Uncertainty In the Department of Stone-Age Ecology

About a month ago, Hiroo Onoda died at the age of 91. He was a Japanese WW II holdout soldier who didn't surrender until long after the war was over. For 29 years, he lived on an island in the Philippines with other holdouts, dismissing all evidence (including messages sent to them) that the war was over. They lived by eating what they could find in the jungle or steal from local Filipino farmers. After losing all his fellow holdouts to various circumstances, Onoda was finally persuaded to give up in 1974.

Also, we occasionally still hear press reports about Stone-Age tribes that hold out against the modern world ... in the Amazon ... Papua New Guinea ... or some remote island. In these days of iPads, space stations, and genetic engineering, some of these Stone-Age tribes don't even know how to make fire ... and have never heard of the wheel.

Which brings us to the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program within the Department of Ecology. These are the regulators who advise local governments about shorelines and wetlands because of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA). In reality, the responsibilities of Ecology are very different under these two Acts, but they don't want you to know that. Under the SMA, Ecology is directly authorized to oversee, and take charge if necessary, of land use planning for shoreline zones. Under the GMA, they have no authority. No one says this better than Gordon White, the Head of the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program:

"We don’t have regulatory authority in local critical areas ordinance issues. We don’t make rulings or issue enforcement actions under local critical areas ordinances. Those tasks are on local government turf" (Gordon White, Eco-Connect Blog, February 14, 2012.)

Let's be clear about this. Under the SMA, Ecology is authorized to carry out the limited objectives of the SMA only, which is a planning law, not an environmental protection law per se. Under the GMA, Ecology is not authorized for anything, except to advise the Department of Commerce about Critical Areas. That bears repeating ... they are authorized to advise the Department of Commerce (not local Counties) about critical areas (not about the 14 goals or any other aspect of the GMA). Ecology would like you to believe that they are in charge of habitat and endangered species and wetland delineation and saving the planet and the whole GMA. They would like you to believe they are authorized to mainline their biased GMA advice directly into the veins of buffer-addicts in every County Planning Departments ... but they are not.

Altogether different from the SMA and GMA, Ecology is separately authorized under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate discharges to waters of the State/US, but their authority under the CWA is about discharges. They regulate pollution, not non-pollution. They regulate effluent, not waters. Nowhere, outside of the specific planning purposes of the SMA, is Ecology given authority to identify or delineate streams, wetlands, shorelines, or any other waters of the State/US. They have proclaimed themselves as the expert authorities in this area, but they are not.

This brings us back to our Stone-Age lead-in. The Ecology folks who aren't authorized for much of anything produce Best Available Science (BAS) about everything. However, like the Stone-Age tribes who haven't heard of the wheel, the Cro-Magnons at the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program seem to be entirely ignorant of concepts accepted everywhere else in environmental science. As we repeatedly mention, they know nothing about risk assessment, but they also know nothing about environmental chemistry ... or geology ... or habitat ... or hydrology ... or physics ... or bio-statistics ... system dynamics ... or science generally. They say revealingly stupid things like (from the Hruby report), "The recent research has also increased our understanding of the many different factors that control the effectiveness of a buffer at trapping pollutants" such as type of pollutant, concentration of pollutant etc.

Increased "our" understanding? How could you not know this? This is in every elementary textbook (and there are thousands) dealing with risk assessment, fate and transport, and environmental chemistry. These principles are at work daily in Ecology's own Toxics Program. This is like a Stone-Age tribesman in the 21st century saying that "we" just discovered fire, and then bombastically posturing as if they are on the cutting edge of discovery. Somehow, and I don't know how, the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program has been able to survive like a lost Stone-Age tribe, surrounded by modern technology, but unaware of it. Along with them are fellow holdouts comprised of planners, consultants, attorneys, and non-profits who profit from believing the earth is flat.

We have to contend with their ignorance and bias in maddening ways, one of which was mentioned by some commenters to the previous post ... namely scientific uncertainty and the application of the precautionary principle. One of the ways Ecology projects their power and Stone-Age ignorance is by practicing data sophistry. For instance, we actually have quite a bit of data in these islands that show that we have no problem. Cleverly, though, that gets twisted by Ecology and the County into an opportunity to apply the precautionary principle. Let's discuss an example for the sake of illustration. If I were to sample a stream for pollutants, and if the results were to come back as non-detects, that is positive evidence of no problem. We have lots of data like that here in the islands ... after taking into account data quality, we have positive evidence of no problem. The evidence for "no problem" is in the form of zeros (non-detects) but that's not "no data" and it isn't "uncertainty." It's just that we found nothing because nothing is there.

Finding positive evidence of nothing, however, gets transmogrified into "we have no data" or "we don't know" or "it's pristine" or "the results are inconclusive" or "we're uncertain" ... and before you know it, the precautionary principle gets invoked, and we get 300-foot buffers in rural areas and 50-foot buffers in urban ones. That's how that happens. The absence of a problem and lots of "zero data" gets manufactured into uncertainty requiring the greatest amount of precaution and the toughest land use restrictions. The cleanest areas get "protected" in the most severe way when any rational analysis would have deployed greater "protection" for the riskier exposure scenario. We have to put a stop to that BAS ackwards outcome by pointing out what the data are really saying.

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.

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #26 - Professional Error

One of the boldest examples of regulatory ignorance that I've ever seen appeared in our County on February 4, 2011. That is the date of a letter, sent out under Erik Stockdale's signature, that contains an explanation of "risk" by Dr. Tom Hruby. The explanation is, quite simply, wrong.

In short, Dr. Hruby says that "risk" is related to uncertainty surrounding poor decision making. He goes on to equate levels of "risk" to the legal concepts of "beyond a reasonable doubt," "clear and convincing proof," and a "preponderance of evidence." Wow! That is such confused testimony about the meaning of "risk" that it brings to mind that book Disorder In The Court which recounts actual exchanges between lawyers and witnesses in court.

Attorney: She had three children, right?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: How many were boys?
Witness: None.
Attorney: Were there any girls?
Witness: Your Honor, I think I need a different Attorney. Can I get a new Attorney?

Likewise, I think we need a different risk expert. Can we can get a new risk expert? Dr. Hruby is describing "error" not "risk," and they are as different from one another as boys are from girls.

So what is "error" anyway? Error is when we reach a conclusion different from something's true value, and the probability of drawing the wrong conclusion is uncertainty (i.e., range of uncertainty and confidence intervals).  Think of it with respect to fire alarms. We want a fire alarm to go off when there is a fire, but stay quiet when there isn't a fire. However, if the alarm goes off when there is no fire, that's a false alarm ... and that's bad. In the language of "error," false alarms are called "Type 1" errors aka "false positives." The opposite kind of error occurs if the alarm stays quiet when there really is a fire. That's a failed alarm, and that's bad too. Failed alarms are called "Type 2" errors or "false negatives." In science, as with fire alarms, we want to limit uncertainty by controlling the probability of Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Neither uncertainty nor error is risk.

Hruby has mistaken "risk" for the probability of "failed/false alarms." Why should we care? We care because his deeply flawed reasoning about "risk" has found its way verbatim into our CAOs. Here's an excerpt from our proposed wetland CAO.

The approach to sizing wetland buffers taken in this ordinance is intended to be a medium risk alternative based on the premise that there is clear and convincing proof, and a high probability that the buffers will protect wetland and associated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area functions and values. The standard for evidence needed to meet this criterion is less than that needed for “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but higher than that needed for a “preponderance of the evidence.” The probability that the buffers will not be adequate is relatively low; between 5% and 50%.

Ack! Wrong, wrong, wrong. No, no, no! Just this one paragraph has so many holes in it that pages and pages of technical criticism could be written on this alone. Suffice to say, though, that Hurby's explanation has nothing to do with ecological risk. Furthermore, the eco-hypochondriacs out there are not interested in controlling for the uncertainty of false positives. They are more than willing to accept an unlimited number of false positives to avoid any probability of a false negative. That's not risk management. That's just uncontrolled (Type 1) error. That's a failure to manage uncertainty.

All this talk of "error" reminds me of another passage from Disorder In The Court:

Attorney: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Witness: No.
Attorney: Did you check for blood pressure?
Witness: No.
Attorney: Did you check for breathing?
Witness: No.
Attorney: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Witness: No .
Attorney: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Attorney: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
Witness: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Other possible occupations might include working for Ecology or drafting our County's CAOs.

Another Gem From Hruby

Much of the information, data, and reasoning that comes from the "experts" associated with the CAOs is embarrassingly poor. The emails below from Tom Hruby are about as bad as the letter he and Erik Stockdale co-authored to the Council on February 4, 2011. In that letter, I feel they demonstrated their complete ignorance of environmental risk. Their explanations appeared to confuse environmental risk with Type 1 and Type 2 error. I can only conclude that they have no idea that error, risk, uncertainty, and level of concern are all different concepts. To me, it's astonishing that they have their jobs without having a fundamental grasp of the differences among those concepts, much less be qualified to speak to the merits of statistical papers like Mayer.

At some point, the TH will post the Stockdale/Hruby 2011 letter and dismantle its reasoning. For now, have a look at the more recent Hruby missive below. It's hard to know where to begin commentary because it is just so awful, but maybe the best approach is to provide a few overall observations.

For Hruby, it seems the nitrogen cycle isn't a cycle. He only acknowledges nitrogen sources, but not denitrification.  He doesn't recognize that grasses (including corn) are heavy nitrogen users, and that's why people fertilize grass in the first place, so as to provide the added nitrogen that grasses demand.  Anyone who has ever had a compost pile knows that grass is almost pure nitrogen. And I don't know anyone in the islands who is even a moderate user of fertilizers, except perhaps the golf courses. Also, I don't think I've ever seen enough corn on the islands in one spot to qualify as a corn field either.

Hruby apparently is afraid of horse poop too, not realizing that the nitrogen in the poop is used by the grasses that get pooped on. The juxtaposition of his "grasses need nitrogen" point with his "manure has nitrogen" point shows no appreciation that the two competing processes might offset one another and be in balance here in the islands. Heck, with the surfeit of unfertilized hay that we grow, I would venture to guess that we might even suffer from general nitrogen deficiency and need more horse manure to be in balance.

The more these guys talk, the more it seems like we live in Bushwood Country Club and we're trapped in the movie Caddyshack.  Maybe given the leading role of Dr. Adamus, we should refer to it as Addyshack? How long before the experts recommend that we ban Baby Ruth bars?

I particularly enjoy how Dr. Hruby cites Europe and Australia when addressing Patty Miller's question about sources specific to San Juan County.

_______________________________________________
From: Patty Miller [mailto:PattyM@sanjuanco.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 9:35 PM
To: Shireene Hale; Ingrid Gabriel; howier@sanjuanco.com; RichardF@sanjuanco.com; richp@sanjuanco.com; LovelP@sanjuanco.com; jamies@sanjuanco.com
Subject: FW: Our discussions regarding pollutants coming into wetlands

Hello,

I apologize for not forwarding this to you all earlier.

Thanks, Patty

From: Hruby, Tom (ECY) [mailto:thru461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Patty Miller
Cc: Stockdale, Erik (ECY)
Subject: Our discussions regarding pollutants coming into wetlands

Dear Patty, 

I would like to summarize our conversations and my e-mails from yesterday into one to make it easier for you to follow my thoughts.  Please dis-regard the e-mails I sent yesterday, especially the first one that had an error in the math.

As I understand it from our conversations, you are concerned about three major issues (and please correct me if I am wrong):

1.       Do the articles referenced in the Mayer paper address the pollutants commonly generated in the dominant land uses of San Juan County?  Since most land uses in the non-urban areas do not generate toxic or hazardous materials, the removal of these compounds by the buffer is not a significant issue. 

2.       Were the amounts of pollutants used to calculate the removal rates in the articles reviewed appropriate for the amounts that might be found coming from the dominant land uses in SJ County?  

3.       Do we need to have a 75-80% removal of pollutants in the buffer if the amount of pollutants coming in is very low in the first place. Could we get by with a lower % removal because the amount coming through the buffer was so low? 

My analysis of your questions:

1.       Yes, the Mayer article does address pollutants generated by the rural land uses in SJC.  The Mayer article reviewed the literature on the removal of nitrogen by buffers.  First, when scientists talk about pollution from nitrogen we do not mean nitrogen gas but rather the different nitrogen compounds that act as fertilizers for both terrestrial and aquatic plants.  Excessive amounts of "nitrogen" cause eutrophication in wetlands, streams, ponds, and lakes.  The BAS report for SJC mentioned that nitrogen removal could be used as a surrogate for the removal other toxic pollutants and I think this is where it became confusing.  The major pollutant coming from the  rural and agricultural land uses common on the islands is nitrogen in form of fertilizers and ammonia and nitrate in animal wastes. Since the Mayer paper reviewed only the articles on nitrogen removal it is appropriate to use it for SJC.  If the lands uses in SJC do not generate toxic materials then we do not have to assume that the removal nitrogen can be used as a surrogate for the removal of toxic pollutants as well.  It becomes a moot point.  In urban and suburban areas of the county however, it is an issue because of the application of herbicides and pesticides used in gardening and landscaping. 

I should mention however, that there is one other pollutant coming from rural land uses that can be an issue.  This is pathogens (coliform bacteria and viruses) from animal wastes.  This is not considered an "toxic" material but it is a pollutant.  Pathogens by themselves have little impact on the functions of a wetland, but they do become an issue if the aquatic resource downstream is a source of drinking water or recreation.  Buffers can remove pathogens before they reach aquatic resources. 

2.    Most of the 88 articles used by Meyer to develop his model of nitrogen removal measured nitrogen removal in the field under actual conditions.  The studies were done throughout the country and in Europe and Australia.  The sources of nitrogen to the buffer zones therefore represent a wide range of different land uses that generate different amounts of nitrogen.  Some of the studies were done in forested system where very little nitrogen is released and some were next to pastures and cattle feedlots where the amounts (called the "loading rate") were extremely high. For example, one article (Hubbard and Lowrance 1997) looked at the effect different forest practices had on nitrate removal in buffers while another (Young and others 1980) looked at nitrate removal in buffers where the runoff came from feedlots.   

My conclusion is that the amount of nitrogen coming from the rural land uses in SJC fall within the amounts that were used to develop the Meyer's model of % removal. I did a quick search of how much nitrogen is applied in the land uses most commonly used for the buffer studies (agriculture, urban, residential)

For agriculture, corn is one of the most nitrogen demanding crops and it requires about 100lbs of nitrogen per acre per year.  Most crops require 50 - 100lbs/acre.  Note: nitrogen loading rates are measured as lbs of "atomic" nitrogen per acre.  For example there is only 1 lbs of nitrogen in 6 lbs of sodium nitrate, the rest consists of sodium and oxygen.   

         For residential lawns, the recommended amount is about 40-50 lbs nitrogen/acre per year thought most people apply more. 
www.neuse.ncsu.edu/lawncare.htm 

         For pasture grasses it is about 60-80 lbs N/acre/year http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM869.pdf 

I believe that the biggest source of nitrogen in the rural areas of  SJC would be livestock of one type or another (horses, cattle, sheep, and even the camel on San Juan Island).  The amount of nitrogen coming from livestock in the county can fall within the range found for other land uses.  For example, a horse produces 9.1 tons of manure per year (see attached report).  Typically a ton of horse manure will contain 11 lbs of nitrogen so one horse will produce 100 lbs of nitrogen per year.  If that horse is confined to one acre the "loading rate" for nitrogen is similar to the highest level that is applied in agriculture.  If that one horse is pastured on 5 acres the loading rate is still 20lbs/acre/year.

3.    The one question I cannot answer is "how much removal is enough?"
If a rural land use generate 20lbs of nitrogen per acre per year is it adequate to remove 50% of this in the buffer or do we need to remove 80% to avoid impacts to the water quality in the wetland?    None of the articles cited by Mayer address this question and I have not been able to find any published research on this subject.  There is much research on eutrophication lakes caused by fertilizers, but none that I have found on eutrophication in wetlands.   The decision then becomes one of policy.  How much risk we are willing to accept?  We can be pretty sure that there will be little risk that the wetland becomes eutrophic if we remove 90 - 100% of the nitrogen going into it.  Removing only 80% increases the risk, and this goes even higher if we remove only  50% of the nitrogen coming in.  As you mentioned it may be worthwhile exploring buffer regulations based on the density of livestock upslope of the wetland rather than the size of the lot when addressing water quality. 

Tom 

Tom Hruby, PhD, PWS
Senior Ecologist
Washington State Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia WA  98504
(360) 407-7274
tom.hruby@ecy.wa.gov <mailto:tom.hruby@ecy.wa.gov>

From Buffers to Bulldozers - As the BAS Turns

The BAS, as we are told by some, is the singular feature of our CAO process that will make our new ordinances "smart" unlike our existing "dumb" sensitive areas ordinance that we've been living relatively happily with for years. Okay, let's follow the bouncing BAS and see how smart it is.

The following emails show the evolution of the word "drainageway" which is a new term introduced into our latest draft wetlands code.  What is a drainageway?  Well, it depends when you ask the question apparently.  In the first email below from Dr. Adamus (August 20, 2010), a "drainageway" is worthy of protection by a buffer if we "are truly using a BAS approach" as he puts it.

In December 2011, Paul Anderson of Ecology appears to liken a "drainageway" to a stream or a watercourse. Again, that's a concept worthy of protection via buffers, since the state Hydraulic Code has all sorts of requirements if you care to do work in the bed of a stream.

However, by January 17, 2012, Ecology seems to have had a change of heart about "drainageways."  By then, the Ecology folk (Anderson, Hruby, McMillan, and Stockdale) are advocating that "drainageways" be removed from a site by site-recontouring because they short-circuit a buffer.

What?!?  Ecology is recommending we bulldoze them? Yes, they are, and our latest wetlands draft CAO includes that notion of a drainageway despite the fact that back in 2010 Adamus said that "if we were truly using a BAS approach" then "drainageways" should have buffers.

I know.  I don't follow it either.

And I know I'm a broken record, but the emails below once again show the level of continuous involvement by Ecology in our County and with the CAOs, despite their claim:

"We don’t have regulatory authority in local critical areas ordinance issues. We don’t make rulings or issue enforcement actions under local critical areas ordinances. Those tasks are on local government turf" (Gordon White, Eco-Connect Blog, Feburary 14, 2012.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paul Adamus [mailto:adamus7@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 5:31 PM
To: Shireene Hale
Subject: my next visit; meet w. DOE; deadlines

Hi Shireene,

My next visit will be the week of September 20.  I will be doing a final check on Mindy and Ted, and would also like to see if, on one of those days, Paul Anderson or Erik Stockdale from DOE would be willing to meet with us (you, me, Colin, Janice, maybe Fralick, Pete) to discuss some aspects of the CAO.  Could you try and set up a meeting?  Specifically, before we get too far along I want to gage their reaction to the no-extra-cost innovations I mentioned to you last time, which I believe are necessary in order for us to say we are truly using a BAS approach: (a) putting wider buffers around drainageways that feed wetlands seasonally rather than uniformly around the perimeter of each wetland, (b) modifying the habitat portion of the DOE Rating System so all the Habitat scores are generated using my GIS analysis of LiDAR data and other sources, which would allow us to rate all wetlands regardless of whether they are on private inaccessible parcels, and would improve the accuracy of the assessments that Mindy and Ted have already done.  A third idea, which I will first describe to you early that week or before, concerns the types of wetland landscape settings in SJC that I have determined from my BAS review should result in higher ratings and wider buffers.

As regards the overall schedule, I am progressing well with reading reports and papers for the BAS and extracting key points that I will use in the BAS report.  At this point it looks like the only thing that's threatening the timely attainment of the deadlines is the fact that Pete hasn't been able to get to preparing the Task Order for me to subcontract the necessary GIS work, which he gave a verbal OK to. 

Paul

________________________________________________________________________

From: "Anderson, Paul S. - NWRO SEA (ECY)" <paan461@ECY.WA.GOV>

Date: December 9, 2011 9:03:38 AM PST

To: Shireene Hale <shireeneh@sanjuanco.com>

Cc: "adamus7@comcast.net" <adamus7@comcast.net>, "dnickel@watershedco.com" <dnickel@watershedco.com>, Janice Biletnikoff <janiceb@sanjuanco.com>, Rachel Dietzman <racheld@sjcpublicworks.org>, Scott Rozenbaum <rozewood@rockisland.com>, "Stockdale, Erik (ECY)" <ESTO461@ECY.WA.GOV>, "ed.kilduff@me.com" <ed.kilduff@me.com>, Steve Belluomini <sbelluomini@yahoo.com>, Janet Alderton <jmalderton@yahoo.com>

Subject: RE: Alternative Wetland Buffer Procedure

Shireene:

Thank you for passing along the revised alternative buffer proposal and accompanying documents. 

My only comment at this time is that I recommend keeping the existing “Drainageway” definition.  I think this definition is easier to understand than the proposed alternative (the alternative definition would require a definition for “stream”) and is more consistent with the “watercourse” definition in the state Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110-020(105)).

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, PWS Wetland Specialist Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Phone: (425) 649-7148 Fax: (425) 649-7098 Email: paan461@ecy.wa.gov  

_________________________________________________________________________

From: "Stockdale, Erik (ECY)" <ESTO461@ECY.WA.GOV>

Date: January 17, 2012 4:11:10 PM PST

To: "adamus@comcast.net" <adamus@comcast.net>

Cc: Janet Alderton <jmalderton@yahoo.com>, Scott Rozenbaum <rozewood@rockisland.com>, Janice Biletnikoff <janiceb@sanjuanco.com>, Rachel Dietzman <racheld@sjcpublicworks.org>, "Anderson, Paul S. - NWRO SEA (ECY)" <paan461@ECY.WA.GOV>, Steve Belluomini <sbelluomini@yahoo.com>, Ed Kilduff <ed.kilduff@me.com>, "Hruby, Tom (ECY)" <thru461@ECY.WA.GOV>, "McMillan, Andy (ECY)" <anmc461@ECY.WA.GOV>

Subject: Ecoogy comments on January 16th SJC Buffer Calculator

Hi Paul:

Per your request, below are consolidated comments from Paul Anderson, Tom Hruby, Andy McMillan and me. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification.

          (middle section omitted by ECK for brevity)

Drainageways. Thank you for adjusting the weight for the drainageways that will potentially short-circuit a buffer. We recommend the CAO include measures to remedy such situations by requiring that a site be re-contoured to promote sheet flow across the buffer.

Thank you for adding the drop down menus for questions 1 and 2.

Thanks to all for the continued conversation.

Erik

Erik Stockdale, PWS |Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor|Department of Ecology| 425-649-7061| erik.stockdale@ecy.wa.gov

Lipstick on a CAO - The Inside Story on Buffers

See the email train below and read from the bottom up.

Does it sound like our CAO draft is ready to you? The experts seem to think there's a lot of work to be done and still a lot of unknowns. They're sounding a bit scattered and frayed about it.

My favorite Ecology quote from the emails below is Tom Hruby saying that buffers cannot be fully protective because "pollutants can get into a wetland from groundwater or the air." It makes me wonder if we are going to have air buffers next.

It's interesting that Hruby cites Ruckelshaus, 1984, and Tarlock, 1994, although he seems to misconstrue quantitative environmental risk as described in those papers.  As I mentioned in a previous post, Ruckleshaus points out that a safe world is not a zero-risk world.  But by his statements, Hruby seems to imply that to be "fully protective" something must be zero risk.  That is the exact opposite of what Ruckelshaus and Tarlock were saying.

Hruby also says that there is still plenty of work to do before we "start identifying factors that increase or decrease the risk." Start? Did he really say, "Start"?  We have spent all kinds of time and money. Our latest wetlands draft is just about to go to the Planning Commission, and Hruby thinks we haven't even started?!?  As surprising as it may seem, he and I actually agree on that point.

Note that while Hruby appears to be the thinker, Stockdale's role seems just to focus on bringing this puppy home no matter what our CAO says. He's on a mission, like our County Council. Accordingly, Stockdale is preoccupied with defending against a Growth Board appeal despite his boss' boss recently proclaiming:

We don’t have regulatory authority in local critical areas ordinance issues. We don’t make rulings or issue enforcement actions under local critical areas ordinances. Those tasks are on local government turf" (Gordon White, Eco-Connect Blog, Feburary 14, 2012.)

I wonder if Gordon White knows what Tom Hruby, Erik Stockdale, Paul Anderson, Stephen Stanley, and Andy McMillan do all day.

Despite Ecology's obvious lack of alignment over our wetlands CAO draft, this overcooked and yet half-baked fiasco will come to the Planning Commission in about a week's time. The Wetlands Section Public Hearing is a week from Tuesday, on March 6, at 8:45 a.m. in the Grange Building, Friday Harbor.

Do a majority of the Planning Commissioners have the good sense to see this thing for what it is? I guess we'll find out soon enough. Bring plenty of lipstick. Even Ecology thinks we need it.

From: Hruby, Tom (ECY) 

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:57 AM
To: Stockdale, Erik (ECY); McMillan, Andy (ECY)
Cc: Anderson, Paul S. (ECY); Stanley, Stephen (ECY)
Subject: the RE: SJC buffer calculator

Erik and others,

I would like to focus our response bringing the discussion back to basics, and away from the details that everyone seems to be getting “hung-up” on. 

1.      We need to admit that the science is not perfect and without detailed surveys and monitoring of the Islands we will never come up with absolute numbers for buffers in the county.  There are just too many factors involved in trying to “model” the conditions around a wetland. I remember during the WFAM process we tried to model the input of pollutants into a wetland from the surrounding landscape and came up with 27 variables.

2.      Thus, most environmental decisions must be made under uncertain, sometimes extremely uncertain, conditions when it comes to the science.  The regulated community often seizes on this pervasive uncertainty to argue that decisions should wait until  “good science” provides conclusive evidence of harm (Tarlock, 1994).

3.      The laws (and their enforcement) recognize this issue of scientific uncertainty and have resolved it by substituting the concept of “risk” for “cause and effect” proof. (Tarlock, 1994, Ruckleshaus, 1984)

4.      Courts have widely endorsed the argument that a characterization of risk must err on the side of preventing loss by incorporating a wide margin of safety.  This has been carried over from laws about toxic substances to protecting biodiversity.

5.      The science is firm on the general facts that buffers can protect the use of wetlands by wetland dependent wildlife and protect the water quality in a wetland.  Buffers will not protect the hydrologic functions performed by wetlands.

6.      Discussion on buffers therefore need to focus on what is needed to protect the water quality of wetlands and what is needed to protect the wildlife using the wetland.

7.      The science is also clear that impacts to wetland functions from surrounding land uses are highly variable.  It is not a “on” or “off” switch.  From and ecological perspective impacts can range from a slight change in populations to the complete extermination of a population.  Or, from a slight change in water quality to a complete change in the ecosystem that results from toxics or eutrophication.  

8.      SOCIETY MUST MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT THE LEVEL OF CHANGE IN FUNCTIONS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.  Almost any change in land use will have some impact on the wetland ecosystem.  The science is quite clear that buffers would have to be over 300 ft and sometimes 600ft to protect the water quality of a wetland completely from surface runoff (no pollutants getting into the wetlands from surface runoff).  This however is still not fully protective because pollutants can get into a wetland from groundwater or the air.

9.      Because we do not have site specific information we can rely on to establish buffers, we, as a society, need to first make a decision on the level of risk to wetland functions we are willing to accept.  This has not been yet done in San Juan County. For example, we do not know what is the minimum buffer size that is needed to maintain a reproductive population of amphibians in a pond.  We do know they move through large areas of uplands, sometimes more than 600 ft.  What is the impact of reducing that range to 300 ft or 50 ft?  At which point will the population in that pond become extinct?  We can use the scientific information to predict that a buffer of 50ft will increase the risk that the population will become extinct, but cannot predict exactly what will happen without detailed monitoring. 

10.   Once we know what level of risk to wetland functions the county is willing to accept, we can start identifying the factors that increase and decrease the risk. 

11.   If the county wants to develop a site specific approach I would suggest simplifying Paul’s spreadsheet model and keep it qualitative.  I can work on this if you are interested.  This would be a decision matrix/tree identifying the relative risk of land uses in different geomorphic settings and then setting a buffer based on the level of risk acceptable for that site.

Tom

From: Stockdale, Erik (ECY)
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:03 AM
To: Hruby, Tom (ECY); McMillan, Andy (ECY)
Cc: Anderson, Paul S. (ECY); Stanley, Stephen (ECY)
Subject: FW: SJC buffer calculator

I will send you the buffer calculator and rationale when the County puts it out for review today or tomorrow. Paul likely tweaked it overnight so the version he sent

Several recurring themes have emerged from Kilduff and Belluomini regarding Paul’s work:

-        Buffer science regarding habitat isn’t science

-        You have to study water flow processes and contaminant loading in San Juan County before you formulate regulations

-        San Juan County is different (where have we heard this before?); not part of Puget Sound, etc. etc

At some point in the near future I would like to debunk some of these arguments in a letter to the Council. This is important given that a likely appeal to the Growth Board will be a record review.

Do you have a suggested response? I do but am interested in your thoughts. Thanks, Erik

From: Ed Kilduff [mailto:ed.kilduff@me.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:25 PM
To: Paul Adamus
Cc: Shireene Hale; Hruby, Tom (ECY); Scott Rozenbaum; Dan Nickel; Janice Biletnikoff; Rachel Dietzman; Stockdale, Erik (ECY); Anderson, Paul S. (ECY); Belluomini Steve; Janet Alderton
Subject: Re: SJC buffer calculator

Hi All,

I have no comments on the spreadsheet.  I understand the amount of effort that has gone into this model.  I am disappointed that a more rational and scientific approach could not be achieved based on local data and an acknowledgment of the efficacy of existing laws and regulations.  I support this model going forward for review, but I do not support this model as science, for the reasons I have already mentioned many times before.

In the end, the development of a scientific algorithm can only be as rational as its inputs, methodology, calibration to reality, and validity of the theory on which it is based.  I am disappointed that the inputs bear an unknown relationship to the effect they are trying to achieve.  I am disappointed that people's fears and personal views of ubiquitous unnamed toxins and inevitable overpopulation are driving the algorithm, rather than calibration and testable theory.

It's a policy based scheme based on the group's majority perceptions.

Thanks, Ed K.

___________________________________
Ed Kilduff
CA - PG, PGP, CHG, CEG
WA - LG, LHG, LEG
GBCI - LEED AP
Mobile: 360-472-0076

On Jan 22, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Paul Adamus wrote:

With regard to the buffer calculator, I've been anticipating questions like, "What combinations of lawn, impervious pavement, slope, etc." will cause me to have a buffer of XX feet?" One could play with the calculator endlessly to come up with all the possibilities, but there's a simpler and assuredly more complete way. With the help of a colleague who knows VisualBasic better than I, we now have an Excel macro that will spit out all combinations that result in a score of [insert whatever number you want, 1 to 20]. And we already know from Table C what scores corresponds to what buffer widths.

Also, instead of specifying an exact width, you can ask the macro to list all combinations of conditions that could result in a buffer of LESS THAN (or greater than) XX feet. However, if you ask for too much (like all combinations resulting in buffers larger than 40 feet), the number of combos exceeds 1 million and Excel runs out of rows. The bigger the request, the longer it takes to run (like hours instead of minutes). The macro generates output has columns headed A, B, C...I that correspond in sequence to the yellow data entry boxes in the calculator. Column J contains the score computed from those. As always, you can sort the output in ascending or descending order by any variable. If we end up changing our buffer formula (hopefully not at this late stage) it won't be hard for me to change this macro accordingly.

To run the macro, you open the file in Excel2007 or later, click on "Enable This Content" where prompted, then View>Macros>ViewMacros>Run. Currently it's set to run all combinations resulting in a score of less than 3. If you want to try something else, clear the last output, then click on StepInto instead of Run, go about halfway down in the script to the "If res" statement and insert whatever score or score range you want, close it, say yes to Stop Debugger, then Run again.

This isn't something anybody can use, but if you have a basic understanding of Excel (and a reasonably fast computer), it isn't too hard.

Paul

<BuffSim_Reverse.xlsm>