Document to Address Restoration, Maintenance, and Stewardship Plans to Achieve Long-Term Urban Forestry Goals

Puyallup Watershed Initiative

Puyallup Watershed Forest Resources Roundtable Community of Interest

1. Overview Community of Interest Name: Puyallup Watershed Forest Resources Roundtable Focus Area and Scope: The Puyallup Watershed Forest Resources Roundtable (Roundtable) will focus its work on forestlands and urban forest habitats within the Puyallup Watershed (Watershed). While the Roundtable recognizes that forestland managers are not confined by the extent of the Watershed, the Roundtable will focus its efforts on forestlands within the Watershed. It is the Roundtable’s hope that the Watershed will become a model for conservation and stewardship of forest resources that will eventually be adopted by other watersheds (e.g. Chambers- Clover) over time. The Roundtable’s interest in forest resources – urban, rural and working forests – is three-fold: 1) conservation of forest habitats benefitting wildlife habitat, cultural resources, ecosystem services and recreation, 2) working forests that provide economic benefits to the community while also providing ecosystem services benefits to the region, and 3) protection and enhancement of urban forest habitats and their benefits to the community. One of the most significant drivers behind the creation of the Roundtable is the anticipation of significant turnover in forestland (urban, rural and working forests) ownership within the Watershed over the next 3-10 years. Thus, if members of the Roundtable desire to make a collective impact to alter ownership/management regimes impacting these forests, the retention of forest canopy cover across the Watershed, and improve the overall stewardship of these lands, then we must act now or risk losing an opportunity. The Roundtable will focus its efforts in three sub-areas of the Watershed: 1) the “Upper” Watershed, comprised of primarily working forest and public forest lands, generally considered to be upriver from Enumclaw, Carbonado, and Lake Kapowsin; 2) the “Mid” Watershed, comprised of small forest landowners, small municipalities, and riparian corridors, generally considered to be downstream of Enumclaw/Carbonado/Lake Kapowsin to the communities of Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn, and; 3) the “Lower” Watershed, primarily comprised of urban forest habitats in municipal and urban unincorporated areas downstream of and including Puyallup, Sumner, and Auburn to Commencement Bay. Ongoing Efforts: Members of the Roundtable are actively engaged in several areas related to forest resources within the Watershed. The following list provides examples of some of those areas: 1. Carbon River Forum – a stakeholder organization created by the National Park Service with a vision for conserving natural and cultural resources, enhancing recreational opportunities and providing tourism infrastructure in the Carbon River Corridor from Buckley and South Prairie upriver to Mt. Rainier National Park.

2. Timber, Fish and Wildlife – a regulatory framework for protecting critical habitat and cultural resources. Several stakeholders participating in the Roundtable also participate in the TFW process, including the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife, WA Department of Ecology, and WA Department of Natural Resources. 3. Puyallup River Watershed Council – Several members of the Roundtable also participate in the Council, which does a great deal of work examining forest health and management and their impacts of the health of the Puyallup River. 4. City of Tacoma Sustainability, Open Space and Urban Forestry efforts include assessment, planning, maintenance and enhancement of forest resources within the City of Tacoma limits and partnering with others in the region to improve Pierce County. Vision: Forestlands – working, habitat and urban lands – are sustainably managed to maximize community, cultural and ecosystem benefits across the watershed, and are valued not only for their economic benefits, but also their social, cultural and ecological benefits. Partnership: Partner Anticipated Role Capacity City of Puyallup Assist in implementation of lower Chris Beale is a planner and certified watershed strategy arborist. The City of Puyallup is actively promoting tree planting and establishing a South Sound Green City Partnership. City of Tacoma Provide subject matter expertise The City currently has one staff and assist with implementation of dedicated to running an urban forestry strategies in the Lower program that focuses on supporting Watershed. Stormwater’s mission; tree and natural yard care education and outreach, resident tree coupon program, partnerships with public agencies and businesses. Additional resources beyond urban forestry may also be available to assist with implementation. Earth Economics Earth Economics can help the COI Earth Economics has been providing develop the narrative of the value robust, science-based, ecologically of the Puyallup’s forested sound economic analysis, policy landscapes, including quantifying recommendations and tools to and valuing the ecosystem positively transform regional, national services and international economics, and asset accounting systems. Forterra Conservation transactions Forterra has 25 years of experience in throughout the extent of the completing conservation transactions, watershed (Strategy 1, 2, and 7); developing policies that help to create a thought leader on conservation more sustainable region (e.g. TDR), and and community-building efforts; in stewarding parks and open space development of stewardship across the region. Forterra brings a programs in municipalities and in qualified, experienced staff to many of urban unincorporated the strategies outlined by the Forest communities in Pierce County Roundtable. (Strategy 7)

Northwest Natural Coordinate implementation of NNRG runs a membership program for Resource Group mid-watershed strategy small woodland owners that provides access to certification, forest management assistance, incentives, and educational workshops. Pierce County Propose county code changes and Knowledge of timber harvest Planning and Land provide input into proposed regulations Services forest ombudsman position

Pierce County Implement, along with partners, Teresa Lewis is the Puyallup River Surface Water lower watershed strategy 7 Watershed Council Coordinator and Management (SWM) objectives and activities that holds a B.S. in Forest Resource promote residential tree planting. Management. She has experience in education and outreach and is actively promoting tree planting to improve water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Puyallup Tribe of Policy expertise on forest Jeffrey Thomas is the Director of the Indians practices, cultural resources, and Tribe’s Timber, Fish and Wildlife stewardship Program, with over 25 years of experience in forest practices, wildlife management, and stewardship within the Watershed. Washington Farm Assist in development and Elaine O’Neil is the Executive Director of Forestry Association implementation of mid-watershed WFFA and holds a PhD in forest ecology strategy from the University of Washington. Elaine will coordinate with the Pierce Co chapter of WFFA, a statewide organization with 1,300 members.

The Roundtable has reached out to many forest stakeholders within the watershed, and hopes to expand engagement to additional municipal governments (e.g. City of Buckley, City of Auburn), working forest landowners (e.g. Manke Lumber) and small forest landowners (e.g. WA Farm Forestry Association). Expanding the Roundtable to include additional viewpoints and expertise in working forestland management would be valuable in evaluating conservation strategies as well as stewardship practices throughout the Watershed. Participation in the Roundtable will remain open, allowing it to expand and/or contract based on the interest of stakeholders. Organizations listed below have showed some interest in the process but have not committed to a role or capacity level:  Hancock Natural Resources Group  Nisqually Land Trust  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife  Washington State Department of Natural Resources  Puyallup River Watershed Council

2. Values The Roundtable recognizes the importance of our forestlands and their function, role and necessity in our lives. The forests of the Watershed provide significant economic, social, cultural, and ecological values to our community. Whether our forests are enjoyed for recreation or raw materials, cultural resources, food, medicine, or aesthetical value, there is no doubt that forests are the heart and soul of this Watershed. Ecosystem Services Forests sequester carbon from the air and provide an organic “filter,” helping to impede the movement of airborne substances and enhance air mixing. Ambient air temperatures are reduced by forestlands, which in turn influence weather and air quality. Forests reduce surface water runoff by preventing rainfall from contacting bare soil, all while increasing groundwater infiltration, which, in turn, also reduces the incidence of flooding and flow of pollutants to Puget Sound. Forests support habitats for the multitude of organisms that inhabit the watershed, and contribute to the formation of soil through organic matter deposition; they also provide critical, in-stream structure – known as large, woody debris – that provide habitat for threatened salmon stocks. Our water supply, subsistence and raw materials all depend on the forests of the Watershed. It is clear that our communities are dependent on forestlands for survival. Thus, it is critical to protect, enhance, and steward our forest resources to not only sustain our way of life, but also to protect and restore the vibrancy of forest ecosystems within the Watershed. Community / Culture Forests of all kinds can be found throughout the Watershed: small pockets of mixed hardwood and conifer forests around Commencement Bay and throughout the communities of the lower watershed; riparian forests along the Puyallup River and its tributaries; mixed hardwood and conifer forests managed by small forest landowners in rural areas of the mid-Watershed; landscape-scale forests managed by large landowners (e.g. Muckleshoot Tribe, Hancock Natural Resource Group) dominated by conifers; and sub-alpine and alpine forests on the flanks of Mt. Rainier. All of these forest types help to mold local community values, economies, sense-of-place, and community identity known throughout the region. Forests provide a myriad of opportunities for the inclusion of nature as motifs in folklore, symbols and logos, advertising, architecture, books, films and movies to name a few. Furthermore, forestlands have immense spiritual and historical, or heritage, value, providing opportunities for communities to leave legacies and explore opportunities of greater spiritual fulfillment. It is no mistake that Washington has been dubbed the “Evergreen State!”

Quality of Life Forests support habitat for humans and wildlife; what would a spring morning be like without the sound of birds getting ready for their day? In urban environments, forest habitats provide a place to escape city life to recreate, to relax and to observe nature in close proximity to home. In rural environments, forests provide a plethora of recreational opportunities, local jobs, and an opportunity to reconnect with nature. Green spaces, particularly those located within the most built-up areas of cities, provide restorative settings that offer people respite and recovery from daily and chronic stressors. What better way to improve our quality of life through enhancing, preserving and protecting our forestlands? Other unique values that our forestlands provide include a seemingly limitless outdoor lab ripe for scientific discovery or for educational purposes or research. This includes the discovery and use of pharmacological resources, such as taxol from our very own Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) which is used to treat several cancers, but is in scarce supply due to the limited habitat and scarcity of the species. Furthermore, forestlands provide recreational experiences, from trekking through forested ridges below Mt. Rainier, to strolling through the old growth forest at Pt. Defiance. Outdoor recreation and ecotourism are significant economic drivers that communities in this Watershed rely on not only for their quality of life but also for their livelihoods. Economic Vitality Forests and the natural resource economy support a wide array of local jobs – forest products, energy production (e.g. hydropower and biomass energy), ecotourism, and recreational opportunities – and are a key component of our region’s economy. Unlike other natural resources (e.g. oil, minerals, etc.), forest products are a sustainable resource, if managed appropriately. While the Watershed – which once boasted one of the largest lumber mills in the country – does not have as substantial of a natural resource economy as it once had, communities throughout the Watershed have found ways to diversify their economy, tapping into the large number of visitors to Mt. Rainier National Park, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and other high-quality recreation areas for a significant component of their annual economic activity. Forests in the Watershed also have a significant benefit on water quality and flood storage, which not only helps protect supplies for drinking water, irrigation and other uses, but also helps to protect the health of Puget Sound. Protecting source water in the Watershed has a real and quantifiable benefit on aquaculture, salmon stocks, and other water-dependent economies in the region. Lastly, but not least importantly, our forestlands – which provide our communities with a sense of place and of community identity, improve our quality of life and our health – have a significant, positive effect on property values. This gives families in

6 the Watershed some certainty that their investment in their home will appreciate in value over time. Current Conditions Ecologically, the forestlands in the Cascade Foothills – those in the Designated Forest Zone and upriver towards Mt. Rainier National Park – are in good condition, though the private working forest lands provide less biodiversity than the forests on public lands. However, both the public and private lands in this massive swath of forest do provide a mosaic of habitat conditions benefitting a variety of species. The lower elevation forest habitats – those in rural, exurban, suburban and urban areas – have been significantly impacted by land management practices as well as conversion of forests for development. The forestlands in these areas are compromised but they still have value and require tailored strategies differing in many ways from the strategies to be used in the upper watershed. For example, the City of Tacoma obtained a canopy cover analysis in 2011 in partnership with University of Washington. The analysis, using 2009 data, provided coverage information about nine classes: trees, impervious surface, water, roads, bare ground, buildings, and grass/shrubs. After determining that Tacoma’s canopy cover is approximately nineteen percent, further analysis was needed in order to establish a reasonable canopy cover goal. A land use analysis was performed, followed by an analysis of canopy cover by land use types (by zoning), including the following: mixed-use/commercial, manufacturing/industrial, downtown, single and multi-family residential, major institution, developed and natural parks, and rights- of-way. Goals for Tacoma’s canopy cover were already set at thirty percent, but the further analysis allowed Tacoma to establish goals by land use, recognizing that not all properties share the same ability to grow trees because of their land use. Additionally, the canopy cover data was paired with other data to perform further analysis such as determining high priority planting areas based upon residential density, income levels and sub-watersheds and canopy cover for public agency- owned properties. This data has allowed Tacoma to understand the existing conditions more accurately so that strategies to increase canopy cover are tailored to the land use/property owner and when paired with evaluation data will foster an adaptive management approach to Tacoma’s urban forestry program and its efforts. Nevertheless, all areas of the watershed are in need of protection, preservation and enhancement. At this time, the full extent of current conditions in the Watershed that the Roundtable would like to evaluate are unknown, though included in this proposal. See the “”Evaluation, Adaptive Management and Learning” section of this proposal for how the Roundtable will close these knowledge gaps and utilize new information to provide direction on community engagement, policy development, conservation efforts, and stewardship.

Tracking Change Readily identifiable characteristics of forestlands in the Watershed that the Roundtable would like to measure and track changes include:  Canopy cover and land use o Summary of ecosystem services  Acres forestlands in active restoration  Acres of protected forest  Biodiversity  Quality of life survey  Community involvement  Education/knowledge Desired Impact The Forest Roundtable is aiming to enhance, preserve and protect existing forestlands as well as increase forest cover in the watershed. Desired impacts include:  Robust, resilient (to climate change), natural forest systems providing multiple social, economic, and ecological benefits.  Informed citizens engaged in the stewardship of urban spaces/urban forests (native open spaces down to private property scales).  An increase in forest resiliency to climate change and impacts from pests and disease through species diversification  Enhanced function of existing natural systems  Increase in improved habitat for endangered and/or threatened species  Improved quality of life for surrounding communities  Consistent use, implementation, compliance and enforcement of regulations and standards  Lower incidence of poor air quality related health problems  Communities working together engaged in the planning, design and growth of their forestlands  Reduce incidence of flooding and increase stormwater flow control and infiltration Information Needs 1. Forest Jobs – How many jobs are produced by the forest industry in the county? The county assumes that there is a clear link between jobs and zoned forestland – Is this true? 2. Water quality information in the upper watershed – Pierce County does not collect water quality data in the upper watershed because the regulatory assumption is water quality is fine as long as Forest Practice Rules are followed. What if forestlands are converted? There will be no way to monitor changes in water quality. 3. A good definition of “working forests” and “community forests” – What are we aiming for and how do we measure it?

4. Road conditions and fish barriers – What is the progress to date for meeting RMAP commitments to remove fish barriers? Do we know the scale of the problem throughout the watershed? Do we know road densities and impacts of roads on sedimentation, etc.? Pierce County would like to inventory all the culverts and blockages – they know it’s a priority and have applied for funding, but none yet. 5. Small forest land owners – We don’t know how many there are, who or where they are? DNR may have some of this information in their Rural Technology Initiative Database. 6. Ownership info – Do we have good ownership info? Over 20% of the watershed is owned by outside investors. Is this info available to tribes and public? 7. Trends in forest economics – Changes in ownership among forest industry is directly related to forest product markets and regulations. Do we understand these trends? 8. Watershed conditions by sub-basin – Do we have information on watershed conditions by sub-basins or Watershed Administrative Units (WAUs are sub-basins identified by DNR/TFW)? This will help us identify priority areas for protection/conservation and understand the scale of the problem. Pierce County is currently working on 10 sub-basin plans. (Match up sub-basins and WAUs to see similarities) 9. Forest cover, stand age and hydrologic maturity – We don’t have this info for the watershed. Commercial forest land owners keep close track of their hydrologic maturity status, but this information is not publicly available. 10. Biological/ecological standards for riparian forest management – Do we have these, not just activity standards or best management practices, but a description of criteria and indicators for biological/ecological function? 11. Canopy cover analysis broken into upper, middle, and lower Watershed 12. Forest quality assessment, broken into the upper, middle, and lower Watershed 13. Land use analysis of the watershed, broken into upper, middle and lower 14. Identification of high priority and/or easily available forestlands to conserve 15. Identification of funding availability for conservation and stewardship 16. Identify gaps in processes and/or existing policies in order to improve coordination of Forest Practices Act implementation and enforcement 17. Working list of professionals in the watershed, such as realtors, insurance agents, arborists, landscape architects and landscaping companies

3. Theory of Change The Watershed Problem (and root causes or drivers)  (Upper to Mid) Management structures in upper watershed place significant pressure on lands to maximize timber harvests, which has significant impact on water resources, wildlife habitat, slope stability, and other environmental factors.  (Upper to Mid) High pressure to sell forestlands in the upper and mid watershed, particularly on the fringe of commercial forest lands (e.g. Carbonado, S. Prairie, Buckley) as well as to convert forestlands for development.  Few incentives to maintain forest cover on smaller parcels managed by small forest landowners  No intentional focus on managing for ecological function or restoration on lands zoned for forestry or within biodiversity management areas, which leads to degradation of ecological function.  Lack of focused, coordinated (County, state, tribal) review of Forest Practice applications and other related actions and policies. o Easy to lift 6-year development moratorium after going through DNR permit and clearing critical areas o Lack of county staff to manage forest issues (e.g. forest practices, best management, conservation) o Lack of enforcement on reforestation o Lack of opportunities for stakeholder involvement  Limitations imposed by federal agencies and public expectation that are in direct conflict with increasing forest cover and enhancing habitat  Existing prejudice against keeping LWD in system USACE, urban residents, etc.  Small forest landowners typically don't self-identify as forest landowners and are generally unaware or unfamiliar with forest management or existing resources available to assist them  Loss of forest cover due to invasive species, unnecessary vegetation removal by property owners, jurisdictional staff limitations, and poor management  Lack of baseline information on current conditions of forest/tree canopy  Lack of baseline information of rules and regulations across all jurisdictions  Lack of political support for and/or educational information pertaining to the retention of trees in urban/suburban areas  Urban unincorporated and municipal areas generally don’t enforce regulations on the books, have none or are outdated and unenforceable  Regulations are inconsistent and generally not science based  Little or no cross-jurisdictional collaboration; agencies/governments are in silos

Your Role  Facilitate effective, proactive stewardship dialogues  Pursue and secure consensus between all affected inter-local governments; provide consistency – “one law” – to remove scattered conditions and ambiguity  Improved integration and transparency to improve performance and implementation of best management practices in implementation of County code and in state Forests and Fish Law (aka Forest Practices Act)  Provide leadership role in educating public and elected officials on benefits of forestlands in Watershed, and secure public investments in improved policy and in funding  Lead conservation efforts throughout the watershed  Serve as ambassadors for stewardship programs in urban unincorporated and municipal areas

4. Challenges and Opportunities Opportunities  Possible funding sources for small forest landowner work: USDA Risk Management, NRCS, DNR Small Forest Landowner Office, Puyallup Tribe, County  Building on existing programs, such as the tree coupon program in Tacoma  Partnering with University of Washington for assistance with canopy cover and land-use analysis  Building partnerships with new (and potentially unlikely or unexpected) parties (landowners, residents and businesses)  Creating of consistent messaging to be used watershed wide (or wider)  Creating a tighter-knit community based upon shared values and enhanced community identity  Increasing habitat for salmon and increasing salmon population and spread  Incorporate a forest canopy cover component into the Floodplains by Design proposal for the Puyallup Watershed  Political and financial support from the state legislature for the creation of a community forest trust Challenges  Working collaboratively across jurisdictions and public and private realms on forest–related matters  Creating or strengthening forest or tree protection regulations due to lack of understanding of benefits  Enforcement of regulations as jurisdictions increasingly don’t want to be seen as the “bad guy” and potentially overly rely on education and outreach as enforcement tools

 Engaging residents, especially those who are economically or culturally marginalized  Connecting with a broad and highly varied population  Getting local jurisdictions to cooperate and work towards one mutual goal  Restrictions of vegetation on dikes and levees in the lower watershed  Forests are sold at auction; to purchase/conserve these lands, funds must be available at time of auction to make bid o Public funds can only be expended at appraised value; difficult to compete in open auction  Climate change will have a significant impact on the Puyallup River Watershed: o Recent climate change analyses indicate that western Washington will likely experience warmer temperatures, more frequent and intense winter storms, higher winter precipitation, and reduced snowpack (Littell et al., 2011). These changes will affect the hydrology of stream networks and further stress salmon runs (Mantua et al., 2010). o Higher growing-season moisture stress and warmer winters will push species out of their ranges resulting in shifts in vegetation communities (Coops and Waring, 2011). o Increases in fire, wind, and insect disturbances are also likely (Littell et al., 2010). o Forest health issues can exist as a result of prior single-species, short rotation management (Edmonds et al., 2000) o Increasing genetic and species diversity, and spatial and structural heterogeneity both within and among stands has been found to increase forest resistance, resilience and adaptive capacity (Halofsky et al., 2011). Additionally, enhancing large wood inputs and maintaining canopy cover has been found to buffer effects of higher projected peak flows in riparian forests (Halofsky et al., 2011).

5. Strategies

Puyallup Watershed Strategy 1: Integrate work on forest issues across the watershed There is need for the roundtable to continue their work across the watershed with increased collaboration and communication. Finding common opportunities/problems across the watershed and using comprehensive and integrated approach is necessary to truly be effective in striving to meet the Roundtable’s previously stated goals and objectives. Most notably, the Roundtable acknowledges the need for Roundtable meeting coordination and facilitation to be continued by an external party given workloads and jurisdictional fragmentation. Further, the Roundtable acknowledges the importance of a full-time position at the

County level in order to further collaboration and communication on forestry opportunities/problems in the watershed. Lastly, the Roundtable recognizes that the fragmentation within the watershed isn’t restricted to jurisdictional boundaries but also includes a wide array of property use and ownership; however, despite fragmentation, the Roundtable recognizes that education and outreach is needed in all zones of the watershed. An integrated and comprehensive education and outreach plan is one tool for the Roundtable to approach opportunities/problems without a fragmented and disjointed approach.

Objectives and Activities Objective 1.1: The Forest Roundtable supports collaboration and attracts new partners Activity 1.1.1: Hire a consultant to facilitate and coordinate meetings for the Roundtable on a bi-monthly basis Objective 1.2: Watershed zones (i.e. Upper, Mid and Lower watershed) are defined and existing conditions described Activity 1.2.1: Roundtable to develop boundaries for each watershed zone Activity 1.2.2: Create Shapefile of watershed with zones defined for future GIS analysis use Activity 1.2.3: Work with Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to determine canopy cover for watershed (by zone) and changes between 2006- 2011 Activity 1.2.4: Work with partners to determine other relevant existing conditions within the watershed zones Objective 1.3: By 2015, Pierce County Forest Ombudsman is hired Activity 1.3.1: Develop a job description that explains the value of this position to the county and what the person would do in each of the watershed zones Activity 1.3.2: By July 2014, propose new position to County Executive at the Pierce Sustainability Coalition meeting to identify potential to include in next year’s budget Activity 1.3.3: Invite County Executive and other elected officials on a field tour to highlight the importance of forest issues to county Activity 1.3.4: Develop and lead a field tour for the county exec and council, highlighting issues in the upper, mid and lower watershed Activity 1.3.5: Conduct outreach to get citizens and organizations to show their support at the County Council meeting

Objective 1.4: Policymakers and residents have a clearer understanding of the value of forests in their jurisdictions and forest issues across the watershed (fragmentation is addressed) Activity 1.4.1: Work with a consultant to develop education and outreach plan including a palette of tools tailored for identified audiences and messages Activity 1.4.2: Develop and give forest tours for relevant policy makers (working forests, small and large)-repeat with new policymakers in future years Activity 1.4.3: Develop and give a community (suburban, exurban and urban) forestry tour for relevant policymakers-repeat with new policymakers in future years

Risks and Uncertainties It’s uncertain which member of the Roundtable will house or administer contracts for external assistance with coordination and facilitation of meetings. City of Tacoma may be able to assist with this role. There is uncertainty about the availability (or existence) of data of existing conditions within the unincorporated and/or the smaller jurisdictions (i.e. current land use, zoning, etc.). There is uncertainty where this position would be in the county’s organizational structure. Some people believe it would be most effective if it was part of a natural resources department within the county, but this department does not currently exist. The county council may not see a reason to create such a department. The county executive could also create a natural resources working group within the executive’s office, but then there would be a risk that this could be dissolved when the next county executive comes into office. One approach to manage these uncertainties and risks is to build support among the county council for a position like this by emphasizing the cost-savings to pro-actively addressing forest cover issues in comparison with the costs of dealing with flooding and water quality problems after forest cover has already been lost. Of course, when striving to overcome existing fragmentation, there is risk in unintentional exclusion of partners from the Roundtable, a lack of participation/collaboration from stakeholders, follow-through on stated activities for Roundtable partners, and that the Roundtable may have “bit off more than they can chew” so to speak.

Upper Watershed Zone

Strategy 2: Develop a community forest trust in the Puyallup River watershed Forestlands in the Puyallup River Watershed are predominantly managed as “working” lands, which help generate significant economic activity in the watershed and in the Puget Sound region as a whole. However, these activities often have detrimental impacts on natural and cultural resources that are difficult and expensive to mitigate for under this model. Thus, the Roundtable desires to create a community forest trust in the Puyallup River watershed at sufficient scale to deliver diverse set social and ecological benefits to watershed communities. The Roundtable will develop partnerships, conduct community outreach, research potential acquisitions, investigate and secure necessary funding, and develop a long- term management plan to create a self-sustaining community forest. A community forest trust is not a park; it is a working landscape. The trust must be managed to generate revenue, but only at a level necessary to cover the costs of managing the trust itself. In order to be successful as a conservation tool, the trust should be created in an area of high conversion risk, creating a buffer between developed areas and the productive forestland zone in the upper watershed. The Roundtable will serve as the nucleus in this effort, providing facilitation, conservation expertise and political support necessary to create a “community” of support for the creation of the trust. The Roundtable will work with all stakeholders to create the trust, particularly those in the immediate vicinity of likely trust properties. The Roundtable will need to work with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other public funders to ensure a community forest trust proposal fits within the intent of the enacting legislation; DNR can also provide expert advice on the scale of a trust, ensuring that it is of appropriate size and value to generate sufficient operating and maintenance revenue. The Roundtable and its members will engage stakeholders within the Carbon River Forum – co-created by the National Park Service and Forterra, and convened by the Service – as that is a likely area for the creation of a community forest trust. Outreach efforts may be modeled off of those utilized by the Nisqually Land Trust as part of their Mt. Rainier Foothills Initiative.

Objectives and Activities Objective 2.1: By June 2016, the Roundtable will submit a Community Forest Trust application to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Activity 2.1.1: Work with Mt. Rainier National Park staff to participate in the Carbon River Forum as a way to engage and secure the broad support of the community Activity 2.1.2: Participate in DNR’s process of updating CFT selection criteria – and other processes in the CFT arena to build support

Activity 2.1.3: Develop partnerships with agencies and organizations that have an interest and possible stake in the creation of a Community Forest Trust Activity 2.1.4: Work with partners to develop selection criteria (including DNR CFT criteria and review of Forterra Conservation Plan) and identify potential forested lands to be included in the Community Forest Trust Activity 2.1.5: Work with partners to identify sources for local share (note: currently 50% of development value) (e.g. Conservation Futures) Activity 2.1.6: Create/update maps of working forestland ownership in watershed Objective 2.2: By 2020, 25,000 acres of working forest land are in long-term protection via acquisition and/or easements. Activity 2.2.1: Support efforts of the Carbon River Forum to secure Wild and Scenic River designation for the Carbon River. Objective 2.3: By 2025, access for cultural uses, recreation, education, etc. is increased by 25%.

Risks and Uncertainties Owners selling land tracts larger than 500 acres likely to choose to conduct an open bid process driving prices above appraised value, making purchase using public funds exceptionally difficult. In addition, as turnover in property ownership continues, access to significant capital ($15 million or more) is critical in order to compete for properties as they become available to purchase. If creating a community forest out of these properties, it can be challenging to generate sufficient revenue to cover management costs on the property as the previous owner(s) have conducted intensive forest management, leaving little to no marketable timber on these properties.

Mid Watershed Zone

Strategy 3: Engage small forest landowners Engage in coordinated, focused outreach small forest landowners so they become aware and participate in programs that are adapted to fit their needs.

Objectives and Activities Objective 3.1: By 2024, XX%1 of SFLOs actively participating in stewardship activities. Activity 3.1.1: Gather information on small forest landowners and conduct a GIS analysis to understand demographics of SFLO, harvest trends and forest

1 Metric to be developed through Year 1 work plan, identified in the activities identified below. 16

holdings (create a map and updated database of small forest landowners) (lead, partners, resources needed) Activity 3.1.2: Inventory existing programs and resources available to SFLOs Activity 3.1.3: Design and conduct a survey to establish baseline of SFLO participation in programs and stewardship areas and prioritize areas for focused outreach. Activity 3.1.4: Design a joint outreach plan with service providers to coordinate and integrate their services, including a single portal for landowners to access information (mypuyallupwoods.org) Activity 3.1.5: Conduct joint workshops, site visits, stewardship project enrollment, stewardship projects, social media campaign, and materials development to increase awareness of issues and participation in stewardship and celebrate and support stewardship “heroes” Activity 3.1.6: Recruit volunteer stewards for peer to peer learning Activity 3.1.7: Re-administer survey to assess results of joint outreach campaign Activity 3.1.8: Create and implement a plan for post-Russell Family Foundation funding to continue and expand successful activities established during pilot project

Risks and Uncertainties Many factors influence the ability of small forest landowners to actively participate in stewarding their property including timber markets, the availability of cost-share programs, tax structures, real estate development pressure, and environmental risks such as fire, insect, and disease. The purpose of this outreach program is to acknowledge these risks and help small landowners increase resilience and capacity to address them, thereby increasing long-term economic vitality and environmental sustainability. Strategy 4: Amend Pierce County Code, Title 18H Forest Practices, to encourage Class IV-General conversion and Conversion Option Harvest Plans (COHP) applications by limiting the ability to be exempt from a development moratorium or to apply to request removal of a development moratorium. Many properties in the middle watershed are first logged through a DNR-issued logging permit and then proposed to be developed by a subsequent landowner who had nothing to do with the original logging. Development (conversion) of property is subject to County codes, which provide tree protection through several regulations, including Critical Areas (wetlands, streams, steep slopes) and Tree Conservation. However, applications submitted to, and approved by, the DNR for logging (non-conversion) are subject to the State Forest Practices and are exempt from County codes. A 6-year development moratorium is imposed on all logging permitted by the DNR. Pierce County Code, Title 18H, Forest Practices contains

17 criteria for two different application types that may be used to lift a development moratorium. Title 18H also provides several exemptions to the moratorium. Pierce County would prefer that properties in the middle watershed that are likely to be developed in the near future be logged through a County-issued logging permit (Class IV-G) that is issued in association with the proposed development (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) or through a Conversion Option Harvest Plan (COHP) that allows a landowner to log their property without receiving a development moratorium in return for protecting County-regulated Critical Areas and conserving significant trees. Logging under a County-issued permit would result in greater tree retention than what is required under a DNR-issued permit, including greater protection for trees in wetlands and wetland buffers, which may be logged under a DNR-issued permit.

Objectives and Activities Objective 4.1: By summer 2014, submit amendments to Long Range Planning. Activity 4.1.1. Meet with county executive’s staff to explain value of proposed amendment and potential role of Pierce County Forest Ombudsman. Activity 4.1.2. Develop proposed amendment PCC, Title 18H, Forest Practices to encourage Class IV-General conversion and Conversion Option Harvest Plans (COHP) applications by limiting the ability to be exempt from a development moratorium or to apply to request removal of a development moratorium. Objective 4.2: County Council adopts amendments by 2015. Activity 4.2.1. Advanced planners present proposed amendment to the Planning Commission and, if successful, the Planning Commission forwards it onto the County Council Activity 4.2.2. Present proposed amendment to Pierce Sustainability Coalition, who can advocate for its passage with the County Executive and County Council Activity 4.2.3. Conduct outreach to get citizens and organizations to show their support at the County Council meeting

Risks and Uncertainties The proposed amendment may easily be adopted by the County Council, but since it is a political process, there is always the risk that some council members might have concerns with it or that some members of the public may show up without advance notice and advocate against it. To avoid this scenario, citizens and organizations with the Forest Roundtable will build understanding and support for the amendment before it comes before the county council.

Strategy 5: Support development of county and state policies that support mutual reinforcement

Objectives and Activities Objective 5.1: By 2024, county, city, and state regulations and stewardship programs mutually reinforce each other to improve impact. Activity 5.1.1. By 2015, reach out to TFW stakeholders to gauge interest in convening a local TFW group focused on improving implementation of forest regulations and forest conditions across jurisdictions, and determine who would convene and facilitate the group if there were enough interest to move forward. Activity 5.1.2. Develop communication materials, such as a brochure and/or website, that clearly explain the history and value of the Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) process – what it is and how people can participate Activity 5.1.3. Hire a facilitator to do outreach with potential TFW stakeholders and facilitate any local TFW meetings Activity 5.1.4. Conduct outreach with forest stakeholders to explain the Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) process and identify if stakeholders have any concerns with implementation of forest policies/practices in the Puyallup Watershed that may be addressed through the TFW process Activity 5.1.5. Based on interest, convene a local Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) group and facilitate problem-solving discussions to build understanding, address any concerns or inconsistencies in how forest regulations are implemented

Risks and Uncertainties There is uncertainty whether other stakeholders see value in the TFW process and would want to convene a local group; however there is very little risk associated with trying this approach. If the right organization or individual steps forward to convene and facilitate this process, it could create a forum to discuss forest issues across jurisdictions that does not currently exist. It seems like this would have value for many stakeholders, but they may be skeptical of participating initially because of frustration with past collaborative efforts. They may have to experience the added value of such a process before they become fully supportive of the concept. An effective facilitator/convener can do outreach to design a process that is comfortable for participants and encourages broad participation.

Strategy 6: Improve coordination in review and approval of Forest Practice Applications (FPAs) among State, County, Tribes, and other stakeholders Develop a comprehensive training guide for each area’s reviewer and recruit FPAR’s for each community area. By partnering with watershed stewards, landowners, and others with knowledge of forest habitats in their area, FPAs can be more-quickly and more-accurately reviewed. By partnering with local experts in this way, we can expand our knowledge base as well as our capacity to review FPAs to ensure resources (e.g. fish and wildlife habitat, cultural sites, etc.) are protected from impacts associated with timber harvest.

Objectives and Activities Objective 6.1. By 2015, get more people involved in actively reviewing and commenting on Forest Practices Applications Activity 6.1.1. Update the county code so that tribes are notified of all county forest practices applications Activity 6.1.2. Visit community groups to explain how to provide input and engage in Forest Practices review process

Risks and Uncertainties  Lack of cooperation or interest from local governments’ land use and permitting depts.  Lack of cooperation from DNR  Unchanged policy between DNR & local government offices regarding notification/feedback outside the UGA’s  Lack of respect for the FPAR’s recommendations/concerns

Lower Watershed Zone

Strategy 7: Improve knowledge and increase tree canopy and stewardship for a healthy urban forest in the lower watershed. Our urban forest provides significant environmental, social, economic and health related benefits to the watershed and all who live, work and play here. A growing population and increased development is negatively impacting the environmental, economic and social benefits of a healthy urban forest. There is limited existing knowledge of urban forests in the watershed with only a few jurisdictions having a tree canopy assessment and only one (City of Tacoma) with an urban forestry program and dedicated staff. It is acknowledged that within the lower watershed there is wide spread lack of knowledge about urban forest benefits and how to achieve and steward a healthy urban forest. This lack of knowledge is spread amongst public agency staff, professionals working with trees or whose work impacts trees, real estate agents, and property owners. In addition,

20 most jurisdictions lack the financial resources to implement and maintain an urban forestry program. The activities planned for 2014 are coordinated with a number of jurisdictions (Pierce County Surface Water Management (SWM) and the cities of Puyallup and Tacoma) and others (Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Pierce Conservation District (PCD), and WSU Extension Master Gardeners) who are interested in collaborating on the lower watershed strategy. In addition, existing grant funds from WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) are being leveraged to bring a unified education and outreach effort to the watershed. SWM received a DNR grant to create bus banners. PCD received a DNR grant to create a “tree placement” educational postcard. Both will be coordinated with existing City of Tacoma urban forestry education materials and made available to others in the watershed and region. PSP grant funds are being used to pilot a social marketing tree planting campaign in South Tacoma with targeted outreach and workshops and tree sales at farmer markets. The planned activities are based on audience research (focus groups and surveys). A similar approach will be used in the pilot area between the cities of Tacoma and Puyallup, south of the Puyallup River. The bus banners will be on routes in this area between September 15, 2014 and October 11, 2014. The bus banners will promote a central website created to promote tree planting and care. Targeted mailings to residential property owners will be conducted in September 2014; family fun educational events are planned to occur on October 4, 2014 and October 11, 2014. These events will have tree planting workshops and tree sales. If these pilot projects are successful, it will be repeated in future years.

Objectives and Activities Objective 7.1: By 2024, knowledge of the benefits of a healthy urban forest and how to achieve it are better known and practiced among public agencies, professionals, and property owners within the lower watershed. Activity 7.1.1 By 2015, survey existing regulatory frameworks, jurisdictional staff knowledge (previous training), and professionals working within the lower watershed Activity 7.1.2: Inventory BMPs, standard details, S.O.P.s, specifications of all jurisdictions in the lower watershed Activity 7.1.3: Compile a list of professionals working with trees; include contact information, expertise and certifications, etc. Activity 7.1.4: Create on-line survey for all jurisdictions to determine current knowledge levels and training needs

Objective 7.2: In years 2014-2024, Support Forest COI comprehensive education and outreach plan to increase stewardship of healthy community forests Activity 7.2.1: Start "Trees Are Amazing" or "Grow Amazing Trees" campaign (with intentions of growing the campaign in future years) Sub-Activity 7.2.1.1: Create a central website for tree marketing campaign Sub-Activity 11.2.1.2: Create bus banners with tree campaign for bus routes in the watershed Activity 7.2.2: Create outreach materials for residential tree placement Activity 7.2.3: Conduct tree planting education and outreach targeting residential property owners in selected pilot project area; encourage fall planting and promote tree coupon program and do targeted mailings. Objective 7.3: In years 2014 - 2024, increase tree canopy specifically on residential and agency "open space" or natural properties Activity 7.3.1: As an incentive to encourage tree planting, pilot expansion of City of Tacoma's "tree coupon program" into surrounding jurisdictions Activity 7.3.2: Conduct pilot tree planting workshops at farmers markets and other locations; include tree sales for landowners who attend workshop Activity 7.3.3: Create South Sound “Green City Partnerships network” to include the already established Green Tacoma Partnership, newly forming Green Puyallup Partnership, and explore development and inclusion of other green city partnerships throughout the lower watershed. Sub-Activity 7.3.3.1: Launch and establish one new Green City Partnership (year 1 – City of Puyallup) through development of a strategic guiding document to address restoration, maintenance, and stewardship plans to achieve long-term urban forestry goals. Sub-Activity 7.3.3.2: Identify and map at least 200 acres of forest habitat and green space in need of restoration, maintenance, and stewardship; develop at least 3 site specific stewardship restoration plans; initiate restoration work on at least 3 identified sites (year 1 – achieve through development and establishment of Green Puyallup Partnership)

Risks and Uncertainties  Tree planting/care and tree sale workshops are poorly attended  Targeted outreach results in limited number of landowners taking action to purchase and plant trees  Landowners may be interested in planting trees but lack the ability to transport and physically plant trees  Lack of interest by other local jurisdictions to participate in tree planting campaign  Training for tree care professionals are poorly attended  Starting lower watershed strategy participants (Pierce County, Tacoma, Puyallup and others) lack the time and resources to continue campaign  Inability to secure additional funds

Role of the COI – Lower Watershed Strategy  Staff support for education, outreach, and workshops  Oversee development and distribution of education and outreach materials  Oversee collection of baseline data  Widely promote workshops and other events  Identify and purchase trees for tree sale  Assist in identifying potential funding sources 6. Evaluation, Adaptive Management and Learning

Tracking Change The Forest Roundtable proposes to conduct outreach and research activities in order to help to collect its own data, which will help to determine if conditions are changing in the Watershed (e.g. forest canopy cover). Participants will also use existing data sources, communicate, and coordinate with other COIs (e.g. Environmental Education, Salmon, Agriculture) to track change. The Forest Roundtable acknowledges that there are unknown unknowns, and that it will require diligent tracking and analysis to identify knowledge gaps as well as how to address those gaps. For example, the Roundtable may partner with and utilize the City of Tacoma survey of residents’ attitudes about quality of life (CoT has been doing so for about the past 10 years). Through this survey, the Roundtable and City can help measure ecosystem services and other indicators that would help to provide guidance to the Roundtable.

Evaluating Success The Forest Roundtable will meet on a bi-monthly basis, which will provide members with the opportunity to bring progress on work plan activities to the Roundtable, explore next steps, identify means for improving projects/engagements, and to evaluate their success against the Work Plan and 20-Year Vision. In addition, the activities in the Work Plan have defined and measureable goals, which can be used to measure success against the 20-Year Vision. By continually evaluating progress toward this Vision, the Roundtable can identify gaps and make course corrections to capitalize on opportunities and maximize opportunities for cross-COI collaboration.

Adaptive Management The entire PWI process is a practice in adaptive management. The Roundtable acknowledges that there are gaps in outreach and knowledge (e.g. who are the small forest landowners in the watershed? Do they identify themselves as forest landowners?) and requires data gathering, research, and outreach to close these knowledge gaps. Once information has been collected and analyzed by the Roundtable, members will need to use that data to determine how best to proceed in making progress toward the Work Plan(s), as well as the overarching 20-Year Vision. Consistent communication and dialogue will be critical to the success of the Roundtable and its members. Allocating appropriate levels of time and resources toward tracking change and adaptive management will help to ensure that this communication and dialogue filters into the actions taken by members of the Roundtable and to the overall success of the Work Plan(s) and Vision. At the conclusion of the Year 1 Work Plan, the Roundtable will reassess the condition of our Values and incorporate lessons learned across all strategies. The Roundtable may find that some areas need less work than expected, and can adjust efforts to other strategies or developing new strategies for upcoming years. Cross- collaboration and communication with other COIs will also be an important element for the Roundtable to incorporate into annual work plans.

Learning One of the very first activities of the Roundtable will be to conduct outreach with small forest landowners in unincorporated areas of the Watershed to identify landowners, their management practices, and their views on forestland management. In addition, the Roundtable will conduct several town hall meetings with upper Watershed communities around the creation of a community forest trust. These activities will have a substantial impact on how the Roundtable implements its 20-Year Vision. For example, should the upper Watershed communities state their opposition to a community forest trust, the Roundtable would need to learn from that outreach and use that to experience to identify other ways of conserving forestlands in the upper Watershed.

Required Resources The Roundtable members with available capacity (staff time, resources, experience, etc.) to do the work will assess the resources needed to implement each strategy. Some partners, such as Pierce County, will be able to provide in-kind services. Other partners are partially funded for some activities through current funding, and will look for match or additional funding from TRFF funds.

Appendices

Exhibit A – Partners Partner Anticipated Role Capacity City of Bonney Lake City of Fife City of Puyallup Assist in implementation Chris Beale is a planner and certified arborist. of lower watershed The City of Puyallup is actively promoting tree strategy planting and establishing a South Sound Green City Partnership City of Tacoma Provide subject matter The City currently has one staff dedicated to expertise and assist with running an urban forestry program that implementation of focuses on supporting storm water’s mission; strategies in the Lower tree and natural yard care education and Watershed. outreach, resident tree coupon program, partnerships with public agencies and businesses. Additional resources beyond urban forestry may also be available to assist with implementation. Earth Economics Earth Economics can help Since 1998, Earth Economics has been the group develop the providing robust, science-based, ecologically narrative of the value of sound economic analysis, policy the Puyallup’s forested recommendations and tools to positively landscapes, including transform regional, national and international quantifying and valuing economics, and asset accounting systems. the ecosystem services Working with leading ecologists, economists listed further below in this and modelers, we serve a large circle of non- document. Such services profits, government agencies, policy makers, include: carbon capture, businesses, and multi-lateral organizations flood control, water with research, reports, presentations, quality regulation and workshops and investigations. Our goal is to human health benefits. help communities shift away from the failed One of the objectives of economic policies of the past, towards an the Forest COI is to help approach that is both economically viable and develop the baseline of environmentally sustainable. In addition, current conditions of the Earth Economics has already engaged in an forested landscape across ecosystem services valuation in the Puyallup the Puyallup. Earth watershed and can bring those results to bear Economics can help the on various aspects of the work proposed by group leverage the the Forest COI. existing work already available for the Puyallup to develop and articulate that baseline. Forterra Lead on forestland Forterra has 25 years of experience in conservation efforts in completing conservation transactions, watershed; co-lead on developing policies that help to create a more development of sustainable region (e.g. TDR), and in stewardship programs in stewarding parks and open space across the municipalities and in region. Within the context of the Forest urban unincorporated Roundtable, Forterra can utilize its experience communities in Pierce and skills to help secure capital and operating

County support to support the COI, implement projects and complete transactions, and provide the knowledge and leadership necessary to help advance policy proposals identified by the Roundtable. Hancock Natural Resources Group Muckleshoot Tribe National Park Service Nisqually Land Trust Northwest Natural Coordinate NNRG runs a membership program for small Resource Group implementation of mid- woodland owners that provides access to watershed strategy certification, forest management assistance, incentives, and educational workshops. Pierce Assist in implementation PCD can provide education/outreach and Conservation of the lower watershed project management skills. PCD provides District strategy volunteer opportunities to plant trees and restore riparian habitat. Pierce County Assist in implementation Pierce County can provide 1) GIS mapping of mid and lower and landowner and property identification, 2) watershed strategies knowledge of timber harvest regulations, 3) education/outreach and project management skills Puget Sound Partnership Puyallup River Assist with The PRWC holds monthly educational forums Watershed Council workshop/event and other events. The PRWC is highly coordination, educational interested in restoring, protecting and forums, and community enhancing the watershed’s environmental education and outreach. health. The PRWC Coordinator maintains a 350+ email contact list and has a background in forest resource management. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Tahoma Audubon Engage local community Tahoma Audubon Society is comprised of a members in education and dedicated team of paid staff and volunteer advocacy, and outreach to advocates who can and will participate in the elected officials and Forest Roundtable. TAS is particularly decision-makers in interested in protecting critical habitats and support of policies, restoring forests and open space to enhance programs and regulations ecosystem and ecological benefits. TAS is also leading to forest leading up the Biodiversity Network COI. conservation. US Forest Service Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Exhibit B – Carbon River Forests – Gateway to Mount Rainier: A conservation strategy for the protection of forestlands within the Carbon River Corridor Below is a conservation strategy developed by Forterra in 2013 with the support of the Russell Family Foundation. The strategy outlines the complexities of forestland conservation around the Carbon River – which is a major tributary in the Puyallup River Watershed – as well as the benefits of creating a community forest trust around the river to more effectively balance multiple resource and community objectives.

Issue Forestlands within the Carbon River Corridor2 are critical to the ecological, cultural, social, and economic well-being of rural Pierce County communities, as well as to the region as a whole. These lands face serious risks from rural development, overly-intensive timber management, changing land ownerships, and climate change. Without a long-term conservation strategy for these lands, the benefits they provide to the community – including clean air and water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, cultural resources, and forest products – will be significantly depleted, if not lost entirely.

History of the Corridor An excerpt from the Carbon River Forum Memorandum of Understanding (Agreement Number NPS: G9450130005), Appendix A: HISTORY OF THE CARBON RIVER REGION3 The natural and cultural history of the Carbon River region is inspiring and is significant to both Native American tribes and European settlers. For thousands of years, Puyallup and Muckleshoot tribes occupied the region, thriving on the rich abundance of resources from the mountains to the sea. In the past, permanent villages were located throughout lowland areas, and there were well-established seasonal camps ranging widely through the Cascade Mountains to Mount Rainier and beyond. The Carbon River region encompassed uncounted village sites, resource areas, and transportation routes (i.e. trails). The river valleys provided access and connectivity between the lowland areas of Puget Sound and the upper elevation forest and sub-alpine resource areas of Mount Rainier. This region continues to be of significance to the tribes today. Through the treaties of Medicine Creek and Point Elliot in 1854 and 1855, respectively, Native American lands in the region and throughout Puget Sound were ceded to the federal government. Over time, conflicts between

2 The “Carbon River Corridor” is the area adjacent to and within the watershed of the Carbon River upstream from the communities of Buckley and South Prairie up to and including Mt. Rainier National Park. 3 This MOU was distributed for signatures from stakeholders within the Corridor in July, 2013 28

European settlers and local tribes grew as settlers increasingly moved into the area. In October, 1855, hostilities (referred to as the Puget Sound Indian Wars) began and the Carbon River region was the site of some of the period’s most significant conflicts. The opening and closing battles of the war were fought on Connell’s Prairie, six miles west of Buckley, and a temporary militia fort was established at South Prairie. As hostilities subsided, local tribes and bands gradually relocated to reservation lands but they continue to retain their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather in traditional use areas. In 1830, only 25 years after Lewis and Clark arrived at the Pacific coast, fur trappers working for the Hudson’s Bay Trading Company built a log cabin about four miles west of the current City of Buckley. Settlement occurred gradually for about 30 years, primarily in the lower river valleys where the land was suitable for farming. Then, in the late 1860’s, coal was discovered in the upper Carbon River area and the region was transformed forever. Coal was vitally important in the late 1800’s for heating homes, producing steel, and powering steam engines on trains and ships. The Northern Pacific Railroad (formed in 1864 to construct a transcontinental line from Lake Superior to the Pacific Northwest) played an instrumental role in forming the Tacoma Coal Company to mine the newly discovered coal. The first rail line from Tacoma to Wilkeson was finished in 1877, and soon the Carbon River valley all the way to near the current national park boundary was dotted with mines, coke ovens, and company towns all linked by the railroad. For many years these rail lines were the main transportation corridor for both train and foot traffic. At its peak, the population of communities in the upper Carbon River valley may have numbered as many as 65,000 residents, compared to today’s population of fewer than 2,000. Although coal was the primary reason for developing rail access up the Carbon River valley, there were other resources too, and the trains were soon carrying timber, milled lumber, and the unique Wilkeson sandstone out of the region. Logging and milling soon became as important to the regional economy as mining. Timber towns with extensive logging operations4 and multiple mills grew up almost overnight adjacent to the railroad lines. Wilkeson sandstone was a very high grade building material – dense, watertight, and resistant to cracking and discoloration. In fact, the capitol building in Olympia was built of sandstone quarried in Wilkeson. Early tourists were also drawn to Mount Rainier as soon as train service was available. Outfitters met tourists arriving by train in Wilkeson, and then guided them by pack horse up into the high alpine areas of Mount Rainier.

4 The St. Paul and Tacoma Lumber Company was formed in the 1880s, which was the first lumber company to purchase forestlands in the Cascade Foothills near Lake Kapowsin. Their original holdings – including much of the acreage within the Corridor – have changed ownerships several times since the 1950s. Most of their original purchase is still a part of the Kapowsin Forest, which has been owned by Hancock Natural Resources Group since the late 1990s/early 2000s. 29

Coal mining declined in the early 1900’s and many towns began to lose jobs and population. Company towns literally shut their doors and moved away taking whatever they could salvage with them. Many communities in the upper valley literally disappeared with little trace they ever existed (e.g., Fairfax, Melmont, Manley Moore, Spiketon and others). In the lower valley, the communities of Buckley, South Prairie, and Orting were able to strengthen their economic ties to the growing Puget Sound area and remain viable. Today, the pace of change in Puget Sound is accelerating the approach of urban development; the communities of the Upper Carbon River watershed are faced with the challenge of responding in a way that stays true to their identity while enhancing the values that community residents feel contribute to their quality of life.

Forest Values The forests of the Carbon River Corridor and the Puyallup River Watershed as a whole are valuable not only for their economic benefits, but also for their cultural and ecological benefits. In terms of economic value, the forests provide hundreds of jobs for rural communities from timber fallers and road construction crews to biologists and timber cruisers. In addition to the jobs “in the woods,” the forest products economy generates jobs in manufacturing, trade and energy sectors, particularly around industrial centers of Frederickson and the Port of Tacoma. These forests also have a significant economic benefit through the outdoor recreation economy, which generates $4.5 billion annually statewide.5 The towns of Wilkeson and Carbonado, in particular, generate a significant portion of their annual economic activity from the seasonal influx in visitors to Mt. Rainier National Park and the surrounding forests, lakes and streams. Culturally, these forests are the ancestral homes of the Puyallup and Muckleshoot Native American tribes. The tribes still utilize these forests for the harvest of culturally-significant materials for medicine, crafts and other needs; they also rely on these forests to protect water quality for salmon runs, which are of critical importance to the tribes culturally as well as economically. Ecologically, the forests of the Corridor provide critical habitats for many species, including migrating Rocky Mountain Elk, threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon and threatened Northern Spotted Owl. The forests of the Corridor are some of the most diverse ecologically in the County, as indicated in the Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment, published in 2004.6 In addition to their habitat benefits, the forests in the Corridor help sequester carbon in the atmosphere and regulate water

5 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01145/wdfw_01145.pdf 6 http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/3929 30 quality and quantity, which are significant for their ecological as well as their economic values.7

Forestland Ownership Private forestland ownership began in 1864 with the Congressional authorization of the Northern Pacific Railroad (NPRR) and granting of nearly 40 million acres of lands across the upper Midwest through the Rockies and to Tacoma, Washington. This was granted in a checkerboard pattern of every other square mile, forty miles wide on both sides of the railroad. The Railroad sold large blocks of land to settlers and to companies looking to open up new sources of natural resources for a rapidly- industrializing global economy. In 1888, the Railroad sold 80,000 acres of lowland Cascade forestlands to the St. Paul and Tacoma Lumber Company, which would open the most technologically- advanced lumber mill in Tacoma on the Puyallup River delta (now the Port of Tacoma). During their operation, St. Paul and Tacoma acquired a total of nearly 300,000 acres of forestlands within the Puyallup River Watershed below Mt. Rainier, from the White River in King County south to the Nisqually River in Lewis County. The Pacific Forest Reserve, including Mt. Rainier, was designated by President Grover Cleveland in 1893. It was expanded and renamed the Rainier Forest Reserve in 1893. Part of this was included in Mt. Rainier National Park when it was established in 1899. The remaining reserved lands within the Puyallup watershed became part of the Snoqualmie National Forest when it was established in 1908. The mixed ownership with the timber companies was blocked up in the 1980s through a series of land exchanges. In 1900 the NPRR sold 900,000 acres of land to the newly formed Weyerhaeuser Company, large portions of which were located in the White, Puyallup and Nisqually River watersheds. Following the purchase of the St. Paul and Tacoma Lumber Company by St. Regis Paper in 1957, the forestlands that they once owned went through a cascade of ownerships, including Champion International, James River and International Paper. The majority of these lands – about 270,000 acres – were sold to several international timber companies. These lands continued to change hands over the past several decades, with the majority of the forestlands in Pierce County being held by just five private landowners (see Appendix B for a map of forestland ownerships in the Carbon River Corridor):  Hancock Natural Resources Group – 118,000 acres  Muckleshoot Indian Tribe – 49,000 acres  Weyerhaeuser Co – 16,000 acres  Conservation Forestry – 13,000 acres

7 Earth Economics, The Puyallup River Watershed: An Ecological Economic Characterization, 2011 31

 Manke Timber Co – 12,000 acres The vast majority of private forestlands in the Carbon River Corridor are currently owned by Hancock Natural Resources Group (Hancock), which acquired its holdings in the Corridor through a group of transactions in 2001. Hancock is a timber investment management organization or “TIMO,” whose role is to manage its assets – in this case, timber lands – for trust beneficiaries. These beneficiaries can be anyone, from pension funds, to corporate investors or even individuals. It is a TIMO’s responsibility to manage its assets to generate a return for their investors. TIMOs, like other investment structures, make investments based on a schedule where there is a clear divestment date. In the case of forestland ownership, this could result in significant fragmentation in ownership within the Corridor, which could exacerbate conversion to non-forest uses (i.e. rural development) and impacts on ecological and cultural resources.

Threats to Forests within Carbon River Corridor Unlike the White River and Nisqually River corridors leading up to Mt. Rainier National Park, the Carbon River entrance is far less traveled. There are fewer visitor amenities and fewer tourist attractions, such as ski areas or visitors’ centers. However, its relative seclusion may be its greatest liability. Whereas the White River corridor leading to Mt. Rainier is steep and has very little road infrastructure, the forested plateau above the Carbon River is much more conducive to development, indicated by the rural residential conversion in the lower Corridor over the past two decades. In addition, whereas the Nisqually River entrance into the Park at Ashford is nearly 60 miles from downtown Tacoma, the Carbon River Ranger Station is less than 40 miles from downtown Tacoma. While the number of visitors to the Park through the Carbon River entrance is low in comparison to the other two entrances, the National Park Service is working to restore recreational opportunities in the Corridor, particularly for backpackers, campers and other outdoor enthusiasts. Following the closure of the Ipsut Creek Campground to vehicles in 2006,8 the National Park Service has acquired approximately 750 acres to the west of the original Carbon River entrance for camping and river access, which will help attract more visitors to the Park through this entrance. In addition, the Corridor is a popular recreational area for ATV riders, who access the Evans Creek ORV area operated by the US Forest Service, bicyclists who enjoy riding the road up to the Park along the Carbon River, and backcountry hikers who access the hundreds of miles of trails from the Carbon River entrance. The burgeoning interest in the Corridor’s recreational opportunities, its more favorable building locations for second homes, as well as its proximity to Tacoma and transportation infrastructure will likely result in an influx in forestland conversion in the coming decades.

8 The National Park Service closed the road to the campground due to continued flooding from the Carbon River, which resulted in dangers to visitors as well as significant maintenance costs. 32

In addition to the threat of rural residential sprawl infiltrating the working forestlands of the Corridor, changing forestland ownerships, particularly among the large working forest owners, may not only result fragmentation of habitats, but also in increased pressure to generate a profit from these lands through accelerated timber harvests and/or conversion to non-forest uses. With large blocks of forestland likely to come on the auction block in the next 3-8 years, it is imperative to create a conservation strategy to seize an opportunity to keep the forestlands intact to the greatest extent possible.

A Conservation Strategy Balancing Cultural, Ecological and Economic Needs In an era of declining public grant sources for conservation projects, it is imperative to maximize – and leverage – limited funds to the extent possible. Priorities for fee acquisition (i.e. outright land purchase) should be given to areas with exceptional habitat (e.g. within a biodiversity management area), cultural value (e.g. identified cultural site) or other public values. Within the Corridor, there are several key properties that may be good targets for fee acquisition within this conservation strategy:  Plum Creek property near Coplay Lake o Two tracts, each approximately 640 acres, of working forest inholding to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Park within the White River Biodiversity Management Area o Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl, Rocky Mountain Elk and other species o Significant recreational use  Carbon Glacier Club near the historic community of Fairfax o Nearly 1100 acres of forestlands just to the south of the Carbon River within the White River Biodiversity Management Area o Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl, Rocky Mountain Elk and Puget Sound Chinook salmon o Significant risk of conversion to non-forest uses  Remaining inholdings to Mt. Rainier National Park boundary expansion area o Approximately 50 acres of the 800 acre area have yet to be acquired o Within the White River Biodiversity Management Area, providing habitat for Northern Spotted Owl, Rocky Mountain Elk and other species o Significant recreational use o Significant risk of conversion to non-open space uses On the remainder of working forestlands, the objective should be to keep the maximum amount of acreage intact. This can be done through a variety of ways:  Purchase or donation of conservation easements extinguishing the development rights on the property and limiting the use of the property to forestry or open space uses

 Transfer of development rights from working forests to receiving sites in urban areas such as Tacoma  Rural clusters where development rights from a large property are clustered closest to existing infrastructure (i.e. roads, power, water), leaving the remaining acreage intact and permanently protected as working forest or open space A third avenue for conserving forests in the Corridor is through the creation of a Community Forest Trust (CFT), which is property managed as working land, that is publicly or privately owned, or both, but balancing multiple resource values, including habitat, cultural and recreational values. The intent of a CFT is to manage the property to generate enough revenue to cover the costs of managing the property, but not more than is needed. By reducing the pressure to generate a profit from the management of forestlands, a CFT is better-suited to balance habitat, cultural and recreational values with timber harvest. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources created the Community Forest Trust program in 2011, which would be “actively and sustainably managed by DNR, and used by the local community consistent with their local values.9” This new type of public ownership would not only allow the community to have a say in how a community forest is managed, but also bring a new conservation partner into the Corridor.10 Creation of a Community Forest Trust in the Corridor would take several years to coalesce the community around a management structure for the property, identify the property to conserve, and secure the funding necessary to complete the transaction. However, if given time and community support, it is possible to conserve several thousand acres along the fringes of the forests in the Corridor, effectively conserving the forestlands behind them as well. Community forest trusts should be targeted for areas close to existing development, or to where development will be anticipated to occur in the next several years. Community forests must also be large enough to effectively manage, as well as provide significant enough economic value to maintain a revenue stream for the management of the property. Given these parameters, there are several likely targets for the creation of a CFT within the Carbon River Corridor, including all or parts of the following areas:  Carbon River area approximately 2 miles west of Wilkeson o This area has seen significant conversion over the past two decades, but is still large enough to be effectively managed as a CFT o Within a Biodiversity Connecting Corridor, linking the White River Biodiversity Management Area with Greenwater River BMA

9 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/OtherLandTransactions/Pages/amp_community_forest_ trust.aspx 10 The Washington State Department of Natural Resources owns nearly 25,000 acres of forestlands in Pierce County, all of which falls outside of the Carbon River corridor. 34

 Between Wilkeson and Carbonado o This area has seen significant conversion over the past two decades, but is still large enough to be effectively managed as a CFT o Within a Biodiversity Connecting Corridor, linking the White River Biodiversity Management Area with Greenwater River BMA o Adjacent to over 8,000 acres of conserved forestlands to the east  East of Buckley o Property is owned by Hancock Natural Resources Group, but isolated from the rest of their holdings o Within the Greenwater Biodiversity Management Area and adjacent to over 8,000 acres of conserved forestlands to the south

The Goal: Carbon River Forests for Future Generations In spite of the risks to the forests within the Corridor, Forterra and the conservation community have done a significant amount of work to ensure that future generations will continue to enjoy the forests of the Cascade Foothills below Mt. Rainier. To date, Forterra has conserved over 8,000 acres of forestlands around the Carbon River, and is actively-pursuing the conservation of approximately 500 more near Carbonado. With the creation of the Carbon River Forum in 2014, there will be an opportunity for public, private and non-profit stakeholders to convene as a community to address how to protect the natural and cultural resources of the Corridor, including how best to conserve the forestlands within it. A proactive and collaborative approach – working with landowners, government entities, tribes and the local community – is critical to the success of any conservation strategy in the Corridor. Given the existing conservation and community infrastructure, history of successful transactions, and ability to secure funding for conservation projects, the goal should be to conserve 85% of the remaining unprotected forestlands within the Corridor.

Acknowledgements This project was made possible through the generous support of the Russell Family Foundation, who launched the Puyallup Watershed Initiative in 2012. The Initiative is “an invitation to people and organizations [in the Watershed] to work together to identify environmental and social challenges affecting their community, decide how best to tackle them, and then do so.” This research was also made possible by the openness of and support from community leaders, government agencies, Native American tribes, and other stakeholders who were instrumental in compiling the information necessary to complete this report.

Appendix A: Landowner profiles of Carbon River Corridor forest landowners 1. Hancock Natural Resources Group – Hancock is the TIMO managing the vast majority of forestlands in the Corridor; they are also the single largest landowner in the County (or were, before the sale of the White River Tree Farm to the Muckleshoot Tribe in 2013). Hancock is a willing seller when it comes to putting together conservation transactions, but deals must provide sufficient value in order to proceed. As a TIMO, they have an investment strategy with defined divestment periods. As a result, it is anticipated that they will begin divesting forestlands within the Corridor in the next 3-8 years. 2. Manke Timber Company – A small, family-owned timber company headquartered in Mason County, Manke owns several scattered parcels throughout the Corridor. They are not as well-known as other landowners (e.g. Hancock, Weyerhaeuser), and are only beginning to be open to discussions around conservation transactions. 3. Plum Creek Timber Company – Plum Creek owned much more land in the Corridor two decades ago, but have steadily divested these lands, some of which were sold as part of conservation projects (e.g. Mt. Rainier National Park boundary expansion). One of the biggest hurdles to completing projects with Plum Creek – particularly the National Forest inholding near Coplay Lake/Cayada Creek – is that they do not own the mineral rights to their lands. The Forest Service, while interested in owning the property, does not wish to purchase less than full fee. In order to move forward on a partnership with the Forest Service and Plum Creek, this mineral rights issue must be resolved. 4. Carbon Glacier Club – Schnitzer Properties purchased this 1100-acre property in 2003 for just $1.1 million. Schnitzer has done only minimal forest management, but have indicated that they may conduct timber harvests on the property in the next 3-5 years. They have also indicated that they are going through a master planning process on the property, but have not decided whether to keep it in working forest or convert the property for second home development. 5. Weyerhaeuser – Weyerhaeuser recently acquired Longview Timberlands (previously part of Longview Fibre), which owned several thousand acres just east of Carbonado. Outreach to Weyerhaeuser regarding their new properties purchased from Longview has been conducted, but they are still going through a process of organizing these assets. Until they have determined what they wish to do with these lands, conservation transactions will be on the backburner for them. 6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe – The Tribe owns a very small part of the forestlands within the Corridor, but is a major landowner in the Puyallup River Watershed as a whole, as indicated by their recent purchases along the White River. In 2013, the Tribe closed on an approximately 79,500-acre acquisition encompassing both sides of the White River between Greenwater downstream to the Mud Mountain Dam. The Tribe has kept Hancock on-

36 board as their property manager for the time being, which may serve as an avenue for conversations with the Tribe regarding their existing holdings as well as to give indications as to what their management strategy for those lands will be going forward.

Appendix B: Map of the Carbon River Corridor

Exhibit C – References Coops, N.C., Waring, R.H., 2011. Estimating the vulnerability of fifteen tree species under changing climate in Northwest North America. Ecological Modelling. Edmonds, R.L., Agee, J.K., Gara, R.I., 2000. Forest Health and Protection. McGraw-Hill Company. Halofsky, J.S., Peterson, D.L., O’Halloran, K.A., Hawkins Hoffman, C., 2011. Adapting to climate change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW- GTR-844, 130. Littell, J.S., Elsner, M.M., Mauger, G.S., Lutz, E., Hamlet, A.F., Salathe, E., 2011. Regional Climate and Hydrologic Change in the Northern US Rockies and Pacific Northwest: Internally Consistent Projections of Future Climate for Resource Management. Climate Impacts Group University of Washington College of the Environment. Littell, J.S., Oneil, E.E., McKenzie, D., Hicke, J.A., Lutz, J.A., Norheim, R.A., Elsner, M.M., 2010. Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA. Climatic change 102, 129–158. Mantua, N., Tohver, I., Hamlet, A., 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Climatic change 102, 187–223.