Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Objectives And Metrics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force debates how to make forest-resilience objectives measurable and what threats to prioritize
Summary
Members discussed the need to make objectives measurable, suggested performance standards, reviewed external examples and scientific support, and flagged resource, political, and authority constraints such as alluvial-fan and development controls.
Task force members used the meeting to press for clearer, measurable objectives and to explore how to define baselines and performance standards for Whatcom County’s forest resilience plan.
Triangle staff presented examples from other efforts —including the Washington Shrubstep Restoration and Resiliency Initiative and the King County 30‑year strategic plan—showing how objectives can include time-bound, measurable targets. Kate walked the group through an example objective from the Shrubstep project: "reduce the present day adjusted dollar amount of damage, number of structures burned and families displaced resulting from wildland fires ... below the 10 year average by 5% for 10 consecutive years beginning in 2029." She used the example to show how qualifiers make objectives trackable.
Several members pushed for measurable baselines and performance standards. Ellen asked, "How do we actually define that? How do we measure that?" and Steven and others urged that subcommittees attempt quantification where feasible. Dave, the Triangle team writer, encouraged subcommittees to "take a run at trying to do some of these definitions, and to be as quantitative as you think might be appropriate or feasible in the context of a kind of, you know, high level plan like this."
Members also debated the scope of what the county can control. Barry urged focusing on regional priorities and on measures the county can influence, such as land-use controls and incentives for landowners, and reiterated that counties can use police powers to restrict development in hazardous locations: "The county has full authority to say, here's a public threat and safety, and ... we're not gonna let you build, out over the water in a, you know, in a hazardous condition. So it's prohibited, and it sticks." Other members noted legal, political and financial obstacles to regulatory approaches and suggested incentives may be more politically feasible in some cases.
Subcommittees were asked to finalize objectives in upcoming meetings and to return proposed objectives to staff by March 3 for inclusion in the March 10 packet. Members discussed two approaches to drafting measurable objectives: write the metric directly into the objective (time and percent/dollar/acre targets) or write the objective and associate an external performance standard. Several members favored separating objectives from performance standards as a formatting choice, but the group agreed that every objective should have an identifiable metric or performance standard.
The meeting included substantial technical discussion —species selection, thinning, monitoring and diversity were cited as characteristics of climate-informed active management—while noting that some baselines (for example, overall forest resilience today) will be difficult to quantify and may require additional analysis.
No formal votes were taken on specific objectives at this meeting; the session produced direction to subcommittees, examples to follow, and staff deadlines for submitting refined objectives.
