In the email below, we witness Ecology's reaction to Kenn Brooks and other citizens who dare to challenge Ecology (in this specific case, over SMP science, a prelude to our battles to come). It is a typical Ecology reaction, typically organized by Erik Stockdale, to typically malign anyone who confronts Ecology authority, and in typical style it involves way too many public officials discrediting citizens for no apparent reason other than the fact that the citizens are thinking for themselves. Like Delta Force going after terrorists, the Ecology pseudo-science squad deploys to crush independently minded scientists before they spread.
While the email below is about the SMP, Ecology approaches the CAOs and SMP with the same attitude. After all, the CAOs are really just the warm-up act for the SMP. Unlike the SMP, however, Ecology (Gordon White) asserts that the agency has no authority over the CAOs, which is a little puzzling considering they have a whole division of people working on nothing but matters related to it. Fork-tongued Ecology always seems to spend a considerable proportion of time on topics that they profess to have no involvement in. Maybe that's why Stockdale suggests the entire email thread should be deleted.
As a postscript, for a "public" servant Stockdale has an awful lot of conversations that he's thinks should be private. After looking through hundreds of Ecology emails, I wish I had a penny for every instance where Stockdale admonishes, "Please do not forward."
From: Stockdale, Erik (ECY)
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 4:07 PM
To: McMillan, Andy (ECY); Lund, Perry (ECY)
Cc: Hruby, Tom (ECY)
Subject: RE: holaAndy, I just tried reaching you on your cell. Let¹s talk tomorrow.Tom, please read this thread from the bottom. Can either Tom or Perry set up a conference call? I can be reached at 206-524-6858. 1pm works well for me.At some point I think we should all delete this email thread.Thanks, ErikI am available Friday between 1-3. I recommend we include Tom in the initial conversation unless you guys think otherwise.I'm in the field today. Here tomorrow. I hope you're feeling better, Erik.
From: Stockdale, Erik (ECY)
Sent: Wed 3/31/2010 6:38 PM
To: Lund, Perry (ECY); McMillan, Andy (ECY)
Subject: RE: holaYes, agreed.I¹ll be working from home tomorrow as I¹ve got a raging head cold. Are you two available for a phone call? I¹d say let¹s start with the three of us, and Kathy if she¹s available, and then take some suggestions to Gordon.Thanks, ErikThanks, Erik. We should continue this conversation, but it needs to be broader than us. Kathy must be involved, and Gordon had some good ideas.
Perry J Lund
From: McMillan, Andy (ECY)
To: Stockdale, Erik (ECY)
Cc: Lund, Perry (ECY)
Sent: Wed Mar 31 15:51:08 2010
Subject: RE: holaErikI am disappointed to hear what Kenn had to say. I believe that many of the statements you highlighted are misleading or untrue.I will be glad to talk with you, Tom , Perry etc. to figure out how we respond.AndyHey Andy, hope you are doing OK. You missed an interesting meeting last week. Okay, I lie some times.We (Gordon, Tom, Paula, Perry, Kathy) met with Ken Brooks, Don Flora et al. in Port Hadlock to discuss the Jefferson County SMP that is before Ecology for review.He said some stuff that I don¹t think we should leave unanswered. I¹d like to go over what he said, pull in Tom Hruby, and consider setting up a conference call with Ken. Though he says he¹s retired, he keeps popping up in Bellevue, San Juan, Kitsap, and other places.Some highlights:- We ignored Ken¹s supplemental BAS document, and our response was an unscientific diatribe.- You told Ken that Ecology didn¹t want to litigate the Jefferson County CAO. ³Andy said let¹s negotiate², implying that his supplemental BAS was a problem for us and we were concerned that we wouldn¹t win and would rather settle.- 14 references didn¹t support the conclusions made by Ecology.- Sheldon et al. was incomplete because we ignored key documents.- He hasn¹t seen any scientific rigor in Ecology¹s guidance documents.- He¹s appalled by the lack of intellectual rigor and scientific integrity in Ecology¹s work.- We haven¹t done our homework, period.- There¹s no proof that existing buffers in Jefferson County don¹t work.- He wants ³showing of harm² to be rigorous.- There¹s no mention of the toxicity of tropalones in wood in our BAS (implying this was a fatal flaw).- Terrestrial insects, shade don¹t support salmon in marine shorelines.- The role of large woody debris in salmonid ecology is misguided. There isn¹t a tree to be seen in the copper river in Alaska, yet the river teems with salmon. Therefore wood isn¹t necessary.- ³Who says that 90% removal of a particular pollutant is what a buffer should be designed for?²- ³It¹s incomprehensibleŠ with all the criticism of Ecology¹s so-called peer reviewed BAS that the agency continues to push it on local governments.²Perry may have other notes of some of his statements.Am not feeling well and am going to head home to rest. Pls. don¹t forward this email.Let¹s talk in the near future about a response strategy.Thanks, Erik