Opinion ID: 2623642
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Substantive Errors

Text: ¶ 28 We next address the county's substantive challenges to the Board's 2005 decision. The Board determined that the county's revised ordinance failed to bring its monitoring and adaptive management processes into compliance with the GMA. It concluded that the monitoring process provided for in the 2004 Ordinance lacked the necessary benchmarks for comparing the data it gathered. 2005 Compliance Order, 2005 GMHB LEXIS 2, at -26. The Board concluded, additionally, that even if the monitoring process was adequate in detecting degradation of critical areas, the ordinance did not have an effective adaptive management process that was capable of responding to the detected harm. Id. at -33. ¶ 29 The monitoring program set forth in the 2004 Ordinance consists of two components: a water quality monitoring program and a salmon habitat monitoring program. The county contends that both programs describe in great detail the schedule for monitoring, methods for selecting sites, monitoring parameters and protocols (how and what will be measured), quality control procedures, and data assessment procedures. Skagit County's Opening Br. at 13. This contention overlooks the fact that the Board took issue with how the county proposed to use the data it collected. More specifically, the Board held that the county could not sufficiently analyze the data because its monitoring program lacked appropriate benchmarks to compare data as it was collected. See 2005 Compliance Order, 2005 GMHB LEXIS 2, at -26. ¶ 30 We agree with the Board that the county has not established appropriate benchmarks. In fact, the county is unable to produce a description of any such benchmarks, despite its statement that the County's program does include sufficient benchmarks. Skagit County's Opening Br. at 50. That same brief contains an assertion by the county that it cannot adopt benchmarks because salmon habitat monitoring program science has not established[,] and the state has not adopted[,] specific numbers or quantities to use as benchmarks. Id. at 54. Any deficiencies in the State's monitoring process do not, however, excuse the deficiencies of the county's monitoring process. A benchmark is needed to compare data as it is recorded. Data that cannot be analyzed, via comparison to the benchmark, is essentially meaningless because a harm cannot be detected unless there is a benchmark by which to define a harm in the first place. ¶ 31 We are also unpersuaded by the county's argument that in the absence of an adequate benchmark, it does the next best thing by proposing to monitor current conditions in an effort to develop a benchmark in the future. Skagit County's Opening Br. at 56. No indication is given as to when this process will be complete. Instead, the county merely notes that it will take at least three years to complete the initial monitoring of current conditions before a benchmark is established. Id. At best, then, the county can provide full compliance with the GMA three years after it went before the Board and argued that it was compliant. We find no reason to reverse the Board's holding that such an assurance by the county is insufficient. [8] ¶ 32 The issue of the benchmarks in the monitoring program dovetails into what the role of adaptive management is in the protection of critical areas. When a monitoring system detects newly discovered risks to critical areas from land use or development, adaptive management is a process used to confront the scientific uncertainty surrounding them. WAC 365-195-920. As part of the GMA's regulations describe it, critical areas regulations are treated as experiments that are purposefully monitored and evaluated to determine whether they are effective and, if not, how they should be improved to increase their effectiveness. WAC 365-195-920(2). An effective adaptive management program thus relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions achieve their objectives. Id. In short, under GMA regulations, local governments must either be certain that their critical areas regulations will prevent harm or be prepared to recognize and respond effectively to any unforeseen harm that arises. In this respect, adaptive management is the second part of the process initiated by adequate monitoring. ¶ 33 In its 2005 Compliance Order, the Board did not approve the county's adaptive management program. [9] It noted that clear goals, objectives, performance standards, and a well-defined monitoring program are essential to a successful adaptive management program and that the county did not demonstrate them. AR at 1312-13. Because we agree with the Board that the monitoring system set forth in the 2005 Ordinance by the county is fatally flawed, we need not reach the question of whether its adaptive management system complies with the GMA. Without a compliant monitoring system, the adaptive management program cannot be compliant as the county cannot adequately adapt its management of critical areas if it is unable to adequately detect changes to them.