Cranking Up the SMP PR Machine

It's wonderful that we have an independent, critical thinking press. We have Orcas Issues. We have the Journal too. And we have the Friends.

Where is the Friends video of this armoring project on Blakely?

If a Tree Falls In a Wood, And the Committee Can't Remember It ...

In several previous posts, the Trojan Heron has covered CAPR's lawsuit about the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). This lawsuit has to do with the alleged secret meetings of the former CAO Implementation Committee, which was comprised of County staff (including a Deputy Prosecutor) and three former Council people. The committee was formed to help shuffle the CAOs along, which are the subject of a separate lawsuit involving the County, the Friends, and the Common Sense Alliance.

Regarding the OPMA and the CAPR lawsuit ... the closed meetings of the CAO Implementation Committee took place regularly for months. CAPR's position is that these meetings should have been open to the public, according to the OPMA, because the committee took action on behalf of the Council in reviewing and discarding CAO options ... and because the committee involved a negative quorum of Council members (three members being sufficient to vote down a proposal).

The County alleges that no actions were taken in these meetings ... nothing happened. There were hundreds of hours of meetings, and nothing substantive occurred. They invited in consultants and staff, but only discussed ministerial functions such as scheduling. There are no meeting minutes, only some hand scribbled notes in addition to emails between staff and committee members. When deposed about the content of the meetings, participants could not recall what they discussed. 

• Lovel Pratt was deposed on January 3, 2013, and she expressed 67 denials of knowledge (63 "I don't recall", 4 "I don't know")
• Richard Fralick was deposed on January 3, 2013, and he expressed 22 denials (21 "I don't recall", 1 "I don't know")
• Patty Miller was deposed on January 4, 2013, and she expressed 63 denials (51 "I don't recall", 12 "I don't know")
• Shireene Hale was deposed on January 17, 2013, and she expressed 100 denials (52 "I don't recall", 31 "I don't know", 17 "I just don't have a specific recollection")

Despite all this "nothing" going on, in a January 2013 Council meeting, the Council spent time in one of their non-secret meetings congratulating themselves on the work they got done in committees and subcommittees. Councilman Stephens even referred to the CAOs directly. Pratt said that she could hardly remember any Council votes where subcommittees didn't get their way.

Yesterday, this case finally reached the Washington Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard. A ruling is still several weeks away. The justices were very engaged and asked good questions yesterday. Several seemed skeptical that the County could spend so much time in secret doing nothing.

They aren't the only ones.

And The Walls Came Tumbling Down

The downfall of Oregon's four-term governor should be a cautionary tale to our Washington politicians, whether they hold office in Olympia or in our local rotten boroughs. It's quite the story, and the Washington Free Beacon has a good summary of the money and political relationships at work in Kitzhaber's downfall. If you read the linked article, imagine the howling there would be if you were to substitute "Koch" for "Steyer" in the report.

Shift WA summarized the situation by saying,

In June 2014, Shift exposed a series of emails that reveal how Jay Inslee’s green agenda is heavily influenced by outside extreme environmental organizations and paid-for political consultants. In fact, Shift discovered that the very environmental organizations caught in the Kitzhaber scandal—the Tom Steyer-fund Energy Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund—are at work in Inslee’s administration. Despite the scandal that unfolded in Oregon and the newfound relevance of Shift’s investigation, most media outlets in Washington State are still not paying attention. Austin Jenkins picked-up on the link between Kitzhaber and Inslee in a recent article for the Northwest News Network, but it’s not enough. Inslee is picking winners and losers, just as Kitzhaber was caught doing. Unfortunately, in our state, the winners are Inslee and the extreme environmental industry and the losers are hardworking Washington families. Inslee is a part of what has become an environmental political complex. Just like Kitzhaber, he is part of a system that runs on hypocrisy, corruption and selfishness wrapped in a veil of self-righteousness. 

This is the same circus, just different clowns.

Ditto at the local level. Same circus, different clowns. We have all seen our local political environmental complex divert public resources to its own advantage. Surely this is corruption of the political process, but what about genuine scandal ... the kind of corruption that makes headlines, ends careers, and takes down politicians and career bureaucrats? That doesn't happen here, does it?

Has there been any long-term misuse of funds, retaliation against whistleblowers, crony no-bid contracts, lame pretexts to try to get the sheriff's department to act as henchmen, or interference with the duties of an enforcement officer? That sort of thing doesn't happen here, does it? ... in one of the 50 places to see before you die? ... in one of the best coastal small towns?

But wait, there will be more ...

It's Development-Specific Stupid

On March 5, this Council will approve yet another CAO. Like all the other CAO messes, this latest snafu will buffer wetlands and other critical areas instead of buffering/mitigating the development effects that purportedly threaten critical areas. Instead of basing mitigation on the scale of proposed development effects, CAO restrictions will be based on a subjective ranking of your undeveloped areas.

It's backwards. It always has been backwards, and as long as critical areas themselves, rather than development effects, are the stuff of buffers and restrictions, there will never be nexus and proportionality. In the last CAO, the County took great pride in claiming that they had derived "site-specific buffers." The fatal defect, however, was that they did not derive "development-specific buffers." All the factors necessary to derive a County-specified buffer are present on any piece of property whether one builds a garden shed, a lead smelter, the Empire State Building ... or nothing at all. Buffer imposition is triggered by development, but not related to its effects in any way.

Nothing has changed. In the March 5 CAO, once again buffers are triggered by development, but not related to development impacts.

And this strange fact leads Councilman Hughes on the same search as that of his predecessor, Councilman Fralick ... looking for any weasely way to find some justifiable paradox that will allow Eastsound (and other urban growth areas, but mainly Eastsound) to have smaller buffers. Hughes wants the critical areas of more developed areas to be buffered less than rural areas ... and he lives quite comfortably with this desire even though it would undermine the "buffer protection" logic of someone more perspicacious.

Even A Blind Squirrel

We have written about the Department of Ecology's Tom Hruby before. Whenever Erik Stockdale of Ecology requires heavy-duty science backup, he calls in Dr. Hruby, and the results are usually farcical. Some of their collaborations are masterpieces of ignorance, like when they wrote a letter to our Council in February 2011 about "risk." Eventually, they had to back away entirely from that letter because of copious criticism, including from Dr. Tim Verslcyke, a highly-qualified and well-published ecological risk assessment professional on the faculty of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

So it was with some trepidation and amusement that I began to read Hruby's latest publication, Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. Relative to genuinely professional work about risk assessment and/or fate and transport, it's still amateurish ... but nevertheless ... it isn't completely wrong. Let's review a couple of the good things about this mediocre report.

1. For water quality, Huby admits that the effectiveness of buffers depends on site-specific factors. He says that recent research has increased our understanding of the many different factors that control the effectiveness of a buffer at trapping pollutants, and then he names width, slope, type of vegetation, type of pollutant, geochemical and physical properties of the soil, infiltration rates of the soils, sources of pollutants, concentration of pollutants, path of surface water through the buffer, and for phosphorus, the amount of phosphorous already trapped by the soil.
2. For habitat, Hruby admits that studies do not show minimum buffer distances needed to protect species, but only show how far species roam from wetlands. He also says that there is very little research correlating plant diversity in wetlands with buffer width.

Please note that this document specifically mentions, for the first time, some very key points that side with the persistent criticisms of our CAOs. Our CAOs have never considered type of pollutant, concentration of pollutant, source of pollutant, or the geochemical and physical properties of the soil. This is what we mean when we talk about an "exposure scenario." Dr. Hruby is ignorant of standard risk assessment terminology, so he doesn't use the customary term, but that's what he is referring to.

Furthermore, we have all heard the Department of Ecology and Dr. Adamus proclaim that amphibians can be found hundreds of feet away from a wetland; therefore, buffers should be hundreds of feet wide to accommodate their roaming. Hruby admits that this "roaming data" is not related to buffer width. Stated another way, there is no science that explains how the distribution of wetland dependent species varies with buffer width. Amphibians may roam hundreds of feet away from a wetland regardless whether the buffer is hundreds of feet, tens of feet, or nonexistent. We do not know how, or even whether, changing buffer width affects species distribution. Anyone who has found tree frogs in their window boxes, for example, knows that tree frog wandering does not seem to depend on buffer size.

There are other good admissions in this report. Key Point #4 on page 30 says "Several researchers have recommended a more flexible approach that allows buffer widths to be varied depending on site-specific conditions." On page 10, the report says, "Site-specific factors (vegetation density and spacing, initial soil water content, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and sediment characteristics) are so important in determining the effectiveness of a buffer that simple designs that do not account for these factors can fail to perform their protective functions."

And lastly, this report discusses the Meyer and Zhang papers, both of which have been the topic of intense discussion at various Planning Commission and County Council meetings over the past two years.

We'll save our substantial criticisms of the report for the next post, but for now, take some heart in the fact that even a blind Department of Ecology can find a nut once in a while.

Exposure Is Everything

There is a parable about a man walking down a road and repeatedly falling in a hole. He tries to avoid the hole, but his efforts are fruitless. He tries to patch the hole ... he tries to put up barricades to avoid the hole ... he tries to put planks over the hole so he can safely cross ... nothing works ... he falls in every time. In his frustration, he pleads to a friend, "What can I do to stop falling in the hole?!?"

His friend tells him, "Take another road without a hole."

This could be a parable about the CAOs. The County continues to fall in the same hole every time. The latest 78-page draft of the CAOs is no different from any previous approach. Like all previous Councils, this Council just doesn't get it. They don't understand "protection." They don't understand "risk." They are trying to follow what they believe are State mandates. They timidly react to every letter from the Department of Ecology as if they were in the presence of the burning bush.

Protection is inextricably linked to an exposure scenario. Football helmets provide protection during a football game, but they offer no protection if you wear them at a cocktail party. The risk of getting bonked on the head at a cocktail party is de minimis anyway, so the extra cost of wearing a football helmet is wasted. For the same reason, you would be foolish to undergo chemo therapy just because you might be afraid of cancer ... or just because you might have been exposed to de minimis levels of carcinogens. The cost and side effects are high whereas the benefits are non-existent.

We have a 78-page CAO that explains in great detail how to wear a football helmet at a cocktail party. It tells us what color the helmet should be ... how thick it should be ... what the internal padding should be ... how the chinstrap should be worn ... and on and on. It references Best Available Science (BAS) by experts who proclaim that football helmets prevent concussions. The Friends and their allies at the State say that, without the biggest football helmets in the universe, our risk of dying from a concussion is extremely high.

No. The absence of a "protective" measure (i.e., a helmet) does not create risk. Risk arises from our behavior and ambient factors (i.e., cocktail party versus football game). The absence of a remedy may fail to mitigate risk, but the absence of a remedy does not "create" risk.

Regarding the CAOs, we occasionally hear public officials say, "Tell us what needs to be fixed and we will fix it." To those officials, listen carefully ... it is unfixable because you have chosen the wrong path. If you do not first evaluate exposure scenarios, it is pointless to prescribe a remedy.

The perennial complaints about the CAOs fall in the following general categories:

1. The County is imposing protective measures without providing county-specific evidence of an exposure scenario justifying those measures.
2. The State and County habitually (and erroneously) say we are in a high-risk situation only because of the absence of their favorite purported "protections," not because there is any evidence that our behavior is creating an exposure scenario with excess risk.
3. The "protections" being foisted upon us, land use restrictions, would not be protective anyway. If we did find ourselves in a high-risk exposure scenario, land use restrictions would be the least effective way of mitigating the risk. Other, less-costly remedies would likely be vastly more effective.

If there is a fix, our CAOs should simply say, "We will develop and implement site-specific remedies to mitigate excess risk related to critical areas, commensurate with our ability to measure such risk and directly link site-specific development activities as the cause."

Unless our public officials can get some simple concepts through their thick heads, we will always find ourselves in the same hole.

The Mathematics of Today

A reader asked me to re-post the video of "Blink Your Eyes" by Sekou Sundiata because they felt it had some relevance to events in Friday Harbor. I've re-posted the link to the video below. Enjoy!

But while that story continues to develop, the business of the County moves forward. Our County Council is quietly proceeding to revise the latest update to the CAOs, in order to comply with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) ruling -- despite the fact that there is a court hearing about the GMHB ruling occurring in late February. Got that? It's so simple to follow the CAOs, isn't it? ... just like so many things about government.

When I was a kid, government was (or at least seemed) so simple. Cop, school, mayor ... that was about it. Now it is an incomprehensible mess. I'd be interested to know how many of the following acronyms you can identify, or if you have the vaguest idea how any of them influence your life.

1. GMHB
2. SMHB
3. PSP
4. AAOG
5. LIO
6. SMP
7. CAO
8. MRC
9. ARC
10. TAG

And ... if you are interested in providing comments to the latest revision on the update of the proposed new changed modification of the latest draft of the CAO modifications version, you have to get your comments into the County by February 3. Actually, providing comments is serious stuff, even if the process is mockable, sad, and laughable all at the same time.  The current Council is doing a miserable job at keeping the public informed about their work on the CAOs, but you should still make the effort to keep up because these looming ordinances will have a big effect on you.  Follow this link to find the latest draft.

Lastly, I want to reiterate a point I made in the comments. We are working on a new site that will allow readers to have greater control over the comments they see. We will always allow people to make comments of any kind, but it's clear (to me anyway) there are some commenters who are deliberately trying (and failing) to drive readers away by being troublesome. The antidote to that, in my humble opinion, isn't to restrict what people say, but to give readers the ability to filter comments so that you have a better chance of reading the good ones. The new site will allow you to make whatever comment you want, but also you will be able to filter comments to exclude ones with certain words or groups of words (e.g., profanity) as well as view comments according to a rating system that is also in the works.

Until then, enjoy the posts and the many good comments that are being made ... regardless of the ones that try to be destructive.