Pierce County Land Conservation Plan

Table 1. Observed and Projected Impacts of Climate Change by Land Category 15

Table 2. Examples of how to use the WEBAPP for Conservation Planning .................................................................18

Table 3. Ongoing funding programs currently accessed to fund land conservation in pierce county (organized by local, state and federal programs) ................................................................................................................38

Figure 1. Pierce County boundary, indicating the area covered by the Land Conservation Plan. ..............................18

Figure 2. Farmland layer with crop or grazing indicated if known over Agricultural Resource Land (ARL) and Rural Farm (RF) zoning. 19

Figure 3. Floodplain and aquatic corridors indicator layer with salmon recovery priority areas by Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 19

Figure 4. Forest layer showing ratings based on tree cover, height, species type, and site classes (higher number indicates larger trees, more canopy, cover, conifer-dominant forests). 20

Figure 5. Prairie soils in Pierce County (left); prairie indicator layer indicating remnant and potential prairie habitat to be updated following a full survey (right) 20

Figure 6. Nearshore and Marine Shorelines showing the WDFW Beach Strategies protection recommendations. Indicator includes additional details. See webtool and GIS Methods appendix for details Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 7. Urban Open Space within Urban Growth Areas showing areas withing the Trust for Public Land..............21

Figure 8. Urban Open Space within Urban Growth Areas showing areas as noted by Pierce County Parks and Rec 21

Figure 9. Protected Land layer includes federal, tribal, state, local and private lands with some level of protection that lowers the risk of conversion. 22

Figure 10. Biodiversity and habitat layer aggregates datasets from a variety of sources used to identify corridors and previously mapped priority areas, like those from Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment (Brooks et al 2004). ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 11. Areas at heightened risk for conservation based on areas zones as development land, future transportation expansions, high-capacity transit, and Urban Growth Area boundaries. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 12. Current Forest Carbon Sequestration estimated in 2010 by The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient Land Mapping Tool (2022). Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 13. Forest carbon sequestration potential 2010-2050 estimated by The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient Land Mapping Tool (2022). .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Upholding Tribal Treaty Rights

It is our intent to start this plan in a good way, a right way.

We recognize that the land now identified as Pierce County has for thousands of years been the traditional territory and home for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Today, this land is still home to these four federally recognized Tribes. These Tribal governments are sovereign nations, and their sovereignty is an inherent right that has existed since time immemorial, recognized with a government-to-government relationship by the United States. We respectfully recognize the Puyallup, Nisqually, Squaxin Island, and Muckleshoot people as past, present, and future guardians of this land both culturally and legally, as evidenced by their respective treaties, which is the supreme law of the land.

These four federally recognized Tribes in Pierce County have always prioritized the sustainability of their people and the ecology around them. Today, Tribal governments have their own sustainability programs and initiatives with goals and standards that often exceed County, state, and national guidelines. We will work to ensure our sustainability efforts complement and support the sustainability work of the Tribes around us.

In the past, treaties were broken, and Tribes were systematically excluded from government decision-making and made to feel invisible. In this Land Conservation Plan, we commit to working alongside Tribal Nations as co-managers of the land, plants, and animals and actively acknowledging and protecting their treaty rights.

We commit to always saving a seat at the table for Tribal representation and being willing to receive feedback regarding our sustainability and carbon emissions reduction work. While this will not heal the injustices of the past, we hope a collaborative and inclusive working relationship will serve as an example of how County departments can productively engage with and involve Tribal Nations.

Acknowledgement

Pierce

County Office of Resilience and Climate Action Core Team

Laura Ryser, Planning Supervisor

Kyla Wilson, Sustainability 2030 Plan Lead

Marco Pinchot, Carbon Sequestration and Puget Sound Recovery Associate Planner (Land Conservation Plan Lead)

Eurydice Pentz, Sustainable Transportation and Built Environment Associate Planner

Nicole Avendano, Equity and Engagement Associate Planner

Land Conservation Plan Steering Committee

Becca Book, Pierce County Long Range Planning

Dana Coggon, Pierce Conservation District

Chris Chaput, Pierce County Parks*

Ryan Dicks, Office of Resilience and Climate Action

Jeanette Dorner, Nisqually Land Trust*

Erika Harris, Puget Sound Regional Council*

Tom Kantz, Pierce County Surface Water Management*

Jennifer Keating, Puyallup Tribe of Indians*

Sarah Colleen Sotomish, Pierce County Tribal Liaison*

Jessica Stone, Pierce County Parks*

George Walter, Nisqually Indian Tribe

*Steering Committee members who also participated in expert workshops

Project support provided by Environmental Science Associates

Susan O’Neil, Senior Conservation Planner

Spencer Easton, Planner

Rachel Gregg, Senior Climate Planner

Isabel Jamerson, Climate Planner

Andy Wilson, GIS Lead

Expert Small Group Workshop Participants and Interviewees

Hilary Aten, Washington Farmland Trust

Rachel Baker, Washington Conservation Action

Kalicia Bean, Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Michael Behrens, Gig Harbor Land Conservation Fund

Laurie Benson, Trust for Public Land

Kathleen Berger, Pierce County

Kim Bredensteiner, Nisqually Land Trust

Melissa Buckingham, Pierce Conservation District

Dan Calvert, JBLM Sentinel Landscape Partnership

Mike Carey, City of Tacoma

Adonais Clark, Pierce County

Eric Delvin, The Nature Conservancy

Angela Dillon, Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Chris Ellings, Nisqually Indian Tribe

Adrian Frediani, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Janet Gorrell, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Sarah Hamman, EcoStudies Institute

Mitsu Iwasaki, Trust for Public Land

Joe Kane, Nisqually Community Forest

Hannah King, Washington Department of Natural Resources

Dee Dee Korsikas-Fogg, Pierce County

Paul Kraegel, Forterra

Nate Lewis, Washington Farmland Trust

Matt Matulovich, Washington Department of Natural Resources

Hannah Newell, Pierce County

Alisa O'Hanlon Regala, Metro Parks Tacoma

Sue O'Neill, PenMet Parks

Mike Poteet, Pierce County

Ali Querin, Great Peninsula Conservancy

Helmut Schmidt, Pierce County

Max Showalter, Washington Department of Natural Resources

Rene Skaggs, Pierce Conservation District

Kyle Smith, The Nature Conservancy

Barbara Ann Smolko, Pierce County

Lisa Spurrier, Pierce County

Tracy Stanton, Emerald Alliance

Brian Stewart, Conservation Northwest

Ava Stone, Washington Conservation Action

Andrew Strobel, Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Leann Weiss, Forterra

Bob Whitener, The Whitener Group

Kristin Williamson, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

David Winfrey, Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Executive Summary

Pierce County's Sustainability 2030 Plan, adopted in 2021, sets an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45% by 2030. A 2019 inventory of countywide GHG emissions revealed that land use, particularly tree loss, was a significant driver of emissions. In response, the Plan emphasizes the need for nature-based solutions such as land conservation to capture carbon and mitigate climate change. The Pierce County Land Conservation Plan, developed to support these goals, identifies priority lands for protection while addressing both environmental and community needs.

The Land Conservation Plan covers all 1,806 square miles of land within Pierce County, including that owned by the County, Tribes, state and federal agencies, private landowners, and land trusts. A key consideration in its development is recognizing the region’s cultural history. Pierce County lies within the traditional territories of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, whose stewardship practices have shaped the land for generations. The plan emphasizes inclusivity, respects Tribal sovereignty, and acknowledges the historical impacts of colonization.

A central goal of the Land Conservation Plan is to reduce emissions resulting from land conversion and forest loss. While mitigating climate change is a key driver, the plan also addresses the broader climate impacts already being felt in Pierce County, including rising air and water temperatures, more intense rainfall and flooding, reduced streamflows, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. These changes are disrupting species, habitats, and ecosystem services vital to the region’s ecological health. As ecosystems and species adapt to these shifts, the plan aims to build resilience, ensuring that conserved lands continue to function ecologically over time. Conservation strategies are the actions and activities that protect land from being converted to development to retain ecosystem and open space values that are described in the plan. The strategies may be permanent or temporary and may be implemented by Pierce County or our partners.

The conservation strategies outlined in the plan will reduce emissions by slowing forest loss and preventing the conversion of land that is critical to long-term carbon capture.

The plan is centered around six land categories:

Nearshore and marine shorelines are protected for their critical role in biodiversity and water quality, while urban green space areas are targeted for conservation strategies that reduce tree cover loss, improve green spaces, and address heat islands and park deserts. Remnant prairies are rapidly vanishing due to development and invasive species, and thus require immediate conservation to prevent their loss. Farmlands and working forests are prioritized for sustainable practices that support climate resilience, biodiversity, and the local economy. Floodplains and aquatic corridors also require protection from degradation as they are crucial for ecosystem connectivity and water quality.

To assist in identifying Pierce County’s high-value conservation lands a geographic information system (GIS) WebApp integrates additional datasets into multi-category GIS layers. The WebApp was used during the development of the plan to support work with experts in focusing on the six land categories. The tool also supports future decision-making by considering important spatial data, such as:

• Currently protected lands

• Biodiversity and species habitats

• Conversion/development pressures

• Carbon sequestration potential

• Pierce County Equity Index

Collaborating with local conservation experts, this mapping effort will help pinpoint conservation opportunity areas that can be targeted for acquisition and protection, preventing land conversion and supporting the guiding principles of the plan.

The Land Conservation Plan is designed to be implemented by a variety of partners using diverse approaches. The conservation strategies are organized into three main categories:

Conservation Transactions

Strategies where property or a portion of a property (such as the development rights) change ownership. While many of these strategies are appropriate for use across the county, some are specific to certain locations or land categories. These include acquisitions, easements, and extinguishing development rights.

Regulations and Incentives

These are conservation strategies that keep private land private by identifying laws, codes, and programs that steer landowners and decision-makers to conserve land through programs like the Growth Management Act, tax incentives, technical assistance, and (re)development projects.

Collaboration and Planning

These are formal and informal arrangements for partners to advance work together, acknowledging that different partners bring different approaches, relationships, and funding opportunities to the table.

Securing funding is crucial for the long-term success of the conservation strategies. The plan identifies a range of funding opportunities, including recurring grant programs, innovative financial tools, and new opportunities for financing conservation efforts. These include credits, private fundraising, Tribal grants, and potential new county revenue sources. The plan also proposes leveraging existing funding mechanisms such as the Conservation Futures Tax, the Real Estate Excise Tax, and the Restore Conservation Futures Tax as well as exploring new sources of revenue, such as a bond against the Conservation Futures Tax and new parks levies. Additionally, the plan encourages the creation of a local conservation authority to help streamline funding and ensure the sustainability of conservation efforts.

The implementation of the Land Conservation Plan is built on a foundation of collaboration and active engagement from a variety of partners. Several key programs and initiatives are already in place to support its execution, with Pierce County’s existing conservation efforts aligning closely with the plan’s goals. These programs ensure that the necessary personnel, resources, and strategies are available to drive progress. Key partners, including local Tribes, conservation organizations, and agencies, will contribute their expertise and resources, ensuring that their conservation priorities complement the objectives of the Land Conservation Plan. To ensure the plan remains responsive and effective, it will be adaptively managed, incorporating data from ongoing monitoring efforts and regularly updated conservation activities. This adaptive approach will allow for the plan to be revised and refined over time, based on the latest information and emerging needs. The final section of the Land Conservation Plan outlines next steps Pierce County will take to implement the Land Conservation Plan and work towards the goal of conserving 100,000 acres of durable lands by 2044 adopted in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.

Introduction

Purpose

Pierce County's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan: Sustainability 2030, passed in 2021, includes a suite of nature-based solutions to climate change that both capture carbon from the air and sequester it in plants and soils, and reduce the impacts of climate change by providing ecosystem services. In fulfillment of Plan Action NCS-1, the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan was created to highlight priority lands for protection and identify goals, conservation strategies, and funding opportunities for a variety of implementing partners across Pierce County.

The Sustainability 2030 Plan, revised in 2023, calls on Pierce County to create and adopt a countywide Land Conservation Plan that identifies potential lands and strategics for carbon sequestration and ecosystem services (NCS-1).

The County is currently updating the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. A survey conducted and research conducted as part of that process showed that: Pierce County provides fewer park acres per resident than peer communities and the national average. Over half of the responses said that they use parks to connect with nature. Acquiring more land for future parks was a high priority among respondents.

The first people of the land that is now Pierce County were the ancestors of Tribes here since Time Immemorial. Today, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe are federally recognized and hold inherent rights that have existed since time immemorial. Because of longstanding treaty rights, coordinating and consulting with Tribes to conserve and protect land is a legal requirement. Pierce County takes this responsibility seriously and has approached all aspects of the Land Conservation Plan with Tribes at the forefront of the work.

A 2019 inventory of countywide GHG emissions identified that 27% of GHG emissions produced in Pierce County came from tree loss and land conversion (Cascadia Consulting Group 2019). To achieve the goal of reducing community-wide GHG emissions 45% by 2030 based on a 2015 baseline adopted in the Sustainability 2030 Plan, significant action must be taken to prevent further land conversion and tree loss. Additionally, conserving land provides Pierce County communities with many co-benefits, including enhancing public health, access to recreation and leisure, and economic resilience.

The 20-year population growth rates (to 2044) adopted by Pierce County Council assume about 80,000 more people, with 10% of the growth occurring in rural areas. Managing both conservation and population growth will require prioritization and strategic planning to protect the highest value conservation areas while simultaneously considering housing and infrastructure needs.

This plan is meant to be a technical guide and used as a toolkit for a variety of practitioners conserving habitats, protecting working lands, and managing parks and green space in Pierce County. While a glossary is included for additional clarity, not all terms are defined. An associated StoryMap (interactive narratives created using web-based maps, text and multi-media) demonstrates the need for more conservation showing aerial imagery of landscape changes since the 1950s. The StoryMap also highlights great examples of conservation taking place now by the County and partners, also included in text boxes throughout the plan.

Because this plan will be used by both the County and partners, it was developed with broad implementation in mind across the entire geography of Pierce County (Figure 1). Many entities are needed to successfully implement the plan – from land trusts and Tribes to cities and County divisions and departments. This broad approach allows flexibility for different partners to use the plan as a resource for seeking funding, refining their priorities, and identifying new approaches. The planning process also provides a climate-informed geographic information system (GIS) tool for considering priority areas for conservation. The GIS tool and this plan are organized around six land categories: nearshore and marine shorelines, prairies, farmlands, floodplains and aquatic corridors, forests, and urban green space. The tool allows users to visualize priority areas for each land category, consider conversion risk, identify currently protected areas, and consider carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services. The tool does not rank high, medium, and low priorities for conservation because each implementing organization has its own programmatic focus and geographies. Rather, the tool is useful for decision-making and coordination across multiple implementers.

Preventing land conversion is also a regional priority. Efforts are underway by neighboring counties to implement land conservation as our region’s population continues to grow. The Land Conservation Plan aligns with the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in 2018 and with King County’s Land Conservation Initiative. The land categories identified in this plan generally align with categories used in regional efforts to allow for easy coordination and rolling up information to track progress.

One of the best mechanisms for preventing GHG emissions is to keep lands that store carbon through trees, other vegetation, and soils as carbon sinks. Preventing the conversion or paving over of these natural areas or open spaces also provides other ecosystem services such as maintaining water filtration, water retention, cooling through shade, and habitat for imperiled species. These same lands also ensure a thriving quality of life for residents by providing space for people to gather and recreate, harvest, access culturally important sites, and ensure the continued existence of treaty-reserved resources promised to local Tribes. Continued conversion and development of current working forests and farms threatens the local food system, jobs, and ways of life for rural communities. While simple in concept, conserving land requires intensive planning, complex negotiations, and coordination across entities.

The Land Conservation Plan includes the following sections:

• Introduction includes a purpose statement, guiding principles, and the approach used to develop the plan.

• Background on the Land Categories provides an overview of each of the six land categories used to organize the plan with a brief history of previous conversion patterns and past management practices that led to the current extent of each land category present today. This section also includes a brief overview of the climate impacts expected for each land category.

• Conservation Strategies describe how conservation goals can be reached by the County and partners. The strategies are organized into three types: Conservation Transactions, Regulations & Incentives, and Collaboration & Planning.

• Funding Opportunities highlight existing funding programs being utilized for land conservation now and opportunities to leverage federal and state funding and consider new local programs.

• Plan Implementation highlights the internal (Pierce County) and external partners who will collaboratively execute the strategies identified in the Land Conservation Plan.

• Monitoring Progress & Adaptively Managing the Plan describes the opportunities and examples for goalsetting that consider durable and temporary conservation measures, recommendations for tracking progress, and updating the plan.

• Pierce County’s Next Steps for Implementation outlines the near-term actions the County will take to begin implementing that Land Conservation Plan.

Guiding Principles

A set of guiding principles kept many important considerations at the forefront of the Land Conservation Plan development process. These were recommended by the County’s Office of Resilience and Climate Action Division and revised by the Steering Committee.

Engage with Tribes

Recognize Tribal sovereignty and role as co-managers of natural resources.

Sequester Carbon

Conserve lands that sequester and store carbon and prevent emissions due to conversion.

Enhance Ecosystem Services

Improve water and air quality and manage floodplains to increase resilience to climate impacts.

Protect Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity

Preserve and protect a diversity of species, particularly rare, threatened, and endangered species, and their habitats.

Design for Economic Resilience

Ensure the land base is conserved so that farms and working forests continue to provide local food, wood, and jobs.

Center Equity

Ensure that all communities can access green spaces – particularly those communities who have historically lacked investment and currently lack green space.

These are far-reaching guiding principles that can often lead to a range of priority locations. Rather than try to identify the exact locations that achieve the most carbon sequestration or are under the most threat from development, the plan takes a layered approach and understands that different users will have different priority areas and decision-drivers.

Pierce County is geographically positioned to play a key role in sequestering carbon by protecting forests and increasing canopy cover in urban areas. The Nature Conservancy recently released a Carbon Map tool for their Emerald Edge program, spanning from coastal Oregon to Southeast Alaska. It shows that the coastal temperate forests of the Pacific Northwest are some of the most carbon-dense forests in the world with relatively low risk from wildfire. It also shows that within the program’s study area, the forests of Washington and Oregon hold particular importance for forest protection and investment in natural climate solutions (Shanley et al. 2024).

Approach

Pierce County Office of Resilience and Climate Action Division of Planning and Public Works led the process to develop the Land Conservation Plan in 2023 and 2024. Developing the plan included the formation of a Steering Committee made up of County and external representatives whose work is closely aligned with land conservation. The Steering Committee included representatives from the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nisqually Land Trust, Pierce Conservation District, and PSRC. Internal County staff who participated on the Steering Committee included representatives from the Executive’s Office, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Planning and Public Works Department, including Long Range Planning, Surface Water Management, and the Office of Resilience and Climate Action. The Steering Committee provided direction on the overall approach, including the formation of expert small groups to inform the plan content. They also vetted content, reviewed GIS output, and facilitated the development of conservation goals.

The expert small groups were made up of internal and external partners brought into the process to provide their insights and guidance related to specific GIS data, conservation strategies, and funding sources by land category. This allowed for partners with specific experience to speak to the unique issues, opportunities, and experiences related to conservation of each land category during virtual workshops hosted in the summer and fall of 2023. This approach respected the time constraints of entities with combined decades of experience and allowed them to share without an expectation of continued engagement in the overall planning process.

Experts informed the plan development through Steering Committee meetings, small group workshops, and several interviews with experts to gather additional input and insights, particularly for partners unable to participate in small group workshops or working across several land categories.

The land categories used for organizing both the expert small groups and the overall structure of the GIS tool and this plan include:

Background on Land Categories

The Land Conservation Plan covers all 1,806 square miles of land within the boundaries of Pierce County. This includes those land owned or managed by Pierce County as well as other entities, such as Tribes, land trusts, state and federal agencies, and privately held land. This plan covers areas from marine shorelines on the islands through urban settings and remnant prairies to farmland and working forests through river corridors and up to the highelevation areas of what is now called Mount Rainier.

The area within the current boundary of Pierce County is within the traditional territory and home for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Since time immemorial, Tribes have cultivated, protected, and respected the lands and waters of their home. The impacts of colonization, resource extraction, development, management, and access issues date back to treaty times and have disrupted many traditional practices. Tribes have remained committed to maintaining and revitalizing environmental stewardship and conservation through the development of comprehensive land use and conservation plans. For example, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians developed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that provides an integrated approach to development and related economic and social issues, with an emphasis on environmental sustainability and climate resilience. Additionally, the Nisqually Indian Tribe works closely with the Nisqually Land Trust and Nisqually Community Forest to implement conservation principles that align with their cultural values and sustainable land management objectives.

Prior to contact, Coast Salish Tribes thrived in what is now called Washington State As part of the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek and the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, and subsequent Puget Sound Treaty Wars of 1855–1856, Tribal lands were settled and Tribal members were moved onto reservations. Treaty rights outlined in these agreements identified rights to co-manage land and waters for wildlife habitat, clean water, preservation of sacred sites, gathering of food and culturally significant plants, fishing, hunting, and other reserved rights.

Tribes have cultivated, protected, and respected the lands and waters of their home since time immemorial and continue to do so. Impacts from colonization, resource extraction, development, management, and access restrictions have harmed Tribes' ability to exercise their treaty rights. Tribes remain committed to maintaining and revitalizing environmental stewardship and conservation of these lands through the development of comprehensive land use and conservation plans.

Topics central to the Land Conservation Plan, like land transactions, zoning, and private property ownership, may be seen by Tribes as a continuation of approaches that are out of step with traditional lifeways and cultural and spiritual connections that local Tribes have to the lands. Acknowledging that these strategies largely continue a colonial approach to ownership and land management, this plan was intentionally developed with inclusivity, an acknowledgement of past harms, and recommendations for new approaches to long-term conservation that consider access to treaty-protected resources and their stewardship in the context of a changing climate. The unintended consequences of certain strategies within this plan should be analyzed and considered by those who hold land to ensure that affected Tribes, as well as communities that have been left out of previous land conservation planning efforts, are not negatively impacted.

This plan was developed in 2023 and 2024 at a time when much of the lowlands in Pierce County has already been developed and much of the higher elevation has been commercially clearcut. The amount of paved-over land and impervious surface (roads, buildings, parking lots) is a marker of development. In addition, complex, functional habitats have been converted to simplified ecosystems (e.g., riparian forests converted to invasive shrubs and vine species and mature old-growth forests converted to single-age stands following clearcuts).

Based on a review of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) High Resolution Land Cover Detection Change data for Pierce County, more than 65,000 acres of forested acres were lost between 2006 and 2019 due to human-caused changes such as tree removal, residential and industrial development, and forestry across Pierce County (WDFW 2022).

It is important to acknowledge the reality of the past loss of key species, complex, connected habitats, Tribal sacred sites, and functioning ecosystems as the backdrop for the rest of the plan, rather than consider the current point in time as a baseline for ecosystem function. The brief summaries below describe the change that has taken place in each land category. The purpose of documenting these changes is to provide context for what has already been lost, what still can be conserved, and what can be recovered and restored, particularly with regard to tree cover, tree size, and hydrologic function. If done with intentionality and allowing access or co-management, the conservation strategies can protect cultural resources and help restore cultural practices by conserving treatyprotected resources.

In the face of increasing adverse climate impacts, conserving land in the county is one of the most important tools available to improve ecosystem services: sequestering carbon, improving water quantity by filtering contaminants, reducing winter flooding and improving summer streamflows, providing refuge for species, and cooling our cities. The conservation strategies in the plan will reduce emissions by halting or slowing the loss of forests and preventing the conversion of land with the capacity to provide long-term ecosystem function.

Nearshore and Marine Shoreline

Puget Sound is a large estuary fed by freshwater from the surrounding rivers, including the Nisqually, White, and Puyallup rivers with glacially fed headwaters originating on Mount Rainier. The Nisqually River provides an estimated half of the freshwater in the southern portion of Puget Sound. There is immense physical diversity in Puget Sound shorelines, from the large river deltas to the pocket estuaries of independent tributaries, as well as coastal bluffs, beaches, marshes, and other nearshore marine areas. This system once supported a thriving marine food web in what is now the shoreline of Pierce County, Commencement Bay, Case and Carr Inlets, the Nisqually Reach, and the Tacoma Narrows, with oysters and clams feeding the coastal communities since time immemorial, and salmon rearing and migrating in these waters on their route to and from the Pacific Ocean.

Extraction of natural resources for commercial purposes began with colonial settlement. The introduction of mechanized industry, spurred on by the arrival of the railroad, led to a 2,000% increase in salmon harvest during the 1890s that increased over just two decades prior. Timber and pulp production increased industrialization and development along waterways and would later be blamed by oyster harvesters for the native population’s decline. Just a year after the adoption of the state constitution in 1889, legislation was enacted to sell the land between high and low tides. In 1919, the Port of Tacoma was established by Pierce County voters and expanded rapidly in Commencement Bay over the next century, becoming one of the largest ports in the western United States. In the 1960s, substantial dredging and waterway extensions expanded the footprint of the port facilities. When the state legislature prohibited further sales of the tidelands in 1971, only 40% remained in state ownership. Throughout Puget Sound, the development and extraction of natural resources resulted in an 80% decline in tidal marsh and riverine estuaries by the early 21st century, when the importance of restoration and protection of these ecosystems was taken seriously. This largely took the form of creating parks and recreation areas in the 1960s and 1970s. Joemma Beach State Park opened in 1961, and the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge was formed in 1971 (now named the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge). The Washington State Shoreline Management Act was approved in 1972 to protect shoreline natural resources, promote public access, and encourage waterdependent use.

In 1999, Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Since then, steelhead have been listed as threatened, Southern Resident killer whales listed as endangered, and numerous shellfish beds closed to harvest. Even following these listings, damage continued to the marine environment. Despite restoration efforts, the shoreline continues to be hardened with bulkheads that block sediment flow and prevent some species of forage fish from spawning on beaches. The Puget Sound Partnership’s shoreline armoring vital sign calls out King, Pierce and Snohomish counties as the most armored in Puget Sound (Francis and Kinney 2018). Overwater structures shade out marine vegetation and invasive species proliferate, reducing the extent of kelp and seagrass beds and the species that rely on them to spawn and shelter. Legacy toxic creosote pilings and increased stormwater pollution from recent development further degrade water quality, closing shellfish beds and disrupting the marine food web.

Pierce County has a variety of tools to direct development and manage natural shorelines. One primary way the County manages development along the freshwater and marine shoreline is through the set of local policies and regulations known as the Shoreline Master Program that conforms with the State of Washington’s Shoreline Management Act. The County completed a major update to its Shoreline Master Program in 2018, with amendments adopted in 2022 that prohibit additional piers and docks along certain marine shorelines and additional amendments under consideration (see PierceCountyWa.gov/SMP). The nearshore and marine areas of the county are a priority area for development of waterfront homes as well as a priority for access and protection

efforts by local Tribes and groups like the Great Peninsula Conservancy, the Nisqually Land Trust, and the Gig Harbor Land Conservation Fund.

Nearshore and marine species and habitats are also protected by Tribal fishing rights that were upheld by the Boldt Decision. In 1974, U.S. District Judge George Boldt reaffirmed fishing rights as outlined in treaties like the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854 which states, “The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory.” State and federal agencies have the legal obligation to protect and enhance these rights; however, concerns about fish populations and degraded habitat exist today. With sea level rise, ocean acidification, and coastal flooding already impacting marine resources, this land category is a key focus for conservation efforts.

Prairies

Moving inland from the marine and nearshore areas, some of the most unique features and habitats of Pierce County are in the Puget Lowland, formed as glaciation shaped Western Washington. The glaciers carved, ground up, and moved sediment, forming the gravelly, well-drained soils that would eventually support the South Sound prairies. These prairie ecosystems are immensely important to the Tribes that reside in what is now Pierce County and the greater South Puget Sound.

The prairies relied on periodic disturbances such as fires, which occurred both naturally and deliberately set by local Tribes, to tend the prairies and prevent the trees and woody plants from moving in. These disturbances allowed the growth of culturally important plant species for food, medicine, and ceremonial uses. Species like camas were prepared as food and traded.

While there are other prairies throughout the Puget Trough (or Puget Lowland, defined as the area from the Sound to foothills up to approximately 1000 feet in elevation), South Sound prairies are distinct for their deeper, rich soils. Prior to colonial settlement, there were an estimated 180,000 acres of prairie in the Puget Trough. More than 90% have been lost to conversion, fire suppression, and invasive species (USFWS 2023).

The South Puget Sound prairies support many unique species that are now considered rare, threatened, or endangered. These species include the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked horned lark, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and numerous plants restricted to prairie soils. In 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released recovery plans for the four subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2022a) and the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly listed as endangered (USFWS 2022b). These plans call for a variety of conservation and restoration strategies, including the protection of prairie habitat in Pierce County.

In 1917, 70% of the land area in what had been the Nisqually Reservation was seized by the United States Army through eminent domain to expand Camp Lewis (now Joint Base Lewis-McChord, JBLM). Because of this seizure, 90% of the remaining prairie habitat in South Puget Sound falls within the boundaries of JBLM. This creates opportunities for conservation but also constraints for access. Outside of JBLM, the remnant prairies have been significantly fragmented. Remaining parcels that showed up on relatively recent maps from WDFW and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have recently been converted and paved over, particularly those on the north side of JBLM. County staff conducted a desktop survey of the parcels and found that most prairies within urban growth area boundaries have been lost and that most remnant prairies are on agricultural lands.

Prairies are extremely important and culturally significant to the Tribes and support rare species. Unique conservation opportunities and challenges for prairie habitat are highlighted in the sections below. While many prairie conservation strategies led by the state and federal wildlife agencies focus on the larger areas of remnant prairie for species recovery in other counties, adequate management attention and priority are also needed for the smaller remnant parcels in Pierce County with an emphasis on restoring prairies where possible. These smaller parcels can provide options for Tribal members to safely access prairies for traditional gathering and ceremonies. Smaller parcels can also be an important habitat for rare plant species, pollinators, and other species of greatest conservation need – adding to biodiversity and providing connectivity between larger prairies.

Farmlands

Local Tribes have stewarded the land for the growth of first foods since time immemorial, including nettles; camas; berries; native carrots, potatoes, and onions; and shellfish and salmon – this stewardship was disrupted across much of what would later become Pierce County by colonial settlement and extractive agricultural practices. Following the establishment of Fort Nisqually in 1832 by the Hudson’s Bay Company, there was a rapid expansion of colonial settlers and economies. Agriculture was a dominant industry in early Pierce County and led to the loss of forest cover and prairie habitat in many cases. Agriculture continues to play a role in the local economy today and is one of the categories for protection in this plan because, while altered, the land has not been paved over and lost. Protecting farmland is important for ecological function, limiting impervious surfaces, maintaining open space, and preserving rural character.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, the focus of agricultural activity in Pierce County has been centered on the Puyallup Valley, which benefits from fine silty and sandy alluvial soils, with much of the production of vegetables, berry fruits, nursery plants, and other crops concentrated in the area. Agriculture is also present in other regions of Pierce County, with a significant number of crops and livestock enterprises in the Key Peninsula area. Livestock ranches typify agricultural activity in upland areas near Buckley, Eatonville, Graham, and Roy. Agricultural production in Pierce County now includes vegetable farmers, dairies, livestock producers, horse farms, specialty fruit growers, open field ornamental plant nurseries, greenhouse operators, flower and bulb growers, and Christmas tree growers.

According to an analysis for Pierce County’s agriculture sector by Globalwise Inc. (2016), more than two-thirds of the farmland in the county was lost since the 1950s due to population growth and urbanization. In 1954, there were about 150,000 acres of farmland. Today, the total is just over 50,000 acres. The number of farm operations has also been reduced. The same study showed that larger farms have declined substantially. Small farms, defined as earning between $10,000 and $24,000 per year, were the only scale of farm to increase during a recent 10-year period (2012–2022). Newer farms in the county are generally smaller and insufficient in number to cumulatively compensate for the acreage lost from the decline of large operations. The number of operations and acreage needed to sustain the agricultural sector in the county has not been sufficiently documented (personal communication with Farmlands Small Group), but there is strong support by local experts to not lose additional acres and to enact policies and structural systems to improve agricultural viability. Aging farmers and lack of succession planning threaten the loss of additional farmland acres.

Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors

Pierce County consists of four watershed management areas: the Puyallup-White Watershed, the Chambers-Clover Watershed, the Nisqually Watershed, and the Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed. Watersheds are the areas of land that drain to a common body of water. Natural floodplains, or the area adjacent to a river to the base of hills in a valley, provide numerous ecosystem services, from reducing flood hazard to providing habitat for spawning and rearing salmonids. The three large rivers in the County – Puyallup River, White River, and Nisqually River – have well-developed floodplains and support spawning and rearing of Chinook salmon and other species. Smaller creeks and streams that feed those larger rivers or empty directly to Puget Sound are also important for ecosystem services and as habitat for species like steelhead and coho salmon. The wetlands, lakes, and other water bodies in these four watersheds are also critical for biodiversity and ecosystem function. For the purposes of this plan, we refer to these collectively as floodplains and aquatic corridors, which are important for reducing flooding impacts, slowing and cooling water, and providing habitat for salmonids and other species.

The Puyallup, White, and Carbon rivers have their headwaters on Mount Rainier glaciers in what is now Mount Rainier National Park and wind all the way through the county joining at confluences near the City of Orting (Puyallup and Carbon rivers) and the City of Puyallup (Puyallup and White rivers). The White River and its tributary, the Greenwater River, form the northern Pierce County boundary, and a portion of the White River near the Muckleshoot Reservation is in King County. As glacially fed rivers, they carry large amounts of sediment that were historically deposited along the banks during overbank flooding events, creating natural levees. The river valleys were also made up of complex networks of sloughs, ponds, wetlands, and tributary streams, as well as extensive riparian forests. The middle and upper watersheds were historically heavily forested, contributing substantial amounts of large woody debris in streams that provided critical structure and habitat complexity for rearing salmonids.

Today, dams prevent sediment delivery and block fish passage. The first hydroelectric dam on the Puyallup River was constructed at Electron in 1904. Since 1912, approximately two-thirds of the annual flow of the White River has been diverted from a 21-mile section of the river known as the “bypass reach” to the Lake Tapps basin for power generation. A substantial flood of the Puyallup River in 1933 spurred the United States Congress to pass the 1937 Flood Control Act, which provided funding and authorization for the channelization and diking of the first three river miles of the Puyallup River and the construction of the Mud Mountain Dam. Most of the diking, channelization, and diversion structures remain in place today.

The Puyallup Tribe of Indians are a river people. Their homes, transportation and trading corridors, and culture were centered around the river, with salmon serving as 80–90% of the year-round diet for the Tribe prior to colonial settlement. The impacts described above not only threaten the watersheds, but the livelihoods, food source, and culture of the Tribe. The Puyallup Reservation is along the lower Puyallup River, with extensive urban development surrounding the reservation and a very altered river.

The Nisqually River also begins in its headwaters on Mount Rainier. As noted in the Nearshore and Marine Shoreline land category section, this river provides more than half of the freshwater flow into South Puget Sound, connecting the alpine to the marine areas, with spawning salmonids bringing marine-derived nutrients back up the river to the forests along the Nisqually. The Nisqually Indian Tribe are a fishing people, with salmon forming the basis of their diet and the foundation of their culture. Due to habitat degradation, dams, and commercial harvest, fish populations declined and the Tribe halted fishing some key stocks such as the native steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. The Nisqually River has been altered in fundamental ways from dike construction in the Nisqually Delta and lower river, railroad development that blocked tributaries, and the U.S. Army condemnation of land

occupied by Nisqually villages for the creation and expansion of Fort Lewis base and what is now the JBLM Department of Defense (DOD) installation. The Nisqually River forms much of the southern boundary of Pierce County, with the other half of the Nisqually Watershed in Thurston County. Despite changes from dams, water diversions, and intense timber harvesting, the river remains one of the least developed major rivers in Puget Sound, with the headwaters and estuary conserved as a National Park and a National Wildlife Refuge, respectively, and many Tribal and land trust-owned parcels along the mainstem.

The lower elevation creeks and streams in the Chambers-Clover and Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor Islands watersheds have also been considerably altered by dams, development, and water diversions. These smaller watersheds can be even more susceptible to changes in precipitation and form an important freshwater source for the nearshore resources and marine food web described above. The smaller streams, wetlands, and lakes (particularly in rural settings) are susceptible to impacts from water diversions and wells, as well as pollution from runoff and failing septic systems which impact downstream shellfish beds.

Forests

The dominance of evergreen conifers in the Pacific Northwest makes it unique among the temperate regions of the world and represents a huge opportunity for carbon sequestration – a key objective of the Land Conservation Plan. Prior to colonial settlement, more than 96% of the forests of Western Washington were coniferous. In the Puget Trough and particularly South Puget Sound, Douglas-fir is the primary tree species alongside western redcedar and western hemlock. Sitka spruce occurs farther east and higher up in elevation in Pierce County compared to other parts of its natural range, extending along the river floodplains and wet valleys. Douglas-fir mixes with Oregon white oak in the same well-drained soils that support the South Sound prairie systems described above. In the higher elevation mountain forests heading toward Mount Rainier, the dominant species include Pacific silver fir, Sitka spruce, and western hemlock.

Trees from these forests are made into everything from canoes to spiritual garments by the local Tribes who tended the forests using fire and other traditional management techniques that were largely halted following colonial settlement. The same evergreen forests that benefited from the nutrients of an abundance of returning salmon, predictable precipitation patterns, and stewardship by local Tribes also attracted extensive logging operations, particularly in the lowland forests. Most present-day lowland forests in Pierce County have previously been clearcut and are now stands of second- or third-growth single-species stands. These forests are often extremely dense Douglas-fir (planted and naturally reproducing) stands with trees of the same age and a lack of biodiversity and structure. In Pierce County, there is a distinct difference in tree size and forest characteristics in areas that have been protected from recent logging – including an abrupt shift at the boundary of Mount Rainier National Park.

Commercial logging operations in Pierce County began in 1852 at Commencement Bay in Tacoma and expanded inland with the advent of logging railroads and other technological improvements that allowed access to previously inaccessible stands. In 1891, the Forest Reserves Act authorized the establishment of forest reserves on public lands, the precursors to present-day National Forests. This program expanded, leading to the Forest Management Act of 1897, which gave regulatory authority to the Secretary of the Interior. In 1905, control of the forests reserves was transferred to what would become the Forest Service. In a 1930 survey of Pierce County forestland completed by Oregon State University, vast tracts of the county are mapped as “deforested cutovers and burns” and “second growth” (Harrington 2003).

Today, the forests in Pierce County fall under a variety of ownerships with varying levels of protection. In total, 44% of forestlands (measured by forest acreage) in Pierce County are privately held and not conserved, while 43% are public, federal lands (University of Washington 2019). Of the private, non-conserved forestlands, 80% are nonindustrial forestlands, an ownership classification that includes Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs). TIMOs manage forests for institutional investors looking to diversify their portfolios. A TIMO actively manages the forest for timber production to achieve a maximum return for international investors. This is much different from the Community Forest model, also present in Pierce County, which maintains active timber production in forests, but the management is specifically for the benefit of surrounding communities with a focus on ecosystem function.

Urban Green Space

Urban green space is a land category of interest to include in the Land Conservation Plan for a variety of reasons. While these areas have often already been converted and developed, they represent important smaller scale opportunities to provide forest cover for ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, shade, and recreation opportunities in urban areas. Many communities in Pierce County have been underinvested in and underrepresented in land use planning, which has resulted in a lack of green space. Increasing green space in these communities is in line with the guiding principles of the Land Conservation Plan and a larger effort by Pierce County and partners to focus on equitable access and a thoughtful process in long-term planning and decisionmaking.

For the Land Conservation Plan, urban green space includes active (e.g., sports fields), passive (e.g., natural areas, critical areas), and every day (e.g., street trees, boulevards) spaces. Urban green space may also include specialized parks (e.g., mountain biking, disc golf, etc.), and opportunistic and multi-functional gathering spaces such as stormwater detention facilities, schools, golf courses, and cemeteries. Regional trails are well-covered in the County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan and are not included as a specific land category in this plan; this plan is intended to complement the Open Space Plan section of the PROS Plan further described in the Implementing the Plan section below.

Urban green space areas are located within cities, as well as the urban growth areas (UGAs) of cities and Pierce County. Areas with adequate tree canopy and green cover are typically associated with improved air quality, reduced mental and physical stress, improved stormwater retention, and enhanced quality of life and livability of neighborhoods (Asselmeier et al. 2021). The loss of urban green space and tree canopy has occurred over time due to population growth and development pressures, resulting in disproportionate impacts on sensitive populations through heat island effect and other issues (Pierce County Planning and Public Works 2023; UW CIG et al. 2018; Tree Equity Score n.d.).

Equitable access to green spaces and their associated health and wellness benefits are not available to all communities in Pierce County. Access is typically constrained by economic, social, and physical barriers, which must be considered and overcome so that all communities can benefit from access to green spaces. For the purposes of this Land Conservation Plan, equitable access is defined as:

• Accessible via multiple modes of transportation for people of all abilities and ages.

• Sites and access routes that experience low levels of traffic incidences, crime, and public safety challenges.

• Parks and open space facilities that meet community needs.

• Benefits derived from ecosystem services provided by dispersed green space (e.g., tree canopy) such as shade, air quality protection, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational uses.

• Access to natural spaces to deepen community connections to nature, Tribal heritage (including access, gathering, and harvesting), and learning opportunities.

• Located within a ¼-mile (10-minute walk) from where people live to green space. This follows the Trust for Public Land’s 10-minute walkshed approach.

Considering Climate Change

A key objective for the Land Conservation Plan is to reduce GHG emissions caused by land conversion and forest loss. While climate change mitigation is a driver for this work, there are numerous other climate impacts to consider and plan for within each land category. Considering how ecosystems and species might shift and change with future climate impacts can help build resilience for long-term function as specific parcels and corridors are conserved. Pierce County is already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Increasing air and water temperatures, more intense rainfall and flooding in the winter, reduced streamflows in the summer, sea level rise, and ocean acidification are changing the species, habitats, and ecosystem services upon which Pierce County depends. Table 1 summarizes the findings from the 2023 Pierce County Climate Vulnerability Assessment as they relate to each of the six land categories (Pierce County Planning and Public Works 2023). More detailed information may be found in the full assessment.

Land Category Potential and Current Impacts of Climate Change

• Warmer air temperatures and more extreme heat will cause increased stress on crops and livestock. More water will likely be required to reduce the effects of summertime droughts.

Farmland

Prairie

Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors

Forests

• More intense flooding will damage agricultural soils and operations.

• Sea level rise will likely cause saltwater intrusion of freshwater resources, which may affect farmlands located near coastal areas.

• Wildfires and droughts will likely prevent woody plant encroachment, allowing prairies to expand in areas where non-native, invasive species are controlled (Bachelet et al. 2011).

• Warmer air temperatures and more extreme heat events will likely cause timing mismatches between prairie plants and pollinators.

• More extreme rainfall and flooding will cause increased streambank erosion and sediment loading of rivers.

• Warming water temperatures will cause increased risk of aquatic invasive species establishment, spread of diseases, and harmful algal blooms.

• Reduced flows will affect the ability of salmonids to migrate.

• Warmer air temperatures and more extreme heat will cause increased stress on individual native species.

• Warmer air temperatures will facilitate the introduction and expansion of non-native and invasive species.

• Warmer air temperatures and reduced streamflows will likely increase the risk of wildfires.

Table 1 Observed and Projected Impacts of Climate Change by Land Category

Land Category Potential and Current Impacts of Climate Change

• Warmer stream and ocean temperatures will cause shifts in species distribution and availability (e.g., changing timing of salmon spawning and migration) as well as declines in growth and survival rates.

Nearshore/Marine

Urban Green Space

• Sea level rise will inundate or degrade coastal habitats, limiting use for intertidal species as well as public and cultural access.

• Ocean acidification will likely cause declines in shellfish and other calcifying species such as zooplankton.

• Warmer air temperatures and more extreme heat will cause increased stress on tree canopy and increase demand for use of parks for shading and cooling.

Source: Pierce County 2023 Climate Vulnerability Assessment unless otherwise noted.

GIS Approach

A core objective of the Land Conservation Plan is to develop and provide spatially explicit tools to assist in the identification of Pierce County’s high-value conservation lands aligning with the six land categories nearshore & marine shorelines, prairies, farmland, forests, floodplains & aquatic corridors, and urban green space. Additional datasets define multi-category GIS layers that can be used to inform decision-making regarding where to prioritize conservation strategies– Protected Lands, Biodiversity and Habitat, Conversion/Development Pressures, Carbon and Climate, and other miscellaneous layers, including the Pierce County Equity Index. Working closely with conservation practitioners in Pierce County, this mapping effort will help identify conservation opportunity areas that the County and other implementing partners can target for acquisition and protection to prevent land conversion and contribute to the guiding principles of the Land Conservation Plan.

An initial suite of GIS data was compiled for each of the six land categories. These datasets were vetted and refined with input from the experts through small group workshops and interviews to capture the best available spatial data to convey important ecological, economic, and social characteristics of county lands. Small group experts were also consulted to create new layers that express spatial priorities for issues such as salmon recovery. To supplement the land category datasets, GIS data were compiled for multi-category layers that represent characteristics that cut across more than one land category.

Indicator layers were generated to characterize high-conservation value lands for four of the land categories prairies, farmland, floodplains and aquatic corridors, and forests. These indicator layers combine different spatial inputs into a single layer, highlighting lands that may represent the best available opportunities for conservation (see Figures 2 through 5). For example:

• The Farmland layer summarizes existing crop and grazing lands, along with areas zoned as Agricultural Resource Land and Rural Farm.

• The Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors layer characterizes floodplain extent and highlights priority salmonid recovery areas based on the salmon recovery plans and identified priorities for each Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA).

• The Forests layer combines spatial data on tree cover and height, species type, and site class or productivity to identify prime forested areas.

• The Prairies indicator layer is meant to show the remnant prairies left in the county (Figure 5-right). It was developed by combining DNR (2005) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2011) datasets. After investigating the indicator layer against recent aerial imagery for Pierce County, it became apparent that many of the polygons indicating remnant prairie locations had already been paved over and converted to other uses (residential and industrial development). The map is included for reference, but a new survey is needed to identify existing prairie to be conserved and potential areas to be restored on prairie soils (Figure 5-left).

Other GIS layers were compiled to highlight lands within the nearshore and marine shorelines and the urban green space land categories. For example:

• The primary challenge for the Nearshore and Marine Shorelines category is the lack of recent nearshore habitat assessment data. Layers used to characterize existing nearshore/marine habitat condition and function include the WDFW Beach Strategies tool that summarizes sediment supply and degraded coastal areas (Figure 6). Other layers include the DNR kelp and eelgrass ShoreZone Inventory layers, and natural and conservancy lands designated in Pierce County’s Shoreline Management Plan (see Appendix A, GIS Methods).

• The Urban Green Space category identifies existing green space within cities and UGAs in Pierce County. This section will be updated by Pierce County Parks as they continue their analysis for their PROS Plan.

The multi-category layers include spatial data that when overlaid with the land categories can provide information on priorities and high-conservation value lands. For example:

• The Protected Lands layer includes spatial data on federal, Tribal, state, local, and private lands within Pierce County that already experience some level of protection and therefore face a lower risk of conversion (Figure 9).

• The Biodiversity and Habitat layer aggregates spatial datasets on valuable habitat for threatened, endangered, and rare species to identify areas important for wildlife conservation and habitat connectivity (Figure 10).

• The Development Pressure layer identifies areas at heightened risk for conversion based on land use planning and zoning data. These are areas planned for growth that would benefit from urban greenspace preservation near dense urban developments (e.g., High-Capacity Transit areas, transportation improvement projects) (Figure 11).

• The Carbon and Climate layer includes layers mapping existing 2010 estimates (Figure 12) and projected 2010–2050 forest carbon stock (Figure 13) developed using modeled estimates from The Nature Conservancy (See Appendix A for details).

• The Other Reference Layers include other spatial data that may be relevant to conservation planning, such as the Pierce County Equity Index.

The GIS tool is useful to numerous implementers, including multiple teams within the County, so its outputs do not represent a single prioritization. Each entity has different missions, constituencies, funding sources, and authorities, so a flexible and broad GIS tool was developed to account for those differences. For example, the Pierce County Parks team might turn on different layers than the Surface Water Management Team when making decisions about priority areas or assessing proposals from partners.

Table 2 provides examples of how implementers can use the Reference Layers in the online WebApp in conjunction with the high conservation value lands to plan and prioritize.

Table 2. Examples of how to use the WEBAPP for Conservation Planning

Reference Layers

Protected Lands

Biodiversity and Habitat

Conversion / Development Pressures

Carbon and Climate

Pierce County Equity Index

Which high conservation value lands…

• Are already located in or are adjacent to protected areas?

• Align with areas designated as important for biodiversity and habitat connectivity?

• Are located in areas that are more or less likely to be developed/converted?

• Are associated with high carbon stocks/sequestration rates? Are in areas at risk from sea level rise?

• Are located in areas identified as being more/less equitable in terms of livability, economic factors, education, environmental health, and accessibility?

For more detailed methods on the selection of spatial data and creation of GIS layers, see Appendix A.

Figure 1. Pierce County boundary, indicating the area covered by the Land Conservation Plan.

2. Farmland layer with crop or grazing indicated if known over Agricultural Resource Land (ARL) and Rural Farm (RF) zoning.

Figure

Figure 3. Floodplain and aquatic corridors indicator layer with salmon recovery priority areas by Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA)

4. Forest layer showing ratings based on tree cover, height, species type, and site classes (higher number indicates larger trees, more canopy, cover, conifer-dominant forests).

Figure

Figure 5 Prairie soils in Pierce County (left); prairie indicator layer indicating remnant and potential prairie habitat to be updated following a full survey (right).

Figure 6 Nearshore and Marine Shorelines showing the WDFW Beach Strategies protection recommendations. Indicator includes additional details. See webtool and GIS Methods appendix for details.

7. Trust for Public Land

map of Urban Open Space and 10-minute walksheds within Urban Growth Areas

Figure

’s

areas

level of protection that lowers the risk of conversion.

Figure 8. Urban Open Space within Urban Growth Areas showing

as noted by Pierce County Parks and Recreation.

Figure 9. Protected Land layer includes federal, tribal, state, local and private lands with some

Figure 6. Biodiversity and habitat layer aggregates datasets from a variety of sources used to identify corridors and previously mapped priority areas, like those from Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment (Brooks et al 2004).

Figure 7. Areas at heightened risk for conservation based on areas zones as development land, future transportation expansions, high-capacity transit, and Urban Growth Area boundaries.

8. Current Forest Carbon Sequestration estimated in 2010 by The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient Land Mapping Tool (2022).

Figure 9. Forest carbon sequestration potential 2010-2050 estimated by The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient Land Mapping Tool (2022).

Figure

Conservation Strategies

The Land Conservation Plan is designed to be implemented by a variety of partners using different approaches. Protecting land from conversion is not a new concept, and many of the strategies noted in this section are already underway. In addition to listing conservation strategies currently being implemented, the plan identifies new mechanisms and programs for County and partner use going forward. Separating the landscape into categories assists in identifying conservation strategies specific to certain habitat types or land uses (e.g., transfer of development rights to conserve farmlands and forests in rural parts of the county).

Conservation strategies identified here go beyond the concept of change in ownership (often considered as private to public for increased protection from conversion). In addition, strategies that consider incentive programs and policy changes that result in additional protection from conversion while keeping land in current ownership –particularly working forests and farmlands – are an important part of the long-term effort to conserve land in Pierce County. This section notes three major types of conservation strategies: Conservation Transactions, Regulations & Incentives, and Collaboration & Planning. Under each type, the conservation strategies are associated with the land categories they typically conserve (via icons) and, where possible, the permanence of the strategy noted as permanent or temporary.

Permanent Temporary

Conservation is distinct from habitat restoration, in that conservation can simply be keeping something in its current state and protecting it from conversion or degradation. It can also be a first step in a process whereby restoration actions or improved management lead to an improved state. A good example of this is degraded prairie parcels where conservation action is needed immediately so the habitat is not lost, but future restoration is needed to improve the function of the prairie and allow the seed bank and prairie species to thrive.

The Steering Committee and expert small groups considered a variety of draft conservation strategies, which were drawn from existing local and regional land conservation plans and toolkits. Particularly, the PSRC Conservation Toolkit (2022) was a useful source for strategies considered by the expert small groups.

One key message from the PSRC Conservation Toolkit and from expert small group participants is to build on and work from existing plans, programs, and policies and make them as specific and relevant to Pierce County as possible. Many excellent plans developed by both the County and partners call for conserving land and preventing conversion in Pierce County. One objective of this plan is to coordinate across planning efforts and provide a new climate-focused Land Conservation Plan for implementers to reference as they seek support and funding for their work. The Implementing the Plan section provides specific examples of County plans and processes where the conservation strategies below are already underway, as well as case studies from key partners to provide examples of how this plan already has many champions doing important work to protect land from conversion within the county boundaries. The planning process also highlighted new opportunities and potential for new or expanded funding, detailed below.

Conservation Transactions

Conservation Transactions are strategies where land or development rights on a parcel change ownership. While many of these conservation strategies are appropriate for use across the county, some are specific to certain locations or land categories and noted as such below in the description using the land category icons.

Acquisitions

Acquiring high-value conservation lands through fee title or fee simple acquisition is one of the most direct approaches for preventing future conversion on a parcel of land through either the donation or sale of a property. In this type of transaction, a landowner relinquishes ownership of the land and all rights to it. In transactions with conservation as the primary driver, the purchase is typically made by another private or public entity who will be responsible for long-term stewardship and management, such as the County, Tribes, land trusts, or public agencies. In some cases, a land trust or other intermediary will transfer land to another party for long-term management. The cost and responsibility of stewarding acquired sites is a serious consideration for those purchasing land in Pierce County – both those seeking active use of the sites, such as parks, and those seeking to protect the habitat without much infrastructure or public use. Entities such as Pierce County Parks, Tribes, and land trusts often consider the adjacent land use, proximity to other sites they own/manage, and the long-term plans for a site before securing a purchase.

Acquisitions can be used for conserving all land categories from conversion and for long-term objectives, from active recreation to intact habitat protection.

Many of the public funding programs highlighted in the Funding Opportunities section below can be used to purchase land to conserve it – protecting it from conversion or securing it for future restoration or recreation. Many funders, such as the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), have requirements for entities seeking acquisition funds. To access funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, project sponsors must have a plan that meets the requirements laid out in RCO’s Manual 2. RCO’s Manual 3 identifies requirements for acquisition projects (RCO 2023).

Pierce Conservation District’s purchase of Soler Farm along South Prairie Creek in 2021 is an example of achieving multiple benefits –conserving farmland, restoring salmon habitat, and removing at-risk structures from the floodway

This project received funding from the Pierce County Flood Control Zone District and other sources. This project is featured as a success story in the Land Conservation Plan StoryMap.

Easements

Easements are another form of conservation transaction that protects the land from development. Easements are voluntary legal agreements between a landowner and a third-party easement holder that specify restrictions and continued use of the parcel. Different types of easements are used for different land categories and designations. Each easement transaction is a negotiation between parties that is dependent on the goals of each entity and may vary in how restrictive and permanent the easement agreements are. This plan does not identify or suggest a specific approach. All land trusts, conservation districts, and agencies may have their own approach, relationships, and reason for focusing on the types of easements and locations that align with their individual missions.

During the expert small group meetings, there was an interest in keeping the approach to easements flexible, understanding that landowner willingness can be a barrier and that different types of easements may be preferred or more effective in different parts of the county. Market changes and increasing property values have made these transactions opportunistic, but they remain an important mechanism for conserving land. This strategy can be permanent or temporary depending on the terms and funding associated with the easement.

Agricultural easements assist in farmland conservation with willing landowners by prohibiting or limiting future development and limiting non-agricultural uses. Within these agreements, landowners sell their right to develop their agricultural property to a land trust or public entity that places a permanent restriction on development and subdivision of the property but retains flexibility maintaining the overall property in private ownership and operating as an agricultural business as it was prior to the easement. The landowner is paid the portion of the property value that the development rights represent. This tool can be used for conserving farmlands, providing capital funds for farm improvements, and can be useful for succession planning. Agricultural easements can also be effective for some prairie protection in Pierce County where the farming practices, such as grazing, are compatible with prairie species.

Conservation easements prohibit or limit future development but may require habitat restoration or stewardship activities on all or a portion of the property as well. Different tax incentives come into play with different easement agreements and easement holders that can be helpful in structuring agreements with landowners. Easement holders in Pierce County pursue conservation easements for a variety of habitats, from riparian buffers to nearshore habitat, and include the Nisqually Land Trust, Great Peninsula Conservancy, Forterra, and others. DNR has several conservation easement programs for private landowners, including the Forest Riparian Easement Program, which reimburses forest landowners for the value of trees they leave in certain habitats and the Rivers and Habitat Open Space Program, which buys permanent forestland conservation easements. Easement holders are responsible for monitoring easements, which need to be factored into the long-term management costs by the easement holder. In Thurston County, conservation easements are used to prevent the loss of prairie habitat and associated rare species.

Extinguishing Development Rights

Pierce County has a transfer of development rights (TDR) program that establishes a marketplace for developers to purchase credits in “sending” areas that have high conservation value and use them to increase density in “receiving” sites. A TDR transaction results in the same restriction of development on the parcel but is a market-based tool with private sellers and buyers managed by Pierce County’s TDR Bank. Purchase of development rights is the equivalent of an agricultural easement with public funding used to buy the rights.

Buy-protect-sell is an alternative where a land trust purchases a property and sells the development rights, which both reduces the cost of the property for a future buyer and establishes long-term protection. This structure allows new farmers to access properties at a reduced cost while protecting farmland in the county. The buy-protect-sell model requires investors or funding sources willing to pay market-value for the property who also see a value in long-term protection of the land and succession planning with current farmers. Washington Farmland Trust is currently using this model in Pierce County.

Other Voluntary Conservation Transactions

Numerous other transactions can protect land through agreements between landowners and land trusts or Tribes, such as a reserved life estate in which a landowner donates property but reserves the right to retain ownership and continue to live on and use the property until one or more of the owners are deceased or incapacitated. Washington’s Transfer on Death Deed allows landowners to transfer their property to a land trust or other beneficiary upon their death. Land Back is an increasingly popular movement centered around reclaiming ancestral lands and reestablishing Indigenous sovereignty. With these objectives, landowners donate land to Tribes, or Tribes purchase off-reservation land for conservation coupled with traditional use and the restoration of cultural practices. These tools are appropriate for any of the land categories.

Sea level rise purchase options are a locally untested model whereby a deed is transferred conditionally to a third party – a jurisdiction or land trust – when an agreed upon condition is met, such as a certain amount of erosion or sea level rise. These tools are often part of managed retreat or climate adaptation plan and should be considered as part of a larger effort for at-risk properties.

Community forests involve the establishment of a legal and institutional framework by a local jurisdiction, Tribal government, or qualified nonprofit organization to manage eligible land for public benefit. The Nisqually Community Forest was incorporated in 2014 as a subsidiary of the Nisqually Land Trust that is now a separate entity. It serves as a local example of a successful and expanding community forest in Pierce County. Typically, grant funding is used and the land is managed following an agreed-upon forest management plan to both retain a working forest and support the local community, employing management practices that retain more ecosystem function than industrial timber. The harvest practices vary in each community forest. For alignment with this plan, the preference is a framework that protects the mature and old-growth forests to sequester carbon while considering appropriate rotation schedules that promote structural diversity and ecosystems services in other stands. A variety of federal and state funding and financing options are now available for community forests, described in the Funding Opportunities section.

Regulations and Incentives

These strategies include conservation mechanisms that can dictate or steer landowners and decision-makers to conserve land through programs, regulations, and their enforcement. These are no less critical than conservation transactions to reaching conservation goals; however, tracking their progress and documenting success can be a more diffuse process and political will can change over time. In contrast, the legally binding aspects of conservation transactions and parcel-level information make those strategies easier to define and track success.

Comprehensive Planning, Zoning & Enforcement

The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to designate UGAs to focus development and develop Comprehensive Plans to manage population growth. Pierce County has a Comprehensive Plan Update process underway in parallel with the development of this Land Conservation Plan. Both plans consider conservation of natural resource lands. The critical areas regulations managed by the County in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan consider wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas in development regulations. The Land Conservation Plan considers six primary land categories for conservation. The critical areas are considered across several categories. Additional alignment across the two plans includes a focus on climate risks, carbon sequestration, and equity.

Zoning that targets the designation and expansion of agriculture and forestry zones can prevent fragmentation and conserve lands by limiting non-agricultural and non-forestry uses within those zones and avoiding zoning changes that increase densities in rural areas (“upzoning”). Establishing large minimum lot sizes and infrastructure policies, such as reducing road expansion projects in rural and resource areas, help retain the rural character and conserve land through collective policy choices rather than individual landowner decisions when conversion is an easy option for developers and resource landowners. A 2018 analysis of conversion pressures in the Puyallup Watershed notes that current zoning cannot be relied upon to prevent farmland conversion, with 27% of the farmland lost between 2013 and 2019 occurring within the zoning designations intended to protect agriculture (Floodplains for the Future 2021).

Code enforcement is an important aspect of ensuring that existing areas of high conservation value in the county, often designated through the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program, are being protected and that the programs are meeting their intent. Education must go hand in hand with enforcement to ensure that landowners, developers, and others understand which permits are required for various activities. Enforcement can take place by guiding permittees through the regulations as the proper permits are sought, and through reporting violations for actions done without a permit.

Tree retention policies are an important tool for jurisdictions to ensure that the ecosystem services provided by small forests and even individual trees are not lost in developed areas of the county, particularly in urban settings and heat islands. Tree giveaways, like those offered by the Tacoma Tree Foundation, and other incentives are an active approach to regreening developed areas in the county to sequester carbon, provide shade, and increase biodiversity.

Sustainability 2030 calls for NCS-2: Create an urban forestry plan for unincorporated Pierce County that sets a tree canopy and planting goal with strategies for tree protection that will reduce urban heat.

Tax Incentive Programs

Current use programs are tax incentive programs for private landowners to conserve their property for public benefit. They gain a tax benefit by keeping the land in certain use types. Pierce County’s program follows Washington State code, whereby enrolled landowners receive a reduced assessed valuation, resulting in lower property taxes. Another incentive for keeping the land conserved is a penalty if the landowner unenrolls in the program. They must pay 7 years of taxes and interest, making all of these programs temporary rather than permanent conservation strategies. The relevant programs in Pierce County are described below.

The Farm & Agricultural Program is primarily devoted to the production for livestock or agricultural commodities for commercial purposes. The program specifies parcel size and gross income that determine eligibility. There are currently 23,344 acres enrolled in the program (Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer 2023). This is approximately half of the total farmland identified in the Land Conservation Plan WebMap in 2023.

Sustainability 2030 calls for action NCS-5: Unify County land conservation incentives to meet guidance provided by the Land Conservation Plan. This can be done be ensuring the land categories in this plan align with the priorities in other programs (Conservation Futures, Open Space Program).

The Open Space Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) Tax Program is land retained in its natural state that would enhance, protect, or preserve natural areas (i.e., parks, sanctuaries, historic sites, scenic resources, streams, beaches). A point system scores high, medium, and low priority resources, and bonus categories add points for conservation easements and adjacency to other open space parcels. The points determine if a parcel qualifies for the program and the percent of market value reduction for property tax reduction. There are currently 10,334 acres enrolled in the program (Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer 2023).

The Forest Land Property Tax Program conserves working forests of 5 or more contiguous acres devoted to the commercial growth and harvest of trees. The value is based on a rate determined annually by the Washington State Department of Revenue. This program is appropriate for working forests, but natural forests and riparian areas qualify for the Open Space PBRS program described above. There are currently 258,086 acres enrolled in the Forest Land Property Tax Program (Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer 2023).

Technical Assistance

The County, Pierce Conservation District, and other partners provide a variety of technical assistance to Pierce County landowners that benefit different land categories. These can include best management practices, demonstration of low-impact alternatives, and access to cost share or funding programs on private property to protect or improve habitat function and ecosystem services. Technical assistance is inherently temporary and incumbent upon the landowners continuing the practices to maintain and restore ecosystem services.

Shore Friendly provides guidance and grants to landowners to support bulkhead removal and beach habitat improvements. In some cases, this is restoring lost function and in other cases it is ensuring that beach habitat is protected.

Farm Planning and Agricultural Assistance connects landowners with experts to help develop conservation farm plans, implement practices that improve soil and water quality, and improve the production of crops and livestock on large and small farms.

Incentives for habitat improvements of riparian forests and other habitats occur through costshare programs like the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), native tree distributions, and invasive species management.

The Pierce County Sustainability 2030 plan calls for Natural Climate Solutions (NCS-7): Steward County properties for carbon sequestration, climate change resilience, and forest health, and work with the Pierce Conservation District and WSU Pierce Extension to support small forest landowners with best management practices. By staggering harvest and waiting longer to harvest trees, the public and private forests in Pierce County maintain larger trees, which sequesters more carbon and provides additional ecosystem services, including better water retention and habitat.

The Forest section above describes how logging practices have shifted Pierce County forests to smaller, denser forests. Longer rotation schedules and changes to other management practices that benefit the public could include financial incentives, such as carbon credits and certifications or additional tax benefits and easement options. Similarly, the Conservation District’s depaving program can remove concrete and asphalt to make space for additional urban trees, increase tree canopy cover, and reduce stormwater runoff. It may also help restore prairies when done in the right locations for soil type.

Aggregating smaller parcels of property may be necessary to qualify for some incentive programs. Due to the small size of some farms, remnant prairie, and lowland forest parcels in Pierce County, some landowners may not be able to take advantage of certain conservation programs that requiring larger acreage. Aggregating smaller parcels so they are managed as a larger unit would make it possible and cost-effective to utilize tools that are available today, such as carbon credits, conservation grazing, and conservation credits for certain threatened and endangered species habitats.

Rain gardens are innovative installations designed to capture and clean polluted stormwater runoff from roofs, parking lots, and roads, thus preventing pollution from entering local water sources. These versatile gardens not only mitigate environmental impacts but also enhance community aesthetics. The Pierce Conservation District plays a crucial role in supporting rain garden projects by partnering with homeowners, schools, and community groups to design and implement these green spaces. The Conservation District provides comprehensive support, including site visits, soil infiltration tests, design assistance, and plant procurement. The District also offers financial assistance through various grants: the Green Stormwater Mini-Grant provides up to $4,000 for rain garden projects, with applications open from August to mid-November 2024 for 2025 awards; the Splash Grant offers up to $4,000 for water quality projects in Tacoma; and the Watershed Council Grants provide up to $2,500 for projects aimed at recovering Pierce County’s watersheds. By leveraging these resources and support, individuals and communities can significantly contribute to improving water quality, promoting ecological health, and enhancing community engagement in environmental stewardship.

Combining Open Space with (Re)Development

The City of Tacoma is piloting the re(development) of school grounds and installation of living laboratories as a partnership between Parks and the School District. In addition, programs are underway to install rain gardens and other features in schools and consider stormwater parks to reimagine how public land managed by local jurisdictions can be better utilized for ecosystem services and as open space features for active and passive use.

Joint green space-affordable housing developments may contribute to filling gaps in open space, improving urban greening, and limiting the risk of displacement of residents. Developers in Pierce County are already required to pay impact fees associated with new residential construction, meant to support the construction of new and expanded parks, trails, and recreation facilities. Joint green space-affordable housing could be incentivized so that developers create smaller private parklets, green rights-of-way, and greenways in underserved areas. Management of these areas should be considered as they are developed, so that the County Parks program is not assumed to be responsible for on-going stewardship.

Collaboration and Planning

Collaboration and collective planning are an important suite of conservation strategies necessary to meet the goals of the plan and expedite progress across partners and land categories. While some conservation strategies noted above will need to be implemented by a certain entity, others will be most successful if several entities coordinate and understand each other’s priority areas and existing relationships.

Below are several examples of collaboration underway where implementers of the Land Conservation Plan could engage more actively. The section includes those where Pierce County is a lead convener or actively engaged. The second section includes those where Pierce County is not (yet) an active participant.

Floodplains for the Future is a partnership focused on floodplains along the Puyallup, White, and Carbon rivers. They are “implementing a long-term vision that seeks to improve salmon habitat, protect communities and infrastructure from flooding, and preserve agricultural lands in the Puyallup Watershed.” Funded in part by the Washington Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Floodplains by Design program, this is a successful model that not only identifies and implements priority projects through joint grant applications, but also tracks their progress through a monitoring program that includes several metrics relevant to the Land Conservation Plan. This effort is focused on one area of the county but could be replicated in the Nisqually Watershed.

Salmon Recovery Lead Entities coordinate salmon recovery efforts in one or more watersheds defined as WRIAs. Jurisdictions, Tribes, agencies, and non-profits work as technical and citizen committees to write and facilitate the implementation of their salmon recovery strategies at the local level. Lead Entities are established under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 77.85 and are funded through the RCO with regional coordination by Puget Sound Partnership. The three lead entities within Pierce County include:

• Puyallup and Chambers Watersheds Salmon Recovery Lead Entity (WRIAs 10 and 12); Pierce County is the fiscal agent.

• Nisqually River Salmon Recovery Lead Entity (WRIA 11); Nisqually Indian Tribe is the fiscal agent.

• Wester Sound Partners for Ecosystem Recovery (WSPER) (WRIA 15); Kitsap County is the fiscal agent.

The Lead Entities serve as a key partner in the Land Conservation Plan by identifying priority areas and funding projects through local review of projects for Salmon Recovery Funding Board and Puget Sound Acquisitions and Restoration funding. In addition, some other funding programs seek the approval or review of projects by the Lead Entities.

Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs) are forums that collaborate on sciencebased community-supported strategies to implement Puget Sound restoration. LIOs are funded by the National Estuary Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop and implement Ecosystem Recovery Plans that align with the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda (PSP 2022). Representatives to LIOs include jurisdictions, Tribes, non-profits, citizens, and educational organizations. The three LIOs within Pierce County include:

• Puyallup River Watershed Council was recognized in 2018 as the LIO while also overseeing a variety of other efforts. The Council merged with the Puyallup River Watershed Foundation in 2011 and formed a non-profit organization.

• Alliance for a Healthy South Sound is the LIO covering the South Sound and includes the nearshore and Nisqually River areas of Pierce County.

• West Sound Partners for Ecosystem Recovery serves as both the Lead Entity and LIO in WRIA 15.

Watershed Councils were established by the Watershed Planning Act of 1997. They promote stewardship of water quality and quantity in watersheds. As noted above, the Puyallup Watershed Council operates in the WRIA 10 (Puyallup-White River Watershed). Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Council (WRIA 12) operates in the mainland watershed just south of Point Defiance to JBLM. The Key-Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed Council operates in western Pierce County. Nisqually River Council operates in the Nisqually Watershed (WRIA 11) in partnership with the Nisqually River Foundation.

Coordinating around easements is a collaborative group called the Pierce County Sustainable Conservation Partnership. This group has been meeting for several years so that Washington Farmland Trust, Forterra, Pierce Conservation District, and Pierce County can coordinate outreach to agricultural landowners, identify potential easement transactions, and collaborate on funding focused on agricultural easements in the Puyallup Watershed. This or another group could expand to include other areas of the county.

JBLM Sentinel Landscapes Partnership is a collaborative of partners working on prairie and farmland conservation around JBLM. JBLM is the third largest installation in the U.S. Army and supports most of the remaining prairie habitat in Pierce County. The Partnership includes representatives from Thurston County, Pierce County, WDFW, USFWS, nonprofits, and the DOD. They collaborate on conservation strategies, research, landowner engagement, and joint funding proposals. The current focus tends to be on the Thurston County side of JBLM, but additional presence by Pierce County partners could assist in expanding the focus of the group.

The Camas Collaborative is a group working across disciplines and entities to identify challenges to camas harvesting and strategies to integrate Tribal priorities and practices into prairie management. Their goal is to “support increased access to, and consumption of camas and other first foods within Tribal communities using a participatory action research framework.” The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Nisqually Indian Tribe are current advisors and contributors to the Camas Collaborative.

Anderson and McNeil Islands are areas where key partners are making progress on nearshore protection and restoration, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Department of Corrections, Department of Natural Resources, and others.

Urban Forestry

Pierce County is advancing urban forestry efforts to increase tree canopy, set planting goals, and enhance tree protection, with a target of 40% average tree canopy across all census blocks in the urban growth area. The Tacoma Tree Foundation (TTF) leads community-based urban forestry efforts through education, training, and canopy expansion programs. Two key initiatives include the Branch Out Program, a tree giveaway collaboration with Pierce County Parks and the City of Tacoma, and Green Blocks, a neighborhood-specific urban forestry program Tacoma Tree Foundation has activated in several underserved and low canopy neighborhoods of Tacoma (Hilltop, McKinley, Tacoma Mall, Lincoln) as well as the Parkland-Spanaway-Midland unincorporated area of Pierce County since 2022.

Scientific research and mapping efforts play a critical role in guiding urban forestry strategies and identifying priority areas for tree planting. The 2024 Urban Heat Island Study, conducted through a multi-jurisdictional partnership lead by Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) and funded by the National Integrated Heat Health Information System – Climate Adaptation Planning and Analytics (NIHHIS-CAPA) Urban Heat Island (UHI) Mapping Grant, mapped urban heat in unincorporated urban areas of Pierce County, the City of Lakewood, City of Fife, and City of Puyallup, communities that were identified as overburdened. The partnership put together to support community-led data collection for the grant included Tacoma Tree Foundation, Pierce Conservation District, University of Washington Tacoma, and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The Pierce County Canopy Analysis further supports heat resilience efforts by identifying locations with the greatest need for increased tree cover. Additionally, Pierce County, Tacoma-Pierce County Health, Pierce Conservation District (PCD), Washington State University Extension (WSU Extension), TTF, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) jointly participated in an Urban Forestry Accelerator hosted by the Center for Regenerative Solutions in 2023.

To support tree preservation and planting, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Urban and Community Forestry Program provides technical assistance and funding to local communities. Tacoma Tree Foundation has been successful in obtaining DNR Community Forestry Program grants to fund their Green Blocks program. The Tree Coupon Program, a collaboration between Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU), the City of Tacoma, and Pierce County Planning and Public Works (PPW) Surface Water Management Division (SWM), offers residents discounted trees, making tree planting more accessible and affordable. These programs help ensure that urban forestry efforts are community-driven and equitably distributed. Additionally, Pierce County Parks offers tree giveaways throughout the tree planting season. City of Tacoma offers free street trees to residents in overburdened communities through the Grit City Trees program.

Sustaining these efforts requires long-term investment in urban forestry and green infrastructure. Washington State Department of Commerce provides formula funding to jurisdictions required to comply with 2024 House Bill 1181, requiring new Comprehensive Plan elements for climate change mitigation and resilience planning. This funding can be used for data collection and analysis that helps jurisdictions create climate-informed policies. Pierce County PPW has used this funding to expand the study area and analysis of urban heat island data and tree canopy as well as inventory green stormwater infrastructure. These investments help reduce urban heat, improve environmental resilience, and ensure equitable access to green spaces across the county.

Funding Opportunities

Several funding opportunities can be used currently or pursued in the future to support the variety of conservation strategies described above. Many implementers, such as the County, Tribes, and non-profits, are currently using grant programs for acquisitions and easement purchases. These are shown in the Recurring Grant Programs section below. Several new funding programs are also available through increased recent federal and state investments that are promising for near-term funding. As the price of land continues to rise in Pierce County, frontloading projects by securing funding now and financing transactions in the near-term may save money in the longterm while also making progress toward the conservation goals.

One common theme in the expert small groups is the significant and increasing costs of maintaining and stewarding property after a purchase. Properties close to urban areas or along transportation corridors are especially vulnerable to vandalism, dumping, and illegal encampments. These maintenance and operating costs are often difficult to cover with grant funds. Jurisdictions rely on a tax base or specific use fees and land trusts, or other non-profits utilize endowments and fundraise to cover additional costs.

Reoccurring Grant Programs

The following local, state, and federal funding sources were identified by expert small group members and the Steering Committee as key funding sources that are regularly sought and secured by implementers in Pierce County to acquire, restore, and steward lands. Table 3 shows the land categories that are eligible under each program.

Table 3. Ongoing funding programs currently accessed to fund land conservation in Pierce County (organized by local, state and federal programs)

Funding Program Agency Farm Forest Prairie Urban Marine Rivers

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program NRCS X

Healthy Forests Reserve Program NRCS X

Emergency Forests Reserve Program NRCS X X

Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities

Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants

X X

X X

*Planning grants only. This program funded the Pierce County Open Space Task Force Report and Recommendations (2011), the Carbon River Corridor Cooperative Action Plan (2022), and funding was secured in 2023 to support planning for the new Puyallup Community Forest.

DNR – Washington Department of Natural Resources; Ecology - Washington Department of Ecology; FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency; NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service; RCO - Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office; USFS – U.S. Forest Service; USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; WDFW – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In addition to the competitive grant programs listed above, Pierce County funds the Parks and Recreation Department through a variety of local sources including a Parks Impact Fee, Parks Sales Tax, Second Real Estate Excise Tax, and other sources (Pierce County 2023a). A revised PROS Plan due out in 2026 will provide a detailed accounting of current and projected revenue streams.

Innovative Tools and New Opportunities

The following are new programs or upcoming opportunities that could fund and expedite conservation strategies in Pierce County.

Credits

JBLM’s Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program is a conservation mechanism within the DOD’s Readiness and Environmental Integration Program with the intent to both prevent residential encroachment near the boundaries of the military installation and assist with recovery of threatened and endangered species on and off base. Once a final ACUB plan is approved for JBLM, they can access federal funding to conserve farmland and prairie parcels within the service area that meet the requirements for proximity to the base and species presence. Long-term stewardship of the conserved sites is also funded through the program. JBLM will be seeking cooperative partners through request for proposals process to conduct the transactions and manage the sites.

Projects in Pierce County were some of the first in the state to use the sale of carbon credits to help fund forest projects. Both the Nisqually Community Forest and Pierce Conservation District have experience with the verification, monitoring, and sale of credits to private buyers and exchanges. While a useful tool, the value of a credit is still far from enough to generate funds that cover the full cost of a project. There is optimism that the new Climate Commitment Act will increase the demand, particularly for projects within the state managed by small forest owners and Tribes.

The Tribal Carbon Offset Assistance Program is a promising new program administered by Washington Department of Ecology. Competitive grant funding is available for tribes to plan and develop carbon offset projects on federally recognized tribal lands.

Financing

While not a new program, the Clean Water Revolving Fund managed by Ecology (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state funding) has successfully been used by the Nisqually Indian Tribe to purchase forestland. The loan allowed the Tribe to act more quickly in pursuit of an acquisition. The loans have low interest rates and can be paid back from a variety of sources, including other state grant funds. Some state grant programs have waivers of retroactivity that allow for reimbursement for land acquisitions. While slightly risky, this is a useful tool for acquisitions that would otherwise be lost with a long grant proposal and approval process.

Farm Protection & Affordability Investment (Farm PAI) is a revolving loan program of the Washington State Housing and Finance Commission to provide eligible entities with low-interest loans for fee-simple acquisitions with the intent to buy-protect-sell and reduce the cost of farmland for beginning and underserved farmers and ranchers. The Farmland Protection and Land Access, a new program of the Washington Conservation Commission established in 2022, complements Farm PAI by providing funding for the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement, ensuring the land protected by Farm PAI stays open and available for farming.

A variety of traditional and specialty investment firms and non-profits are interested in conservation and land protection with a variety of expectations on their return. Some are mission driven and willing to finance tools such as buy-protect-sell for farmland with the benefit being open space, soil conservation, and alignment with the investor’s values. Others are driven by profit and may seek ways to combine the protection of highest conservation value land with adjacent areas they develop for profit. These can take many different forms and are already being used locally. Washington Farmland Trust released a Farmland Impact Note in 2018 for institutional investors resulting in farmland and riparian protections in another Puget Sound watershed. Private firms and pay-for-performance contracting are other mechanisms to bring private investment to achieve conservation goals.

Private Fundraising

Many grant programs require matching funds. For non-profit partners, private fundraising is a key part of funding conservation strategies. A unique approach is being taken by the new Gig Harbor Land Conservation Fund to raise the matching funds needed for key acquisitions.

The Gig Harbor Land Conservation Fund is a group of community residents who came together to conserve critical salmon habitat, wildlife corridors, and urban forests in Gig Harbor, Fox Island, and the Key Peninsula. This volunteer group works hand-in-hand with the City of Gig Harbor, the Great Peninsula Conservancy, and others to help with private fundraising that can be used as matching funds or to fill the gap to make land conservation purchases happen. The group has been working to help the City acquire 50 acres along North Creek, an important salmon-bearing stream. The Land Fund is also in conversations with landowners in other areas of Gig Harbor and the Key Peninsula. "We've found that landowners are very comfortable approaching us with their interest in conserving all or part of a particular property," commented Board Member Michael Behrens. "We then connect them with one of our partners, like the Great Peninsula Conservancy, who can steward the land. If a deal is struck, we come alongside with private fundraising to make it happen." In addition to helping conserve land through fee purchases, the group is building a larger conservation community by hosting community gatherings focused on environmental themes and participating in community events.

Tribal Grants

Tribal Charitable Funds award grants to a variety of local organizations in Washington State. The funds are typically used to strengthen community resilience and well-being, including environmental stewardship and restoration. In 2023 alone, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians awarded $600,000 to 43 organizations, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe donated $1.5 million.

Increased Federal & State Investments

Since 2022, the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have appropriated millions of dollars into existing and new grant programs. Often focused on natural climate solutions and particularly interested in projects that benefit Tribes and underserved communities, these represent an enormous investment and a timely opportunity for making gains toward the conservation goals in the near term. Many programs look favorably upon landscape-scale efforts and partnerships. The Land Conservation Plan can serve as a justification and organizing tool for developing winning proposals to secure these funds. While several existing programs already identified in Table 3 have received additional BIL/IRA, new programs have also been developed that align with the goals of this plan. Most programs are spending final funds in 2025 and 2026, with future funding amounts in question. In the very near-term some promising programs to consider applying to include:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office Restoration Center’s Transformational Habitat and Coastal Resilience

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Management’s Climate Resilience Regional Challenge

• National Fish & Wildlife Foundation’s Coastal Resilience Fund

• National Fish & Wildlife Foundation’s America the Beautiful Challenge – Sentinel Landscape Grants track

Other funding programs are focused on habitat restoration. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fish passage programs provide additional opportunities for Pierce County to make progress on restoration, but they do not fund the types of conservation strategies described in this plan.

Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) addresses carbon pollution by capping and reducing GHG emissions from the state’s largest emitters and is a promising funding source for conservation projects. Since the CCA went into effect in 2023, it has generated more than $2 billion in revenue for critical climate projects that reduce emissions and increase climate resilience in ecosystems and communities. For example, revenue generated in quarterly auctions has supported restoring bull kelp forests in Puget Sound, conserving legacy forests, and funding fish passage and riparian restoration efforts across the state. Tracking the evolution of the program and identifying opportunities to keep state agencies and the legislature aware of local ecosystem resilience and carbon sequestration projects are recommended to capitalize on these funding opportunities to make progress across all six land categories. Funds from specific CCA accounts have both created new funding programs, such as the Salmon Recovery Funding Board Riparian Grant Program, and supplemented existing funding programs, such as WDFW’s Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program noted in Table 3 (Ecology 2024).

Opportunities for New County Revenue Sources and Financing

The following options are available to the County to increase local revenue streams or financing through a variety of mechanisms. These are considered long-term options because some require a vote or may prove politically difficult, depending on other local taxes or initiatives under development. It is recommended that the initial step for any of the following approaches includes public outreach, surveys, and polling to develop most supported options and optimize the outcome. Groups like the Trust for Public Land and others can be leveraged to support planning, conduct voter research, and provide perspective on what has been successful in Washington and other states.

In the list below, some revenue streams are collected through taxes or fees in which all or a portion are distributed through competitive grants to other local entities conducting conservation efforts in Pierce County, while others are generally kept within the County to fund acquisitions and stewardship of properties owned and managed by the County. This section does not cover the current funding that Parks & Recreation access for their maintenance and operations; see the PROS Plan for those details (Pierce County 2020).

Restore Conservation Futures Tax to $0.0625/$1,000

Under RCW 84.34.230, each county is authorized to levy 6.25 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for the Conservation Futures Tax (CFT) program, which funds the protection of open space in the county. Pierce County started the Conservation Futures program with the full 6.25% rate, but over time the effective rate has decreased due to state limitations on property tax growth. The 2020 PROS Plan noted that in 2019, the assessment was $0.0406 per $1,000 of assessed value (Pierce County 2020). The County can restore the levy through a vote if the

majority of voters (50% + 1) support it. In King County, the Conservation Futures tax levy restoration vote passed in 2022 with more than 65% voter support. A committee raised funds to support the measure with donations from Amazon, Microsoft, REI, and local nonprofit organizations, with no formal opposition to the measure.

If revenue is increased through restoring CFT, the revenue can be distributed through grants to other implementing entities like land trusts and cities to conserve land in addition funding County programs. In 2024 numbers, the restoration of CFT to 0.00625 cents per $1,000 of assessed value would have brought in approximately $11.94 million or an additional $5.15 million. Tribal governments are not currently eligible for Conservation Futures. The statute deems eligible entities as counties, cities, & towns; municipal park districts; nonprofit nature conservancies; and historic conservancies.

New Real Estate Excise Tax

The Conservation Futures program is highlighted as a key funding source that awarded funds to one of the projects highlighted in the StoryMap associated with the Land Conservation Plan: McDermott Point, a 12-acre property with saltmarsh and barrier lagoon at the mouth of Filucy Bay with views of Mount Rainier.

Under RCW 82.46.070, counties may impose an additional real estate excise tax for the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas. The tax is paid by the buyer and cannot exceed 1.0% of the selling price. Imposing the excise tax, including the amount and duration of the tax, requires approval by a majority of the voters in the county. The tax does not apply to the acquisition of conservation areas by the county. The definition of conservation area under RCW 36.32.570 means “land and water that has environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic, or low-intensity recreation value for existing or future generations, and includes, but it is not limited to, open spaces, wetlands, marshes, aquifer recharge areas, shoreline areas, natural areas, and other lands and waters that are important to preserve flora and fauna.“ To date, only San Juan County has utilized this as a tool to fund conservation, originally authorized by the voters in 1990 and reauthorized in 1999 and 2011. The San Juan County Land Bank manages the transactions and long-term stewardship of conservation areas protected under the excise tax.

Parks Levy

The board of park commissioners may levy a general tax on properties located in park districts under RCW 35.61.210. The amount and duration of this park levy requires approval by the majority of the voters in the county. These funds allow the County to take care of the existing system of parks and trails, improve regional trail connectivity and mobility, make parks and recreation opportunities more accessible, and grow and connect regional open space and natural lands, protecting habitat important for fish and wildlife. In 2022, the Tacoma Metro Parks District increased its parks levy to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The increase from 46 cents in 2021 allows the Parks District to restore urban forests and forested parklands, support community centers and youth programs, improve park maintenance, and improve safety for visitors.

In addition to new or increased revenue sources, existing financing mechanisms are also available. The benefit of financing acquisitions is that the conservation activities and transactions can be completed sooner as high conservation value areas become available and presumably at a cheaper cost if the assumption holds that property will increase in value over time. Below are some options specific to conservation financing.

Bond against Conservation Future Tax

The Conservation Futures Program provides a reliable and predictable source of funds to help acquire public lands, and protect interests in open space, habitat areas, wetlands, and farm, agricultural, and timberlands in unincorporated and incorporated areas of Pierce County. One way counties can finance projects is to conduct budget transfers. Transfers are used to reflect non-exchange like transactions. Interfund transfers are routinely used to move resources from a fund that collects revenues to another fund that is required to expend them. During the 2018–2019 and 2020–2021 budgets, Pierce County transferred funds from the Conservation Futures Fund to Conservation Futures Construction and a Limited Tax General Obligation Bond. In 2006, Pierce County used the Conservation Futures Fund to repay the County’s general obligation bonded debt.

Form a Local Conservation Authority

One funding strategy to acquire and protect lands is to establish a Local Conservation Authority (LCA) and use the County’s bonding authority. For example, the LCA could acquire working lands that are at risk of conversion and establish bonds that would be repaid through revenues from timber harvest and transfer of development rights. This concept would need additional exploration but is feasible under Washington state law. The purpose is to own and manage important resource properties with a different or parallel purpose to those already stewarded and managed by other departments within the county. In essence, this adds not only an authority for the County to finance projects but also the framework to partner with other entities like non-government organizations or Tribes in the co-management of these lands for long-term protection. This could inform the Community Forest effort underway in the Puyallup Watershed and other key initiatives of the county.

Implementing the Plan

While the previous section identifies various funding sources to pay for the implementation of conservation strategies, this section identifies who will conduct the work highlighting underway and planned for by Pierce County and partners. The first section highlights Pierce County programs and plans, demonstrating that many programs are already in place to implement strategies in the Land Conservation Plan. Additional funding and staffing for County programs will help expand and expedite the work. A second section identifies key implementing partners and highlights their efforts. The intent is that partners and funders can reference this plan to demonstrate local coordination and help secure additional resources.

Implementation by Pierce County

Pierce County Surface Water Management

Floodplains for the Future

Floodplains for the Future (FFTF) is a collaborative partnership working to reduce flood risk, restore habitat, and enhance agricultural viability in the Puyallup Watershed, including the White and Carbon rivers. The FFTF Vision is:

“Restore connections between rivers and land, improve habitat for salmon, protect communities and critical infrastructure from flooding, and provide new opportunities for recreational and cultural uses while preserving agricultural lands in the Puyallup River Watershed.” The FFTF Coordinator is housed at Pierce County Planning and Public Works Surface Water Management. Between 2014 and 2022, FFTF partners invested more than $94 million in capital and programmatic actions in the watershed. In addition to other funding sources, FFTF has been implementing a series of Floodplains by Design grants from Ecology.

Three of the FFTF goals are directly aligned with the Land Conservation Plan: Protect/conserve agricultural lands; minimize conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses; and protect existing functional salmon habitat (Floodplains for the Future 2022).

Many other FFTF goals and strategies indirectly relate to conservation, as they call for habitat restoration and giving the river more room to move. The following FFTF actions support the goals of the Land Conservation Plan and should be considered for additional investment:

• Acquisition of properties in the floodplain, and particularly in the floodway, to remove structures at risk of flooding and to prevent future development in the floodplain.

• Acquisition of conservation easements on farmland in the watershed to prevent development.

Salmon Recovery

The Land Conservation Plan aligns closely with the strategies and priority areas identified in local salmon recovery plans, primarily the floodplains & aquatic corridors and nearshore & marine shoreline categories. The protection of the other land categories (prairies, forests, farmlands, and urban green space) are also in alignment to address water quality, water quantity, and other ecosystem benefits in the watersheds necessary for salmon recovery. The three Lead Entities, or community-led groups working at the watershed level for salmon recovery, are the Puyallup and Chambers Watersheds Salmon Recovery Lead Entity (WRIAs 10 and 12), West Sound Partners for Ecosystem Recovery (WSPER) (WRIA 15), and the Nisqually River Salmon Recovery Lead Entity (WRIA 11). Each Lead Entity is working toward recovery for Chinook salmon and steelhead listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as well as other ecologically and culturally important salmon species. The Lead Entity committees develop and adaptively manage their respective plans and strategies that guide their collective work to restore and protect salmon habitat. Each is unique and engages local partners and recruits project sponsors to address the highest priorities in its watershed. All Lead Entities also administer grant processes to score and rank acquisition and restoration projects to receive federal, state, and local funds according to the local priorities in their respective watershed. In the Nisqually Watershed, for example, they prioritize work within their Salmon Recovery Initiative as noted in their guidance document and associated maps. They also prioritize forest acquisition in the Community Forest Initiative area. Tools developed by the Lead Entities, such as the Riparian Decision Support System for the Puyallup Watershed, provide additional resources to identify priority areas for forest protection and riparian restoration. As with all relevant plans, the Land Conservation Plan should align with the Salmon Recovery Plans. This alignment will be important for identifying and tracking shared goals and leveraging funding opportunities that provide multi-benefit outcomes and achieve shared objectives. Salmon recovery efforts in the Nisqually Watershed are further described in the Implementation by Partners section below.

An important aspect of salmon recovery is the conservation of key salmon habitat, in addition to restoration of degraded sites. The Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington released Treaty Rights at Risk (2011) to raise the alarm that more habitat is being lost through conversion faster than it is being restored. The continued loss is a failure to uphold the treaty-reserved rights to harvest fish and shellfish.

Watershed Councils, Water Quality, and Shellfish Protection Districts

Pierce County has more than 8,000 acres of approved shellfish growing areas with 26 public beaches and 13 commercial areas. Within these areas, Pierce County has five formal shellfish protection districts defined by Washington State law in RCW 90.72: Rocky Bay, Burley Lagoon, Filucy Bay, Vaughn Bay, and Minter Bay. All five are part of a larger Shellfish Partners 2020 Strategic Plan created with agency and community partners (Tacoma Pierce County Health Department 2013) This shellfish plan is currently being updated. Each area has a specific set of issues and a unique approach to improving water quality, but all may benefit from conserving uplands and improving water quality and filtration within the protection district. Alignment with the Land Conservation Plan is important so that upland areas being acquired and protected in Pierce County watersheds are understood to have multi-benefit conservation values. Projects in these five districts help implement the responses to improve water quality and re-open shellfish harvest. Outside of the five districts, which are clustered in the same geography, Pierce County also has a Marine Recovery Area that includes lands that drain to marine shellfish growing areas. Protecting both upland areas and nearshore habitat is important for preventing future water quality degradation and downgrades or closures throughout the county.

Pierce County staff coordinate several watershed councils. The following plans have key areas for acquisitions and stewardship identified that align closely with the Land Conservation Plan:

• Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed Action Agenda 2020-2025 (KGI Watershed Council 2019)

• Chambers-Clover Watershed Action Agenda 2018-2023 (Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Council 2018)

Puyallup Watershed Conservation Land Trust

The Puyallup River Watershed Council is working with watershed partners to form a new Puyallup Watershed Conservation Land Trust. This will be an important way to conserve floodplains and forests in the Puyallup Watershed. This new entity will follow a model and use the lessons learned from the Nisqually Community Forest (described below). The National Park Service – Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Funding Program is supporting strategic planning and community engagement. An inaugural Board has finalized the articles of incorporation for the new Land Trust.

Pierce County Parks and Recreation

Pierce County’s 2020–2030 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan is an important document for connecting the Land Conservation Plan to the County’s on-the-ground work. The plan adopted in 2020 has an Open Space Plan (Section 9) with the goal to “provide a system of open space experiences and corridors to support livable communities, offer relief from the built environment, allow people to connect with nature, and ensure the long-term health of the natural environment and citizens” (Goal PR-21) (Pierce County 2020). This section also notes that one of Pierce County residents’ highest values is conservation of wooded and environmentally sensitive areas. The PROS plan notes several Open Space Conservation Programs underway:

• Conservation Futures

• Floodplains for the Future

• Transfer of Development Rights

• Public Benefit Rating system (PBRS) Tax Programs

• Development Regulations

These programs align with key conservation strategies and funding opportunities noted in the sections above. When the PROS Plan is revised in its 2025 update, it will cross-reference this Land Conservation Plan and ensure that implementation of both plans is coordinated with increased alignment across County programs and divisions.

Pierce County Forest Stewardship

The Pierce County Forest Stewardship program aims to manage County-owned natural lands to become ecologically healthy, older forests dominated by native tree and other plant species. These forests should provide a multitude of wildlife habitat types and ecosystem services and be structurally complex, species rich, biodiverse, and climate resilient. Pierce County creates site-specific forest stewardship plans that prescribe a variety of active forest management treatments that accelerate tree growth, mimic natural disturbances, enhance biodiversity, and manage invasive species to accelerate the lands towards old-growth forest conditions. Using these plans, Pierce County conducts forest management treatments to reduce drought susceptibility and create forests that are more resilient to climate change, insect and disease outbreaks, and catastrophic wildfire effects. These efforts will support the objectives of the Land Conservation Plan by ensuring that the County manages forests to increase ecosystem functions like sequestering carbon and providing wildlife corridors.

Pierce County Long Range Planning

As part of its 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, Pierce County conducted a climate vulnerability assessment to better understand how climate change and extreme weather events will impact our communities and natural systems (Pierce County Planning and Public Works 2023). The assessment piloted the Washington State Department of Commerce’s House Bill 1181 guidance, using recommended sectors (e.g., Agriculture, Cultural Resources and Practices, Environment, etc.) and resilience policies. The final report evaluated the impacts of climate change on working and natural landscapes, including the land categories from the Land Conservation Plan. Climate adaptation strategies recommended for each of the sectors align with the Land Conservation Plan, Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment (Brooks et al 2004), and other local and regional plans. Strategies that align with the Land Conservation Plan include the following:

• Maintain and manage natural lands to maintain and/or increase their carbon concentrations and avoid conversion of carbon-rich ecosystems.

• Identify and protect forest lands that provide climate resilience benefits from conversion to more developed land use types.

• Reduce the loss of private forestland through forest stewardship and education, and identify opportunities to expand incentives for forest landowners.

• Protect existing habitat where possible to minimize climate change impacts and degradation (e.g., remnant prairie habitat).

• Protect connectivity and corridors between protected areas to support species movement.

• Protect and restore wetlands and corridors between wetlands to provide biological and hydrological connectivity that fosters resilience to climate impacts.

• Identify, protect, and restore submerged aquatic vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, etc.) that provides aquatic habitat, "blue" carbon storage, and other ecosystem services.

• Restore floodplains and connectivity to improve the resilience of streams and rivers and reduce flood risk.

• Protect inland and upland space for landward migration of estuarine and coastal wetlands where possible (e.g., remove shoreline hardening, implement soft shore stabilization, acquire land, conservation easement).

• Restore and maintain critical areas and open space areas to maximize the climate resilience benefits they provide.

Pierce County’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan

The Pierce County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) (2020) serves as the definitive framework for responding to emergencies and disasters across Pierce County. Designed to mitigate the impacts on people, property, environment, and economy, the plan employs an all-hazards approach. It outlines the coordinated efforts of County departments, first responders, and partners from Tribal, state, and local governments, as well as the private sector during incidents. The Section on Agriculture and Natural Resources is designed to manage and coordinate responses related to agriculture and natural resources during emergencies and major disasters. The plan includes direction for protecting natural, cultural, and historic resources by assessing damages, providing technical support for recovery, and minimizing impacts from response activities. Coordination across the CEMP and the Land Conservation Plan will bolster the resilience and sustainability of the County’s conservation priorities.

Implementation by Partners

Puyallup Tribe of Indians

The Puyallup Tribe of Indians is a leader in conservation and stewardship efforts, exemplifying a steadfast commitment to conserving natural resources and preserving cultural heritage. Through strategic initiatives and collaborative partnerships, the Tribe actively engages in environmental sustainability practices that prioritize both ecological health and community well-being. Their proactive approach not only ensures the sustainable management of resources, but also fosters inclusive partnerships that promote lasting ecological benefits for present and future generations in Pierce County and beyond.

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Comprehensive Land Use Plan

The Puyallup Tribe of Indians Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2023) stands as a testament to the Tribe's commitment to sustainable development and cultural preservation within their ancestral lands. This document serves not only as a strategic roadmap for future growth and economic development, but also as a guardian of the region's natural resources and cultural heritage. The plan integrates various facets of community well-being, from housing and transportation to economic opportunity and governmental infrastructure, with environmental sustainability and climate resilience. Key objectives include protecting and stewarding cultural resources, conserving natural habitats and critical areas, promoting healthy salmon populations and sustainable fisheries management, addressing climate change impacts through habitat restoration and mitigation, prioritizing equitable access to housing and recreation, and improving environmental quality for Tribal members.

By fostering partnerships and employing proactive strategies, the Tribe aims to secure a future with County organizations where traditional values are prioritized and respected. This Land Conservation Plan supports the efforts and vision of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and their Comprehensive Plan. Pierce County will continue to collaborate with the Puyallup Tribe to implement the strategies of the Land Conservation Plan.

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Climate Plans

In 2016, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians completed a Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Options report. The report includes projected climate impacts on several of the resources and sectors that are also the focus of the Land Conservation Plan, including fisheries and hatcheries, shellfish, wildlife, restoration sites, water quality and cultural resources. The adaptation options include the preservation and restoration of priority habitats in partnership with local jurisdictions and particularly including coastal intertidal habitat along the Hylebos Waterway and floodplain habitat along Clarks, South Prairie, and Boise creeks (Puyallup Tribe of Indians 2016).

Nisqually Indian Tribe

The Nisqually Indian Tribe plays a pivotal role in conservation, including serving as the Lead Entity for salmon recovery efforts within the Nisqually River Watershed. Central to their strategy is the management and stewardship of critical lands through initiatives such as the Nisqually Land Trust and the Nisqually Community Forest where the Tribe holds ownership of significant portions, including half of the forests. By leveraging their expertise and stewardship responsibilities, the Nisqually Indian Tribe not only safeguards culturally valuable resources, but also ensures the long-term protection and resilience of the ecosystem, demonstrating their enduring commitment to environmental conservation and community well-being. Representatives from the Nisqually Indian Tribe participated in the development of the Land Conservation Plan through the Steering Committee and expert small groups.

Nisqually Indian Tribe Community Vision Plan

The Nisqually Indian Tribe Community Vision Plan (2013) represents a foundational strategic initiative to guide sustainable development and cultural preservation from 2013 to 2033. Rooted in Tribal values and community input, the plan serves as a comprehensive tool for the Tribal Council and Administration to make informed decisions that benefit current and future generations. The Natural Resources section of the plan embodies a deep commitment to environmental stewardship and cultural preservation. Key initiatives like salmon recovery and habitat protection aim to restore and maintain critical ecosystems within the Nisqually Watershed. The plan also addresses the profound impact of climate change on their traditional resources, advocating for proactive measures and collaboration to mitigate its effects. This strategic approach not only aligns with the Tribe's values but also contributes to broader regional conservation efforts, reinforcing their role as leaders in environmental stewardship across Pierce County.

Nisqually Land Trust

The Nisqually Land Trust, formed through a collaboration with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, has contributed to the protection of more than 10,4000 acres across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats. The Land Trust currently owns 5,676 acres and holds conservation easements on almost 400 acres. The conservation actions undertaken by the Nisqually Land Trust are directed by the watershed’s Salmon Recovery Plan and the Nisqually Land Trust Strategic Plan 2022–2026 (Nisqually Land Trust 2022). The Land Trust coordinates closely with the Nisqually Indian Tribe and other salmon recovery partners, acquiring parcels and working on easements in priority areas of the watershed for salmon.

The Land Trust has three main conservation efforts that align closely to the Land Conservation Plan: (1) permanently protect priority lands and shorelines in the Nisqually Watershed and the Nisqually Reach; (2) actively steward Land Trust properties and conservation easements; and (3) connect more people with their lands and work (Nisqually Land Trust 2022). After completing an assessment about climate impacts, the Land Trust identified climate-informed conservation actions, including land acquisition projects that protect and restore critical habitats that may be at risk from climate change; stewardship activities that leverage and enhance natural climate solutions within conserved lands; a Community Forest that improves resilience to increasing temperatures and drought; and a carbon credit project that leverages forest conservation to help offset carbon emissions. The Land Trust also developed land protection and stewardship criteria that will advance and inform the climate-informed conservation actions and contribute to goals in the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan. The Nisqually Land Trust Executive Director served on the Land Conservation Plan’s Steering Committee.

Nisqually Community Forest

The Nisqually Indian Tribe and the Nisqually Community Forest, which is a subsidiary of the Nisqually Land Trust, currently manages over 5,000 acres in the upper Mashel River area (a tributary to the Nisqually River in southern Pierce County). Partners are actively seeking opportunities to acquire additional working forest and expand the forest managed within the Nisqually Community Forest initiative area, an approach in clear alignment with the Land Conservation Plan.

The Nisqually Community Forest is highlighted in the Land Conservation Plan StoryMap, to celebrate the excellent work of partners working to exemplify the benefits of a community forest by managing the forest for timber resources and long-term stewardship and using carbon credit sales to support the work. It is also a model for future work in Pierce County and elsewhere.

Muck Creek Watershed Restoration Strategy

The Muck Creek Watershed Restoration Strategy (Anchor QEA and Coho Water Resources 2024), prepared for the Nisqually River Foundation, Nisqually Tribe, and South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG), builds upon earlier watershed management plans and habitat assessments and aims to enhance salmonid habitats and other native aquatic species. This study integrates comprehensive data, including surface and groundwater assessments, to identify key restoration opportunities and develop a cohesive strategy for sustainable water use and habitat improvement in an important area for salmon recovery and prairie conservation.

The study's alignment with the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan underscores its broader regional significance in promoting ecosystem resilience and supporting prairie conservation. The Muck Creek Strategy provides actions to effectively conserve and restore prairie habitats. Key actions include addressing the succession of prairie to forest by thinning or removing Douglas-fir forests to counteract increased evapotranspiration and groundwater depletion. Additionally, managing invasive species such as Scot’s broom and reed canarygrass through targeted removal, controlled burning, and excavation is crucial. Enhancing dry reaches by promoting beaver activity, restoring floodplain connectivity, and managing water rights will further support habitat restoration. These combined efforts aim to maintain and rejuvenate prairie ecosystems, ensuring the sustainability of both flora and fauna in these vital areas.

Nisqually State Park

The Nisqually Indian Tribe and Washington State Parks are developing the first co-managed state park in Washington. The land has major cultural significance to the Nisqually Indian Tribe with upland forest, prairies, and river habitats. The 1,300-acre park is adjacent to 549 acres of Nisqually Land Trust property to the north and the 4,300-acre University of Washington’s Pack Forest to the east. The Nisqually Indian Tribe has been working with Washington State Parks to plan and develop the park since 2008. The park will feature trails, an interpretive center, native art, an amphitheater, picnic areas, and camping sites. Nisqually Chairwoman Cynthia Iyall said her government’s involvement in the park’s development and management is important because it is ancestral homeland, includes the birthplace of Chief Leschi, and is critical habitat for salmon recovery.

“We’re so proud to be a part of protecting and restoring this landscape for future generations to enjoy as a refuge and place of healing.” - Quote by Nisqually Chairwoman Cynthia Iyall on the comanagement of Nisqually State Park.

Seven other state parks protect marine and forest areas in Pierce County (~2,700 acres total, including Nisqually State Park), with most focused along the nearshore and islands. To implement the Land Conservation Plan, areas surrounding marine and upland parks are priority areas for the County and other partners to acquire parcels to prevent encroachment on current parks, provide corridors for wildlife, a place for species and habitats to shift with climate change.

Pierce Conservation District

The Pierce Conservation District serves Pierce County by equitably supporting community-driven solutions to pressing local environmental challenges. As a non-regulatory entity, the Conservation District is focused on providing farming assistance, habitat improvement, harvest programs, water quality, environmental education, and climate resiliency. The 2021–2025 Strategic Plan (Pierce Conservation District 2020) defined high-priority areas

for future conservation efforts within the four main watersheds of Pierce County. These high-priority areas are identified by partners and guided through stakeholder feedback and direction or are a part of a project already established by an approved natural resource improvement plan. Specific strategies in these areas include protecting and restoring functioning ecosystems, improving conditions for healthy salmon, and improving water quality. The Pierce Conservation District’s Strategic Plan aligns with the goals of the Land Conservation Plan and should be consulted to identify opportunities for collaboration and implementation in priority areas. The Executive Director represented the Pierce Conservation District on the Land Conservation Plan Steering Committee, and Pierce Conservation District staff attended the expert small group(s) for farmland.

Great Peninsula Conservancy

The Great Peninsula Conservancy serves the Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed area of Pierce County. The current Great Peninsula Conservancy Conservation Plan outlines the strategic direction and initiatives to be implemented from 2021–2025 by the organization’s conservation department (Great Peninsula Conservancy 2021). The focus of the conservation initiatives are: (1) habitat, including shorelines, estuaries, streams, wetlands, and forests; (2) working lands, including farms and forestlands; and (3) community greenspaces and trails. The updated plan is guided by a climate resiliency and connectivity analysis that emphasizes the need to work on landscape-level forest, wetland, and estuary/shoreline migration projects. The plan also places more emphasis on working forestland through conservation easements as well as model community forest projects. While the Conservancy works beyond Pierce County by serving Hood Canal communities and protection needs, there is clear alignment with the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan in the Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed. The Conservancy also works closely with the non-profit Gig Harbor Land Conservation Fund described in the Funding section above. Conservancy staff participated in expert small groups during development of the Land Conservation Plan.

Washington Department of Natural Resources

In 2024, DNR selected the Puyallup and Nisqually watersheds as the next focal area for watershed resilience and salmon recovery investments. DNR piloted the program in the Snohomish Watershed and developed a full Watershed Resilience Action Plan (2022) that helps to direct resources to DNR programs and increase staffing to expedite restoration and protection efforts. In the Snohomish Watershed, this resulted in the creation of a kelp and eelgrass protection zone in partnership with the Tulalip Tribes and the Snohomish Marine Resources Committee, the creation of a program to explore efficient ways to source large wood for habitat restoration projects from DNR trust land, and the identification of key acquisition opportunities. The approach in Pierce County is to use existing plans to identify critical roles and resources that DNR can provide. The DNR team will use the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan as one of several existing plans to direct their work in the Puyallup and Nisqually watersheds.

DNR manages thousands of acres of trust lands in Pierce County. DNR is particularly interested in maintaining the Elbe Hills State Forest as a working forest and expanding the footprint through acquisitions if adjacent forestland becomes available. DNR also owns several small upland parcels in the lowlands that will likely be disposed of or auctioned off sometime in the future. These provide an opportunity for other conservation implementers (e.g., the County, other jurisdictions, or Tribes) to purchase them using state grants or other funding. As the Land Conservation Plan is implemented, Pierce County and DNR will communicate and collaborate on transactions and future opportunities.

DNR is also a key partner for mapping kelp and eelgrass in Pierce County’s nearshore areas. Protecting and restoring kelp and eelgrass is a strategy for blue carbon sequestration. This effort would align with NCS-4 in the

Pierce County Sustainability 2030 Plan (2023): “Partner with local Tribes, the Washington Department of Natural Resources and others to map eelgrass and kelp and identify innovative ways to sequester carbon in estuaries and the nearshore environment.”

Metro Parks Tacoma

Metro Parks Tacoma (MPT) is an independent park district that leads efforts to build a healthy, sustainable community. They manage 2,905 acres of land in the City of Tacoma and offer a variety of experiences including an old-growth forest, zoos, nature centers, a marina, community gardens, conservatory, marina, and more. MPT’s 2018 Strategic Master Plan works to advance sustainability and conservation efforts in the region through a variety of action strategies. Some strategies that specifically align with the Land Conservation Plan include increasing urban canopies and greenspaces, restoring MPT-owned and managed natural areas, improving public access to nature and wild places, and conducting green infrastructure improvements (Metro Parks Tacoma 2018).

PenMet Parks

The Peninsula Metropolitan Parks District (PenMet Parks) manages the acquisition of parks and recreation facilities within the area of unincorporated Pierce County west of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and east of the Purdy Bridge (excluding the City of Gig Harbor). In nearly 650 acres of parkland, PenMet Parks maintains forest parks, beach parks, trails, facilities, recreation centers, and more. One focus area of the PenMet Parks 2024 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (2024) includes identifying and pursuing park development and land acquisition opportunities that support equitable access to active and passive recreation needs (PenMet Parks 2024). Some objectives that specifically align with the Land Conservation Plan include pursuing the acquisition of easements, rights-of-way, or land purchases to complete and extend trail corridors, and acquiring public shoreline access locations, creating trails into and through natural open space lands.

Key Pen Parks

The Key Peninsula Metropolitan Park District (or Key Pen Parks) includes nine parks and open space sites comprising 1,337 acres. The Key Pen Parks Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan notes several goals that closely align with the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan, including developing a quality, diversified park and open space system that preserves and enhances signification environmental resources and features (Key Pen Parks 2020). The plan includes interest in public-private partnerships and in using Pierce County’s Conservation Futures Program to fund conservation and open space projects.

Washington Conservation Action

Washington Conservation Action (WCA), in partnership with the Pierce Conservation District, has launched a transformative $25 million initiative to enhance forest resilience and promote a climate-smart wood economy in Pierce County. This project, funded by a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Smart Commodities grant, supports a range of stewardship activities, including updating forest management plans, implementing prescribed burns, thinning fire-prone stands, and reforesting with climate-adapted species. By focusing on a county-level approach, the program provides financial incentives to local landowners, including small forest owners, Tribal Nations, and community forest managers to adopt climate-smart practices. It also aims to develop local wood supply chains, enhancing transparency and market access for climate-smart wood products. Through targeted funding and climate-smart practices, WCA's programs help align individual stewardship activities with the County’s Land Conservation Plan for sustainable land management and ecological preservation.

Trust for Public Land

Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit that has created thousands of parks and protected millions of acres of public land. TPL manages 595 acres in Pierce County. TPL hopes to continue transforming under resourced and outdated school grounds into vibrant, welcoming green spaces that are open to surrounding neighborhoods; pursuing more public land protection that aligns with community priorities; supporting local trail groups and advocates in advancing connectivity and access throughout the county; partnering with local agencies to advance green stormwater infrastructure and climate-resilient solutions based on best practices; and engaging community partners through the organization’s national 10-minute walk and park accelerator programming, all with the goal to help communities stay active and healthy.

In addition, TPL’s Conservation Finance experts can serve as trusted advisors to elected officials and community leaders on how to design, pass, and implement ballot and legislative measures to fund parks and conservation projects that reflect public priorities, with success supporting jurisdictions throughout the Puget Sound Region. These services may be useful to local partners implementing funding and program changes noted in the Funding Opportunities

Forterra

Forterra NW is an accredited land trust that works throughout Washington State, including Pierce County. In Pierce County, Forterra holds 11 conservation easements totaling 410 acres, and owns and manages eight wildlife preserves, totaling 308 acres. Forterra has four main priorities in Pierce County that align with the Land Conservation Plan: (1) Increasing tree canopy in urban areas, with an emphasis on disadvantaged communities; (2) Restoring and stewarding preserve lands, such as the Morse Wildlife Preserve on Muck Creek; (3) Increasing accessibility for people with disabilities at the Morse Wildlife Preserve; and (4) Acquiring conservation land, particularly lands with climate risk such as flooding or fire, lands at risk of development, and riparian and floodplain areas to increase connectivity.

Other Implementers

Other jurisdictions and entities, not highlighted specifically above, are also implementing conservation strategies in Pierce County. Pierce County intends to coordinate with additional partners, such as cities, park districts, federal and state agencies, and non-profit organizations not listed herein.

Monitoring Progress and Updating the Plan

This section provides information about goal-setting, describes recommendations for tracking progress that considers permanent versus temporary conservation actions, and establishes a timeline for updating the plan as additional information becomes available.

Goal-Setting

During the development of the plan, the Steering Committee considered whether to set quantitative acreage goals for the County and partners to achieve within a specific timeframe. The group discussed the merits of recommending an overall acreage total and reviewed the GIS analysis to consider draft goals by land category. In some instances, the GIS data for land categories were not comprehensive or current enough to allow for goal-setting – particularly for prairies, which have experienced significant loss since the last maps were developed. In other cases, the entirety of land category was deemed equally worthy of conserving (particularly for farmland, which could have unintended consequences if some farmland were deemed higher priority) so setting goals less than the current extent has been challenging. With these limitations in mind, initial conservation recommendations for land categories from the small expert groups and Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Conservation Needs Assessment are included in Appendix B.

Pierce County Comprehensive Plan

The Pierce County Council passed an ordinance amending Title 19A of the Pierce County Code, incorporating Pierce County’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update (Pierce County 2024). This includes the following goals in close alignment with the Land Conservation Plan:

Goal ENC-20

Acquire and manage lands to maintain or increase their carbon sequestration potential and reduce emissions associated with tree loss.

Policy ENC20.1

Expand and establish programs to acquire, maintain and manage at least 100,000 acres to maximize ecosystem services including carbon sequestration potential.

The goals established in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update will guide Pierce County’s future role in land conservation. In alignment with the framework of the Land Conservation Plan, the County will continue to support partners in additional land conservation beyond the 100,000 acres goal (ENC20.1).

Tracking Progress

Pierce County will need a system to track the pace and location of areas being conserved as many different teams outside and within the County are implementing the plan. During the discussion of setting goals, the question of “what counts?” came up several times. While all strategies to implement voluntary conservation on public and private lands are important, some efforts result in long-term conservation. Permanent conservation strategies

such as fee simple acquisitions, long-term easements, and the purchase or transfer of development rights are considered durable as they protect an area from development in perpetuity. These acres certainly “count” toward the goals. Some easements and contracts for carbon credits are time-limited, so while they are certainly important for achieving conservation goals, they should be considered temporary. As land changes hands or contracts expire, the land may move out of conservation. Similarly, the incentive programs managed by the County require back tax payments and other financial terms to persuade landowners to remain in the program, but these are not durable and often the payment is worth it if development pressure and costs are high.

A system that distinguishes between permanent and temporary will be important for long-term goal tracking. Similarly, tracking progress geographically through spatial data will help identify where development pressure is high and where land categories are most at risk of future development and degradation. For County staff and leadership to have a clear picture of conservation in the County and where progress is being made and lost, the County should utilize monitoring conducted by the Floodplains for the Future Program in the Puyallup Watershed, the salmon recovery Lead Entities, and the Local Integrating Organizations.

The PSRC recently completed their Open Space Trends report (October 2024), which analyzed information using existing data on tree canopy cover (from the USDA), 10-minute walkshed scores (from Trust for Public Land), regional trail network segments completed, and a summary of acres protected through easements 2017-2023 (Ducks Unlimited and TPL 2024). The County can build from this effort by closely tracking additional actions, such as the number, location and size of acquisitions and other conservation strategies enacted using County funding or enrollment in County programs. Going further, the County could implement a system to track implementation by partner organizations and others beyond those funded or managed by the County. A scalable, comprehensive project tracking system would assist Pierce County, PSRC, and other partners in monitoring implementation of the Land Conservation Plan and associated regional efforts.

Hosting annual or biennial coordination workshops could help to ensure that the County has accurate information from partners and encourage coordination and lessons learned. Keeping the GIS tool updated with recently protected areas and areas under threat of conversion will also serve partners who are seeking to focus their efforts in high-priority areas.

Many public and private funders are interested in large-scale conservation efforts that include multiple partners. A promising next step would be to develop a multi-partner funding strategy to support and expedite implementation of the Land Conservation Plan.

Plan Updates

The Land Conservation Plan should be revisited within 5 years to incorporate information that was missing or not accessible during the development of the plan. The GIS Methods (Appendix A) list several specific datasets that should be included in the WebApp. Some of these datasets are currently in development, including the Pierce County parks gap analysis and the urban heat islands analysis. Other high-priority needs that should be used to update the plan when they are available include a new survey of remnant prairies and areas for potential prairie restoration. A new land trust forming in the Puyallup Watershed may identify priority locations for future acquisitions and easements.

Revisiting the plan through adaptive management workshops every year or two will keep partners engaged and coordinated. The workshops will also help to identify where progress is being made and what is still needed to

reach goals. Revising the plan every 5 years will ensure that new approaches and information are documented. The following are recommended additions to a future version of the plan:

• Include details on local and federal partners, including cities and towns, school districts, United Stated Forest Service, and National Park Service.

• Conduct additional outreach and engagement with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Squaxin Island Tribe.

• Include examples of each conservation strategy underway in Pierce County (or other regions if untested locally).

• Identify the primary land categories being worked on by each partner entity and County department.

Pierce County’s Next Steps for Implementation

Pierce County Planning and Public Works (PPW) is working to align its organizational structure to support the implementation of the Land Conservation Plan and contribute to the County’s goal set in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan of conserving 100,000 acres of land to maximize ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, habitat protection, and climate resilience. To advance this effort, PPW is convening a team of natural resource professionals with expertise in agriculture, forestry, salmon habitat, and land conservation to coordinate efforts across multiple sectors. Implementation of the Land Conservation Plan will be integrated into the Sustainability 2030 Plan under the Nature-Based Climate Solutions framework, ensuring conservation remains a priority in countywide sustainability planning.

Immediate Next Steps

• Develop a Funding Strategy: Work with partners to identify and secure funding sources to support expanded land conservation efforts, including leveraging grants, private investments, and public funding mechanisms.

• Create an Urban Forestry Plan: Develop a countywide urban forestry strategy to support tree canopy retention, green infrastructure, and urban climate resilience.

• Accelerate Salmon Habitat Restoration: Collaborate with Surface Water Management (SWM) and conservation partners to expedite salmon habitat restoration by removing barriers to rivers and streams.

• Update Pierce County’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program: Design and implement a TDR program that conserves working lands while guiding development toward designated growth areas.

• Support Tribal and Land Trust Conservation Initiatives:

• Partner with the Puyallup Watershed Community Land Trust and Community Forest and the Puyallup Tribe to fund large-scale forest conservation projects.

• Coordinate with the Nisqually Land Trust and Nisqually Tribe to advance the Nisqually Community Forest program.

• Expand Prairie Conservation Efforts: Work with local Tribes and conservation organizations to properly map intact prairies and identify conservation priorities.

• Hire an Urban Forester: Establish a dedicated position to oversee urban forestry initiatives and enhance green stormwater infrastructure planning.

Tracking Progress

To ensure accountability and effectiveness, PPW will establish a structured system for tracking progress and evaluating conservation impacts. Key components include:

• Defining Conservation Metrics: Develop a framework to differentiate permanent conservation actions (e.g., acquisitions, easements) from temporary measures (e.g., carbon credit contracts, incentive-based programs).

• Geospatial Monitoring: Utilize spatial analysis to track conservation progress, identify at-risk land categories, and prioritize future efforts based on land conversion trends.

• Regional Coordination: Align with the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Open Space Conservation Plan to ensure consistency with regional and watershed-level conservation goals.

• Annual Conservation Workshops: Host annual or biennial workshops with partners to review progress, share best practices, and refine strategies.

Future Plan Updates

To remain effective, the Land Conservation Plan will be revisited every five years to incorporate new data, address emerging conservation needs, and refine strategies. Key areas for future updates include:

• Expanding Data Availability: Integrate new datasets such as updated prairie surveys, urban heat island analyses, and parks gap assessments.

• Strengthening Partnerships: Enhance collaboration with local Tribes, conservation organizations, public agencies, and private landowners to maximize conservation impact.

• Aligning with Regional and National Efforts: Coordinate with neighboring counties (King, Snohomish, Thurston) and federal agencies (USFS, NPS) to leverage broader conservation initiatives.

By implementing these next steps, Pierce County will strengthen its land conservation efforts, enhance ecosystem resilience, and deliver long-term benefits for both communities and the environment.

Acronyms and Glossary

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACUB Army Compatible Use Buffer

AGOL ArcGIS Online

BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

CCA Climate Commitment Act

CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan

CFT Conservation Futures Tax

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DOD Department of Defense

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FFTF Floodplains for the Future

GHG Greenhouse gas

GIS Geographic information system

GMA Growth Management Act

IRA Inflation Reduction Act

JBLM Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Key Pen Parks Key Peninsula Metropolitan Park District

LCA Local Conservation Authority

LIO Local Integrating Organizations

MPT Metro Parks Tacoma

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PAI (Farm) Protection & Affordability Investment

PBRS Public Benefit Rating System

PenMet Parks Peninsula Metropolitan Parks District

PROS Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council

RCO Recreation and Conservation Office

RCW Revised Code of Washington

SPSSEG South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

TDR transfer of development rights

TIMO Timber Investment Management Organization

TPL Trust for Public Land

UGA Urban Growth Area

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UW CIG University of Washington Climate Impacts Group

WCA Washington Conservation Action

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WRIA Watershed Resource Inventory Area

WSPER West Sound Partners for Ecosystem Recovery

WSU Washington State University

Glossary of Terms

Carbon Sequestration is the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; in this context, through planting trees and other activities that capture carbon from the air and store it in plants and soils.

Colonial Settlement refers to the arrival of European settlers in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The establishment of Western communities on native lands in the Pacific Northwest resulted in significant cultural, ecological, and social hardship for Indigenous peoples.

Conservation refers to the planned management of a natural resource to prevent degradation or destruction; natural resources include working lands and forests, in addition to those in a more natural or pristine state.

Conservation Strategies are the collective actions and activities that protect land from being converted to development to retain ecosystem and open space values. The strategies may be durable/permanent or temporary.

Conservation Transactions are strategies where land or development rights on a parcel change ownership.

Depaving is the act of removing pavement (concrete, asphalt, or compacted gravel) with the goal of replacing the pavement with a more environmentally friendly alternative.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan (Sustainability 2030 Plan) is the countywide initiative passed in 2021 to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 (based on a 2015 baseline). The plan calls for the creation of a Land Conservation Plan to identify potential lands and strategies for carbon sequestration and ecosystem services.

Incorporated Areas reference cities and towns that derive their existence from the state, with specific boundaries and taxing powers and that regulate the local or internal affairs of the territory.

Natural Climate Solutions are actions that conserve, restore, or better manage ecosystems to avoid GHG emissions from decomposition and/or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, also known as carbon sequestration.

Open Space is any parcel or area of land or water that is devoted to a functional open space use as defined by any one of the following categories: habitat, working lands, outdoor recreation, community-defined values, and public health and safety (following Pierce County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space [PROS] Plan 2020).

Permanence refers to how long conservation strategies are in place. The conservation strategies in the plan are noted as permanent or temporary.

Pierce County Equity Index is a high-level assessment of demographic, economic, and accessibility data that identifies areas of opportunity to improve equitable access and is used to inform planning-level decisions by the County.

Preservation refers to the repair or replacement of a parks asset after it has reached its useful life to accomplish the same overall function (following Pierce County PROS Plan 2020).

Priority Lands are the specific areas within Pierce County that are crucial for conservation. The following land categories are highlighted in the plan for protection and restoration efforts:

• Nearshore and Marine Shorelines are areas along the Puget Sound’s coast, encompassing a range of habitats, including river deltas, pocket estuaries, coastal bluffs, beaches, marshes, and other nearshore marine environments.

• Prairies are grassland ecosystems found in the Puget Lowland, characterized by gravelly, well-drained soils. Historically tended by periodic disturbances, such as fires set by local Tribes, prairies supported culturally important plant species and played a vital role in Tribal communities.

• Farmland is agricultural land that has been historically stewarded by local Tribes for cultivating essential foods, including nettles, camas, berries, native carrots, potatoes, onions, shellfish, and salmon. Despite significant loss due to population growth and urbanization, farmland remains crucial for ecological balance, open space conservation, and the local economy in Pierce County.

• Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors are ecologically significant areas within Pierce County’s watersheds, including the Puyallup-White, Chambers-Clover, Nisqually, and Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands watersheds. These areas encompass natural floodplains adjacent to rivers, providing essential ecosystem services such as flood hazard reduction and habitat for spawning and rearing salmonids.

• Forests in the area are dominated by evergreen conifers, offering significant potential for carbon sequestration. Historically, these forests were primarily composed of species like Douglas-fir, western redcedar, and western hemlock, with unique variations extending from coastal areas to mountainous regions.

• Urban Green Space includes areas within cities and urban growth areas that serve as essential pockets of nature, even amidst development. These spaces provide forest cover for ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, shade, and recreational opportunities.

• Protection is a term sometimes used as a synonym for conservation in relation to habitats and ecosystem function.

Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC’s) Regional Open Space Conservation Plan assessed conservation needs across Pierce, Kitsap, King, and Snohomish counties. The land categories identified in this plan are similar to or subsets of categories used in other regional efforts and allow for rolling up information, tracking progress, and communicating goals at different scales.

Regulations and Incentives include conservation mechanisms that can dictate or steer landowners and decisionmakers to conserve land through programs, regulations, and their enforcement.

Restoration Strategies refer to actions and activities that return habitat to a former condition or an improved state with regard to ecosystem services. This is distinct from conservation strategies, but in many cases, restoration follows conservation or protection measures.

Treaty Rights are not rights granted to Tribal Nations by the United States; rather, they are the inherent sovereign rights reserved by Tribes. Tribal rights are legally accrued to a Tribe or Tribes by virtue of inherent sovereign authority, unextinguished aboriginal title, treaty, statute, judicial decisions, executive order, or agreement, and which give rise to legally enforceable remedies.

Tree Equity Score is a national metric created by American Forests that assesses how well the benefits of urban trees are reaching those who need them most.

Tribal Sovereignty belongs to Tribal Nations and refers to the ability to govern, protect, and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of Tribal members, land, and resources. The United States recognizes Tribes as sovereign nations and the rightful owners of the land through the signing of treaties that carry the weight of the U.S. Constitution. Tribal sovereignty is further recognized with the government-to-government relationship that the Tribes have with the federal government.

Unincorporated Areas are those governed by counties without a local municipal corporation, such as a city or town.

References and Resources

Anchor QEA and Coho Water Resources. 2024. Muck Creek Watershed Restoration Strategy. prepared for Nisqually River Foundation. Olympia, WA.

Anderson, K. 2022. Seven ways to pay for long rotations. Sightline Institute. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://sightline.org/2022/09/12/seven-ways-to-pay-for-long-rotations/

Asselmeier, C., L. Davisson, R. Dugopolski, I. Hanou, B. Reed, and R. Roseen. 2021. Puget Sound Urban Tree Canopy and Stormwater Management Handbook. 57 pp.

Bachelet, D., B.R. Johnson, S.D. Bridgham, P.V. Dunn, H.E. Anderson, and B.M. Rogers. 2011. Climate Change Impacts on Western Pacific Northwest Prairies and Savannas. Northwest Science, 85(2): 411-429.

Brooks, K., K.M. Dvornich, M. Tirhi, E. Neatherlin, M. McCalmon, and J. Jacobson. 2004. Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment. Pierce County. 146 pp.

Cascadia Consulting Group. 2019. Pierce County Communitywide Geographic Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Puget Sound Regional Emissions Analysis. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/118357/2022_GeographicInventory_Report_FINAL Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Council. 2018. Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Action Plan 2018-2023. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/76631/2018-23-Action-Agenda

DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2022. Watershed Resilience Plan (Snohomish). URL: ttps://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/em_watershed_reslience_plan_exec_summary.pdf

DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2023. Nearshore Habitat Inventory, Washington State ShoreZone Inventory (including kelp and eelgrass). URL: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/aquatics/aquaticscience/nearshore-habitat-inventory.

Ducks Unlimited and TPL. 2024. National Conservation Easement Database. URL: https://www.conservationeasement.us/ Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2024. Distribution of Funds from the CCA Accounts Fiscal Year 2024. Publication 24-14-076. Olympia, WA.

Floodplains for the Future. 2021. Conversion Pressures Facing Farmland in the Puyallup River Watershed. Factsheet. 2pp. Floodplains for the Future. 2022. Program Website. URL: https://floodplainsforthefuture.org/.

Francis, T. and A. Kinney. 2018. Shoreline Armoring Vital Sign State of Knowledge Report. URL: https://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Final_SoK_Shoreline-Armoring__05.2018.pdf

Great Peninsula Conservancy. 2021. Conservation Plan 2021-2025. URL: https://greatpeninsula.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/GPC-Conservation-Plan-2021-2025.pdf.

Globalwise, Inc. 2016. A Fresh Look at Pierce County Agriculture Technical Memorandum #1 – Analysis of Pierce County’s Agriculture Sector. Vancouver, WA.

Harrington, Constance A., comp. 2003. The 1930s survey of forest resources in Washington and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-584. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 pp.

Key Pen Parks. 2020. Key Pen Parks Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Plan 2020-2025. URL: https://www.keypenparks.com/uploads/4/5/0/8/45082793/keypen_cprp_final.pdf.

KGI (Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed Council. 2019. KGI Watershed Action Agenda. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/89490/2020-2025-KGI-Action-Agenda

Lindstrom, T.C. 2008. A Tax Guide to Conservation Easements. Washington, DC: Island Press. 286 pp.

Metro Parks Tacoma. 2018. Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma Strategic Master Plan. URL: https://www.metroparkstacoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Strategic-Master-Plan-2018FINAL_COMPLETE.pdf.

Nisqually Community Forest. 2022. Nisqually Community Forest webpage. Accessed October 2022. URL: https://nisquallylandtrust.org/our-lands-and-projects/nisqually-community-forest/ Nisqually Indian Tribe. 2013. Community Vision Plan. URL: http://www.nisquallynsn.gov/files/1115/1977/1884/2013_Nisqually_Community_Vision_Plan.pdf

Nisqually Land Trust. 2022. Nisqually Land Trust Strategic Plan 2022-2026. URL: https://nisquallylandtrust.org/nisquallywp/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Adopted_2022-06-16_NisquallyLandTrust_2022-26StrategicPlan.pdf.

NWIFC (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission). 2020. State of Our Watersheds Report: Nisqually River Watershed. Olympia, WA.

PenMet Parks. 2024. Peninsula Metropolitan Park District Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. URL: https://penmetparks.org/district-pros-plan/.

Pierce Conservation District. 2020. 2021–2025 Strategic Plan. URL: https://piercecd.org/DocumentCenter/View/2662/PierceConservation-District-2021-2025-Strategic-Plan.

Pierce County. 2020. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Adopted September, 2021. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/6730/Comprehensive-Emergency-Management-Plan.

Pierce County. 2020. Parks, Recreation, & Open Space (PROS) Plan. Adopted February 11, 2020. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/86085/2020-02-11-Adopted-PROS-Plan.

Pierce County. 2023a. 2024–2025 Pierce County Budget. Accessed December 2023. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/131109/9_ParksRecreation

Pierce County. 2023b. Understanding Development Rights. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/3268/Development-Rights.

Pierce County. 2023c. Sustainability 2030: Pierce County’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Accessed from URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/2058/Sustainability-2030

Pierce County. 2024. Draft Comprehensive Plan. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/950/Comprehensive-Plan

Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer. 2023. Property Tax and Value Search. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/91/Assessor Treasurer.

Pierce County Parks & Recreation. 2011. Pierce County Open Space Task Force Report and Recommendations. July 18, 2011. Accessed from URL: https://www.capeelizabeth.com/media/RetiredCommittees/future_open_space_preservation/ meeting_materials/packets/2012/05-23-2012/Pierce%20Cty%20WA%20report%20revised%20july% 2019%202011%20copy.pdf.

Pierce County Parks and National Park Service. 2022. Carbon River Corridor Cooperative Action Plan. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/120668/CarbonRiver-Corridor-Cooperative-Action-Plan-Adopted-Nov-2022

Pierce County Planning and Public Works. 2023. Climate Vulnerability Assessment. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates and BERK Consulting. URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/8084/Climate-Vulnerability-Assessment.

PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2022. 2022–2026 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. Olympia, WA.

PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2018. Regional Open Space Conservation Plan. June 2018. Accessed from URL: https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/regionalopenspaceconservationplan.pdf.

PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2022. Conservation Toolkit: Protecting Farms, Forests, Open Space, and Rural Lands Seattle, WA.

PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2024. Open Space Trends Report. Seattle, WA.

Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 2023. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Tacoma, WA.

Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 2016. Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Options. A Collaboration of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and Cascadia Consulting Group. Tacoma, WA.

Quinn, T. 2010. An environmental and historical overview of the Puget Sound ecosystem, in Shipman, H., Dethier, M.N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh, K.L., and Dinicola, R.S, eds., 2010. Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring –Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5254, p. 11-18.

RCO (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office). 2023. Grant Manuals. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://rco.wa.gov/recreation-and-conservation-office-grants/grant-manuals/.

Shanley, C.S., R.A. Graves, C.R. Drever, et al. 2024. Mapping forest-based natural climate solutions. Commun Earth Environ 5, 502. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01678-z

Tacoma Pierce County Public Health Department. 2013. Pierce County Shellfish Partners 2020 Strategic Plan. Tacoma, WA. Accessed from URL: https://tpchd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Pierce-County-Shellfish-Partners-2020-StrategicPlan.pdf.

Titus, J.G. 2011. Rolling Easements. 2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 176 pp. http://papers.risingsea.net/rolling-easements.html.

Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington. 2011Treaty Rights at Risk. URL: https://treatyrightsatrisk.org/

Tree Equity Score. n.d. Tree Equity Index. URL: https://www.treeequityscore.org/.

Trust for Public Land. 2023. ParkServe 10-Minute Walk Tool (online). Accessed from URL: https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher. Portland, Oregon. xi +33 pp.+ appendices.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022b. Draft Recovery Plan for Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori). Portland, Oregon. xi + 24 pages.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023. Conservation of Prairies in Western Washington. URL: https://www.fws.gov/project/conservation-prairies-western-washington.

University of Washington. 2019. Natural Resource Spatial Informatics Group. Forestland Database Summarizer. Accessed July 2023. URL: https://nrsig.org/apps/forestland2019/

UW CIG (University of Washington Climate Impacts Group) and Occupational Health Sciences, Front and Centered, and Urban@UW. 2018. An Unfair Share: Exploring the disproportionate risks from climate change facing Washington state communities. A report prepared for Seattle Foundation. University of Washington, Seattle. URL: https://cig.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/08/AnUnfairShare_WashingtonState_August2018.pdf.

Washington Association of Land Trusts. 2023a. Conservation Easements. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://walandtrusts.org/conservation-easements/.

Washington Association of Land Trusts. 2023b. Community Forest Legislation FAQ. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://walandtrusts.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WALT-2019-Community-Forest-FAQ.pdf

Washington State Conservation Commission. 2023. Office of Farmland Preservation: agricultural easements guidance and resources. Accessed November 2023. URL: https://www.scc.wa.gov/ofp/agricultural-easements

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022. High Resolution Change Detection. Washington Geospatial Data Portal. Accessed December 2023. URL: https://geo.wa.gov/datasets/wdfw::high-resolution-change-detection1/explore.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Beach Strategies for Nearshore Restoration and Protection. Science-based strategies to guide future protection and restoration of beach systems in Puget Sound. Beach Strategies tool (online). Accessed from URL: https://beach-strategies-wdfw-hub.hub.arcgis.com/pages/data-exploration

Appendix A

GIS Methods

GIS Data Compilation Procedure

To support the development of Pierce County’s Land Conservation Plan, ESA was tasked with compiling GIS layers into a web application to help identify lands of high conservation value at a county-wide scale. Data sources with relatively current spatial data and county-wide coverage were prioritized for inclusion over less contemporary and/or local datasets to avoid skewing conservation priorities towards sub-County regions. Final GIS layers were selected in collaboration with the Steering Committee and small groups consisting of experts of six unique land categories – Farmland, Forests, Prairies, Nearshore/Marine, Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors, and Urban Open Space. For most land categories, a summary indicator layer was created to characterize the landscape based on conservation priorities. To supplement the land categories, GIS layers were generated and compiled for key indicators that cut across many or all land categories biodiversity and habitat connectivity, protected lands, development pressures, and carbon and climate along with other reference layers including the County’s Equity Index.

This document details the evolution of GIS layers from initial layer proposals to final datasets based on feedback from the Steering Committee and small groups, and interviews with experts. All geoprocessing methods were conducted using ArcGIS Pro. Each section describes all GIS layers considered for the respective land category, whether each layer was retained or set aside, and why that decision was made. Each section describes methods used to generate each GIS layer (if applicable), methods for creating the overall indicator layer, and attribute descriptions for any layers included in the web app (internal attributes OBJECTID, GlobalID, Shape_Length, and Shape_Area are not included in the attribute descriptions). Layers created for the Land Conservation Plan web application, including intermediate layers, are highlighted in bold for clarity, and match the Data Layer names in each land category data summary table.

LAND CATEGORIES

Farmland

Four different potential GIS approaches for identifying farmland with high conservation value were presented to the small group experts:

1. Using the 2013 GIS Prioritization analysis of farmland conducted by PCC Farmland Trust. While this option would be simple since the analysis has already been done, the results are a decade old and focus on farmland suitability for funding sources used in 2013 rather than the present day.

2. Using American Farmland Trust’s Productivity, Versatility, and Resilience (PVR) dataset to prioritize farmland. The PVR dataset was “designed to identify the agricultural lands best suited for intensive cultivation, with a focus on production of human-edible food crops.” Land was assessed using attributes including soil suitability, crop type, growing season length, land cover, and land use type. The output of the PVR analysis was a dimensionless index decimal value from 0-1, offering a convenient quantitative method of prioritization.

3. Not identifying high value lands, as a relatively small amount of farmland remains in Pierce County. With so little farmland remaining, conservation efforts will likely continue to be opportunistic, and strong relationships already exist between land trusts, Pierce County, and Pierce Conservation District. Furthermore, classifying some farmland as having higher conservation values than others may damage agricultural producers’ impression of the goals of the Land Conservation Plan.

4. A simple spatial analysis prioritizing farmland where the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classifies soil as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance.

Ultimately, the small group members and planning team agreed that the appropriate approach for mapping farmland would be to avoid prioritization, and instead use Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA)

2022 agricultural land use data to map where cropland and grazing land currently exists. It was decided that full parcels intersected by WSDA polygons should be mapped since non-farmed areas within those parcels are likely still important to farming operations (e.g., parking lots, barns). The small group also suggested that any land zoned as Agricultural Resource Land (ARL) or Rural Farm (RF) be mapped. A summary of all spatial data layers considered for farmland is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1. FARMLAND DATA SUMMARY

Data Layer Data

Prime Farmland NRCS No

Productivity, Versatility, and Resilience (PVR)

American Farmland Trust No

Avoids prioritizing farmland - Link to data

Avoids prioritizing farmlandLink to data description

ARL and RF Zoned Land Pierce County Yes - - Link to data

WSDA Land Use WSDA Yes - - Link to data

WSDA Parcels Pierce County Yes

- Link to data

Farmland Indicator ESA YesAdded to Pierce County AGOL -

GIS Methods for Creating Indicator Layer

The first data processing step involved filtering out non-relevant polygons from the WSDA dataset. Specifically, any polygons where “CropType” IN(‘Golf Course’, ‘Driving Range’, ‘Shellfish’, ‘Developed’) were removed. The resulting layer (WSDA Land Use) was used to create a parcel-level layer by using the Select By Location tool to export any Pierce County parcels intersecting the WSDA polygons. However, because the WSDA dataset was created from a different data source, many parcels were selected where only a sliver of the WSDA layer was overlapping due to data misalignments. Therefore, the parcel selection was manually reviewed, and any parcels intersected by a sliver of the WSDA polygons were deleted, resulting in the WSDA Parcels layer. For example, in Figure 1, the highlighted parcel (light brown layer) was deleted even though it was intersected by a sliver of a WSDA polygon (dark brown).

Figure 10: Example of manual removal of parcels overlapping WSDA polygons

To create the ARL and RF Zoned Land layer, a query was applied to Pierce County’s zoning layer to extract areas where “LU_DES” IN(‘ARL’, ‘RF’). For the final indicator layer, the Erase tool was used to clip out the WSDA Parcels layer from the ARL and RF Zoned Land layer. Lastly, these two layers were merged to create the Farmland Indicator layer. In summary, the Farmland Indicator layer shows the full extent of the WSDA Parcels layer, and only shows the ARL and RF Zoned Land layer where WSDA Parcels data is absent.

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Farmland Indicator

• ‘Description’ = Four potential classifications: Parcels with Cropland (WSDA), Parcels with Grazing (WSDA), ARL Zoned Land, and RF Zoned Land.

Prairies

Due to the small amount of remaining prairie habitat in Pierce County, a similar approach to farmland was used, identifying where prairies are known to (or may) still exist rather than prioritizing some prairies parcels over others, as all remaining prairie habitat is critical to conserve. ESA presented various layers for consideration by the small group experts, including:

• Oaks and Grasslands of the Puget Trough Ecoregion layer from Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Although this dataset was last updated in 2005, no other prairie-specific dataset has since been developed with the same level of detail.

• Pierce County’s Oak Presence dataset

• Digitized grasslands from historical T-Sheets and General Land Office (GLO) Surveys

• NRCS soils characteristic of western Washington prairies and grasslands, according to the Prairie Landowner Guide for Western Washington (Noland and Carver, 2011).

The small group also recommended contacting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to inquire about sensitive priority habitat and species (PHS) locations that are not included in the public dataset for prairiedependent and associated species, such as pocket gopher, streaked horned lark, Taylor’s checkerspot, and other butterfly species. ESA contacted WDFW but did not receive a response regarding data availability.

A layer outlining the recovery area for prairie species was included as well per the recommendation of the small group to inform potential funding opportunities. All spatial datasets considered for prairies are summarized in Table 2.

Data Layer

Sensitive (nonpublic) PHS data WDFW No

High Resolution Land CoverHerbaceous WDFW No

T-Sheet Grasslands (1886)

USCGS No

Historical Prairies (late 1800s) GLO No

Prairie Soils NRCS Yes

Oaks and Grasslands DNR Yes

Unable to acquire data

Link to data

Overly inclusive (e.g., yards, golf courses) - Link to data

Minimal polygons, only includes nearshore land - Link to data

Less extensive than Prairie Soils layer; oddly shaped polygons - Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

- Link to data Oak Presence Pierce County Yes

Prairie Indicator ESA Yes

Prairie Species Recovery Area USFWS Yes

Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA -

Many areas identified have already been developed. - -

TABLE 2. PRAIRIE DATA SUMMARY

GIS Methods for Creating Indicator Layer

Of the layers considered, only DNR’s Oaks and Grasslands and Pierce County’s Oak Presence layers were included in the final Prairies Indicator layer. The foundation of the indicator layer was the Oaks and Grasslands dataset (clipped to Pierce County), as it also included grassland and provided a greater level of detail regarding land cover than the Oak Presence layer. For the final indicator layer, the Erase tool was used to clip out the Oaks and Grasslands layer from the Oak Presence layer. Lastly, these two layers were merged to create the Prairies Indicator layer. In summary, the Prairies Indicator layer shows the full extent of the Oaks and Grasslands layer, and only shows the Oak Presence layer where Oaks and Grasslands data is absent.

In addition, the Prairies Soils layer, created by referencing the Prairie Landowner Guide for Western Washington and clipping to Pierce County, was included in the web application to represent areas where the underlying soil type may be conducive to prairie habitat.

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Prairies Indicator

• ‘COVER_DESC’ = Description of land cover as determined by the Oaks and Grasslands layer. The only exceptions are any polygons added from the Oak Presence layer, which are classified as “Other Oak Habitat.”

• ‘Acres’ = Acreage of polygon

• ‘Source’ = Data source of polygon

Layer: Prairie Soils

• All attributes remained the same as the original NRCS soils layer from which they were extracted. For details on those attributes, see SSURGO metadata.

Layer: Prairie Species Recovery Area

• No unique attributes

Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors

Numerous spatial data options were presented to the small group experts for floodplains and aquatic corridors, including several layers from Pierce County (e.g., regulated floodplain, deep and/or fast flowing floodways, floodplain seclusion areas, levees and revetments, and aquifer recharge areas), FEMA 100-year and 500-year floodplain layers, fish-bearing streams from the Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution (SWIFD) database, floodplain extent used in Puget Sound Partnership’s (PSP) Floodplain Vital Sign web app, potential levee setback locations from the 2021 Comprehensive Levee Setback Feasibility Update, and stream temperature projections data from NorWeST.

ESA presented a flood risk-focused approach for prioritizing floodplains and aquatic corridors to the small group, in which the highest priority would be the County’s Deep and/or Fast Flowing Floodways layer. Medium priority areas would be a combination of the County’s Regulated Floodplain and Floodplain Seclusion Areas, while the low priority areas would be the FEMA 500-year floodplain extent.

Based on feedback from the small group, the approach was adapted to consider salmon recovery priorities in addition to flood risk. Small group experts from each Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) were consulted to determine the methodology best suited based on data availability and WRIA priorities and provided guidance

regarding the identification of salmon recovery priority areas. Within WRIA 11 (Nisqually), Nisqually Land Trust identified the aquatic corridors to be classified as salmon recovery priority areas using information from the Nisqually Habitat Project Ranking Guidance 2023 SRFB Grant Round. For WRIAs 10 (Puyallup-White) and 12 (Chambers-Clover), the South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) and County staff provided significant guidance for identifying the salmon recovery priority areas to be mapped. Table 3 summarizes all spatial data considered for floodplains and aquatic corridors.

TABLE 3. FLOODPLAINS AND AQUATIC CORRIDORS DATA SUMMARY

Floodplain Seclusion Areas

Levees and Revetments

100-yr and 500-yr Floodplain

Stream Temperature Projections

Aquifer Recharge Areas

SWIFD Fish-Bearing Streams

Pierce County No

Pierce County No

FEMA No

Not relevant for prioritization

Redundant to setback feasibility layer

Small group recommended using PSP Floodplain Extent insteadLink to data

NorWeST No

Temperature projections not relevant for prioritizationLink to data

Pierce County No Very coarse dataLink to data

WDFW Yes -Link to data

PSP Floodplain Extent PSP Yes -Link to web map

WRIA 10/12 Core Habitat and Flood Protection Corridor

Puyallup and Chambers Salmon Recovery Lead Entity Yes - - -

Potential Levee Setback Locations 2021 Comprehensive Levee Setback Feasibility Update Yes

Regulated Floodplain

Pierce County Yes -

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to report

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Deep and/or Fast Flowing Floodways

Pierce County Yes -

Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors Indicator ESA Yes -

GIS Methods for Creating Indicator Layer

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA -

Within each WRIA in Pierce County, the method used for mapping floodplain priorities was adapted depending on data availability and small group recommendations. Within each WRIA, the respective floodplain extent was classified as either salmon recovery priority areas or other aquatic corridors based on recommendations from small group experts. The floodplain extent for each WRIA was edited using the Split tool to arbitrarily split the floodplain at confluences where classification changes occur.

For WRIA 11, WRIA 10, and WRIA 15, the SWIFD Fish-Bearing Streams layer was used in unique ways described in the ensuing paragraphs. The first step to create this layer was to query the SWIFD dataset to only include streams where “DISTTYPE_DESC” IN('Artificial – Documented', 'Documented', 'Presumed', 'Transported - Documented', 'Artificial - Presumed', 'Transported - Presumed') AND “SPECIES” IN(‘Chinook Salmon’, ‘Chum Salmon’, ‘Coho Salmon’, ‘Pink Salmon’, ‘Sockeye Salmon’, ‘Steelhead Trout’). The queried SWIFD layer was then buffered by 200 feet and clipped to Pierce County to create the SWIFD Fish-Bearing Streams layer.

In WRIA 11 (Nisqually), the floodplain extent was generated using the PSP Floodplain Extent. Alder Lake was added manually using the extent mapped within the USGS NHD waterbodies dataset, and edited to align with the PSP Floodplain Extent polygons. ESA worked closely with Nisqually Land Trust (NLT) to determine which streams and associated floodplains should be categorized as salmon recovery priority areas. The final list of salmon recovery priority areas consisted of the Nisqually River mainstem downstream of Alder Dam, Muck Creek and its tributaries, Ohop Creek downstream of Ohop Lake, and Mashel Creek. Lastly, South Creek and Lacamas Creek were added from the SWIFD Fish-Bearing Streams layer based after being recommended by NLT. All other areas within the PSP Floodplain Extent were classified as other aquatic corridors.

A different approach was necessary for WRIA 12 (Chambers – Clover) since it was not included as part of the PSP Floodplain Extent layer. Instead, the floodplain extent was created using the WRIA 10/12 Core Habitat and Flood Protection Corridor. After discussions with small group experts, including SPSSEG, Chambers Creek was categorized as a salmon recovery priority area. All other areas within were classified as other aquatic corridors.

For WRIA 10 (Puyallup – White), a blend of these two methods was used. The WRIA 10/12 Core Habitat and Flood Protection Corridor was used as the floodplain extent downstream of the White-Puyallup confluence, as well as for the White River downstream of its eastern intersection with the County boundary northeast of Lake Tapps. Upstream of these areas, the maximum extent of the PSP Floodplain Extent and the WRIA 10/12 Core Habitat and Flood Protection Corridor was used to create the floodplain extent. To capture the maximum area, the Union tool was used to merge these two layers. Following the Union, the Merge editing tool was used to combine all polygons into a single polygon. This polygon was then merged with the WRIA 10/12 Core Habitat and Flood Protection Corridor to complete the floodplain extent layer for WRIA 10. Additionally, the SWIFD Fish-Bearing Streams layer was appended anywhere it was not already covered by the floodplain extent for WRIA 10. Lastly, any streams

designated as critical habitat were buffered by 200 feet and appended to the floodplain extent layer if not already included.

After multiple meetings with small group experts familiar with WRIA 10, including SPSSEG and County staff, the final list of salmon recovery priority areas consisted of the Puyallup River, White River, Carbon River, Clear Creek, Clarks Creek, Fennel Creek Kapowsin Creek, Voight Creek, South Prairie Creek, Wilkenson Creek, Clearwater River, Greenwater River, and Huckleberry Creek. All other areas were classified as other aquatic corridors.

Neither the PSP Floodplain Extent nor the WRIA 10/12 Core Habitat and Flood Protection Corridor included WRIA 15. Therefore, the SWIFD Fish-Bearing Streams layer was used as the floodplain extent for WRIA 15. All streams were classified as other aquatic corridors (i.e., no salmon recovery priority areas were identified).

To create the Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors Indicator, the sub-layers created for each WRIA were merged together, resulting in a County-spanning indicator layer classifying the floodplain extent as either salmon recovery priority areas or other aquatic corridors.

In addition to the indicator layer, three other reference layers were included in the web application. Pierce County’s Regulated Floodplain and Deep and/or Fast Flowing Floodway layers were added, as well as Potential Levee Setback Locations, which represent sites identified as part of the 2021 Comprehensive Levee Setback Feasibility Update conducted by ESA for Pierce County.

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors Indicator

• ‘Tier’ = Classification of floodplain extent. Two possible classifications exist: Salmon Recovery Priority Area and Other Aquatic Corridor

Layer: Potential Levee Setback Locations

• ‘Name’ = Unique name identifying setback levee location

• ‘System’ = The greater river system the setback levee is located within

• ‘Acres’ = Acreage of setback levee polygon

Layer: Deep and/or Fast Flowing Floodway

• See Pierce County layer description

Layer: Regulated Floodplain

• See Pierce County layer description

Forests

During the first small group meeting, ESA presented three layers capturing different attributes of forestland across Pierce County:

1. Using modeled tree height from WDFW’s High Resolution Land Cover (HRLC) product to identify existing tree height and coverage. This dataset is a vector layer derived from 2017 NAIP imagery (1 m resolution).

2. Using vegetation class data from Oregon State University’s Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis group (LEMMA) to capture tree species. This raster layer (30 m resolution) is coarser than the HRLC

dataset and was created through a modeling effort using 2017 Landsat imagery, climate data, topographic data, and forest inventory plot data. Vegetation class is broken down by forest type (conifer, broadleaf, or mixed) and modeled size. Since modeled tree height is captured by the HRLC dataset, the LEMMA layer was proposed to be used only for vegetation class.

3. Using DNR’s 50-Year Site Class layer to classify site productivity. Site Class is defined by DNR to represent the “average height attained by the tallest trees in a fully stocked stand at the age of 50 years” and is provided in vector format. The Site Classes are described as follows by DNR:

• Site Class I: 137+ ft

• Site Class II: 119 – 136 ft

• Site Class III: 97 – 118 ft

• Site Class IV: 76 – 96 ft

• Site Class V: 1 – 95 ft

• Site Class VI: Red Alder

• Site Class VIII: Non-commercial or marginal commercial forest land

Overall, the small group agreed with the usage of these three datasets. Various other datasets were recommended, including Pierce County’s Biodiversity Network and terrestrial critical habitat, both of which are included in the Biodiversity and Habitat layer. It was also recommended to include carbon sequestration data; existing (as of 2010) and potential carbon sequestration (2050) estimates from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are included in the Carbon and Climate layer.

During the second small group meeting, a scoring methodology (described below) was presented which summarizes the HRLC Trees, Forest Vegetation Class, and 50-Year Site Class datasets using a 1-5 scoring system (5 representing the highest conservation value). No objections were voiced by the small group about the methodology. Table 4 summarizes all spatial data considered for the forests land category.

Vegetation

Forests Indicator

TABLE 4. FORESTS DATA SUMMARY

GIS Methods for Creating Indicator Layer

Creating the scored indicator layer for forests required multiple processing steps for each of the three datasets. For the 50-Year Site Class polygon layer, the DNR layer was clipped to Pierce County and a new ‘score’ field was added, which was populated according to Table 5, then converted into a 1-m resolution raster with cells scored 1-5 using the Polygon to Raster tool.

The HRLC Trees layer was created by extracting polygons classified as ‘Trees’ from the raw WDFW land cover dataset. Scores for the HRLC Trees layer were assigned using the same tree height thresholds from the 50-Year Site Class layer (Table 5). The HRLC Trees dataset includes fields for various model outputs, including “maximum height”, “average height”, “modeled height”, and “minimum height” – the “modeled height” field was used per HRLC User Guide recommendation. The modeled height field was used to convert the polygon layer into a 1 m resolution raster layer, which was then translated into the 1-5 scores noted in Table 5 using the Reclassify tool.

Unlike the other two layers, the Forest Vegetation Class dataset already existed as a raster layer, with codes correlating to unique vegetation classes. First, the LEMMA data was clipped to Pierce County using the Extract by Mask tool. The raw dataset subdivided each forest vegetation type (conifer, broadleaf, and mixed) into size classes (sap/pole, sm, med, large, and giant). Since this dataset was only being used for species information, the raster was translated into 1-5 scores based solely on the species information using the Reclassify tool (Table 5).

TABLE 5. FORESTS INDICATOR SCORING

Forest Vegetation Type Nonforested Sparse

Once all three layers were converted into scored raster layers, the Raster Calculator tool was used to stack the layers together and produce the Forest Summary Score – a single output layer representing the average score across the three layers. Next, the Generate Tessellation tool was used to create a grid of empty 10-acre transverse hexagons. The Zonal Statistics as Table tool was then used to calculate the mean of the Forest Summary Score raster within each 10-acre hexagon. The table produced was then joined to the grid of hexagons using the “GRID_ID” field to create the final Forests Indicator layer. This layer was clipped to Pierce County using the Select by Location tool to maintain full hexagon geometries along the County boundary.

In addition to the indicator layer, one reference layer was added to the web application. Based on the Nisqually Watershed Protection and Restoration Initiatives Map provided by the Nisqually Indian Tribe (2018), the Nisqually Community Forest Initiative layer was created by extracting three watersheds from Pierce County’s Watersheds layer using the query “ET_ID” IN('71’, '158’, ‘89’). These were then merged and reshaped to exclude the Eatonville Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary and any area west of the Eatonville UGA boundary.

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Forests Indicator

• ‘MEAN’ = average score of the three input raster layers within the 10-acre hexagon

• ‘GRID_ID’ = unique ID assigned automatically to each hexagon by Generate Tessellation tool

Layer: Nisqually Community Forest Initiative

• No unique attributes

Nearshore/Marine

The primary challenge for the Nearshore/Marine land category is the lack of contemporary, comprehensive datasets. Small group experts noted that Pierce County is planning on completing updated nearshore assessments of overwater structures, shoreline armoring, kelp and eelgrass, and forage fish in the near future, but these assessments will not be completed in time to be included in the Land Conservation Plan.

Other potential data sources were discussed including:

• The Squaxin Island Tribe’s Coastal Catchment Analysis Project web map, which includes conservation and restoration priorities, catchment assessments, and project locations, among others. The County inquired but was unable to obtain data due to a GIS staffing shortage at the Squaxin Island Tribe.

• The KGI Watershed Council’s priority locations. This information was ultimately decided against due to the lack of available GIS data and limited geographic extent.

• Pierce County’s Shoreline Environment Designations for Natural and Conservancy areas as adopted in the 2018 Shoreline Master Plan.

After follow-up discussions with small group experts and internal meetings with nearshore experts, ESA decided to use data queried from WDFW’s Beach Strategies tool as a placeholder until more current data becomes available (Coastal Geologic Services, 2020). To supplement the Beach Strategies layer, DNR’s kelp and eelgrass ShoreZone Inventory layers, Pierce County’s Shoreline Environment Designations, and WSDA shellfish areas were included as well. All data layers included and considered are summarized below in Table 6.

TABLE 6. NEARSHORE/MARINE DATA SUMMARY

Shoreline Designations Pierce County Yes -

ShoreZone Kelp Inventory DNR Yes -

ShoreZone Eelgrass Inventory DNR Yes

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

GIS Methods for Creating Indicator Layer

Unlike the previously described land categories, an indicator layer was not developed for the Nearshore/Marine land category. Instead, data was queried from the WDFW Beach Strategies Data Explorer to create an interim layer until a contemporary nearshore inventory is completed. Within the tool, the Guided Data Exploration user interface was used to filter shoreline data using the following selections:

• Focus: Sediment Supply

• Priority actions: Protection

• Protection management recommendation levels: Protect High, Protect Moderate, Protect Low, Protect Remain. This range of protection levels covers areas experiencing varying levels of degradation and a range of potential benefits of protection (Coastal Geologic Services, 2020).

• Spatial query: Pierce County

• Bluffs and/or drift cells: Drift Cells

With these filters selected, the shoreline data was downloaded and symbolized using the “SS_DC_ProtMgtRec” attribute, which corresponds to the filter applied in the Beach Strategies tool. All other attributes were deleted as they correspond to unused filter options. The resulting layer is included in the web application as WDFW Beach Strategies (Drift Cell).

In addition to the WDFW Beach Strategies (Drift Cell) layer, four other reference layers were included in the web application. Pierce County’s Shoreline Environment Designations layer was added, as well as DNR’s ShoreZone Kelp Inventory and ShoreZone Eelgrass Inventory. Both ShoreZone layers were clipped to Pierce County, and only the relevant attributes were retained. Lastly, WSDA polygons with a crop type of Shellfish were extracted to create the WSDA Shellfish layer.

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: WDFW Beach Strategies (Drift Cell)

• ‘SS_DC_ProtMgtRec’ = protection management recommendation level for drift cells

Layer: Shoreline Environment Designations

• See Pierce County layer description

Layer: ShoreZone Kelp Inventory

• ‘ALLKELP’ = indicates whether kelp is continuous, patchy, or absent along shorelines

Layer: ShoreZone Eelgrass Inventory

• ‘EELGRASS’ = indicates whether eelgrass is continuous, patchy, or absent along shoreline

Layer: WSDA Shellfish

• ‘CropType’ = crop classification (Shellfish for all features in this layer)

• ‘Acres’ = acreage of feature

• ‘CropDescription’ = description of crop type

Urban Green Space

The Urban Green Space land category is focused on protecting green space within cities and UGAs in Pierce County. Spatial data considered by the small group included:

• A combined cities and UGA layer to be consistent with regional and local plans

• Trust for Public Land’s (TPL) ParkServe 10-Minute Walkshed layer, which highlights where parks exist, how accessible they are, and where park gaps are concentrated. Small group members agreed that the 10Minute Walkshed data would be useful for general exploration of park gaps but should be used with caution at finer scales where accessibility barriers may exist

• Tree canopy coverage

• Pierce County’s Equity Index

Initially, the decision was made to use the TPL 10-Minute Walksheds to highlight park gaps and WDFW’s HRLC data to map tree canopy. Pierce County’s Equity Index was included in the web application within the “Other Reference Layers” group. It was later determined that the County is updating their parks data and conducted a parks gap analysis which should be used instead of TPL within the WebApp. A final list of layers considered is provided below in Table 7.

TABLE 7. URBAN GREEN SPACE DATA SUMMARY

Data Layer

Impervious Surfaces

Fish-Bearing Streams

Pierce County No

WDFW No

Equity Index

Parks

TPL Parks

TPL 10-Minute Walksheds

Tree Coverage and Height/HRLC

Cities and Urban Growth Areas

Pierce County No

Pierce County No

TPL Yes

Captured in WDFW HRLC dataLink to data

Redundant with Floodplains and Aquatic Corridor layersLink to data

Included with “Other Reference Layers”Link to data

TPL used instead since linked to 10Minute WalkshedsLink to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

TPL Yes

WDFW Yes

Pierce County Yes

GIS Methods for Creating Indicator Layer

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Similar to the Nearshore/Marine land category, an indicator layer was not developed for the Urban Green Space land category. Instead, the four “Used” layers listed in Table 7 were added to the web application as reference layers. Both the TPL Parks and TPL 10-Minute Walksheds layers were clipped to Pierce County. The Tree Coverage and Height layer was derived from the HRLC Trees layer used in the Forests land category. Polygons were clipped to the Cities and Urban Growth Areas layer, then dissolved into five height classes to reduce file size and to maintain consistency with classes used in other forest-related layers. The Cities and Urban Growth Areas layer was included as a standalone layer, symbolized by grouping all “DESC_” types except ‘Rural Unincorporated’, ‘Rural Federal Land’, and ‘Urban Federal Land’, which are not shown on the web application.

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: TPL Parks

• All attributes remained the same as the original TPL Parks dataset. TPL Parks data schema is available for download as part of the ParkServe Dataset

Layer: TPL 10-Minute Walksheds

• ‘Park_Name’ = Name of park associated with 10-minute walkshed

Layer: Tree Coverage and Height

• ‘Height_Group’ = Code corresponding to manual bins created for modeled tree height from the WDFW HRLC Trees layer: 1 = 15-75 ft; 2 = 76-96 ft; 3 = 97-118 ft; 4 = 119-136 ft; 5 = 137+ ft

Layer: Cities and Urban Growth Areas

• See Pierce County layer description

MULTI-CATEGORY INDICATORS

Protected Lands

To map lands with some level of protection, various data sources were combined to create a county-wide Protected Lands layer (Table 8). Each polygon includes the following fields: “Description”, “Source”, and “Acres”. All features from Pierce County’s Parks layer were included, assigning the “Name of Facility” attribute from the County layer to the “Description” attribute in the Protected Lands layer.

Parcel numbers associated with Conservation Futures projects were provided to ESA by Pierce County. These parcel numbers were used to join the Conservation Futures data to the Pierce County parcel layer. Each parcel with a successful join was extracted and added to the Protected Lands layer, labeled as ‘Conservation Futures Parcel’ in the “Description” attribute.

A subset of Pierce County parcels was provided to ESA by Nisqually Land Trust (NLT) with an additional attribute noting how the parcel is protected by NLT, including conservation easements, fee ownership, assists, and transfers. Any parcels that were identified as being protected by NLT were added to the Protected Lands layer, labeled as ‘Nisqually Land Trust Parcel’ in the “Description” attribute.

Features from the most recent Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) were used as well. PAD-US polygons are classified in numerous ways, one of which is the GAP Status Code. Protected areas are classified with a GAP Status Code between 1-4, where 1 = managed for biodiversity - disturbance events proceed or are mimicked, 2 = managed for biodiversity - disturbance events suppressed, 3 = managed for multiple uses - subject to extractive (e.g., mining or logging) or OHV use, and 4 = no known mandate for biodiversity protection. All features with a GAP Status of 1, 2, or 3 were added to the Protected Lands layer, assigning the “Local Name” attribute (or “Unit Name” if “Local Name” was blank) from the PAD-US layer to the “Description” attribute.

To ensure the most accurate boundaries were used for significant federal land in Pierce County, ESRI’s authoritative USA Federal Lands layer was used. Specifically, boundaries for Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) were added from the USA Federal Lands dataset.

To ensure other public lands such as research forests were included, features from DNR’s Non-DNR Major Public Lands (NDMPL) database were added to the Protected Lands layer. All NDMPL features were added except where “Management” = ‘Public School’ or ‘Medical Facility’. Additionally, the JBLM and Nisqually NWR boundaries were removed since they were added from the USA Federal Lands database.

TABLE 8. PROTECTED LANDS DATA SUMMARY

Conservation Futures Parcels Pierce County Yes

NLT Parcels

USA Federal Lands ESRI

Protected Lands ESA Yes

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA -

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Protected Lands

• ‘Description’ = Name of property, or description of protected area

• ‘Source’ = Original data source of feature

• ‘Acres’ = Acreage of feature

Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity

Datasets relating to biodiversity and habitat connectivity were mapped in the web application as well. Layers were presented to each small group and were either removed or added based on small group feedback and internal discussions.

Multiple layers were brought into the web application unchanged from their respective AGOL portals – NWI Wetlands, USFWS Critical Habitat (Terrestrial), DNR’s Natural Heritage Program (Current Occurrences), and Pierce County’s Biodiversity Network. Additionally, Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data was obtained from WDFW for Pierce County, which was added to the web application unchanged. Unlike the Protected Lands layer, each layer was kept separate to preserve key attribute details. Table 9 summarizes each layer included in the web application.

Data Layer

Data Source Used ? Reason Excluded Web App Source URL

Critical Habitat –Aquatic NOAA No Areas captured in Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors layers - Link to data

Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) No

CHAT layers were archived in early 2023Link to website

Critical Habitat –Terrestrial USFWS YesAdded from ESRI Living Atlas Link to data

Biodiversity Network

Pierce County YesAdded from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

NWI Wetlands USFWS YesAdded from ESRI Living Atlas Link to data

Priority Habitat and Species WDFW YesAdded to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to website

Natural Heritage Program – Current Occurrences DNR YesAdded from DNR AGOL Link to data

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Critical Habitat - Terrestrial

• See ESRI layer description

Layer: Biodiversity Network

• See Pierce County layer description

Layer: NWI Wetlands

• See ESRI layer description

Layer: Natural Heritage Program – Current Occurrences

• See DNR layer description

Layer: Priority Habitat and Species

• See PHS layer description

Conversion/Development Pressures

The third multi-category indicator includes layers that suggest heightened conversion/development pressures. Initial layers were presented to each small group, during which discussions led to the removal or addition of layers. Similar to the Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity indicator, each layer here was kept separate to preserve key attribute details.

To create the Potential Transportation Projects layer, four different data sources were referenced. All features were combined from Pierce County’s Transportation Improvement Program, WSDOT’s Other Proposed State Routes, and WSDOT’s Ferry Terminal and Proposed State Routes layers. Additionally, features were added from Pierce County’s Infrastructure Project Location layer where “Division” = ‘Roads’. The combined layer was then buffered by 200 feet to create the Potential Transportation Projects layer. Table 10 summarizes each layer included in the web application.

High Capacity Transit Areas were extracted from Pierce County’s Urban Regional Geographies layer. This layer was included to highlight areas where concentrated growth is planned according to Pierce County’s Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Pierce County’s Urban Growth Areas were included, symbolized by grouping all “DESC_” types except ‘Municipal’, ‘Rural Unincorporated’, ‘Rural Federal Land’, and ‘Urban Federal Land’, which are not shown on the web application.

Lastly, Pierce County’s zoning layer was classified by ESA as either development or resource land. Features were classified as resource land using the query “ZON_CUR_CD” IN(‘ARL’, ‘FL’, ‘MTR’, ‘PR’, ‘RF’). All other zoned land was classified as development land.

Potential Transportation Projects

High Capacity Transit Areas

Urban Growth Areas

Development and Resource Lands

Pierce County, WSDOT

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA -

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA -

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Potential Transportation Projects

• ‘Source’ = Original data source of linear feature

Layer: High Capacity Transit Areas

• ‘Acres’ = Acreage of feature

• ‘DESC_’ = Description of feature

Layer: Urban Growth Areas

• See Pierce County layer description

Layer: Development and Resource Lands

• ‘ZON_CUR_CD’ = Zoning Code

• ‘ZON_CUR_NA’ = Zoning name/description

• ‘ACRES’ = Acreage of feature

• ‘Classification’ = Development or resource land

Carbon and Climate

Three layers were included in the Carbon and Climate indicator group. One of the guiding principles of the Land Conservation Plan is carbon sequestration. To capture this topic, two raster layers from The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Resilient Land Mapping Tool were included in the web application. One layer maps estimated forest ecosystem carbon sequestration as of 2010, while the other shows potential forest ecosystem carbon sequestration between 2010 and 2050, both calculated in metric tons per acre. Additionally, a layer showing a 2-ft sea level rise scenario from NOAA was added to the web application to reflect potential impacts to the shoreline.

Data Layer

Conserving Nature’s Stage/ Resilient Terrestrial Landscapes in the Pacific Northwest

Data Source Used ?

TNC No

Land Carbon USGS No

2010 Forest Carbon Sequestration (metric tons per acre)

2010-2050 Potential Forest Carbon Sequestration (metric tons per acre)

2-ft Sea Level Rise

Coarse resolution, some elements only applicable to terrestrial areasLink to website

GIS Data not readily available; used TNC layers instead - -

TNC Yes -

TNC Yes -

NOAA Yes -

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: Forest Carbon Sequestration (2010)

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to web map

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to web map

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA Link to data

• ‘Value’ = Estimated 2010 carbon sequestration including aboveground, coarse woody debris, and soil.

Layer: Potential Forest Carbon Sequestration (2010-2050)

• ‘Value’ = Estimated increase in carbon sequestration assuming no disturbances (harvest, fire, development) to the forests after 2010. This was calculated by subtracting the 2010 carbon stock from the 2050 carbon stock.

Layer: 2-ft Sea Level Rise

• No unique attributes

Other Reference Layers

The final group of layers included in the web application includes miscellaneous other reference layers that may be informative for users. This includes the JBLM boundary as well as Pierce County’s Watersheds and Equity Index layers. These three layers are summarized below in Table 12.

JBLM

Watersheds Pierce County Yes

Equity Index Pierce County Yes

Web Application Layer and Attribute Details

Layer: JBLM

• No unique attributes

Layer: Watersheds

• See Pierce County layer description

Layer: Equity Index

• See Pierce County layer description

POTENTIAL FUTURE ADDITIONS

Added to Pierce County AGOL by ESA -

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Added from Pierce County AGOL Link to data

Many datasets are either currently in development or could be further explored that may provide a significant upgrade or addition to layers currently included in the web application once available (Table 13). Any future changes to the web application will be managed by Pierce County.

Update prairies layer following full survey of sites across the county

Available GIS data is outdated (remnant prairies are mapped in areas that have been recently developed). A new survey needs to be completed before a

Prairies and Farmland

Incorporate DOD’s priority areas from the JBLM Army Compatible Use Buffer Plan JBLM

Floodplains and Aquatic Corridors Stream temperature

Nearshore/Marine

Nearshore/Marine

Nearshore habitat inventory and assessment

Shellfish Protection Districts

All Wildlife Connectivity and Corridors

Forests, Farmland, Floodplains, Nearshore/Marine

Forests

Urban Green Space

Urban Green Space

robust GIS layer is available.

Data in development

South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group Exists for Puyallup watershed, not available for rest of County

Pierce County Data in development

WA Department of Health GIS data not available

WA Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group

Parcels enrolled in County tax incentive programs Pierce County

Priority areas for new Puyallup Land Trust/Community Forest in development

Existing Green Stormwater Infrastructure inventory

Requires further investigation to explore how to best integrate this dataset

Property owners can unenroll, privacy issues for landowners.

TBD Does not exist yet

Pierce County Data in development

Urban heat islands CAPA Strategies Data in development

All Parks gaps analysis BERK/Parks Team Data in development

All Parks network by category BERK/Parks Team Data in development

All Landsat heat analysis (County-wide) BERK/Long-Range Planning Team

County has data; being approved by Long Range Planning

References

Coastal Geologic Services. 2020. Beach Strategies for Puget Sound, Phase 2 Summary Report. Prepared for the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bellingham, Washington. 79 pp.

Noland, S. and Carver, L. April 2011. Prairie Landowner Guide for Western Washington. https://cascadiaprairieoak.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Prairie-Landowner-Guide-Western-WA1.pd

Appendix B

Expert Small Group & PSRC Conservation Goals

Expert Small Group Conservation Recommendations

The Background on the Land Categories section describes the historic extent and previous loss of high conservation value lands in Pierce County. While it is important to reflect on conservation losses and remember that future protections are within a highly altered landscape, the Land Conservation Plan is a forward-looking document. The objective of this plan is to prevent further conversion and follow the guiding principles established by the Steering Committee. As climate change continues to alter the landscape, it is critical to consider where changes are likely to occur and identify the conservation strategies needed to slow or mitigate these changes.

ESA developed the following goals for each land category based on the indicator layers in the GIS analysis and recommendations from the steering committee and expert small groups.

Goals include quantitative acreage or goal statements for each land category:

Forests: Conserve 51,161 acres. This goal represents the highest conservation value lands in the forest indicator GIS layer (ratings of 4 or above) not already conserved.

Farmland: Maintain 50,000 acres of farmland in Pierce County. The goal statement was developed by the expert small group to acknowledge that additional farmland should not be lost in the County, but it does not prioritize certain types or locations. Using a variety of tools in concert should protect land and increase agricultural viability in the County. See the Conservation Strategies section for those details.

Prairies: Conserve 4,287 acres. This goal represents all currently mapped unprotected prairie in the county, acknowledging that it is viewed as high-value and under threat of conversion. While this number overlays existing protections over the prairie indicator layer in GIS, there is acknowledgement that prairie can be restored in degraded areas with the right soils. This goal was based on existing data layers that may be outdated and don’t full capture more recent development of prairies. Therefore, the true extent of remaining prairie may be a smaller number. Surveying and mapping the full extent of prairies in the County is needed to focus conservation efforts.

Nearshore/Marine Shoreline: Conserve 39 miles. This number represents the areas that rate as protect high and protect moderate layer of the nearshore/marine indicator GIS layer (Figure 6) in the shoreline also designated as natural or conservancy lands in the County’s Shoreline Master Plan. The linear calculation is 39 miles.

Floodplains: Conserve 21,717 acres. This number was arrived at by removing the alreadyconserved areas from the high-priority salmon areas in the GIS indicator layer for floodplains.

Urban Open Space: More parks, canopy cover, and green spaces are needed, but the amount and priority locations should be arrived at through close work with communities (i.e., master planning activities). The qualitative goals are to increase the number of new parks in areas with poor Trust for Public Land and/or PC Parks walkshed scores, as well as improve tree retention and increase tree cover, particularly in urban heat islands.

Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Conservation Needs

PSRC’s Regional Open Space Conservation Plan (2018) assessed conservation needs across the four-county region (Pierce, Kitsap, King, and Snohomish counties). The conservation needs were analyzed by watershed using a variety of datasets to arrive at the acres in need of protection. PSRC refers to land categories as open space types: farmland, working forest, aquatic systems, natural lands, and regional trails. Some are the same or similar to those used in the Pierce County Land Conservation Plan process (e.g. farmlands), and others are higher level (e.g. natural areas). Because PSRC identified conservation need by watershed or Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15), additional analysis was needed to arrive at Conservation Needs for Pierce County. The conservation needs amounts and definition identified in the PSRC Open Space Plan differ from the Land Conservation Plan’s land categories in a few ways, as noted below.

• PSRC’s Working Forest Conservation Needs for Pierce County: 54,180 acres.

o This open space type only includes working forests.

o Non-working forests are captured in PSRC’s Natural Lands.

o The Land Conservation Plan combines working and natural forests.

• PSRC’s Farmlands Conservation Needs for Pierce County: 26,140 acres.

o These account for the acres enrolled in tax incentive programs.

o These represent areas the PSRC sees as threatened and in active need of conservation action, which could be through tools like easements.

o The Pierce County Land Conservation Plan goal is focused on retaining overall farmland through active and passive conservation measures.

• PSRC’s Aquatic Systems Conservation Needs for Pierce County: 76,504 acres.

o This combines freshwater and marine areas.

o The Pierce County Land Conservation Plan considers floodplains as a separate goal and highlights the priority areas for flood risk reduction and salmon recovery efforts.

o The Pierce County Land Conservation Plan considers nearshore and marine areas separately.

• PSRC’s Natural Lands Conservation Needs for Pierce County: 33,797 acres.

o These combine several habitat types from prairies to natural forests.

o Prairies are considered a separate land category in this place due their importance to the culture of local tribes, their rarity in the region, and their unique and at-risk locations within Pierce County.

In addition to the slightly different categories, the PSRC plan notes that the categories overlap. This helps ensure that wildlife corridors are accounted for and gaps are not missed, but creates a more difficult system for long-term tracking of progress. As it stands, the Pierce County land categories could easily roll up into the PSRC Open Space types and be considered as part of a regional effort.

Other Counties

The PSRC’s Open Space Conservation Plan originally focused on watershed rather than county boundaries. This aligns with salmon recovery and other watershed planning, but county-level conservation plans are key to making progress.

King County’s Land Conservation Initiative follows the PSRC land categories but developed their own set of goals and priorities. The County Executive established a goal of 65,000 acres within 30 years, or within a single generation.

Snohomish County is currently working toward their own Land Conservation Strategy to be completed by 2025. Thurston County is developing a Working Lands Conservation Strategy to be completed in 2026. The Thurston County effort will be important for coordination in the Nisqually Watershed, particularly for prairie habitats on farmland and working forest conservation.