INITIAL INFORMATION TABLES FOR SEVEN POLICY ISSUES
AND THEIR POTENTIAL UTILITY FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
THE RESEARCH COMPONENT FOR
“A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE
TULALIP TRIBES AND ADJACENT OR OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS”
January 9, 2013
Prepared by:
Joseph A. Uravitch
Consultant on Coastal and Marine Policy, Planning and Management
1701 N. Roosevelt Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
(703) 533-3497
Prepared on behalf of:
The Tulalip Tribes of Washington
Terry Williams and Kit Rawson
Department of Natural Resources
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip, Washington 98271
(360) 716-4633
Deliverable for Task 2: Contract #GL-5500-50038-84120, as amended
CONTENTS
Page
A. The Project
1
B. Focal Issues for Information Collection and Analysis
2
C. Geographic Scope
2
D. Jurisdictions to Be Analyzed in 2013
3
E. Descriptions of Task 2 Deliverables Provided
3
•
Deliverable #1: Report
•
Deliverable #2:
3
o Tabular Content 1: Policy issues as the organizing principle
3
o Tabular Content 2: Jurisdictions as the organizing principle
5
F. Use of Issue Tables
7
G. Next Steps
8
Appendix 1: Map of Study Area and Selected Jurisdictions
9
A. THE PROJECT
This summary paper and an initial seven sets of information tables provided in electronic
format are the final 2012 deliverable for Task 2 for this project. They include:
1. Three copies of the information tables organized in two different organizational formats
on CDs in Word©:
a. With jurisdictions as the organizing principle; and
b. With policy issues as the organizing principle.
2. This summary paper is provided in two formats:
a. As a hard copy document; and
b. As a PDF file on the CDs.
Forty two (42) of the sixty three (63) information tables were developed in 2012. The
remaining twenty one (21) tables will be completed in early 2013. The status for the nine
jurisdictions is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Tulalip Tribe (all seven issue tables completed in 2012)
State of Washington (two issue tables completed in 2012)
Island County (six tables completed in 2012)
King County (all seven tables completed in 2012)
San Juan County (six tables completed in 2012)
Snohomish County (all seven issue tables completed in 2012)
Arlington City, Snohomish County (2013 task)
Darrington City, Snohomish County (2013 task)
Stanwood City, Snohomish County (all seven issue tables completed in 2012)
They will be supplemented by the additional 21 tables for seven focal issues in 2013. The 2012
and 2013 tables will be used in 2013 to prepare the final project report, A Comparative Analysis
of Resource Management and Restoration Policies and Authorities of the Tulalip Tribes and
Adjacent or Overlapping Jurisdictions.
The project, as modified through discussions during 2012, is divided into four tasks:
•
•
•
Task 1 (completed): Defining the geographic and policy issue scope 1.
Task 2 (final tables to be completed in 2013): Collection of information pertinent to the
policy issues and jurisdictions.
Task 3 (planned 2013 action): Analysis of the information tables and development of
draft recommendations.
1
Geographic area and jurisdictions were defined in the July 15, 2012 work product, Scoping Document for “A Comparative
Analysis of Resource Management and Restoration Policies and Authorities of the Tulalip Tribes and Adjacent or Overlapping
Jurisdictions”. Policy issues to be analyzed were defined in December 4-8, 2011, meetings during a review of the Task 1 work
product.
Page 1 of 9
•
Task 4 (planned 2013 action): Writing the final report.
The analysis and final report will be developed based on research, questions identified during
the analysis, and iterative consultation with tribal staff regarding priorities. The analysis and
report are being prepared from the perspective of comparing the authority of the Tulalip Tribes
with the authorities or policies of the selected local jurisdictions and state agencies in regard to
“ecosystem protection, management and restoration, with a focus on habitat protection,
management and restoration, particularly in high priority salmon recovery areas2”. It will
include recommendations pertinent to the issues analyzed.
The final project will result in three products:
• An analytical paper addressing the seven policy issue areas;
• A set of data tables useful for a quick initial universal review before delving into specific
source documents, for “quick study” by new staff, and general references for specific
issue areas; and
• An electronic copy of source documents or a web reference.
B. FOCAL ISSUES FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Six focal issues were identified initially for information collection and analysis during December
4-8, 2011, meetings with Tribal staff in Tulalip, Washington. A seventh issue, “water quantity,”
was added to the project as a result of discussions held on November 12-17, 2012. These seven
issues are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Salmon Recovery
Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
Wetland Critical Areas
Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
Water Quality
Shorelands and Tidelands
Water Quantity (added November 14, 2012).
C. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
The geographic scope of this project was defined in Task 1 starting with the Tulalip Tribes’ Usual
and Accustomed Areas, Tulalip Reservation, and inclusive and adjacent land jurisdictions. The
final study area selected is a subset of this geographic area and jurisdictions. It is based on four
watersheds of high priority to the Tulalip Tribes’ salmon recovery efforts and key jurisdictions
located within them. A map of the study area defined in Task 1 and modified to add county and
city names is provided as Appendix 1.
2
Contract #GL-5500-50038-84120, as amended
Page 2 of 9
D. JURISDICTIONS TO BE ANALYZED IN 2013
Detailed analysis and development of recommendations will focus on nine jurisdictions in the
Snohomish, Stillaguamish, Island, and San Juan watersheds using the 63 information tables
developed for seven policy issues. Information tables for the following jurisdictions will be
analyzed and compared:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Tulalip Tribes
State of Washington
Island County
King County
San Juan County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County (Stillaguamish Watershed)
Darrington City, Snohomish County (near headwaters of Stillaguamish Watershed)
Stanwood city, Snohomish County (Stillaguamish Watershed)
E. DESCRIPTIONS OF TASK 2 DELIVERABLES PROVIDED
Deliverable #1: This report is deliverable #1. It is provided in hard copy and electronic format.
Deliverable #2: This consists of 3 copies of a CD containing an electronic copy of this report and
the 42 existing information tables provided in two different organizational formats in Word©.
An additional 21 tables will be prepared in 2013 and merged with the existing 42 tables and
provided as a final deliverable. Specifics of what are provided now and to be developed and
added in 2013 are summarized below. Tables completed in 2012 are shown in bold. Tables to
be completed in 2013 are shown in italics.
Tabular Content 1: Policy issues as the organizing principle
1. Salmon Recovery
The Tulalip Tribes
State of Washington – 2013 task
Island County
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County
2. Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
The Tulalip Tribes
Page 3 of 9
State of Washington – 2013 task
Island County
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County
3. Wetland Critical Areas
The Tulalip Tribes
State of Washington
Island County
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County
4. Aquatic Areas (including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams)
The Tulalip Tribes
State of Washington
Island County
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County
5. Water Quality
The Tulalip Tribes
State of Washington – 2013 task
Island County
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County
6. Shorelands and Tidelands
The Tulalip Tribes
Page 4 of 9
State of Washington – 2013 task
Island County
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County
7. Water Quantity
The Tulalip Tribes
State of Washington
Island County - 2013 task
King County
Snohomish County
Arlington City, Snohomish County – 2013 task
Darrington City, Snohomish County - 2013 task
Stanwood City, Snohomish County
San Juan County - 2013 task
Tabular Content 2: Jurisdictions as the organizing principle
1. The Tulalip Tribes
a. Salmon Recovery
b. Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
c. Wetland Critical Areas
d. Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
e. Water Quality
f. Shorelands and Tidelands
g. Water Quantity
2. State of Washington
a. Salmon Recovery – 2013 task
b. Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas – 2013 task
c. Wetland Critical Areas
d. Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams – 2013 task
e. Water Quality – 2013 task
f. Shorelands and Tidelands – 2013 task
g. Water Quantity
3. Island County
a. Salmon Recovery
b. Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
Page 5 of 9
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Wetland Critical Areas
Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
Water Quality
Shorelands and Tidelands
Water Quantity – 2013 task
4. King County
1) Salmon Recovery
2) Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
3) Wetland Critical Areas
4) Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
5) Water Quality
6) Shorelands and Tidelands
7) Water Quantity
5. Snohomish County
1) Salmon Recovery
2) Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
3) Wetland Critical Areas
4) Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
5) Water Quality
6) Shorelands and Tidelands
7) Water Quantity
6. Arlington City, Snohomish County
1) Salmon Recovery – 2013 task
2) Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas – 2013 task
3) Wetland Critical Areas – 2013 task
4) Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams – 2013 task
5) Water Quality – 2013 task
6) Shorelands and Tidelands – 2013 task
7) Water Quantity – 2013 task
7. Darrington City, Snohomish County
Salmon Recovery – 2013 task
Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas – 2013 task
Wetland Critical Areas – 2013 task
Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams – 2013 task
Water Quality – 2013 task
Shorelands and Tidelands – 2013 task
Water Quantity – 2013 task
8. Stanwood city, Snohomish County
1) Salmon Recovery
Page 6 of 9
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
Wetland Critical Areas
Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
Water Quality
Shorelands and Tidelands
Water Quantity
9. San Juan County
a. Salmon Recovery
b. Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas
c. Wetland Critical Areas
d. Aquatic Areas, including marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams
e. Water Quality
f. Shorelands and Tidelands
g. Water Quantity – 2013 task
F. USE OF ISSUE TABLES
The two information table formats on the CDs were developed to enable a user to explore the
information in two ways, either by focus issue or jurisdiction:
By Focus Issue: For example, if a user wished to review a specific issue such as “wetland
critical areas” over a broad geographic area, opening the “issue format” folder and then
the subfolder for “wetland critical areas” would provide access to the summaries/issue
tables of wetlands laws, regulations, policies, and/or plans related to wetlands for each
of nine jurisdictions.
Folder: Issues
Sub Folder: Wetland Critical Areas
Files: 9 “wetlands critical areas” files/issue tables, one for each
jurisdiction
By Jurisdiction: If a user wished to review the plans or authorities of any or all of the
nine jurisdictions, such as Snohomish County, the “jurisdiction format” folder provides
direct access to the files/issue tables for each jurisdiction by opening that jurisdiction’s
folder and then the individual issue table files within that folder.
Folder: Jurisdictions
Sub Folder: Snohomish County
Files: 7 “issue” files/tables, one for each of the focal issues
While the enclosed tables are ready for use now, as noted earlier, only 42 of the 63 tables have
been completed at the end of 2012. Therefore, although many analyses can be conducted,
Page 7 of 9
certain complete analyses of specific issues or jurisdictions may not be able to be undertaken at
this time since some information is not yet available. However, all 63 tables will be completed
in 2013. Section E., Descriptions of Task 2 Deliverables, of this report identifies which issue
tables were completed in 2012 and which remain to be completed in 2013.
It also should be noted that the information collected for this project was based on their
apparent relevance to the focus of this study, “ecosystem protection, management and
restoration, with a focus on habitat protection, management and restoration, particularly in
high priority salmon recovery areas.” The issue tables are not total duplications of laws,
regulations, plans, etc., but are selected subsets of those documents that appear pertinent to
the focus of this project. However, each source is referenced to enable the reader to quickly
identify that source and seek the full document via the internet if the user’s purposes goes
beyond ecosystem, habitat, and salmon recovery interests.
The information tables are useful for a variety of purposes. They provide information for an
initial review of a policy issue or jurisdiction. They can be used as part of the training of new
employees or existing employees newly assigned to a project on an issue or geographic area.
They also provide a starting point for more in depth research beyond the focus of this project
since source documents or websites are provided for each issue. A completion date is
provided in the footer of each table to allow quick reference to potential post-preparation
revisions as laws, regulations, plans and other source documents are amended.
The utility/”searchability” of this information might be enhanced in the future through selected
conversion of the Word© tables to Microsoft Excel© and then to a database management
system (DMS) software such as Microsoft Access© or Filemaker Pro©. Database management
software is a program that stores information and then allows you or other users to search,
retrieve, sort, revise, analyze and order data. Such conversions might be worthwhile for a
specific or priority jurisdiction that is engaged often. However, this would take some rethinking
of the simply organized existing Word© tables, breaking them down into potentially searchable
categories such as “standards”, “buffers”, “mitigation”, etc. for each chosen issue. The tables
themselves would only provide the initial source of information. It would also require technical
development support and training of staff in use the DMS software selected.
G. CONCLUSION/NEXT STEPS
This project is planned for completion no later than September 15, 2013. This work includes:
• Completion of the 21 final issue tables,
• Travel to Tulalip February 4-6, 2013 for consultation and discussion,
• Analysis of the information tables and development of draft recommendations,
• Travel to Tulalip late July-early August 2013 to discuss the draft report, and
• Writing and delivery of the final report and final information table CDs.
Page 8 of 9
Appendix 1: Study Area and Selected Jurisdictions Defined in Task 1 3
San Juan
County
< Stanwood
Arlington
Darrington >
Island
Snohomish
County
County
King
County
3
This figure was identified as Figure 4 in the Task 1 final report. County and city have since been added. The figure
will be revised for inclusion in the final project report.
Page 9 of 9