Ocean/Envir 260 The Cascade Agenda (and related issues) Lecture #20: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhhbnDUM6W4

Cascade Agenda Led by Cascade Land Conservancy Initiated in 2005 Preceded by “Cascade Dialogues” 3,500 citizens, experts, leaders Supported 100-year vision, starting NOW The Cascade Agenda focuses on Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kittitas counties

Goal Minimizing footprint of doubling current population Urban and rural sprawl Loss of “working lands” Isolation of protected lands Images of central Puget Sound in 2100, with population growth allowed to sprawl (top) or contained largely within existing urban growth boundaries (bottom)

Key Components Conservation of additional 1.26 million acres Foothill forests, farmland, riparian/floodplain, parks, natural heritage Vibrant cities Dialog over rural growth Market-based funding mechanisms

Conservation: forests Build on 2.3M acres already protected Conserve 93% designated “working forest” 777,000 acres Additional 5% permanent preserve 48,000 acres Focus on foothills: most productive, at-risk Private forest lands across 4-county area. Deeper orange are easiest opportunities—large parcels and/or adjacent to public land.. Yellow are at most risk of conversion.

Conservation: natural heritage, farmland Conserve 85% of designated farmland 106K acres west-side Strengthen farm economy Wildlife corridors, major habitat types 140,000 acres CLC role: acquisition Currently designated farmland across 4-county area; 2/3 is in Kittitas

Vibrant cities Key to success: CLC roles: 90%+ new residents want to live in cities CLC roles: Support good design, planning Expand, improve parks 30K acres, urban 83K acres, “destination” Stewardship Green Cities Partnership Excerpt from 2008 progress report, Cascade Agenda

Rural Dialogs Recognizes rural sprawl as key issue Fragmentation Water withdrawals Downstream impacts Flows, water quality Biological health Challenge: conflict between solutions and “rural character”? EPA graphic used by Cascade Land Conservancy, illustrating reduced stormwater runoff from more compact development

Conservation villages Current Regulation: Traditional Rural Development 213 residential lots 0 acres conserved Current Regulation: Cluster Development 306 residential lots 750 acres conserved New Strategy: Conservation Villages 200 residential lots 1,965 acres conserved

Political Challenges for Rural Priorities Widespread rural view: “Urban residents trashed their own, now they want to ‘save’ nature by restricting my rights” Rural Republicans vs. urban Democrats Cultural individualism Compensation sought for property restrictions Political protesters against King County ordinance to preserve rural forest cover

Political Challenges for Rural Priorities Rural disenfranchisement Rooted in facts: Counties govern land use in unincorporated (rural) areas Fewer rural voters than urban across whole counties => Officials elected by urban voters govern rural land use Rural secession efforts post- GMA, failed in courts Distrust continues Petition to create “Freedom County,” seceding rural areas from Snohomish County, mid-1990s

Market-based tools Examples: Transfer of development rights No/little development allowed on “sending property” More development allowed on “receiving property” Goal: private market Community forest bonds Tax-exempt if harvest meets high stewardship standards Payments for ecological services Snoqualmie Valley, with King County TDR purchase (above); likely future without (below)

Economics of land conversion Land can be used for multiple purposes Low-density development allowed in forest, ag zones Conflicts with resource use, ecological values Relative values determine actual use Higher costs, lower revenues for farming or forestry => residential development becomes more attractive “Rural estates” have become their own real estate category; listings from 11/19/10

Critique Focused on ecologically least important part of region Need for new funding, which addresses “negative externalities” Many issues beside land conservation to address “Fair” = “…build on existing legal framework”?

CLC response Reaching out across region “Big tent” philosophy Olympic Agenda Partnership with other efforts Skagit, Whatcom, etc. “Big tent” philosophy Keep coalition, strong funding Avoid controversial tax, regulatory proposals Focus on what do best Land conservation, market approaches

Recap: Cascade Agenda 100-year vision, but urgent timeline Goal: conserve 1.3 million acres Vibrant cities, rural dialog Market-based, non-regulatory approach Different roles for urban, rural areas in SHARED vision for landscape