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?

The Biggest Stories Behind the Shortest Agenda Items

There is a brief agenda item for the upcoming Tuesday Council Meeting. It says:

COUNCIL & COUNTY MANAGER UPDATES: Appointment of Dale Roundy, Pete Moe and Richard Grout to the Planning Commission.

It would appear from the wording of the agenda that our Council has already decided who the appointments should be, but that would have required the Council to have taken action already, outside of a public meeting. That wouldn't do that, would they? But that's not the most interesting aspect of these appointments. Read on.

Let's look at each of these appointments. But first, let's explain the purported process being used by the current Council regarding appointments. Appointments for the Planning Commission (like most advisory committees) have a certain geographic assignment within the County. For instance, Dick Grout would be filling a position from San Juan. Pete Moe would be filling a position from Orcas. Dale Roundy would be filling a position from Lopez.

Furthermore, according to the out-of-date protocol being used by the current Council, the Councilman representing each vacancy brings forward a nominee for a vote before the entire Council. Therefore, Richard (Dick) Grout is Bob Jarman's nominee from San Juan Island (Jarman's residency district). Pete Moe is Rick Hughes' nominee from Orcas Island (Hughes' residency district). Dale Roundy is Jamie Stephens' nominee from Lopez Island (Stephens' residency district).

Let's look at the appointees from the bottom up and examine what they have to offer to the public good.

Dick Grout - he was the Planning Director for San Juan County who urged the BOCC to fully plan under the GMA, way back in 1990. After leaving his county position, Grout was employed by the Department of Ecology for a couple of decades and headed up their Bellingham Office. Since his days as San Juan County Planning Director, Grout has been very vocal and involved in shoreline issues, even up to the current day where he has been a reliable opponent of the Honeywells. Grout also has been a candidate to be our County Manager in the past. TH readers may also remember that Grout has surfaced in previous TH articles, particularly as he was associated with an email about the Council campaign four years ago, talking about Lisa Byers and Laura Jo Severson.

Dick Grout, Jim Slocumb and myself are all willing to walk with Lisa for doorbelling. Jim can put together maps and information lists and can map out routes to walk. I truly believe it will be the difference in winning the election. I’ll point to Laura Jo Severson as my proof. Ron Zee, Jim Slocumb and me took a short grandmotherly type, new to the island, that couldn’t string together a paragraph and got her to within 99 votes of Rich Peterson simply by doorbelling. Think what an articulate woman from Orcas could do.

Why would Bob Jarman put Dick Grout forward as his choice for the Planning Commission? Seems like strange political bedfellows. Reports are, however, that both Jarman and Mike Thomas are still in trouble with Ecology over the Portland Fair wetland situation. Reports are that the Attorney General (AG) is investigating Jarman and Thomas quite seriously, and Jarman/Thomas can't seem to shake the AG. Reports are that Jarman has been going around town asking specific people for their help in getting Ecology to back off. Was Dick Grout one of them?

Dick Grout chimed in about the "civil investigation demand" related to the purported Medicaid fraud on San Juan Island. Grout revealed his extensive experience with the AG as well as his usual "guilty until proven innocent" attitude in a letter to the Journal this past November. Maybe Grout's AG experience could come in handy in helping Jarman fight the AG too? ... if he were properly incentivized, that is. As Grout says in his Journal letter:

I worked for the state of Washington for several years before I retired. My job included regular interaction with the attorney general’s office. I’ve worked with a number of assistant attorney generals to develop similar interrogatories and “requests for production” of documents. I know from that experience that you don’t get served with one of these demands unless the attorney general’s office has good reason to believe there’s a fire beneath the smoke.

Whatever the reason for putting Grout's name forward, it must be pretty compelling for Jarman to do it. It's out of character.

[Note: in the latest version of the January 26th agenda, Grout's name has been removed].

Pete Moe - **** edited because of extreme hypocrisy ****

Dale Roundy - what if you were in charge of the water supply for a village (e.g., Jamie Stephens) and there was groundwater contamination near one of your water supply wells ... and you didn't tell anyone? Well, let's clarify, certain people knew about it. The local Planning Commissioner (Barbara Thomas) was copied on emails. The local Land Trust knew (Sandy Bishop and Rhea Miller). Even some local self-styled "environmentalists" who frequently concern themselves with water issues (Madrona Murphy) knew. So did a former Land Bank Commissioner (Nancy Greene). The soil and groundwater contamination was known to be within a short distance of one of your lesser-used water supply wells, but overall the full extent of soil and groundwater contamination was still unknown. As far as anyone knew, the contamination had been in place FOR YEARS. The last laboratory result of groundwater contamination showed that there were concentrations of benzene 10,000 times higher than the drinking water standard, but you never bothered to test for that particular contaminant at the well head of the water supply well ... so you really have no idea if the benzene and other contaminants ever got into the water supply.

So certain people knew, but it's not like you sent out a notice to your water users, or breathed a word about it to the papers.

In this case, what do all the "people-in-the-know" have in common? Well, aside from being friends and keeping one another's secrets, they all have a stake in the property values of Lopez Village, where the contamination is located. For instance, they own property in the village ... or they make their living related to development/design of village buildings ... or their relatives work in construction projects in the village ... or they are just about to finance or get bank loans for projects related to their village properties. Even if your property is not directly affected, try explaining that to a bank! It would be quite a mess if something like soil or groundwater contamination were to start busting up property sales in the village.

But that's exactly what happened. Meet Dale Roundy. Dale Roundy owns a residence across the street from the Lopez Community Land Trust (the LCLT). The LCLT is run by Sandy Bishop and Rhea Miller, and Dale Roundy's wife is on their board. Dale Roundy wanted to buy a property in the heart of Lopez Village, and Roundy had an environmental review conducted first. The review turned up the fact that there was contamination in a nearby property, also in the heart of the village, that had never been cleaned up or even fully delineated. As a result, Roundy backed out. The sale collapsed. Other potential buyers behind Roundy backed out too. A minor stir was created as information leaked out to just a few people ... but they managed to keep a lid on it, and the whole thing died down.

Now Roundy is slated to be on the Planning Commission ...

Email from Jamie Stephens to the County Health Department Manager, Mark Tompkins

Links ... and ... Another Day, Another Allegation of Fraud in the County

A complaint of medicaid fraud has been filed with the state Attorney General's Office against San Juan Island Emergency Medical Services. The AG's office is investigating medicaid reimbursement claims for air ambulance services. Not much is available about this story yet, but there was a brief announcement in the San Juan Islander.

Regarding the mysterious lawsuit referred to in the previous post, some readers have been asking to see the actual court filings. Here is a link to the complaint. Here is a link to the first set of exhibits. Here is a link to the second set of exhibits. Here is a link to the third set of exhibits. Fascinating reading.

The county has said that it's all a big misunderstanding. Read and judge for yourself.

That Hole Is Getting Deeper!

On Friday, the Council came out with a memo regarding their investigation of the Portland Fair wetland affair. You can find the memo here.

Anyone who has been through the wetland process would think the memo is a late April Fools joke. No one ... and I mean, no one ... outside of the authors and their most blindly ardent supporters would fall for it. But that's not the worst part.

It was written and signed by the Council -- Jamie Stephens and Rick Hughes, with Jarman recusing himself -- without any apparent input from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. In fact, it is addressed to the Prosecuting Attorney, so the Council owns this one in its entirety. Given that the Prosecuting Attorney already found that Mike Thomas acted contrary to County ordinances and written policies, this Council memo suggests a significant rift between the Council and the Prosecuting Attorney over this matter. But that's not the worst part.

In the memo, the Council defends their man, Mike Thomas, to the hilt. We "learn" several surprising facts. We discover that Jennifer Thomas had no role in this wetland situation, despite documentary evidence in the form of emails from Sam Gibboney saying otherwise, and despite the fact that "JT"'s involvement was documented in the permit database.  Now we learn that "JT" never existed as far as this project goes ... a figment of everyone's imagination. But that's not the worst part.

The memo from the Council alleges that the determination of a non-wetland was made by Gibboney based on a review from Mike Thomas himself (is Mike Thomas a qualified wetland scientist?). Perhaps the most amusing lines in the whole memo are:

Although in this instance, the County was providing the wetlands review at no cost to citizens and paying for it from funds set aside in the CAO implementation plan, Mr. Thomas saved the County an unnecessary expense by his review, and Ms. Gibboney by her determination.

Saving money? They actually claim that Mike Thomas is saving taxpayers money, and the Council gives him a pat on the back as a result. But that's not the worst part.

The Council says there was no wrongdoing ... but there sure seems to have been a coverup. I guess we are supposed to believe that Annie Matsumoto-Grah wasn't ordered to rewrite her report? Chris Laws wasn't ordered to rewrite his report? Ecology wasn't prevented from providing a report, even after Ecology employee Doug Gresham went on the record about wetlands on the subject parcel? More shockingly, the official County enforcement file was redacted to remove all mention of Mike Thomas and Bob Jarman ... with all redactions ironically placed in a folder titled "Chris Laws Personal Information" -- ironic because Chris Laws refused to redact the file himself, and ironic because personal information is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, and ironic because they are hiding Thomas' and Jarman's involvement among the whistleblower's own "personal" information. But that's not the worst part.

The County Charter requires the Council to take action only by Resolution or Ordinance. Nowhere is the power of "investigation" given to the Council. The word "investigation" doesn't even appear in the Charter. Moreover, the County is currently being sued all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court regarding violations of the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA). The OPMA requires that all government actions be deliberated in public. Action is defined in the OPMA as (emphasis added):

"Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

The Friday memo is neither a Resolution nor an Ordinance, but it is clearly an action taken by the Council. It was not deliberated in public. It is a conspicuous violation of the Charter and the OPMA. The signature line says that Bob Jarman "recused" himself. Recused himself from what? It is obvious that the Council worked on this memo out of public view and came to conclusions and then signed their name to their final decision. On its face, this memo alone would appear to present enough evidence of procedural misconduct to justify its own separate whistleblower complaint ... which, if it were to occur, would be the fifth this year. But that's not the worst part.

The worst part is the situation in toto. It is inconceivable how badly our County government has deteriorated, and it is time to publicly call for investigations. We, at the Trojan Heron, feel it is time for the State, or even the Federal government, to investigate corruption here in San Juan County government. As a friend of the Heron says, it is time to take the keys away.

Most Official County Response?

As a brief interlude ...

As some of you may know, Stan Matthews recently retired, so he's no longer the County public spokesperson.

A reader sent me the video below purporting to show the new County spokesperson providing the official County response to the ongoing controversy over the Portland Fair situation. I also was sent a related video purporting to show Mike Thomas and his wife being interviewed about their involvement in that controversy.

Enjoy!

When is a Wetland not a Wetland?

We’ve been reviewing the statistical and demographic train wreck that is San Juan County, but we want to pause for a moment to update everyone on some current events.

During public comment at the County Council meeting last Monday (June 8), some citizens finally brought to light a situation regarding wetlands that has been brewing for some time. We’ve been following this story quietly, letting events unfold. Now it’s time to summarize some of the salient points and let the general citizenry evaluate this situation for themselves.

It’s a controversy involving wetlands … specifically some purported wetlands on San Juan Island in a development called Portland Fair. Now, before we get into the details of this story, we have to first state that we, at the Trojan Heron, have a particular point of view about “wetland science” and “wetland scientists”. Namely, if you were to send 5 wetland scientists out to an identical property, you are likely to get 10 different opinions about the presence of wetlands on that property. No matter how much mumbo jumbo may be spouted about the integrity of wetland science, the only repeatable aspect of this “science” is its non-repeatability. We’ve seen this time and again. For example, Adamus insisted his methods were essentially 100% correct regarding the presence and location of wetlands in the county, but we’ve seen numerous instances where the official county wetland consultant (Scott Rozenbaum) has disagreed with Adamus’ work, and so on. It invariably occurs that every wetland scientist is absolutely convinced about the veracity of his or her wetland determination for a particular property, but with inevitable regularity, that determination differs violently from that of every other wetland scientist who evaluates that same property. We won’t go into why that happens here … just suffice to say that such occurrences are a basic fact of life in the confusing wetland world, and it plays out in the story we are about to relate.

Our story begins with Sheryl Albritton. Albritton is a resident of San Juan Island, and she also happens to serve professionally as a critical area consultant. She was interested in buying a piece of property adjacent to her home. After performing due diligence on the property, including discussing wetland issues with the County (Annie Matsumoto-Grah), Albritton and her husband declined to purchase the property because they felt the parcel was too heavily impacted by critical areas issues, specifically wetlands.

Subsequently, another couple purchased the land, and Albritton soon noticed that the property was being developed in ways that she understood to be illegal. Albritton filed a complaint with the Washington Department of Ecology regarding the filling of wetlands on the subject property. Albritton also objected about San Juan County staff being overruled by management when they tried to perform wetland reconnaissance for the subject property, as per the San Juan County Code.

When the Washington Department of Ecology receives a complaint like Albritton’s, they fill out an Environmental Report Tracking System (ERTS) form and notify the local Code Enforcement Officer, who in our case is Chris Laws. Laws received the ERTS complaint for this situation, and he then had the responsibility to conduct an investigation, assisted by Ecology as appropriate.

Laws’ investigation found that County employee Annie Matusumoto-Grah had previously provided written information to Albritton saying that the subject parcel was potentially heavily impacted by possible wetlands; however, the new owners nonetheless had received County approval for their development from Annie Matusumoto-Grah … but Matsumoto-Grah’s approval came at the specific direction of Sam Gibboney, head of DCD, who stated that County Manager Mike Thomas walked the site with “local wetland expert JT” and found no signs of any wetlands. The “JT” evaluation circumvented the “normal” wetland ordeal that would typically afflict any other property owner in a similar situation.

Matusmoto-Grah had requested from Gibboney the identification of the mysterious “wetland expert JT” and his/her qualifications, but Gibboney refused to provide any information. Matsumoto-Grah nonetheless documented the situation as best she could in the county permitting database.

As Laws' investigation went on to discover, the new owners of the subject parcel had asked their local councilman for some “help” with their development project. This councilman, in turn, went to County Manager Mike Thomas to ask for a favor for his neighbor/constituent. While Mike Thomas has no expertise in wetlands that we know of (he’s a planner by background), his wife, Jennifer, is a wetland scientist. In fact, some of Jennifer Thomas’ work can be found in San Juan County's CAO Best Available Science on wetlands. Jennifer Thomas, as it turns out, is “JT”.

Jennifer Thomas’ drive-by and walk-through property inspection superseded the formal wetland reconnaissance required by the CAO County code. Apparently, wetland science includes the protocol that when (through your connections) you can get the right bureaucrats to say there isn’t a wetland on your property, you can avoid all the onerous requirements of the CAO ... while everyone else is thrown to the wolves.

In case you are keeping score regarding the opinions of the professional wetland scientists associated with this property, here’s the tally so far: Adamus thought there were wetlands on the subject property (hence the original advice by Annie Matsumoto-Grah), Sheryl Albritton thought there were wetlands. Jennifer Thomas (whose work is in the County BAS blessed by Adamus) didn’t think there were any signs of wetlands.

But wait … there’s more … while Laws was conducting his background investigation, Professional Wetland Scientist Doug Gresham of Ecology was undertaking his own evaluation in parallel. Gresham visited the subject property to conduct his own wetlands review, and he determined that there wasn’t just one wetland present, but three.

Okay … those are the “facts” … and then the alleged cover up began. The details are sketchy, but based on information pulled together from various sources; this is what appears to have happened since then.

Laws asked Ecology to formalize their 3-wetland finding in a report so he could place it in the enforcement file. A couple of days after agreeing to Laws’ request, Gresham of Ecology called Laws to tell him that he could not finalize his report because he was told by his superiors (the notorious Erik Stockdale) not to finalize it … because of political pressure.

Matsumoto-Grah, who had documented in an office memo the coercion and interference of Mike Thomas and the refusal of Gibboney to provide any information about “JT”, was then instructed to re-write her official statement to exclude any references as to how she felt about the involvement of Mike Thomas or Gibboney vis-a-vis normal staff procedure related to wetlands.

Based on the information gathered during his initial investigation, Laws filed a “whistleblower” complaint against Mike Thomas with Prosecuting Attorney Randall Gaylord for Improper Governmental Action (IGA). Reportedly, Laws has been the subject of harassment and intimidation within the County ever since.

And that’s where we will leave it for now … but there is more to tell … and more to come ...

The SJC permit database documents the involvement of JT (Jennifer Thomas) in securing the permit.

Potentially Actionable?!?

So now OPALCO is threatening to sue Bob Jarman?

We were going to move on from the OPALCO story, but the following letter just came to light. It seems that after Bob Jarman wrote a letter to the online news outlets raising questions about OPALCO, he received the letter below from OPALCO's legal counsel. We presume the current OPALCO Board authorized the letter ... but if they didn't, that's even worse.

It's a head scratcher. What is it about this place that causes everyone in an official position to view dissent as a crime?

For full disclosure, the Trojan Heron would like nothing better than to have high-speed broadband access for everyone in the islands. We feel it is a necessity for any participant in the modern economy, but holy smokes ... can we get some outfit to provide broadband service who doesn't behave like either OPALCO or Centurynolink?

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.

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.

A Buried Report

The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) ruled on our proposed CAOs on September 6, 2013. In October, the Department of Ecology came out with a new Best Available Science (BAS) document titled, Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. It was authored by none other than Tom Hruby, the go-to wetlands science guru at the Department of Ecology.

This 2013 document updates Ecology's 2005 guidance on wetland buffers in some substantial ways. Over the next few postings, we will delve into the new document, but for now, suffice to say that while the new document still has some significant problems, it makes some surprising admissions too. In answer to the question of how large buffers should be, the new 47-page document essentially says, "It depends."

Yes ... it depends on a myriad of site-specific factors ... so it is impossible to prescribe fixed buffer widths ahead of time. Wow!

County staff have known about this report since it was issued. This fact came to light during CAO public comment last week. CD&P knew about it. County Manager Mike Thomas knew about it. Nevertheless, all during the effort to "fix" the latest version of the CAOs after the GMHB ruling, those who have been "in the know" did not inform the Planning Commission about the new document. Those "in the know" did not inform the Council about it either. Interestingly, even Ecology's official correspondence with the County doesn't mention their own new science document.

Among other things, the 2013 Final Report talks about the Meyer paper, and it talks about the Zhang paper. When deliberating about potential revisions to the CAOs back in November, Planning Commissioner Brian Erhmantraut tried to get the Planning Commission to consider buffers based on the Zhang paper, but the other Commissioners shot down the idea because (they thought) the Zhang paper wasn't supported by Ecology BAS. So, the Planning Commission and CD&P pressed forward in making revisions to the CAO based on 2005 BAS, not 2013 BAS. That's where we are at the moment. We have CAO revisions based on outdated BAS.

The 2013 BAS document is very inconvenient to anyone who just wants to get 'er done because it raises serious questions about the basic validity of Ecology's historical approach to buffers ... and our County's approach as well. The new BAS document is not perfect by any means, but at least it is nudging closer to the truth. Considering it was issued by the Kremlin of buffer science, it makes some astonishing admissions.

But "they" buried it so no one would be the wiser.

New BAS report issued after the San Juan County GMHB ruling and at about the same time as the SCOTUS Koontz decision.

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.

Deja Vu All Over Again

Tomorrow morning (February 11, 2014) at 9:15, the County Council will take public comment on the latest draft of the CAOs. This Council has decided to go forward by going backwards ... in all senses of that word. This Council has decided to proceed with yet another new CAO despite still-pending litigation on the last version.

This Council's CAO work has been so unoriginal that they haven't even mustered the creativity to make their own mistakes. They are recycling a CAO framework first thought up, and then rejected, by Shireene Hale and the previous Council years ago. It's not simpler. It's not better. It's not newer.

The new old version is currently planned for enactment by the end of March.

Our Fourth Councilman?

According to State law, our elected Prosecuting Attorney serves as a legal advisor to our Council while also representing the County in all criminal and civil proceedings where the County is a party. Under our Charter, the Council must use resolutions to declare policy or exercise its executive power.

When the County's CAO was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) in June 2013, our Prosecuting Attorney's (PA's) Office defended the ordinance in front of the GMHB. I want readers to take particular note of the date. The GMHB hearings occurred during June 2013 ... after our new three-person Council took office. Our PA's defense of the CAO ostensibly took place under the direction of a different Council from the one that rammed the CAOs down our throats in its waning days last December. Our current Council has not passed any resolutions declaring its policy stance towards the new CAO nor directed the PA to defend any particular position regarding the previous Council's CAO work product.

Then, when the GMHB ruling came down in September 2013, it was the PA who issued a press release declaring the GMHB outcome to be largely a victory for the County. Again, there was no comment or resolution from the County Council.

Even though the GMHB ruling struck down parts of the County's CAO, the County did not file to defend the new CAOs in Superior Court (CSA and the Friends have filed suit with Superior Court). Again, there has been no comment or resolution from the County Council.

Last week, the PA's office opposed a Motion to Stay brought by CSA regarding enactment of the new CAO. CSA seeks to stay the implementation of the new CAO until the legal issues can be fully resolved by the courts. Along with the Friends, our PA's office, on behalf of our County, is opposing the motion. Again, there has been no comment or resolution from the County Council.

Let's review ...

• New Council takes over in May 2013.  What do we hear from our Council about the CAO? ... crickets.
• The GMHB hearings occur in June 2013. What do we hear from our Council in terms of coordinating with the PA on a position regarding the CAO? ... crickets.
• The GMHB ruling is issued in September 2013. What do we hear from our Council? ... crickets.
• CSA and the Friends file to take the GMHB ruling to Superior Court in October 2013. What do we hear from our Council? ... crickets.
• Our PA files an opposition to CSA's Motion to Stay in October 2013 ... and so do the Friends.  What do we hear from our Council? ... crickets.

No one knows how the new CAOs will affect wildlife in the San Juans, but the crickets are flourishing at the County Council chambers.

With last week's opposition to stay, this Council cannot hide from the CAOs anymore. We already knew of Stephens' advocacy for the CAOs, since he voted for them. Now, we have to put Hughes' and Jarman's names alongside those of Pratt, Miller, Fralick, and Rosenfeld as those who are forcing a dysfunctional CAO upon us. Not even Pratt, Miller, Fralick, and Rosenfeld took court action to have the CAOs enacted, but last week, this Council allowed our PA to do just that. While our Council does nothing, Gaylord is making up County policy out of thin air ... and our Council sits on its hands doing nothing to stop it.

The CAOs have acquired several nicknames over the past few years ... Crazy Asinine Ordinance, Critical Agenda (21) Ordinance, Can't Avoid Obedience ... but under this Council, it might as well stand for "Currently Absent Officials." Despite the fact that the CAOs were a major election issue, this Council has done nothing about them, and in the resulting policy vacuum, our PA has been happy to act in their place.

Who is directing our PA regarding the CAOs?  Answer: Not our Council.

Robins Can Be Territorial

Jamie Stephens recently proposed three appointments to our Marine Resources Committee (MRC). Stephens slipped in the nominees at the end of a long day, and Jarman and Hughes rubber stamped the appointments without thinking.

One of the newly appointed MRC members is a Nature Conservancy employee who lives in solitude on an 11-acre preserve on Yellow Island. Another appointee is the Chairman of the Board of Kwiaht. And the third appointee is probably best known for having allegedly impersonated a County employee in order to spy on her neighbors ... so she could then tell the Friends what the neighbor was up to ... so the Friends could then turn that neighbor into State authorities. Sound familiar?

Once they realized that they had been hoodwinked by Stephens, Jarman and Hughes asked for reconsideration of their unanimous MRC appointments. After further deliberation, the appointment of Robin Hirsch, the alleged County impersonator, did not go forward, but the other two appointments stood.

Below are excerpts of emails documenting the Robin Hirsch saga. In a nutshell, a neighbor of Robin Hirsch's was having work done on their shoreline property.  The work was being conducted with the permission of the County. All the necessary permissions and permits were obtained. The homeowners were being entirely cooperative with the County, including being cooperative about ameliorating past permit and construction errors. Nevertheless, Robin Hirsch was not pleased about the work, and ... well ... you can read the email excerpts below for yourself.

Guess how Robin Hirsch described herself on her MRC application? She said, "I am honest, hard working, and diplomatic."

What's the concern with honest, hard working, and diplomatic Stephens' nominees?

From: Chris Laws [mailto:ChrisL@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:24 PM
To: XXXXX
Subject: XX Hunziker Rd

Mr. XXXX, and Mr. XXXX,

It has come to my attention that someone maybe walking onto your property and impersonating a County employee, or suggesting that they work for the County.

Please be advised that this may be a violation of state law pursuant to RCW 9A.60.040 and the County takes this type of behavior seriously; the Prosecuting Attorney’s office has been apprised of the situation and recommends that those who have witnessed this first hand contact the Senior Prosecuting Attorney Charlie Silverman whom I have cc’d in this e-mail and can be reached at (360) 370-7605

I want to make it clear that all County Employees carry identification and will gladly produce them if asked; additionally, any County employee will also have their supervisor’s information readily available for you or your contractors and employees should they ask.

-       Chris

Christopher S. Laws

Code Enforcement Officer

San Juan County

(360) 370-7587

chrisl@sanjuanco.com

__________________________________________________________________________________

From:                                         XXXXX

Sent:                                           Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:38 PM

To:                                               Chris Laws

Subject:                                     Robin [Hirsch] Impersonation of County Officer  / Orcas Island Residential Construction Project

Chris,

Thank you for this suggestion. We were outraged but hardly thought that we had any recourse.

Robin [Hirsch], who lives about a mile from our property ...  came down to the property about two weeks ago (March 20^th). She pretended to be a County employee, from your department, was extremely abusive to our contractor, Denny Howell, and threatened us with County revenge for “ruining” the place. When Denny asked to see her County I.D., Robin said she didn’t have it and continued to scream.

...

She took photographs and apparently returned to our property this weekend to take more ... We did forbid Robin and her husband to walk the property or trespass after the first incident. However, it now looks like we have to post No Trespassing signs and mount motion-activated cams / cameras around the place.  ...

I am just running out with our clients for lunch, but wanted to thank you first. I should be able to break away to call as you requested sometime tomorrow.

Yours Sincerely,

XXXX

From: XXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:07 PM
To: 'Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie)'; KRentz@perkinscoie.com
Subject: Report on 3/20/2013 Trespassing Incident / Orcas Project
Importance: High

Sandy,

What follows was relayed to us by Denny Howell, our general contractor on our residential construction project ... on Orcas Island:

On the morning of Wednesday, March 20^th, 2013, Denny and a member of his construction crew, Mike Welch , started work installing the planned and permitted metal deer fence along the west side of our property. A small excavator was used to clear a 5’ path through the salal in the woods. No trees were removed and only surface vegetation was cut back, leaving the root systems of the salal intact to regrow. Shortly after they started work, two men approached them crossing from the neighbor’s property on the west onto our property ... They demanded loudly of Mike: “What are you doing? Why are you working in the forest? Why are you removing salal?”

Mike called Denny over to answer them, and he told them they were installing deer fencing that was permitted by the County. At that point a woman named Robin came up crossing from the Hammer property, carrying a clip board and a pen. Denny asked what she was there for and her response was: “I am with the County. I’ve come down to see what you are doing. What are you doing? Why are you working in the forest and removing salal?” Denny again responded as above, and then asked Robin for her County identification card. She seemed put out, but replied that she didn’t have one. Then she started darting around in the forest taking photographs and screaming threats at Denny and Mike. She yelled abusively that this was not allowed and she was going to report it to the County. At that point Denny asked her to leave the property ... The three left.

Randy Pence, a carpenter on our crew, witnessed at least part of the incident and recognized that she was Robin [Hirsch] Roser;  

...

Since then Robin has been seen skulking on our property, hiding in bushes or behind trees taking photographs of the project. When we met the County building inspector, Jason Hensel, a week later on the driveway into our place, I mentioned to him what had happened and the fact she had impersonated a County officer. He asked for her name and seemed generally surprised, saying that she should have bought the property herself if she had wanted it so much. Yesterday, we received an email from Chris Laws, the County Code Enforcement Officer who had clearly heard from Jason about Robin’s masquerading as a County officer. He was outraged, wrote that it was illegal and requested that we file a complaint with the San Juan County prosecuting attorney. His email also stated that someone was trespassing on our property and taking photographs. This we surmised from the issues that came up earlier this week and the photos attached to the email from Kurt Baumgartner at the Washington Department of Ecology, which we know were taken on site between last Thursday evening (after it started raining) and Sunday evening (April 4 – 7, 2013).

...

All the Best,

XXXX

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #6

When you're pulling a scam, it's a question of timing. Obviously, you wait until the entire plan is cooked and ready to serve, then it's time for the patsy.

For Rosenkotter, Lyshall, and Zee, after you've coordinated with the State, after you've informed the PSP, after you've gotten letters from the tribes, then you invite Jarman and Hughes around for a little "discussion." You present your scheme as a fait accompli ... a done deal ... just sign on the bottom line.

Then, you circle back with Jamie before going before the Council on July 15 and voila, the suckers will never know what hit them. It's just like taking candy from a baby ... or in this case, that might be better put as "taking oversight and millions from the County."

Only it didn't work this time. But the entire Conservation District ploy is an example of how it usually does work around here. By the time "they" reveal their plans to normal folks, the fix is already in. They've been maneuvering for weeks, if not months. They're a dozen steps ahead of everyone else.

If you're in a poker game, and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy. We've been the patsy for a long, long time.
_______________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:46 AM

To: 'llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org'

Subject: RE: Meeting tomorrow?

Are we meeting at Rick's office?

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐

From: Linda Lyshall [mailto:llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org]

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:42 AM

To: Barbara Rosenkotter

Subject: FW: Meeting tomorrow?

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐

From: Rick Hughes [mailto:rickh@sanjuanco.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:05 AM

To: llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org

Subject: Re: Meeting tomorrow?

Sounds good.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:21 AM, "llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org" <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org> wrote:

>

> Ok. How about if we try to meet just after the picnic around 1:30?

>

>> Linda:

>>

>> Today the schedule is tight. There may be a few minutes after the

>> staff picnic and I will be on the 2:15 boat to Orcas.

>>

>> Not sure of my schedule on 7/3.

>>

>> Rick

>> Sent from my iPhone

>>

>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:31 PM, "Linda Lyshall" <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org<mailto:llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org> wrote:

>>

>> Rick,

>> Barbara Rosenkotter and I would like to meet with you to discuss the

>> fiscal agent for the salmon recovery program. Do you have anytime

>> available tomorrow afternoon or the afternoon of July 3rd?

>>

>> Thank you,

>>

>> Linda

>>

>> Linda Lyshall, District Manager

>> San Juan Islands Conservation District

>> 540 Guard St., Friday Harbor, WA

>> Office: 360.378.6621

>> Cell: 425.478.9131

_______________________________________________________

From: Linda Lyshall <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org>

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM

To: Bob Jarman

Cc: Barbara Rosenkotter; b.gregory@sanjuanislandscd.org

Subject: RE: Meeting Request

Great. How about 4:00 at our office at 530 Guard Street?

From: Bob Jarman [mailto:bobja@sanjuanco.com]

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:13 AM

To: <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org>

Subject: Re: Meeting Request

Next Tuesday works for me just need to know where.

Bob Jarman

On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:44 AM, "Linda Lyshall" <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org> wrote:

Bob,

Barbara Rosenkotter, Bruce Gregory, and I would like to meet with you to discuss returning the lead entity

program to the Conservation District. I understand that Jamie has this on the agenda for the 15th and I wanted

to give you an opportunity to hear the details ahead of time, and to address any questions you might have.

The best times for us are tomorrow afternoon, anytime between 2:30 and 5:30, or next Tuesday between 4:00

and 5:30. Do either of those times work for you?

Look forward to talking with you,

Linda

Linda Lyshall

District Manager

San Juan Islands Conservation District

540 Guard Street

360‐378‐6621

_______________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:49 PM

To: Linda Lyshall (llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org)

Subject: Fw: Monday

FYI, I left a message last night for Jamie asking about the meeting. I suspected that we may only get through an overview of the various programs vs any decision making, which is probably for the best right now. Please see his response below.

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

‐‐‐‐‐Original message‐‐‐‐‐

From: Jamie Stephens <jamies@sanjuanco.com>

To: Barbara Rosenkotter <barbarar@sanjuanco.com>

Sent: Thu, Jul 11, 2013 16:40:36 GMT+00:00

Subject: Monday

The original plan was to discuss the possible move of Salmon Recovery to the Cons. District. However, it is clear that a more basic discussion needs to had about the LIO, MRC, and SR. Roles and responsibilities; where funding comes from; and oversight. As we have discussed, the County doesn’t oversee Salmon Recovery, it just acts as the fiscal agent whereas that role changes with the LIO.

There is a misconception that if SR stays in the County that we will have oversight.

I hope this helps

Jamie

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #5

Barbara Rosenkotter keeps in touch with inter-governmental officials with the same unstoppable vigor of a salmon swimming upstream to spawn. We've only shown you a portion of her correspondence with various officials. During the whole time she's been deliberatin' and conjugatin' with the tribes and the Conservation District, she's been keeping the State Lead Entity Program Manager apprised too (Lloyd Moody). She has such a good relationship with Lloyd that she even asks if she can have the Lead Entity contract term changed to fit her schedule better ... because the tribes just aren't moving fast enough for Rosenkotter's liking so that everything can get done by July 1. To paraphrase Lloyd's response to Rosenkotter, "he's on it."

It's marvelous how Rosenkotter is able to keep so many people in the loop ... except our County Council. If you read her email, you will note that she expects to get the County's blessing at the end of the process, rather than at the beginning. Oh wait ... Rosenkotter says that she's talked to one County Councilman who appears to be supportive of the move! Gee, I wonder who that could be?

Everybody's in on this, except Jarman and Hughes. Don't forget to copy Scott Williamson of the PSP too!
________________________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter

Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:37 PM

To: Moody, Lloyd (GSRO)

Subject: RE: LE Transition - Extend PSAR portion of existing contract?

Thank you!

______________________________________________________

From: Moody, Lloyd (GSRO) [mailto:lloyd.moody@gsro.wa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:35 PM

To: Barbara Rosenkotter

Cc: Williamson, Scott (PSP)

Subject: RE: LE Transition - Extend PSAR portion of existing contract?

Barbara –

Thanks for your time on the phone to help me get a more clear picture. I’m on it. I’ll let you know what I uncover, assuming the legislature doesn’t do anything really silly…

Lloyd
___________________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter [mailto:barbarar@sanjuanco.com]

Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:41 AM

To: Moody, Lloyd (GSRO)

Cc: Williamson, Scott (PSP)

Subject: LE Transition - Extend PSAR portion of existing contract?

Lloyd,

FYI, I have one formal letter of support from the San Juan Islands Conservation District indicating their support for being the fiscal agent for the San Juan LE Program. I have requested an updated status from Lummi, Tulalip and Swinomish as to where they are in the process of providing letters of support and so far I have not heard any concerns expressed. And I have also spoken to one San Juan County Council member so far who is supportive of the move.

But it looks like this will continue to be a slow process, so is it possible to extend the PSAR portion of the existing LE contract with San Juan County through September rather than starting a new contract with San Juan County that then has to be redone with the San Juan CD? Seems like that would be the easiest solution.

Then once we have the county’s blessing to move the program then we can start the new contracting with the CD so it is in place when the move is likely to occur, i.e. in August or September.

I had a conversation with Scott this morning and it sounds like he would support this approach. Would this option also work for RCO?

Thanks

Barbara Rosenkotter

Lead Entity Coordinator for Salmon Recovery

San Juan County / WRIA2

barbarar@sanjuanco.com

360-370-7593

PO Box 947

135 Rhone Street

Friday Harbor, WA 98250