�?r� �', ,r�� Ff .r� � ^Z� �/� � -� ,`A • ,t�� �I i r k�I � �� y i ►'•'T w l � •�fh� :.� r.�t�• �A f 4r•' l• (� 'a\ 'SCr � , .�' �.fsi ! �° � `a � ► JIM ?�' ! �``•�, s f., ., . � - �',,+ � ,� � -��as .�, f ,. �, �,�,a r! f: ,. ; � y,E -.�a. "' �: = — -'� ;� fir: i,�i, •�� � �, t s ' - rt Looking Southwest from Front Yard n _ r Ww r i s !ate y . PAA Juoa_� WOJJ JS9M &11i0011 �ry,'�� Yt ` ; 4 lam• ; f jR rl look- _ Z;.4_ AN _ tiw MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment PMC 25.46 Contractor Plant and Storage Yards in the C-3 District BACKGROUND Since the 1970's the City has been licensing and permitting contractor facilities in C-3 zones. This has created confusion in administering the zoning code in recent ,years because contractor facilities are not a listed permitted use in the C- 3 zone. Contractor facilities are listed as permitted uses in the I-1 District under the listing of contractor plants or storage ,yards. The purpose of the C-3 District is to provide areas for non-retail commercial businesses. Contractor facilities are generally non-retail in nature. The C-3 permitted uses section (PMC 25.46.020) lists a number of uses that are similar in nature to a contractor storage ,yard such as heavy machinery sales and service, wholesale businesses, lumber sales, landscape gardening and storage areas for equipment and materials, and express offices (trucking firms). Many of these uses require large outdoor storage ,yards for machinery, equipment, trucks, lumber and other building supplies. Businesses within the parameters of those listed above receive and ship construction supplies, sell, service, repair and store large construction equipment. Historically, with few exceptions, most of the contractor facilities located in C-3 Districts have been in areas near industrial zones (Columbia East) or near other C-3 areas (Oregon Avenue Corridor). As the community has grown we are now finding residential districts located near or adjacent to C-3 districts. Contractor facilities may be compatible with or similar to other uses permitted in the C-3 district but they are seldom compatible with residential uses. Staff recently received an inquiry about locating an excavation contractor ,yard in a C-3 Zone adjacent to a residential neighborhood. In the past, such an inquiry would not have been a concern because most developed C-3 districts did not border upon residential neighborhoods. That is no longer the case. After considering the matter it became apparent the code needs to be amended to address contractor facilities in the C-3 District. The proposed code amendment i attached to this memo would permit contractor facilities in the C-3 Districts as a permitted use provided the site selected for a contractor facility is at least 300 feet from a residential area. Any C-3 site 300 feet or closer to a residential zone would be required to obtain a Special Permit. Through the Special Permit process the City could apply mitigation measures for sites adjacent to or near residential areas. An alternative would be to require the Special Permit process for contractor ,yards in all C-3 zones regardless of distance from a residential zone. The proposed code amendment is not a site-specific matter and therefore staff is recommending the matter be acted upon at the May 19th Planning Commission meeting. FINDINGS 1) PMC 25.04.020 explains one of the purposes of the zoning regulations is to assist in increasing the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area. 2) The C-3 District (PMC 25.46) permits the location of wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, lumber ,yards and landscaping storage businesses. 3) Contractor facilities are not listed as a permitted use in the C-3 District. 4) Contractor facilities are similar in nature and operation to a number of permitted uses within the C-3 District. 5) The City has permitted contractor facilities and storage ,yards in C-3 Districts since the 1970's. 6) The Special Permit process enables the city to apply mitigation measures that may be necessary to preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens in residential neighborhoods adjacent to C-3 Districts. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Conunission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the May 19, 2011 staff memo on Code Amendments for PMC Chapter 25.46. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adapt the proposed Cade Amendments modifying PMC Chapter 25.46 to include provisions for contractor's plants and storage yards in the C-3 District. 2 ORDINANCE NO.– — AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 BY INCLUDING CONTRACTOR PLANTS AND STORAGE YARDS IN CHAPTER ''5.46. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning regulations to be reviewed to ensure they fulfill their intended purposes; and. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title ''5; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.46.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: ''5.46.0''0 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-3 district: (1) All uses permitted in the C-1 business district; Q) Service stations; (3) Laundry; (4) Express office; (5) Wholesale business; (6) Heavy machinery sales and service; (7) Warehouse; (S) Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials; (9) Automobile sales and service; (10) Mobile home and trailer sales and service; (11 ) Lumber sales business; (12) Veterinarian clinics for household pets (including indoor boarding facilities); a-i4 (13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-'' district boundary provided, such lots are paved and the development complies with the landscape and fencing requirements of the C-1 district, as enumerated in subsection ''5.4''.02'0(13); and 1 (14) Contactor's -plant or storage yard -provided such -plant or yard is more than 300 feet or more from a residential district. Section 2. That Chapter 25.46.040 of the Pasco Municipal Cede be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.46.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses may be permitted in the C-3 district upon approval of a Special Permit as provided for in Chapter''5.86: (1) Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities, provided all boarding or overnight holding of animals occurs indoors; (2) Auto body shops; and (3) Parking lots; and (4) Contractor's plant or storage yard within 300 feet of a residential district. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of '10011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPRO`'ED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rids White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network (RROSN) Vision Plan The Commission will be considering the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network (RROSN) Vision Plan at the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 2011. At the upcoming Planning Commission meeting, the RROSN will be giving the Commission a presentation on the efforts and anticipated beneficial effects of a region-wide coordination of trail linkages and open space networks. As the Commission knows, the Pasco City Council received a formal presentation of the RROSN Vision Plan at a Council workshop in March this year. As a result of that workshop, Council has directed the Commission to review the Vision Plan and forward appropriate recommendations to City Council on policy or project actions from the Vision Plan that should be pursued and that will compliment the larger Pasco community. As discussed by the Planning Commission at the April 28 meeting, this workshop has been advertised as an opportunity for comment on the RROSN Vision Plan. This memorandum provides an initial staff assessment of the recommendations contained in the Plan. The general policy recommendations from the Vision Plan begin on Page 100. 1 . Definition and Inventory Recommendations Recommendation G1 .1 : Benton and Franklin County, the cities of Benton City, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland adopt a common definition of open space consistent with the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network vision. STAFF DISCUSSION: With a nominal amount of coordination between the region's entities (cities, counties and special districts), it should be relatively straight forward to develop a definition of open space that is acceptable to all. Accomplishing this recommendation would help ensure that all entities are on the "same page" when discussing open space and open space connections. Recommendation G1 .2: The jurisdictions of the Mid-Columbia make every effort to create a common database of maps to expedite regional planning. STAFF DISCUSSION: Creating a common database of maps is very important and at the same time deceivingly difficult. Each entity employs a unique GI S and database system that are not always compatible with each other. These database systems are incorporated into an entity's larger computer network and providing commonality between all of these operating systems may be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Recommendation G1 .3: Cooperatively develop and maintain an inventory of regional open space resources. STAFF DISCUSSION: This recommendation is likely to consume a large amount of staff time and is more or less dependent on achieving recommendation G1.2 noted above. This recommendation would also involve efforts of different levels for cities and counties. Within the defined urban areas, the inventory and assessment may be relatively easy to accomplish. I n the larger outlying areas outside of the urban boundaries, the inventory would be commensurately larger and more difficult to compile. Recommendation G1 .4: Make a consistently strong effort at the jurisdictional level to preserve priority open space. STAFF DISCUSSION: The preservation of priority open space within Pasco is relatively easy to accomplish. Priority open space is pictured in the RROSN Plan for Pasco and Franklin County on page 76. The Commission should note that most of the recommended priority open space is outside of the Pasco city limits. 2. Communication/ Organizational Recommendations Recommendation G2.1 : An institutionalized Jurisdictional Council (JC) is established to maintain a direct communication link between the County Commissioners, the City Councils, and the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action is necessary on this recommendation as the framework for a jurisdictional council has been established by the RROSN. However it will require continued participation in order to be successful. The Commission should recommend that the City continue efforts to maintain a presence on the jurisdictional council. Recommendation G2.2: Participating entities inform each other of any planned or proposed projects - public or private - that may impact the Open Space Network and pursue all available options to avoid or mitigate loss of open space and trail resources. STAFF DISCUSSION: G2.2 requires agreement among the jurisdictional council and completion of the inventory described in G1.3. Assuming the jurisdictional council is effective and operational, this recommendation should be pursued as it provides a top level resource to keep elected officials informed of projects that may impact the open space network. 3. Ownership Recommendations Recommendation G3.1 : Define ownership and maintenance of preserved open space in development areas. STAFF DISCUSSION: Although this is a notable goal, it remains difficult to implement at a jurisdictional level because of the difficulties in "mandating" ownership of open space areas that are not public lands. Ideally, areas that are valuable as open space should be owned by the public. In the absence of a private group dedicated to preserving such open space, it may be difficult to pursue a policy that requires purchase and ownership to be controlled by a specific party. Recommendation G3.2: I den tify as a regional open space resource any city, county, state, or federal property designated for abandonment, surplus, or zone change. Make every effort to secure those properties that have open space values and trail potential. STAFF DISCUSSION: The surplussing of property should be examined by each entity as that opportunity comes up. A notable example of this is the agreement that the City of Pasco pursued when taking over stewardship of Chiawana Park when it was proposed to be returned to the Army Corps of Engineers and closed by Franklin County. This action resulted in the maintenance of the park as a significant open space area linked to the larger regional Sacajawea Trail system. However it also comes with a cost. Each opportunity to secure surplussed or abandoned properties will need to be examined from a budgetary standpoint. Recommendation G3.3: Establish a regional open space stewardship program. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action necessary as this recommendation is a prime component of the RROSN efforts. 4. Reaional Trails Recommendations Recommendation G4.1 : Identify a lead agency or entity to track the completion of the Regional Trails Plan. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action necessary. Recommendation G4.2: Develop a regional trails design manual that includes operations and maintenance requirements. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action necessary. Recommendation G4.3: Develop a regional trails plan implementation phasing schedule for each j urisdiction. STAFF DISCUSSION: Although this would benefit the City, Franklin County is a critical player in an effort to develop any kind of regional trail plan or implementation schedule. As noted in an earlier discussion, the priority open space areas for Pasco and Franklin County are nearly all outside of the Pasco city limits. 5. Access Recommendations Recommendation G5.1 : Provide access, where appropriate, for compatible forms of outdoor recreation. STAFF DISCUSSION: This recommendation is currently being pursued and implemented when feasible. Again within the designated urban areas it is relatively easy to implement provisions for compatible forms of access and outdoor recreation. Outside of the urban areas it becomes progressively more complicated because of the wide variety of ownership and circumstances at locations considered valuable for open space. 6. Fundinq Recommendations Recommendation G6.1 : Actively pursue funding of open space and trail projects. Consider nominating projects annually for funding as joint projects. STAFF DI SCUSSI ON: This is a primary responsibility of county government as the opportunities for priority open space within the urban areas are sufficiently limited. Recommendation G6.2: Broaden funding for open space conservation and operations and maintenance (O&M). STAFF DISCUSSION: There are many options for funding open space conservation and operation and maintenance. The Plan contains a discussion of such beginning on page 170. In particular, there is a representative example of Spokane County's experience with "conservation futures" on page 172. On page 182 of the Plan, there is a more general discussion of "conservation future" type of dedicated property tax for open space acquisition. 7. Federal Notification Recommendations Recommendation G7.1 : Coordinate with federal agencies. STAFF DISCUSSION: This is an obvious recommendation that should be pursued. However, it does not require adoption of the RROSN Vision Plan in order for this recommendation it to effectively serve citizens within Pasco. Recommendation G7.2: Identify and protect regional open space resources prior to land auctions. STAFF DISCUSSION: This recommendation advocates for the protection of regional open space resources prior to land auctions. It is contingent upon the effective accomplishments of the inventory of priority open spaces mentioned earlier in G1.3 and access to funds as discussed in G6.2 above. 8. Best Practices for Development Recommendations Recommendation G8.1 : Each county and city of the Mid-Columbia Region adopt a best practices development document. STAFF DISCUSSION: Although important to have this as a tool, it may have limited applicability in Pasco. It would be a much more valuable within the area outside the urban boundaries as the priority Franklin County open space areas are almost entirely located outside of the Pasco city limits. 9. RROSN Status and Update Process Recommendations Recommendation G9.1 : Establish performance measures and inform the RROSN Board of annual progress. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action necessary. Recommendation G9.2: Update the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision in 5 years, expanding the plan boundary to include other areas. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action necessary. 10. Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Adjustment Recommendations Recommendation G10.1 : The cities and counties of the Mid- Columbia region strengthen their comprehensive plan discussion of Natural Open Space. STAFF DISCUSSION: This recommendation should be pursued. It is especially important within Franklin County as the overall bulk of the priority open space areas are located outside of the Pasco urban boundaries. Recommendation G10.2: Jurisdictions update their parks and comprehensive plans to include trail and open space projects included in this vision document. STAFF DISCUSSION: No action necessary within Pasco as this has already occurred. 11 . Contain Development Sprawl Recommendation G11 .1 : Direct development to the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and work with the State and Counties to limit urban-type development outside the UGA. STAFF DISCUSSION: This recommendation is especially pertinent to the counties. Franklin County's dependence on farming as an economic activity necessitates protection of undeveloped land to a much greater extent than many of our adjoining counties. Recommendation G11 .2: Encourage jurisdictions to provide incentives for in-fill development. STAFF DISCUSS]ON: This is a recommendation that is currently being pursued by the City and is an important component of utilizing existing public investment within the urban infrastructure. Pasco provides a number of incentives and programs that accomplish and encourage infiII of spaces that have been passed over by similar urban development. RWi sa Vision Plan for open Space Conservation and Trail Connectivity in the Mid -Columbia Region Prepared by Ridges to Rivers open Space Network Steering Committee January 2011 A � i � Ridges to Rivers '^'\ OPEN SPACE NETWORK prescr c • promoec•mjoy Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Steering Committee With representation from: Benton County Franklin County Benton City Kennewick Pasco Ri chl and West Ri chl and Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Friends of Badger Mountain Fun Fit and over Fifty Ice Age Floods Institute - Lake Lewis Chapter Inter-Mountain Alpine Club Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society Open Space Coalition of Benton and Franklin Counties Tapt eal Greenway Association Tri Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Washington Native Plant Society —Columbia Basin Chapter Board of Directors Scott Woodward, President Tom Page, Vice-President Debbie Berkowitz, Secretary Mike Li I ga, Treasurer Brooke DuBois, At-Large Len Pavelka, At-Large Special Thanks to: National Park Service — Ri vers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Franklin Conservation District Vision Plan for Open Space Conservation and Trail Connectivity in the Mid -Columbia Region Prepared by Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Steering Committee January 2011 R1 dges to Rivers i OPEN SPACE NETWORK PU Ra 1101�RnMY4 MAWIN�11MI0.i•3F:1 i wvtllWlpY RROSN V si on Plan IN fix.>> -•' i In all t hings of nat ure t here is something of the marvelous. " - Aristotle RROSN Vision Plan Forward The Md-Columbia is undergoing remarkable change in the year 2010. The growth we now experience appears likely to continue into the foreseeable future. While this growth can have a beneficial impact on our local economy, it can also occur at the expense of landscapesand special attributesthat define our area. These are the f eat uresthat make our region unlike any other and brand our community as unique among all other communities competingto attract and retain industries, tourists, and happy residents. The Rdgesto Rvers Open Space Network Vision Plan was created by a working group of citizens, non-profit organizations, and city and county staff members. The intent is to present a vision of how preserved open space could retain special features in the Mid-Columbia, and also how creation of a network of trailswould allow residents and visitors an opportunity to experience these featuresfirst hand. We believe thisvision can be realized in concert with, and as an integral part of, development that occurs across the region. The Vision Plan, then, is meant to be the foundation and spark for commencing regional planning and community involvement. The Vision Plan discussesthe value of open space to our economy, recreation, environment, and health. It presents priority open spaces and trail connectionsfor preservation and documentsthe public input that was obtained to determine these pri orit i es. The Vi si on PI an I ays out a seri es of open space, t rai 1, and pol i cy recommendations and is a resource of tools and mechanisms that can be used to preserve lands and fund preservation, maintenance, and enhancement. The policy recommendations are meant to unify how we define open space and are a starting point for integrating open space policy with development. AJurisdictional Council of elected leaders is recommended as a forum to facilitate regional planning and advise the activities of the RROSN. The Vi sion Plan is not intended to be a regulatory plan. It does not specifically address how the vision is to be incorporated into comprehensive plans, although this is the preferred method of codifying the policy recommendationsthat are made. It is up to each jurisdiction to evaluate which recommendations are appropriate, determine how they should be incorporated, and conduct the public process to do so. This is a process that may take some time; a 5-year schedule is proposed in the Vision Plan. The Vi sion Plan also does not evaluate the costs of implementingthe recommendations. Such evaluations will be conducted on a proj ect by proj ect basis as implementation proceeds. Successful implementation of the Rdgesto Rvers Open Space Vision Plan will involve the cooperation and participation of multiple entities in roleswhich at times are separate and at times overlap. A role of the Rdgesto Rvers Open Space Network (RROSN) will be to monitor and assist jurisdictions in the implementation of the Vision Plan. KAuch of the preliminary work involved with open space protection, trail planning, trail building, and maintenance can be performed by volunteers. RROSN will also be responsible for regular periodic updatesto the Vision Plan. iii RRDSN Vision Ran A role of jurisdictions will be to make measured progressin the acceptance and implementation of the Vision Plan. Additionally, jurisdictional knowledge, advice, experience, and guidance are necessary to helpthe Vision Plan evolve and grow. Developers can also help with acceptance and implementation of the Plan. Developers can be the source of innovative solutionsto land use challenges that lead, rather than follow, city or county jurisdictions in the implementation of the recommendations. Citizens of the Nid-Columbia have a role. Voicing their concernsto city councils and boards of commissioners about the effect of unmonitored growth and development, they may cite conceptsfrom the Vision Plan as examples of better practicesthat might lead to more thoughtful use of irreplaceable resources such as open space. Citizen volunteerswill be invaluable helping implement most aspects of the Vision PI an. Whether these roles are filled or not will determine the future of open space in the Mid-Columbia. What will be said in 2060? Will it be said "Thank goodnesswe acted when we didT Or will we hear "How could we let this happen?' It's truly up to each of us. J� •1 iv RROSN Vi si on Plan Executive %,, m m ar y I. Introduction • Open Space Definition • The Need f or Coordi nat ed PI anni ng • Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network In late 2007, citizens, groups, and public officials in the Md-Columbia identified the need for a regional open space and trails plan that takes a more comprehensive view than the isolated city and county planswe now use. These entities came together to form a working group now known as the Rdges to Rvers Open Space Network Steering Committee to start a public discussion, create a Iocal vision, and plan for our future. They began a process to look on a regional level to see how best to use our natural assets to benefit our economy; provide access for recreation, education, and health; and preserve natural and aesthetic values. This concept plan is the result of this group' s efforts at integrated open space planning acrossj urisdictional boundaries. It presents ideas for creating a regional network of natural and developed open spaces with a system of trails, The Ridges to Rivers Trail system, connecting people to our ridges, rivers, and communities. II. The Value of Open Space • Economic Benefits • Ecosystem Services • Health and Recreation Benefits • Sense of Place and Aesthetics • Education • Culture, History, and Geology Land isvaluable. For some lands, the value isrealized by development; other lands are more valuable in their natural state. A balance between developed lands and vari ous t ypes of open space i s i mport ant to maximize t hi s val ue for the M d-Col umbi a region. Thoughtful development can maximize direct economic return while maintaining other valuesthat support livable communities, enhance the quality of life that attracts and retains people and businesses, "brands" this area to potential visitors and investors, and protects our environment and wildlife. This section discusses some of the benefits of open space. Open space has significant economic benefits, provides ecosystem servicesfor the region, and can have a dramatic positive impact on health, wellness, and quality of life. III. Open Spaces, Trails, and Open Space Protection in the Mid-Columbia Today • Existing Federal, State, and Regional Open Space and Trail Resources • Inventory of City and County Open Spaces and Trails • Current Open Space Protection in Each Jurisdiction V RROSN Vi si on Ran y No other place on Earth islike the Mid-Columbia. Massive basalt flows, cataclysmic floods, and other geologic processes created the ridges and rivers landscape that defines our sense of place. Visual and physical accessto these places—views ofthem and fromthem —help usto understand and physically and emotionally connect with a landscape we recognize as "home" . Open spaces, whether viewed or explored, are our portalsto makingthese connections. In order to move forward with an appropriate strategy for developing a regional system of connected open spaces, it is important to understand the existing conditions in the Mcl-Columbia area. This chapter summarizes major open spaces and trails in each jurisdiction. Also summarized are the jurisdictions' regulations for wetland and hillside development. Aregional plan will help provide a consistent, region-wide mission, goals, vision, and objectivesfor coordinating open space and trailsplanning on an inter-jurisdictional basis, while still providing local jurisdictions with the discretion over their individual open space planning efforts. IV. The Planning Process • Planning Processto Date • Workshop Results Summary • Questionnaire Results S.Ammary This chapter describes the public planning process that has occurred since early 2008. A total of four workshops were conducted to take public input on desires for preserving open space and improving trail connectivity in the Mcl-Columbia. In addition, a questionnaire was circulated in hard copy and on-line formats to expand opportunitiesfor public comment. These workshops and the availability of quest ionnaireswere widely advertized in newspaper articles, a variety of organization newsletters (includingthose of Tridec, Benton Franklin Council of Governments, and several non-profits), and on organization web sites. The results of the workshops and questionnaires are summarized in this chapter and listed in more detail in the Appendi ces. V. Future Needs and Vision for Open Space Linkages and Protection in the Mid- Columbia • Recommendationsfor Open Space Protection and Trail Linkages • General Policy Recommendations for the Mid-Columbia Region • Suggested Policy Recommendation Implementation Timeline Vi RROSN Vision Plan The fdlid-Columbia Region stands at a crossroads. On one hand we are blessed with open lands and scenic vistas. On the other we have been successful in maintaining a strong economy while expanding the population base at an exceptional rate. Both contribute to the economic and social vitality of our region, yet how do we balance the two? Without thoughtful planning now, urbanization will continue, historic access may be denied, and regional resources devalued. Without care, an economic resource will be squandered in an environment where all advantages are important. Recommendations are presented on two different levels. The first section discusses 22 recommendationsfor designating new protected open spaces and trail linkages. The second section provides 23 general policy recommendations. Some recommendations are relatively straightforward to implement, otherswill be challenging. In total they represent an open space and trail system much larger than the sum of its parts in terms of potential impacts on our economy, quality of life, and health. VI. Plan Implementation • Action Plan • Available Tools Implementing the vision described in this document in a timely and effective manner could be complex given the rapid rate of growth and change that is occurring in the Mid-Columbia. Through the planning process and extensive research into techniques used by other similar j urisdictions, a variety of methods and implementation strategies designed to advance open space protection opportunitieswere identified. This chapter presents approachesfor achieving protection including acquisition, land exchanges, conservation easements, regulatory measures and incentives. Avariety of funding mechanisms are discussed and strategiesfor cost-effective maintenance and operations of a regional open space network in the Md-Columbia are suggested. VII. Appendices • Project Proposal to the National Park Service • Proposed Action Plan • Public Meeting Records • Questionnaire Records • Funding and Implementation Strategies • Example Practicesfor Development • Transmittal Letter • Distribution List The appendices contain a large amount of background and supplemental information that will be of value to the planner, policy maker, and citizen interested in the planning process and implementation of the vision presented in this document. Vii RROSN Vi si an Ran bL The richness f achieve comes from Nature, the source of my inspiration. " - Claude N/bnet "Nature rs the art of God. " - Dante Alighieri Viii RROSN Vi si on Plan Contents Forward.. ............ ........ .... .......... .... ............ ........ .... ........ ...... ............ .... Executive S.A mmary........ .... .......... .... ............ ........ .... ........ ...... ............ ..... v Contents...... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ........ ....ix I. Introduction .. ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ........ .... 1 Open Space Network Defined.. .......... .... ............ ........ .... ........ .......... .... .... 2 The Need for Coordinated Regional Planning.. .......... .... ............ ........ .... ....... 3 Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network.. .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... .. 8 11. The Value of Open Space.. .............. .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ ..... 11 Economic Benefits...... .... .......... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ...... 11 Ecosystem Services and Wildlife Benefits .. .............. .... ............ ........ .... ...... 14 Health and Recreation Benefits.. ...... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ...... 16 Other Benefits of Open Space ...... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ...... 18 111. Open Spaces, Trails, and Open Space Protection in the Md-Columbia Today .... ..21 Federal, State, and Regional Open Space and Trail Resources in the Md-Calumbia21 Inventory of City and County Open Spaces and Trails.. .............. .... ............ .... 32 Definitions of Open Space Used by Washington State and by Md-Columbia Jurisdictions.......... .... ............ ........ .... .......... .... ............ ........ .... ...... 40 Regulations Used in Each Jurisdiction.. .............. .... ...... .... ............ ........ ..... 42 IV. The Planning Process.......... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ........ ... 63 Ridgesto Rivers Public Workshops Summary........ .......... .... ............ ........ ..... 63 Ridgesto Rivers Questionnaire Summary.. .......... .... ............ ........ .... ........ ... 66 Priority Open Space Actions .. ................ .... ............ ........ .... .......... .... ...... 68 Preservation Priority Proj ects...... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ...... 69 Trail Priority Projects.. .............. .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ...... 69 V. Future Needs and Vision for Open Space Linkages and Protection in the Md- Columbi a.. .......... .... ............ ........ .... .......... .... ............ ........ .... ........ ... 71 Recommendationsfor Open Space Protection and Trail Linkages.. .......... .... ...... 71 General Policy Recommendationsfor the Md-Columbia.. ............ .... .......... ... 100 VI. Plan Implementation .......... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ......... 111 ActionRan .. ...... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... .... 111 AvaiI abl a Tool s.... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... .... 117 Appendices........ .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... .... 123 Appendix I Proposal for Technical Assistance to the National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program .. .......... .... ............ ........ .... .... 124 Appendi x 11 Proposed Action Plan .......... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ ... 130 Appendi x 111 Publ i c Weti ng Input .......... .... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ ... 139 Appendix IV Questionnaire and Questionnaire Results...... .... .... ............ ........ ... 143 Appendix V Funding and Implementation Strategies.. .... ............ ........ .......... ... 169 Appendix VI Example Practices for Development.. .............. .... ............ ........ ... 186 Appendix VII Transmittal Letterr.. .......... .... ............ ........ .... ........ .......... ..... 233 Appendix VIII Distribution List .. ...... ............ ........ .... ............ ........ .... ......... 236 ix RROSN Vi si an Ran We do not see nature with our eyes, but with our understandings and our heart& " - William Hazlitt X RROSN Vision Plan I . Introduction In late 2007, citizens, groups, and public officials in the Mid-Columbia identified the need for a regional open space and trails plan that takes a more comprehensive view than the isolated city and county planswe now use. These entitiescame together to form a working group now known as the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Steering Committee to start a public discussion, create a local vision, and plan for our future. They began a process to look on a regional Ievel to see how best to use our natural assets to benefit our economy; provide access for recreation, education, and health; and preserve natural and aesthetic values. This concept plan is the result of this group' s efforts at integrated open space planning acrossjurisdictional boundaries. It presents ideas for creating a regional network of natural and developed open spaces with a system of trails, The Ridges to Rivers Trail system, connecting people to our ridges, rivers, and communities. The area of this concept plan isIoosely defined as the "Mid-Columbia". There is no line on a map that defines where the Md-Columbia is, just as open spaces are not defined or limited by jurisdictional boundaries. The area contains parts of Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties primarily in the vicinity of the metropolitan areas of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, West Richland, Finley, and Benton City. It generally extendsfrom the Saddle Mountains and the Hanford Reach National 0.. Monument to the north to the Columbia River to the south and from the Palouse and Snake Rivers to ' 4 the east to the Rattlesnake Ridges and Horse Heaven Hills to the west (see maps in Chapter III). The concept plan area was determined solely by the interests of the plan participants and is not a statement about the quality or value of open spaces beyond the area described here. In fact, future revisions of thisplan may include other areas, such as to Prosser and other communities up the Yakima Valley and toward Walla Walla and other lands to the east. The concept of open space is not uniformly defined from one j urisdictioil to another. Some j Uri sdicti oil s do not have a definition at all. This chapter presents a definition for open space used through out this concept plan. One goal of the Ridgesto Rivers Open Space Network steering committee and board of directors is that this definition be adopted across all j urisdictions as a key step toward facilitating cross-j Uri sdi ct i onal pl anni ng and di al og. This chapter also di SCUMS the need for open space planning and summarizes the activities of the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network steering committee. 1 RROSN Vi si on Ran Open Space Network Defined Different j urisdictions in the Md-Columbia have differing definitions (or no definition at all) of open space. This section provides our recommendation. First, what does an "open space network" mean? Anetwork refers to a system of parts organized to form and function as a coherent whole. This concept plan envisions an "open space network" for the Tri-Cities urban area and Benton and Franklin Counties that provides a diversity of open space lands offering a wide range of benefits to citizens, a balance to ever-increasing development, and protection of the environment. Natural space and community or regional parks (parks larger than 25 acres) are central elements of this network; working lands and scenic views and vistas are complementary elements; trails serve as connections within the network and to other regional recreation resources. This is our definition of open space: Open space may consist of: shrub-steppe habitats; mountains and ridges; special geological and topographical features; meadows; wetlands; riparian habitats and washes; lakes; urban greenspaces, parks, sports and play fields; working agricultural and ranch lands; cultural, hi'stori'cal, and archeological sites; and other valued landscapes and ecosystems. Open spaces can be publlcally or privately owned and managed. Below is a discussion of varioustypes of open space. Natural Spaces These are lands intentionally managed for the long-term as natural areas or simply allowed to exist in their natural state. These include riparian corridors along creeks and rivers, wetlands, shrub-steppe areas, open ridges, and hillsides. Such lands include a unique collection of features and resources of regional significance that create a community identity. They define the landscape character of Mcl-Columbia and are the foundation of the network. Urban Greenspace/Park Lands Neighborhood greenspaces are generally dedicated to active recreational users and contribute substantially to the livability and sense of community in the more densely populated areas. They include public parks, cemeteries, golf courses, ballparks, sportsfields, community gardens, and special use parks. Parks and other green spaces create a "green" fabric that defines and enhances neighborhoods. They provide places for passive or active recreation, family and community gatherings, neighborhood interaction, and quiet reflection. 2 RROSN Vi si on Plan Trails and Corridors (Linear Parks) Trails are pathwaysfor non-motorized transportation and recreation intended to provide connection, access, and circulation among other types of open space, cities, and rural areas. Trails are often designed to follow natural features (e.g., ridges and rivers), roadways, , , .,411 s" woody areas, existing rights of way (e.g., abandoned rail, utility corridors, %'- =-_7,-'k` � transmission, irrigation, and vacated .yy�a', :• rights of way), and historic or scenic �- `'�°•`r �' - - routes. These linear rout esconnect _ �4ft points of interest, provide access to '� �h recreation sites and destinations, and showcase scenic vistas. Corridors are natural open spaces that connect p p ecologically important environments, • allowing habitat connectivity and 4# facilitating movement of wildlife. Working Lands Working lands provide direct economic and. or functional benefit. Such lands may include vineyards, orchards, crop fields, community gardens, and other agricultural settings. Working landswith functional value may include riparian strips, floodplains, and windbreaks. Lands with Scenic Values The visual beauty of open spaces helps to define the character of the Md-Columbia region. Benton and Franklin Counties are defined by their waterways, ridgelines, acresof cultivated fields, orchards, vineyards, and open shrub-steppe lands. These lands, their view shedsand skylinesmake the Md-Columbia unique. The Need for Coordinated Regional Planning The growth rate in the Tri-Cities is one of the highest in Washington state. The combined population of Benton and Franklin Counties is Currently 242,000 and is projected to reach 358,000 by 2030 (Figure 1). The current Cumulative population of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland is 180,750. Combined, these cities have surpassed Vancouver as the 4" largest community in the state (and only about 23,000 behind Tacoma, the third largest city). Over the last decade, the combined population of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland has risen 35 percent. The population of Pasco, now the 16" largest city in the state (up from 26"), jumped 70 percent since 2000. West Richland is up 39 percent, and Kennewick and Rchland grew 23 percent for the decade. Proj ections shown in Figure 1 and Table 1 for 2010 to 2030 were generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFNI) for the purpose of planning 3 RROSN Vi si on Ran ?50,000 200,000 - -_ - 8enlon Co. 1 vial 150,000 - f ai Min Co. 1 oral 100,000 High Projection Medium Projection 50,000 —low Projection 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Figure 1 . Population Trendsand OFM Projections for Benton and Franklin Counties. under the Growth Management Act (GMA). GMAplanning in Benton County is based on the high range of OFMprojections, while in Franklin County it isbased on the mid- range OFM estimates. Population totals for 1992 to 2009 for the counties and cities are from the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (Regional Transportation Planning Organization, RTPO) and include census data. With this rapid population increase comes _ accelerated development of vacant lands in r and adjacent to our communities. Many natural featUresthat define our character �+ are not protected and are threatened by " u f, this continuing development pressure. - Hillsides and natural habitats are being developed, trail easements and access points are being lost, and view sheds are permanently altered. Sufficient planning hasnot occurred to allow community development staff to determine what needs era • '?" ' to be preserved so that they can identify '�"' , cs r --,4: when important features are targeted for devel opment. Jurisdictionsin general do not have j 3{ sufficient policy statements and regulations needed to shape how development occurs. Existing development regulationsdo little beyond minimum State requirementsto restrict the type of development allowed on and near these significant natural features. Where such regulations do exist, they often are not consistent across city and county boundary lines. Tools to provide effective strategies and incentives to shape development such as land swaps, density adjustments, and grading permits are 4 RROSN Vision Plan Table 1. Population Trends and OFM Proj ections for Benton and Franklin Counties (1990-2030). Population Trends for 1990-2005 and OFM LOW Estimate for 2010-2030 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Franklin COUnty 37,473 44,000 49,347 60,500 64,786 72,514 79,776 66,321 91,733 Benton County 112,560 131,000 142,475 1 158,100 154,488 157,642 160,693 162,831 163,765 Total 150,033 175,000 191,822 218,600 219,274 230,356 240,469 249,152 255,518 Franklin County 0110of Total 25% 25°,0 26?G 28% 30°0 31% 33% 35°,0 36% Benton County °0of Total 75% 75% 74% 72°0 70% 6900 67% 65% 64°0 Population Increase NA 24,967 16,822 26,778 674 11,082 10, 113 8,683 6,366 %Population Change NA 17% 10% 14°0 0% 5°,'0 4% 4% 3°0 Population Tr ends for 1990-2005 and OFM MEDIUM Estimate for 2010-2030 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 2020 1 2025 12030 Franklin County 37,473 44,000 49,347 60,500 70,038 80,348 90,654 100,666 109,861 Benton County 112,560 131,000 142,475 158,100 168,839 176,854 184,704 192,131 198,528 Total 150,033 175,000 191,822 218,600 238,877 257,202 275,358 292,797 308,389 Franklin County 0110of Total 25°0 25°0 26 0 28% 29°0 31% 33°0 34°,0 36% Benton County %of Total 75°0 75°0 74°0 72% 71°0 69% 67°0 660"0 64% Population Increase NA 24,967 16,822 26,778 20,277 18,325 18, 156 17,439 15,592 °";Population Change NA 17°,0 10% 14% 9°-0 8% 7% 60% 5% 5 RROSN Vi si on Ran Table 1 (cant' d). Population Trends and OFM Projectionsfor Benton and Franklin Counties (1990-2030). Population Trends for 1990-2005 and OFM HIGH Estimate for 2010-2030 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Franklin County 37,473 44,000 49,347 60,500 79,843 93,947 108,649 123,593 138,096 Benton County 112,560 131,000 142,475 158,100 188,931 203,736 218,874 234,015 248,358 Total 150,033 175,000 191,622 216,600 268,774 297,663 327,523 357,608 366,454 Franklin County 0110of Total 25?0 25°0 26?0 28% 3090 32% 33?0 3590 36% Benton County 0%of Total 75% 75% 74% 72°0 70% 6800 670 65% 64°0 Population Increase NA 24,967 16,822 26,778 50, 174 28,909 29,840 30,085 28,846 %Population Change NA 17% 10% 14°0 23% 110% 10% 9% 8°,'0 Combined Population Proj ectionsfor Benton and Franklin Counties 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Franklin County 37,473 44,000 49,347 60,500 70,038 80,348 90,654 100,666 E248,358 09,861 Benton County 112,560 131,000 142,475 158,100 188,931 203,736 218,874 234,015 Total 150,033 175,000 191,822 218,600 258,969 284,084 309,528 334,681 358,219 Franklin Count °oof Total 25% 25% 26% 2890 2790 2890 29% 30% 31°-0 Benton County %of Total 75?,0 75°0 74?0 72% 73°-0 72% 71°,0 7090 69% Population Increase NA 24,967 16,822 26,778 40,369 25, 115 25,444 25,153 23,538 °";Population Change NA 170"0 10°,0 14% 18°,0 10% 9?0 8°0 7% 1990 and 2000 are Census counts. 1995 and 2005 are OFM annual estimates for budget allocation. 2010 - 2030 are OFM estimates for Growth Management planning. 6 RROSN Vision Plan not available in some cases. In addition, thevariousjurisdictions manage their open spaces in isolation with little coordination or regional pl anning. • � 1 • :�` �r In spite of these issues, the Md- r Columbia still possesses significant natural featuresincluding mountains, ridge tops, canyons, rivers, riparian areas, wet I ands and natural shrub- steppe environments. These features reflect our unique geologic, natural, and cultural history originating from the massive basalt flows and ice age floods that swept this area. This is the only place on Earth so thoroughly shaped and reshaped by such grand ancient floods, first of rock then of water. Some areas in the region have already been preserved, including the Hanford Reach National Monument, the Chamna Natural Preserve (one of the 50 best hikes in eastern WA according to the Mountaineers), part of the Amon Creek Basin, and other areas along the Tapteal Greenway following the Yakima River. A portion of Badger Mountain was recently acquired and has become one of the most frequently visited parks in the area. But many equally valuable areas remain unprotected. A unique ridgeline comprised of individual hills and mountains, including Badger and Rattlesnake Mountains, crosses Benton County. There is local interest to preserve the ridgeline, not only for hiking and other low-impact recreation, but also because it is a striking geographic and visual viewscape, recognizable from many miles away, that defines the Tri-Cities area. These and many other unprotected open spaces, habitat areas, and trail connections could be linked to create a _ "Ridgesto Rivers° system. There is a significant potential to take advantage of these features for the benefit of the entire community if sound +•�,�' planning across all jurisdictions can preserve them into the future. An open j. {{ F,�,r., ;, space network that connects key natural bl ,01i1 - =_Lt ' � ' 'A features in a more definitive way can provide a unique regional identity —a branding of the Md-Columbia —and help improve the quality of the built environment. Preservation of important biological corridors can result in more sustainable cities. Natural open spaces, especially when they provide accessto low-impact recreation such astrails and nature viewing, can attract businesses and tourists, helping to stabilize and diversify our economy. Open space and muscle-powered recreational opportunities are especially important in attracting the innovative 20- to 30-year-old entrepreneurs local leadersbelieve are needed to drive the new economy. 7 RROSN Vi si on Plan Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network In the fall of 2007, an application (Appendix 1) to the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program resulted in a Technical Assistance Award to utilize RTCA' s expertise in facilitating and organizing a public planning processwith the goal of developing an open space plan for the Mid-Columbia Region. The award, initially for a one-year period, was extended for an additional year. A steering committee that became known asthe Ridgesto Rivers Open Space Network of the Mid-Calumbia was established to coordinate the planning process. The steering committee met monthly. New memberswere added as the process continued, with participation at the time this plan waswritten consisting of: Cities of Richland, West Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and Benton City; Benton and Franklin Counties; Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau; Benton Franklin Council of Governments; Washington Health Foundation; Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance; Tapteal Greenway; Friends of Badger Mountain; Lower Calumbia Basin Audubon Society; Native Plant Society; Ice Age Roods Institute —Lake Lewis Chapter; Open Space Coalition; Fun, Ft, and Over Fifty; and the Inter-Mountain Alpine Club. Vision, mission, and goal statementswere agreed to asfollows: The Vision: A network of natures` features, open spaces, and connecting trails that complements residential and commercial development in the Mid-Columbia Region and • Enhances our ability to attract and retain people and businesses that sustain our economy • Provides access and connection for recreation, education, and health • Preserves natural and aesthetic values The Mission; Design and implement a plan to support our communities in identifying and preserving the unique natural features and open spaces of the Ud-Columbia. The plan will focus on creating an integrated system of open space and trails connecting the land and water features that are most important to the people living here. The Goals: • Preserve the unique regional identity and sense of place that our ridges, rivers, and other natural features provide to the public. • Promote a citizen-designed Fridges to Rvers NW work that boosts economic development in the region. • Enjoy and increase use of the outdoors The Ridgesto Rivers Steering Committee spent several months developing an Open Space Draft plan. That effort wasfollowed by preparation of a Draft Action plan. Both of these documentsremained in the draft stagesuntil public outreach could be accomplished and the community input taken on the draft plans. The draft action plan is presented in its entirety in Appendix 11. s RROSN Vi si on Plan Outreach was accomplished in four ways: public workshops, online and hard copy questionnaire, public presentations, and Internet web pages. Four workshops were conducted to take public input on desires for preserving open space and improving trail connectivity in the Mcl-Columbia. In addition, a questionnaire was circulated in hard copy and on-line formatsto expand opportunities for public comment. These workshops and the availability of '► quest i onnai res were widely advert ized in newspaper articles, a variety of t organization newsletters (includingthose of Tridec, BFCG, and several non- ' profits), and on organization web sites. I The results of the workshops and questionnaires are summarized in Chapter IV and listed in more detail in Appendices III and IV. A PowerPoint presentation was developed and presented throughout the Mid-Columbia region with the goal of informing and taking input on the Ridges to Rivers proj ect. The presentation was made to the City Councils of Benton City, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland; to the County Commissioners of Franklin and Benton Counties; and to six Parks and Recreation Commissions in the two counties. Presentations were also made to several Rotary and Kiwanis clubs, the Home Builders Association, and the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau. Special pages on local web sites were dedicated to the Ridges to Rvers project. Tapteal Greenway Association, Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society, and Friends of Badger Mountain hosted various levels of detail about the plan on their web sites. The monthly steeringjw _ committee minuteswere also posted for public viewing. Tapteal hosted the online questionnaire and dedicated a full 1, page to the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network. Other accomplishments of the Rdgesto Rvers Open mace Network Steering Committee include mapping existing open space in the Mcl-Columbia region (with the assistance of the Franklin Conservation District); extending public outreach with media, newspaper articles, radio and TVinterviews; and by authoringthis plan. 9 RROSN Vi si an Ran i ; .. ' a — M "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul. - John Muir 10 RROSN Vision Plan 11 . The Value of open Sp ace Land is valuable. For some lands, the value isrealized by development; other lands are more valuable in their natural state. A balance between developed lands and the varioustypes of open space is important to maximize these values for the Md- Columbia region. Thoughtful development can maximize direct economic return while maintaining other valuesthat support livable communities, enhance the quality of life that attracts and retains people and businesses, "brands" this area to potential visitors and investors, and protects our environment and wildlife. This section discusses some of the values and benefits of open space. Open space has significant economic benefits, provides ecosystem services (resources and processes supplied by natural ecosystems) for the region, protects wildlife, can have a dramatic positive impact on health, wellness, and quality of life, defines our area, and provides other benefits. Readers are directed to the cited references and various publications by the Land Trust Alliance' for more detailed information on some of these topics. Economic Benefits 1 . Conserving open space is essential to building and maintaining economic healt h. Undeveloped land has long been viewed to be economically unproductive, not contributing to the tax base until it is developed. Nationally, communities are finding j ust the opposite to be true. Studies continue to show that conserving open space and carefully siting developments are integral and essential elements of growing the economy and maintaining economic health. Providing affordable housing and infrastructure while protecting open spaces have proven essential to development of communities wit h ahigh quality of life. Using land appropriately ._ , by concentrati ng development where it can best be served, preserving land contours and features, and connecting open spaces meets our citizens' needs for economic, mental, and physical well being. Development that destroys valued community resources and natural features is both economically and environmentally wasteful. Studies comparing the fiscal impacts of development to those of open space protection have found that open space preservation has a more positive impact on a E. Oyes, "Conservation: An Investment That Pays," The Trust for Public Lands, 2009. 11 RROSN Vi si on Ran community's economy than most conventional forms of suburban-style development, even when property is reserved through public dollars.' Corporate CEO' ssay quality of life for employees isthe third-most important factor in locating a business, behind only access to domestic markets and availability of skilled labor', while owners of small companies ranked recreation, parks, and open space as the highest priority in choosing anew location. '-' In his book "The Rise of the Creative Class",' Richard Florida reportsthat, contrary to previous thinking that the environment must be sacrificed for economic growth, environmental quality is now a prerequisite to attracting the "creative class" that mansthe advanced technologies of the new economy. Environmental quality was more important in high-technology workers' decisions on work location than housing, cost of living, and good schools. Locally, the Badger Mountain Centennial Preserve is having a very beneficial impact on the economy of the Mid-Columbia. In its survey of hikersthat use Badger Mountain trails, the Friends of Badger Mountain estimated annual trail use (t hiswasbefore trail counterswere installed) and estimated the economic benefit from that trail use. 216 surveys were completed between December 11, 2007 and January 27, 2006 representing 1.23°,00f the Tri-Cities area hiking population. Accounting The direct economic for the survey population biases (e-mail surveys benefit from Eger were sent to hikers) and proj ect ing t he a-mail survey result st0 the overall Tri-Cities area hiking Mountain trail use was Population, it was estimated that about 134,000 estimated at $1.4 people per year use Badger Trails. Based on food million per year consumed on the trail, gasoline used driving to and from the trail, and related area spending before and after using the trail, the direct economic benefit from Badger Mountain trail use was estimated at $1.4 million per year. Note that the survey estimate of trail use was high at the time, but is in alignment with current use. In just the first 10 months of 2010, visits surpassed 100,000 and the total number of visitorsto Badger since accurate counting started in 2006 totaled about 210,000 (see below). ' The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. Holly L. Thomas, senior Planner Dutchess County Planning Department. National Park Service, Rivers, Trailsand Conservation Assistance Program, Economic Imactsof Protecting Rvers. Trails. and Greenway Corridors, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1995), Section 1, p6. ' John L. Crompton, Lisa L. Love, and Thomas A. More, "An Empirical Study of the Role of Recreation, Parks and Open Space in Companies' (Re) Location Decisions", Journal of Park and Fiecreatlon Administration (1997), 37-56. ' Lisa Love, John Crompton, and Thomas More, "Characteristics of Companiesthat Considered Recreation, Parks, and Open Space to be Important in Fie-location Decisions," July 1994. 6 Florida, R 2002. The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books. 12 RROSN Vi si on Plan 2. Open space increases adjacent land values. The desire to live close to a large natural park creates a willingness to pay a premium of 5 to 20 percent for properties depending upon their proximity to the park according to several studies and the National Association of Homebuilders.7 In Dallas-Fort Worth, it was found that properties adj acent to parks received a 22 percent price premium relative to properties half a mile away. Thisanalysis showed that 75 percent of the value associated with parks occurred within 600 feet of the park, and even propertiesover 1,000 feet from neighborhood parks had increased value. This same analysis showed that the increased tax valuation on properties in proximity to parkswasmore than two timesthe amount necessary to service the debt on a 20- year $1,000,000 general obligation bond at 5 percent. Analysesfor Boulder CO, Portland, OR, Austin TX, Madison WI, Kansas City, and Hartford Park CT showed similar premiums in property values related to proximity to open space.' Salem, Oregon found that land adj acent to a greenbelt wasworth about $1,200 more per acre than land j ust 1,000 feet way.' Homes bordering on the 12-mile Burke-G Iman trail in Seattle sold for 6 percent more than outer houses of comparable size. 10 3. Open space is key to attracting tourists. Across the nation, parks, protected rivers, scenic lands, wildlife habitat, and recreational open space help support a $502-billion tourism industry. Travel and tourism isthe nation'sthird largest retail sales industry, and tourism is one of the country's largest employers, supporting 7 million jobs, including 664,000 executive j obs. At present rates of growth, the tourism/leisure industry will soon become the leading U.S. industry of any kind." Ed McMahon states,12 "Virtually every study of traveler motivations has shown that along with rest and recreation, visiting scenic areas and historic sites are amongthe ' Darryl Caputo, "Open Space Pays: The Socioenvironomics of Open Space Preservation," Morristown: N.J. Conservation Foundation, 1997. "According to Greg Delosier of the New Jersey Association of Realtors, the exact amount by which a home'svalue increaseswith proximity to open space varies by community. But many studies have shown that in general, homes located adjacent to trails, parks, and even golf courses sell more quickly, are assessed at higher values, and are more likely to increase in value than homesnot near open spaces." Ulrich, Dana. April 25, 1996. " Rut a value on open space," Recorder Publishing Company. ' The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. 2007. Edited by T.F. de l3un. 59pp. The Trust for Public Land. ' B i zabet h Brabec, On t he Val Lie of Open Soaces, Sceni c Ameri ca, Techni cal Information Series, (Washington, DC: Scenic America, 1992), 5. 10 Elizabeth Brabec, On the Value of Open Spaces, Scenic America, Technical Information Series, (Washington, DC: Scenic America, 1992), 4. '' National Park Service, Fivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, Economic Impacts of Protecting Fivers_ Trails_ and Greenway Corridors, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1995), Section 3, p 5. '` Ed McMahon, "Community Appearance and Tourism: What' s the Link?' Heritage Tourism Update Winter 1993. 13 RROSN Vi si on Ran top two or three reasons why people travel." Protecting scenic views and Total Visits to Badger Mtn. Trails vistas are among the eight xoopoo recommendations McMahon makes to the tourism industry for making a : 150A°0 community interesting, memorable, and 100o°o —c�b,ned attractive. 50.000 —sr�flne Locally, the Badger Mountain Centennial ° Preserve has attracted thousands of resident and visiting hikers (Figure 2). Between April 2008 and October 2010, Annual Totals for Badger Mtn.Trails about 210,000 total visits to the Skyline 120p°o and Canyon Trails were recorded. Annual visits continue to increase, with 100,000 over 100,000 visits recorded in j List the $0,000 first 10 months of 2010. In 2010, a 5 60.000 — combined average of 2,425 visits per •0,000 week occurred on Badger Mountain 20,00° trails, with up to a maximum of 3,400 0 visits being recorded. As discussed 2°0$ 2,W 2010 above, it has been estimated that the economic benefit to the Tri-Cities of Figure 2. Badger Mountain Visits Badger Mountain hikers could be as high as $1.4 Million per year. 4. Open space requires minimal public services. Open space lands, public and private, usually require minimal public services, yet can contribute significantly to the economic welfare and vitality of a community and its citizens. Whether public funds are used or not to protect and support natural urban green space, the community is enhanced by the scenic and recreational benefits of preserving the landscape, culture, and heritage. Often, in the Mid-Columbia, public natural open spaces are maintained with significant labor volunteered by non-profit and other community groups. Ecosystem Services and Wildlife Benefits Ecosystem services are benefits afforded us at no cost by the natural environment. A few examples are discussed below. 1 . Open lands help control floods. Open lands in floodplains are important to decreasing the impacts of floods in our area. Wetlands and low-lying areas help to disperse and absorb excess surface waters and allow percolation back into the ground, decreasing the amount of water that is released rapidly. These areas slow the flow of water, helping to prevent major property and infrastructure damage. Although precipitation is low in our area, open lands help protect against localized flooding by allowing infiltration of precipitation into the ground. 14 RROSN Vi si on Plan 2. Open lands help protect water quality. Nonpoint source pollution from agriculture and urban run-off is one of the main contributors to contaminated source waters. Vegetative cover on open lands and buffer strips helps to trap and filter pollutants before they reach rivers and streams. Vegetation slowsthe flow of water over the land allowing the water to percolate into the ground where particlesare filtered and pollutants absorb into plant roots or adhere to soils. Increased infiltration also helpsto recharge aquifers and maintain year-round flow in streams. A prime local example is Amon Creek. Vegetation also decreasessoil erosion into waterways, benefiting water quality and fisheries. 3. Air quality is enhanced. Vegetative cover decreasesthe amount of wind-blown dust that isa major air Pollution source in our region. Although winds are very strong in eastern Washington, very little dust is lifted from native shrub steppe and other vegetated areas. Trees help to trap airborne particulate matter and are known to absorb ozone and sulfur dioxide pollutants. Vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. In return, oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. 4. Open space provides wildlife habitat and corridors and helps sustain fisheries. The rivers and open lands in the Mid-Columbia are home to diverse populations of wildlife, including fish, bird, amphibian, and mammal species. The Yakima, Columbia, Snake, and Walla Walla River corridorswith their adjacent floodplainsand riparianvegetation are extremely important to a multitude of species, especially in our hot and dry - climate. Upland habitats are also important for numerous species, including Black-tailed jackrabbits and Burrowing owls. Maintaining suitable corridors connecting larger habitat areas within and outside of the concept plan boundaries helps sustain and replenish wildlife Populations. Seasonal deer migrate up and down the Yakima . River corridor and itsdrainages. Rver otterstravel from main.• - stem Columbia waters to the Yakima Rver and its tributaries. The Black-tailed jackrabbit, listed as a species of concern in Washington State, relies on large shrub steppe buffers and corridors that connect to other habitatsto maintain its - t hreat ened popul ati on. Open space allows for natural riparian corridorsand stream function. Development along river corridors, shrinking shrub steppe buffers, and severing connective habitats is a threat to these resources. 15 RROSN Vi si on Ran Health and Recreation Benefits 1 . Accessible open space and trails can play a role in reducing obesity and improving the health of Mid-Columbia residents. The Current debate about health care reform highlightsthe growing concerns about the state of our nati on's health and the cost s associ at ed with illnesscare. Prevention is a key to cost containment. If the population of our nation, and our two counties, can begin to shed some excess pounds, we will be much healthier and the demand for illness care will be decreased. The incidence of obesity and overweight has risen from 47 percent in 1976 to 66 percent in 1994' to 67 percent XA. w today.'a Snce the early 1970s, the percentage of overweight children in the United States has increased by a factor of 4. The percentage of overweight adolescents has increased by a factor of 3 over the same time period. Nearly 20 percent of children aged 6-11 are seriously overweight.15 Locally, obesity and overweight are associated with four of Benton and Franklin counties five leading causes of death —heart disease, stroke, some forms of cancer, and chronic lower respiratory disease.'° The foundation of a healthy life is a healthy diet of - q . moderate portion sizes and regular physical activity. Physical activity does not have to be in a gym or an iA organized sport. Open space and accompanying trails provide the venue for accessible and inexpensive exercise. Research has shown that moderate exercise . . such aswalkin or bikin at least 30 minutes a (day can ► ' 9 9 Y '_:r s have a positive effect on overall health. The CDC estimatesthat burning an extra 100 calories per day Could eliminate the nation's obesity epidemic." " L.D. Frank. and P. Engelke, "How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health: A Literature Review of the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Built Form. ACES: Active Community Environments Initiative Working Paper #11" , Georgia Institute of Technology. 14 Behavioral Risk Factor SLirveillance System, Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention 15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, " Prevalence of Overweight Among Children and Adolescents: United States, 2003-2004" (Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health St at i St ICS),h t t p:.+I www.cdc.govt nchsi products'pubs'pubd..+ hestats''obese03_04.+overwgh t_chi l d_03.ht M. 16 Center for Health Statistics, Washington State Department of Health, November 2008 16 RROSN Vision Plan People are more likely to engage in physical activity when it is easily accessible. Studies have shown that people that live close to parks, greenspaces, natural areas, and recreation facilities exercise more and are less likely to be overweight than people that live farther away. 2. Trails and open space can reduce health care costs. A 2007 Milken Institute report surmised that preventative measures to reduce obesity across the nation could decrease the number of medical cases by 14.6 million in 2023, resulting in a cost savings of $60 billion. In _ California, the Department of Health Services estimates that $13.3 billion isthe cost for medical care, workers compensation, and lost productivity arising from physical inactivity. They estimate that a cost savings of over $1.3 billion could be realized if 5 percent of California residents' weight could be lost over a 5-year period. In a 2004 cost benefit analysis of trailsfor physical activity conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, every $1 invested in trails gained a direct medical benefit of $2.94.1° The study concludesthat building trails is cost beneficial from the perspective of public health. 3. Open space reduces stress and improves mental and spiritual health. The health benefit of open space is not limited to improved physical health. A growing body of research "1 to mature to examinesthe links between open space and health restoration as wel I as psychosocial stress reduction. 19 be soothed and Simply viewing natural settings can bring about feelings healed,. and to of relaxation and peacefulness, reduce fears and anger, and enhance mental alertness and cognitive function. have �� order. se ,r Viewing nature reduces mental fatigue and put procrastination and promotes an attitude that problems are less severe and can be solved.2' Patients that have John Burroughs views of trees through their windows have shorter hospital stays and need fewer pain killersthan patients that have vi ews of bri ck wal I s.21 " A. Gardner, " Neighborhoods That Nudge Peopl e t o Exerci se", Heal h Day News, December 14, 2003. " G. Wang, C.A. Macera, B. Scudder-Soucie, T. Schmid, M. Pratt, D. Buchner. "Cost- Benefit Analysis of Physical Activity Using Bike/ Pedestrian Trails," Health Promotion Practice, April 2005, Vol. 6, No. 2, 174-179 19 N. Morris, " Health, Well-Being and Open Space Literature Review", OPENspace Research Centre, Edinburgh College of Art/ Heriot Watt University, July 2003 20 E. Gies, "The Health Benefits of Parks," The Trust for Public Lands, 2006. 21 R. S. Ulrich, "View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery," Science 224 (1964): 420-21. 17 RROSN Vi si on Ran Physical activity in open spaces is linked to increased life w . span, decreased depression, lower rates of smoking and 4 substance abuse, and increased performance at work and home. It helps to reduce the pressures of modern life, ' induce relaxation, reduce anxiety, and improve one's outlook. Exposure to green settings i s report ed to decrease ADD symptoms in children.`2 Being in Nature is good for the spirit and for connecting to something larger than ourselves. Open spaces and habitats provide opportunitiesfor Iearning more about out' surroundings and ourselves and developing a greater sense of wonder and awe about the world and humanity' s place in it. In summary, public health research demonstrates that active living is positively correlated with good health. Research also shows that active living can be encouraged by subdivision design. Including accessible open space into the design promotes its use and that results in bett er health for the user. (See Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's www.active)_i_v_iogOydesign.oi,gfor more information.) 4. Open space provides recreational belief its accessible to all. Natural lands are a valuable recreational resource for many activities such as hiking, photography, hunting, bicycling, bird watching, and horseback riding. They are excellent areas for unstructured play, stimulating creativity and the imagination. All of these types of activities add to our quality of life and improve our physical health. Other Benefits of Open Space 1 . Open space maintains the Mid-Columbia's sense of place. Open space isvital to the function, livability, and aesthetic character of the urban environment. Natural lands have an inherent attractiveness and an aesthetic value to many people, even if they never set foot on them. Locally, the beautiful ridges and the river corridors are defining natural features ft that give the Md-CDlumbia a unique sense of place. N = 2. Natural spaces are important educational resources, Teachers in the Md-CDlumbia frequently utilize - exi st i ng prot ect ed open spaces such as t he Tapt eal Greenway, Mc Nary National Wildlife Refuge, Badger Mountain, and Amon Basin as outdoor classrooms Win,. •. . . .a.�4 where students absorb lessons in ecology and gain " Andrea Faber Taylor et al., "Coping with ADD: The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings," Environment and Behavior 33, no. 1 (January 2001): 54-77. 18 RRCSN Vision Plan an appreciation of the natural world. Beyond formal education, outdoor classrooms allow people of all ages to enj oy and learn through nature observation. Bird watching, learning about the area's great diversity of native plants, observing seasonal cycles, and exploring the area' s geology are j uSt some of the activitiesto participate in. Interpretive signage and programs could enhance this experience for residents and visitors. 3. Open spaces contain cultural, historic, and geologic values. The cultural, historic, and geologic features indigenousto our open landsare valued by many. Sites of religious and cultural value to native tribes can be found throughout the Mid-Columbia, especially along shorelines and ridges. Historic sites of early explorers and homesteaders are also found all across the region. The area ridges that characterize the Mid-Columbia are ancient formationsformed by massive lava flows shaped by geologic forces. The Mid-Columbia isblessed with internationally renowned Ice Age Flood sites, the most dramatic of which is in the Wallula Gap area. Glacial erratics are jewels of the Missoula floodsfound on or near the Rattlesnake Fidges and scattered throughout the region. N t 19 RROSN Vi si on Ran r� 1 • 1 To protect what is wild is to protect what is gentle. Perhaps the wilderness we fear is the pause within our own heartbeats, the silent space that says we litre only by grace. Wilderness lives by this same grace. " - Terry Tempest Williams 20 RROSN Vi si on Plan III . open Spaces, Trails, and open Space Protection in the Mid-Columbia Today No other place on Earth is like the Md-Columbia. Massive basalt flows, cataclysmic floods, and other geologic processes created the ridges and rivers landscape that defines our sense of place. Visual and physical access to these places—views of them and from them —help us to understand and physically and emotionally connect with a I andscape we recognize as "home" . Open spaces, whether viewed or explored, are our port alsto makingthese connections. Our unique geographic region (Figure 3) is the home of a significant number of open space and trail resources that To be rooted is benefit both Tri-City residents and visitors. In fact, the Mid-Columbia region is a hub for numerous trail perhaps the most networks (Figure 4) and federal, state, regi onal, and important but least local open space areas (Figure 5;. These resources understood need of include a National Monument, several National Wildlife the human soul. " Refuges, a National Historic Landmark, a Wilderness Area, a State Park, sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a tri-state water trail system spanning - Simone Weil over 1000 river miles, several large regional parks, and many other special places and long-distance trails. This chapter presents brief descriptions of some of the federal, state, and larger regional-scale open space and trail recreational resources that are found in the Mid- Columbia Region. They form the context for the many other city and county resources that are also listed. This chapter also lists policies and regulations available to jurisdictions associated with hillside and floodplain developments. These policies and regulations are some of the toolsthat jurisdictions have to protect resourcesand property and are presented to show which jurisdictions use them and which do not. Federal , State, and Regional Open Space and Trail Resources in the Mid-Columbia Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge The Hanford Reach National Monument was created in 2000 by presidential proclamation. It comprises landsformerly used as security buffer surroundingthe Hanford Ste where land has remained undeveloped for more than six decades. The surrounding shrub and grassland steppe landscape is a remnant of that which once covered the entire Columbia Basin Ecoregi on. The monument is named after the Hanford Reach, the last non-tidal free flowing section of the Columbia River in the United States, and is the first of only two National Monuments administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.,qov/ hanfordreach/ }. 21 Regional Map Saddle Mountains � . " w _ � SCl. �r 0 f/ a i• f ai � aft, �.,i.i. ��•� ru tv W •x l•t. k1l 1904, � ••t CD W 41 xiW ti t rse M-aver} Nfllg Irk.' l 1 Benton Co. �JA'�. ;N ula Gap •r � R• - sr. � r - 1j r . . 2.5 5 10 15 20 Miles .'' „�'a 110 r.`.rV U1r.Yft+.n1TOf n'CY GC1.ln.a[•rn aY fOrlr fpax MYlOn.6euaptl J•M1a)[r II•mat i11,DNi 0a V. `. _ >•--+ .` J r" amama•rrrr�mw.•c.orn.-a.rero.vi�ar ne.�er orno. anxe at aaierroraw. • m Wc,,, rer.oa•n�.tre•ry naraw nor•nrn.•r Regional Trails • • `'N -,,e �- � r ���� �" g ... E ate— � 1 • ' -tt f . MCI CD taw Wrdl R7 R Legend pugand rl: < J �fFlvn t�•PIJtaY .al ` �� .. - -ISe AAe Pbob TrFl ��f— l ..t.;, 'a'�a• Olerin Gant aura a TJ - f�E•Mnd .( fi-p'.l ,t� � f .. gYIVrMt[•6Wel�Wa4_I rfdR � �� �,� ! i -� < 0 3.7675 15 225 30^IL-s i. IDIICE:NONWRRWTIOFPCGYPPG4.at0RD]Ft nPpROY.•19 1Fw•a<•YwOE,Cf1ln;1111tFaaGa p<peusOPl\• - , �J11 ���?�`y!\T�! {,����� ,T' fA RtaWoo P.M.POInOi Oa�lrh<ItY'PriIRiRFU RYDY ItAPR ire Y/`ti � j� - - �� RRdmlL�.k1•ii Calr<nabr Rbm�.-,IRYC<RO,Yanq - _ -_ � '_— i� r'•t ,r _4 , _ � � B, • j Major Public Lands Benton and Franklin Counties ■ ■ �t_ � :r�.. �� ..-� •rte; rl- *t"'k f j a Miles PL a Prodv Ad by the s• FranW nConservation Oi5t Wllf W*11 Mf 'AtOOA,Y 11!K...i Opeaft—wYE119e�eaE?[In6 m9p L[Ftavate0.TelleOKY r e61 m env JnE lYHa:Efa!wl e[Mee WClttayARMak E!a!a[!Ea Ltal9e'a'[eple seal Pfero'7ipY0mn1/140i"l�aOpMHk P[pEJRa"I EaI Wi_Tn0100,1aa90e.=':fGt-1U•e ttQR07G1a RRCSN Vi si on Plan B Reactor National Historic Landmark The B Reactor at the Hanford Site, near Fichland, wasthe first large scale nuclear reactor ever built. The reactor was commissioned to produce plutonium-239 by nuclear fission as part of the Manhattan Proj ect, the United States nuclear weapons development program during World War II, and operated from 1944 to 1968. The United States Department of Energy has administered the site since 1977 and offers public tours on set dates during �= the spring, summer, and fall of the year. The B Reactor was added to the National Register of Historic Places on April 3, 1992. Cn August 19, 2008, it was named by the Department of Interior as a M National Historic Landmark, a program managed by the National Park Service. Fewer than 2,500 sites across the nati on bear this distinction. (http:// b- react or.org/) National Wildlife Refuge System Several National Wildlife Refuges are found in the Md-Columbia region. These include the Saddle Mountain, McNary, Umatilla, Toppenish, and Columbia refuges. Refuges protect a wide variety of habitat types and species. They are also intended to be used by visitors. Compatible uses can include wildlife observation, photography, hunting, fishing, interpretation, and environmental education. Juniper Dunes Management Area The Juniper Dunes Management Area is managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. 7, 140 acres are permanently protected asthe Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area, designated in 1984 by the United States Congress. Access to 8,620 acres of the Juniper Forest Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECj is limited to designated roads and trails, and 3,920 acres are open to off-road vehicle use. The Juniper Dunes Wilderness preservesthe northernmost growth of western juniper, some of which are as old as 150 years. It also protects windswept sand dunes measuring 130 feet in height and 1,000 feet in width. Numerous bird and animal species are found here, including mule deer, bobcats, coyotes, badgers, skunks, weasels, porcupines, pocket gophers, kangaroo rats, several speciesof mice, hawks, owls, ravens, quail, partridge, pheasants, doves, numerous songbirds, and rattlesnakes. Sacaj awea State Park Sacaj awea State Park is a 284-acre day-use park at the confluence of the 9iake and Columbia rivers (http:f f www.stateparks.coml sacal aw ea.html). Although day-use, the park does have one Northwest Discovery Water Trail campsite designed for paddlers traveling down the river. The park hastwo boat ramps and 200 feet of dock in a small, protected lagoon. The Sacaj awea Interpretive Center has interactive displays that tell the story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition through the experiences of Sacagawea, the young Shoshone Indian woman who accompanied the expedition (http://www.visittri-cities.com/visitors"heritage-&-eco-tourism/friends-of-our-trail!}. Sacagawea State Park is one of the seven sites chosen for Maya Lin's Confluence 25 RROSN Vi si on Ran Project. As part of this project, a narrative history and mythology of the site is told through inscriptions sandblasted into the surface of seven basalt Story Circles (htt p:l 1 www.conf IUenceproj ect.org/ ). Columbia River Water Trails System Over the last seven years a linked system of water trails has been created on the Columbia River system that emphasizes access and landing sites for non-motorized watercraft. Each water trail is championed by different organizations and a host of trail partners representing the local counties, communities, and management organizations through which the trail travels. Linked together, these blue trails stretch from the Canadian border to the Pacific Ocean, and travel west along the Okanogan and Smilkameen Rivers, south along the Willamette River, and east along the Snake Rver and part of the Clearwater Rver in Idaho. Greater Columbia Water Trail The G'eater Columbia Water Trail is a 500-mile water trail network in the Columbia River watershed stretching from the Canadian border through the Hanford Reach to Columbia Point and Bateman Island. The trail spans 12 counties, 24 cities, two Indian Reservations, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, and the Hanford Reach National Monument. The trail is divided into four regions, and the route includes 7 hydroelectric dams. The Tri-Cities area is located in the Southern Region, between Rock Island Dam and the confluence of the Yakima River. The Greater Columbia Water Trail Coalition is spearheaded by the Port of Chelan County and includes Chelan PUD, Douglas PUD, Grant PUD, Okanogan County, Colville Confederated Tribes, Complete the Loop Coalition, private outfitters, WA. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, WA State Parks and - -_ -low Recreation, Washington Water Trails =? Association, WADOT, many WA cities, ' NPS Rivers & Trails Program, Chelan- - - Douglas Land Trust, Wenatchee Outdoors, NCW Transportation Council, Wenatchee Row & Paddle Club, — Wenatchee Valley Museum and citizens of Washington. The Coalition continues to work with trail partners and local communitiesto improve and increase the number of public access sites along the Similkameen, Ckanogan, and Columbia Rivers. Partner and public outreach for the Southern Section of the trail is scheduled for 2008-2010. Northwest Discovery Water Trail The 367-mile Northwest Discovery Water Trail begins at Canoe Camp on the Clearwater River in Idaho, followsthe Snake Rver down to the Columbia River and ends at Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River Gorge. It includes 163 access sites far motorized and non-motorized boaters, and includes portaging or locking through 8 hydroelectric dams. The lead partner for this water trail is the Army Corps of Engineers, Portland and Walla Walla Districts. An extensive list of trail partners can be found at www.ndwt.org, along with an interactive map describingthe recreational opportunities on each of the trail' snine segments, or reaches. 26 RROSN Vi si on Plan The inspiration for the Northwest Discovery Trail wasto follow in the paddle strokes of tribal cultures, and explorers like Lewis& Clark, through a cross-section of the region's natural and cultural wonders. One of the trail's goals isto provide camping opportunities every 10 miles along the rivers, and access and restroom facilities every 5 miles. However, certain stretches of the water trail are, by nature, remote and inaccessible for facility improvements-,such as sections of the Snake River. The Wallula Reach of the Northwest Discovery Trail begins at Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River and ends at McNary Dam on the Columbia Rver. This reach includes the Bateman Spur, a 10-mile stretch of the Columbia Rver north from Sacajawea State Park to Bateman Island. (Bateman Island isthe farthest point upstream on the Columbia Rver that Lewis and Clark ventured). At Bateman Island, where the Yakima River meetsthe Columbia, the trail connectswith the Greater Columbia and the Tapteal Water Trails. Water trail access points within the Tri-Cities' Wallula Reach include river mile 339, Howard Amon Park, Wye Park, Chiawana Park, Columbia Park, Clover Island, Pasco Boat - Basin, Two Rvers Park, Sacaj awea State Park, and Hood Park. ='1 Further downstream, boaters pass through the Wallula Gap, and on to Bonneville Dam in the Columbia Rver Gorge National Scenic Area. Boaters wishing to continue their j ourney toward the Pacific can portage around the dam and follow the tidally influenced waters of the Lower Columbia Rver Water Trail, championed by the Lower Columbia Rver Estuary Partnership. Dedicated in 2004, this 146-mile bi-state trail has 63 access sites. The trail's interactive website (www.columbiawatertrail.org) has a new GIS-based map and increasing information for those travelling on the Lower Columbia. Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Congress authorized the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail-4he first of its kind-4n March of 2009. The Trail is a coordinated regional approach for telling the Ice Age Floods story—a story of multiple, cataclysmic floods that swept across the Northwest more than 12,000 years ago, some of them among the largest, most powerful floods that have occurred anywhere on the planet. The next step is appropriation of money to staff the trail and create a management plan. The National Park Service will conduct the plan in conjunction with the Ice Age Floods Institute and other interested parties. They estimate it will cost $8 -12 million to establish the trail, which will essentially be a network of marked touring routes extending across parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, with several special interpretive centerslocated acrossthe region. The visible remnants of the Roods are on such a large scale and found at so many different sites that man-made development has not significantly affected them. But increased growth and development throughout the region may, indeed, affect or alter features in the Flood landscape, and many of these features would benefit from 27 RROSN Vi si on Ran conservation measures crafted to preserve their integrity and ensure their continued contribution to the Ice Age Roods story. At the present time, there isan opportunity to develop a cooperative effort to educate the public about the Ice Age Roods, to contribute to existing cultural tourism programs in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, and to develop a better understanding and appreciation of the remaining resources from the greatest documented floods on earth. By raising awareness of the Ice Age Floods, the Trail will encourage local residents and school kidsto explore their own back yards, aswell as attract international visitors. If carried out sensitively, this boost in cultural tourism could greatly benefit many of the rural communities in the region—drawing local economic benefit from both private and public lands. The Ice Age Floods Institute is nonprofit, volunteer-based organization working for recognition of the Ice Age _ Floods as a significant part of the " nation's (and the world's) natural heritage. Incorporated in 1995, the group sponsors field trips and lectures, - facilitatesthe exchange of Ice Age ` ' Floods information, and is working to expand the range of interpretive resources and materials available to the public. The Lake Lewis Chapter, based in the Tri-Cities, has been working for more than 15 yearsto get thistrail route recognized. They maintain an active website (www.iafi.org'floods) and have produced an excellent interpretive map: Ice Age Flood Features Near Richland, Washington that highlights significant features associated with these historic global events. Local landmarks include Yakima Bluffs, Chandler Butte Landslide, Badger Coulee, the Badlands between Benton City and Prosser, and Wallula Gap, among others. The huge, ancient floods can also be credited with creating the unique soils and terracesthat nurture the region's vineyards today. The Tri-Cities is located at the heart of eastern Washington' swine country, near eight of the state's nine nationally recognized American Viticultural Areas—and within an hour' s drive of almost 150 wineries. Columbia Plateau Trail (WA State Park) The Columbia Plateau Trail is a 130-mile long, 20-foot wide corridor in eastern Washington that is an abandoned right-of-way for the 1906 Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway. The entire trail is a linear unit of the Washington State Park system, and follows one of the many paths taken by the Missoula Floods as it wound its way through the Columbia River Plateau. The unique geologic features include channeled scabl ands wit h potholes, coulees, dry canyons, and ripple marks recorded on valley walls as the floods ebbed and flowed. 28 RRC)SN Vi si on Plan The trail is currently most accessible from its northern terminus in Cheney, where there is a 4-mile paved section and a 19-mile gravel section that runs southward through Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge. Washington State Parks discourages use on the gated, undeveloped middle part of the trail with fenced-off trestles, long tunnels, and a rough ballast surface. A 15-mile gravel section of the trail i s accessibl a from Levey Landing on the Snake River--about 10 miles upriver from Sacagawea State Park in Pasco. The Northwest Discovery Water Trail parallelsthe Plateau Trail on its route along the 9iake River. The long-term vision for this long-distance trail is a connected trail between Pasco and Spokane for hiking, biking, nature viewing, horse-back riding, and cross-country skiing. This, of course, would be a huge recreation, education, and health asset for both Population centers, and a boonto tourism industries throughout the Md Columbia Region. Filling the 10-mile gap between Levey Landing and Sacaj awea State Park would create immediate non-motorized accessto the trail for the entire Tri-Cities area via the popular Sacajawea Heritage Trail, on both sides of the Columbia River. Sacagawe a He r it age Tr ai I The Sacagawea Heritage Trail is 23-mile paved pedestrian and non-motorized pathway that circlesthe shoreline of the Columbia River as it makes its way through Pasco, Richland, and Kennewick (Figure 6). The trail is named in honor of Sacagawea, the Lemhi-Shoshone woman who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their expedition, serving as interpreter, guide, and symbol of peace. The trail makes a direct connection to the south with Sacagawea State Park at the confluence of the Snake River and crosses the Columbia Rver on three bridges, the northernmost at Columbia Point, a hub for regional land and water trails. Weaving between sections of riparian habitat, the trail provides walkers, runners, bikers, and rollerbladers with opportunitiesto observe nature up close. The Sacagawea Heritage Trail Adventure Challenge, a community-wide event that promotes health and wellness through physical activity, is held annually. The Heritage Trail is a special project of the Tri-Cities Rvershore Enhancement Council (TREC), supported by the Qty of Kennewick, CDty of Pasco, City of Richland, Benton County, Franklin County, Port of Benton, Port of Kennewick, Port of Pasco, US Army Corps of Engineers, and Bechtel National, Inc. The Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau manages the activities of the TRECpartnership. Federal and local government agencies own the land on which the trail is built. The partnership was established around the common values of wanting to promote the area' sties to the Lewis & Clark Expedition; to provide opportunities for heritage, cultural and environmental interpretation; to ensure the pursuit of safe and enjoyable shoreline 29 Sacajawea Heritage Trail CD ;rt►+zr.r�e. i,;�.-,tea �O• .� y(� ,,. �t °i, W 2r �.„ ,■' Vii,; ° * ,,.Ji.A• ��• IJ ` CD CD CD Nk in -. LeWnd i `v ♦x —Rams a ,.L 3— f• r °� .'' l ��Z .f 7�, t Sacajewea Heritage Trail - f -.• ,� Pubic 1� tom. l• '� t 0.9 O.JS 0 nsMWt _ + •�''' M MWCE NO MAMA\TO AOC R"C:I-M 409.0'O.OP-$p.m Oeopootm map Ofsomio juvpuiONLY. [rname a 01 ftfOD�CmDp n ae^rr0aftn!)%ra 10-vw)v CefAflmA'm0pWq O•�Osantawr3:a l4�Or t,7a�pury0u Fm mon pA��YatO'NO M+�a^H Ma9D'^AppertAi RROSN Vision Plan recreation; and to diversify the local economy through tourism and rivershore enhancement. (http://www.visittri-cities.com/vidtors�heritage-&-eco- t ouri smf fri ends-of-our-trail/) TREC provides regional coordination for each jurisdiction to develop the Heritage Trail cooperatively and consistently. The partnership determines the basic trail needs for specific locations along the trail, and each j urisdiction has special permitting and park requirements pertaining to its trail segments. Improvements to the trail are made as funding and opportunities arise. Community support and buy-in is encouraged through volunteer donations of labor, materials, funds, assistance with grants, equipment, trail facilities, art or landscape improvements. TRECservesasan excellent model for accomplishing common recreational goalswithin the greater Tri-Cities area—a model that might be considered for implementation of the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision Plan. Because of the success in creating this trail, the Sacagawea Heritage Trail Project was recognized in June 2009 by Gov. Chris Gregoire as a winner of the 2009 Smart Communities Awards for creating livable communities. The Sacagawea Heritage Trail received the "Smart Partnerships Award" . Badger Mountain Centennial Preserve Badger Mountain Centennial Preserve was established in 2006. Prior to this, the summit of Badger Mountain was owned by a private developer until a non-profit organization, Friends of Badger Mountain, was formed to spare the mountain from development. Eventually, sufficient funds were raised to purchase major parcels of land on the mountain which were ceded to Benton County for recreational use. Friends of Badger Mountain continues to build and maintain trails in the Preserve. There are currently two routes leading to the summit (1579' elevation) of Badger Mountain. The Canyon Trail is 1.4 miles long (from the main parking z lot), isdesignated for use by hikers - only, and ascends the northeastern slopes of the mountain to the summit. The Skyline Trail is 2.2 mil es long, is designated for use by hikers, mountain • bikers, and equestrians (horseback • riders), and ascendsthe southwestern slopes of the mountain to the summit. On average i n 2010, about 2,425 people (with a maximum recorded of about 3,400 people) reached the summit of Badger Mountain every week using these trails, making it one of the most summited peaks in Washington State. Trail usage has increased annually since recording started in April 2008, with over 100,000 visits in the first 10 months of 2010 and over 200,000 visitstotal since 2008. From the summit, Richland can be seen northwest of the mountain and Kennewick can be seen northeast of the mountain. The Columbia Fiver and the city of Pasco can be seen in the distance north of the mountain. 31 RROSN Vi si on Ran Badger Mountain has a rich geologic history. It was created by numerous lava flows originatingfrom the Columbia Fiver Basalt G'oup between 8.5-14.5 million yearsago. The rocks at the summit originated from the Pomona Lava Flow occurring 12 million years ago. Traces of sediment found between some of the lava flow layers on the mountain indicate past encounters with the ancestral Columbia and Snake Fivers between periods of lava activity. In some sediment deposits laid down after lava flows ceased, fossils of extinct camels, mastodons, horses, and other animals have been found. In more recent history, Ice Age floods repeatedly surrounded the _ + mountain with facial water. These floodwaters reached elevations surpassing 1200' above sea level and created what f became known as Lake Lewis. Icebergs floating at op the lake, occasionally . containing large boulders known as ► "erratics", became grounded during the drainage period. These erratics were then `Y left behind on mountain slopes and surrounding areas as the icebergs melted. Wq, ' Hanford Reach Interpretive Center Wh The Hanford Reach Interpretive Center will become a world-classvisitor and heritage center, celebrating the natural and Cultural history of the Hanford Reach and the greater Columbia Basin. The new facility —"The Reach" —is a $40,000,000 public/private partnership investment that has potential to become a cultural hub and a source of pride for the Md-Columbia. The vision for the center includes exhibit space, a network of trails, indoor and outdoor theaters, and a hands-on learning center. The Reach will interpret not only water and land, but also diverse communities, cultures, species, and viewpoints. More than just a museum, The Reach is intended to become a Northwest institution that has a lasting impact on generations of citizens where children and grandchildren can learn about and celebrate the big land, big rivers, and big ideasthat shaped the Md-Columbia's history and will continue to shape itsfuture. (http://visitthereach.oi-g/) Inventory of City and County Open Spaces and Trails In addition to the featuresdescribed above, there are other federal and state open spaces in the area and cities and counties in the Md-Columbia maintain significant open space and trail resources. Table 2 lists parks of generally more than 25 acres; there are also many smaller parksnot listed here. Table 3 list strailswithin each jurisdiction. These parks and trails are presented to describe current holdings that form the infrastructure around which an open space network can be formed. 32 RROSN Vision Plan Table 2. Parks and Open Space Inventory (Parks of generally more than 25 acres) Benton Count Name Type! Intended Use Acreage Owner Badger Mountain Centennial Preserve Park natural preserve, hiking, 559 County biking, horseback riding Horn Rapids Park Parkf camping, with full 565 County hookups, showers, restrooms, a horse camp, a model airplane facility, a boat launch, and multi-use trails Hover Park Park./fishing, biking, 175 Leased from Corps equestrian Rattlesnake Mountain Shooting Facility Park 740 WA State Dept of Wildlife, BLM Two Fivers Park Park Picnicking, swimming, 159 Leased from Corps boat I aunch Wallula Cap Preserve Natural Open Space/ remote, 110 County inaccessible Other Parks 7 County Crowe Butte Park Park/Camping, boating 275 Port of Benton Corps lease Plymouth Park Park/ day use/boating/ campi ng 112 Army Corps of Engineers Hanford Reservation Developed industry and 353,000 Federal undeveloped open space Hanford Reach National Monument Undeveloped natural space 195,000 Federal Arid Lands Ecology Reserve Undeveloped natural space 77,000 Federal Rattlesnake Slope Wildlife recreation Area Undeveloped natural space 3,661 WA St ate Dept of Fsh and near Benton City Wildlife Horse Heaven Hills Undeveloped natural space 3,840 BLM McNary National Wildlife Refuge Units wildlife refu a/ huntin 'fishin 15,666 USFWS(WalIa Walla Co.) Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Units wildlife refuge./hunting, fishing 25, 129 USFWS(WA and OR) Total Benton County 675,998 33 RROSN Vi si on Ran Franklin County Name Type! Intended Use Acreage Owner Hanford Reach National Monument Undeveloped natural space 23, 195 USFWS Juni per Dunes Area Vari ous 19,860 BLM Juniper Dunes VA I derness Area Wilderness 7, 140 BLM Juniper Dunes Forest Critical Environ. Concern area 8,620 BLM Juniper Dunes OHV use allowed 3,920 BLM Palouse Falls State Park Park/ Picnicking, camping, 185 State scenic overlook; No water; 178 undeveloped acres River Bend Park Undeveloped 75 Corps of Engineers Ringold Undeveloped/ Hunting, fishing, 100 WA State Dept of Wildlife camping Big Rat Undevel oped/ Hunti ng, 833 Corps of Engi neers archery, boat launch, fishing Devi Is Bench Boat launch 4.5 acres 52 Corps of Engi neers developed Levey Park Park./ Picnicking, boat launch, 50 Corps of Engineers shelter, swimming, playground 26 acres Undevel oped Lost Island Undevel oped/ Hunti ng, f ishi ng, 160 Corps of Engineers camping Wi ndust Undeveloped/ Picnicking, 54 Corps of Engineers camping, swimming Skookum Undeveloped/ Hunting, fishing 760 Corps of Engineers Couch Landing Undeveloped/ Hunting, fishing 95 Corps of Engineers Scootney Reservoir Park Park/ Picnicking, boat launch, 600 Bureau of Reclamation fishing, campsites, concession, Parks bath house; 575 undev. acres Lyons Ferry Park Park/' Picnicking, camping, 1,097 Leased from Corps by Port swimming, boating, fishing of Columbia Total Franklin County open spacel'parks 66,796 34 RROSN Vision Plan City of Kennewick Name Type! Intended Use Acreage Owner Grange Park Park/recreation 26 City Hanson Park Park/recreation 25 CA Lawrence Scott Park Community Parka recreation 26 City Columbia Park Regional Park/recreation 387 Leased from Carps Levee/ Duffy' s Pond Rivershore Linear Park/ Multi-use path 70 Leased from Corps Zintel Canyon Dam Ste Undeveloped natural space 89 City Zintel Canyon (flood plain) Undeveloped natural space 67 CA Small Parks 204 City and others Total Kennewick Parks and open space 894 City of Richland Name Type/ Intended Use Acreage Owner Bateman Island Natural Open Space 164 Leased from Corps Badger Mt (no access) Natural Open Space 16 City Chamna Natural Preserve Natural Open Space 276 Leased from Corps Amon Creek Natural Preserve Natural Open Space 75 CA Columbia Point South Natural open space 530 Corps and City Yakima River Management Area Natural Open Space 568 Corps of Engineers Leslie Groves Park Regional Park/ recreation 149 City Howard Amon Park Regional Park/ recreation 46 City Horn Rapids ORV Park Park/ special use 300 City WEJohnson Park Park/ special use 253 Badger Mountain Park Community parka recreation/ 40 80 City acreswill remain undeveloped natural open space Trailhead Park Community park./t rail head 40 City Community Park at Horn Rapids Community Park currently 117 City developed as 4-field Babe Ruth complex 35 RROSN Vi si on Ran Claybell Park Community park/recreation/22 50 City acres as natural open space Columbia Park West Special use/ Recreation/ 51 65 Leased from Corps acres undeveloped Columbia Playfield I Special use/recreation 29 City By Pass Shelterbelt Linear Park 56 City James Lawless Park Park./undeveloped , dirt trails 34 City Keene Road Trail Corridor Linear Park/ multi-use trail 79 City Horn Rapids Athletic Complex Special use 24 City Other Parks Columbia Point Golf Course 170 Total R chl and Parks and open space 3121 City of West Pichland Name Type/ Intended Use Acreage Owner Bombing Range Sports Complex playground/ athletic fields 25 City Other Parks neighborhood parks 46 City Total West Rchland Parks and open space 71 Bent on City Name Type/ Intended Use Acreage Owner Other Parks neighborhood parks 0.7 City Total Benton City Parks and open space 0.7 City of Pasco Name Type/ Intended Use Acreage Owner Chiawana Park Park/ day use, boating 87 Leased from Corps Sports Complex Special use./sports 97 City Wade Park Park./ Multi-purpose path, 28 Leased from Corps rivershore 36 RRCSN Vision Plan Total other City Park Land and open space Includes San Willows Golf 440 Course (132 acres) Sacajawea State Park 284 State Total Pasco Parks and open space 936 Table 3. Trails Inventory. Bent on County Name Location Len th Surface Ranch Reata Trails Rancho Reata 6 miles (varying degrees of Soft upkeep on private property easements) Skyline Trail Badger U Centennial Preserve 2.2 miles Soft/gravel multi-use Canyon Trail Badger U Centennial Preserve 1.2 miles Soft./gravel; hikers only Tapteal Greenway Trail Horn Rapids Park 5 miles Gravel " Upper Trail" Horn Rapids Park 2.5 miles Soft Franklin County Name Location Len th SLirf ace None City of Kennewick Name Location Length Surface Zintel Canyon Trail W. 7 Ave. & S. Vancouver St., 1.3 miles North 114 mile paved, southwest up the canyon to S. remainder is gravel By St. & W. 24" Ave. Sacajawea Heritage Trail AJongthe Columbia River from 7.3 miles Paved, shoulder of Cable Bridge upstream to roadwayf bike path in Richland City Limits Columbia Park proper Audubon Nature Trail Columbia Park 1 mile loop Paved 37 RROSN Vi si on Ran City of Richland Name Location Length Surface By Pass shelterbelt multi-use By-pass from Thayer to Van 3.0 Paved multi-use path Gy esen Hains Avenue Levee Trail Along Columbia River between 0.75 miles (included in Paved multi-use Leslie G-ovesand Howard Richland Riverfront Trail) Amon Parks James Lawless Trails Hillside between Thayer and <1 mile Soft Carmichael Ills Keene Road Trail Abandoned RR ROW along 3. smiles 12 foot wide paved Keene Road between multi-use Queensgate and E. City Limits Marjorie Sotch Greenway Between Stevens Dr. and GW 0.67 miles Paved walking trail Way Stevens Drive Buffer Strip Between Catskill and Spengler 0.82 miles Paved multi-use trail Bateman Island Col. Park Trail & Center Blvd. > 2 miles Soft Chamna Natural Preserve Along Yakima Diver and near 11 miles Nlilti-use Soft trails 1182 Bridge South Columbia Point Confluence of Yakima and I > 2 miles I Soft walking trails Rivers vers Richland Riverfront Trail Horn Rapids Road to 1-182 7.22 miles Paved multi-use Bridge Leslie Groves Bike Trail Snyder St to Van Geisen 1.6 miles Paved Sacajawea Heritage Trail 1-182 bridge to East City Limits 3.67 miles Paved 1-82 Trail I Queensgate Drive to Chamna 1 0.76 miles I Paved Yakima River Trail Chamna to DuportaiI St. 0.96 miles Paved Badger Mt Park Off of Keene Road 0.71 miles Paved Desert Ism Park south Richland 0.25 miles Paved McMurray Park McMurray & GW Way 0.34 miles Paved Paul Liddell Park Cottonwood Loop 0. 14 miles Paved Sagewood Meadows Keene Rd Trail to Badger M. 0.56 miles Paved Park 38 RROSN Vision Plan Crested Hills Park South Richland 0.34 miles Paved WE Johnson Park Along Yakima River 1-3 miles Soft, equestrian Amon Creek Natural Preserve South Richland 1-3 miles Soft Duportail Trail Along Yakima S. of WE Johnson 1.34 miles Soft Park City of West Richland Name Location Length Surface None Benton City Name Location Length Surface Benton City Trail Benton City 3 miles Paved City of Pasco Sacagawea Trail (Columbia Follows Columbia River from 6.4 miles Paved multi-use, River Trail) Sacagawea Park to 1-182 shoulder of roadway in bridge places 1-182 Trail Follows 1-182 from Rd 48 to RD 3 miles Paved 100 39 RROSN Vi si on Ran Definitions of Open Space Used by Washington State and by Mid-Columbia Jurisdictions Various levels of government define open space in different ways. This section describes how Washington State and cities and counties in the mid-Columbia define open space. State of Washington The State of Washington defines open space (RCW 84.34, 458-30 WAC Open Space Taxation Act) as: Any land area zoned for open space by a comprehensive official I and use pl an adopted by a city or a county. Any land area in which the preservation in its present use would: Conserve and enhance natural and scenic resources Prot ect streams or water supplies Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marches (public access not required) 5ihance the value to the public of neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space 5ihance recreation opportunities Preserve historic sites Preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas Retain in itsnatUral state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use. Any land meetingthe definition of "farm and agricultural conservation land", which means either: Land previously classified under farm and agricultural classification that no longer meets the criteria and is reclassified under open space land. "Traditional farmland" , not classified, that hasnot been irrevocably devoted to a use inconsistent with agricultural uses, and that has high potential for returning to commercial agriculture. Cit y of Pasco The City of Pasco defines open space in its Comprehensive Ran as: ..."open space' ' is used as generic term for all types of parks, game fields and t rai I s and cert ai n vacant I ands. - City of Kennewick The City of Kennewick defines open space in its Comprehensive Plan as: ' "Open space" typically implies a Iandscape that is primarily unimproved, such aswooded areas; parks; golf 40 RROSN Vi si on Plan courses; trails; privately owned nature reserves; abandoned railroad lines; utility corridors; and other vacant rights of way. Permitted uses include: accessory uses and structures, day care centers, golf courses, RV parks, swi mming pools, trash containers. In the Kennewick residential design standards: Intent of open space: to provide for open spacesthat enhance visual and environmental quality of neighborhoods, protect natural features, are safe to see and use and serve as gathering points that enhance the livability of neighborhoods. City of Richland The City of Richland definesnatural open space in its Comprehensive Plan as: The Natural Open Space category includes public lands intended to remain as long- term undeveloped open space with appropriate public access. This category primarily includes, for example, lands associated with the Yakima Rver floodplain, islands in the Columbia Rver, steeply sloped areas, sensitive areasalong the Amon Basin and other designated areas. Natural Open Space lands are managed as natural areas and may include riparian corridors along creeks and rivers, wetlands, shrub-steppe, open ridges and hillsides. The Richland Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan defines Natural Open Space as: Areas that have been preserved and protected from significant development. They may provide a buffer between land uses, ensure a rural atmosphere, reduce building density, preserve natural setting or natural features and provide visual relief. Common features one might find are soft surface trails, interpretive kiosks, benches and viewpoints Trailhead parking should be provided at locationsthat will have the least impact to the park. f. 40 41 RROSN Vi si on Ran City of West Richland The City of West Richland's Comprehensive Plan does not define or mention open space but public reserve is defined as: - A Public Reserve provides for I ands set aside for public use: including, but not �'"'� limited to, school sites, parks, critical -� areas, canals, waterways, fire stations, and other public buildings. y, Benton City The Benton City Comprehensive Plan does not define or mention open space. Franklin County The definition of open space in Franklin County's Comprehensive Plan (may also use Open Space Taxation Act definition) defines open space as including: Park land along the Columbia and Snake Rivers It also referencesthe Franklin County Comprehensive Parks Plan in Appendix C. This designation includes areas of aesthetic quality as well as areas set aside and developed for specific kinds of recreational pursuits, including all publicly owned sites. These sites should be protected from developments that preclude the particular recreation pursuits the area is intended and suitable for. These include parks and other publicly owned areas, aswell as areasin private development. Benton County The Benton County Comprehensive Plan does not define or mention open space. Regulations Used in Each Jurisdiction The following tables (Table 4 and Table 5) provide summaries of the different types of regulatory toolsthat are used by local governmentsto preserve or reduce the impacts of hillside and floodplain development. These are not necessarily comprehensive lists, but they do include regulatory toolsthat are in common use today, both locally and throughout the western U.S. The varioustypesof regulation are grouped by broad categories, although there is some overlap between categories and specific tools. Entriesin the Tableswere provided by the jurisdictions. Not all available regulations are used by all jurisdictions. The adoption and admini strati on of fl oodpl ai n regul ati ons have been a requirement for local governments for many years. The Federal Emergency Kbnagement Agency requi res I ocal governments to administer floodplain regulationsthat meet minimum 42 RR06N Vision Plan federal requirements in order for their communitiesto retain eligibility in the federal flood insurance program. Asa result, regulation o f f Ioodplains has a long history and is widely practiced throughout the country. Anytime anew regulation is developed, there must be consideration given to the government's legal authority to regulate. This authority comes largely from the state. Where there is specific authority granted to local governments through state legislation, the certainty with which cities can implement ordinances that can withstand legal challenges increases significantly. For instance, the Growth Management Act directs cities to identify and protect critical areas, including areas of steep slopes. Given that specific direction from the state legislature, a city can be fairly confident that developing a regulation to protect steep slopeswould be upheld by the courts. In a similar vein, a zoning regulation that can be shown to be consistent with the overall purpose of zoning (protection of public health, safety and welfare) would likely be recognized by the courts as a valid exercise of the Oty's police powers. Much less certainty exists for regulations that are based on aesthetic concerns. Design standards that are concerned with the general appearance of buildings that do not have a direct tie to environmental protection or public health and safety may not be upheld by the courts. A basic principal in ' :•+ developing regulations is finding the - r. least restrictive means of - regulating t hat effectively accomplishes the public purpose that the regulation seeksto achieve. For example, if the stated purpose of a regulation isto control erosion, a regulation that prohibits development entirely would not be found valid if there were other less restrictive forms of regulation available that would accomplish the same objective, such as the development of a storm drainage system. Cities do have latitude in determining what the appropriate level of regulation should be through the adoption of goals and policies in their comprehensive plans. Development regulations can then be drafted to implement the specific policy statements included in the plan. There are some hillside development projectsthat have been approved but not developed. These projects are "vested" under existing regulations, meaningthat new regulations adopted now would not impact the previousproject approval. The developer would be able to proceed under the terms of his approved project and not be impacted by the new requirement. The last column in the table classifies whether the type of regulation listed in the table would impact these vested rights or not. In some cases, the answer is not clear. 43 RROSN Vision Ran Table 4. Hillside Development Regulations. Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Richland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rights Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Zoning Use Prohibits Yes, in Yes, in Yes Zoning No Used Uses on None Prohibitions specified areas zoned certain through dictates the identified on identified type of Natural degree of CAO allowed steep steep slopes development Open Space sl opes use(s) slopes may or ridgelines from be occurri ng restricted within designated area Use (density) Larger lot No None; but No No specific; No Not used Larger lot None Restrictions sizes on the City is however sizes on hillside areas currently critical areas hillside reducing processing regulations areas may overall under the dictate be required density on subdivision development aff ect ed code to area areas allow on-site density transfer and cl uster development to protect more sensitive areas 44 RROSN Vi si on Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rights Regulation Regulation I I I Richland City County County Impact Lot Coverage Limits Yes, but no None Yes No specific No Used None ? Require- impervious special impervious ments surface standard require- coverage for hillside ments, but helping to dev. CAO minimize mitigatesfor runoff and runoff and a increase Geotechnical space Engineer between could make buildings specific recommend- ations Setbacks Reduced No In process of No No specific No Not used None Yes front yard finalizing provision for setbacks the steep slope reduce the subdivision setbacks amount of code for cut and fill adoption; necessary on Southridge hillside Subarea plan development currently has set back standards for slope protection 45 RR05N Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Lot More flexible No In processof No No provision No Used None ? width/street standards finalizing unless frontage would enable code for subdivision requirements developers to adopt ion occurs via locate I of s on the PUQ areas most process easily developed, as opposed to having to create standard lots on hillside areas Building Restrictions Yes, but no None, No No alternate No Not used None Yes Height on building special except for building Limitations height reduce standard zoning height the aesthetic for hillside regulations restrictions impact of dev. for steep hillside slopes development BuiI ding Limits on No None No No No Not used None Yes Massing building size Limitations would reduce the aesthetic impact of hillside development 46 RROSN Vision Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation I I 1 Richland City County County Impact Design Architectural No Southridge No No No Not used None Yes Standards controls. such Sub-Area as design requirements standards for varying that address roof lines and col or and wall planes, architectural use of design exterior building materials and colors reduce the aesthetic impact of hillside development Landscaping Requirements No None No No provision No Not used None Yes Standards for planting specific to unless trees and hillside, recommende shrubs reduce general d by a the aesthetic landscaping Geotechnical impact of standards report hillside development 41 RROSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of R chi and Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Environmental Regul at i o n s Use Designated No Yes, through Yes No provision No Used Designated None Prohibitions steep slopes CAO unless steep and/or subdivision slopes Iandsl ide occurs via and/or hazard areas the PUD landslide are protected process hazard from areas are development reviewed under Critical Areas Ordinance Buffer Designated No Designated No Yes NO Used Designated None requirements steep slopes geologically steep and/or hazardous slopes landslide areas and/or areas require require landslide buffers that buffers and areas may limit the type limited require and amount development buffers that of within the limit the development area and the type and activity that setback amount of can take devel opmen place within t activity the buffer that can area. take place within the buffer area. 48 RRCSN Vision Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of F chi and Kennewick Pasco Wev Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Reg�_Ilation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Density Limitations No Currently No No density No Not used None None controls on density on restricted on calculations steeply slopes>40% noted sloped areas, however, in often on a process of graduated finalizing scale, with code to the steepest prohibit slopes development requiring the on slopes largest lot >25% sizes Sauthridge area already prohibits development on slopes exceeding 25% 49 RRDSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Hchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Fights Regulation Regulation I I I Richland City County County Impact Technical Technical Yes, Yes Yes Yes No Used Technical None Studies/ studies required studies (provision Mitigation prepared by under the prepared by already in qualified critical qualified place) experts areas experts identify the ordinance identify the hazards hazards associated associated with with development devel opmen on a t on a particular part i cul ar site and site and identify identify mitigation mitigation measures measures needed to needed to ensure public ensure safety public safety Clustering Development Yes, In process of No No provision No Not used None None is clustered permitted finalizing unless on the more thru a PUD code for subdivision gently sloped adoption occurs via areas, leaving the PUD the steepest process dopes in open space. 50 RRC6N Vi si on Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Richland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rights Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Transf er of Devel opment No In process of No No No Not used None None Development rights of finalizing Rights steeply code for sloped areas adoption in or ridge tops the form of are sold to onsite developers density that can use transfers them in other parts of the City, preserving the hillsides and ridges Grading Regulations Limitations Impacts of No Yes Geotechnical No Used As per 2006 ? on cut and development report IBC/ IRC and fill slopes are reduced required to possible fitting on drainage make requiremen development areas, recommend- is of a Geo. into hillside limiting ations Tech. rather than removal of altering vegetation, hillside and reducing aesthetic impacts of development 51 RROSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation I I Richland City County County Impact Limit Regulations No GAO does Yes Yes No Used Not used ? encroach- would direct not allow ments into development grading of steep slope activities slopes>40% areas away from the steepest sl opes Landform Fill areas are No No Yes, as you No Not used Not used ? grading sculpted to are not requirements meet the allowed to natural create steep contours of or hazardous the hillside, slopes helping them to blend in with the hillside and reducing the aesthetic impacts of the development 52 RROSN Vi si on Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation I 1 Richland City County County Impact Erosion Provisions are Yes Stormwater Yes Yes No Used As per 2006 None Control made for the generally IBC/ IRC (provisions measures det ent i on/ret required to already in ention of be disposed place) storm water of onsite for reducing the all develop- impacts of ment to erosion and reduce flooding on runoff down slope areas. Techni cal Soi I and/ or Yes Yes Yes Yes No Used As per 2006 None Studies to geotechni cal I BC/ IRC (provisions determine studies are already in slope required to place) stability/ K4ti determine gat i on sl ape stability, potential for erosion and need for retaining structures to reduce potential for erosion and slope failure on developed hillside areas. 53 RROSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rights Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Revegetation Disturbed Yes Yes Yes Yes No Used Asper 2006 None of disturbed slopes are IBC/ IRC (provisions areas revegetated already in to provide place) slope stability and reduce erosion potential. Building Requirements Seismic Requirements Yes, part of Yes Yes Yes No Used As per 2006 None standards placed on IBC IBC/ IRC (provisi ons new building already in construction place) based on the potential for sei smi c activity Engineering Requirements Yes, part of Yes Yes Yes No Used As per 2006 None to retain to provide Internation IBC/ IRC (provisions buiI dings on detailed al Building already in slopes engineering Codes place) for the design of building foundations to ensure their stability on hillside areas. 54 RRCSN Vision Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of R&land Kennewick Pasrc, West Benton Franklin Benton Fights Regulation Regdation i i I Rchland City County County Impact Wild land Requirements Yes. RMC Yes, on the No Yes No Not used %quiremen None fire safety to 21.01.030 perimeter of tsto (provisions measures incorporate undeveloped incorporate already in specific fire land of 5 specific fire place) safety acres or safety measures on more measures buildings that on buildings are on the that are on perimeter of the a hillside perimeter development of a hillside and subj ect Bevel opmen to threats t and from wild subj ect to fires. threats from wild fires. Liability Liability No None, No Case specific No Not used Not used ? Waivers waivers development signed by is not property permitted in owners in these areas favor of the City to release City from any liability associat ed with property damage RRDSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact caused by landslides and required for development in high hazard areas. Infrastructure Standards Street Reductions in Yes, but Street No No provision No Used in Engineered ? Widths and standard only by standard unless part desi gn grade street width variance reductions subdivision requi rements and/or are occurs via maximum permitted the PUD permitted city wide process street grade through to allow planned development development that requires permit I ess f i l l and grade on hill- side areas, helping to reduce aesthetic impacts 56 RR06N Vision Plan Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of Rchland Kennewick Pasco West Benton Franklin Benton Rghts Regulation Regulation Richland City County County Impact Availability New Yes Yes No No No Used in None None of Irrigation residential part (provisions Water development already in is required to place) have a sep- arate source of irrigation water (Limits development to areas that have irriga- tion available Open Developers Yes, as In process of No When No Used in None None Space/Trail are required generally, finalizing for required by part requirements to set aside but no adoption the trail corri- specific comprehen- dors and/or hill side sive parks open space standard in plan areas as a place condition of approval for proj ects. �I RRDSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Vested Type of Effect of R chi and Kennewick Pasco 'Nest Benton I Franklin Benton Rights Reg�.rlation Reg�.rlation Richland City County County Impact Common Allowing or Permitted, Common No No provision No Used None Driveway mandating but not driveways unless requirements use of required allowed subdivision common throughout occurs via driveways to the city the PUD reduce process amount of grading needed, thereby helping to reduce aesthetic impacts ss RRCSN Vision Plan Table 5. Floodplain Development Regulations. CUrront Lisa i n Type of Effect of Kenne- West Benton Franklin F chi nd rick Pasco Richland Git Count Ser�tvn urity %gulation Regulation y Y Use Larger lot sizes Yes, Ag None No Yes. Agri- Yes Not 8abdivision Proposals. (1) (density) within identified zoning culture & used All subdivision proposals restric- floodplain limits limits Public Use shall be consistent with tions in total number of 1 Lin itf 5 zoning the need to minimize identified dwellings and acres desig- flood damage; (2) All floodplain potential damages nations of subdivision proposals shall areas from flood event the land in have public utilities and the facilitiessuch assewer, floodway gas, electrical, and water within the systems located and City constructed to minimize greatly flood damage; (3) All limits subdivision proposals shall density have adequate drainage and allow- provided to reduce able uses. exposure to flood damage; and, (4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not avail able from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is less). 59 RROSN Vi si on Ran Current Use in Type of Effect of Kenne- West Benton Franklin Regulation Regulation F3ichland wick Pasco Richland Qty County Benton County Use Prohibits building Yes, in Yes Yes Yes Yes Used Restrictssome building prohibi- from occurring areas zoned and encroachments from tions in within designated Floodway occurring within identified area designated area floodway areas Construc- Habitable buildings Yes, Yes Yes Yes Yes Used New construction and tion must be elevated required by substantial improvement Standards above the floodplain of any residential and identified 100 year regulations other structures shall floodplain have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to one foot or more above base flood elevation. Building Requirement to Yes, Yes Yes Yes Yes Used An elevation certificate Elevation survey elevation of required by to record the actual Certifica- lowest habitable FEMAfIood elevation (in relation to tions floor of all new insurance mean sea level) of the structuresto lowest floor (including determine basement) of all new or compliance with substantial improved construction structures, and record standards whether the structure contains a basement. G0 RROSN Vi si on Plan Current Use in Type of Effect of Kenne- West Benton Franklin Regulation Regulation Rchland wick Pasco Richland Qty County Benton County Limit- Secondary drainage Yes, Addressed Yes Yes Yes Used Limited in Roodplain and at ions on channels must be required by under the restricted in Roodway. fill and retained to avoid fIoodplain proposed grading unnaturally regulations Shoreline activities diverting flood Manage- waters or ment increasing flood Ordinance hazards in other areas Limit- No specific Yes, Addressed Yes No specific Yes Used No specific standards in at ions on standards in place required under the standard place but regulatory bank but regulatory under state proposed but regu- requirements of County armoring, requirements of regulations Shoreline Iated by (Shoreline Management diking or City (Shoreline Manage- other Act and Critical areas other Management Act), ment agencies ordinance), State Dept. shoreline WDFW (Hydraulic Ordinance of Game (Hydraulic alterations Project Approval) Project Approval) and and Dept. of Dept. of Ecology (Water Ecology (Water Quality Certification Quality Standards) discourage this Certification activity. Standards) discourage this activity. Limit- Standards to Yes, Yes, Yes Yes. refers Yes Used Standardsto identify and at ions on identify and required through back to protect wetlands and disturbing protect wetlands under GMA the CAO Critical their adjacent buffers wetlands and their adjacent Areas buffers Chap. 18.25 61 RROSN Vi si an Ran "Come forth into the light of thi ngs, f et nat ure be your t eacher" - William Wordsworth "Never does nat ur e say one t hi ng and wisdom another" -Juvenal 62 RROSN Vi si on Plan IV. The Planning Process The planning process was organized and conducted by the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Steering Committee. Much of the planning involved collecting public input, then using that input to formulate recommended actions. This chapter summarizes the input that was collected through four public workshops and a broadly-accessible questionnaire. Workshop details are listed in Appendix III and the full questionnaire and responses are found in Appendix IV. Ridges to Rivers Public Workshops Summary Two sets of two public workshops were held to get feedback from area citizens about what open spacesthey value, what they do in those spacesand what steps might be taken to preserve open space in the Mid-Columbia. The first set of two public meetingswas held in November 2008 in West Richland and Pasco, with combined attendance exceeding 140 people. Attendeeswere separated into two different groups, one discussing the Richland./West Richland area and Benton County, and a second focusing on the Pasco/ Kennewick area and Benton and Franklin Counties. After various opportunities and constraints were identified for each area, the were asked to respond to two questions: "What is your favorite open space and what activity do you most often do thereT and " If we could have more open space and trails what would you like to seer Responses from the November meetings were analyzed and used to identify emphasis areas f or more in-depth discussion at the second set of meetings in February 2009. The February outreach meetingswere held in Rchland and Kennewick, with attendance estimated at 80. In these workshops, attendees selected one of five groups focused on geographic areas identified in the November meetings. The areas were: Southeast Benton County (including Kennewick), Sacagawea Heritage Central (Trail and State Park), Badger Rdges, Tapteal Greenway, and Benton City. Multiple maps in each group showed possible trails and adj scent open space areas. Each trail showed existing and proposed connectivity of the open spaces identified in the earlier workshops and the questionnaire. Recognized public accesswas illustrated with the use of colored lines based on discusson data and parcel maps. The information on each map was summarized and group memberswere asked to comment on the trails and open spaces. Part ici pant swere given an opportunity to identify potential constraints and Sol Lit ions t0 open space development in the focus area, their three most important criteria for preserving open space, and what they could do to help. 63 RRDSN Vi si on Ran A summary of the responses to the two questions posed during the November 2008 workshops and the four posed at the February 2009 workshops follow. Complete public workshop input is presented in Appendix III. 2008 Public Workshop Questions and Responses (West Richland and Pasco) Results are ordered with most frequent responses listed first. Question #1 -What is your favorite open space now and what activity do you most often do there? • Badger U. trails-hike-sightsee (Benton County) • Chamna Natural Preserve-hike-bird- bicycle-equestrian (Richland) • Amon Creek Natural Preserve -walk- - '-=- bicycle-bird (Richland) • Red Mount ain-hike-wildflowers- sightsee (Benton County) • W.EJohnson Park-bird-equestrian (Rchland) • Wallula Gap -hike-wildflowers- geology (Benton County, Private) • Howard Amon Park-flowers-bicycle (Richland) • Leslie Groves Park-wildflowers-walk-bicycle (Richland) • McDonald Ridge-hike-bird-equestrian (Private Lewisand Clark Ranch, W. Richland) • Horn Rapids Park-hike-bird-bicycle-equestrian (Benton County) • Yakima Bluffs-walk-bird-bicycle (Richland, Benton County) Question #2 If we could have more open space and trails, what would you like to see? • Amon Basin-Little Badger-Badger-Candy-Red-Rattlesnake Connective trail- - Benton City bicycle/hiking path to Horn Rapids Park and Wanawish Dam (Benton City, Benton County, Private) • Irrigation canal into non-motorized trail easements (Kennewick Irrigation District, Columbia Irrigation Dist. , Blue Mountain Irrigation Dist., Kona Irrigation Dist.) • Red Mountain and Candy Mountain scored the highest relating to land preservation • Wetland preservation also scored high for preservation • Better and safer road bicycle trails 2009 Public Workshop Questions and Responses (Richland and Kennewick) Question #1 . What do you think of our results so far? What would you like to add or refine? Most of the responses were positive about the effort so far. The maps were the center Of focus. Some participants acknowledged a large gap in connectivity of the trails and open spaces represented on the maps. Most of the respondents focused on the second question about what needed to be added or refined. There were themes within the responses and those themes are summed up in the following four categories. 64 RROSN Vision Plan Traits (these were additions to traits from the 2008 workshops traits list): Ridgeline trail (Benton County, Richland, Kennewick, West Rchland) Scootney Reservoir to Radar Rdge (Franklin County) Franklin County irrigation canal trail Lyons Ferry to Palouse to Little Palouse to Gildersleeve trail through right-of-way (Franklin County) Go east to Palouse Falls, Juniper Dunes, Iron Horse trail (Franklin County) Add Smith canyon to Juniper Dunes (Franklin County) Add routes on south side of Yakima river - irrigation canals, Yakima Bluffs, Badger Mountain (Benton County, Rchland, West Richland) Audubon society binding trail - link to or include in Open Space Network Establish connectivity along Horn Rapids road to Horn Rapids Park (Benton City, Benton Cou fit y') Property acquisition or protection, areas of interest: prioritize habitat areas DNR BLM I ands need expl orati on, Sand dunes near Broadmoor Mall Ice Harbor dam area Mesa Lake - WDFW may purchase - more connectivity Preserve natural ridge line views. "�!P�•�� • Wildlife behavior connects with land and habitat Products: Educational curriculum needs emphasis, young people connected with land, Geology 101, •� - ?y :'': _ ' r:: _ CBCfield trips Smoother bike trails Directory, web site, to publish locationsof trail `" _ r�, • 'r' '�";,_'. heads, etc Maps of trails rated by difficulty " i�' . �.• Connection for bike commuters- paved and other paths Quest ions: Did you contact developers/ builders? Hispanic cont acts - I evel of involvement and contact s Have you attempted to pursue a more diverse sharing of information, increase the base of exposure to the project? Question #2. What are some of the issues/constraints? What solutions can you recommend? Several issues and constraints were discussed but by far the most prominent two were funding and insurance!liability. Obviously, property acquisition costs are the biggest obstacle and maintenance of those properties and trailsneedsto be budgeted. Private and public property insurance and liability remain large obstacleswhen recreational activities are present. 65 RROSN Vi si on Ran Public outreach through publicity and other outreach ranked the highest as a solution. That outreach should be inclusive of a diverse public base and policy makers. Other solutionsincluded grants, donations, conservation easementsand Conservation Futures funding options. Question #3. How would you like to contribute to help the project succeed? The responses to this question were varied with no clear path designated for individual contribut ions to help the project succeed. The highest rated response wasthat a volunteer base be recruited to organize habitat management and protection, as well as a groupto coordinate public outreach and stewardshipfor the trails and protected lands in the Open Space Network. Complimenting the outreach statement was a call for education at all levels and age groups. Question #4. What are the most important factors to you for choosing open spacesfor preservation? The threat of losing open space because of development wasthe most important factor to consider for preservation. •-_ _ Other factors besides development threat were the uniqueness of the 4,""` "{'? particular open space areas, if it �_- connectsto other features, and if it includes natural habitat. It was also noted that the most visible open space and the easiest to get to should be * �4 considered when determining preservation. Ridges to Rivers Questionnaire Summary The RROSN developed a questionnaire that asked citizens in the Md-Columbia (primarily Benton and Franklin Counties): What they liked most about living in this area What kinds of open space areas they use or just enjoy having What their primary forms of recreation or interest are in open spaces How they view open space as an economic resource How important they think it is to conserve land as open space What types of actions they would support to preserve or enhance open space How they rate several open space actions Which open space areas they currently use Which areas they would like to see preserved as open space, and If efforts should be made to interconnect isolated parcels of open space The questionnaire was distributed manually at four public workshops and electronically via the Internet using SurveyMonkey.23 Citizens were asked to complete "SurveyMonkey is an online survey tool that enables people to create and/ or participate in surveys quickly and easily. http:,/,Iwww.sLirveymonkey.com/ . 66 RRCSN Vi si on Plan the questionnaire through newspaper articles (e.g. Nov. 9 and 14, 2008; Feb. 3 and 8, 2009), radio and television announcements, city reader boards, the City of Richland's weekly update, and email lists and other communications from various organizations (including the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, Tridec, Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Rotary Clubs, Tapteal Greenway Association, Friends of Badger Mountain, Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society, Washington Native Plant Society, Fun, Ft, and Over Fifty Club, Lake Lewis Chapter of the Ice Age Floods Institute, and the Open Space Coalition of Benton and Franklin Counties). The questionnaire ran nearly four months, from November 13, 2008 through March 7, 2009, and received 309 responses, Over 85°-oof the respondents were from the cities of Richland, Kennewick, or West Richland, and 75%of the respondents had lived in the Mid-Columbia for more than 10 years. A copy of the questionnaire, the responses, and detailed analyses are provided in Appendix IV. Most respondents (44°� indicated what they liked most about living in this area were the outdoors, the ridges and rivers, the small community atmosphere, and the low crime rate. They also indicated that they liked the climate (390/4 and the availability of open space and land (32°�. Over 80%of the respondents said they actively use the rivers"shorelines, natural areas, and parks in this area, and al so enj oy looking at the ridges and agricultural areas. Most respondents said �� ' "�` %�-� • that their primary form of recreation or use of open space isthrough walking or hiking. Nature viewing, bicycling, and touring vineyards/' orchards are also popular activities. Most respondents (over 90°� said that they viewed open space as an economic resource for attracting new residents, enhancing property values of nearby properties, enhancing tourism, and creating new jobs. Over 90 percent also indicated that they felt it was very important for the community to set aside land for conservation and open space. Respondents ranked preserving important habitats, preserving scenic views, and expanding trails as the most important actions to be taken to preserve and enhance open space. When asked which of a list of particular open space areas were used or enjoyed most by the respondents, they said: The Badger Mountain Preserve Tapteal Greenway Leslie Groves Natural Area other developed parks the Hanford Reach National Monument Columbia Point South Sacaj awea State Park Washington State Fish and Wildlife areas Amon Basin Sacagawea Heritage Trail. 67 RROSN Vi si on Ran The respondentsalso had the option of adding other open space areasthat they used and many (55) responded. When asked which of a list of undeveloped areas they would use and, or enjoy having if preserved as open space, most respondents selected Little Badger, Red Nbuntain, Candy Mountain, and Horse Heaven Hills. Many of the respondents (148) also added other areasthat they would like to see preserved and/ or trailsthat they would like to see built. These suggest ions were added to the results from the November Public Workshops and are shown in detail in Appendix IV. Among the top prioritieswere to: • Preserve the Benton County ridges (i.e., those in Richland, Kennewick, and the County), preserve the Columbia and Yakima River shorelines (and keep the parks), preserve Wallula Gap, keep agricultural areas, and, in general, preserve habitat • Develop trailsfrom the Amon Basin to Rattlesnake Ridge, from Benton City to Horn Rapids Park, and along irrigation canals • Improve bike trail safety and maintenance (particularly across bridges), and keep bike trails near the State Patrol office south of Kennewick, and Develop and improve equestrian trails and non- motorized boat access. ' • When asked what kinds of Iocal government or private actions they would support for preserving or enhancing open space, the respondents favored: —Active roles in preserving wildlife habitat and corridors, scenic views, wetlands, streams, and ponds, —Identification and protection of trails and large undeveloped ridges and habitat, and —Connection of existing large natural open spaces. They further indicated support for the use of conservation easements, rezoning for open space conservation of public lands or private lands with the agreement of the landowner, reduced property tax on conserved lands, voter approved bonds, and promoting the transfer of development rights. They also would consider supporting a conservation futuresprogram, but were generally opposed to user fees. Many of the questionswere designed to allow open-ended comments. These are also included in Appendix IV. Priority Open Space Actions Based on the public workshop input and the Ridges to Rivers Questionnaire, specific open space projectswere identified aspriority projects. The prioritization is a result of specific qualifications identified using data accumulated through the public process. The survey questions asked for preferred open space actionsfor the Mid-Columbia region. The choices included developing additional athleticfields and additional neighborhood parks, as well as preserving scenic views, improving water and trail access, expanding trails, and preserving important habitats. The public overwhelmingly supported preservation of important habitats and expanding trails. 68 RROSN Vi si on Plan Therefore the open space priority projects addressing these actions are categorized according to the most dominant responses as preservation and trails. Preservation Priority Projects The threat of losing open space because of development was the most important factor to consider for preservation. Other factors closely bunched behind development threatswere the uniqueness of the particular open space areas, if it connects to other features, and if it includes natural habitat. It was also noted that the most visible open space and the easiest to get to should be considered when determining preservation. • The Badger Ridges also know asthe "rattles of the snake" —the snake being Rattlesnake Mountain — scored the highest based on the criteria. These ridges extend southeast from Rattlesnake Mountain r including Red, Candy, Badger, and Little Badger. An — , extension of these rattles also includes the Kennewick ridges stretching to Finley in the east. A e portion of Badger Mountain does have a conservation easement in place. • Amon Basin scored high as well. The established 100 41 acre Amon Creek Natural Preserve isimmediately threatened by development of the remaining acreage in Amon Basin. • Wallula Gap scored very high as a unique national geological feature. The development threat is not known. • River shorelines including the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers were to be preserved and or restored. There was no prioritization for any particular shoreline. • Agricultural landswith an emphasisto preserve the rural qualities of our counties also scored high. • Yakima Bluffs and McDonald Rdge shared the last spot, both have immediate development threats. Trail Priority Projects The highest priority factorsin identifying the most important trail projects are threat of development, connectivity, and unique habitat opportunities according to the public workshop responses. The definition of trail varied but the most consistent response identified un-paved, multi-use, non-motorized soft surfaces. • Amon Creek trail to Rattlesnake Mountain following the ridgelines and shorelines scored the highest. • The Tapteal Greenway Trail connecting Bateman Island to Benton Gty was a close second. • Irrigation canal trail easements scored very high in connectivity in both counties. • Yakima Bluffs scored high by category but was not well known. 69 RROSN Vi si on Ran "if future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles R technology. We must leave them a glimpse ! the world as it was in the beginning, got through Resident •• B. Johnson 70 RRCSi Vision Plan V. Future Needs and Vision for Open Space Linkages and Protection in the Mid-Columbia The Md-Columbia Region stands at a crossroads. On one hand we are blessed with open lands and scenic vistas. On the other we have been successful in maintaining a strong economy while expanding the population base at an exceptional rate. Both contribute to the economic and social vitality of our region, yet how do we balance the two? Without thoughtful planning now, urbanization will continue, historic access may be denied, and regional resources devalued. Without care, an economic resource will be squandered in an environment where all advantages are important. Community leaders have come together to present here a bold vision of how a network of open space and trails across the Md-Columbia could preserve our open space, natural lands, scenic views, and geologic heritage for current and future generations to enjoy. Mare than that, it could also create an economic and community resource to help shape our future. This network is intended to further diversify our economy by attracting new businesses, retaining existing businesses and workers, and increasing tourism. The network will also enhance our quality of life, provide opportunities to improve our health, and be a source of civic pride. The recommendations presented in this chapter are a culmination of a broad public process, which included several workshops and a questionnaire; jurisdictional advisement; and research into numerous other open space plans across the nation. Recommendations are presented on two different levels. The first section discusses recommendationsfor designating new protected open spaces and trail linkages. The recommended areas and trails discussed do not comprise a comprehensive inventory across the Mid-Columbia; other opportunities will certainly come to light asthe vision is implemented. In addition, the recommendations are organized geographically and are not listed in a prioritized order or according to jurisdictional boundaries. The second section providesgeneral policy recommendations. It is important to note that policy recommendations are, indeed, recommendations. They are offered as language to be discussed, amended, adopted, and implemented to fit each jurisdictional need relating to open space. A suggested timeline for implementing policy recommendations is presented in Table 6. Recommendations for Open Space Protection and Trail Linkages 1 , Benton and Franklin Counties Recommendation OS1 . 1: Preserve the rural quality of life that has been the foundation of Benton and Franklin Counties. 71 RROSN Vi si on Ran The history of the kid-Columbia is based on an agricultural life style. The rural way of life can be complementary to open space concepts. In many parts of the Mid-Columbia, open farmland may be the only relief from urban sprawl and development. Development at the southwest corner of 1-82 and Clearwater Ave extension is a clear example of fast- w'r ;r. paced urbanization accompanied by ' ~ `1' '"wto~ . near-immediate elimination of open ' farmland, It is import ant for both Benton and Franklin Countiesto keep the value of rural life in plain view asthey plan for the future. Special tax breaks and incentives on the Federal, State, and County level would help protect our agricultural heritage. Recommendation OS1 .2: Establish trail easements along irrigation canals. Both Benton and Franklin Counties have an abundance of irrigation canals. These canals and their maintenance roads can provide an excellent trail system that would allow for non-motorized recreational use and countywide connectivity. Establishing trail easements and agreementsthat outline trail use, liability, and maintenance would secure hundreds of miles of trails throughout the counties. Counties, working with the irrigation districts, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Cities could work out the agreements and design the enforcement protocols. Seasonal closures may be considered due to agricultural spraying, winter conditions, or other factors. Recommendation OS1 .3: Preserve shorelines alongthe Columbia, Yakima, and Snake Rivers in a natural state whenever possible and restored when the opportunity arises. We are blessed with three major rivers in our area. However, our river shorelines have undergone many changes over the last 60 years. The character of the riparian and shoreline areas has been altered to accommodate lake levels and development. As pressures increase for waterfront development, the guidelines for Shoreline management must be maintained as well as strengthened to enforce protection of this resource. Guidelines should be strengthened to create mitigation for development impacts to the shorelines. Whenever possible, native vegetation should be maintained and invasive vegetation removed. Designated public access points should also be established and maintained along the shorelines. It isvery important that the municipalities, counties, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife all be consistent in their mission and objectivesof protection for these shorelines. 2. Northern Benton County Recommendation OS2. 1: Incorporate properties abandoned by Federal agencies on the Hanford Reservation into the Hanford Reach National Monument and Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. 72 RRCSN Vision Plan In November 1999, the Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan EIS was published. The purpose of the CLUP was to guide the site's uses and f aci I it i es over at least the subsequent 50 years. DOES decision was intended to balance continuing land-use needs with itsdesire to preserve important ecological and cultural values of the site and to allow for economic development in the area. Lands designated in the CLUP as preservation, conservation, and recreation should be transferred to the USFWS as clean-Lip operations are completed and the land is no longer needed for the Site mission. This recommendation is consistent with documentation accompanying the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Monument that USFWSmanage certain Hanford landswhen appropriate cleanup has been completed. 3. Southeast Benton County Recommendation CS3. 1: Preserve the internationally significant Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail sites at WallUla Gap (Figure 7). Wallula Gap is recognized worldwide asthe site of one of the most dramatic geologic events in history. At this site the volume of water released by the Missoula Ice Age Floods reached such tremendous proportions that a hydrologic dam was created, inundating much of the Mid-Columbia with water up to 900 feet deep. The landscape is strewn with glacial erratics rafted hundreds of miles within glacial ice. Flood features unique to this natural phenomenon are found throughout the area. Protection would involve private landowners, State, and Federal entities . as wel I as I ocal j urisdi cti ons. ' Preservation of viewscapes from, and of, WalIula Gap is essential for one to comprehend the magnitude of what happened here. WallUla Gap is a — National Natural Landmark and is one of ►,� the crown jewels on the Ice Age Roods National Geologic Trail. Recommendation CS3.2: Establish a trail that provides the public with access to the heights at Wallula Gap (Figure 6). The viewsfrom the heightsat WallUla Gap provide a complete appreciation for the incredible scale of the Ice Age Floods, Columbia Fiver Basalt volcanism, and tectonic forcesthat shaped thisland. Private land owners, state, federal, and county entities currently control the access to Wallula Gap. The trail would involve a route to the top of the gap, travel acrossthe heights area to a viewing point, and return via a loop. Such a trail is described by Bruce gornstad in hisbook "Cn the Trail of Ice Age Floods." An unimproved road currently connects with an un-official trailhead to accessthe WallUla Gap area. It would also be necessary to establish trailhead parking and insure that there is an easement to connect public roads with the trailhead. 73 6---,W- ;,A Conceptual Priority Preservation Areas East �� r ` ImMir.° A9A : " � .,(SE Benton County Open Space and Trail Recommendation#1) �- C� :L , i J/ K7. ��.St��'j' .;' j .teams •,� {�_ A aw cD I 0 � I � � /sue• �� o' A �� n,mpox yea r+ lei CD C r-r HooverPeaK 0' r Y 1 CD �—. a• E • !Wall ua Gap r :iN � a • aega a s' Pis- 01D O4 0 O a lAles .o*a-wo•u:w,.w're.aGprRaLY Awp.ew.eep.saw wsval aWeCemp.e.ppLrru[fs.e AAru.owr• Amw asda.a.r+.sev..raamu,rre..i.�.penora.omv,yyx.�wT..'e:mte.s.r:trx+r x.m.r.roar�aaaea. � -- . _ <.}ax�rm.erwam.waa-...rnwmoo RROSN Vision Plan Conceptual Wallula Gap Trail Recommendation OS 3.2 �p I t f r r 0.t 4 k � r 1 Legend rranwa Trail 0.25 0.125 0 0.25 M i les }\ t S S 4 Y NTfCT NO Wg44ANiY OF gGC.:4gC1'iTIP SOq%bRU216 open SOeOP�CiworcCer'�opE0 IN6 rn dJ-or Rb;fdV2WN75P60htY AKaaa�xv:v�gnmm ano VgaYJn01]eu]M OfttOeo rpvnpfa•r!]WJrd:oe3rler e3al p,rwc..Fa nore c:orKerio llv ri'dlanir 7f]p6-n Appenva �yi FWufx0o76enron panreroabn otCtl-www oen;moe org Figure B. Conceptual Wall ula Gap Trail. (OS 3.2) 75 RROSN Vi si on Ran 4. Pasco/Franklin County Recommendation OS4. 1: Connect the Columbia Plateau Trail with Sacajawea State Park (Figure 9). The Columbia Plateau State Park Trail has its trailhead just east of Levey Landing Park on the Snake Fiver. Columbia Plateau Trail State Park isa 4, 109-acre, 130-mile-long rail-bed trail that tracesthe 1908 original path of the Spokane, Portland, and Seattle Railroad. Sacajawea State Park is approximately 10 miles downstream. A connective trail would allow for travel from anywhere in Pasco to the Snake Fiver park at Levey Landing and the Columbia Plateau Trailhead. Private land owners, Washington State Parks, Army Corps of Engineers, and Franklin County would work as a team to establish the trail. Recommendation OS4.2: Establish a multi-use trail around Scootney Reservoir (Figure 10). Scootney Reservoir isa Federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) project that offers a good opportunity for trail development. The trail would allow for circumnavigation of the reservoir as an added recreational asset to the Scootney proj ect. It would also provide another stop on the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail giving usersthe opportunity to experience the heart of the "Othello Channels", a sister to the famed " Drumheller Channels", another Ice Age Floods-related National Natural Landmark west of Othello. Franklin County, private landowners, and the BOR Would team on this eff ort. Recommendation OS4.3: Establish permanent access to the Juniper Dunes Natural Area. Establish a trail that connects Juniper Dunes to Smith Canyon (Figure 11). Permanent year-round access to the Juniper Dunes is needed. In addition, Franklin County together with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Natural Resources, the Bureau of Land Management, and private Iandownerswould work to create a connective trail tyingtogetherthe Snake River, the Columbia Plateau Trail, the Northwest Discovery Water Trail, and the Juniper Dunes Natural Area. This would be a multi-use trail with emphasis on equestrian use. Recommendation OS4.4: Establish an interpretive trail at Esquatzel Coulee that tiesin with the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail (Figure 12). Esquatzel Coulee lies about 2 miles northeast of the community of Mesa. It connects to the Coulee Corridor State Scenic By-way and iswithin the Esquatzel Coulee Wildlife area managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife with a designated trailhead for parking nearby. Highway 17, doubling as one leg of the Ice Age Roods National Geologic Trail, isj ust one mile away from the trailhead. Esquatzel Coulee has great exampl es of channeled scabland, dry waterfalls, and mined flood bars formed as a result of the Ice Age Floods. Appropriate interpretive signsand a designated trail would make this one of the intermediate stopson the Ice Age Roods National Geologic Trail between Moses Lake and Pasco, and the Coulee Corridor. 76 _ • 6{V OO�OYft usa-q�0 u o:sws u0��OUiQ�0 oAnppy - � IpYiEtlYY.ftlCl1 YYQI¢M G/�,9_:ifUAIDN dIOILJO,� a90tll1�IFEanDSffO ifU•'#¢llftn0 uD6i 0f,Y JO pf{n M1W PnM OL[tfll Ygbn{tl{Q.00¢�! :l't'.0 a+:taM?AltaYxi,C CFm 9u{tldtla 2•x veaaµe.ttl5 uatlo yap:Dc?a�at,iu1:lJ VIYlJ3v_J A1NVYbvu W'3^.lON � r y— ~ ~i�• sallA9L0 0 9LED9LID 5060 Puaba-1 off- eta •• AF ! A G rp SO uoilepugwwooa�j Beal neeleld eiquun'103-u-eme(eoes RROSN Vi si on Ran Conceptual Scootney Trail --�� - �' "'" :► Recommendation OS 4-2 OF A! .�.. 1 E � •' �1, �r r .a T Legend Scootney Trail a -Rrvate w thD 05 0.25 0 05Nil" r —" •OTCE NOWARRAVIY OF ACCURACY.T eR09. rapers WISP..Vr &,.bpw ItP purposes ONLY ;raaroeprumn map a-e aounno:ee eseu or alto ipon era+r aoarrae ae�nor egai purpore mar msaaeoerrerro^w na nrf MprmAppenn Fop�9PC py betm Oan9ewatpn JE:rAZ-www.eeRmsOAtg _ Figure 10. Conceptual Scootney Trail. (OS4,2) 78 W, AIR A.� Smith Canyon to Juniper Dunes Recommendation OS 4.3 .�.+. - Juniper Dunes CD CO p 0 —ya- C C— CD MW 2 E CD r v Legend t!r Y f } v D.75 0 375 0 0.75 M V 5 y ;., •mot io M-.L W%ARMMY OF AC—IACY.Tne RMM!G RMtnlOW 394M"SwRR M0 COr.IM ma 4f mus;raVa yuryoF:i OKY. •, - �� r raaeo—p%r my ano arose setae useser nrra�qen srm7 am_rtr aou crags pager ramose Garr re<ervo•HO warranrf aapr;nwpp•na Plmeceoo7 Ee:ta^fbnservawn O�'�F-fww eereotmary � 1� Conceptual Esquatzel Coulee Trail -a_-= Recommendation OS 4.4 ca _ CD V ' Tn �F a VJ N s (D Esquatael Couaae Trail D-090Od5 0 0.09MRes 3'tx r •./' . NOT NO&ARRAA' VACCVPACY 7A�ROybab R4en Opr�so Nalwort�VfapaaM dt>D brn4s tre puryossaOKV Ciam'la plvxbn ma72n0 vmla not Oe asA00aRlka W00IbTM f30]MOMIOfh)3i¢IMOM-Fwwor@ Wal Bw•wft Nara"11apfi'bAppl1 k �1y�/ aeouoeaay!trlon Conrs;yam��lu>.i-wrr ee rtuwa org RROSN Vi si on Plan Recommendation OS4.5: Establish a trail from Lyons Ferry State Park to Palouse Falls State Park (Figure 13). Most of the property along the proposed trail is in public ownership. The trail itself would follow the spectacular Palouse River Canyon north to Palouse Falls. The Palouse River Canyon is one of the key features along the Ice Age Roods National Geologic . Trail. The trail would showcase the incredible cataracts (waterfalls) created by the Ice Age Floods that changed the course of the Palouse River, and the early inhabitants of this area at the Marmes Shelter. Historically, this trail has been used unofficially and local landowners have been in support of the idea. 5. South Richland/Vilest Kennewick Recommendation OS5. 1: Preserve an additional 150-acre parcel in the Amon Basin, South Richland as valuable shrub steppe habitat and as a buffer to Amon Creek wetlands (Figure 14). Amon Basin is a unique open space in the Mid-Columbia region. Its wetland, riparian, and shrub steppe habitats in close proximity are a magnet for a diversity of wildlife just five minutesfrom Columbia Center Mall and only minutesfrom central Pasco, Ri chl and, and Kennewi ck. Bei ng surrounded by ever-expandi ng housi ng devel opment s, it has been called the Tri-Cities' Central Park. Indeed, the more the Tri-City area is built out, the greater becomesthe need for such close proximity, low maintenance, low impact recreational natural areas. The Amon Creek Natural Preserve, a narrow corridor comprising nearly 100 acres near Claybell Park, was set aside in 2008 following a grass-roots effort and the cooperation of state, city, neighborhood, and citizen representatives. With help from the Trust for Public Lands, $3 million was raised for Phases 1 and 2 of the Amon Basin Community Project to purchase this land from willing sellers. After the purchase, the properties were donated to the City of Richland with the stipulation that the land be used for conservation purposes. A management agreement was established with the Tapteal Greenway Association to maintain the property. More information can be found on the Tapteal Greenway Association's web site at www.tapteal.org. Acquisition of the parcel of interest isthe primary goal for Phase 3 of the Amon Basin Community Project. Phase 3 landswill increase protection of the Amon Basin, known to be of great importance to migratory and resident bird species and home to threatened and endangered salmon species. The additional parcel isvaluable habitat for a large population of jackrabbits, which are losing habitat acrossthe Tri-Citiesto development. In addition, serenity and the outdoor experience will be preserved for future generations. Phase 3 landsare platted for development, but the ownersare willing to sell to expand the Amon Creek Natural Preserve. 81 RROSN Vi si on PI an 1y Palouse yaks Lyons Ferry-Palouse Falls Trail State Park 1 Recommendation OS 4.5 I _ • ouse River Legen-a 4 Lyons FerryPalou se Falls Tral ?Y. •1 Pr Nice Public -Floads 0.4 0.2 0 0.4 Mlles NOTICE-NONAF6 OF ACOJRACY T11?ROgeam ftAM0041 Space\'Kwon oavebpea iPU map-br IIIATIVII a PHIM I ONLY 1163mnXplir"Inint-0 Miano Ice uW orp"apoitr 3,I affil Seoe33orBjalpurpase `or m0re0etilre-Pr to'M A311int VA59-n.ipper,- PrtoYCeOCT 4Y0�mnseua!bn=tltl-wvrw EKm rDafy , Figure 13. Conceptual Lyons Ferry-Palouse Falls Trail. (OS 4.5) 82 Conceptual Priority Preservation Areas West { Red-Candy-Badger-Little Badger Mt.Amon Basin k+ Recommendation OS 5.1 (� , r'S.•— -� Red emu-tot. b_ ^- ':•��- f h CD Ilk o CD CD 'fib i ..'• .c 't a�wf L •i• _ -r' l> 1 CD .' CD If .-�onn�ow...um - �r< r -.?~ f.' \ �t y�� ••t• f: r , 1 _� t S� '• u, rr\� L 1 Amon Bash •- -- rKmu r`.h-v,,.ar«,r..c.,.. nm..,any.•...,.ae....br.,..,e,,.n,...rr.o..o++t F •;• t•".L': 'J `1 .,� •1° J�0 smruwornaana su.e•rrt<..rco am arrxa+rau•o,e;a zxre meson dann.�o ro.a w+ry�ah•noor.or �• - mki +� 1� RROSN Vi si on Ran Recommendation OS5.2: Establish trails connecting Amon Creek Natural Preserve with Little Badger Mountain and the Chamna Natural Preserve (Figure 16). Buildingthese trails would complete an important link between the Badger Ridgesand the Yakima and Columbia Rivers. Amon Creek Natural Preserve in South Richland already offers an established trail system and the Amon Creek corridor is a natural connector between the river and the ridges. The connection with the Chamna '''' = '• ��" �"'=:' Natural Preserve would iovide an p intersection with the Sacagawea Heritage Trail, the Tapteal Greenway Trail, and City of Richland trails along the Columbia River. The connection with Little Badger might passthrough Rancho Reata. Private landowners, city, state, and �r federal entitieswould be involved in completing this link. 6. Badger Ridges Recommendation OS6. 1: Protect landscapes from visual scarring or obstruction (Figure 16). With a few exceptions, the Badger Ridgesf Horse Heaven Hillsbackdrop gracingthe Mid-Columbia isrelatively unscarred and providesa panoramicview that isenjoyed by all residents and visitors to the region. Member entities are encouraged to work together to prevent the visual scarring, obstruction, or obscuring of the views of the Badger Ridges" Horse Heaven Hills. Their cultural and geological significance enhances the entire value of the region and provides a visual brand for the communities. Further recommendations are identified in the Policy Recommendations section. Recommendation OS6.2: Establish a connective trail system that linksthe Badger Ridges (Figure 17). This segment of the Ridgesto Rivers Trail would be a maj or tourist draw and source of resident pride and enjoyment if it connects the major ridges of the Md-Columbia. In order to complete this trail, all unprecedented unprecedented cooperative effort between state, federal, and local jurisdictions, private landowners, and non-profits is needed to create the connectivity and establish a working entity that : . maintains and managesthe Ridgesto Fivers Trail. The track record of three local non-profits, Friends of Badger Mountain, the Tapt eal Gr eenway Association, and the Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society, demonstratesthe capability of area volunteer groupsto maintain and manage trails and open spaces at low cost to j urisdictions. 84 Badger tuft Conceptual Badger-Little Badger Mt.-Amon Basin-Chamna Natural Preserve Trail 71 v Recommendation OS 5.2 CAI y e E -S IL E ro- CL rL 00 CD A .. Badge.ML t`' . 46, CD a E• 7,' 'Ba51n .i Legend -b3:s 1 • "i �' � w 4. Badger.ArnonChamna Trail •" cn 1 �9 1 YYGLGfj. N0.3 0.15 J� 0.3 hiiles[ ` ••• F� ,� T • , ty �/ tlti.za_ j t.�ek' `. p Nona;NGnA+ W4. 0•AGC.JrFACY Tn!nr.7e.n?uea open Space NMwOR oeneOPao Ub maPbra,,is;2Ve WAD=32ti OAly ekamnaPrrkb�mep an0 srou'gnel e•..w or rerc.,po�':r;.aocrrxe oaro.F¢I pi nose •w more de'a�reerlo 1b ri'aronr,AODS'.�APD:-6 '� -1� • +� P''CUC W Betrd oanmabn DSW-vww rertorm x2 t. . �►R �' Conceptual Priority Preservation Areas East and West " r Recommendation OS 6.1 cagw�r. wcnlu+oJ�, a �` '� Lialt�astyV Mt ',k+i" .► ��f `` Amon Bain �- •.. "•, T17rn i0lf HIII Y" KYnrMV" � II 3g1, #,s Jump OK Jai �^ M 0- fit att a' (D Howes Pwk .i �. ° 4 ,. rrMulaGap IMAM, - - 71 } ,gr�wrtnrr.Wn�neeF.w aewoee•a.e,ax.wavr..•r.•.x..+n e..rvnewnnx.;xr l�l.%Qpl.dc.a••WVS.tlnlGe vnel adl tlit C.A.�w:a.ReaUOa.eaiWw-baasaL.11+e.,pyy¢+y xy�e nA�s19 1-, I M'Xxm mnm.mn Cainv•vv�n•smnry a % Conceptual Badger Ridges Trail-Badger Candy-Red Mt. Recommendation OS 6.2 m L_ t y 4 V [ .a IL phi Candy M[. ; ' L ��:k,�IP Aa / tCL At.� 00 /y± is r••�r r. .1'� i �+� • CL er Al Legend Badger WaOO � ' aeapv M--UnR1 UI Tree _ _ � ••' _. O �arvau CA � �aroap aauua�rs+sueaa I 0.5 D.25 0.5 Miles ---� nonce rOWARRM"VACCLAAClr me eogee weweraopen soave aa.orc aroenpeolns mlpar macraeaepu rporeaoKr a 4a oorc pj%onn mapa"d Mon noloe vW ormNO Won%,r MY aoovM&xaJoregai WrpTk brnOn!Oeaare•VIO'tip•�aaBnY Wpb-nA7oenOtt o ee.�e q e.Km Dance aw,C w,i..we eatim m o y — — _ j� RROSN Vi si on Ran Recommendation OS6.3: Establish a connective trail loop between the South Kennewick ridges and the existing " State Patrol" trails (Figure 18). The "State Patrol" trails are an established network of hiking and mountain biking trailslocated in South Kennewick near the WSP office off of highway 395. The South Kennewick ridges, including Jump Off Joe have been identified as Priority Preservation areas in the RROSN vision plan. The connective loop trail follows the natural slope drainagesof these ridges and provides a recreational and viewscape opportunity with easy accessfrom any point in South Kennewick. 7. Benton City & West Richland Recommendation OS7. 1: Preserve McDonald Ridge as Natural Open Space designated as a valuable geological site and passive recreation area (Figure 19). McDonald Ridge is located on the Lewis and Clark Ranch northeast of Benton City and west of West Richland. The prominence of the ridge is remarkable from the Yakima River at its base. At the top are spectacular views of Red Mountain to the south, Rattlesnake Mountain to - the west, and the Yakima River far below. The LL �► '� ridge-top is littered with glacial erraticsIeft by the Missoula floods and excellent examples of - *:- ancient basalt flows are found there. McDonald Ridge has excellent shrub steppe habitat and also has a high population of burrowing owls, which are losing habitat locally and across east ern Washington. There is currently a plan to develop high-end homes on the ridge and establish a gated community to the east of the ridge. Recommendation OS7.2: Maintain public ownership and access near the toe of Red Mountain. The southeast flank of Red Mountain still has some public ground owned by state and federal agencies. These properties allow for public access to some of the areas on and around Red Mountain. The springtime bloom of wildflowers in this public area is particularly spectacular. There are also several siteswith glacial erraticsfrom the Missoula floods, in particular on the publicflank of Red Mountain. This area is also a key connection within the proposed Ridgesto Rivers Trail system. Recommendation OS7.3: Maintain public ownership and public accessto the Badger Slope area to establish the Horse Heaven Hills Preserve (Figure 20). The US Bureau of Land Management manages Badger Slope, located south of Benton City near McBee Grade. It is composed of dominant - - mountains and spectacular features related to - the Ice Age Roods. The proximity to Interstate 82 lends itself to easy public accessto the preserve and providesthe potential for 88 � `,��' Conceptual State Patrol-Jump Off Joe Trail (D ,�/ Connective Loop and Preservation Area ' PD Xenneuri&a Sv � (D fl 00 0 (D Q 3. Ct' E (D h ! S 0� 1-ma.,Jump Off Joe svn Pdr9I bmpoBJWTrAI1 0 .1. 1��yy�ll it P,p , 1 Pit t P1pbp 4307`ARdb I (D 1 0.5 0.25 0 45 Miles d° (0 NOTG°_'NO wARRAMYOFAGCU CY RIQ R�QESS RYEROPa�$,d�\fSwOK avQ bpBO tN6 QI ip DflltilllLQ pufpJ6QSOKY! �� - - ■batn'ixgly stn map and s' ,W nd:be uaeddvr cLyonbS yI�rZ d IaBnl eyai pure— forenom dean reerla' Aam,y wepr"A—Rdb '�_ Pn�djMabq Conceptual McDonald Ridge Trail Recommendation OS 7.1 . � a (D n c Q ' C].. (Q .- (D _ Az S2. �. V _ s T fientd �rry o 'A, �.. 0.3 0.15 —_ 0.3MIles _�.. - '�(�,•. NOTICE.NOW RR. -rYOFACC�ACY T.r IVgwsRrenOpen Spax Newon oeveopeOlNS m�lOroNS;a[9epY fppsxaONLY GI, ��' •�1.,,p t ka wnceptvkbn nap antl ctoutl npl b>�se]orrelkd�pon b�aiy aavrs?d¢lapprlgal puroota.Iamore Ee>v %b M—! PfWu OedGy 9E110n COne PfMn:WU•w,#P Oe'AOn COO f Conceptual McBee Grade Trail - " ► . ate Recommendation OS 7.3 *Kb� m N • ` CL ,v H Q7 p1 Y � Badger Slope - 5 (Horse Heaven Hills Preserve) W Legend wmb ��TT7 eW:a�ma.naa 0.2 �0.2 0.1 0 Miles I� ISQ. to NOTE:N0#A-gA.rYOFAC=AACY.' a Reyes b rwem Open Yam Nawrn aeveopec:na my brm�suacve pv ryoses OraY Ika rorceplvkbn mao and s'oytlns:be yyy or relk0agon b:anY aaJ ray yeb Aar Egal qurpore.Fornore deFaWrE�lo"N�Vh raey A6pC hAPDande rm Pf00JOP00y 8Ef1U1 COnEen2Opn D6M0.-W WW OP710'�OOOrq „_ �� RROSN Vi si on Ran interpretive expansion of the Ice Age Flood National Geologic Trail. The recent non- motorized use designation of the McBee Grade area has increased public hiking and equestrian use. Recommendation OS7.4: Establish a ridgeline trail along the crest of the Horse Heaven Hills. Formalize a new trail along the ridgeline of the Horse Heaven Hills extending from Webber = $ Canyon in the east to the Horse Heaven Vista 40-park site near Rosser in the west. Much of ,. a ,7 4 the trail already exists in ad-hoc form, and while some private land is involved, about 70% of the property is in public ownership already (USBLM and WDFW). Trail heads suitable for �. horse trailer parking could be established at the intersections with Webber Canyon Road, McBee Ciade, and Horse Heaven Vista (SR 221). An existing hikingtraiI from the Mona area, up the face of the hills, already intersects with the new trail route. Outstanding views of the Yakima Valley, Cascade peaks, and Rattlesnake Mountain would complement the springtime wildflower blooms. 8. Richland & the Lower Yakima River Corridor Recommendation OS6. 1: Establish a connective trail between W.E. Johnson Park and Horn Rapids County Park (Figure 21). Thistrail segment is an important connector along the Tapteal G'eenway. The Tapteal G-eenway is a system of trails, trailheads, and parks that connect Benton City with Bateman Island and Columbia Point. The completion of this segment of the Tapteal Greenway would complete more than one-half of the Tapteal trail system. i ,; ; W.E. Johnson Park is a naturalf developed open . space park located in western Richland near SR 240 (Bypass Highway). Currently, connecting -1 trailsstretch from Bateman Island at the - mouth of the Yakima River to a terminus at the slr` north gate of W.E. Johnson Park. AtraiI connecting W.E. Johnson Park with Horn Rapids = :a Park is in the planning stage at this time. Private land owners, City of Richland, and Benton County have been involved in early discussions relating to trail location. Recommendation OS8.2: Establish a connective trail between Benton City and Horn Rapids Park (Figure 22). Benton City has already established that use of the Mona Irrigation District pressurized irrigation easement as a trail is a significant benefit to the entire community. To 92 RROSN Vision Plan Hem RsoftPark � ConceptualTapteal (Greenway) Trail Recommendation OS 8.1 •��+� lien Rapids ORV Park r �v A'I . tTMn 8rb9zaRoea � � . L Legend Tapte-al Trail ^ �. F+— a. - - . wcrc �� ;' w =t Nt� �,RL 0.5 0.25 0 0,5 riles NEJ Mark / - ' ,ter` - -- •^-=rte �-.__. -! "`, 'y-� {�� "OTC M:NDriAA"NW OF ACCURACY T e Rptjee n Ran?600en Space+�StwoYC..Op. nK map Ar U4—ta pu ro—ONLY. Ana 0 R;vv"nmmanpbMulpnot"uwolr omponOrmya--,-tmoregaipurpow For moR ceOMMelto"NO NarH�t(4kps'hAppl�Al - yyr am 4by sera,�nptruaapn parr-rWW bentmm-oy - '4 Figure 21 . Conceptual Tapteal Greenway Trail. (OS 8.1) 93 RROSN Vi si on Ran Pay Rai - Conceptual Benton City-Horn Rapids Park- Park Ridge-Rattlesnake Slope Trail Recommendation OS 8.2 Rattlesnake slope ?� Ta G ♦ �. i I �s McDonald Ridge v.NI, j 46 - GiOO! West Ridhlartd Red ht. J � + r IWO (A 1 �erltbttr 'J Candy M[ Rthla s b Badger Mt. Legend 0.6 0.3 0 0.61diles HO'(� ATr OFACC�GACY Te ftagesd SVeb Open Syaa ewon ceue ngea nc map ar�sreye puryoe ONLY iK7W`Y.pIY61illlip 3l{51'0.p npC p.L629 pf ROEC IQCfi(pf 71'j 30.12:0 D:811pf12�d1p411p9b: �pf�IpP C4LalR @fA Tb WdifdRV Md pfi'►iARptf� Y i PIOOUYO D/4Db1100lISEKR IYi JVf II'..'.-.•w DA1CP0p 01� all Figure 22. Conceptual Benton City-Horn Rapids Park-McDonald Ridge-Rattlesnake Slope Trail. (OS8.2) 94 RROSN Vision Plan continue that same effort heading north and connecting through private, state, and county lands, finishing at Horn Rapids Park would complete the Tapteal Greenway trail. Coupled with the W.E. Johnson Park to Horn Rapids Park connection, an approximately 28-mile trail corridor would follow the lower Yakima River area, providing abundant regional opportunities for recreation and education. Recommendation OS8.3: Develop a Water Trail followingthe Lower Yakima River and complimenting the Tapteal Greenway Trail. A successful water trail provides convenient access sites, rest areas, interpretive opportunities, and ideally connectswith other bodies of water. The Lower Yakima River has tremendous rustic appeal for small watercraft travel and presents an excellent opportunity for establishment of a new water trail in the area. A Water Trail along the lower Yakima Fiver to the mouth at Columbia Point and through the delta to Bateman Island would capitalize on existing and planned facilities. Five small-craft access sites have been installed or improved along the river, a result of cooperation between Benton City, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Rchland, the Rchland Rod and Gun Club, Benton County, and the Tapteal Greenway Association. One more site is proposed at Columbia Point just east of the SR 240 bridge near the mouth of the Yakima River and one more is in the concept stage between Benton City and Horn Rapids County Park. A Tapteal Water Trail would connect to other regional water trails. The r' Northwest Discovery Water Trail links the Clearwater River in Idaho, the Shake River in Idaho and Washington, and the �,� �+ti.. - � c:�-e►�,_ _ Columbia Rver in both Washington and Oregon. It passesthrough the Tri-City .. area at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers with a spur to Bateman Island. The Greater Columbia Water Trail will be a 500+ mile trail network along the Columbia Rver watershed - from the Canadian border through the Hanford Reach, joining the Northwest Discovery Water Trail at Bateman Island. By completingthe Tapteal Water Trail, our local water trail network would become an extension of these nationally known trails, making the Tri-Gtes a connective destination on trail maps. Recommendation OS8.4: Preserve the Yakima Bluffs as a geological asset and educational open space site (Figure 23). Yakima Bluffs is located in the City View business complex in southwest Richland in an area of rapidly increasing urban development with a combination of retail and commercial businesses and family residences. The approximately 8-acre undeveloped 95 r _ — -'rs �l�..rt4 ,.ems..+ :�_.• a .. '� �' �� Conceptual Priority Preservation Areas Yakima Bluffs Recommendation QS 8.4 Alt IL CID CQ �` r �b t ..� by �' ►'. ' r"' �*'2 4+?t.� "MS-+c+�.i 7�li�:�� � ` ��,y -�` t a f J � I?-ilk ��' �: `y.'.,, . 1 r/, c?r �� `�YJ�j:� �i�+.��rT 1�'`'�=� _., • � ,�� nd AP Nc �r it YU to � Yakima ° •��� 4 :� ��r�„ e_' • Bluffs ,� n -v r�tr riurr ~+ f• (fi t�Ml R�ir719. 00 Legend 4 xx; -J e� ?ti42 ba!N,n:eas , , r • ,f 0.13.050 0.1 Miles ''If' rr \,Zg2 �_ �• - wTCE.NOA-Ai:Al1YOCACCJkA-Th.:e;M 0RVINC10111S.Iee N"w auee#@dVM e;LrtsVMV4 Ru%ug ONLY IIe9 tV-,Np,.WAM map enG ewwooetoe UM Cr reRO tppn%rcl avirime ce670r eqA WryOK.`OrMOre:';;gu f!CrtOU Mfgnff Vi0VrAPPVQU- , PROUP:eOY eeKal CQnypy.pJn.7G{IMt.-+••ammm O,9 RROSN Vi si on Plan parcel at the northeastern end of the City View area has potential for environmental education and outdoor recreation that is compatible with preserving the land as natural open space. The Yakima Bluffshave been identified asprovidingthe best local nearly complete record of 6.5 million year old geologic depositsfrom cataclysmic lava flowsto 12,000 year old Ice Age floods. Recommendation OS8.5: Establish an Open Space designation on the Central Pre- Mix and Eucon Corporation gravel pitsiponds properties near the mouth of the Yakima River. The property in question islocated near the SR240 bridge adjacent to the Yakima River in Richland. Gravel mining has created large pits below the water table, requiring pumping to reduce the water level in the pits. Asthe gravel runs out, the miningwill terminate and the property will be subject to different development. The new development should focus around the designation as an open space. It is recommended that the pumping activity stop and the pits be allowed to become ponds. Wetland and riparian habitat could then be enhanced creating an open space with passive recreational value and excellent public access. The proximity of the Chamna Natural Preserve to this property provides a convenient corridor to expand the diversity of the entire area. Recommendation OS8.6: Set aside the area known as Columbia Point South, Richland as Natural Open Space not subject to future development. Located on the south side of Interstate 182 near the Columbia River Bridge, thisparcel buffers, and helps to protect, the 813-acre Yakima Delta Habitat Management Unit (HMU), managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The HMU contains a great diversity of habitat and wildlife, including resident and migratory birds, mule deer, and other animal species. The adjacent Columbia and Yakima Rivers support salmon and other fish passage. Historic use of the Columbia Point South area includes Native American cultural sites aswell as early settlement locations. The cultural value is significant enough that the site is eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Places. Open Space and Trail Recommendation Summary The recommendations discussed above combine to form a network of trails and open spaces across the Mid-Columbia. Trails are connected where possible to form an extensive Ridges to Rivers trails system (Figure 24 and Figure 25). Isolated trails are interesting in their own right and offer the user beautiful landscapes and rewarding outdoor experiences. The maps on the following pages give an overview of trail locations and connectivity. 0�7 - 97 RROSN Vi si on Ran Conceptual Ridges to Rivers Trails dw Ill I f t L tapeai Greenway ` 1J it OF • �'�' �1 Ta Llrai tech.e�� � �T , fllt' � ' �• "�1` Sac ajan•ea Horse Heaven CCadger-y HIIIS Preserve Red _ 1 -- _• * - -_ eadger- •M�tl ,a Amdn- . cremre 1 i ' Jump Off Joe- - n` .- State Patrol - a,�nyy i �n[ L Wallula Gel�'` A �f 'his Lacrand •i ' w �� • l jl� � `f '',ar .:r. � � .,r"--� r .fir �� �+ •� '��_ �� �non.nvsno•.mw.ey ne nopesonuerccx+y.a.rro.rcyeyN.e.nwer.uea..Mp c.botir _L� w.r.�..ew.e.e.m .r.eD.....y.—•...o....�.w..• n.....o. ,.. yrn,.Hrs s'R 7 ` R0.ve01Y a.+5nri�o+0l�a-yrYa.yMnO.p % ..r Figure 24, Conceptual Ridgesto Rivers Trails, 98 RROSN Vi si on Plan Conceptual Ridges to Rivers Loop Connective Trails and Corridors eB' � 4! Ne s �`6 Cep ... •�re \ 7Pw D 7 e� 3 Legend l! Public 1 0.5 0 1ldiles N/t }" E3a .xC• \OT(�' �QriAAMRiY ACCURACY IT?xf[]eEb AY2R00%n�iOF�E!Malr aevEOPm'nK ntap A'lo'f&Ya wropEeE OILY raaan%ep!rann map ana YOuranalae-rm or resa ipan'raiy a amr&ea2Iaregal purpose For are 0:21 reerro'10 waranii Naps nAppenet PRaaRaby Serlm Cbnaervalbn 7K:rki-www 2^-mmny - _ —_ — - — Figure 25. Conceptual Fudges to Ewers Loop Trail. 99 RROSN Vi si on Ran General Policy Recommendations for the Mid-Columbia 1 . Definition and Inventory Recommendations Recommendation G1 . 1 : Benton and Franklin County, the cities of Benton City, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland adopt a common definition of open space consistent with the Ridgesto Rivers Open Space Network vision. Currently there is no common definition of open space among l Mid-COlumbia jurisdictions making it very difficult to plan on a regional basis. �. Recommendation G1 .2: The jurisdictions of the Mid-Columbia make every effort to create a common database of maps to expedite regional planning. Conversing electronically with maps is very important to any trail and open space pre-planning efforts. A universal database f�` allows for more expeditious meetings and establishes a common language, creating a regional communication tool essential for ` informed land use decisions. Recommendation G1 .3: Cooperatively develop and maintain an inventory of regional open space resources. An early action item for RROSN isto implement a detailed open space inventory and assessment program for the Paid-Columbia Region. The inventory and assessment would identify, by parcel, current and future open space resources, including but not limited to hillsides, public lands, acquisition properties, trail corridors, habitat areas, and ridgelines. In cooperation with the local jurisdictions, the RRCSN would utilize Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to accurately examine current open space resources. The inventory would target landsthat j urisdictions and RROSN agree should be conserved as part of the regional open space framework. RROSN member communities would also pool ,. resources and work together to complete a GIS-based inventory and assessment of existing open space resources '- throughout the Mid-Columbia. Recommendation G1 .4: Make a consistently strong effort at the jurisdictional level to preserve priority open space. Priority preservation areaswere identified through the public workshop process that formsthe foundation of this Vision Plan. These areasare shown in maps appearing earlier inthischapter. Partnerships with other communities, community groups, and individuals should be explored to assist in preserving these areas. 100 RROSN Vi si on Plan 2. Communication/Organizational Recommendations Recommendation G2. 1 : An institutionalized Jurisdictional Council (JC) is established to maintain a direct communication link between the County Commissioners, the City Councils, and the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network. Regional planning can only be successful if all of the entities involved in the planning are talking with each other. The Rdgesto Rivers Open Space Network has evolved into a non-profit entity of its own while maintaining its mission for regional open space planning. The RROSN will work with the elected officials on the JCto help daft any planning efforts. The JCwiII report the planning progress to their constituents and colleagues and advise the RROSN as per policy and regulations. Recommendation G2.2: Participating entities inform each other of any planned or proposed projects—Public or private —that may impact the Open Space Network and Pursue all available optionsto avoid or mitigate loss of open space and trail resources. Since the Open Space Network provides regional benefits, it is recommended that j urisdictions inform each other and the Ridgesto Rivers Open Space Network steering committee of possible projects, potential impacts to this resource, and potential opportunitiesto improve connectivity. An interagency agreement would formalize the regional planning process and ensure the discussion of all proj ects—public and private-4hat impact open space and trail components. 3. Ownership Recommendations Recommendation G3. 1 : Define ownership and maintenance of preserved open space in development areas. Optionsfor ownership and maintenance include: e � 1. Owned and maintained by the homeowners association 2. Combined with preserved open space lands held by any neighboring homeowners association and managed jointly 3. Dedicated or sold to the jurisdiction 4. Dedicated or sold to an organization to be held as ' permanent open space` ry 5. Other open space preservation strategies under sole or j of nt ownership approved by the jurisdiction. Recommendation G3.2: Identify as a regional open space resource any city, county, state, or federal property designated for abandonment, surplus, or zone change. Make every effort to secure those properties that have open space values and trail potential. As our region evolves, it is very feasible that parks, refuges, and large tracts of federal property may be surpl used for budgetary needs or redefined under a new land use 101 RROSN Vi si on Ran category. When those scenarios arise, open space preservation should be part of the balanced approach establishing community interest in those properties, Recommendation G3.3: Establish a regional open space stewardship program. In pursuit of the essential components of regional open space, the partners conduct a needs assessment of each open space resource to understand the ecosystem and intended uses. Partners determine appropriate public access and use, develop a hazards management plan, define a conservation and/ or restoration program, and design an appropriate monitoring and enforcement program. The RROSN may want to consider establishing a Conservation Youth Carps as well as an Open Space Stewards program. 4. Regional Trails Recommendations Recommendation G4. 1 : Identify a lead agency or entity to track the completion of the Regional Trails Plan. While some segments of the Ridgesto Rivers Trail System are complete, the existing system isdisconnected and haslarge gaps. A tracking effort is needed to initiate the mapping of planned, existing, and funded regional trails. It is recommended that this effort be undertaken by a lead agency or entity made up of RROSN participants. In addition, through the tracking of completed segments of the regional trails plan, the information may be utilized to generate public outreach materials and maps. The Tri-Gty Visitor and Convention Bureau may be a logical choice to generate these materials. Recommendation G4.2: Develop a regional trails design manual that includes operations and maintenance requirements. In order to achieve consistent design and maintenance '' standardsacrossjurisdictional boundaries, a Regional Trails design manual would be valuable. The manual would provide guidance regarding trail types, cross-sections, surface ' ' materials, signage, maintenance protocols, and other f act ors }#`' to promote a safe, durable, attractive, and cost-effectivey regional trail system with consistent standards of design, operations, and maintenance. Recommendation G4.3: Develop a regional trails plan implementation phasing schedule for each jurisdiction. This isan important next stepthat includesboth region-wide cooperation and local jurisdictional initiative. Thiseffort will highlight potential opportunitiesto expedite certain trail connections that cross entity boundaries. 102 RROSN Vision Plan 5. Access Recommendations Recommendation G5. 1 : Provide access, where appropriate, for compatible forms of outdoor recreation. Consider allowing for various forms of non-motorized recreation, such as hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian uses. Protect historic access points. Ensure recreation is compatible with habitat and wildlife considerations. In order to provide access, member entitieswork with federal and state agencies, and other landowners to determine the feasibility of access. Participation and cooperation with user groups, including equestrian, hiking, and mountain biking organizations, would be enlisted. 6. Funding Recommendations Recommendation G6. 1 : Actively pursue funding of open space and trail proj ects. Consider nominating projects annually for funding asjoint projects. Pursue fundingfor acquisition and preservation of open space resources. 9.Abmittal of joint applications is - encouraged. Partnering with other jurisdictions and the RROSN Board could increase the likelihood of success. Make`= certain that trails and open space proj ects appear in recreation and comprehensive plansto ensure eligibility for funding from state and federal sources. Recommendation G6.2: Broaden funding for open space conservation and operations and maintenance (0&M). Local communities do not currently provide dedicated funding for open space conservation. This situation can be improved by pursuing stable and recurring sources of revenue for open space conservation, protection, acquisition, recreational access, and operati oils and maintenance. These funds could be established in such a manner that they can be quickly accessed for conservation purposes to assure expedited implementation. In addition, funding sourcesfor operations and maintenance should be considered. It should be noted that the 0&Mcostsfor natural open space are significantly lessthan for active parks, ranging from a nominal amount to several hundred dollars per acre versus several thousand dollars per acre for landscaped active park sites. In addition, volunteer groups have demonstrated their willingnessto maintain trails and open space at minimal cost to local citizens. 7. Federal Notification Recommendations Recommendation G7. 1 : Coordinate with federal agencies. An important step for the RROSN Board to accomplish is to work with federal land management agencies to clearly articulate the importance of this regional open space vision •-•r : ` i-ti A plan. The Code of Federal Register requires federal agenciesto respect the autonomy of local communities, while at the same time working with Iocal community partners 103 RROSN Vi si on Ran to implement federal land management policies, programs, and activities. By adopting the RROSN vision, communities in the Mid-Columbia will provide the federal government with a clear, unequivocal intent to protect open space, including components featured inthisplan. w Recommendation G7.2: Identify and protect regional open space resources prior to land auctions. It is recommended that entities identify and protect open space resources in advance of, or in conj unction with, development. , Potential methods of preservation may include the pursuit of Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) leases, rights-of-way, or land use plan changes that designate the resources as open space. It would be beneficial for RROSN participating entitiesto initiate discussions with federal and state agencies regarding other methodsthat may be available to protect open space through the land auction process. By protecting regional open space resources in advance of auction, opportunities will not be lost through development. S. Best Practicesfor Development Recommendations Recommendation G8. 1 : Each county and city of the Mid-Columbia Region adopt a best practices development document. The purpose of such a document is to implement residential subdivision density and design elements that promote trail continuity and preservation of contiguous areas of open space that contain important and significant natural and cultural resource values. Examples of design elements could include clustered development pockets; a density bonusformula; linked open space areas; trail access; road accessto prevent land-locked parcels; and minimum grading and cut and fill. The result could be Best Practices ' , �' M Development documents applicable in Benton and Franklin t Counties as well as the cities of the Mid-Columbia region. 9. RROSN Status and Update Process Recommendations Recommendation G9. 1 : Establish performance measures and inform the RROSN Board of annual progress. Using the timetable presented in Table 6 as a guide for tracking progress, participating entities provide an annual update to the RROSN Board regarding the status of the plan implementation activities. In addition, the RROSN participating entities establish performance measures (i.e. number of regional open space acresprotected, number of miles of trails completed) to track accomplishments and identify areas for improvement. Recommendation G9.2: Update the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision in 5 years, expanding the plan boundary to include other areas. 104 RROSN Vi si on Plan It is recommended that the Open Space Network Vision be updated every 5 years. The scope of the current planning effort was limited to Benton and Franklin Counties within the immediate Tri-Cities area, West Richland, and Benton City. Planning could be expanded to include other areas, such as Prosser. 10. Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Adjustment Recommendations Recommendation G10. 1: The cities and counties of the Mid-Columbia region strengthen their comprehensive plan discussion of Natural Open Space. The Natural Open Space discussion in jurisdiction comprehensive plans could be strengthened by using theTw. $ : RROSN vision and re commendat ions t o supplement language used to identify and regulate uses of Natural Open Space. Recommendation G10.2: Jurisdictions update their parks and comprehensive plansto include trail and open space projects included in this vision document. _ Obtaining federal and state funding usually requires that the proj ects be described in official planning documents. 11 . Contain Development Sprawl Recommendation G11. 1: Direct development to the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and work with the State and Counties to limit urban-type development outside the U GA. A principal goal of the State Growth Management Act isto protect undeveloped land for agriculture, natural resources, and natural habitat. This isdone by limiting urban development to established growth areas which are only large enough to accommodate projected growth. Outside of the Urban Growth Ai-eas, countiesare limited on the type of development that can occur. While farm housing is clearly allowed outside of UGAs, some countieshave pushed the envelope and allow subdivisionswith half acre lots. Badger Canyon is an example of this large lot suburban development type. While desirable to many home buyerswho wish to live on the urban fringe, this development practice leadsto sprawl and consumes large tracts of agricultural and natural land. Recommendation G11.2: Encourage jurisdictionsto provide incentivesfor in-fill development. The more development that can be accommodated within the existing urban fabric, the lessundeveloped land will be needed to support growth. Mare compact development hasmany other social and environmental advantagesand isthe foundation of the Smart Growth movement. Incentives can promote the redevelopment of older industrial, commercial, or residential areas and revitalization of the city centers. 105 RROSN Vi si on Ran Table 6. Suggested Timeline for Implementation of Policy Recommendations. Recommendation Timing (Years) Implementation Lead 0-2 2-3 3-5 1. Definition and Inventory Recommendations G1.1: Benton and Franklin County, X RRCSN-Jurisdictions the cities of Benton City, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland adopt a common definition of open space consistent with the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision. X Jurisdictions G1.2: The jurisdictions of the Md- Columbia make every effort to create a common database of maps to expedite regional planning. G1.3: Cooperatively develop and X RROSN-Jurisdictions maintain an inventory of regional open space resources. X X X Jurisdictions G1.4: Make a consistently strong effort at the jurisdictional level to preserve priority open space. 2. Communication/Organizational Recommendations G2.1: An i ns4 it ut i onal i zed X RROSN-Jurisdictions Jurisdictional Council (JC) is established to maintain a direct communication link between the County Commissioners, the City Councils, and the Ridgesto Fivers Open Space Network. G2.2: Participating entities inform X X X Jurisdictions each other of any planned or proposed projects—public or private —that may impact the Open Space Network and pursue all available options to avoid or mitigate loss of open space and trail resources. 106 RROSN Vision Plan Table 6. Suggested Timeline for Implementation of Policy Recommendations (cont'd). Recommendation Timing (Years) Implementation Lead 0-2 2-3 3-5 3. Ownership Recommendations G3. 1: Define ownership and X Jurisdictions maintenance of preserved open space in development areas. X X I X RROSN-Jurisdictions G3.2: Identify as a regional open space resource any city, county, state, or federal property designated for abandonment, surplus, or zone change. Make every effort to secure those properties that have open space values and trail potential. G3.3: Establish a regional open X RROSN space stewardship program. 4. Regional Trails Recommendations G4.1: Identify a lead agency or X RROSN entity to track the completion of the Regional Trails Plan. G4.2: Develop a regional trails X RROSN design manual that includes O&M requirements. G4.3: Develop a regional trailsplan X Jurisdictions implementation phasing schedule for each jurisdiction. 5. Access Recommendations G5.1: Provide access, where X X X RR06N-Jurisdictions appropriate, for compatible forms of outdoor recreation. 107 RROSN Vi si on Ran Table 6. Suggested Timeline for Implementation of Policy Recommendations (cont'd). Recommendation Timing (Years) Implementation Lead 0-2 2-3 3-5 6. Funding Recommendations G6. 1: Actively pursue funding of X RROSN-Jurisdictions open space and trail projects. Consider nominating projects annually for funding asj oint proj ects. G6.2: Broaden funding for open X Jurisdictions space conservation and O&M. 7. Federal Notification Recommendations G7.1: Coordinate with federal X Jurisdictions agencies. G7.2: Identify and protect regional X X RROSN open space resources prior to land auctions. S. Best Practicesfor Development Recommendations G8. 1: Each county and city of the X Jurisdictions Mid-Columbia Region adopt a best practices development document. 9. RROSN Status and Update Process Recommendations G9. 1: Establish performance X X X RROSN measures and inform the RROSN Board of annual progress. G9.2: Update the Ridgesto Rivers X RROSN Open Space Network Vision in 5 years, expanding the plan boundary to include other areas. 108 RROSN Vision Plan Table 6. Suggested Timeline for Implementation of Policy Recommendations (cont'd). Timing (Years) Recommendation 0-2 1 2 Implementation Lead -3 3-5 10. Comprehensive Plan and Ctrdinance Adjustment Recommendations X JUI-MiCtlOnS G10.1: The cities and counties of the Md-Columbia region strengthen their comprehensive plan discussion of Natural Open Space. G10.2: Jurisdictions update their Y, Jurisdictions parks and comprehensive plans to include trail and open space proj ect s included in this vision document 11. Contain Development Sprawl G11.1: Direct development to the X X X Jurisdictions Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and work with the State and Countiesto limit urban-type development outside the UGA G10.3: Encourage j uri sdicti ons t o X X X Jurisdictions provide incentivesfor in-fill development 109 RROSN Vi si on Ran C' "Never measure the height of a mountain until you have reached the top. Then you will see how low It was" - Dag Hammarskj old 110 RROSN Vi si on Plan VI . Plan Implementation Implementation of the Fudges to Ewers Open Space Network Vision Plan will require the steadfast commitment and cooperation of the RROSN Board of Directors, RROSN Steering Committee, RROSN volunteers, j urisdiction leadership and staff, and the Jurisdictional Council. Complete implementation of the recommendationsin thisvision plan could take decades, but the intent is to implement steadily, starting with organizational and policy matters and taking on the trail and open space projects discussed in Chapter V astime and monetary resources permit. A suggested timeline and identification of lead entities for policy recommendations was also presented in Chapter V. This chapter presents a revision of the original action plan for the RRCEN organization. Those parts of the phased action plan that have already been completed are shown to indicate progressto date. Also presented is a discussion of tools available to j urisdictions and the RROSN ,�. to preserve open space and fund proj ects. Through the public planning process, a variety of implementation strategies were identified. In addition, research by the RROSN Steering ~ • Committee uncovered many '�►► , q — opportunities and methods that others have used to protect open space. The conclusions and findings are summarized J =' below without particular bias asto which �= met hods will best serve our communities. Ongoing di scussi ons wi I I occur between RRCEN, jurisdictions, and the public about which tools are most appropriate. As Nissoula's Open Space plan notes: "These tools become much more effective when local government part nerswithfederal and state agenciesand conservation organizations to leverage funds and other resources." Finally, in Appendix V is a Ionger discussion of many tools available for funding and implementation and lists definitions of certain terms relevant to open space Prot ecti on. Action Plan The goals of the Fudges to Ewers Open Space Network are to preserve, promote, and increase enjoyment of the unique natural and other open spacesthat are important to the region's communities and that draw new families, visitors, and sustainable businessesto this area. Actionsto achieve these goals are listed below. Additional actions will be added as needed. 111 RROSN Vi si on Ran This section reiteratesthe originally proposed action plan developed in July 2006 and presented in Appendix 2. Actions are reorganized to reflect the phasing envisioned for planning and implementation and progress made to date. The phases are: Phase 1 —Initiation and Pre-planning (accomplished) Phase 2 —Preparation of the RROSN Plan (partially accomplished/ on task now) Phase 3 —Implementation of the RROSN plan Goal 1 Preserve the unique regional identify that our ridges, rivers and other natural areas define for our coMmunlfy sense of place. Phase 1 —Initiation and pre-planning 1. Develop a region-wide plan with implementation toolsand recommendationsfor protecting open space in the Mid-Columbia region. a. Establish a team with the necessary expertise to identify and implement open space preservation strategies b. Research how other communities define their sense of place and how they represent it to community leaders and the public. c. Develop an inventory of physi ographi c, geographic, ecological, Cultural, economic, and educational features unique or special to this region (for example, Wallula Cap National Historic Landmark), and specifically identify those with recreational and nat ural val ue f or conservat i on and pot ent i al connect i on t o of her regi onal resources. d. Determine the most important elements of ridges and other features (for example, the public's view of the ridgesys. the public'sview from the ridges; natural habitat and vegetation; trail corridors, etc.). e. Develop a list of criteria for prioritizing landscape features for preservation and interpretation for the public, educators, and regional marketing efforts. i. Acknowledge and support all open space values that define our regional identity ii. Consider criteria such as: most unique, most visible, most threatened, proximity to existing open space, proximity to other features, "priority habitat" (as defined by Washington State), etc. 2. Develop a comprehensive regional trail vision plan asa major component of the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network. a. Inventory existing community trail systems and regional land and water trail systems b. Identify gaps and potential connections between existing trails; identify potential trail corridorsthat link ridges and riverswiththe region's communities c. Design a public processthat gives citizens multiple opportunitiesto be involved in the development of the Ri dges t o Fivers Open Space Vision Plan through a variety of 112 RROSN Vision Plan outreach techniques such as public meetings, open houses, surveys, distribution of information through the internet, presentationsto community groups, workshopswith city and county boards, councils, and commissions. Phase 2 —Preparation of the RROSN Plan 2. Develop a comprehensive regional trail plan as a major component of the Ridgesto Rivers Open Space Network. a. Identify trailheads and other trail network facilities and amenities b. Involve property owners at an early stage and work cooperatively with them to meet their goals aswell asthe goals of the plan. (on-going throughout all phases) c. Include a mechanism for review of the plan within a specific period after initial plan completion to monitor progress, assessthe plan, and determine if new priorities should be addressed. 3. Conserve to the extent possible key plant and wildlife habitat that are part of our natural lands, and encourage their stewardship. a. Develop a conservation priority matrix that considers parcel attributes and landscape features that support non-disturbing recreational access, ; ", *_ % f _ conservation of priority native habitat ' } t associations, landscape and habitat '' - - connectivity, view shed, and accessfor education activities, etc. 4. Develop funding strategies for plan implementation. - a. Determine mechanisms for preservation, including grant applications; voluntary land dedication/ conservationeasementsfrom property owners; city,icountyfunding from general revenue sources; city/ county bond measures; Conservation Futures; land trades. b. Develop gui del inesfor open space acquisition and management that outline the issues and public use that are compatible with conserving priority natural habitat. Phase 3 —Implementation of the RROSN plan 2. Develop a comprehensive regional trail plan as a major component of the Ridgesto Fevers Open Space Network. a. Identify trailheads and other trail network facilities and amenities b. Involve property owners at an early stage and work cooperatively with them to meet their goals aswell asthe goals of the plan. (on-going throughout all phases) 113 RROSN Vi si on Ran c. Develop cost estimatesfor land acquisition, trail improvements, and other costs associated with the implementation of the open space plan and prepare a funding pl an. d. Engage public agency experts and possibly private consultants to develop specific strategies for preservation and trail construction/ restoration and replanting to minimize the environmental impact of trail construction and provide for restoration of native flora in critical areas. e. Establish a maintenance and operation agreement that allowsfor rapid response across j urisdictional lines f. Develop enforcement protocol and dispatch maps g. Incorporate the Plan into the City and County comprehensive plans and development regulations. 4. Develop funding strategies for plan implementation. a. Determine mechanismsfor preservation, including grant applications; voluntary land dedication/ conservationeasementsfrom property owners; city/county funding from general revenue sources; city/ county bond measures; Conservation Futures; land trades. b. Coordinate with volunteer organizationsfor donated materials, labor for construction of trail improvements, plantings, and related planned improvements. c. Consider the value of an "Adopt-an-Acre" program and implement accordingly. 5. Determine regulatory strategies for Cities and County to adopt to implement the pl an. a. Develop policiesthat provide incentivesfor development practicesthat leave ridgelines and other high priority open space undeveloped, such as increased densities off the ridges. b. Consider hillside regulations that reduce visual impacts of hillside development, for example grading standards, lower densities; building height restrictions, natural colors and building materials, etc. C. Put mechanismsin place to provide credit to developersfor land dedications made and/ or trail improvements installed that implement the plan. d. Amend land use plansto identify future trail corri dor s t hat should be incorporated in future development plansfor affected properties. Goal 2 Promote a Mid-Cotumbia open space network to boost economic development in the region. 114 RROSN Vision Plan Phase 1 —Initiation and pre-planning 1. Define a true community identity of the region's open space network with input from political leaders, businesspeople, the Community Roundtable, and citizens using a variety of public outreach strategies Phase 2 —Preparation of the RROSN Plan 1. Package open spaces as a quality of life/healthy lifestyle enhancement to retain and recruit businesses and appeal to residents. Phase 3 —Implementation of the RROSN plan 1. S-ipport the community's regional open space identity with marketing materials such as logo, map/ guidebook, brochures, webdte, quality of life video, and toll-free answering service. (Sponsorship arrangements can reduce costs of these efforts.) 2, Provide local and state organizations, businesses, and hotelswith promotional material to distri but et0 residents, travelers, convention and sport s del egates, j ournalists, and those relocating to the region, Examples; print and electronic newsletters and mailings; an open space website with links to other community resources, etc. 3. Request meetingswith local editorial boardsto convey the benefits of open space, and the mission of the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network. 4. Promote the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network as an economic amenity to attract hotels, restaurants, and other tourism-related businesses such as outfitters, tour guides, bike and boat rentals. 5. Stage annual open space festivals and events so they become points-of-entry for year-round experiences. Goal 3 Increase enjoyment and use of the Mid-Columbia open space network. Phase 2 —Preparation of the RROSN Plan 1. Emphasize a healthy life style enhanced by recreating on regional and community open space lands and trails. a. Connect the National and State health initiatives (Let's Move!, and others) with local activities emphasizing our open space opportunities. 2. Communicate our open space opportunities through education 115 RROSN Vi si on Ran a. Engage local businesses and residents by presenting information on open space areas at social and service clubs, churches, sports leagues, schools. Consider using other non-traditional means of outreach. Phase 3 —Implementation of the RROSN plan 1. Emphasize a healthy life style enhanced by recreating on regional and community open space lands and trails. a. Connect the National and Elate health initiatives (Let's Move!, and others) with local activities emphasizing our open space opportunities. b. Address child obesity issueswith planned eventsthat use our trails and open space areas c. Develop an exercise network coordinating with cycling shops, health clubs and commercial active wear distributors d. Develop physical activity guides and brochures to establish a "What You Can Do in the Mid-Columbia Region" document with consistent language. 2. Communicate our open space opportunities through education a. Develop and implement a continuing "Good Stewardship Program" focused on the Open Space Network that connects people, especially youth, to priority habitats. b. Engage local businesses and residents by presenting information on open space areas at social and service clubs, churches, sportsleagues, schools. Consider using other non-traditional means of outreach. c. Develop a Preservation and Education Plan for Rdgesto Rivers Open Space Network areas and trails d. Design and publish a region-wide curriculum focusing on open space and recreation e. Offer stewardship programsto complement interpretation needs and maintenance challenges 3. Provide easy access and encourage use of the Ridges to Rvers Open Space Network a. Identify trailheads and staging areas in city centers that will connect mass transit hubswith Open Space Network trailheads and facilities. b. Design interpretive signage for open space areas and trailsthat uses a consistent design vocabulary and standards c. Provide uniform trail signs with destinations, mileage, and other key information d. Develop trail brochures 116 RROSN Vi si on Plan Available Tools A number of tools are Currently available or are potentially available for implementing the proposed plan. These can be divided into voluntary land conservation techniques, regulatory measures, and land use planning. Financial strategies are an important component of both types of tools. Public reaction to several of these toolswas assessed in the questionnaire. The information here wastaken from Missoula, Montana's Open Space Plan, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC), CI ark County (WA) Plan, and the Evergreen (WA) Agenda Toolbox. 1 , Voluntary Land Conservation Techniques • Acquisition by purchase from a willing seller, either by a jurisdiction and/or by a conservation organization. Acquisition is often at full market value. Land may also be purchased at less than fair market value, stretching public/ private funds, obviously with the agreement of the seller. The difference between the full price and the reduced price can be a donation for the seller'stax benefit. The sale may be in installments which may provide tax benefitsto the seller and fundraising time for the buyer. If purchase is by a conservation organization, they may resell or donate to a local government or other public agency. • Acquisition by donation of land from a willing donor. Again, the seller would benefit from the tax advantage. • Acquisition from or designation by r other government entities, e.g., BLM, wr• USF&W, WDFW, DNR, etc. The j urisdiction assumes resource protection and management responsibilities. • Land exchange. This would involve a trade between a private landowner and a public entity or another amenable private landowner or a land trust. Desirable open space land would be traded for land that may not be suitable as open space, for trails, or for parkland because of value, size, location, or access. If the land values are unequal, this may include a cash payment. • Conservation easement. Agovernmental agency/jurisdiction or a qualified conservation organization may be granted a conservation easement by the landowner that restrictsthe use and development of the property in perpetuity. The landowner retains ownership and isresponsible for maintenance. Easements stay with the land and are unaffected by changes in ownership. The grantee hasthe responsibility to monitor and enforce the easement. • Deed restriction. Land development and other uses may be limited or prohibited by covenants. This is similar to a conservation easement, but there isno "holder" of the restriction. Thus, enforcement capability is minimal. 117 RROSN Vi si on Ran • Recreational easements. These are used to obtain the right to construct a trail across private land to make a trail connection or access public open space. • Transfer of development rights (TDR). Property owners leave their land (typically sensitive lands) as open space in exchange for being able to build at higher density in other areasthat are more suitable for development. The jurisdiction may establish the areasthat can be used for higher density and those that are to be restricted. Landowner resistance to higher densities can be an impediment. Typically only one landowner is involved in this process, but in some programs, different owners are allowed, resulting in a market for buying and selling of development rights. (Our local cit i es/count i es don't currently have an established TDRprogram.) • Purchase of development rights. The owner voluntarily sel I s hi s ri ghts t o develop a piece of property to ajurisdictioil or land trust. The owner receivesan income and continues to use the land. Property taxes are typically reduced. (SNRPC) • Right of first refusal. The conservation organization or j Uri sdiction would have the option to match a bona fide offer made by another buyer who approaches the landowner. The right of first refusal may be sold or donated. • Land banking. Land is purchased and reserved for later use and development. A local government identifies and purchases resource land which lowers future preservation costs. (SNRPC) • Acquisition of saleback or leaseback. Ajurisdiction or conservation organization buysland, places protective restrict ions or covenantson the land, then resellsor leasesthe land. (SNRPC) • Mutual permanent covenants. Agreement between adjoining landowners to control future land uses through mutually agreed upon restrictions. (SNRPC) • Donation by bequest. Land is donated to a conservation agency at the time of death of the owner as directed in a will. • Donation with reserved life estate. The owner retainsthe right to use all or part of the donated land for his/her remaining lifetime and the lifetimes of designated family memberswhile ensuring the land's protection. (SNRPC) • Intergovernmental partnership. Federal, state, and local agencies form joint partnerships to own and manage land. (SNRPC) • Leaseback donation. Allowsthe original landownersto lease back the use of all or some of the land from the jurisdiction or nonprofit to which it was donated for a specified period of time. (Evergreen) • Temporary actions. These include term easement, longterm lease, management agreement, mutual agreement, and non-binding agreement registry (landowner agrees to do, or not do, certain things on the property and to notify the jurisdiction/land trust of plans for any changes on the property). Temporary actions buy time to raise 118 RRCSN Vi si on Plan funds or to obtain an agreement from the landowner for permanent protection. (Evergreen) 2. Regulatory Measures and Land Use Planning • Parkland dedication. The jurisdiction requiresthat a certain percentage of the platted area be dedicated asparkland. alternatively, the developer can donate cash in lieu of land which can pay for off-site open space. • Parkland design standards. Cities/ counties may incorporate regulations that include standardsfor acceptable typesof open space within proposed subdivisions. Park Master Plans maybe developed to determine the design standards trails/ restoration proj ects, etc. within a natural open space or developed park. • Critical areas ordinances. Cities and counties are required by the State to address development in critical areas, including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, geologically hazardous areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas. Buffers are set under these ordinances, based on the sensitivity of the habitat and the type of development proposed. These ordinances must be updated periodically by each jurisdiction. They have to follow the "best available science", but have a fair amount of leeway in their interpretation. • Planned unit development. This allows landowners to cluster devel opment i n cert ai n areas and t o protect other sensitive areas. The clustering could be implemented in a way to maintain contiguous areas of open space. Density bonuses. These offer the incentive of i ncreasing devel opment density in one area beyond what current regulations allow, in exchange for concessions like open space in another area. Density bonuses are applied to a single parcel or development. Density shift or clustering is similar. (Clark County) • R oodpl ai n regulations. Development is restricted by City! County regulations within the FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain of water bodiesfor the purpose of protecting floodplain functions such as stormwater storage and reducing downstream flooding. • Comprehensive plans. These are required for all jurisdictions over a certain population by the State Growth Management Act. Jurisdictions below that size may opt in. The local cities and counties all have Comprehensive plans. Comp plans may include goalsto encourage the preservation of open space and natural resources. • Zone for open space conservation. This can be established for public lands. For private lands, this zoning would require the agreement of the private landowner. 119 RROSN Vi si on Ran • Urban growth areas. Identifies a 20-year growth area for a City, encouraging more compact development. This is supposed to limit sprawl. It could be integrated with a TDR program to preserve open space. • Performance zoning. Zoning categories are based on permissible impacts to natural or historic resources, instead of a list of permitted uses. Requires impact assessment of proposed development project. (SNRPC) • Clark County Land Division Ordinances. "When an adopted park plan identifies a future park site located partly or fully in a proposed subdivision or short subdivision and the park facility will serve an area larger than the development, the subdivider, when recommended by the county park director, may be required to reserve the park site for purchase by the public within a 1 year period." A similar ' Reservation for public purchase" procedure for regional open space and greenbelt systems is included in the code. • Hydraulic proj ect approval permit. Required and issued by WDFW for construction in or near state waters. • Public/'private utility corridors can be managed to maximize the protection and enhancement of open space. (Clark County) 3. Financing Mechanisms • Bonds. Local government borrows money by issuing general obligation bonds that are repaid through property tax assessmentsduring a 15 to 20 year period. Bonds must be approved by voters (60 0%majority). Bonds raise a large amount of money in a short period of time. Councilmanic bonds may be sold by counties without a public vote if payments are from existing county revenues. • General fund appropriation. Cities'Counties can allocate fundsfrom their annual budgetsfor land acquisition. • Grants. Gties1 counties/ non-profit organizations can separately or jointly apply for money to assist in open space acquisition. State and federal programs are both available. Federal transportation grants are also available to improve local bike/pedestrian trail systems. Some government grant programs can be matched by a combination of private contributions and PUN icfunds. Private foundations and trusts may also provide grant sfor open space proj ects. • Conservation futures. Conservation futures is a funding source authorized by state statute that may be implemented by countiesto preserve lands of public interest. The statutory basis for conservation futures is RCW 84.34.200 —84.34.240. Currently, there are fifteen counties in Washington State benefiting from conservation Futures, including Clallam, Clark, Ferry, Island, Jefferson, Bing, Ktsap, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom. • Counties can reduce property tax on landsto encourage conservation. Landowners may apply to be taxed according to current use, rather than true market value, in return for maintaining their land in farm or open space for a minimum of 10 years. 120 RRCSN Vi si on Plan • User fees. Fees can be charged to people who use open space to recover direct and indirect costs. Note that thiswas a very unpopular alternative in the questionnaire. • Sale of non-conformingparkland. The ci t i es'Count i e s occasi onal I y sell (or consider selling) areas designated as parkland that are no longer being used as parks. The money from these sales should be used to acquire parkland or improve existing parks in the area where the parkland was sold. • Local option sal estax. Local governments in WA are allowed to impose an additional local sales tax (e.g., the transit tax, hot ell motel tax for tourist related activities) to fund various endeavors. Stich a tax (at a rate of 5f 10 of 1° could be used to fund open space land acquisition. • Program fees. For programs produced in the parks. • Real estate transfer tax. • Additional real estate tax for Council manic bonds in WA. Requires voter approval. • Real estate excise tax may be imposed on the sale of real property for the ' purpose of acquiring and maintaining conservation areas. • Development impact fees. These are designed to partially finance public facilities which are required to serve new growth and development and may include being used for open space. • Land and Water Conservation Fund. Federal money for park, wildlife, and open space land acquisition, appropriated by Congress and apportioned among the states. Proj ects require a 50%match. (SNRPC) • Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act). Provides funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of wildlife habitat. Funds are apportioned to the statesfor covering up to 75 9%of approved projects. (SNRPC) • Wetlands Reserve Program. Provides landowners with financial incentivesto restore and protect wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal agricultural land. (SNRPC) • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Funds projectsto conserve and restore fish, wildlife, and native plantsthrough matching grant programs. Included under this are NFWF Migratory Bird Conservancy that funds projectsthat directly address conservation of priority bird habitats. (SNRPC) • Kodak Grants Program. Provides small grant sto plan and design greenways (SNRPC) 121 RROSN Vi si on Ran 1 yr t " To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour" - William Blake 122 RROSN Vision Plan Appendices I. Proposal for Technical Assistance to the National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program II. Proposed Action Plan III. Public Meeting Input IV. Questionnaire and Questionnaire Results V. Funding and Implementation Strategies VI. Example Practices for Development VII. Transmittal Letter VIII. Distribution List 123 RROSN Vi si on Ran Appendix I Proposal for Technical Assistance to the National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program August 2007 -tj�c +y •-� - �1' 'a►�Y•' Mawi • .t ,. .� Y _ �•� �':'.��f+ �;����; #a``Oil �1�. •. , .rfi.41 #6 q2. . 124 RRCSN Vision Plan Rivers to Ridges Open Space Planning Initi ative in the Tri-Cities (WA) Region Introduction and Purpose The purpose of this application for NPS assistance through the RTCA program is to facilitate a public open space planning process in the greater Tri-Cities area of Washington State. A network of public and private lands across the study area will be identified for the purposesof conservation, because of the natural and aesthetic valuesthey possess; and recreation, because of the access, linkages, and opportunities they provide. Conservation and recreation opportunities will be prioritized. We hope to crystallize a regional vision for land conservation as an outcome of this processthat will empower people to follow through and implement the plan. Planningtoolsof each of the participating jurisdictions will be reviewed and modifications suggested to ensure that the needed visions, policy statements, and regulationsare in place to protect the identified landsto the extent possible. Acquisition will not always be possible, but tools such as density transfers, land trades, and grading restrictions can all be used to protect lands. flaps are critical so that planners, conservation organizations, and citizenswill know which landsare important for their conservation or recreation values. The project potentially linksthe Tapteal Greenway, a successful conservation, education, and recreation project initiated through a previous RTCAgrant focusing on the Yakima River corridor, with important upland areasin the region, ridgesthat dominate the study area, and other lands alongthe Columbia River. There isa relationship between the project and the proposed Ice Age Roods National Geologic Trail as well as the Healthy Communities Initiative. Proj ect Partners Lead: Tapteal Greenway Association, P.O. Box 3007, Ri chl and, WA 99354 Scott Woodward, President Mike Lilga, Board Member Initial Partners: Three Rivers Community Roundtable (Mike Schwenk) City of Richland (Bill King) Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance (Brooke DuBois) Friends of Badger Mountain (Sharon Grant) Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society (Debbie Berkowitz) Native Plant Society (Bob Fortman) Ice Age Floods Institute —Lake Lewis Chapter (George Last) Open Space Coalition (Mike Lilga) Fun, Ft, and Over Fifty (Dave Feller) Invited Partners: City of Kennewick City of West Richland Bent on Count y Young Leaders Society (United Way) 125 RROSN Vi si on Ran Invited partners are currently deciding whether to participate. Discussions are currently underway that hopefully will result in these part tiers joining the process, however final decisions were not possible before the application deadline. Project Description and Anticipated Results The study area for this project is anticipated to cover lands in the greater Tri-Cities area, including Kennewick, Finley, Rchland, West Richland, and much of unincorporated eastern Benton County. This area could expand depending on who participates in the public process, the lands that are identified, and the level of interest shown. For example, Pasco and parts of western Franklin County might decide to opt in when they learn of this process. There isthe potential to coordinate with the adj acent Hanford Reach National Monument as well as Washington State Fish and Wildlife areas. The intent is to take a broad regional look at open space, identify featuresthat define our area and have recreational and natural value, find linkages where possible, and enable mechanismsfor permanent protection. The project will also enable volunteersto continue to work with jurisdictions to strengthen regulations and implement conservation measures aswell asto initiate fund raising effortsfor land acquisition. The growth rate in the Tri-Cities is one of the highest in Washington state, adding urgency to this planning process. The combined population of Benton and Franklin Counties is currently 230,300 and is proj ected to reach 306,473 by 2026. The current cumulative population of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland is 168,650; combined, these citieshave surpassed Vancouver asthe 4t" largest community in the state. With this population increase comes increased development of open spaces in our communities. However, many natural featuresthat define our character are currently not protected and are threatened by this continuing development pressure. Hillsides and natural habitats are being developed, trail easements and access points are being lost, and viewsheds are permanently altered. Sufficient planning has not occurred to allow community development staff to determine what needs to be preserved and identify when an important feature istargeted for development. In addition, j urisdictions in general do not have the policy statements and regulations needed to shape how developments occur. Existing development regulations do little beyond minimum State requirements to restrict the type of development allowed on and near these significant natural features. Where such regulati oils do exist, they often are not consistent across city and county boundary lines. Such tools as land swaps, density adjustments, and grading permits are not available in some cases. In spite of these issues, the Tri-Cities still has si gni f i cant natural featuresincluding mountains, ridge tops, canyons, rivers, riparian areas, wetlands and natural shrub- steppe environments. These f eat ures ref Iect our unique geologic history, including massive basalt flows and ice age floods. Some areas in the region have already been preserved, including the Chamna Natural Preserve (one of the 50 best hikes in eastern WA according to the Mountaineers), part of the Amon Creek Basin, and other areas along the Tapteal Creenway, which was established subsequent to a previous RICA planning process similar to the one proposed here. A portion of Badger Mountain was recently acquired and has become one of the most frequently visited parks in the area. But many equally valuable areas remain unprotected. A unique ridgeline comprised of individual hills and mountains, including Badger and Rattlesnake 126 RROSN Vi si on Plan Mountains, crossesthe study area. There islocal interest to preserve the ridgeline, not only for hiking and other low-impact recreation, but because it is a key element in defining what home feels like in the Tri-Cities. There are other habitat areas described by the Open Space Coalition, a coalition of local conservation organizations and other like-minded individuals and groups, aswell astrail connectionsto link existing trails. There is also a desire to connect ridge top trail sto the various river trailsto create a " Riversto Ridges" system. There is a large potential to take advantage of these features for the benefit of the entire community if sound planning can preserve them into the future. For example, an open space network that connects key natural features can result in a unique regional identity and help improve the quality of the built environment. Preservation of important biological corridors can result in more sustainable cities. Natural open spaces, especially when they provide accessto low-impact recreation such astrails and nature viewing, can attract businesses and tourists, helping to stabilize and diversify our economy. Open space and muscle-powered recreational opportunities are especially important in attracting the innovative 20- to 30-year-old entrepreneurs local leaders believe are needed to drive the new economy. The timing for this planning process is right. The City of Rchland has asked staff to look into initiatives to preserve natural open space. Staff and the Open Space Coalition have been meeting for several monthsto identify important land areas and review city policies and regulations. A workshop to facilitate discussion between Council and the Planning Commission was held in June. The City of Kennewick similarly has met with its Planning Commission and is interested in looking at open space issues. The Three Rvers Community Roundtable, a group of local leaders interested in promoting business development in the Tri-Cities, identified open space planning and the urban/ rural interface as one of four key projectsto be addressed over the next few years in terms of preserving the natural environment, sense of place, and quality of life as import ant aspect sof a healthy economy. The Ice Age Floods Institute —Lake Lewis Chapter has recently identified flood features in this area and an effort to preserve these sites and possibly provide public accesswould support development of the proposed Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail. In addition, the public is ready for this dlscUSSloil having recently played a large role in preserving Badger Mountain and parts of Amon Creek. Commitment for Public Involvement It is expected that open space planning workshops will deeply engage the public in this issue, create a community vision of what they want their community to look like and feel like, and will imbue a sense of ownership and resolve to carry the plan forward toward implementation. A similar workshop process to start the Tapteal Greenway did exactly this by establishing legitimacy, ownership, and public will which has propelled the organization through 12 years of solid and continuous conservation, trail-building, and education efforts. An open space plan will also provide planning staff with maps to clearly show priority lands so that appropriate actions can be taken. The plan will enable fundraising efforts, contributions, and volunteer action. Guidelines for improving policies and regulations will be established so that staff and the public can initiate appropriate changes in their respective governments. The initial partners 127 RROSN Vi si on Ran have pledged to inform their constituents of meetings and meeting results and encourage involvement. Roles, Resources, and Contributions Assistance from the Pacific West Regional RTCA office is requested to facilitate partner development, assist with public outreach and help create outreach materials, coordinate the planning team, facilitate planning team meetings, and provide open space planning expertise. RTCA will design and facilitate public workshopsto elicit public input in an orderly and respectful manner. Jurisdictions will collectively provide meeting rooms, printing, and mailing of notices and updates. Effortswill be made to meet in each jurisdiction. The intent is for each jurisdiction to provide mappingwithin their UGAs. It isunknown at this time whether GISdata is compatible and can be shared across jurisdictions. The City of Richland has county-wide data related to the emergency dispatch system, which may be of some use as a backup, if needed. In addition, local Ice Age Roods Institute members have offered to assist with mapping. The Tapteal Greenway and other non-profit organizations listed above Will publicize meetings and report workshop results in their newsletters, assist the facilitator where needed, and participate in workshops and planning meetings. Support for the Proj ect All of the partners are highly motivated to successfully complete the open space planning process. Conservation groups want to see land preserved and jurisdictions need to know what landsthe public believesare important in order to responsibly develop the urban community yet preserve featuresthat define the character of that community. Letters of support/'participation have either been mailed directly or are attached to this application. We continue to look for other partners in this process. Letters are from: City of Richland Tapteal Gireenway Friends of Badger Mountain Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society Three Fivers Community Roundtable Open Space Coalition Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance Fun, Ft, and Over Fifty Ice Age Floods Institute Native Plant Society Related Strategic Initiatives This project relatesto the Ice Age Roods National Geologic Trail, proposed by the National Park Service to Congress in 2001, and currently under consideration in both houses. This study would augment local planning that has already occurred and may provide the impetus and mechanism to preserve some of the sites identified. A greater awareness by local residents of these unique flood featureswill also result. This project supportsthe Healthy Communities Initiative. The Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance, consisting of representativesof the three local hospitals, the Benton Franklin Public Health District, area clinics, and numerous community groups, is a participating partner on this project because of the opportunity to 128 RRCSN Vision Plan increase outdoor exercise options in the area. Their mission is to assess community health needs and to facilitate collaborative, community-wide solutionsthat provide affordable, high quality wellness and accessible healthcare to all residents of the Md- Columbia. Nutrition and exercise are the fundamental building blocks of health and wellness, yet obesity and being overweight are becoming an epidemic in America. Poor eating habits and lack of exercise contribute to the development of several diseases including four of Benton and Franklin Counties' top five causes of death: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The Food and Fitness Coalition addresses the need for food and fitness education and behavior modification among the bi- county population. The Coalition, together with the Public Health District, sponsor forumsand community eventsto help addressthese issues. 129 RROSN Vi si on Ran Appendix Proposed Action July ! 0: 130 RROSN Vision Plan PROJECT PROPOSAL RIDGES TO RIVERS OPEN SPACE NETWORK OF THE MID- COLUMBIA REGION July 2006 131 RROSN Vi si on Ran Background In 2007, the Tapteal Greenway Association, with support from local government and non-profit organizations, requested assistance from the National Park Service to facilitate public open space planning through their Fivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (IRTCA) Program. The request was approved and the planning process is underway. RTCA Assistance Program The Fivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, also known as the Rivers & Trails Program, or IRTCA, is the community assistance arm of the National Parks Service. This program provides assistance to community and government entities so they can conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trai Is and greenways. The RTCA program implementsthe natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation mission of the National Park Service. Who We Are The "Fidgesto Rvers Open Space Network of the Mid Columbia Region" is a partnership of organizations and governmental agencies representing a broad spectrum of entities who advocate coordination of regional open space planning. Participants to date are listed below. We are working to obtain full endorsement of this regional planning process from each of these and possibly additional organizations. RIDGES To RIVERS OPEN SPACE STEERING COVIVITTEE City of Pasco Codtrmbia sfn Chapter, Washington City of Rchiand Nabve Rat ciety City of West FIchland Friends of aadger Mountain Benton County Coen d ace CbL� Jit i on of errt on and Frankh;n County Franklin Counties Tri 0t1es Vtisftor and Convention Bur ear} Fury Rt and over Fifty Community Health AWance National Bark ,%rvice Lake Lew s Chapter, dce Age F7oods Pending members: Tryst Wit e C;t v of Kennewick Tapteal Gteeryway Association Seaton Franklin Council of Goverpments Lever Columbia &sin Audubon Society Meetings Our kick-off meeting was held in March 2008. Subsequent meetings (nominally monthly) have seen an ever-increasing participation. We have been working to define our vision and goals, to create a plan to implement these and to encourage participation by those who will most benefit the quality of this process and its success. Accomplishments We have worked together to establish a foundation for creating a regional open space network. Thisfoundation includes: Vision, Goals, Mission and a Plan to achieve these. 132 RROSN Vision Plan Our 'Vision IS A network of natural features and open spaces t hat compl ements residenti al and commercial development in the Md-Columbia Region and: s enhances our ability to attract and retain people and businesses that sustain our economy ♦ provides access and connections for recreation, education,and health ♦ preserves natural and aesthetic values Goats Preserve... Preserve the unique regional identity that our ridges, rivers and other natural areas define for our community sense of place. Promote... Promote a Mid-Columbia Open Soace Network to boost economic development in the regi on. Enj oy... Increase enj oyment and use of the Mcl-Columbia Open Space Network. . ZSSion The mission of the ,edges to Rvers Open mace aeering Committee is to produce and implement a plan for a region-wide network of open space based on citizen involvement, city and county planning policies, and regional recommendations. 133 RROSN Vi si on Ran Proposed Action Plan The goals of the proposed Ridgesto Pavers Regional Open Space Plan are to preserve, promote, and increase enjoyment of the unique natural, and other open spaces that are important to the region' scommunities and that draw new families, visitors, and sustainable businessesto this area. Potential actionsto achieve these goalsare listed below. Priorities and an overall timeline have yet to be established, and additional actions may continue to be added to accomplish the three project goals. Goal 1 Preserve the unique regional identity that car rid es, rivers and other natural areas define for our comm?unj ty sense of ,place. Actions 1. Develop a region-wide plan with implementation tools and recommendations for protecting open space in the Nid-Columbia region. a. Establish a team with the necessary expertise to identify and implement open space preservation strategies b. Research how other communities define their sense of place and how they represent it to community leaders and the public. c. Develop an inventory of physiographic, geographic, ecological, cultural, economic, and educational features unique or special to this region (for example, Wallula Gap National Historic Landmark), and specifically identify those with recreational and natural value for conservation and potential connection to other regional resources (including "priority habitats" as defined by Washington Elate criteria). d. Determine the most important elements of ridges and other features (for example, the public' sview of the ridges vs. the public' sview from the ridges; natural habitat and vegetation; trail corridors, etc.). e. Develop a list of criteria for prioritizing landscape featuresfor preservation and interpretationfor the public, educators, and regional marketing efforts. i. Acknowledge and support all open space Val Lies that define our regional identity ii. Consider criteria such as: most unique, most visible, most threatened, proximity to existing open space, proximity to other features, etc. 134 RROSN Vi si on Plan 2. Develop a comprehensive regional trail plan as major component of the Rdgesto Ewers Open Space Network. a. Inventory existing community trail systems, and regional land and water trail systems b. Identify gaps and potential connections between existing trails; identify potential trail corridors that link ridges and riverswith the region's communities c. Identify trailheads and other trail network facilities and amenities d. Design a public process that gives citizens multiple opportunities to be involved in the development of the Rdgesto Ewers Open Space Plan through a variety of outreach techniques such as public meetings, open houses, surveys, distribution of information through internet, presentations to community groups, workshopswith city and county boards, councils and commissions. e. Involve property ownerswho will be impacted by the plan at an early stage and work cooperatively with them to meet their goals aswell asthe goals of the plan. f. Develop cost estimatesfor land acquisition, trail improvements, and other costs associated with the implementation of the open space plan and prepare a funding plan. g. Engage public agency experts and possibly private consult ant s t o develop specific strategiesfor preservation andtrail construction/restoration and replanting to minimize the environmental impact of trail construction and provide for restoration of native flora in critical areas. h. Establish a maintenance and operation agreement that allowsfor rapid response across jurisdictional lines i. Develop enforcement protocol and dispatch maps j . Incorporate the Plan into the City and County comprehensive plans and development regulations. Work with the cities, counties and private entitiesto preserve these features relative to their priority k. Include a mechanism for review of the plan within a specific period after initial plan completion to monitor progress, assessthe plan, and determine if new priorities should be addressed. 135 RROSN Vi si on Ran 3. Conserve to the extent possible key plant and wildlife habitat that are part of our natural lands, and encourage their stewardship. a. Develop a conservation priority matrix that considers parcel attributes and landscape features that support non-disturbing recreational access, conservation of priority native habitat associations, landscape and habitat connectivity, view shed and access for education activities, etc. 4. Develop funding strategies for plan implementation. a. Determine mechanismsfor preservation, including grant applications; voluntary land dedication/ conservation easements from property owners; city/ county funding from general revenue sources; city/ county bond measures; Conservation Futures; land trades. b. Coordinate with volunteer organizations for donated materials, labor for construction of trail improvements, plantings, and related planned improvements. c. Consider the value of an "Adopt-an-Acre" program and implement accordingly. d. Develop guidelinesfor open space acquisition and management that outline the issues and public use that are compatible with conserving priority natural habitat. 5. Determine regulatory strategiesfor Cities and County to adopt to implement the pl an. a. Develop policiesthat provide incentives for development pract i ces t hat leave ridgelines and other high priority open space undeveloped, such as increased densities off the ridges. b. Consider hillside regulations that reduce visual impacts of hillside development, for example grading standards, lower densities; building height restrictions, natural colors and building materials, etc. C. Put mechanismsin place to provide credit to devel opers f or land dedications made and/ or trail improvements installed that implement the pl an. d. Amend land use plans to identify future trail corridorsthat should be incorporated in future development plansfor affected properties. 136 RROSN Vision Plan Goal 2 Promote a Mid Columbia open speice net work to boosi economic development in the region- Actions 1. Define a true community identity of the region's open space network with input from political leaders, businesspeople, the Community Roundtable, and citizens using a variety of public outreach strategies 2. Support the community' s regional open space identity with marketing materials such as a logo, map/ guidebook, brochures, website, quality of life video, and toll-free answering service. (Sponsorship arrangements can reduce costs of these efforts.) 3. Provide local and state organizations, businesses, and hotelswith promotional material to distri but eto residents, travelers, convention and sport s del egates, j ournalists, and those relocating to the region. Examples: print and electronic newsletters and mailings; an open space website with links to other community resources, etc. 4. Request meetingswith local editorial boards to convey the benefits of open space, and the mission of the Ridgesto Rivers Open Space Network. 5. Package open spaces as a quality of life/ healthy lifestyle enhancement to retain and recruit businessesand appeal to residents. 6. Promote the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network as an economic amenity to attract hotels, restaurants, and ot her t ouri sm-rel at ed businessessuch as outfitters, tour guides, bike and boat rentals. 7. Stage annual open space festivals and event sso they become points-of-entry for year-round experiences. Goal 3 ncrease enj oyment and use of the Micl-Gotumbia open space network. Actions 1. Emphasize a healthy life style enhanced by recreating on regional and community open space lands and trails. a. Connect the National and State health initiatives (Go Play Outside; with local activities emphasizing our open space opportunities. b. Address child obesity issueswith planned eventsthat use our trails and open space areas 137 RROSN Vi si on Ran c. Develop an exercise network coordinating with cycling shops, health clubs and commercial active wear distributors to establish a "What You Can Do in the Md-Columbia Region" document with consistent language. 2. Communicate our open space opportunitiesthrough education a. Develop and implement a continuing "Good Stewardship Program" focused on the Open Space Network that connects people, especially youth, to priority habitats. b. 5igage local businesses and residents by presenting information on open space areas at social and service clubs, churches, sports leagues, schools. Consider using other non-traditional means of outreach. c. Develop a Preservation and Education Plan for Rdges to Rvers Open Space Network areas and trails d. Design and publish a region-wide WASL-based curriculum focusing on open space and recreation e. Offer stewardship programsto complement interpretation needs and maintenance challenges 3. Provide easy access and encourage use of the Rdges to Rvers Open Spaced Network a. Identify trailheads and staging areas in city centers that will connect masstransit hubswith Open Space Network trailheads and facilities. b. Design interpretive signage for open space areas and trailsthat uses a consist ent deli gn vocabul ary and st andards c. Provide uniform trail signswith destinations, mileage, and other key information d. Develop t rai I brochures 138 RRCSN Vision Public Appendix III - - • Input Richland West November 00: Richland Pasco November 20, 2008 February 00 ' February Kennewick 00 ' ti ,r: �}�~ a ••+�',L S� _•may •MA,"°' ti: _ - - -�.. RROSN Vi si on Ran 2009 Public Workshop Question responses Question#1. What do you think of our results so far? What would you like to add or refine? (Key: TG=Tapteal, SBO=South Benton County, PF=Pasco-Franklin County, BR=Badger Ridges BC=Benton City) Keywords and phrases given: recognized public access small (TG) prioritize habitat areas(TG) Bat eman i sl and i mprove wat er and I and, I and access(TG) DNR I ands need expl prat i on (TG) education needs emphads(TG) Young people connected with I and (TG) wildlife behavior connects with land (TG) Geology 101 , CBCfield trips (TG) sand dunes near Broadmoor (FC) Scootney Reservoir to Radar Ridge (FC) Franklin County irrigation canal (FC) Lyons Ferry to Palouse to Little Palouse to Gildersleeve trail through right-of-way (FC) State property near Central Premix, NW of 1-182 (FC) smoother bike trails connectivity Walking trails in south Richland and Badger Mountain Directory, web site, to publish locations of trail heads, etc Maps of trails rated by difficulty Preserve natural ridge line views. Ridgeline trail did you contact developers'builders (FC) Hispanic coat acts - I evel of involvement (FC) go east to Palouse Falls, Juniper Dunes, Iron Horse trail (FC) Audubon society binding trail - link to or include (FC) Ice Harbor dam - add (FC) Mesa Lake - WDFW may purchase - more connectivity (FC) add Smith Canyon to Juniper Dunes (FC) connectivity along Horn Rapids road to Horn Rapids Park (TG) connection to bike com mut er•s - paved and other paths (TG) add routes on south side of Yakima river - irrigation canals, Yakima bluffs, Badger Mountain (TG) more diverse sharing of information gazebo on top 140 RRCSN Vision Plan Question#2, What are some of the issues/constraints? What solutions can you recommend? Keywords and phrases given (number of duplicate responses): funding (5) manpower maintenance of trails and property (2) planned community development donations (4) grant s (4) Amer iCorps Conservation Futures (3) Nature Conservancy (1) tax breaks (2) Conservation easements (4) perfect plan before funding insurance and liability (6) water rights promotion of open space/ recreation legal public access achievable goals land swaps density bonus naming rights designated city tax for futurestype fund state/federal partnerships guidance signage to keep people off of private designated land use of each area increase in private property values (2) personal property protection (close gates) solitude (in rural areas) publicity and outreach, education (including policy makers) (7) trespass lack of access (2) enforcement, security high profile attention (celebrity promotion) relationships with private landowners 141 RROSN Vi si on Ran Question #3. Now would you like to contribute to help the project succeed? Keywords and phrases given (number of duplicate responses): Boy Scouts local merit badge (2) participate in promotion of benefits of open space (2) develop a volunteer base, habitat, public outreach, stewardship (4) Ameri Corps recruitment (2) research other communities and their plans (2) educate at all levels (3) develop talking points and distribute devel op a dat a base of phot os f or each sit e work on public questionnaire work on brochure and information collection staff information booth help write documents provide technical information (ownership, species, etc.) pro bono legal assistance tour pass solicit donationsfrom groups user fees calendar/photo contest Question #4. What are the most important factors to you for choosing space for preservation? criteria: most unique (30) most visible (17) most threatened by development (44) connects to existing protected areas (26) connect to other features (29) easy to get to (19) includesnatural habitat (26) other: educational value (3) availability (2) most likely to succeed (2) close to other features (0) most scenic (0) cost (0) preservation, vista, spiritual inspiration (0) marketing factor (0) 142 RR05N Vision Plan Appendix 1V Questionnaire and Questionnaire Results November 2008 —March 2009 143 RROSN Vi si on Ran Rdges to Rvers Open Space Questionnaire Many individuals, groups, and public officials in the Mid-Columbia believe it's time to start a public discussion about open spaces and trails in our area to create a local vision and plan for our future. This public-private partnership, called the Rdgesto Rvers Open Space Network, is looking on a regional level to see how we best can use our natural assets to benefit our economy, provide access for recreation, education and health, and preserve natural and aesthetic values. The result could be a regional network of natural and developed open spaces with trail I oops connecting people to our ridges, rivers and communities. Cooperative solutionsthat protect property rights and community interests are needed. Open spaces can be defined differently depending on whom you're talking to, but typically include undeveloped landsthat provide recreational opportunities, have scenic values and contain natural and wildlife resources. Such areas include the Chamna Natural Preserve and Badger Mountain. Some people include developed open space in their definition, meaning golf courses, agricultural lands and developed parks like Columbia Park and Chiawana Park. We would like to know more about your ideas for open space priorities within the Mid- Columbia region. Please complete this questionnaire before March 5, 2009. 1. How many years have you lived in the Mid-Columbia Region? years 2. What community do you live in or closest to? 3. What do you like most about living in the Mid-Columbia? 4. What kinds of open space areas do you enjoy and/or use (check all that apply)? Use Enjoy view Enjoy looking from at Natural Areas (e.g.,Chamna Preserve, Badger Mountain) Developed Parks and Playgrounds Rivers and 5horelines Ridges Agricultural Areas (e.g., vineyards,pastures) Others (please specify) 5. What are your primary forms of recreation or interest in open space areas (please weight each on a scale of 1 to 5, i.e., 1 very important and/or used often, 2 important/used less frequently, 3 important/not used much,4 less important/not used much and 5 not important and/or not used)? 144 RROSN Vision Plan a. Walking/ Hiking b. Dog walking c. Running/Jogging d. Bicycling e. Picnicking f. Horseback riding g. Wildlife viewing/Bird watching h. Native plants/Ecology i. Geology/Rock hounding j. Hunting/Fishing k. Kayaking/Canoeing/Ro-.ving/Rafting I. Swimming m. Motor Boating/Water skiing n. Hangliding/Parogliding o. Kite flying p. Model airplanes/Gliders/Rocketry q. Organized outdoor sports(golf,softball, etc.) r. Playgrounds s. Touring/sampling vineyards,orchards, farmer's markets, etc. t. Other (please specify) b. In what ways do you view open space as an economic resource? (Yes, No, bon't know) a. Attract individuals to live in our communities b. Help businesses attract employees to our communities c. Enhance tourism (eco-tourism,outdoor recreation),create jobs d. Enhance property values of nearby property e. Farm production f. Ecological value,e.g.,groundwater replenishment) (i.e.,through soils rather than runoff from developed areas) g. Low cost of maintenance of natural open space relative to cast of municipal services for developments h. Hunting and f ishing licenses i. Purchase of equipment for open space uses(e.g.,binoculars,cameras, bikes,skiis) j. No economic value k. Other(please specify) 7. How important is it for our community to set aside land for conservation and open space? Very important_ Somewhat important_ Neutral_ Less important_ Not important_ 145 RROSN Vi si on Ran 8. Please indicate your level of support for each of the following actions the local govern- ments and private entities could take by checking only one column for each statement. Agree Somewhat Disagree Don't Agree Know Take an active role in preserving scenic vistas. Take an active role in preserving wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors 51rive to connect existing large natural open-space parcels Take an active role in preserving the natural appearance of the shorelines 51rive to preserve smaller lots and community green spaces in designated areas Take an active role in preserving wetlands,streams and ponds Identify existing trails and protect them for future use 51rive to protect the existing large undeveloped ridges, natural vegetation and habitat Promote conservation easements, transfer of development rights,that can help willing private landowners conserve open space There is enough conserved open space in the Mid- Columbia 9. Please compare and rate the following open space actions for the Mid-Columbia region by allocating 10 points among them. Place your points in as few categories as you wish, or spread them around, but please be sure the points add up to 10 total. a. Expand trails f or walking,biking,and linking to recreation/open space b. Preserve important wildlife habitats,native plants (sagebrush, bunch grasses),and wetlands _c. Preserve scenic views and scenic areas d. Develop neighborhood parks and playgrounds e. Develop additional sports/athletic fields f. Develop or improve trail and water access (for hikers,boaters,etc.) g. Do nothing 10. Which of the following Open Space areas do you use (and how often), or are you aware of and enjoy having? Use (times/year) Aware of (A) Enjoy (E) (often, occasionally, Infrequently, not at all) a. Amon Basin b. Badger Mountain Preserve c. Chiawana Park d. Columbia Plateau Trail State Park e. Columbia Point South (south of the I-182 bridge) f. Golf Courses g. Hanford Reach National Monument 146 RROSiN Vision Plan h. Juniper Dunes i. Lawless Park j. Leslie Groves North Natural Area (north of Snyder) k. McMurray Park I. Sacagawea Heritage Trail m. Sacajawea State Park n. Tapteal Greenway (Bateman Island, Chamna, WE Johnson, Tapteal Bend, Horn Rapids Park) o. Washington State Fish & Wildlife Areas p. Zintel Canyon q. Other developed City Parks and Playgrounds r. Others (please specify)— 11. Which of these undeveloped areas would you use(and how often) or are you aware of and would enjoy if they were preserved/managed as Open Space? (Note that many of these may include private lands that would require a willing seller or a willing donor of property). Use (times/year) Aware of (A) Enjoy (E) (often, occasionally, Infrequently, not at all) a. Candy Mountain b. Horse Heaven Hills c. Hover Peak (Finley Hills) d. Little Badger Mountain e. McBee grade/Chandler Butte f. Red Mountain g. Yakima Bluffs Environmental Learning Park 12. What additional open space areas would you be most interested in seeing preserved, promoted, and enjoyed (please be specific)? These areas could be publicly or privately owned if the private landowner were interested in selling, or they might be areas you would like to see stay just the way they are--like vineyards and ranchlands, or scenic views. 13. Shall efforts be made to interconnect isolated parcels of open space through a trail network? Yes No Don't know 14. What actions by our communities do you favor to conserve open space in the Mid- Columbia area? (Yes, No, Don't know) a. Promote donation of conservation easements by private landowners b. Zone for open space conservation (for public lands or with agreement of private landowner) c. Reduce property tax on conserved lands to encourage conservation d. Promote transfer of development rights (property owners leave their land as open space in exchange for being able to build at higher density in other areas) e. Institute conservation futures (up to $6.25/$100,000 County property tax) 147 RROSN Vi si on Ran f. Increase city or county property taxes or sales tax to purchase private land from a willing seller g. Bonds (voter-approved funding) h. Fees paid by people who use open space i. Other 15. Would you like to be put on our contact list for further information? If so; please specify your email address. 16. Please feel free to write any comments on open space issues not covered in the questionnaire. The following slides summarize the results of the survey: RIDGES TO RIMERS OPEN SPACE SURVEY AND WORKSHOP RESULTS AS OF MARCH 7 , 2009 148 RROSN Vision Plan 25% OF RESPONDENTS HAVE LIVED HERE 10 YEARS OR LESS How many years have you lived in the Mid-Columbia region? � 30% �l 25% I � 20% 15% 10% 5% 091. - --– —— 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Year's' 86% OF RESPONDENTS LIVED IN RICHLAND, KENNEWICK OR WEST RICHLAND - 53% LIVED IN RICHLAND, what community do yon live in or closest toy 1 50% - 45 40%--j 35% 300/ a a 20% 15% — 10% S% oo�r ti o 149 RROSN Vision Ran WHEN ASKED WHAT PEOPLE LIKED MOST ABOUT LIVING HERE 44% OF RESPONDENTS SAID OUTDOORS, RIDGES AND RIVERS,THE SMALL COMMUNITY ATMOSPHERE AND LOW CRIME RATE, 39 �-'- SAID THE CLIMATE,AND 32/, SAID OPEN SPACE AND LAND. What do you like most about living in the Mid-Colunibia7 sw'. ns i L 40 I 35 30%— 25% d 70% L N II 10% 5'a eh d NC V C j r_ y C 1V d U£ Hd6 R yyi CN X f « 0 i7 0 ¢ ?� r OVER 800/o OF RESPONDENTS USE RIVERS, NATURAL AREAS, AND PARKS Whal kinds of open space areas tfo you ItSe anti/or enjoy? 90% 80% 70%-- 1 00%-- - 50% 40°!0 = 30% 20% Rivers Natural Areas Developed Palks Ridges AgrlculturaIAreas Types of Open Space ?mcent Use■Percent Enjoy looking At Percent Enjoy View From :Example Responses for Other Types of Open Space: ti I love It vil ren Ira is, .lr ear pal ks, pathways cons iecL so or can enjoy many p1a&s and'a variety o�F experiences. • idif Q balls, caned banks . !,rational wlldllfe RefUnes ii,<e McPdarv,use,enjoy view f of II and enjoy!oekiny al. • bike/waking Li allsalorigrivei ELM landg 150 RROSN Vision Plan RESPONDENTS SAID WALKING/HIKING MOST IM__ PORTANT FORM OF RECREATION W hat are your primary forms of r—eation or interest in oDkn Sio—2192S gZ Example Responses for Other Types of Recreation'. ■ nature pholooraphy( -irriostlirriDorterit) ■ Qu i-?�cmu-sriptationIcni-inecting with 1i creation. ■ Geocachhg ■ Aviation- Open spaces for flying and owe ving from the-air -Highly Important Sky and Starga:zing: we have somereally interesting CIOud formarions fr0171 t1MG to time VVIi sky was ,little darker at night. RESPONDENTS VIEW OPEN SPACE As AN ECONOMIC RESOURCE FOR ATTRACTING NEW RESIDENTS,, ENHANCING PROPERTY VALUES AND CREATING JOBS In what ways do you view open space as an economic resourct 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 503/b 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Attract New Residents —w I i - I -f i - —t- I T Enhance property values Enhance tourism, create jobs Attract employees Ecological value Yes Low cost of maintenance 0 No Purchase of equipment Farm production Hunting and fishing license-t. No economic value 151 RROSN Vi si on Ran RESPONDENTS SAID IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO SET ASIDE LAND FOR CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE. How important is it for our community to set aside land for conservation and open space? 5% 2%0°1-0% �• . 93% y r a Very important 5 Somewhat important o Neutral to o Less important ■Not important RESPONDENTS SUPPORT ACTIVE PRESERVATION OF VISTAS AND WILDLIFE HABITAT/CORRIDORS Level of support for actions local governments and private entities could take Take an actve rot?in preserving scenic vistas Take an act"role in preservtV w Idife habitat and Corridors r Sinve totonnetl existhg large natural open-spate parcels Take at actrce role-in pres erving the natural sho'el nes Strue to pres0ve snarler lots Ono community green spaces Take an active role in preserving w etlands,streams,pcnds Idermfy exiSting traPS and protect them for future use Stnve to protect the ex sting large undeveloped rxiges and +� habitat NEW- Pronnte conservation easements.trans ter or development rights a B -There rs enough conserved open space in the Mid-Columba ON 201/6 40% 60% 81 H% 100% ®Agree■Somew har agree o Disagree o DDn9 know 152 RR06N Vision Plan RESPONDENTS PREFERRED PRESERVING HABITAT AN D EXPANDING TRAILS Referred open space actions for the MaColunbia region 3.50 300 2!,0 2.00 150 100 0.50 0.00 I 1 cam A Qd MOST OF THE RESPONDENTS USE OR ENJOY HAVING MANY OF OUR OPEN SPACE AREAS Inventory of Selected Areas 1 I 300 250 - 200 150 100 ■aware of 50 o uselenjoy 0 0 z m j - o 1 G o h� 9 �U o� e r7 U 153 RROSN Vi si on Ran a ... _ 3§W-Ws MANY RESPONDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR LOCAL HILLS PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE Which areas would you like to see preserved as open space s 300 250 � 200 150 100 50 0 leo OC air Ga(M \Nle tadg�G� 16\�y� ° TOP WISH LISTS ■ PRESERVE: BIKE TRAILS: ■ RIVER SHORELINE • SAFETYAND ■ BADGER RIDGES M'AINTENANCE(BRIDGE ` AGRICULTURAL AREAS CROSSINGS) ■ WALLULA GAP - STATE PATROL AREA ` KENNEWICK RIDGES OTHERS } TRAILS (GENERAL) • HORSETRAILS • Am ONTO ■ NON-MOTORIZEDBOAT RATTLESNAKE ACCESS • IRRIGATION CANALS ■ PRESERVE HABITAT • BENTON CITY TO HORN RAPIDS.PARK 154 RR06N Vision Plan RESPONDENTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT A TRAIL NETWORK Efforts should be made to interconnect isolated parcels of open space through a trail network 3.1% 9.0% o Y7know ■N o D 87,9% I RESPONDENTS SUPPORT MANY MECHANISMS TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING BONDS Actions our communities should undertake oa. Promoaseonof conservationon e easements ■b. Zone for open space 300 conservation 250 uc. Reducepropemtaxon conserved lands 200 od. Promote transfer of development rights 150 ■e. Institute conservation futures 100 program of Increase Gttyor county propem 50 taxes or sales tax 0 ■g. Bonds(voter-approved funding) Yes NO Don't know Oh Feestoruse q 155 RR05N Vi si on Ran E-MAIL LIST a 178 SURVEY RESPONDENTS OR WORKSHOP ATTENDEES WERE • - INTERESTED ENOUGH TO ADD THEIR NAMES TO OUR MAILING ,LIST FOR UPDATES j Question 16. Please feel free to write any comments on open space issues not covered in the questionnaire. 11/ 13/2008 KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! 11/ 1512008 The more this area get developed, the more I want to leave. 11/ 15/200 8 I'd really like to see a network of recreation trails blanketing the area - something that woul d I et me ride my horse from my home to nearby ridgetops or clear out to Horn Rapids. Or out to Red Mountain to go wine tasting. I'd also like to see more attention paid to non-motorized road traffic (bicycles) when building roads. The important thing here isto enable cycle for transportation, so the cycling-friendly roads have to be the main arterialsthat move people from their homesto their workplaces. Roads that i ncl ude cl can wide shout ders benefit all road users. They provide a safe place to bicycle, a safe place to move out of traffic in the event of an emergency (breakdown, etc.), improved visibility of potential hazards, and maneuvering room to avoid those hazards. 11/ 17/2008 thank you 11/ 19/2008 Development pressures on the Tri-Cities are intense. Preserving open space before it disappears is crucial. I hope that we can continue effortsto save more acreage for the Amon Natural Preserve. 156 RROSN Vision PI an 1 11 19/ 2008 Thissurvey isfilled with leading questionsthat contain very little detailed information about the truth of the issues. For instance, if I say "yes' we should connect isolated parcels- who ownsthose parcels? Are we usurping the rights of a private land owner and stealing his property to do so?I remember falling prey to thistype of manipulation once before about "air quality". Now I can't even have a burn barrel in my back acreage! My brother-in-law lost his dairy because his drainage ditch was renamed a creek! I am an ecologist in the fact that I keep things clean, love the land and parks, etc. but I am pro-freedom and most "green" efforts are the opposite of freedom. I know it isnot politically correct to espouse the truth, but then again I prefer truth to political correctness. Have a great day! 11/ 19/2008 ' 1 support the movement for more open space and protecting current open space. I believe open space greatly enhances the quality of life. I also believe the property owners of desired open space lands should be fairly compensated for their parcels. I don't believe in legislating away current property owners investments. Protective zoning can happen after acquisition. Various incentive programs which encourage donation of land or participation in open space policies or purchase at fair values seems fairer to me. The percieved animosity towards the property owners needs to go away to inspire cooperation. Creative recognition and reward programs and incentives must be developed for both the land owners and the general public (potential donaters) so the campaign becomes "honorable" and feels good for all. Much dedication, work and skill required indeed. The campaign is worthy. Godspeed. 11/ 19/2008 It hasto be more of a priority and more value hasto be placed on it. What mindset makes a person think he has a right to drive his truck up Badger Mountain?The culture needs to change to have the next generation not even consider this as an ok thing to do. We need to value the land asthe Native Americans did, as our "mother" and need to cherish and protect it. We are surrounded by water, yet it is polluted and we waste it watering lawns instead of growing shrubb steppe plants that thrive here without much water. Asglobal climate change impacts us, we need to shift our way of life to adapt to it. So, in preserving open space and limiting the amount of development, we will be able to live a healthy life within the carrying capacity of the region. How many people can this region sustain?Bicyling is on an increase, I observe. There needsto be more bike lanes and linksfor bicycliststo get to public transportation. For example, if you live in West Richland, can You bike from your house to the bus station, park your bike safely there, and grab a bus (frequently passing by) to go to your j ob at Hanford?At thistime, this is not an option, but there are many people who would like to do so. 11/20/2008 Thanks for this survey, and congratulations to those who worked to put it together and then make it easy for usto respond to. 157 RROSN Vi si on Ran 11/21/2008 Thank you Scott and Sharon for your leadership in open space conservation in our area. We have so many beautiful natural resources to be thankful for. As a proponent of open space conservati on, I want to see the beauty of our rivers, parks and mountains preserved for the views, natural habitat, and outdoor enjoyment. My vision i s t o someday (soon) see all of our open spaces connected with our cities via bike trails and bike lanes. The Tri-Cities must incorporate and make part of all their transportation planning, bike routes and bike lanes that can be used as safe alternatives to automobile travel. While the Sacaj awea Trail is a wonderful asset to our community, it doesn't get us everywhere we need to go - to the grocery store, to school, to visit a friend across town, to Badger Mountain for a daily climb. To become a truly people-friendly and eco- friendly community we need to seriously encourage biking asan alternative form of transportation. With insight and planning the Tri- Cltiescould become the outdoor mecca of our State. We have the weather, we have the rivers, we have the mountains. The total picture also includes safe, accessible alternative transportation options linking people to the undeveloped ridges, natural habitats, beautiful parks, hiking trails, and glorious waterways that we hope to enjoy for yearsto come. 11/2312008 13. depends on I ocati ion 11/23/2008 More trails along the rivers No More low boat launchesfor kayaks More areas reserved for boats without motors 11/24/2008 8c. ** !!9a. for ridingl0. Need a better guide to understand if horses can be there. 11. Need a better guide to understand if horses can be there.I'd love to have a way to find out what is already available for [horseback] riding. Is there a book or guide or website?? 11/24/2008 Preserve the 300 Area as natural open space 11/29/2008 Red Mountain has a group of ice age erratics that should be preserved. Also. last remaining large area for balsam root, that blooms in the spring. There are burrowing owl burrows in the area - a level type of walking trail could be developed. Wouldn't it be neat to join the wineries in the area with hiking/biking trail?!? 11/30/2008- 1/30/2008 Bh. Most important!! Bj. Most vehemently disagree!!! 13. Yes, most definitely! 14c. Important! 14g. Passage wont happen 14h. Would be willing, but prefer zoning, taxing approaches i 1/30/2008 1 A truly important need is to preserve more open space. 158 RROSN Vi si on Plan 12/ 1/2008 1 believe user pay fees discourage use - in this economy we need to encourage folksto get outdoors and enjoy. I would rather see an increase in county taxes than user pay fees A comparison was made to the Coeur d'Alene trail - something similar around the Tri-Citieswould be wonderful. Also a water trail for non- motorized boats. Be. Especially neighborhood parks! 8j. No 10e. others in my family golf 5-6 times per week. 10k. pl an t o use 11. 1 would use 10-12 times/year 12/ 1/2008 River access points (for non-motorized boats): - North Chamna lot (at parking lot) - North Richland (above starch plant) - west end of Wye Park - Franklin County on Columbia River near Sagemoor Rd. 11. Used to use these more. 12/ 1/2008 family areasto enj oy all activities- juniorfishing-boating-1360-yard games-bike riding-camping-swimming 12/2/2008 Need to think about water resources, light pollution, better management/use of landfills. Need vehicle access (like vista pull offs) as well as pedestrian access. 12/2/2008 We have truly been dismayed to see the disappearance of wildlife and their habitat since moving to the South Richland area. It has felt to us as if commercial and residential development is the be all and end all to the detriment of the open spaces that existed on our arrival. We will strongly support effortsto reverse this. 12/3/2008 Despite paying lip service supporting Ridgesto Rivers, the West Richland City Council is primarily focused on development (with the exception of Merle Johnson and Ken Dobbin). There won't be much active support unlessthere's money to be made for the City. The land at the west end of Section 6, Willamette Heights, isused for hiking, ofhorseback riding, some dirt bike riding and ishome to burrowing owls, curlew nests in the spring, hawks, coyotes, jack rabbits and many, many birds. There are dozensof speciesof wildflowersand several large standsof mature sagebrush. Thisareaofferswonderful viewsof Candy Mtn, Red Mtn, Rattlesnake Mtn and on northwards. This is a fabulous area of open space that is desperate for preservation. And the West Richland City Council iseager to have it developed. It'swhere I live and where I ride - I don't want to see it paved over. 12/3/2008 6.h. (for financial support) 12/3/2008 This survey is very comprehensive. I prefer to make comments later. 14.b. !+ 12/3/2008 Open spaces are extremely vital to preserving why we all came here - for the open space. We need to preserve the open spaces so we can enjoy the wildlife, the flora, and the land itself. 159 RROSN Vi si on Ran 12/3/2008 16. If conserving open spaces includes irrigating non-native plants to make it look "nicer" - I think you need to re-define what "open space" is. If you are talking about preserving and using native plants I'm 100%on Your side.6. I don't believe the primary purpose of open space should be economically motivated! Open space should be thought of for its value in uplifting a person's spirit, spending time alone or with family, etc, etc. Not for its ability to attract more people to live in a desert and put more strain on water resources. 7. within the city limits- somewhat important; outside city limits- very important.8.d. Kinda hard along a levee. 1 1.c-g. No idea where these are - mid-Columbia needs a good map showing local landmarks.13. No. Mainly because I think you'd spend a LOT of money for access with very little open space in return. 14.e, f. Everyone pays for what a few will use or benefit from - not very palitable.15. Yes, but I don't have a computer. I'd like to be more involved with this whole process- Fred Higginbotham, 2025 Sparrow Court, West Rchland 99353, 967-0168. On second thought lease send emai I to my work address in #15). 1213/2008 Published plan has weaknesses, needs citations. 12/3/2008 Good work! 12(3/2008 Thank you for your efforts and coalition/collaborationsto preserve our open spaces! 14.h. Maybe - I am willing to pay fees, but it will keep many people away and that is not desirable. 12/3/2008 11. Enj o y vi ew 12/3/2008 Thanks for your work and collaboration on this matter vital to enhancement of the Mid-Columbia. 12/3/2008 A bicycle trail connecting Richland, Pasco, Kennewick, West Richland and Benton City would be an attractive addition (with dropsto the rivers). mo Atrail connecting all the ridgesin the Tri-Cities. Hiking trails up Rattlesnake. 12/3/2008 6.k. Need river corridors with intact riparian areas. In future, wars could be fought over water and we need to protect water and critters that depend on them, including us. 9.d. But I think there are plenty already! 10.d. Want to use it - looking forward to riding horses there! 10.h. Visited once - please preserve it! Thank you for doing all that you do to protect open space. I met two girls in a doctor's waiting room and we chatted about "open space." All they wanted were more stores for "plus" sizes and more housing development. They saw no value in nature. This spells doom if everyone feels this way. Keep up the great work. 12/ 5/2008 It would also be nice to have an established public access point for hikers to the Juniper Dunes Wilderness, and have ATVs banned from the area. Wi I derness areas, by every definition I have read, are supposed to be protected from mechanized forms of recreation. There are plenty of disturbed, industrial or agricultural lands in the region that could be desi gnated for ATV recreation. 160 RROSN Vision PI an 12/ 5/ 2008 Personally, I would like to use open spaces more, but my wife's lack of physical conditioning prohibits us from doing it. It's not realistic to expect us to use difficult to reach open spaces such as Badger Muntai n. This i s going to be more of a problem with an aging population. While I like the idea of scenic open spaces, I would like to have other accessto them so that the whole population could use them, not just wish that they could see the view. While this would somewhat eliminate the solitude and isolation that many hikers enjoy, one might expect greater public support for these spaces if more people could use them. 12/ 11/2008 Local government officials seem to be working under the assumption that the law of diminishing returns does not apply to urban growth. As such, residents in the Tri-Cities area are constantly being ask to support increased funding for schools, roads, fire departments, law enforcement, and other infrastructure needs. I have decided that I will no longer vote in favor of any urban growth related bonds or tax increases until such time that local government officials develop and adhere to a growth management plan which promotesthe conservation and restoration of wildlife habitat and open spacesfor recreation. I have no problem paying hire taxes for promoting wildlife habitat and open spaces for recreation. I suggest a property tax that is based upon how much square footage of land a person's home and outbuildings takes up. Land developers should have to pay into a conservation fund and/or I eave a percentage of I and as open space. I would also like to see pressure put on Olympia to better fund the Department of Fish and Wildlife and mandate that WDFW do a more comprehensive and expidited j ob of conduct ng status reviews for species of concern, threatened species, and endangered species. Currently, WDFW is a very reactive versus proactive agency. Also, mandatesmust be put into place which requiresthe development and implementation of habitat conservation st rat egi es f or speci es:of concern and threatened species. Finally, cities must be penalized for approvi ng devel opment projects wit hout taking into account criticle habitat areas which are posted in WDFWsheritage database. 12/ 11/2008 The Badger Wuntai n Centeni al Preserve has t urned out to be far more popular than anyone thought. A ridges to river trail would certainly be just as popular. 12/ 11/2008 There are a few instances where development shout d not have been allowed. Just enough to make it plain that vigorous steps should be taken to protect what's left. The way, it seems to me, to keep public support of opens spaces isto allow public access (e.g., trails) for public enj oyment 12/ 13/2008 KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK 12/ 14/2008 1 often cycle Keene Road West to catch the sunsets and j ust enj oy the environment: seeing the ridge lines at dusk, riding thru the farmland, smelling the hay, watching the horses swish their tails, hearing the blackbirds caw and hoping the farmer never sel Is the land to destroy the pure enj oyment I get from being in the open, yet the West Richland city fathers seem bent on developing every bit of open land we have. I am tempted to knock on the doors of the farmhouses to beg the 161 RROSN Vi si on Ran farmersto please never sell their land. Thank you for conducting this survery and I hope it helps to keep what we have as I have been loving my vistas for a I000000000000000000ngtime. 12/ 14/2008 we donated money to buy land on Little Badger, but feel we were dl mislead as it seems it was not really for sale at a reasonable price!! 12/ 15/2008 1 do not know the extent of the area you are covering, but McNary NWR 0 and Hood Park are important open spaces, and Burbank is closely linked to the Tri-Cities. Are you only interested in Benton and Franklin County? 12/ 15/2008 The uncontrolled development in the Tri-cites will ruin the areas desirability. Already downtown areas are dying because of the urban sprawl. The citieswould be better served by working together rather than trying to be three (or four) separate entities that try to provide everything to everyone. Open space conservation is very critical to preserving the reason why the Tri-cities is a great place to live. I also think that keeping the agricultural and ranching lands in working farms and ranches is important to preserving much of the Tri-cities economic backbone. 12/ 15/2008 1 applaud those who are trying to preserve what we have left. I've been trying to get people to wake up to the loss of our natural heritage around here for twenty years! Unfortunately, for me at least, it's too little, too late. The best of what we had (peace, quiet, dark nights, clean air, safety, solitude, community, quality habitat, uncrowded highways) is disappearing and too many local politicians and city and county governors (and staff) are not intelligent enough to figure out that growth is not always good. In the human system, never-ending growth is called cancer. The building and real estate industries have too tight of a grip. They are giving away the 'common wealth' to benefit a few individuals. My "quality of life" continues to detriorate with every new house or strip mall that is built to accomodate more people we keep attracting with our "quality of life". Again, what we are doing for open space isforcing our plannersto do what they should have been doing already, and as for me, the area i s too far gone and I'm looking to move somewhere else from my native land of the Tri-Cities and the Columbia Basin. 12/ 16/2008 After identifying specific areas of interest and places, through a larger community voice, create a ranked list of spaces to concentrate on preserving developing with targeted groups and funding sources. Weight list accordingto level of interest and level of threat of losing that space. In terms of interconnecting open parcels, some spaces might be better suited to do so than other ones-again concentrate on the most likely ones to invest the time, money, and energy into creating. Continue to generate an educational outreach that enhances the community's understanding of benefits to saving these spaces beyond the traditional tree-hugger platforms (ie. like you've done with economic benefits). 12/ 19/200 The expanse of suburban areas has not only limited public open space, but it has caused downtown areasto be lessdesirable for business. The revitalization of downtown areas in Richland, Kennewick, Pasco and West Rchland depends upon creating reasons for businesses to stay in 162 RROGN Vision PI an downtowns and providing reasons for people to come to downtown areas. If this does not happen, downtowns wiI I become depressed areas and will await crime and deterioration. 1/7/200; 1 believe in the realistic preservation of open space and reasonable development. It would be interesting to see open space advocates promote a development that meetstheir goalsversusjust not fight the ones that don't. 1/ 11/2009 Keep up the good work! 1/ 11/2009 Who Made up this Survey?It's way too Iomg in my opinion. 1/ 11/2009 Humans do not own thi s planet. As the human population increases, animals and native plants are crowded out. Human activity upsets the balance of nature creating a veritable cesspool of human activity waste. Construction litter and plastic grocery bags cover the landscape at a high density. Plastic pools in the Columbia Ewer near boat launches. The plastic entering the Columbia is one of the biggest contributorsto the mass of plastic in the northern Pacific ocean. I've been considering doing a photo essay entitled "The Beautiful Columbia Ewer Valley"with photos of construction waste, water bottles and Wall Mart bags clinging to tumbleweeds, sagebrush, and trees. Litter is becoming completely ridiculous! I cannot walk down any street, park, or open area anywhere near the Tri-cities without seeing plastic littering the landscape. Thisphoto essay would go on the Web so that people considering coming to the Tri-citieswould see how trashy this place i s. The police should spend their time fining people who litter including construction companies who allow their waste to blow all over the place. The local media should take up a public service anti-littering campaign. Washington should implement a deposit on plastic and ban plastic grocery bags. YuppieswiII do literally anything they are told is fashionable. How about making it fashionable to pick up litter or carry your cloth bags to the stores or refuse plastic bags and hand carry purchased items to your car. How about refusing to buy overpackaged products? How about school campaigns that require kids to actually pick up their own lunch trash and stop using styrofoam trays for serving school meals? The Tri-cities has the most mindless consumers I've ever seen. 1/ 11/2009 1 would like to see some "creative development" on the land out by Ice Harbor Dam for family or school use like interpretive trails. There is some interesting native plants out there I haven't seen in other areas. Like the cactus. 1/ 11/2009 My family has lived and grown in the Tri-Citiesfor 34 yearswhere we have enjoyed many activities. I started the Fun, Ft and Over Fifty Club nad wasit'sfirst president, ran the Mission Rdge busfor 3 years, was very active in the two bicycle clubs. I have hiked almost all the trails and ridges in the Tri-Cities, most numeroustimes. I have canoed or kayaked all the rivers and local lakes. Have skied, both Alpine and Nordic at most of the local mountain facilities. Unfortunately my ailing 163 RROSN Vi si on Ran legs will no longer support many of these activities and my wife has dementia therefore my time is limited. As you can imagine I am a vigorous supporter of outdoor retreat ion f aci I it i es however I don't believe that in general we should be buying up mountains or other land for those purposes. I believe that it is better to integrate the community and land ownersto achieve better recreation activities. Thank you. 1! 11/2009 The NW is known around the nation for- our commitment to the environment, and our wild and beautiful outdoorsthat call people forth to explore and participate in such natural grandeur. Thisreputation brings new visitors and new residents every year...I should know because I'm a transplant from another state. I came here for a new beginning in a region where the earth isa little more respected and outdoor activities are the norm rather than the exception. The availability of equipment and environment for a myriad of new experiences abounds here in the NW, and I wouldn't have it any other way. V 1212009 7. But without coercion or collectivism! Pay for what you want. 16. a. There is a need for a public, accessible RV disposal/rest stop in the Tri-Cities. I would suggest one near the present Richland waste water processing site nr the gravel pits and/or nr the new traffic circle at Steptoe & Gal. Park Trail. b. You should also consider basic RV parking at one or more of the trailhead areas if you want to develop tourism and their use of the trails and recreation facilities. c. The Fish and Wildlife and DOB need to get off their behinds and open up areasto at least the ridgeline of Rattlesnake Mtn. for hiking and ri ding. 1/ 12/2009 This has been i mpli ed i n the survey, but I think t hat preservi ng open space needsto be a high priority of local government (city and county). It cannot be done by grassroots organizations alone. Once the open space is lost, it becomes difficult or impossible to recover it. We are at a critical juncture in the growth of the Tri-cities where development pressures are far ahead of local governments appreciation of the long- term value of open space over the short-term value of increased tax base. I for one am more than willing to pay addtional taxes (preferably property) to maintain and improve the quality of life in the Tri-cities through the preservation of open space for responsible use by all of us. 1/ 12/2009 Maintain native plant and animal habitats in the Md-Col umbia region. 1/ 12/2009 Money to keep our open spaces free and clear in our community would be better spent than on the current local Interpretive Center the city of Richland isworking on to be located on Columbia Point South. 164 RROSN Vi si on PI an 1/ 12/2009 Bicycle crossings of Columbia at Blue Bridge and Cable Bridge absool Lit ely need to be improved as the first task in improving shoreline trail system. Years ago in Kennewick, there was talk of creating a system of walking/running/bicycle trails along canal rights of way. If this is still possible, it would an amazing intercity tails system somewhat independent of vehicular traffic which would be a very unique amenity. Several roads are critical but dangerous bicycle links (ie. Leslie to Badger Road and Plymouth Highway). When these roads are reasphalted, they should include larger shoulders for bicycles. Two small road improvements from gravel to asphalt would greatly expand bicycling: 1. The section of Nine Nile Canyon from the top of Coffin Road north to the area of the wind mills. and 2. Locus Grove Road between Clodfelter and Highway 395. 1/ 12/2009 On question 8 you mention preserving a lot, but I don't usually see preservation as the answer. Lands need to be conserved and managed. In some cases resource extraction (such as selective logging on forest [and) can go hand in hand with conservation. Weed management plans should be in place and implemented, etc. Preservation is rarely the best answer nor will receive the broadest support. 1/ 13/2009 Recently Fichland discussed closing parks. Once parks are closed, we have lost our open space and it cannot be replaced in that same neighborhood. We need to do everything we can to prevent losing what we already have. 1/ 13/2009 Thank you for providing this survey. Kathy Knutson 1/ 13/2009 Thank you so greatly for promoting this. I realize it takes a phenomenal amount of work, planning and foresight. thank you, Susan thorson 1/ 15/2009 Haven't talked to anyone in a while, but the e3 process is heading toward a new non-profit structure that will hopefully have three legs: individual/household sustainabilty business& organizational sustainability community restoration, redevelopment, and smart growth... We see it as an umbrella org that can get everyone connected vertically and horizontally for various issues and perhaps most importantly for partnering and leveraging bigger grants with more diverse goals. Stay tuned... 1/ 16/2009 Bonds or taxes might be acceptable if it were for a specific project, clearly defined, and had a definite and finite lifetime. Just adding a tax for "conservation" would not. I support the Nature Conservancy model of partnerships and purchasing, not lawsuits and litigation. 1/ 16/2009 The things I love about the Tri-Cities are the open areas and the sage, Columbia park in it's natural state even though there is bad erosion on the banks. I love seeing the ridges and the horizon from almost anywhere. That is changing rapidly I'm afraid. I would love to see a trail on the south side of the Yakima but that is owned by the CID. 165 RROSN Vi si on Ran it 1 Accordingto me the most urgent thing isto get free accessto the top of the Rattle Snake Mounting from the north or along the ridge from the east. An access to Juniper Dunes in autumn (September, October and November) would also be appreciated. 1/ 19/2009 Thank you for your efforts and the vision to make our lives more compl et e. 1/23/2009 Promote controlled access to the Hanford Reach National Monument 5q. former soccer coach 14. These all may have a role in supporting this effort. 1/27/2009 1 would really love it if there were any way to still consider purchase of land on Little Badger. Once it's gone, there's no going back! 1/28/2009 Keep up the good work! 2/2/2009 Thanks for your efforts. If you need assistance in your efforts or a cleanup project, please send an email 2/3/2009 1 would like to be sure as much access to the shoreline is left open to the public and that there are height restrictions implemented along the waterfront of the parks. My other big concern is that the wildlife that are a part of our community be taken into account when considering what to develop or not develop. I see so many new homes going up all over all the time at an alarming rate and I am afraid that soon what little is still left for the animalswill no longer be there. When considering what areasto keep for open space I would like the hunting and living ranges of the animals in the Mid-Columbia taken into account so that they can have whole sections of their habitats reamin undisturbed or as undisturbed as ossi ble. 2/6/2009 It's important to preserve the natural beauty of this area. Our desert region isfragile and, like everything else, once it's gone it's gone forever. One of the nice thingsabout the tri-cities area isthat we are so close to open areas where we can get away from the rush of day-to- day life. 2/7/2009 Having lived in this area for so many years, I feel that it is my responsibility to help preserve this region's natural beauty and environment for future getnerations- and hope that your network really expands and reaches many other supporters. 2/7/2009 Compliments and tahnks to the far thinking people responsible for organizing and conducting this survey. Please help organize influence on city administrations to preserve as much natural shoreline and preserve trees and habitat areas al ong the rivers, esp. Columbia Park, Columbia Point, North Richland, etc. 2/7/2009 1 think the open space concept would work here. From what I have seen, there is a lot of interest but also ignorance about open space in our community. More people, including Rchland City Council need to not just hear but understand that creating more open space does lead to economic development. am also an advocate for Native American Treaty Rights and we will need to work with tribes on open space issues as opening up areas for trails, etc., could impact historical, archaeological, and burial grounds. 166 RROSN Vision PI an 2/ 7/ 2009 The elephant in the room is Hanford -- the most contaminated radiological site in the nation. Any environmental/ecological/conservation group involved with the region must recognize that cleaning up Hanford must remain the region'stop priority. The region's ground water and Columbia River water has already been contaminated (see http://www.hanford.gov/cp/gpp/). No network of open spaces is going to alleviate public health fears associated with our nuclear legacy -- we must clean up the site. 2/8/2009 1 cringe every time I take a walk and see our open space being developed or disrespected. Sometimes I feel that local city plannersare being directed by developers or bosses who could give a rip about the natural environment..."who cares about sagebrush anyway?' Sorry if I sound cynical. Being a native of this area, it breaks my heart to see some of the carelessness. On the bright side, there are some people and groups who are taking it serious, and that is benefit to us all. Thanks for all the hard work. Pat Noland, Rchland 7/9/2009 The beauty of this area is the untouched natural elements. Allowing developers to scar even just one piece of a hillside ruins the entire mountain. Of the few scenic views this area provides to all resi dents is the view of the untouched hillsides. In addition, the fact that we live in a desert putsadditional strain on the wild animals. If all water sourcesare deveoped or all trailsto the water are blocked, the animalswill not survive (coyotes, rabbits, deer, beavers, etc). 2/ 10/2009 purchase property then do as you please. do not try to have goverment inpead on privet property owners. if there isa big interest then people well give money to buy land. 2/ 16/2009 There is a lack of planning vision within all our cities about development in general and open space and parks in particular. Rchland should not have put condos right against the river; that area should be open space for everyone - there is plenty of room for condos in other places. Think of how cities in the eastern US have spent mill ions recl aiming their waterf ront for the enjoyment of everyone. Pasco should not put housing right up against an interstate freeway; commercial areas belong beside interstate freeways, then open space (parks), and then housing. It seems the minute a developer flashes money in front of any of our three cities, they get to develop whatever they want. 2/ 16/2009 so proud of al I of you 2/ 18/2009 1 donated money to the purchase of Badger Mountain and am glad I did but now it is so busy that I rarely hike there any more. I think the huge success of the two trails on Badger should demonstrate to all the great need for more low tech placesto interact with nature, no pavement or motors necessary. How can this message be conveyed to city hall? I frequently have the feeling here that the City Council of Rchland would sell off Leslie Grove Park to the highest bidder if they could. 167 RROSN Vi si on Ran 2/ 18/2009 1 appreciate how lucky we are to live in an area with open space and (relatively) minimal development after have lived in large metropolitan areas along the west coast. Preserving our area, for future generations, is priceless. Once land has been paved over, it is gone (possibly) forever! I so appreciate "your"/"our" efforts of working towards preservat ion of these lands. It doesn't make much sense to preserve open green spaces (much of which is next to water) when our rivers are so polluted. We need to cl can LIP our rivers as wet I. 2/20/2009 1 Great survey. Keep up the good work!! 2/23/20091 Please keep 1n mind that there are very different needs for trails. Are the traiIsfor horses or mountain biking? They shouldn't be paved or graveled. Are they for roller bladers and cycling? Then they need to be smooth blacktop. I believe a successful program would have both, with each appropriate to the terrain required. It would be cool to be able to hop on my mountain bike and ride on bike path to access a mountain bike trail. Right now I drive. I appreciate all the work you do. 2/23/2009 any fees for open spaces should be reasonable. 2/25/2009 1 do think that this is a great idea, my only concern is trying to force landowners into selling their land if they are not willing, and right of ways on private land. I believe that we should have a great open space network just not at the expense of the private landowner. 2/28/2009 1 currently have fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue and can't get out very often to hike and physically use the open spaces, but I still enjoy seeing them and think they are very important. My physical handicaps make me appreciate open areas and understand their value. When I was healthier, I often used these areas. 31 5/2009 You guys are doing a great job. Thank you for your efforts. Though my time is pulled in many directions, and I've not had a lot of active involvement with this effort, I support it! 3/5/2009 Many zoning changes are made to benefit developers, for example, change of zones from residential to business or increasing the density in residential areas. All of these changes generally result in increased profitsfor developer. No change should be made that results in a developers gaining financially without the community gaining from thisaction by either use tax or land set aside in coordination with changes in zoning. Resently Hchland allowed developersto develop a residential area in Meadow Spri ngs on Broadmoor with a higher- home density in an open area aj acent to the Amon Basin area. The city residence got nothing for this change and the develper got Several million dollars more in salable home sites. All of the open area connected to the Amon Basin area will some day be developed. The City of Rchland will be requested to change the current home density asigned to that area. What will we get for- making more money for the developer? This will be an opportunity for- us to get more of the Amon area set aside by trading the developer higher home density if he sets aside more open space. 168 RRCSN Vision Plan Appendix V Funding and Implementation Strategies i •"t�.fT �"r►• • I, 3� R ,^ yr � Ii' `S ��� �'�• c(� p - •�� �,,•-i.. �� calf' .�' �. ti' . � ••� ��►j'.! .-� '�-` ^� '1 � � j r � •r• ♦��� � �:'f}i.tom.. ter- . . � '1 ����• �' ` • r i� + T'1 RROSN Vi si on Ran Funding and Plan Implementation Strategies This appendix contains information relevant to funding and implementation that has been gleaned from numerous sources. Some definitions and federal, state, and local funding programs are discussed. Definitions Voluntary Land Dedication Dedication is defined in the state subdivision statute, RCW 58. 17.020(3): "Dedication" is the deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself or herself no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enj oyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat or short plat showing the dedication thereon; and, the acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat for filing by the appropriate governmental unit. A few general definitions of "dedication" from A Pfanners Dictionary, PAS Report No. 5211522, APA, 2004: The transfer of private property to public ownership upon written acceptance. (Blacksburg, VA) An offer of real property by its owners) and its acceptance by the city for any general or public use. (Sedona, AZ) The intentional appropriation or conveyance of land or an interest in land by the owner to the city for public use. (Seamboat err"ngs, CO) Conservation Easements A recorded legal agreement between a landowner and a qualified conservation agency that transfers development rights from the owner to the agency to protect natural or historic features. A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values, typically preserving the land as open space or resource land. Conservation easements may be acquired through a purchase or transfer of development rights program or donated on a voluntary basis to a land trust or government agency. 170 RROEN Vi si on Plan Transfer Of Development Rights Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a technique, involvingthe designation of development (receiving) zones and protected (sending) zones, for guiding growth away from sensitive resources and toward controlled development centers by transferring development rights from one area to another via local law authorization such as a deed or easement. TDR shifts the unused development rights from one property to another property. Such programs ordinarily are established and implemented by local governments, frequently to fulfill a land use planning objective such as focusing growth in urban rather than rural areas. An area targeted for preservation is legally defined asthe "sending area"from which development rights assigned to each property may be sold. These development rights are purchased in open-market transactions. The purchaser may then increase the density of a property in a legally defined "receiving area." The "receiving area" is planned for higher density industrial, commercial or residential development and has adequate infrastructure to handle an increase in development. Bond Measures A process whereby the voters of a governmental unit are given the opportunity to approve or disapprove a proposed issue of municipal securities. An election is most commonly required in connection with general obligation bonds. Requirementsfor voter approval may be imposed by constitution, statute or local ordinance. Bondsmay be classified accordingto maturity structure (serial vs. term), source of payment (general obligation vs. revenue), method of transfer (bearer vs. registered), issuer (state vs. municipality vs. special district) or price (discount vs. premium). Conservation Futures Conservation futures are a funding source authorized by state statute that may be implemented by countiesto preserve lands of public interest. The statutory basisfor conservation futures is RCW 84.34.200 —84.34.240. In accordance with the authority granted in RCW 84.34.210, a county, city, town, metropolitan park district, metropolitan municipal corporation, nonprofit historic preservation corporation or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association may specifically purchase or otherwise acquire, except by eminent domain, rights in perpetuity to future development of any open space land, farm and agricultural land, and timber land which are so designated under the provisions of chapter 84.34 RCW and taxed at current use assessment as provided by that chapter. The Conservation Futures Program was enacted by the Washington Elate Legislature in 1971 to preserve land and protect threatened areas of open space, timber lands, wetlands, habitat areas, agricultural and farm lands, and other landswith significant recreational, social, scenic or aesthetic values within county boundaries. The program 171 RROSN Vi si on Ran is funded by a county-wide property tax, no greater than $0.0625 per $1,000.00 ($6.25 per $100,000.00) assessed property value. The revenue collected from the tax may be used only to acquire land or rightsto future development of the land, with up to 15% set aside for maintenance. Any land attained through Conservation Futures money is to be preserved as closely as possible to its natural state, providing uncultivated lands for outdoor recreational activity close to home. Currently, there are fifteen counties benefiting from Conservation Futures by preserving and allowing access to open space and critical habitat areas for generationsto come. These countiesinclude Cl all am, Clark, Ferry, Island, Jefferson, Bing, Ktsap, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom. Each of these counties under Conservation Futures has demonstrated great success in preserving land and providing the public with nearby places of recreation and natural open space. By way of example, Spokane County raises about one million dollars per year which has allowed it to acquire over 4,000 acres of open space since beginning the program in 1994 (as of 2006). The program in Spokane County was first brought before the County Commissioners by a large organization of citizens, neighborhoods, and environmental groups concerned that the large growth in population and expanding development was dramatically threatening outdoor recreation and wildlife viewing areas. With this strong public support, the Spokane County Commissioners approved the use of Conservation Futures land acquisition for three years under RCW 84.34.200. Seeing the growing public appreciation for the kinds of land preserved, the Commissioners approved the program for another year with the proviso that it be brought to a public vote. The public hasvoted twice to maintain the program, with support from recreation groups, the Spokane Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Valley Chamber, environmental organizations, and many businesses. Nbst (if not all) of the other counties instituted Conservation Futures without a vote and without a sunset clause. To ensure the properties purchased with Conservation Futures money are used in the best possible manner, Spokane and other countieshave developed subcommittees for the county to review publicly nominated lands. The subcommittees include staff from the Parks and Recreation Department and volunteers. The review process requires a willing seller, an onsite assessment of the property' s fair market value (at highest use), and must meet criteria established by the county to ensure the land has significant ecological and social value. The subcommittees select the most significant properties and suggest these to an Advisory Committee, which reviews the subcommittee' s comments. The Advisory Committee makes suggestions to the County Commissionerswho give the final approval of landsto be purchased. The use of 150,% of the Conservation Futurestax to maintain acquired lands alleviatesthe economic pressure on cities and countiesto uphold the quality of the new public parks. Since using Conservation Futures Washington counties have successfully preserved and maintained thousands of acres of land and habitat that would otherwise be open for development. These areas now contribute to the daily quality of life for residents of these counties, which enhances economic growth by encouraging Current businesses to stay and new businesses to relocate there. Lana Trade The term "land trade" is not commonly defined in planning and environmental gl ossari es. 172 RROSN Vi si on Plan State And Federal Conservation And Preservation Programs Multiple funding sources, primarily grants, are available to assist in the conservation and preservation of resource lands. This section contains a review of state and federal grants applicable to conservation efforts. Some programs are based in state, some programs are administered at the federal level and a few are originated at the federal level and are a cooperative effort between federal and state agencies. In all cases additional, detailed information may be found on websitesfor each program. Recreation And Conservation Office (WA State) A primary source of funding in Washington State isthe Recreation and Conservation Office. The Recreation and Conservation Office, formerly the Office of the Interagency Committee, creates and maintains opportunitiesfor recreation, protects state wild lands, and contributesto the effortsin salmon recovery. Asmall state agency, the office supportsfive boards including the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The Recreation And Conservation Funding Board (WA State) The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) was established by citizen Initiative 215 in 1964. The RCFB (formerly the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation) grants money to state and local agencies, generally on a matching basis, to acquire, develop, and enhance wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation properties. Some money is also distributed for planning grants. Since 1964 RCFB has improved the state's quality of life through its investment of publicfunds in parks, trails, beaches, boating facilities, wildlife habitat, and natural areas. Responsibilities of the Board are defined by state law in RCW 79A.25. Depending on the program, eligible project applicants can include municipal subdivisions of the state (cities, towns and counties, or port, utility, park and recreation and school districts), Native American tribes, state agencies, and in some cases, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. The RCFB administers both state and federal grants. Grants available through the RCFB are detailed below. 1. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Grants Program Gate RCFB) The Aquat is Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) program provides grants f or the purchase, improvement, or protection of aquatic lands for public purposes, and for providing and improving access to such lands. It is guided by concepts originally developed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, including re-establishment of naturally self-sustaining ecological functions related to aquatic lands, providing or restoring public accessto the water, and 173 RROSN Vi si on Ran increasing public awareness of aquatic lands as afinite natural resource and irreplaceable public heritage. Any division of local or state government, aswell as Native American tribes, are eligible to apply if legally authorized to acquire and develop public open space, habitat, or recreation facilities. Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private entities are not eligible, but are encouraged to seek a partnership with an eligible entity to pursue the public benefits t his grant program supports. Grants may be used for the acquisition, restoration, or improvement of aquatic landsfor public purposes, and for providing and improving public access to aquatic lands and associated waters. All projects must be located on lands adjoining awater body that meets the definition of "navigable." 2. Washington Wildlife and Retreat ion Program (3ate RCFS) The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) providesfundingfor parks, water accesssites, trails, wildlife habitat, and farmland preservation. Eligible grant recipients include municipal subdivisions (cities; towns; counties; and port, park and recreation, and school districts), state agencies and tribal governments. Local and tribal governments must provide at least 50 percent matching funds in either cash or in-kind cont ri but i ons. All applicants must have a current parks, recreation, habitat, or open space plan on file to establish eligibility. Grant applications are evaluated in eleven categories: critical habitat, farmland, local parks, natural areas, riparian, state lands development and renovation, state lands restoration and enhancement, state parks, trails, urban wildlife habitat and water access. 3. Recreational Trails Program (Federal RCFB) The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) providesfundsto rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilitiesthat provide a backcountry experience. Eligible grant recipients include nonprofit organizations, municipal subdivisions (cities, towns, counties, and port, park and recreation, and school districts), state and tribal agencies, and federal agencies (Forest Service, Park Service, etc.). Eligible projects include: maintenance and re-routing of recreational trails, development of trail-side and trail-head facilities, operation of environmental education and trail safety programs. 4. Landand Water Conservation Fund(Federal RCFB) The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides fundingto assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to outdoor recreation resources 174 RROSN Vi si on Plan including but not limited to parks, trails, wildlife lands, and other lands and facilities desirable for individual active participation. Eligible grant recipients include: counties, cities and towns, park districts, port districts, tribal governments and state agencies. Grant recipients must provide at least 50°omatching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. Grants are evaluated based on: how the proj ect addressesthe identified needs and priorities of a statewide comprehensive or strategic plan; technical merits; and public/private partnerships. Governor's Salmon Recovery Office (WA State) The Governor's Salmon Recovery Office was established by the Legislature, through the Salmon Recovery Planning Act, and charged with coordinating a statewide salmon recovery strategy. Other tasks include: • Helping develop and implement regional recovery plans. • Seanringfunding for local, regional, and state recovery efforts. • Helping prepare the biennial State of Salmon in Watersheds report to the Legi sl at Lire. • Advising the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the Forum on Mlonitoring Salmon Recovery and Watershed Health. Benton County and the Lower Yakima Fiver are part of the Middle Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region. The Regional Recovery Organization for this area is the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board. On April 5', 2006, the Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board was created. The mission of the Board is to restore sustainable and harvest able populations of salmon, steel head, bull trout, and other at-risk fish and wildlife species through the collaborative, economically sensitive efforts, combined resources, and wise resource management of the Yakima Fiver Basin. The Board is made up of representatives of local governments that have signed an inter-local agreement. The Board is currently supported by funding from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the State of Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Office. The Board is working to: • Refine existing fish and wildlife plans. • Conduct future planning efforts. • Promote effective and efficient implementation of actions identified in these pl an s. • Help coordinate basin research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. • Conduct out reach and education programs. Salmon Recovery Funding Board (WA State) The Washington State Legislature established the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) in 1999 to help support salmon recovery in Washington State. The SRFB administers grant programsfor protection and restoration of salmon habitat. 175 RROSN Vi si on Ran Salmon Recovery Grant Program (WA State) The purpose of the Salmon Recovery Grant Program is protection and restoration of salmon habitat. Also support feasibility assessmentsfor future projects and other activities. Eligible grant recipients include: municipal subdivisions (cities, towns, counties, and special districtssuch asport, park and recreation, conservation, and school); tribal governments; private landowners; state agencies; and nonprofit organizations. Department Of Natural Resources (WA State) 1. IVafurat Areas Program In 1972, visionary leaders looked to the future and created a legacy with the help of the Legislature, by establishing Washington's system of Natural Area Preserves. As envisioned by the Natural Areas Preserve Act, these preserveswould forever protect the highest quality examples of native ecosystems and rare plant and animal species -- as well as other natural features of state, regional or national significance. They were to be used for education, scientific research, and to maintain Washington's native biological diversity. In 1987, at the urging of the department and numerous conservation groups, the legislature created an additional state land designation for propertiesto be managed for conservation purposes. Properties in this category are called Natural Resources Conservation Areas (NRCAs). Landswith a high priority for conservation, critical wildlife habitat, prime natural features, examples of native ecological communities, and environmentally significant sitesthreatened with conversion to other uses were candidatesfor NRCAstatus. 2. I14af urat Area Preserves Preserves protect the best remaining examples of many ecological communities including rare plant and animal habitat. The Heritage program has identified the highest quality, most ecologically important sitesfor protection as natural area preserves. The resulting network of preserves represents a legacy for future generations and helps ensure that blueprints of the state's natural ecosystems are protected forever. The preserve system presently includesnearly 31,000 acresin fifty-one sites distributed throughout the state. In eastern Washington, habitats protected on preserves include outstanding examples of arid land shrub-steppe, grasslands, vernal ponds, oak woodlands, subalpine meadows and forest, ponderosa pine forests, and rare plant habitats. Preserves range 8 acres to 3500 acres in size. 3. IVaf urat Resources Conser vat 1on Areas Conservation areas protect outstanding examples of native ecosystems, habitat for endangered, threatened and sensitive plants and animals, and scenic landscapes. 176 RROSN Vision Plan Environmental education and low impact public use are appropriate on conservation areaswhere they do not impair the resource values of the area protected. The NRCA program was established by the Legislature in 1867, and represents an important protection alternative which complementsthe preservesand providesfor a diverse natural areas program. Habitats protected in NRCAsinclude coastal and high elevation forests, alpine lakes, wetlands, scenic vistas, nesting birds of prey, rocky headlands, and unique plant communities. Critical habitat is provided for many plant and animal species, including rare species. Conservation areas also protect geologic, cultural, historic, and archeological sites. Thirty-one sitestotal more than 66,000 acres of conservation areas in Washington. Natural Areas are acquired through gift or purchase from a willing seller. Fair market value is paid for those state school trust lands transferred to natural area status. Most of the natural area preserveswere initially identified, inventoried and proposed for protection by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Selection criteria for NRCAs are based on considerations established by the legislature in the NRCA Act, including scenic and ecological values. Once an NRCA site has been nominated and approved, a public hearing is held to obtain public comment on a proposed boundary. The final boundary is approved by the Commissioner of Public Lands. Natural Resources Conservation Service (Federal) The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), originally called the Soil Conservation Service, is a section of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The NRCS has provided leadership in apart nership effort to help America's private land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and of her nat ural resources. The NRCS provides f i nancial assist ance f or many conservation act ivit ies. NRCS grant opport unit ies relevant to t he Ridges to Rivers effort are detailed below. 1. Conservation 9ewardship Program Through CSP, NRCSwill provide financial and technical assistance to eligible producersto conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources on their land. Eligible lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pastureland, rangeland, nonindustrial private forest lands, agricultural land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe, and other private agricultural land (including cropped woodland, marshes, and agricultural land used for the production of livestock) on which resource concerns related to agricultural production could be addressed. Participation in the program is vol Lint ary. CSP encourages land stewards to improve their conservation performance by installing and adopting additional activities, and improving, maintaining, and 177 RROSN Vi si on Ran managing existing activities on agricultural land and nonindustrial private forest land. The NRCSwill make CSP available nationwide on a continuous application basis. 2. WtIdllfe Habitat Incentives Program The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program for conservation- minded landowners who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and Indian land. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorized WHIP as a voluntary approach to improving wildlife habitat in our Nation. The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers WHIP to provide both technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. WHIP cost-share agreements between NRCSand the participant generally last from one year after the last conservation practice is implemented but not more than 10 years from the date the agreement is signed. In order to provide direction to the State and local levels for implementing WHIP to achieve its objective, NRCS has established the following national priorities: • Promote the restoration of declining or important native fish and wildlife habitats. • Protect, restore, develop or enhance fish and wildlife habitat to benefit at-risk speci es • Reduce the impacts of invasive species on fish and wildlife habitats; and • Protect, restore, develop or enhance declining or important aquatic wildlife species' habitats 3. Wet lands Reserve Pr ogram The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The NRCS provides technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. The NRCSgoal isto achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This program offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices and protection. The program provides three enrollment options: permanent easements, 30-year easements, and 10-year restoration cost-share agreements. In all cases, landowners retain the underlying ownership in the property and management responsibility. Land uses may be allowed that are compatible with the program goal of protecting and restoring the wetlands and associated uplands. The NRCS manages the program and may provide technical assistance. The Farm Service Agency (Federal) The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is a section of the USDA. The FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program. 178 RRCSN Vi si on Plan 1. The Conservation Reserve Program The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is administered by the Farm Service Agency, with NRCS providing technical land eligibility determinations, conservation planning and practice implementation. CRP is the country's largest private-lands environmental improvement program. Avoluntary program for agricultural landowners, CRP protects millions of acresof American topsoil from erosion and is designed to safeguard the Nation's natural resources. Acreage enrolled in the CRP isplanted to resource-conserving vegetative covers, makingthe program a major contributor to increased wildlife populationsin many parts of the country The CRPprovidestechnical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchersto address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program provides assistance to farmers and ranchers in complyingwith Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws, and encourages environmental enhancement. Through CRP, Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of a multi-year contract. Cost sharing is provided to establish the vegetative cover practices. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) makes annual rental payments based on the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant's costs in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in CRP contractsfor 10 to 15 years. 2. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a federal/state partnership authorized in 1998 that involves the voluntary retirement of farmland for conservation purposes. CREP helps agricultural producers protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water. CREP, an offshoot of CRP, is administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA). The Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Benton and Franklin County Conservation Districts provide technical assistance for the program. Washington CREP focuses on the preservation and restoration of riparian habitat that supports salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. CREP is a partnership among producers, tribal, state, and federal governments, and, in some cases, private groups. By combining CRP resourceswith state, tribal, and private programs, CREP provides farmers and ranchers with a sound financial package for conserving and enhancing the natural resources of farms. CREP provides financial incentives to farmers and ranchersto remove lands from agricultural production. Eligible landowners enter into agreementsfor periods of 10 to 15 years. Landowners receive an annual rental payment and cost-sharing is available for habitat enhancements. 179 RROSN Vi si on Ran 3. Farmable Wetlands Program The Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP) is a voluntary program to restore up to 500,000 acresof farmable wetlands and associated buffers by improving the land's hydrology and vegetation. Eligible producers in all statescan enroll eligible land in the FWP through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). FWP is limited to no more than 1 million acres, and no more than 100,000 acres in any one state. PNP contracts are from 10 to 15 years in exchange for annual rental payments, incentive payments, and cost-share for installing necessary practices. Eligible acreage includesfarmed and prior converted wetlandsthat have been impacted by farming activities. Offers are accepted on a continuous sign-up basis and are automatically accepted provided the acreage and producer meet certain eligibility requirements. Acceptance isnot determined by a competitive offer process. The maximum acreage for enrollment of wetlands and buffers is 40 acres per tract. A producer may enroll multiple wetlands and associated buffers on a tract as long asthe total acreage does not exceed 40 acres. The FWP is administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) with assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; state agencies; and local soil and water conservation districts. United States Fish And Wildlife Service (Federal) A variety of tools are available under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to help States and landowners plan and implement projectsto conserve species. One of the tools, the Cooperative 5idangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), authorized in Section 6 of the ESA, is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide financial assistance to Statesto participate in a wide array of voluntary conservation projectsfor candidate, proposed, and listed species. The program provides funding to States for species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal lands. States must contribute a minimum non-Federal cost share of 25?o for the estimated program costs of approved proj ects, or 10%when two or more States or Territories implement ajoint project. AState must currently have, or enter into, a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to receive grant funds. Four grant programs are available through the CESCF. They include the "Traditional" Conservation Grant Program, the "Non-traditional" Conservation Grant Program, Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance, and Recovery Land Acquisition Grants. "Non-traditional" Section 6 grants consist of three grant programs established in 2001 under CESCF. The three grant programs are: 1) Recovery Land Acquisition grants, 2) Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition (HCP) grants, and 3) Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance grants. Specific grant objectivesare: • Recovery Land Acquisition grants: provide fundingfor the permanent protection of landsthat support approved recovery plansfor listed species. 180 RRCSN Vi si on Plan • HGP Land Acquisition grants: provide funding for the permanent protection of landsthat complement conservation provided by an approved habitat conservation plan. • Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance grants: provide funding to develop habitat conservation plans, through the support of baseline surveys and inventories, document preparation, outreach, and similar planning activities. In Washington State, the non-traditional Section 6 grants are administered by the USFWSin conjunction with the state Departments of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Natural Resources (DNR). Parties seeking grant funds to protect lands in perpetuity for habitat conservation may apply for a Recovery Land Acquisition grant or a Habitat Conservation Plan (HGP) Land Acquisition grant. Parties seeking grant fundsto plan and develop an HCP may apply for a Habitat Conservation (HG) Planning Assistance grant. Local Resources The Franklin Conservation District The Franklin County Conservation District promotes education, conservation, and wise USG of natural resources by providing technical and financial assistance to natural resource users. The Franklin Conservation District is a grant funded, non-regulatory agency that matches local resource needs with technical and financial assistance. The FCDwasfounded in 1951 and serves the citizens of Franklin County. The Conservation District has a five member board of volunteer supervisorsthat establish priorities and a dedicated staff of resource professionals that work to implement district programs. Benton Conservation District The Benton Conservation District is a non-regulatory, grant-funded organization dedicated to the wise stewardship of soil, water, air, fish, and wildlife in Benton County, Washington. They provide technical and financial assistance to landowners to develop voluntary and practical solutionsto local natural resource concerns. Local Funding Options This section details several actionswhich may be taken at the local level to raise funds for land preservation and conservation purposes. Note that 1-165 may require voter approval of some of these options. 1. Property Tax Lid Increase Chapter 84.52 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes counties to impose two ad valorem taxes upon real and personal property: a tax for general county purposes with a maximum rate of $1.80 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, a tax for road purposes with a maximum rate of $2.25 per $1,000 of assessed valuation and the levy by any city or town shall not exceed $3.37112 per $1,000 of assessed value. The 181 RROSN Vi si on Ran county's general property tax is collected countywide. The road tax is collected only in unincorporated areas. Chapter 84.55 of the Revised Code of Washington further limitsthe amount of regular property taxes that can be levied. For counties and other j urisdictions with a population of 10,000 or more, regular property taxes may not exceed the lesser of 106%or 100%plusthe percentage change in inflation, of the amount levied in the highest of the three most recent years. An additional amount is allowed for the increase in assessed value resulting from new construction, improvements to property, and the increased value of state assessed property. The percent change in inflation is measured by the implicit price deflator for personal consumption published by the Federal Department of Commerce. Upon a finding of substantial need, the legislative authority of a taxing district other than the state may use a limit factor of 106%or less. In districtswith legislative authorities of four members or less, two-thirds of the members must approve. In districtswith more than four members, a maj ority plus one vote must approve. The new limit factor is effective for taxes collected in the following year only. The limit factor, coupled with changes in property value, may cause levy rates to rise and fall, although not above statutory maximums. Once the levy rate is established each year under the limit factor (e.g., $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value), it may not be raised without the approval of a majority of the voters. Receiving voter approval to raise the levy rate beyond the limit factor is known as a lid lift. A lid lift may be permanent, or may be for a specific purpose and time period. Other limits on taxing authority remain in effect, such asthe aggregate levy rate limits of $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed value and 1%of true and fair market value. 2. Property Tax—Conservation Futures Chapter 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes counties to impose a property tax up to six and one-quarter cents per thousand dollars of assessed value for the purpose of acquiring interest in open space, farm, and timber lands. Mown as Conservation Futures, these funds may be used for acquisition purposes only. Funds may be used to acquire mineral rights, and leaseback agreements are permitted. The statute prohibitsthe use of eminent domain to acquire property. 3. Property Tax—Excess Levy Chapter 84.52 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes cities and counties, along with other specified j unior taxing districts, to levy property taxes in excess of limitations imposed by statute when authorized by the voters. Levy approval requires 60 percent majority vote and 40 percent validating turnout at a general or special election held in the year in which the levy is made. 182 RROSN Vi si on Plan 4. Property Tax—County Bonds For the purposes of funding capital projects, such as land acquisitions or facility construction, counties have the authority to borrow money by selling bonds. Three general types of bonds may be sold: voter-approved general obligation bonds, agency- approved or council manic bonds, and revenue bonds. Voter-approved general obligation bonds may be sold only after receiving a 60 percent majority vote and 40 percent validating turnout at a general or special election. If approved, an excess property tax is levied each year for the life of the bond to pay both principal and interest. The maximum debt limit for voter-approved bonds istwo and one- half percent of the value of taxable property in the county. Councilmanic bonds may be sold by countieswithout public vote. The bonds - both principal and interest - are retired with payments from existing county revenue. If new tax revenue, such as additional salestax or real estate excise tax, is proposed as a funding source, voter approval may be required. The Legislature has set a maximum debt limit for council manic bonds of one and one-half percent of the value of taxable property in the county. Revenue bonds are sold with the intent of paying principal and interest from revenue generated by the improvement, such as fees and charges. For example, revenue bonds might be sold to fund a public water system that will generate revenue through utility chargesto Customers. Other funds may be dedicated to assist with repayment; however, it is desirable to have the improvementsgenerate adequate revenue to pay all bond costs. Limits on the use and amount of revenue bonds are generally market-driven through investor faith in the adequacy of the revenue stream to support bond payments. 5. Siles Tax Chapter 82.14 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the governing bodies of cities and counties to impose sales and use taxes at a rate set by the statute to help `'carry Out essential county and municipal purposes." Cities and counties may impose a sales and use tax at a rate of five-tenths of one percent on any "taxable event" within their jurisdictions. This tax is now in effect in Clark County. These funds are used for general county purposes. Cities and counties may also impose an additional salestax at a rate "up to" five- tenths of one percent on any taxable event within the city or county. This additional sales tax isin lieu of imposing the one- half of one percent real estate excise tax authorized under RCW 82.46.010(3). 6. Real Estate Excise Tax Chapter 84.46 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the governing bodies of counties and cities to impose excise taxes on the sale of real property within limits set by the statute. 183 RROSN Vi si on Ran The authority of countiesmay be divided into four parts; 1. The Board of Commissioners may impose a real estate excise tax on the sale of all real property in unincorporated parts of the county at a rate not to exceed 114 of 1°,00f the selling price. Fundsmust be used solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilitiesplan element of a comprehensive plan. The definition of "capital projects" includes planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks, recreational facilities, and trails. 2. The Board of Commissioners may impose a real estate excise tax on the sale of all real property in the unincorporated parts of the county at a rate not to exceed 1/ 2 of 1°/9 in lieu of a five-tenths of one percent salestax option authorized under RCW 52. 14.040 (2). The statute provides for a repeal mechanism. This levy is not available to Clark County, because it hasimplemented a portion of its discretionary sales tax option. 3. Boards of Commissioners-4n countiesthat are required to prepare comprehensive plans under the Growth Management Act—are authorized to impose an additional real estate excise tax on all real property salesin unincorporated parts of the county at a rate not to exceed 114 of 10% These funds must be used "solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan." 4. Boards of Commissioners may also impose—with voter approval—a real estate exci se t ax on each sal a of real propert y in t he count y at a rat a not t o exceed 1°oof the selling price for the specific purpose of acquiring and maintaining "local conservation areas." (see following discussion) 7 Real Estate Excise Tax—Local Conservation Areas Chapter 52.46 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes counties to impose—with majority voter approval—an excise tax on each sale of real property in the county at rate not to exceed one percent of the selling price for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining conservation areas. The authorizing legislation defines conservation areas as "land and water that has environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic, or low- intensity recreational value for existing and future generations.. ." These areas include "open spaces, wetlands, marshes, aquifer recharge areas, shoreline areas, natural areas, and other lands and waters that are important to reserve flora and fauna." 8. Not el-Motel Tax Chapter 67.25 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes cities and counties to levy and collect a combined special excise tax of up to two percent on all charges for furnishing lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments. Countiesmay levy up 184 RRCSN Vision Plan to two percent. Cities may levy up to two percent, which is deducted from the county's rate. Revenues may be used to acquire and operate tourism-related facilities, which are defined as "real or tangible personal property with a usable life of three or more years, or constructed with volunteer labor, and used to support tourism, performing arts, or to accommodate tourist activities." 9. Leasehold Excise Tax Chapter 82.29A of the Revised Code of Washington establishesa state leasehold excise tax of 12.84 percent on the lease or contract rent of publicly-owned real and personal property. Cities and counties are authorized to levy and collect up to a combined six percent, which is deducted from the state' s rate. Counties may levy up to six percent. Cities may levy up to four percent, which is deducted from the county' s rate. 10. User Fees Chapter 36.68.090 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes countiesto charge "reasonable" feesfor use of publicly-owned park and recreation facilities. Typically, fees are set at a level that recovers all direct and indirect costs. Fees may be set at lower levelsbased on public policy or market factors. Some facilities are not suited for user fees, such asneighborhood parkswhere the cost of collection would exceed revenue. 11. Development Impact Fees Chapter 82.02 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes counties, cities and towns planning under RCW 36.70A.040 to impose impact feeson commercial and residential development activity to partially finance public facilitiesto serve new growth and development. Publicfacilitiesfunded with impact fees must be part of an adopted capital facilitiesplan, and may include parks, open space, and recreation facilities. Public facility needs not created by new growth and development must be met from other sources of public fundswithin a reasonable period of time. 12. Gate-Distributed Motor Vehicle Fund Chapters46.68 and 47.30 of the Revised Code of Washington establish the distribution and expenditure of moniesfrom the motor vehicle fund. Funds are allocated to the state, counties, cities, and townsfor road, street, and highway purposes. These include reasonable" amountsfor planning, accommodating, establishing, and maintaining trails for pedestrians, equestrians, or bicyclists. Qualified trail projects must be severed by highways, accommodated on an existing highway right-of-way, or separate motor vehicle traffic from pedestrians, equestrians, or bicyclists to a level that materially increases motor vehicle safety, and be part of the adopted comprehensive trail plan of the governmental authority with jurisdiction over trails. 185 RROSN Vi si on Ran Appendix VI Example Practices for Development 186 RROSN Vi si on Plan Example Practices for Development This appendix presents ideas for how development could occur while preserving open space and other cultural and natural values, some example ordinances used in Boise, and examples of representative goals and policies that could be incorporated into a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Here is a summary of what appears in this appendix: Growing Greener, Conservation by Design Natural Lands Trust, Inc., March 2009 Reproduced in its entirety with the permission of the Natural Lands Trust, Inc. This booklet summarizes how municipalities can use the development process to their advantage to protect interconnected networks of open space: natural areas, greenways, trails and recreational land. Communities can take control of their destinies so that their conservation goals are achieved in a manner fair to all parties concerned. Al that is needed are some relatively straight-forward amendments to municipal comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision ordinances. See also: http:/ /www.iiatlands.oi-g,i Also, see the work of Randall Arendt: http:l 1 www.greenerprospects.coml index.html http:l 1 www.greenerprospects.coml products.html Foothills Planned Development Ordinance (Boise, 1D) The purpose of the Foothills Planned Development Ordinance is to implement residential subdivision density and design elements of the Boise City Foothills Policy Plan (The Plan) and the Boise City Comprehensive Plan. It is also designed to protect and promote preservation of contiguous areas of Foothills open space that contain important and significant natural and cultural resource values, as identified in The Plan and this ordinance. see also: http:/!www.cityofboise.org/ Departments/ PDS CompPlanning/ Foothills/page 11531.aspx Representative Coals and Policies Table 7 presents entriesfrom the comprehensive plans of five western citieswith geographies similar to ours. Entries are arranged according to representative open space goals and policies that a comprehensive plan may contain. The table allows comparisons between the five selected communities and also serves as a guide for evaluating comprehensive plans of Md-Columbia communities. 187 MOP .A* 1 - Communities across Pennsylvania are preserving their special open spaces, greenways and natural resources at the same time they achieve their development objectives. How? i Conservation through local zoning and subdivision ordinances; an approach we call Grooving Greener: Conservation by Design. If you want to ensure that new development creates more livable communities, the Groaning Greener: Conservation by Design approach might be right for you. "This is how the process should work! " Guy Smith, Municipal Solicitor Grooving Greener: Conservation by Design This booklet summarizes how municipalities can use the development process to their advantage to protect interconnected networks of open space: natural areas, greenways, trails and recreational lands. Communities can take control of their destinies so that their conservation goals are achieved in a manner fair to all parties concerned.All that is needed are some relatively straightforward amendments to municipalcomprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and subdivision ordinances.These steps are described on the pages that follow. Grooving Greener: Conservation by Design is a collaborative program of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and Natural Lands Trust, a regional land conservancy located in Media,PA.Since 1997,over 26%ofthe municipalities in Pennsylvania's fastest growing counties have participated in the Grooving Greener: Conservation by Design program and of those participants,34% have adopted rigorous versions of ordinances.The communities that adopt the Groaning Greener: Conservation by Design ordinances are preserving an average of 62% of residential land, each time a property is developed, extending their green footprint across the Commonwealth. How Do I Learn More? The following services are available in Pennsylvania: (1) educational work^hops, held at the county and regional level, for local officials,developers and others involved in making land use decisions; and presentations at conferences; (2) technical assistance for communities—primarily in the form of assessments of land use regulations, ordinance assistance and design services; and (3) training for professionals interested in learning how to write the ordinances and use the design methods that implement the Grooving Greener: Conservation by Design standards. i Natural Lands Truster GNU Hildacy Farm Department of Conservation 1031 Palm ers Mill Road and Natural Resources Media,PA 19063 www.dcnr.state.pa.us 610-353-5587 wsvw.natlands.org/growing greener Diane Kripas Ann Hutchinson 717-772-3321 610-353-5640 ext.230 dkripos®state.pa.us ahutchinson @natlands.org Funding forthis booklet generously provided byThe William Penn Foundation and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 0 March 2009 i OUling Greener:Cor rmr atirm A)'Dies�V Putting Conservation into Local Codes The Conservation Design (;oncept Each tyne a property is developed into a plan, the zoning ordinance and the land-consumptive manner,allowing the residential subdivision, an opportunity subdivision and land development balance ofthe property to be permanently exists for adding land to a community- ordinance.Simply stated,Conservation protected and added to an interconnected wide network of open space. Although Design rearranges the development networkofcommunity green spaces.This few municipalities take advantage of on each parcel as it is being planned "density-neutral"approach provides a fair this opportunity, this situation could so that half (or more) of the buildable and equitablewayto balance conservation be reversed by making several small but land is set aside as open space.Without and development objectives. significant changes to three basic local controversial "down zoning," the same land-usedocuments—thecomprehensive number of homes can be built in a less Acgwred park Land Conservation SubcLvision Open Space Donated to Tovira6p by Developer private Open Space �i CovedinConmuvationSubdivisron Trails nser ,y A I N Recently planted saplings will eventually restore a woodland edge along the stream-The white tubes protect the saplings frorn deer browse- Figure 1 London Grove Township,ChesterCounty uses both selective acquisition and theirGrowing Greener codes to implement its Greenway and Trails Plan.The plan on the left shows three parcels along tributaries to the White Clay Creek,designated an"Exceptiona[Value"stream under thefederal Wild&Scenic Rivers program.TheTownship acquired the darkest green parcel wi th County grant funds and a conserva- tion subdivision developer donated the hatched parcel,atnocost to theTownship.Two honneowners'associationsown and maintain the conservation subdivision open space.A public trail connects the neighborhoods and parkland. Natural Lands Trust (*rowing Greener:Conservation by Design Getting Started Pei fanning "Community Assessments" A"Community Assess ment"heips Local community wishes to see conserved. officials and residents see the ultimate Those places are often natural areas result o fcontinuing to implement current such as woodlands,streams,habitatand land-use policies.The process helps start passive recreational areas(seeRgure 3) X— discussions about how current trends or they may be working and historic can be modified so that a greener future landscapes (see Figure 4). is ensured. Municipalities can perform assess- Unfortunately, most communities ments to see the fiiture before it happens, _ with standard zoning and subdivision so that theywill be able to judgewhether codes face a future in which every unpro- a mid-course correction is needed. A tected acre ofbt tildablelandissystemati- CommunityAssessmententailsanevalu- cally converted into developed uses. ation of the land-use regulations that are ' �.• ,%•� .' Mo s t local ordinances allow or encour- currently on the books,identifying their age standardized layouts of"wall-to-wall strengths and weaknesses and offering houselots." Over a period of decades constructive recommendations about this process produces a broader pat- how they can incorporate the conserva- tern of"wall-to-wall subdivisions." No tion techniques described inthisbooklet. community actively plans to become It also includes a realistic appraisal of Figure2 ConvendonalBulldouf a bland suburb without open space. the eltentto which private conservation A matching pairof graphics,taken from However, most zoning codes program efforts are Likely to succeed in protect- an actual"build-outmap;'showing ex- exactly this outcome(see Figure2).Local ing lands from development through isting conditions(mostly undeveloped officials can actually achieve goals of various nonregulatory approaches such land) contrasted with the potential Comprehensive and Open Space plans as purchases or donations of easements development patternoP'checkerboard by encouraging more compact develop- or fee title interests. suburbia"created through conventional ment, or "conservation subdivisions" zoning and subdivision regulations. that incorporate the special places a to Figure 4 Farmview, Lower Makefield Township, Bucks County. The developer donated 145 acres of Figure 3 farmland to the Lower Makefield Farmland Pres- GarnetOaks,BethelTownship,Delaware County.Th e centerpiece ofG arn et Oaks' ervation Corporation,a local land trust,enabling open space is the near mile-long trail,which winds its way through the wooded, the Township to advance farmland preservation 24-acre conservation area,connecting a playground and quiet picnic groveto the goals at no cost to residents. Premiums added street system.Without theconservation Subdivision approach,thewoodland and to the"view lots"abutting the protected fields trailswould have been cleared for larger lawns and longer streets. also contributed to the project's profitability. Developer:Realen Homes Developer:Reolen Homes 2 Nat.ra2 Lmrds Iirmt Growing Greener;Com marion by Design Plan. u- ' LaroDevelopiEmr Cadi-:, 2':171:1 r,,TEfbei like i sfooi t)rovki�II I "I 1,00ring i- 'eipaliry� -c L M,C If.'r lh-,lew Lg-i �,n f ot i? -i erg i F,cv Conservation Planning A Map of Potential Conservation Lamis Although many communities have prime farmland, groundwater recharge Land and scenic viewsheds). It will also adopted either Comprehensive Plans or areas, greenways and traits, river and reveal gaps where no features appear. Open Space Plans containing detailed Stream corridors, historic sites and Although this exercise is notan exact inventories of their natural and historic buildings, and scenic viewsheds. These science,itfrequently helps localofficials: resources, very few have taken the next Secondary Conservation Areas are often and residents visualize how various kinds logicalstepof pulling to gether a composite best understood by the IOC21 residents of resource areas are connected to one Map of Potential Conservation Lands. who may be directly involved in their another,and enables th em to tentatively Such a map a d o p ted as p o licy is vitally identification. Usually these secondary identify both broad swaths and narrow important to any community interested resource areas are totally unprotected corridors of resource land that could be in conserving an interconnected network and are simply zoned for one kind of protected in a variety ofways. of open space. The map serves as the development or another. Figure 5shows a pertionofa township too[ which guides decisions regarding Abasemapis then prepared on which map illustrating this approach. which land to Protect in Order for the the Primary Conservation Areas have The techniques which can best network to eventually take form and been added to an inventory of Lands implement the community-wide Map have substance. which are already protected (such as of Potential Conservation Lands are A Map ofPotentialConservation Lands parks,land tnIStpTeseTves,andproperties ConseTvationZening and Conservation starts with information contained in under conservation easement).Overlay Subdivision Design. These techniques the community's existing planning sheets showing each kind of Secondary work ]land in hand. Conservation documents.The next task is to identify Conservation Area are thenlaid ontop of Zoning expands the range of develop- two kinds of resource areas. Primary the base map in an order reflecting the ment choices available to landowners Conservation Areas comprise only the community's preservation priorities (as and developers. just as importantly, it most severely constrained lands, where determined through public discussion). also eliminates the destructive option developmentis typically restricted under Thiscverlay pro cess WillTeveat certain of creating full-density "checkerboard" current codes and laws,such aswetlands, situations where two Or More conseTva- layouts converting all land within new flcodplains, and slopes exceeding 259/8. tion features appear together (such as subdivisions into houselots and streets. Secondary Conservation Areas include woodlands andwildlife habitats,oTfartn- The second technique,"Co nservatio n all other locally noteworthy Or signifi- Subdivision Design," preserves half or cant features of the natural Or Cultural More of the buildable land area within landscape, such as Mature woodlands, a residential development as undivided wildlife habitats and travel corridors, permanent open space.NotsuTprisingly, the first and Most important step in de- signing a conservation subdivision is to identify the land to be preserved.Byusing the community-wide Map of Potential Conservation Lands as a template for the layout and design o f conservation areas within new subdivisions,these develop- Figure 6 ments help to Create an interconnected Marshall Pond and Marshall View, network of open space spanning the Wallace Township, Chester County. entire municipality. I he conservatixi lands(shon in green)N Figure 6 shoe s how the open space in In these three adjoining sLibdivislons several adjoiningsubdivisionshas beende- nqsffe 5 form part of an Interconnected network signed to connect,and illustrates the w ay Fxcprpt frm a mapoiForendal of open space in Wallace Township in which dieMap ofPo ten rial Conservation Coinctiollon tand,% Chester County. I Lands can become a reality. Natuml Lands 71rust 3 Growing Greener:Canservation by Design Conservation Zoning A "Menu" of Choices The main reason subdivisions typically development.Under either approach,a subject to architectural design standards consist of nothing more than houselots developer would then be permitted full to resemble outbuildings on a traditional and streets is that most local Land-use density only if at least 50% of the build- estate, and restricted from being sepa- ordinances ask little, if anything, with able land is maintained as undivided rately subdivided. respect to conserving open space or open space(Figure 8.Opt1on 7).Another It is noteworthy that the 36 village, Providing neighborhood amenities full density option would include a 25% like lots in Optlon5(seeFtureI2)occupy (see Figure 6). density bonus for the development of an less land than die IS lots in Option 7, Communities wishing to break the "age-targeted"community preserving at and that Option s therefore contributes cycle of "wall-to-wall houselots" need least 60%of the buildable land (Figure 4: more significantly to the goal0f creating to ccnsidermodifying their zoningtoac- Op Hon 2). community-widenetworksofcpen spa ce. tively and legallyencour age sAdivisicns Develo Pero wishingto serve the"es tate The village-scale lots in Options are that set aside at least 50%of the land as lot"markethavetwo additional options. Particularly populaTwithempty-nesters, permanently protected opens pace and to One involves lots containing at least four single-parent households, and couples incorporate substantial density disincen- acres cf unconstrained land (Figure I0: with young children. Their layout is tives for developers who do not conserve Option.3). The other permits "country based on that of historic hamlets and any significant percentage of land. properties" of at least 10 acres, which villages in the region.New develo pments Following this approach, a mu- may be accessed by gravel drives built in this category could be controlled as nicipality would first determine the to new township standards for very low- Conditional Uses subject to illustrated number of units permitted (density) by volume rural lanes (Fiore II:Op Hon 4). design standards. cc nventio nal zoning,using a yield plan An additional incentive to encourage Two or More ofthese optic no could be (Figure 7;Yield Wan). A formula which developers to choose this fourth option combined ona single large PTO perty.One subtracts environmentally constrained may be permission to build up to two logical approach would combine Options land may also be used, thereby basing aceessorydwellingscnthese pro perties. 7 and 4,with the Opdon4"cc untry PTO p- density on the site's capacity to support Those units would be limited in size, erties" comprising part of the required ♦ a � ■ O • • F;gwy i Yield Wan Figure.8 Option 7 Figw-e 4 Option 2 Con%entional Uensity-neutral Age-targeted Cointnunily DavPlopniont Pattern 18 Lots 25%Density Increase 181 ors 1 of S17P Range.),000 24 Lob Min.Lot Size:80.000 sq.ft. to 40,000 sq.ft Lot Size:12,000 to NO Undivided 50%Undivided 24,000 sq.ft. Open Space Open Space 6096 Undivided Open Space 4 !Natural lands Trust -XUfng GPFEner:l-0717E7y46-In 6-Dies�p C �; • \._ � it e • I •1� a Fpere IO Option Figure II 0ptfon4 Figure 12 Op don 5 Estate Lots Country Properties Hamlet or Village 50%Density Reduction 70%Density Reduction Double Density 9 Lots 5 Lots 36 Lots Typical Lot Size: Maximum Density: Lot Size Range: 160,000 sq.ft.(±4 acres) 10 acres per 6,000 to 12,000 sq.ft.. No common principal dwelling 70 0,6 Undivided open space required No common Open Space open space required open space in a co nservatio n subdivision (see Figure 13). Conspicuously absent from this menu of choices is the conventional full- f r densitysubdivisionproviding nounfrag- I mented open space (Figure 7). Because that kind of development causes the largest loss of resource land and poses the greatest obstacle to conservation efforts, it is not included as an option I under this approach. r For illustrative purposes, this book- let uses a density of one dwelling unit per 80,000 square feet. However, Conservation Zoning is equally appli- cable to higher density zoning districts of one,three or four units per acre.Such densities typically occur in villages, boroughs,urban growth boundary areas and TDR receiving areas where open Figure I3 space is critical to the residents quality The Preserve at Birch Run,West Vincent Township,Chester County.An Option T space In such critical t the residents'quality conservation Subdivision arranges homes around eight acres of common open space. of the open space percentage typically In addition, a historic horse farm was preserved on a 15-acre country property"lot ranges between 25-35%,cn addition to (Option 4).Up to 800,6 of a country property can count toward required open space. Developer;bloodstone Nomes unbuildable lands. t` Natural Lands Trusr J Growing Greener:Conservation by Design Conservation Subdivision Design A Four-Sleep Process Designing subdivisions around the central property that are typically unprotected informal trails (Figure 18), while Step organizing principle ofland conservation under current codes: mature woodlands, Pour consists of drawing in the lot lines is not difficult. However, it is essential greenways and trails, stream corridors, (Figure 19). that ordinances contain clear standards prime farmland,hedgerows and individual This approach reverses the sequence to guide the Cc nservatio nDesign pro cess. trees or tree groups,wildlife habitats and of steps taken in laying out conventional The four-step approach described below travel corridors, historic sites and strut- subdivisions, where the street system is has been proven to be effective in laying trees, scenic viewsheds, etc.This is also the first thing to be designed, followed out new full-densitydevelopmentswhere thetimeto identify those soils best suited by lot lines fanning out to encompass all the significant natural and cultural for sanitary sewer and stormwater man- everysquarefcotofgrcund intohcuselots. features have been preserved. agement facilities. After "greenlining" When municipalities require nothing Step One consists of identifying the features to be saved, the remaining more than"hcuselots and streets,"that is the land that should be permanently partof the property becomes the Potential alltheyreceive.Butby setting community protected. The developer incorporates Development Area (Figure 16). standards higher and requiring 50 to 70% areas pre-identified on the community- Step Two involves locating sites for open space as a precondition for achiev- wide Map of Potential Conservation Lands individual houses within the Potential ing fill density, officials can effectively and then performs a detailed site analysis Development Area so that their views of encourage Conservation Subdivision in order to precisely locate features to be. the open space are maximized (Figure Design.The protected land in each new conserved.The developer first identifies 17). The number of houses is a func- subdivision would then become building allthe constrainedlands(wet,floodprone, tion of the density permitted within the blocks that add new acreage to commu- and steep), called Primary Conservation zoning district, as shown on a Yield Plan nity-wide networks of interconnected Areas (Figure 14). He then identifies (Figure 7), open space. Secondary Conservation Areas(Figure 15) Step Three simply involves "con- which comprise noteworthy features ofthe necting the dots" with streets and _ r prop . T74 L. � r t / mcvd✓.v �/ f irctr3�Nr � �.A�rXrav rt 9 ©ak ��t rtrrai�w In , «�tv�d r+cncA - M Figna•e 14 Primary Conservation Areas Fi&we15 Secondary Conser vo don A reos Wetlands.floc4plain,steepslopes These special features constitutea significant asset to the property valueand neighborhood charatler.They are the roost vulnerable to change,but can easily be retained through Consematlon Design. 6 !Natural lands Trust Crowing Greener:Cor7m4aan i7y Design ® stormv✓ater Wastewater a ' r r ♦ A l t t ♦ t I Figure 16 Step One Figure 17 Step 7Wo Delineating greenway land,stormwater and Locating House Sites wastewater locations and potential development areasfor Options 1,2,and 5 tti ♦ }�, t � !;{ O , - � fit; t Figure 18 Step Three Figure 19 Step Four Aligning Streets and Trails Drawing in the Lot Lines Natural Lands Thsr 7 Growing Greener.Canseivation by Design Frequently Asked Questions About Conservation Subdivision Design Does this conservation-based land on a "willing seller/willing buyer" would typically be denied,permissionto "taking"? To facilitate such negotiations, create a small ballfield or a single tennis approach involve a taJCi7Zg>,? Conservation Zoning ordinances can court in a corner of a large conservation No.People who do not fully understand be written to include density incentives meadow or former field might well be this conservation-based approach to to encourage developers to designate granted. subdivision design may mistakenly specific parts of their consery ation land believe that it constitutes "a taking for public ownership or for public access of land without compensation." This and use. a A legal analysis of the Growing misunderstanding may stem fi'om the g Y g ghat are the ownership, fact that conservation subdivisions, as Greener workbook, by Harrisburg land maintenance, tax and described in this booklet,involve either use attorney Charles E. Zaleski, Esq., liability issties? large percentages o fund ivid ed openspace isreprintedonthelastpageofthisbook- or tower overall building densities. let.The model ordinancewas updated in When considering subdivisions which There are two reasons why this ap- 2008 and reviewed by attorney George conserve open space, officials often ask proach does not constitute a"taking." Asimos of Saul Ewing, LLP, Wayne, who will be responsibleforthepotential First, no density is taken away. Pennsylvania. liability and payment of property taxes. Conservation Zoning is fundamen- The short answer is that whoever owns tally fair because it allows landowners the conservation land is responsible for and developers to achieve full density How can a community ensure all of the above. under the municipality's current zon- ing—and even to increase that density permanent protection.for Ownership Choices significantly—through several different conservation Lznds? There are basically four options,which "as-of-right"options.Of the five options may be combined within the same Permitted under Conservation Zoning, The most effective way to ensure that subdivision where that makes the most three provide for either full or enhanced conservation land in a new subdivision sense. densities. The other two options offer will remain undeveloped forever is + Individual Landowner the developer the choice to lower den- to place a permanent conservation At its simplest level, the original sities and increase lot sizes. Although easement on it. Such easements run with the chain of title, in perpetuity, landowner {a farmer, for example} Conservation Zoning precludes full- P P ty can retain ownership to as much as density layouts that do notconserve open and specify the various conservation 4 f g � uses that may occur on the Property. 80% of the conservation land. At space, this is legal because there is no Y p p ty' least 20% of the open space should be constitutional"right to sprawl." These restrictions are separate fi'om zonin ordinances and continueinforce reserved for common neighborhood Second, no land is taken for public use. g use by subdivision residents. That None of the land which is required to even if zoning changes permit higher be designated for conservation purposes densities in future years. Easements are landowner can also pass this property to becomes public(or even publicly acces- typically held by land trusts and units of on sons daughters, or sell it sible)unless the landowner ordeveloper government. Since political leadership other indivi dual landowners, With can Chan a over time,land trusts are the Permanent conservation easements wants it to be. In the vast majority of g running with the land and protecting situations, municipalities themselves m OItreliableholderofeasements,astheir mission never varies. Deed restrictions it from development under fixture have no desire to own and manage owners. The open space should rat, such conservation land, which they and covenants are,by comparison,not as however, generally feelshouldbeaneighborhood effectiveas easements,but are sometimes individual l divided among all of n responsibility. In cases where local of- useful for small areas of open space. individual subdivision lots at land Easements can be modified only within management and access difficulties are ficials wish to provide township recce- Y likely to arise. ational facilities (such as ballfields or the spirit of the original agreement,and trails)withinconsery ationsubdivisions, only if the co-holders agree. In practice, + Homeowners'Associations the municipality must negotiate with whileaproposalto erect anotherhouseor Most conservation land within sub, the developer for the purchase of that a country clubbuildingontheopenspace divisions is owned and managed by 8 !Natural Lands Trust Growing Greener;Cons marion by Design homeowners' associations (HOAs). identified in a municipal open space Maintenance Issues A few basic ground rules encourage planas a good location for a neighbor- Local officials should require conser- a good performance record. First, hood park or for a linkin a community vation area management plans to be membership must be automatic, a trail network.Developers can often be submitted and approved prior to grant- precondition of property purchase encouraged to sell or donate certain ing final subdivision approval. In order in the development. Second, zoning areas to municipalities. to assist communities and developers in should require that bylaws give such managing conservation areas, Natural associations the legal right to place • Combinations of Owners Lands Trust has published a Stewardship liens on properties of members who As illustrated in Figure 20,the ccnser- Handbook for Natural Areas in Southeast, fail to pay their dues.Third, facilities vation land within new subdivisions ern Pennsylvania(available atwww.nat- should be minimal(ballfieldsand trails could involve multiple ownerships, lands.otg)that identifies different kinds rather than clubhouses and swimming including"no n-common'°open space of conservation areas (from woodlands pools) to keep annual dues low. And such as cropland retained by the origi- and pastures to ballfields and abandoned fourth,detailed maintenance plans for nal farmer, common open space such farmland) and describes recommended conservation areas should be required as ballfields owned by an HOA, and management practices for each one, by the municipality as a condition of a trail corridor owned by either a land Farmland is typically leased by HOAs approval. The municipality has en- trust or by the municipality. and land trusts to local farmers, who force mentlights and may place a lien often agree to modify some of their ag- on the property should the HOA fail ricultural practices to minimize impacts to perform its obligations to maintain the conservation land. • Land Trusts Homeowner's Association Although homeowners' associations Open Space are generally the mo st to gicalow ners of conservationlandwithin subdivisions, occasionally situations arise where such ownership most appropriately resides with a land trust (such as when a particularly rare or significant natural area is involved). Land trusts are private, charitable groups whose principal purpose is to protect .t J Potential land under its stewardship from greenway inappropriate change. Their most l !� t`` corridor common role is to hold easements or fee simple title on conservation lands within new developments and S /00" elsewhere in the community,to ensure that all restrictions are observed. To cover their costs in maintaining land r• J they own or in monitoring land on Jrrr! r I" Open Space dedicated to whichthey holdeasements,land trusts rY 3 .0000, Tovfnship or Conservation ���I typically require some endowment Potential Organization fiu nding. g reenway corridor • Municipality or Other Public Agency In special situations a local govern- ment might desire to own part of the F gore w MufOpfe Owne shfps conservation landwithin a new subdi- Various privato. and ptihlIc Pnti rip scan meen differenI parts of the open space wlthIn vision,such as when that land hasbeen consena lonsAdIvIsions,aslllUstratedabove. Tl arum!Lands 71rus r a M Growing Greener:Conservation by Design on nearby residents.Although ballfields How Can oil.-site sewage and village greens require weekly mow- disposal work conservation meadows typically avU1"k catch conservation l need only annual mowing. Woodlands subdivisions? \ generally require die least maintenance- trimming bushes alongwalking traits,and The conventional view is dia t the smaller ` removing invasive vines around the outer lots in conservation subdivisions make them more di edges where greater sunlight penetration difficult to develop in areas without sewers. However, die reverse favors their growth. is true. The flexibility inherent in the -r Tax Concerns design of conservation subdivisions , makes them superior to conventional 77 _ Property tax assessments on conserva tion O {�J) layouts in their ability tc provide for subdivisions should not differ, in q total, from those on conventional adequate sewage disposal. Here are p developments. This is because die tu'o examples: same number of houses and acres of Utilizing the Best Soils land are involved. In both cases the Conservation design requires the rate is similar to that applied to land in conventional subdivisions where the most suitable soils on the property to be identified at the outset, enabling larger heuselcts are not big enough to houselots to be arranged to take the be further subdivided.(For example,the best advantage of them. If one end of a undeveloped back half of none-acre lot g FigurY 21 Septic Systems property has deeper,better drained soils, In Common in a one-acre zoning district is subject Open Space it makes more sense to site dhehomes in P �' to minimal taxation because it has no A practical alternative to centralwater or further development value. that part of the property rather than to p ) spread them out,with some lots located sewage disposal facilities are individu- entirely on mediocre soils that barely ally-owned wells and/or sepdc systems Liability Questions standards within conservation areas, in manage to meet minimal etandads for The Pennsylvania Recreation Use of septic approval. places specifically designated for theta Land and Water Act protects owners on the final plan. of undeveloped land from liability for Locating Individual Systems negligence if die landowner does not within the Open Space charge a fee to recreational users. A Conventional wisdom also holds that soil conditions, they are best located in tree root or rock outcropping along a passive use areas such as conservation when lots become smaller,centralwater trail that trips ahikerwillnotconstitute or sewage disposal is required. That meadows where the grass is cut only landowner negligence. To be stied once a year. Such mounds should also view overlooks the practical alternative successfully in Pennsylvania,landowners of locating individual wells andf or be required to be contoured with gently must be found to have "willfully or individual septic systems widhin the sloping sides to blend into the surround- maliciously failed to guard against a permanent open space adjacent to the ing landscape as much as possible. dangerous condition. This is a much Although maintenance and repair of more co mpact lots typica L o fco ns ery atio n more difficult case for plaintiffs to make. subdivisions, as shown in Fiore 21. these septic systems remains the respon- Evense,to cover themselvesagauist such There is no engineering reason to sibility of individual lot owners,it is ree- situations,owners of conservation lands ommended dhat HOAs be authorized to require that septic absorption areas routinely purchase liability insurance must be located within each house- pump individual septic tanks onaregular Policies similar to those that most lot. However, it is essential that basis(at least every three years)to ensure homeowners maintain. the final approved subdivision plan that the accumulated sludge never rises Clearly indicate which parts of the un- to a level where it can flow into and clog divided open space are designated for the absorption fields.This inexpensive, septic disposal, with each lot's disposal preventive maintenance greatly extends field marked.These absorption areas can the life of die system. belocatedunder conservationmeadows in die same way they typically occupy positions undersuburban lawns.Ifmound systems are required due to marginal 10 !Natural lands Trust Growing Greener:Conservation by Design Figure 22 Foreground meadows provide attractive buffers between new homes and existing roads. Homes located along a single-loaded street typically look out over a meadow(tight),so that the view from the township road is one of a large grassy area and house fronts,not rear elevations(left). This arrangement ensures backyard privacy and avoids expensive artificial berms. How does this conservation Open Space Pre.Determined How do residential vales to Form Communitywide approach differ fr'orn Conservation Network in Conservation subdivisions "clusterin "? Although clustering has atbesttypically compare to conventional Produced a few small "green islands" subdivisions?Growing Greener conservation ag- here and there in any municipality, proach described here differs dramatis Conservation Zoning can protect In conservation subdivisions with occurred red in kind of"clustering"communities s that the blocks and corridors of permanent substantial open space, there is little occurred in many communities over the open space. These areas can be pre- or no correlation between lot size past several decades.The points of differ- identified on a comprehensive plan and price. These developments have ence are as follows: Map of Potential Conservation Lands so sometimes beendescribedas"golf course Higher Percentage and that each new development will add communities without the golf course,°' Quality of Open Space to—rather than subtract fi-om—the underscoring the idea that a house on a In contrast with typical cluster codes, community's open space acreage. small lot with a great view is frequently worth as much or more than the same Conservation Zoning establishes higher Eliminates the Standard house on a larger lot which is boxed in standards for both the quantity and Practice of Full•Density with on all sides by other houses. quality of open space that is to be No Open Space It is a well-established fact of real preserve o.Under ConsetvatienZoning, Under this new system, full density is estate that people pay more for park-like 50 to 70% of the unconstrained land is achievable for layouts in which 50% settings, which offset their tendency permanently set aside. This compares or more of the unconstrained land is to pay less for smaller lots. Successful with cluster provisions that frequently conserved as permanent, undivided developers know how to market homes require only 25 to 30% of the gross open space. By contrast, cluster zoning in conservation subdivisions by em- land area be consented. That minimal provisions are typically only optional phasizing the open space. Rather than open space often includes all the alternatives within ordinances that permit describing a house on a half acre lot as most unusable land as open spacee,, and fuIldensityby Tight,for stand ard"cookie- such,the product is described as a house sometimes also includes undesirable, cutter" designs with no open space. As left-otter areas such as stormwatet. g p p with 20 and one-half acres, the Larger long as developers are giventhe option of figure reflecting the area of consenaa- management facilities and land under hill-density,by Tight cenventionallaycuts tion land that has been protected in the high-tension power lines. withouto pen space,thevastmajoritywill development.When that conservation continue to opt for that more familiar area abuts other similar land, as in the design—to the community's detriment. township-wide open space network, a further marketing advantage exists. Natural Lands 71rust 11 `%swing G*eener:comervarion by Desigr FCKBU StAMANS Q-TRW&M&LO T —EIII _A� October 16,x947 Randall G.Arendt,Vice President Conservation Planning Natural Lands Trust,Inc. 1031 Painters Mill Road Media,PA 19063 Rc. Conservation Planning Documents and Growing Greener Workbook Dear Mr. ArendC I have had the opportunity to review the Growing Greener workbook and the proposed conservation planning concepts set forth in that workbook for compliance with the provisions of the United States Constitution,the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code(the'MPC"). in my opinion,the conservation planning concepts as set forth in the Growing Greener workbook are constitutional land use control concepts and the provisions comport with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities PIanning Code The subdivision concept which provides for a conceptual preliminary plan and standards for that plan is authorized specifically under the MPC as part of the two- stage planning process allowed by Section 503(1)of the MPC. The Zoning Ordinance concept utilizes a multi-tiered zoning system with options available to the landowner under the Zoning Ordinance. Such a device is specifically authorized under Section 605 of the MPC which specifically encourages innovation and promotion of flexibility,economy and ingenuity in development based upon express standards and criteria. The proposed ordinances contained in the workbook satisfy that specific requirement. uanwr® The provisions of both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution require that the land use regulations be reasonable and be intended to wntiw..i benefit the public health,safety and welfare. The concept of providing a variety of roa options for choices by the landowner meets both the reasonableness and public purpose tests of constitutionality. The benefit of the Groxrng Greener concept is that �wunr M.; there will be a greater amount of usable open space,while at the same time the landowners will be able to make reasonable use of their property under the options rte" available as proposed in the workbook, rmaen,�wwa," Individual municipalities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will have to apply the concepts and will have to establish their own densities based upon the unique „ circumstances in each particular municipality. There can be no guarantee that all such ordinances will be constitutional unless they satisfy the requirements of being tur reasonable with regard to the locationl circumstances of the particular property and r community in question. However,it is my opinion that if the concepts and procedures set forth in the Growing Greener workbook are followed and that the densities and requirements reflect the unique circumstances of the individual municipality,that the Growing Greener concept is lawful and constitutional in the Commonwealth. The concepts set forth in the Growing Greener workbook provide a new method of addressing the pressures of growth and development throughout both the urban and rural portions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,and I urge the municipal officials to give full consideratlon to these exciting new concepts. Very truly yours, Charles E.Zaleski CEZ/jr 12 z Ncitur>:t2 Lands Trtat C-(Wilg GTeener:COT 6-DefS ri "I've never had the opportunity to lust walk around a site and talk informally with officials fcials before submitting an engineered plan. It saved me time, money and aggravation." Chip Vaughan, Vaughan Builders "These ordinances have made a very significant difference for us." _ Jim Wendelgass, a ToNi-nship Manager ,,. We don't butt heads with developers - anymore; it's a smoother process." Andy Paravis, -� Tow=nship Supervisor S- Nafural Lands That 13 Thank you to the officials from over 150 Pennsylvania municipalities, who have worked with Natural Lands Trust under the Crowing Greener: Conservation by Design program since 1997! We also thank the following foundations and agencies for contributions over the years: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources The William Penn Foundation The Alexander Stewart, MD Foundation The Heinz Endowments Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection The United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program —i -- -- — Natural Lands Trust Natural Lands Tnist is eastern Pennsylvania's largest conservation organization,saving thousands of acres of forests,fields, streams,and wetlands each year.Since 1953,we have worked to protect the beauty of our region's natural lands for current and future generations by preserving and promoting healthy habitats for native plants and animals, clean watersheds for people and wildlife,and unspoiled areas for public enjoyment. Hildacy Farm — 1031 Palmers Mill Road— Media, PA 19063 610-353-5587 - www.natlands.org Foothills Planned Development Ordinance 11-06-05.7 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance 11-06-05.7.1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Foothills Planned Development Ordinance is to implement residential subdivision density and design elements of the Boise City Foothills Policy Plan (The Plan) and the Boise City Comprehensive Plan. It is also designed to protect and promote preservation of contiguous areas of Foothills open space that contain important and significant natural and cultural resource values, as identified in The Plan and this ordinance. 11-06-05.7.3. Applicability The Foothills Planned Development Ordinance shall apply to all proposed developments in the Boise City Foothills Planning Area where an annexation and/or rezone is required. 11-06-05.7.3. General Application and Development Requirements 1. All developments shall be processed as Planned Developments(PDs)under Section 11-06-05 of the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. �. Planned development proposals shall include applications for an annexation, a development agreement,a preliminary plat subdivision,a Millside and Foothill Areas Development@ermit,and where applicable,a floodplain permit.The initial applications may consist of conceptual applications as described in Appendix A.Phase II. 3. Upon annexation the buildable areas of the PD shall be zoned A2-1 A,@S i n gl e-F am il y Residential, with the density and design further controlled by the provisions of this ordinance. Slope protection and preserved open space areas shall be zoned AA@Dpen. 4. Developments shall be required to connect to municipal water and sewer services and participate in other municipal service districts as applicable. 5. Density bonuses do not add to buildable area to be developed,they simply add to the number of units allowed. 11-06-05.7.4. Density Bonus A density bonus pursuant to the formula in Table 1 shall be granted in return for the provision of preserved open space. A. Basic Provisions: 1. The base density on parcels proposed for development is that given for the existing Boise City or Ada County zone(s). '. The density bonus is based upon the ratio of buildable area to be preserved as open space, to the buildable area to be developed. See the Definitions section for the definition of ABuildable Area.Qa 3. The base density units may be added to the density bonus units without the requirement for additional open space preservation. 4. A developer may propose open space/density bonus points between those identified in Table 1, provided that the curve of the formula is unchanged. 5. The density formula may be adjusted to allow density transfers from other non-contiguous parcels at such time as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance is adopted and in effect. . Seprentber?0, 2000 Page I Foothills Planned Development Ordinance B. Preserved Open Space Eligible for a Density Bonus as per the formula in Table 1, shall meet the following requirements: 1. Lands of 25% slope or less, one acre or greater in size, with a minimum average width of 30 feet. 2. Public rights-of-way that meet requirements of this section,serve to connect development pockets,and -provide access to -public open space may be included in the density calculation for open space, but roads within a development pocket shall not be included. Rights-of-way that have dwelling units fronting or siding onto them shall not be included. 3. Other lands classified as Priority Open Space in section C below. ------------------------------------------ Table 1 - Density Bonus Formula* axe rople Built Area Open Space Density Duildable Area #of Bonus Percent Dedicated Bonus On 100 acres Units Percent Units After Open /Acre Space Set- Aside 75% 25% 0.5 75.0 3 69% 31% 0.75 68. 5 63% 38% 1.0 62.5 6 56% 44% 1.25 56.3 7 50% 50% 1.5 50.0 7 44% 56% 1.75 43.8 77 380/6 63% 2.25 37.5 64 31% 69% 3.0 31.3 94 25% 75%1 4.01 25. 10 *1 j The base density of one unit per forty acres for the entire project area may be added to the number of units allowed by the density bonus formula. C. Other Open Space Allowances The City recognizes that the foothills provide a great degree of variability in landforms, environmental habitats and cultural resources. Some areas may have a combination of characteristics that cause them to be considered worthy of special incentives for preservation, even if they do not meet the normal size, slope or dimensional requirements necessary to qualify as Open Space Eligible for a D ensity Bonus as per Section 1 1-06-05.7.4.B above. W hen these areas are identified on a property and proposed for preservation, the Planning and Zoning Commission may classify theta as Priority Open Space and allow all or a portion of them to qualify for the granting of a density bonus. In order to qualify for a density bonus,Priority Open Space lands must demonstrate at least.four of eleven characteristics established for high priority open space lands. T here must also be a demonstrable increase in the public value of the resource by such allowance that.would not be realized by strict adherence to the other provisions of this cede. Priority Open Space Characteristics Septenriber 20, 2000 Page 2 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance Of the following eleven characteristics of high priority open space, at least four must co-exist on a property for consideration as Priority Open Space Eligible for a Density Bonus: 1. 'A'etlands ?. Riparian areas 3. Rare plant communities 4. Critical deer and elk winter range and migration corridors 5. Boise City Historic Preservation Committee:Potential Public Preservation Sites 6. Unique geologic or visual features 7. Archeologic or other historic sites 8. Trails and trail-heads designated in the Ada County Ridge to Rivers Pathway Plan 9. Other public trails and trail heads as approved by the Boise CityParks and Recreation Board 10. Lands adjacent to publicly-held open spaces 11. Lands adjacent to areas that are, or have the potential to be, designated and set aside as ublic open space lands in accordance Naith the provisions of this ordinance. Criteria for Determining Demonstrable Increase in Public Value of Pri ority Open Space In allowing density bonus credit for priority open space in steeply sloped areas or in fragmented pieces, there must be a demonstrable increase in the public value of the resource by such allowance. Demonstrable increase in value may include but is not limited to the following: I. Allowance for public access. 2. Protection from alteration of important vegetation, terrain or scenic views and vistas that could otherwise occur from a permitted use such as mining, logging, gazing or construction of utilities or infrastructure. 3. Linkage of interspersed eligible open space areas into a more biologically complete and continuous wildlife corridor. 4. Dedication or discounted sale to a willing public agency. Plannin-2 and Zonirl-2 Commies ion Consideration of Priority Open Space It is not the intent of this section to broadly allow the designation of highly fragmented or steeply sloped land as open space, to the total exclusion of the normal requirements of clustering and set aside of buildable area open space. Priority Open Space, when it exists, should be used in balance with other forms of eligible open space to meet the requirements of this code. When the applicant demonstrates that a portion of his property not otherwise qualified as Open Space Eligible for a Density Bonus as per Section 11-06-05.7.4.B, does meet the above-listed criteria, the Commission may classify it as Priority Open Space and allow some or all of it to qualify for the granting of a density bonus. T he amount allowed to qualify as Open Space Eligible for a Density Bonus shall be discretionary based upon the degree to which it meets or exceeds the minimum criteria established in this section. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall seek the input of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Boise City Parks and Recreation Board and other public agencies with expertise in the issue at hand,in determining the proper amount to be allowed to be set aside in return for a density bonus. D. Golf Courses Allowed in Open Space -Golf courses may be permitted in designated preserved open space areas, provided that they are of the Links type in which players hit from a tee box to a green with the September 20, 2000 Page 3 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance intervening spaces maintained in a primarily natural condition. These golf courses shall be characterized by the use of native plants with natural landforrn contours left intact. Parking lots, club houses, driving ranges, maintenance facilities and similar golf-related uses shall not be counted as open space contributory to the density bonus. Designated trails and park sites must be preserved in or around the golf course. E. The following are ineligible for inclusion as preserved open space in the density bonus calculation, except as may be provided in paragraphs C. of this section: 1. Urban developed uses such as club houses, tennis courts, swimming pools, dirt bike tracks, golf driving ranges and similar uses that dramatically alter land from its natural state, and/or uses that may be considered a commercial land use of the site. 2. Internal park sites. Park sites may only be included as eligible open space when they are left in a primarily natural condition and include a significant opening from the subdivision into a larger designated open space area outside the subdivision. 11-06-05.7.5. General Design Criteria A. Foothills Planned Developments shall be designed to meet the following general criteria: 1. Residential uses shall be clustered within development pockets rather than scattered throughout the property, while preserving the remaining land in separate parcel(s) of permanent open space. 2. Designated open space areas shall be linked to other open spaces to the greatest extent possible. I Road and trail access to adjacent properties shall be provided to prevent landlocked parcels and/or breaks in the trail systems. 4. Disturbance of the land shall be minimized and development shall be avoided in areas that would necessitate excessive grading, cut and fill. 5. Development pockets shall be sited and designed in compliance with policiesin The Plan concerning clustering, environmental protection, open space conservation and scenic and aesthetic goals. 6. Fire safety and protection measures to reduce the threat of wildfires shall be incorporated into the design in accordance with Uniform Fire Code and Boise City Code Title 7. Such measures shall include internal residential sprinkling systems,defensible space for the structures and the provision of safe evacuation routes for residents in case of wildfire. 7. Gated developments are prohibited due to the potential for such limited access to restrict or delay emergency response in the Foothills. S. The crossing of designated open space,floodways,wetlands and areas of high wildlife habitat value with roads and infrastructure shall be avoided to the greatest exten t possible. 9. A mixture of dwelling unit types is allowed, including single family and multi-family units. 10. Neighborhood commercial and service commercial uses are allowed,but they must be designed to reflect and conform to the height, mass,materials and site design of the residential structures in the PD. 11. Setbacks and other dimensional standards may be varied to suit the conditions. B. Trails are required in Foothills Planned Developments according to the following: 1. There shall be public access to public trails contiguous to and/or intersecting the subject parcel(s). 2. Trail design should preserve the natural scenic and wildlife habitat values. I The Ada County Ridge-To-Rivers Pathway Plan shall be used as a guide for trail locations. September 20, 2000 Page 4 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance 4. Trails shall be secured through dedication, easement or other such binding mechanism, and shown on the subdivision plat. 5. If no contiguous and/or intersecting public trails exist or are proposed, private trails may be established through the common open space area, provided that the design preserves the natural character and wildlife habitat value of the open space area. C. The general design and use of preserved open space shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Preserve contiguous areas of open space, both within the subject parcel and adjacent parcels, by aligning them along common corridors to the extent possible. '. Maintain open space in a Aiatural co nd i ti on,0 ngraded and left in indigenous plant species as much as possible. Noxious and invasive weeds are not considered part of the indigenous plant population and are not protected by this ordinance. 3. Preserve areas of highest wildlife habitat value and contiguous wildlife migration corridors in designated Wildlife Habitat Areas,as defined on the map,Figure 2-1,in The Plan.This requirement is subject to the approval of the Idaho State Fish and Game Department. 4. Preserve unique geologic and historic features, defined as Heritage sites and sites designated for historic preservation by City, State and Federal agencies. 5. Exclude development from geologic hazard areas, specifically landslide areas, and areas with unstable soils. 11-06-05.7.6. Building and Grading Disturbance Envelopes 1. Building envelopes depicting the limits of building footprints shall be shown on the final Conditional Use site plan for all structures and facilities in the planned development. '. Parcels with slopes greater than 25% shall be shown on the Conditional Use permit with a disturbance envelope that defines the area outside of which no grading will be allowed.The purpose is to protect neighboring properties,storm water drainage systems,and other infrastructure from the collapse or failure of non-approved poorly designed cuts and fills. 11-06-05.7.7. Ownership and Maintenance of Open Space Open space areas may be owned and maintained as follows: 1. Owned and maintained by and for the use of the ho meo w ners=associ ati on of the project of which it is apart, or, '. Joined with preserved open space lands held by any neighboring homeowners association, or, preservation through an organization with adjacent lands held in permanent open space which would then be jointly maintained under an agreement contained in the Conditional Use Permit and/or Development Agreement with the City; or, 3. Dedicated or sold to the city, if recommended for approval by the Boise City Board of Parks and Recreation Commission,or other public agency, or private land trust for open space uses as may be approved in the Development Agreement and/or the Conditional Use and approved by the City Council; or, 4. Other open space preservation strategies under sole or joint ownership, such as deed restrictions,or conservation easements, may be set up, and executed when approved by the city. September 20, 2000 Page 5 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance 5. Where the goals and policies of the Ada County Ridge-To-Rivers Pathway Plan, the Boise City Heritage Preservation Committee: Potential Public Preservation Sites plan, Boise City Comprehensive Plans and/or Ada County Comprehensive Plans and their referenced plans specify the need for public trails or open space,easements for public lands or trails may be required as part of the developments permanent open space. These trails or open spaces may be held in private ownership with an easement,or may be purchased by the city,or dedicated to the city for that use by the landowner(s). 6. Specific agricultural or utility use exceptions may be permitted in open spaces,including livestock grazing, community gardens, irrigation ponds or storm water retention ponds. These uses shall not include buildings or structures except those necessary appurtenances required by those uses,such as dams and irrigation/drainage systems. These use exceptions shall comply with the policies of The Plan, shall be shown on the conditional use site plan, and shall not degrade the value of the permanent open space. 7. Fencing shall not encroach into or bisect preserved open space areas 8. The city will accept no responsibility for the costs for maintenance of open space or recreational facilities unless the Boise City Board of Parks and Recreation Commission and the Boise City Council specifically approves such charges. 11-06-05.7.8. Other Foothills Planned Development Requirements Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve an applicant from fully meeting other requirements of the Boise City Foothills Policy Plan,the A illside and Foothill Areas Development Ordinance,gr other Chapters of the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. September 20, 2000 Page 6 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance 11-06-05.7.9. Definitions AREA WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 35 /0: An area with a natural (pre-grading)slope greater than 2'5%,mapped to a minimum resolution of 6.000 square feet in area, also called a Non-Buildable Area. AREA WITH A SLOPE OF 3510 OR LESS: An area with a natural (pre-grading) slope of''5% or less, mapped to a minimum resolution of 6,000 square feet in area, also called a Buildable Area. BOISE CITY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA: The area defined in the Foothills Policy Plan and the Boise City Comprehensive Plan within the Boise City Area of Impact Boundary. BLTILDABLE AREA: Lands with a slope of 25% or less are buildable areas, if outside floodways or geologic hazards. Buildable areas must be designated in the Conditional Use site plan as either development pockets or permanent open space in the ratio chosen under the density bonus formula. Buildable area is determined by natural topography, not by post-construction graded contours. DEVELOPMENT POCKETS: These are the buildable areas designated on the site plan and plat map where the structures and appurtenances will be clustered. These areas will be largely less than 2'5%slope but may contain fragments of steeper areas as needed to accommodate the site design. FOOTHILLS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: A parcel or parcels of land which is planned and developed as a unit under single ownership or control, containing several uses, buildings and common open space or recreational facilities. It is a type of development characterized by master planning for the project as a whole. with clustered structures to preserve usable open space and other natural features,with a mixture of housing types within the permitted densities. This development may include neighborhood commercial and service uses. HERITAGE SITES: Sites within the Foothills Planning Area with historic,geologic or cultural value.including threatened or endangered species habitat.as listed in the publication Potential Public Preservation Sites.by the Boise City Heritage Preservation Committee. 1993, and other sites designated as historic by City. State or Federal agencies. NON-BLTILDABLE AREA: Lands with a slope greater than 2'5% are non-buildable areas and do not qualify as a development pocket, nor are they eligible to be calculated as open space for establishing a density bonus. unless classified as Priority Open Space. OPEN SPACE ELIGIBLE FOR DENSITY BONUS (ELIGIBLE OPEN SPACE): An area of one acre or greater in size with a slope of 2'5% or less and a minimum average width of 30 feet, which is set aside as preserved open space in return for an increase in density on other buildable areas of the site,according to the density bonus formula. Other open space areas which do not meet these criteria may also be counted as open space eligible for the density bonus if they meet the criteria established in section 11-06-05.7.4.0 for Priority Open Space.and are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PERCENT SLOPE: Septentber?0, 2000 Page 7 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance Percent slope is the vertical rise divided by the horizontal distance within which the vertical rise takes place. PRESERVED OPEN SPACE: Land dedicated on the plat and defined in the Conditional Use permit for the very limited uses of undeveloped natural open space, wildlife habitat and recreational uses,and applied toward the granting of a density bonus based upon such open space preservation. Preserved Open Space may be either public or• Private, or any combination of the t.wo. and shall be F ermarrent. PRIORITY OPEN SPACE: Unique lands which exhibit.at.least.four of the eleven characteristics or factors listed in Section 11-06- 05.7.4.0. These lands may not meet the size, slope or dimensional criteria for Open Space Eligible for Density Bonus,but may still be allowed to be set aside as preserved open space for purposes of the granting of a density bonus. The type,location and amount of priority open space eligible for a density bonus is to be determined by the Planning &Zoning Commission based upon how many of the priority open space factors they exhibit., as well as upon a demonstration that.the public value of the open space will be enhanced by such allowance. RIPARIAN AREAS: Relating to or living or located on the bank of a natural water course as a stream or river. The stream corridor consisting of riparian vegetation, stream carved topography and features that define a continuous corridor on either side of a stream or pond therein. SLOPE PROTECTION AREA: This is a non-buildable area with a slope greater than 25%, that does not qualify as buildable area for the density bonus within either a development pocket or preserved open space,and is designated as such on the conditional use site plan and the subdivision plat. September 20, 2000 Page 8 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance Appendix A Application Submitting Requirements: The following items are required for a Foothills Planned Development application, in addition to those items required for submitting of a standard Planned Development application under Section 11-06-05,and aAH ill side and Foothill Area D evel op ment 0 ermi t application under Section 11-14. 1. A slope analysis in map and table form depicting areas and polygon labels for: a. All buildable areas, based on two foot contour intervals; b. All non-buildable areas based on five foot contour intervals; C. Buildable areas equal to, or greater, than one acre in size labeled as such on reap and table. '. A special area analysis in map and table form depicting the general locations of: a. Floodways,floodway fringes, wetlands and riparian areas; b. Deer and elk migration corridors as determined by the Idaho State Fish and Game Department and found on maps referenced in The Plan; C. Location of rare, threatened and endangered plant species and communities regulated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and administered by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species; d. Geologic and/or historic features of note and sites designated as Heritage sites. e. Potential buildable ridge tops visible as skyline features from below the Foothills. 3. A capital improvements/infrastructure analysis and map of existing and proposed locations ofroads, sewers, drainage and storm water facilities, utilities, schools, parks and fire stations. 4. A recreation analysis in map and table form as appropriate showing locations of existing or proposed trails as established in the Ada County Ridge-to-Rimers Pathtit,ay Plan, existing or proposed trail heads, interpretive areas and other facilities. 5. An adjacent parcel analysis of lands within 300 feet of the subject property,in map form,depicting: a. Existing lots and dwellings; b. General topography; C. Existing and proposed public trails designated by theAda County Ridge-To-Rimers Pathtit'ay Plan; d. Geologic and/or historic features of note and sites designated as Heritage sites; e. Public rights-of-way and potential road access points. Foothills Planned Development Design Process and Application Form Checklist: The intent of the process is to allow the applicant and staff to work together to insure that there is a clear understanding about the critical issues prior to the application submitting and throughout the hearings. The applicant should follow this order of events in analyzing, designing and applying for the project. Phase I -Pre-application: 1. Meet with the city staff about basic design issues before development of a conceptual design. ''. Meet or confer with surrounding landowners about the potential for cooperative development plans. 3. Do a sketch map of the project area and adjacent parcels showing general soil characteristics,slopes, September 20, 2000 Page 9 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance wildlife habitat,permanent open space and/or public lands, drainage courses, unique geologic and historic features, public trails, and other features of note. 4. Meet with city staff about design issues based on sketch map findings. Phase II - Preliminary/Conceptual Design requirements for Annexation, Development Agreement, Conceptual Conditional Use, Conceptual Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Conceptual Hillside and Floodplain permit applications: 5. Map potential buildable areas. 6. Determine which preserved open space/cluster density formula will be applied based upon site characteristics, access and market constraints. 7. Identify proposed preserved open space area(s) based upon site characteristics including wildlife habitat values, soil conditions, geologic hazards, access constraints, drainage patterns, unique features, etc. S. Apply the density bonus formula to the remaining buildable area, according to the Table 1, to determine how many dwelling units may be permitted. 9. Lay out the cluster subdivision with roads,drainage system and the appropriate number of lots in the development pockets. 10. Prepare a fire protection plan following guidelines set by the Boise City Fire Department. 11. Prepare a traffic analysis and traffic plan consistent with requirements of the Destination 2020 Regional Transportation Plan forAda County and its subsequent amendments and updates. 12. Prepare a traffic mitigation plan including appropriate neighborhood protection,traffic calming and buffering techniques. 13. Prepare a general grading plan under the conceptual ►Hillside and Foothill Area Development@a ordinance. 14. Prepare an infrastructure phasing plan. 15. Prepare a building and grading disturbance envelope plan. 16. Complete any other items required by The Plan,The Planned Development Ordinance,Ch. 11-06-05, the Floodplain Ordinance,Ch. 11-12,and the pHillside and Foothill Areas Development Ordinance,Qa Ch. 11-14. Phase III - Final Conditional Use, Hillside Permit, Floodplain Permit, Annexation, Development Agreement and Preliminary Plat Subdivision applications: 17. Meet with city staff about design issues based on conceptual approval findings; 18. Prepare the applications for preliminary plat and final conditional use, Hillside permit, Floodplain permit, a revegetation and reclamation plan and other required applications and plans. September 20, 2000 Page 10 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance Appendix S Sample conservation easement document and deed restriction statement: In reference to the requirements for ownership and maintenance of open space in section 11-06-05.7.7,a sample conservation easement document is provided.This example is taken from the New Hampshire State Code. Conveyances Of Realty And Interests Therein. Conservation and Preservation Restrictions A conservation restriction shall mean aright to prohibit or require,a limitation upon.or an obligation to perform, acts on or with respect to, or uses of, a land or water area, whether stated in the form of a restriction,easement, covenant or condition.in any deed.will.or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the area or in any order of taking. which right, limitation, or obligation is appropriate to retaining or maintaining such land or water area, including improvements thereon, predominantly in its natural. scenic. or open condition, or in any other use or condition consistent with the protection of environmental quality. September 20, 2000 Page 11 Foothills Planned Development Ordinance Appendix C Maps and guides to the regulated features in the Foothills: In reference to the requirements for submitting applications in section 11-06-05.7.1''and 7.13,maps and guides to the features noted will be available to applicants. Boise City Foothills Policy Plan Goal 1 Objective '' Policy 1: 1) The Foothills Land Use Map provides a generalized depiction of potentially buildable areas based upon slope. At the time of zone change or development application,the developer shall submit detailed documents depicting wildlife habitat areas.existing slopes.geology and soils.This data shall be used to make more detailed determinations regarding the extent of the buildable area governed by the policies of this plan and the Hillside and Foothill Area Development ordinance; ' ) Figure ''-1 Wildlife Habitat Areas; 3) Deer and Elk migration corridors; 4) Boise City Heritage Preservation Committee: Potential Public Preservation Sites. September 20, 2000 Page 12 RROSN Vi si on Ran Table 7. Comparison of Open Space Goal and Policy Statementsfor Five Western Cities. San Diego, GA Boise, ID Sian Valley. ID Bculder, Albuquerque, NIM Goals and Fc loges Objectives and Policeea Goals ar}d Oks�ecbar s Gcats I'oli ies Goals and Policies Goal t: Enhance the quality of life by safeguarding the natural environment Goal 1 Objective 1: The Goal 1: Preserve And Boulder's distinctive 'sense of location of development Protect Natural And place' and compact size did will avoid environmentally Scenic Resources,The not happen by accident. sensitive areas such as Environment, And Open Rather, it has taken many waterbodies, floodways, Spaces creative public policies and landslides and fault zones, pragmatic planning decisions steep slopes, and unstable over many years to produce soils, and shall protect and preserve Boulder's wildlife and habitat areas. unique character and Development shall be physical beauty while regulated in the flood plain. allowing it to mature into a quality city. Goal 1 Objective 1 . Policy Goal 1. Objective 1.2: 4.01 Incorporating Ecological 1: Development shall be Protect wildlife corridors Systems into Planning. prohibited on slopes of and critical habitats for Planning and policy decisions 250,% grade or greater, and the ongoing presence and in the Boulder Valley will be within designated survival of wildlife in the approached through an floodways. region ecosystem framework in which natural regions like airsheds and watersheds are incorporated into planning and an appropriate relationship between the built environment and air, water and land quality is considered. 216 RROSN Vision Plan San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, !D Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INIM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Obj act ves Goals and Policles Goals and Policies Goal 1 Objective 1 . Policy 4.07 Ecosystem Connections 2: Development within and Buffers. The city and areas of landslides, fault county recognize the zones, and unstable soils biological importance of shall be prohibited, unless preserving large areas of the Project Engineer can unfragmented habitat. The demonstrate to the City city and county will work Engineer that these site together to preserve, limitations can be enhance, restore and overcome. maintain undeveloped lands critical for providing ecosystem connections and buffers forjoining significant ecosystems. These areas are important for sustaining biological diversity and viable habitats for native species and for minimizing impacts from developed lands. Goal 1. Objective 1 . Policy 3: Environmental and wildlife features, such as wetlands, threatened plant species, riparian areas, big game winter range, and sensitive wildlife habitats shall be maintained through clustering of development away from those features, and development limitations. 217 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder; CO Albuquerque, NM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Objectives Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Goal 2: Reduce or minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from Foothills development, and mitigate these impacts when they are unavoidable. Preserve, enhance, and where appropriate, create wildlife habitat areas in the Foothills. Goal 2: Identify and acquire natural open space lands to create an Integrated natural open space system that links natural open space features and existing parks Policy CE-B.1 a: Utilize Goal 2. Objective 6:The Goal 1: Preserve And Perhaps the two most Goal 1. OPEN SPACE Environmental Growth City will encourage Protect Natural And important factors that shape NETWORK. The Goal is Funds and pursue utilization of a variety of Scenic Resources,The the city of Boulder are its to provide visual relief additional funding for the mechanisms to preserve Environment, And Open mountain backdrop and from urbanization and to acquisition and open space and wildlife Spaces surrounding open space. offer opportunities for management of the habitat areas. education, recreation, Multi-Habitat Planning cultural activities, and Area (MHPA) and other conservation of natural important community resources by setting open space lands. aside major public Open Space, parks, trail corridors, and open areas throughout the Comprehensive Plan area. 218 RROSN Vision Plan San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Obj act ves Goals and Policles Goals and Policies Policy CE-B.1g: Require Goal 2. Objective 6. Policy Objective 1.4: Protect, 2.05 Open Space Goal 1. Policy a.3} sensitive design, 1: The City will utilize open conserve, and preserve Preservation. The city and Investigate use of an construction, relocation, space acquisition methods open space in perpetuity county will preserve lands open space dedication and maintenance of such as land trusts, with open space values as ordinance or new revenue trails to optimize public conservation easements, permanent open space by sources for open space access and resource serial levies and other purchasing or accepting acquisition such as real conservation. similar innovative means to donations of fee simple estate transfer tax or help secure sensitive open interests, conservation building permit fees. lands, as directed under easements or development the Open Space rights and other measures as Management Plan. appropriate and financially feasible. Policy CE-B.5: Maximize Goal 4. Objective 1 : A 1.4.3 Create an Open 2.05 Open Space Goal 1. Policy a.4} the incorporation of trails network of parks, common Space Zone to protect, in Preservation (contd). Open Consider use of density and greenways linking open spaces and perpetuity, space values include use of bonuses or other local and regional open continuous recreational environmentally and land for urban shaping and incentives for easements space and recreation trail systems for public use visually sensitive lands preservation of natural areas, or dedication of open areas into the planning will be planned and identified on the Future environmental and cultural space. and development review developed within the Land Use Map. resources, critical processes. Foothills. The trail system ecosystems,water will connect lowland resources, agricultural land, neighborhoods and public scenic vistas and land for parks with Foothill passive recreational use. neighborhoods, public parks and public lands. 219 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INIM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Obj act ves Goals arad Policles Goals and Policies Policy CE-0.2: Prioritize, Goal 4. Objective 1 . Policy 1.4.6 Establish a 2.10a: Rural land uses to be Goal 1.Policy f: A multi- fund, acquire, and 4: Public trails and committee to investigate preserved to the greatest purpose network of open manage open spaces common open space areas the creation of an Open possible extent include ... city areas and trail corridors that preserve important should be acquired by the Space Fund and to and county acquired open along arroyos and ecological resources and public through such explore funding options space and parkland; sensitive appropriate ditches shall provide habitat methods as purchase, for acquiring open space, environmental areas and be created. Trail corridors connectivity. donation, easements or including new revenue hazard areas that are shall be acquired, land exchanges, or sources such as impact unsuitable for urban regulated, or utilization of density fees, innovative development ... appropriately managed to transfers. partnerships, and bonding protect natural features, mechanisms. views, drainage and other functions or to link other areas within the Open Space network. Policy t: Preserve the unique, rare, and significant features of the natural fin vironMent Goal: Preservation and Goal 1. Objective 1 . Policy Goal 1. Objective 1 A: 4.15 Unique Geological Goal 1. Policy a: Open long-term management 4: Floodways shall be Protect natural and scenic Features. Boulder Valley has space lands and waters of the natural landforms maintained and preserved vistas, view corridors, and a number of significant or shall be acquired or and openspaces that for open space uses landmarks unique geological and regulated as appropriate help make San Diego including habitat areas. paleontological features that to serve one or more of unique have been identified.The city the following specific and county will attempt to purposes: Conservation protect these features from of natural resources and alteration or destruction environmental features; through a variety of means, Provision of opportunities such as public acquisition, for outdoor education and land use planning and recreation; Shaping of the regulation, and density urban form; Conservation transfer within a particular of archaeological site. (See Policy 2.05 Open resources; Provision of Space Preservation.) trail corridors; Protection of the public from natural hazards 220 RROSN Vision Plan San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, !D Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INIM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Obj act ves Goals and Policies Coals and Policies Policy CE-B.1 b: Support Goal 3. :To retain and 1.5.1 Include a map Goal 1. Policy c the preservation of rural preserve, and in overlay with the Future Development in or lands and open spaces appropriate cases Land Use Map that adjacent to the proposed throughout the region. enhance, the natural depicts hillsides greater Open Space network scenic values of the than 25 percentslope, shall be compatible with Foothills. undeveloped ridges, open space purposes. ridgelines, knolls, saddles and summits. These lands are considered to be unsuitable for development. Policy CE:-B.1 c: Protect Goal 3. Objective 1 . Policy 1.5.2 Evaluate the Hillside Goal 1. Policy c.2) Utilize community urban 2: Developments shall Ordinance to determine special zoning standards canyons and other maximize the retention of whether it adequately to guide development of important open spaces the existing natural protects Sun Valley's lands within or adjacent to that have been topography. highly visible hillsides, the Open Space network. designated in community knolls, and ridgelines plans for the many from development. conservation benefits they offer locally, and regionally as part of a collective citywide open space system. 221 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INIM Coals and Poliides Objectives and Policies Goals and Objeebves Coals and P'olicles Coals and Policies Goal 3. Objective 1 . Policy Goal 1. Policy e The 3: Cut-and-fill slopes shall Sandia foothills, where be integrated into the ever slopes exceed 10 surrounding terrain when percent, shall be acquired viewed from a distance. or regulated as appropriate to protect such areas from detrimental and incompatible public and private activities. Goal 3. Objective 2. : Goal1. Policy e.1) Development proposals Continue to acquire land shall take into account above the slope unique geologic features demarcation line in the and integrate Sandia Foothills Area developments around Plan. them. Policy 2: Retain community's image and haritaga of opan space pros ervation The City Council has established the goal of becoming a nationwide environmental leader among communities and a role model for exemplary environmental practices. 4.03 City Leadership in Resource Conservation. The city government will serve as an example by continuing to improve resource conservation practices in all city operations. 222 RROSN Vision Plan San Diego, CA Boise ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder CO Albuquerque, NM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Objectives Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Policy 3. Educate landowners regarding their preservation options Policy CE-G.1 a: Educate 1.4.4 Educate and 4.04 Environmental the public about the encourage the owners of Education and Technical impacts invasive plant open space lands to Assistance. The city and species have on open donate properties or county will promote public space. easements to education and provide conservation land trusts technical assistance about or to the City for issues of local and regional permanent open space environmental concern and protection and, when seek to engage businesses, possible, maximize gift residents and visitors in the benefits to the landowner. goal of protecting the quality of the natural and built environment. Policy 4: Preserve local plants, wildlife and natural resources to maintain the biodiversity and long-term sustainability of the area's ecology Policy CE-B.1e: Goal 2. Objective 1. Policy Goal 1. Objective 1 .2: 4.01 Incorporating Ecological Encourage the removal 3: Lands disturbed by Protect wildlife corridors Systems into Planning. of invasive plant species development shall be and critical habitats for Planning and policy decisions and the planting of revegetated. Revegetation the ongoing presence and in the Boulder Valley will be native plants near open plans shall include erosion survival of wildlife in the approached through an space preserves. control, efficient water region ecosystem framework in management and fire which natural regions like protection, and shall be airsheds and watersheds are compatible with the flora incorporated into planning and visual qualities of the and an appropriate Foothills. Revegetation relationship between the built must be sustained by the environment and air, water developer until such a time and land quality is that it becomes self considered. sustaining. 223 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sure Valley, ID Boiflder, CC, Albuquerque, INIM Goals and Poliidies Objectives and Policies Goals and Object ves Goads alld Goals and Policies Goal 2. Objective 2. Policy Goal 1. Objective 1.3: 1: Vegetation along Protect natural streams, waterbodies and waterways, lakes, and in gulches shall be watersheds for present protected and enhanced to and future generations stabilize and protect banks and minimize sedimentation and erosion. Goal 2. Objective 4. Policy 1.2.2 Protect wildlife 2: Where a habitatis corridors, critical habitats, judged critically important and urban/wild land to preserve, the habitat or interface areas on public appropriate wildlife ease- and private lands through ments shall be protected public-private by private ownership, or by partnerships, adequate organizations dedicated to setbacks, and design preservation of wildlife standards. habitats, or by public ownership. 1.3.1 Develop manage- ment plans and protection measures for watersheds and waterways, including establishing minimum development setbacks, buffering, no-mow zones, and limiting application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. 1.3.3 Promote the protection of wetlands to secure their value as wildlife habitat and for aquifer recharge. 224 RROSN Vision Plan Sari Diego, CA Doi se, IL Sun alkpy, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, NNI Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and ot3iecti ves Goads and Policies Goals and Policies Policy 5: Protect historical and archeological resources Goal 2. Objective 5: 2.37 Historic Goal 6. Archeological and historic Preservation/Conservation ARCHAEOLOGICAL sites, as well as areas of a Tools. The city will develop a RESOURCES. The Goal sensitive geologic or variety of tools that address is to identify and manage ecologic nature shall be preservation and or acquire significant identified, inventoried and conservation objectives archaeological and protected as funding within the community. paleontological sites for allows. Specific tools that address research, education, historic preservation and economic, and/or conservation objectives will recreation use. be matched to the unique needs of specific areas. Conservation districts, easements and other tools may be applied in areas that do notqualify as local historic districts but contain features that contribute to the quality of the neighborhood or community. 2.38 Preservation of Archaeological Sites and Cultural Landscapes. The city will develop a plan and processes for identification, designation and protection of archaeological and cultural landscape resources 225 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, NM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Objectives Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Policy 6: Maintain scenic views to preserve the aesthetic values of the area for all to enjoy and for its contribution to the quality of life for residents and visitors Policy CE-B.1: Protect Goal 3. Objective 1. Policy Goal 1. Objective 1.1: Perhaps the two most Goal 1. Policy c.4} Use and conserve the 3: Cut-and-fill slopes shall Protect natural and scenic important factors that shape scenic easements to landforms and open be integrated into the vistas, view corridors, and the city of Boulder are its protect critical open spaces that:define the surrounding terrain when landmarks mountain backdrop and space views. City's urban form, viewed from adistance. surrounding open space. provide public views/vistas; serve as core biological areas and wildlife linkages; are wetlands habitats; provide buffers within and between communities, or provide outdoor recreational opportunities. Goal 3. Objective 1. Policy 1.1.2 Identify and map 4.18 Hillside Protection. Goal 8. Policy a: The 7: Lighting systems on scenic vistas, view Hillside and ridge-line natural and visual Foothills roadways should corridors, and landmarks development will be carried environment, particularly be designed to both and develop guidelines to out in a manner that, to the features unique to provide adequate public ensure view protection extent possible, avoids both Albuquerque, shall be safety and to lessen the when considering new negative environmental respected as a significant light directed toward the development. consequences to the determinant in valley. immediate and surrounding development decisions. area and the degrading of views and vistas from and of public areas. 226 RROSN Vision Plan San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INM Coals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Obj act ves Coals and Policies Coals and Policies Goal 3. Objective 2. Policy 1.4.1 Identify Goal 8. Policy a.2} Adopt 2: The natural scenic environmentally and environmentally-based values of prominent ridges visually sensitive lands on development standards and knolls shall be the Future Land Use Map for use in the subdivision, maintained. Project design as Open Space. Preserve zoning, and site plan shall preserve the natural key open space parcels approval processes which appearance of prominent that help establish the encourage solutions ridges and skylines, and character of the Sun which are not limited to concentrate development Valley area. engineering on more obscured areas of effectiveness. the sites. 1.4.3 Create an Open Goal 8. Policy e: In highly Space Zone to protect, in scenic areas, perpetuity, development design and environmentally and materials shall be in visually sensitive lands harmony with the identified on the Future landscape. Building siting Land Use Map. shall minimize alteration of existing vegetation and topography and minimize visibility of structures in scenic vista areas. 227 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder CO Albuquerque, NM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Objectives Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Policy 7: Manage natural resources by cooperatively using the best ecological, social, and economic information to enhance, restore and sustain the health, productivity and biodiversity of our ecosystem Policy CE-G.1: Preserve 1.2.1 Utilizing information 4.06 Natural Ecosystems. Goal 1. Policy a.6) natural habitats pursuant from the Idaho The city and county will Pursue agreements to the Multiple Species Department of Fish and protect and restore significant between City, County, Conservation Program Game or,when native ecosystems on public State, and possibly (MSCP), preserve rare necessary, from primary and private lands through Federal agencies to plants and animals to studies, require land use planning, preserve State-owned the maximum extent development to map development review, sections of the basalt flow practicable, and manage wildlife activity including, conservation easements, for public use. all City-owned native but not limited to,deer acquisition and public land habitats to ensure their and elk corridors and management practices. long-term biological wintering habitats; Degraded habitat may be viability. standards for protection restored and selected should meet or exceed extirpated species may be those created by federal, reintroduced as a means of state and local enhancing native flora and regulations. fauna in the Boulder Valley. (See Policy 2.05 Open Space Preservation.) Goal 1. Policy a.8) Investigate the possibility of undertaking a joint City and County Open Space effort. Goal 1 . Policy f.7) Work with all public agencies and the State legislature to ensure that vacated irrigation ditch rights-of- way or easements are retained as part of the Open Space network. 228 RROSN Vision Plan Sari Uiaga, CA Doi se, ID SUn alkpy, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, NNI Goals and Polides Objectives and Policies Goals and Objectives Goals and Policies Goals and Polides Policy 8. Encourage cooperation among natural resources management agencies, other professional and local school districts in developing environmental education materials and outreach programs Goal 2. Objective 4. Policy 1.4.5 Develop a Goal 7. Policy d.1) 1: Accurate site specific partnership with the Sun Preserve areas of information shall be used Valley Elkhorn scientific, natural, historic concerning the Association ('SVEA) to and cultural interest for characteristics of critical designate and protect educational as well as deer and elk habitat and common open lands recreational purposes; wildlife migratory corridors within the Association as include environmental in the Foothills. Sources of permanent open space. studies in primary, information are the Idaho secondary, and post Departmentof Fish and secondary educational Game, U. S. Fish and programs. Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Proposed development projects shall have wildlife habitat area studies prepared by qualified professionals and submitted with the project application for review by the above agencies. 229 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, NM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Objectives Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Policy 9: Implement innovative policies and practices that support the city's leadership in environmental stewardship Goal 1 Objective 2. Policy 1.4.2 When housing and 2.11 Rural Density Transfer. Goal 1. Policy h.1) 2: Areas designated on the open space/park The city and county will jointly Encourage planned area Land Use Map (Figure 1 - proposals are jointly determine criteria and areas developments which 1) as Buildable are considered, housing for transfer of development reserve larger areas of generally characterized by should be clustered and rights (TDRs) within or in shared open space slopes less than 25% the property should be proximity to the Boulder through clustering of grade. The base density planned to allow for the Valley, in order to secure houses and other shall be 1 unit/40 acres preservation of the most conservation easements on innovative design plus a density bonus important open space valuable rural lands from techniques. formula (See Figure 1 2). features (i.e.wildlife which density may be habitat or wetlands transferred and shift those protection). Sites should rural residential densities to be developed and appropriate urban settings designed with regard to where the negative impacts the existing landscape. of growth can be better Buildings should be mitigated or avoided. clustered and the property should be planned to allow for the preservation of the most important open spaces and natural features. 230 RROSN Vision Plan San Diego, CA Boise, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INIM Goals and Policies Objectives and Policies Goals and Object ves. Goals and Policles Goals and Policies Goal 1 Objective 2. Policy 4.17 Hazardous Areas. 4: In buildable areas Hazardous areas that present density bonuses may be danger to life and property granted in return for the from flood, forest fire, steep provision of permanent slopes, erosion, unstable soil, open space. As the subsidence or similar amount of permanent open geological development space increases, the constraints will be delineated, allowable density shall also and development in such increase according to the areas will be carefully Density Bonus Formula. All controlled or prohibited. open space credited for density bonus purposes must remain in a primarily natural condition with the goal to maintain it for wildlife habitat and recreational uses. Such areas may remain as private open space, may be used for public trail easements, or may be dedicated to a public land trust or other group for conservation management purposes. 231 RROSN Vi si on Ran San Diego, CA Doi se, ID Sun Valley, ID Boulder, CO Albuquerque, INIM Coals and olides Objectives and Policies Goals and Obj act ves Gn-,als and Polic;iec� Coals and Polides Goal 1 Objective 2. Policy 7: All zone change and development applications shall be filed as Planned Unit Development{PUD} proposals. The PUD application shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements of the Foothills and Comprehensive Plans, including design guidelines, provision of public facilities, habitat protection and fire protection. Goal S. Objective 1 . Policy 4: Sidewalks will be provided on at least one side of all Foothills roads with appropriate landscaped buffers. In lieu of a second sidewalk on the opposite side of the road, an adequate bicycle and pedestrian pathway system shall be provided. 232 RRCSN Vision Appendix Transmittal Letter 'yam RROSN Vi si on Ran Ridges to Rivers OPEN SPACE SPACE NETWORK preserve . promore . enjoy Dear Council Members and Commissioners: The Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network is pleased to present you with its Vision Plan. This Plan is the culmination of three years of effort by citizens of the Md- Columbia. We hope that you will appreciate the public input, time, effort, research and thoughtfulness that have gone into its development. We also ask that you regard it as a vision for the future, not as a regulatory plan. The goals of the proposed Ridges to Rivers Regional Open Space Vision Plan are to preserve, promote, and increase enj oyment of the unique natural and other open spaces that are important to the region's communities and that draw new families, visitors, and sustainable businesses to this area. It is also a goal that this Vision Plan initiates integrated and coordinated open space planning acrossjurisdictional boundaries. Abrief history: In late 2007, many individuals, groups, and public officials in the Md-Columbia realized that it wastime to create a local vision to help shape the future of our regional open spaces and trails. Agroup of local organizations and citizens applied for and received a grant from the National Park Service for technical assistance (TA). Using that TA, a working group of interested parties started the process. The work group evolved into the steering committee for what became the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network (RROSN). The members of the steering committee are: > Cities of Benton City, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland and West Richland ➢ Benton and Franklin Counties Tri Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau ➢ Benton Franklin Community Health Alliance Lake Lewis Chapter- Ice Age Roods Institute Tapteal Greenway Association Columbia Basi n Chapt er-Washi ngt on Native Plant Society Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society ➢ Friends of Badger Mountain Open Space Coalition of Benton and Franklin Counties 234 RROSN Vision Plan Y Fun Ft and over Fifty Y National Park Service Y Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Y Intermountain Alpine Club The Rdgesto Rvers Open Space Network, now a non-profit public interest corporation, envisions a future that uses our natural assets to benefit our economy; where access is provided to open space for recreation, education, and health; and which preserves natural and aesthetic values. The steering committee designed a public process that gave citizens multiple opportunities to be involved in the development of the vision through a variety of outreach techniques such as public meetings, open houses, questionnaires, distribution of information through the internet, presentations to community groups, and workshops with city and county boards, councils and commissions. The public input was used to formulate recommended actions; to develop an inventory of physiographic, geographic, ecological, cultural, economic, and educational features unique or special to this region; and to specifically identify those featureswith recreational and natural value for conservation and potential connection to other regional resources. The result of the processisthe attached vision document that presents ideas for creating a regional network of natural and developed open spaces with a system of trailsconnecting people to our ridges, rivers, and communities. A Jurisdictional Advisory Council of elected representatives was established to be a sounding board for the Rdges to Rvers Open Space Network, to provide feedback on itsvision and to focusthe effortsof the working group. The representatives to the Jurisdictional Council are: Matt Watkins-Pasco; Sharon Brown-Kennewick; Philip Lemley-Richland; Donna Noski-West Rchland; Lorna Deckert-Benton City; James Beaver-Benton County; and Brad Peck-Franklin County. In order for thisvision for open space and trail connectivity to have an impact on a regional scale, we ask that all local jurisdictionsreview the document and consider endorsing the vision contained therein. To further the process at the jurisdictional level, we ask that the RROSN be invited to participate in workshopswith planning commissions, department staff, City Councils and County Commissions, as appropriate. We thank you for your consideration and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Board of Directors Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Scott Woodward-President 235 RROSN Vi si on Ran Appendix Distribution k RRCSN Vision Plan City of Richland Saul Martinez 1 John Fox 1 Tom Larsen 1 Ed Revell 1 Joe Cruz 2 Sandra Kent 1 Andy Anderson 2 Phillip Lemley 1,6 James Hay 2 Dave Rose 1 Jana Kempf 2 Sheila Sullivan 1 Kurt Lukins 2 Bob Thompson 1 Lisa Gem ig 2 Kent Madsen 2 Alecia Greenaway 2 Marianne Boring 2 Gary Crutchfield 3 Clifford Clark 2 Stan Strebel 3 Mary Jo Coblentz 2 Rick White 3,5 Carol Moser 2 Rck Terway 3 James Utz 2 Rado Harrington 2 City of West Richland Stanley Jones 2 Donna Noski 1,6 Debbie Berkowitz 2, 5 Rich Buel 1 Cindy Johnson 3 Brent Gerry 1 Bill King 3,5 Gail Brown 1 Rick Simon 3,5 R chard Boom 1 Dougl as Strong 3,5 Merl a Johnson 1,5 Ken Dobbin 1 City of Kennewick Tony Benegas 1 Steve Young 1 Nona Diediker 2 Siaron Brown 1,6 AI Hawkins 2 Don Britain 1 Nancy Aldrich 2 John Hubbard 1 Lucinda Luke 2 Bob Olsen 1 Johan Curtiss 2 Paul Parish 1 Bleen Webb 2 Bob Parks 1 Bob Perkes 2 Bob Sbaulding 2 Bob Leedy 3 Candice Buechel 2 Ed Frost 2 City of Benton City John Garvey 2 U oyd Carnahan 1 David Hirai 2 Lynn Johnson 1 Bobbie Littrell 2 Bob Bruce 1 Dick Rasp 2 Lorna Deckert 1,5,6 Marie Mosley 3 Lisa Stade 1 Kevin Ferguson 3 Honda Johnson 1 Anthony Muai 3,5 Kyle Norris 2 Greg McCormick 3 Heather Duncan 2 Crary Deardorff 3 Don Allen 2 Linda Lehman 2 City of Pasco Jackson D. Howard 2 Matt Watkins 1,6 Rebecca Francik 1 Benton County Al Yenney 1 Leo Bowman 4 Mike Garrison 1 Max Benitz, Jr. 4 Bob Hoffmann 1 James Beaver 4,6 237 RROSN Vi si on Ran Martin Sheeran 2 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention James Wetzel 2 Bureau Lloyd Coughlin 2 Kris Watkins James Vuillard 2 Hector Cruz 5 Faye Nelson 2 Fick Giberson 2 Community Roundtable Mark Reis 2 Mike Schwenk Michael Shuttleworth 3,5 Valerie Smith 3,5 Livable./Sustainable Communities Adam Fyall 3,5 Tim Fredrickson (Ben Franklin Transit) Franklin County Kate Perry, MD 5 Brad Peck 4,6 Jeff Petersen (3 Fivers Bicycle Fick Miller 4 Coalition) Robert Koch 4 Burl Booker 2 Tri-City Herald Melinda Didier 2 Rufus Friday Lois Hanses 2 Chris Sjvula Claude Pierret 2 David Piovesan 2 RROSN Steering Committee (not already Crary Bosch 2 listed) Bruce Flippo 2 Debbie Berkowitz (Lower Columbia Fred Bowen 3 Basin Audubon Society) Jerrod MacPherson 3,5 Janelle Downs (Native Plant Society Tim Fife 3,5 Lower Columbia Basin Chapter) Brooke Dubois (Benton-Franklin Federal Legislators Community Health Alliance) Sen. Maria Cantwell Sharon Grant (Friends of Badger Sen. Patty Murray Mountain) Rep. Doc Hastings George Last (Ice Age Floods Institute Lake Lewis Chapter) State Legislators Mike Lilga (Tapteal Greenway Sen. Jerome Delvin Association) Rep. Larry Haler Tom Page (Fun Fit and Over Fifty) Rep. Brad Klippert Len Pavelka (Benton-Franklin Council of Governments) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Steve Wisness (Intermountain Alpine G,eg Hughes Club) Dan Haas Scott Woodward (Tapteal G-eenway Association) National Park Service Sue Abbott (RICA) 5 Footnote Key: Nike Linde (RTCA) 1. City Council 2. Planning Commission WA State Department of Fish and 3. Staff Wildlife 4. County Commission Michael Livingston (Pasco) 5. RROSN Steering Committee Jeff Tayer (Yakima) 6. RROSN Jurisdictional Council 238