Showing posts with label Puget Sound Partnership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Puget Sound Partnership. Show all posts

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Pure Imagination: Tulalip Burial Grounds

Dana Kinsey of Orcas Island, and formerly of the Conservation District, recently wrote an open letter to Councilmen Jarman and Hughes about her concerns regarding our Local Integrating Organization (LIO). In her letter, Kinsey alleges that Linda Lyshall has been shifting LIO funding to the Conservation Distict for her own benefit. Kinsey wrote:
It appears that [Lyshall] is determining projects, grantees and funding now. I thought she was originally hired by San Juan County to coordinate the LIO part time as a county employee. Now suddenly, in this new proposal all the work and money go to the Conservation District. Is it because [Lyshall] took a job there in May?
We agree with Kinsey that the Council should start asking the LIO a lot more questions ... everyone should. Even in a world where miscreant government is the norm, the LIO sticks out for being a freakish Franken-bureaucracy beyond compare.

The Trojan Heron will do an entire series of posts about the LIO in the near future, but for the moment, we want to provide some background about one of its governing members ... the Tulalip Tribes. 

First, we need to explain how the Tulalips fit into the LIO. The LIO is "governed" by an Accountability Oversight Committee (AOC) comprised of our County government together with three local tribes ... the Tulalip Tribes, the Lummi Nation, and the Swinomish Tribe. The LIO manages our local ecosystem, using the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda for San Juan County as a plan.  That's right ... our local ecosystem is not managed by our elected County Council. Instead it is managed according to a blueprint (the Action Agenda) formulated by a State bureaucracy (the PSP) and then implemented by an intergovernmental panel consisting of 1 collective vote for 3 local tribes and 1 vote for our elected County government.

So what are our LIO tribal partners like? Here are some facts about the Tulalips.

As anyone who has driven down I-5 knows, the Tulalip Tribes have a reservation in Snohomish County. The 22,000-acre reservation is home to about 2,500 tribal members (another 1,500 live off the reservation) and about 8,000 non-tribal members. That gives the reservation a population density exceeding 3 times that of San Juan County. 

According to DSHS, tribal members are entitled to a $2,000 quarterly stipend, with a December bonus of $3,500. In 2012, tribal members received $11,500. The elderly and disabled receive payments of $1,000 per month. Tuition assistance is available for Tulalip tribal members attending college. Tribal members also receive an employment preference for jobs on the reservation.

Who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member? That is a very interesting question. These days, to become a Tulalip tribal member, a child has to be born to a tribal member who has lived on the reservation for at least 12 months prior to the child's birth. That means that a full-blood Tulalip born in Boston, New York City, or Portland is not a member of the tribe and can never be a member of the tribe. On the other hand, even a mostly non-Tulalip child born on the reservation to a tribal member is automatically a tribal member. These strange tribal membership rules are described by a Tulalip tribal member and blogger in the following way:
As a 20 year old Tulalip female, it disturbs me to know that there is no blood quantum to become a Tulalip tribal member. “The applicant must be a child born to any Member of the tribe, which Member is a Resident as defined herein.” [Sec.3.0] Since this is all you have to do to become a tribal member, the tribe ends up having a lot of non-native members. 
The rules provide a loop hole that permits whites and other non-natives to enroll. My cousin is a perfect example. He is less than one-eighth and is still an enrolled tribal member. His child is less than one-sixteenth because he is having a baby with a white woman. His child will surely be enrolled because he lives on the Tulalip Reservation and is a tribal member of the Tulalip tribes. The resident rule excludes some Native Americans from enrollment. 
For example, my younger sister didn’t have acceptable mail with her name and address on it. She needed it to prove residency which caused problems in enrolling her children. My sister is currently living on the Tulalip reservation with her children where they have been living since they were born. The rules also cause problems for Tulalip tribal members who move off of the reservation.
Other tribes tease the Tulalip tribes because many of our members are white. They call us white Tulalip because the large amount of white tribal members. A Native American tribe is supposed to be made up of Native American people not white or black people. If non-natives are allowed to be enrolled, they take money from the Native Americans.
In other words, Tulalip tribal membership isn't the same as Tulalip heritage anymore, and the Tulalips are not the only tribe to view tribal membership in this way. In fact, a congressional study predicts that nationwide only 3% of "Indians" will be full blooded by 2080.

The Tulalips have been very successful economically. The reservation operates Quil Ceda Village (a 100-store mall), Quil Ceda Creek Casino, Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip Liquor Store and Smoke Shop, Tulalip Broadband, a fish hatchery, and a closed hazardous waste landfill that used to be a Superfund site ... more on that in a moment.

Tulalip operations earn hundreds of millions in revenue each year (estimated to be more than $200 million back in 2005). Only a very small proportion of tribal revenue is generated from fishing these days. Reportedly, 30 tribal members are licensed to fish, which is down from about 130 tribal members in the mid-1980s.

Getting back to the Tulalip Superfund Site, the EPA says the following:
Tulalip Landfill is a 147-acre site located on North Ebey Island, within the boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation near Marysville, Washington. The landfill is surrounded by Ebey Slough to the north and Steamboat Slough to the south. Surface water from these sloughs flows into northern Puget Sound, a federally designated national estuary that is a recognized habitat for shellfish and some endangered species, including salmon. The Tulalip Tribe leased land to the Seattle Disposal Company from 1964 to 1979. During that time, an estimated four million tons of commercial, industrial, and hospital waste were deposited in the landfill. In 1979, the landfill was closed. An estimated 7,800 people obtain their drinking water from private and municipal wells that are within four miles of the site. The nearest drinking water source is within one mile of the site.
The site underwent cleanup about 15 years ago, and in April 2013, the EPA completed it's third 5-Year Review of the remedy. The remedy consists of an engineered 7-layer containment system to better isolate the waste and contamination, groundwater monitoring for at least 30 years, and institutional controls (e.g., land use restrictions and administrative controls such as warning signs).

Prior to landfilling activities, the land on which the landfill is located consisted of relatively undisturbed intertidal wetlands. After landfilling operations ceased, contaminated leachate was seeping out into the nearby wetlands causing concerns for human health and the environment, so the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in April 1995. In an editorial from that year, Greg Wingard, President Waste Action Project Seattle, wrote the following:
EPA investigation of the site showed hazardous and bio-hazard waste was disposed of there. Leachate from the landfill was determined to be toxic and a danger to salmon in the nearby Quilceda Creek.  When EPA sent a team of divers in to investigate the landfill's impact on Puget Sound, they found body parts, bloody bandages and other medical waste.
Most of the divers contracted armpit and groin infections as a result of their exposure. Tests run on bacteria samples by EPA showed most of the samples were highly resistant to the 13 antibiotics tested. Some of the samples were 100 percent resistant to everything used against them. This information is contained in the EPA Region X file on the landfill.
From looking at the documentation and the data, I have to say that I truly believe the Tulalip landfill has an effective remedy in place now. In its current remediated state, I believe that the risks to human health and the environment have been mitigated. But if the remediated Tulalip landfill of horrors can safety exist directly adjacent to the shore of Puget Sound, so can an average home in the San Juans.

The Tulalips have a role in managing our ecosystem via the LIO. Tribal employees (e.g., Kit Rawson) have been long-term tribal representatives to our Marine Resources Committee. Tulalips have "usual and accustomed" fishing rights in our waters. When you encounter Tulalip environmental-ish policies and statements regarding salmon ... or regarding climate change and sea level rise ... or even their heritage ... take note that fishing is just one more line of business for the tribe and its tribal members ... take note that the Tulalip reservation has a delisted Superfund site sitting in wetlands barely above high tide on Puget Sound ... take note of who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member and who doesn't ... take note that the tribe is an economic and development powerhouse.

I believe Tulalip tribal government officials have been very effective advocates for the economic and cultural interests of their tribal members ... and we should expect our County Council to be no less effective at advocating for us.

An oblique aerial photo of the remediated Tulalip Superfund Landfill on North Ebey Island on the Tulalip Reservation.  Where is the buffer?

Friday, August 30, 2013

The ABCs of Political Patronage

Lead Salmon Recovery Entity ... MRC ... LIO/AAOG ... Conservation District ... Stewardship Network ... Madrona Institute ... Friends of the San Juans ... ECONet ... PSP ... glossy Friends messaging brochures funded by State-government (PSP) Targeted Awareness Grants (TAG) ... millions spent on "salmon recovery" with no measurement of results and no accountability for failure ... frivolous and abusive Friends legal actions opposing everything from an 80-year old widow wanting to retire, to the CAOs -- whose passage and approval the Friends demanded.

You can cut the environmental phoniness in this county with a knife. We don't have "save the environment" groups. We have "save the environmental bureaucracy" groups.  Their primary interests are ensuring that they continue to get paid while they protect the political patronage system they've built.

The current titular heads of the patronage system are Jamie Stephens and Ron Zee. They are working in tandem to hold on to as much of the patronage system as they can, despite the election outcome.  So far, they're doing a pretty good job, and Stephens, in particular, is doing a superb job.

One of the greatest achievements of the patronage system is that we all take for granted that the County deserves a "seat at the table" with the tribes, the PSP, and even its own departments ... instead of actually running the County itself. The County has been demoted to being just another stakeholder, and the group-think of unelected employees and appointees has been promoted to government. That's how the LIO/AAOG works ... and the Stewardship Network ... and the ECONet ... the Lead Entity ... even the County's own MRC.  These groups are accountable to no one, and they represent no one but themselves. They reward themselves and their patronage cronies with money and multi-decade appointments while the County sits on its hands, convinced that it's just a "fiscal agent" or some other bureaucratic label that equates to "eunuch."

The congress of "environmental groups" operating here traces back to relatively few people who appear over and over again, but the proliferation of organizations, committees, and trusts makes it seem like the County is outnumbered. The County has been Delphi'd ... go along with the crowd ... behave ... fall in line ... be patient ... be part of a team ... you want to agree with the rest of us, don't you? ... DON'T YOU?!?!

Stephens has this down pat, and he is working the other two Councilmen for all its worth. Stephens' protection of the patronage system is nothing short of heroic. He got himself appointed Chair of the Council. Stephens sits on the MRC. He's the Council representative on the LIO/AAOG too ... all the key places the patronage system wants to protect. Also, despite the fact that major aspects of the patronage system should have been (and could have been) dismantled immediately, Stephens' has effectively used a series of delay tactics and other maneuvers to convince the other Councilmen that they're "part of a team" and reform "takes time" and we need "patience" ... let's get more "input." When you hear one of our politicians use those words, that's the patronage system talking ... that's a Delphi zombie courtesy of Stephens.

John Cleese recently wrote a satirical piece about terror alerts in various countries in Europe.  Here's what he said about the French.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Aside from that excerpt being terribly ironic given the positions taken by the UK and France over the last two days, let's hope it's not the role model for our new Councilmen as they contend with our system of political patronage.

Jamie Stephens, Chair of the San Juan County Council


Ron Zee, Chair of the San Juan Islands Conservation District


Monday, August 19, 2013

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

Friday, August 16, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #3

Another Rosenkotter email to another tribe (Tulalip ... Rawson's former employer). The Tulalip letter to the State is at the bottom of this post.  As with the Lummi correspondence, no one bothers to inform or even cc our Council.
______________________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Terry Williams
Subject: San Juan Lead Entity Transition
Dear Terry,
As a follow up to my voice mail message…

We are considering moving the fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity from San Juan County to the San Juan Islands Conservation District. As you may recall, the Lead Entity was originally housed within the San Juan Islands Conservation District when the Lead Entity program was established in the San Juans in 2000. It was moved to San Juan County in 2005.

Due to ever tightening county budgets San Juan County has sought to recoup additional overhead costs at the same time that federal and state funding for the Lead Entity program has been reduced. This has put an ongoing squeeze on the local program. As you know, the Lead Entity Coordinator position was reduced to part time this last year due to the reduction in funding.

The San Juan Islands Conservation District has offered to become the fiscal agent once again to house the Lead Entity program for San Juan / WRIA2. And is offering to do so at about half the overhead costs that San Juan County requires. It seems like a prudent step to accept this offer to move the Lead Entity program back to the local Conservation District. This move will allow for more funding to support the actual program and require less of the funding to be expended on overhead costs.

Based on the Salmon Recovery RCW 77.85 it is our understanding that tribal governments should be consulted regarding the proposed fiscal agent change for the San Juan / WRIA 2 Lead Entity program (see the statutory language below). And in consultation with Lloyd Moody of the Governors Salmon Recovery Office and the Recreation and Conservation Office, who oversees the Lead Entity programs across the state, he has confirmed that tribal governments would need to provide their support by letters or resolutions.

Thus this email to you requesting your assistance to provide a Tulalip letter of support or resolution in support of the change in fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity.

Please let me know if you perceive any issues with this request and also let me know if there is anyone else at Tulalip that I should work with on this request.

Thank you,
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

77.85.050
Habitat project lists.
(1)(a) Counties, cities, and tribal governments must jointly designate, by resolution or by letters of support, the area for which a habitat project list is to be developed and the lead entity that is to be responsible for submitting the habitat project list. No project included on a habitat project list shall be considered mandatory in nature and no private landowner may be forced or coerced into participation in any respect. The lead entity may be a county, city, conservation district, special district, tribal government, regional recovery organization, or other entity.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #2

In the last post, we saw Barbara Rosenkotter write to Kit Rawson to ask for a list of tribal contacts who might publicly support the move of the Salmon Lead Entity program from San Juan County to the Conservation District. Dutifully, Rawson provided a tribal contact list to Rosenkotter, and Rosenkotter started writing to the tribes. It was just that simple.

This is how influence works, and this is how easy it is for a rogue County staffer to wield influence in league with a power-hungry Conservation District. Below is the tribal contact list sent to Rosenkotter by Rawson. Then, below that is one of the emails sent by Rosenkotter to one of the tribal contacts without the knowledge of our Council or even so much as a cc to our Council. At the very bottom of this post, we have one of the tribal letters sent to the State in response to Rosenkotter's request ... again no cc by the tribe to our Council. It was all done on the QT.

We'll publish some of the other tribal letters in coming posts.
______________________________________________________

As of 12/12/2012 - Tribes and Tribal Chairs

Here are the names of the tribes and tribal chairs (in alphabetical order), along with others to whom the letter should probably be sent. As far as honorifics go, treat the tribal chairs as you would treat any other executive level leader of government.

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
1033 Old Blyn Highway
Sequim, WA 98328
William “Ron” Allen, Chair
(also send to Scott Chitwood, Natural Resources Director)

Lower Elwha Klallam tribe
2851 Lower Elwha Road
Port Angeles, WA 98363
Frances Charles, Chair
(also send to Doug Morrill, Natural Resources Director)

Lummi Nation
2616 Kwina Road
Bellingham, WA 98226
Cliff Cultee, Chair
(also send to Merle Jefferson, Natural Resources Director; Eldon Hillaire, Natural Resources Commission Chairman; Randy Kinley, Policy Representative; Alan Chapman, ESA Coordinator)

Makah Tribe (not a tribe with U&A in the San Juans, but I think you wanted to send to them too)
P.O. Box 115
Neah Bay, WA 98357
Michael J. Lawrence, Chair
(also send to Russ Svec, Fishery Manager)

Nooksack Tribe
P.O. Box 157
Deming, WA 98244
Bob Kelly, Chairman
(also send to Gary McWilliams, Natural Resources Director)

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
31912 Little Boston Road NE
Kingston, WA 98346
Jeromy Sullivan, Chair
(also send to Paul McCollum, Natural Resources Director)

Suquamish Tribe
18490 Suquamish Way
Suquamish, WA 98392
Leonard Forsman, Chair
(also send to Rob Purser, Fisheries Director)

Swinomish Tribal Community
P.O. Box 817
11404 Moorage Way
La Conner, WA 98257
Brian Cladoosby, Chair
(also send to Lorraine Loomis, Fisheries Manager and Charlie O’Hara, Planning Director)

Tulalip Tribes
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip, WA 98271
Melvin R. Sheldon, Jr., Chair
(also send to Ray Fryberg, Sr., Executive Director of Natural Resources; Terry R. Williams, Commissioner of Fisheries and Wildlife; Kit Rawson, Conservation Science Program Manager)
_______________________________________________________
From: Barbara Rosenkotter
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:43 AM
To: Stan Walsh (swalsh@skagitcoop.org)
Subject: San Juan Lead Entity Transition

Dear Stan,
As a follow up to our conversation yesterday, we are considering moving the fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity from San Juan County to the San Juan Islands Conservation District. As you may recall, the Lead Entity was originally housed within the San Juan Islands Conservation District when the Lead Entity program was established in the San Juans in 2000. It was moved to San Juan County in 2005.

Due to ever tightening county budgets San Juan County has sought to recoup additional overhead costs at the same time that federal and state funding for the Lead Entity program has been reduced. This has put an ongoing squeeze on the local program. As you know, the Lead Entity Coordinator position was reduced to part time this last year due to the reduction in funding.

The San Juan Islands Conservation District has offered to become the fiscal agent once again to house the Lead Entity program for San Juan / WRIA2. And is offering to do so at about half the overhead costs that San Juan County requires. It seems like a prudent step to accept this offer to move the Lead Entity program back to the local Conservation District. This move will allow for more funding to support the actual program and require less of the funding to be expended on overhead costs.

Based on the Salmon Recovery RCW 77.85 it is our understanding that tribal governments should be consulted regarding the proposed fiscal agent change for the San Juan / WRIA 2 Lead Entity program (see the statutory language below). And in consultation with Lloyd Moody of the Governors Salmon Recovery Office and the Recreation and Conservation Office, who oversees the Lead Entity programs across the state, he has confirmed that tribal governments would need to provide their support by letters or resolutions.

Thus this email to you requesting your assistance to provide a tribal letter of support or resolution in support of the change in fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity.

Please let me know if you perceive any issues with this request and how I may be of assistance.

Thank you,
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

77.85.050
Habitat project lists.
(1)(a) Counties, cities, and tribal governments must jointly designate, by resolution or by letters of support, the area for which a habitat project list is to be developed and the lead entity that is to be responsible for submitting the habitat project list. No project included on a habitat project list shall be considered mandatory in nature and no private landowner may be forced or coerced into participation in any respect. The lead entity may be a county, city, conservation district, special district, tribal government, regional recovery organization, or other entity.
_____________________________________________________________

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.


Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #1

There is simply too much information about the Conservation District being in cahoots with Barbara Rosenkotter, the tribes, and others to fit in only one blogpost. So we've decided to create a series where we will release information in digestible portions.

Zee is using the Conservation District as a vacuum cleaner to suck up all available eco-grant funding in the county. It's part of his grand plan to create a bureaucracy of mass destruction, and he's working on it with Barbara Rosenkotter (County employee), the tribes, the PSP, DNR ... and pretty much everyone except our County Council and the public. As usual, Zee is going about his business as stealthily as possible, writing letters and maneuvering while conveniently forgetting to copy the County Council on important correspondence, even when the subject matter concerns taking away County programs and funding.

San Juan County is the Lead Entity for Salmon Recovery for Water Resource Inventory Area 2 and has designated the San Juan County Marine Resources Committee as the citizens committee for salmon recovery. But for some reason (maybe the election outcome?) such an arrangement no longer pleases Rosenkotter, who is the Coordinator for Salmon Recovery here. Instead of devoting her billable time to saving salmon, Rosenkotter works to rearrange the bureaucratic levers so she can join forces with Zee at the Conservation District ... because we all know that nothing saves salmon like having a new office at the Conservation District.

In this first installment, we see Rosenkotter writing to Kit Rawson for the purpose of enlisting his help in getting the tribes' support for moving the Salmon Lead Entity program from the County to Zee's Conservation District. The Conservation District Board doesn't know about it. The County Council doesn't know about it, except for maybe Stephens (but more on that in later posts).

Below is the email from Rosenkotter to Rawson, and below that we see Zee writing to the State Lead Entity Program Manager (and not copying the County) to ask that the San Juan Salmon Recovery Lead Entity program be reassigned from the County to his Conservation District.
____________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:09 AM
To: Kit Rawson - Tulalip Tribes (krawson50@gmail.com.)
Subject: Recommendations?
Hello Kit,
Hope you are enjoying all of your various activities. I heard you were snowshoeing recently.
I wanted to contact you regarding your previous job experience and expertise in working with tribes. We are considering moving the Lead Entity program from the county as the fiscal agent to the Conservation District. I think I could cut the overhead costs in half by making the move. I expect there will be more funding cuts so I know that I need to do whatever I can to make the program as lean as possible. And now may be the time to consider it since the CD is getting their management in order. The new Lead Entity contract would start July 1 so there is some time to get this all organized but not a lot.

So my question is which tribes would you recommend that I contact should we decide to try to move the Lead Entity program to a new fiscal agent? I would definitely contact the tribes who have been working with the San Juan LIO to make sure they would approve the move before we got too far down the road. Would you recommend doing active outreach to the others who have U & A in the San Juans? Or I could just inform them of the proposal and ask for any comments but not actively try to engage with them.

I would appreciate your thoughts, ideas.

Thank you
Barbara Rosenkotter
Lead Entity for Salmon Recovery
San Juan County
barbarar@sanjuanco.com
360-370-7593
PO Box 947
135 Rhone Street
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
___________________________________________________________

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Conservation District Watch: Conservation District = Stewardship Network

The grand plan in the last election had several components, but in typical iceberg fashion, we only saw part of it. The plan included the following:
  • Ron Zee, as head of the local Democratic Party, would endorse Stephens, Pratt, and Byers for County Council. Massive donations would pour in from party faithfuls, and the Zee-endorsed candidates would win handily.
  • Ron Zee would become head of everything else (see email below). Zee would transform the Conservation District into a local amalgam of all State agencies and their non-profit allies operating in the county: PSP (AAOG/LIO, ECONet), Salmon Recovery Lead Entity (Rosenkotter), WDFW (Windrope), the tribes, Ecology, the Friends, and others.
  • Stephens, Pratt, and Byers would increase the CD's special assessment in order to provide a local funding backstop against the possibility of diminished State funding.
  • Having statutory authority (RCW 89.08.580) for administering water quality and habitat protection grants, the new amalgamated CD would be in a position to blackmail the County into following every outrageous State whim (e.g., Action Agenda of the PSP).  Do it, or else no State grants for you! 
  • The Council would pass civility laws to stifle dissent at public meetings; a stacked MRC and Planning Commission would ram through a draconian SMP even easier than they rammed through the CAOs. "Everyone" would appear to line up behind fierce new anti-citizen regulations.
  • The County would upgrade its GIS system. High-resolution aerial photographs (Pictometry) would merge with the TACT grant activities of the MRC/Friends to provide Ã¼ber enforcement opportunities. Open season would begin once the SMP was in place.
  • Our Prosecuting Attorney's (PA's) Office would stand by and watch it all happen, if not facilitate it. The Friends would file their usual lawsuits against everyone (except other Friends) and citizens would receive no help from the PA.
Effectively, the net result of the above would have been direct control of San Juan County by hostile State bureaucrats and their non-profit allies (i.e., direct control by the amalgamated CD).

To get an inkling of what that might be like, have a look again at the email from Martha Kongsgaard. You can see echoes of the PSP Targeted Awareness Grants (i.e., Puget Sound is in trouble, our environment is our economy, and locals don't matter).

Our economy should really hum along after we've all been gotten rid of.

The email below was sent out by Ron Zee this past week. The election may not have turned out as planned, but they're still executing the grand plan.

______________________________________________________

Greetings All,
The Steering Committee is pleased to announce the selection of Julia Vouri as our new Stewardship Network Coordinator/ECO Net Coordinator, per the unanimous recommendation of the Search Committee at a special Network meeting held yesterday.  Contracting with the Puget Sound Partnership will proceed next week for the ECO Net Coordination grant under the umbrella of the San Juan Islands Conservation District.
Please welcome Julia to the Network when you see her.  With her help, we'll continue to move the stewardship ethic ever forward!

Cheers!
Ron

Stewardship Network of the San Juans

Website: www.stewardshipsanjuans.org

Email: stewardshipnetwork@gmail.com

A coalition of organizations who envision
a healthy, thriving ecosystem in the
San Juan archipelago, from land to sea

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Trouble Brewing In The San Juans

On Tuesday, the current Council defeated a proposal for new rules for public meetings. It was an item left over from the previous Council. The "new rules" proposal was drafted by our previous Council to enforce "civility" at public meetings. Over the last couple of years, we have seen pleas for civility used by the Friends and their friends as a weapon to limit public participation and openness. Ironically, those who have clamored the loudest for civility here have often behaved in the most objectively uncivil ways themselves ... for example, by resorting to name calling and out-and-out lying.

And those tactics and strategies have been given succor by influential officials higher up the government food chain. A case in point is the string of emails below from 2011. In the emails, officials from the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) are complaining about science being introduced by the Common Sense Alliance (CSA) during the CAO process. Specifically, state officials are reacting to a CSA newsletter about ocean science proposed for BAS by Dr. David Hyde, formerly of Scripps Institute of Oceanography. The emails between Bill Ruckelshaus, Martha Kongsgaard, and Gerry O'Keefe illustrate many things:
  • First, they show that San Juan County is on the radar screen of some of the most influential people in the state. 
  • Second, they show the casual contempt that state officials have for anyone outside of the Friends, the tribes, or insider scientists. 
  • Third, they show no respect for the legitimate concerns of local people and display condescension at the premise that differences with the PSP might actually be authentic. Kongsgaard implies that CSA has somehow manufactured controversy and created dialogue that isn't "real." In fact, Kongsgaard shows off her political blinders by denigrating the "world view" politics of her opponents while she simultaneously displays nothing but her own "world view." 
  • Fourth, the emails employ tactics that we've come to expect in the San Juans -- paint all CSA-like troublemakers with a broad politically-charged brush (e.g., Tea Partiers); lie about them (CSA "screamed" at Ruckelshaus); favor tourists over residents; and generally vilify anyone who encourages broad-based local public participation. 
  • Lastly, the emails show the speed-dial first-name bonds that existed (and may still exist) between our local manipulative hardball world-view commissars and the state's manipulative hardball world-view commissars.
The email from Kongsgaard is sickening for its prejudice.

For reference and background, Martha Kongsgaard is the current head of the PSP Leadership Council. Ruckelshaus (formerly Head of the PSP Leadership Council) and O'Keefe (formerly Executive Director of the PSP) have moved on, but as most San Juan residents probably realize, Bill Ruckelshaus remains a hugely influential figure. And speaking of huge, he also owns one of the largest shoreline homes and docks in the county.

The email string kicks off with Ruckelshaus forwarding the CSA newsletter to O'Keefe and Kongsgaard with the ominous admonition, "Trouble brewing in the San Juans." However, Ruckelshaus is wrong. Any fair evaluator of the evidence would conclude that trouble has already been baked into our state, local, and tribal governments ... garnished with the scientists and non-profits that are in league with them.
_________
Errata: The initial wording of this post incorrectly identified Gerry O'Keefe as being the former Head of the Department of Ecology when in reality he served as the Executive Director of the PSP. Corrections have been made and my thanks to the reader who pointed out the error.

From: Gerry O'Keefe
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:10 PM
To: Jeanette Dorner
Subject: Fwd: Note from Ruckelshaus -FW: Ocean Science Missing in Best Available Science

FYI. 

Gerry O'Keefe
Executive Director
PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP


Via iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
From: martha kongsgaard <martha@kongsgaard-goldman.org>
Date: October 12, 2011 12:59:47 PM PDT
To: Bill Ruckelshaus <bill@madrona.com>
Cc: Gerry O'Keefe <gerry.okeefe@psp.wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Note from Ruckelshaus -FW: Ocean Science Missing in Best Available Science
Thanks for this Bill.  This is ongoing up there as you know. I think you have personally been screamed at there, no? The county has adopted the BAS already and this cannot be undone until the CAO is complete which will be sometime in June.  Then the law suits will be filed by both sides.  The best thing that can happen now is that  a thorough record is made by groups like Friends of the San Juans, UW scientists, and the tribes so that they can prevail in court.  It is a lousy system, but it’s the one we have.  IN the mean time, it is rough to be Lovell Pratt, for example, who is chair and is trying to hold the line.

The CSalliance is certainly whipping up fear and introducing new science into the CAO discussion and are managing to fill town halls with 50 – 70 people.  At the end of the day, it has much more to do with philosophy than with science – see the Tea Party.  If the case could be made publicly that their science is not on point, that over 50% of the shoreline is already built out and that the parcels are by and large under ½ acre, and that the economy of the San Juans depends on the 1,000,000+ tourists who travel there to be sold “beauty and wildness” and on and on, they would still hate government and resist regulation in most any form.  They are jamming the planning department by encouraging land owners to go, one by one, to the planning department to ask what effect these regulations ‘could’ have on their land.  They are demanding that the council notify all land owners of the same, with individual maps, etc., all under the request for transparency and open government.  That plays well and is hard to combat.  But it is killing the dept. who otherwise would be working on the CAO etc. and so the worm turns…..

This e mail got me off my duff to call Lovell Pratt, the chair, and friends of the San Juans.  They need our support to do the hard thing.  We need to listen to the CSA, and the worries of the property owners and figure out how to get the hard work done.  There is not a lot of real communications getting done.  It is world view stuff that doesn’t allow for much dialogue in my experience.

Martha
M A R T H A   K O N G S G A A R D
  
4 4 0 8   B E A C H  D R I V E  S. W.   
S E A T T L E,   W A   9 8 1 1 6
W - 2 0 6 . 4 4 8 . 1 8 7 4  *  C  -  2 0 6 . 8 1 7 . 5 4 7 3
martha@kongsgaard-goldman.org


From: Bill Ruckelshaus [mailto:bill@madrona.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Gerry O'Keefe; martha kongsgaard
Subject: Note from Ruckelshaus -FW: Ocean Science Missing in Best Available Science

Gerry and Martha,

Trouble brewing in the San Juans.

Bill

Diane L. Hodgson, Personal Manager
William D. and Jill Ruckelshaus
Madrona Venture Group and Evergreen Venture
1000 Second Avenue, Ste 3700
Seattle, WA  98104

From: Common Sense Alliance [mailto:info@commonsensealliance.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:14 PM
To: Bill Ruckelshaus
Subject: Ocean Science Missing in Best Available Science

Images not displaying properly? Add info@commonsensealliance.net to your address book now.
CSA%20Logo%20rgb%201.5%20rez150.jpg
Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Vol. 73

Guest Editorial:  Why is Ocean Science Missing in the SJC's BAS?

My wife and I came to San Juan Island in 2009 to enjoy the wonderful ambience of these Islands.   Like many friends and neighbors, we are environmentally oriented--I having retired from 40 years of ocean technology work, and she a long career in public relations.   We both are alarmed by San Juan County’s recent CAO developments and public disclosures--her from a public information perspective, and I from an ocean sciences point of view. 
We are not directly affected, but I want to speak out as a county taxpayer and home owner in the cause of clarity and transparency.  Our fellow taxpayers and residents need the real facts to better judge the truth and value of this “environmentally necessitated” county initiative against the cost and economic risk to all our communities and their residents. 
Here’s the main issue:   the current CAO is based on facts that do not apply to the San Juan Islands and missing the facts that do.  My comments are directed toward the centerpiece of the CAO plan--Imposing deep setbacks and buffer zones to protect and restore our marine environment.
There’s a big problem with the County’s approach.   The County’s agencies have developed a long list of Puget Watershed and related reports, called “Best Available Science.”   This BAS forms their justification for the CAO, and the SMP to follow.   According to the State these ordinances must be based on some definition of best available science.
With my long association with ocean institutes, including the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA, I tried to determine the basis of the “ocean truth” in this BAS.  I was appalled to find that, despite years of Salish Sea studies, no physical oceanographic studies describing our local marine waters exist in this BAS.  
Without an ocean-reality baseline, how can this county legitimately proceed with a marine environmental remediation plan?  And, how costly will this plan be to enforce if their “science” is missing essential information?
I found that, while unacknowledged in the BAS, the body of ocean literature on local waters is extensive, and represents 50 years of model development and measurements by leading institutes.   The circulation models we now have available are mature, detailed, and tested physical science.  The findings contained in this literature led me to clear conclusions that fundamentally counter SJC’s rationale for shoreline buffer actions:
1.            The San Juan Islands waters are not part of the Puget Sound at all – They are part of the Southern Straits of Georgia, almost 10 times larger in water volume, and in river outflows.  We may be politically connected to the Puget, but our local marine waters are Canadian, and incidentally contain the effluent of 80% of the economic output of BC.
2.            Mostly blocked from northerly exit, the massive outflows from BC’s Fraser and nearby rivers create a persistent southerly flow of their waters through our islands out into the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  These river flows exceed 100 cubic kilometers of river water annually--about ten times that of all Puget rivers.
3.            Because of seabed and tidal flow features just to the south of us, these northern waters don’t mix much with Puget waters during tidal cycles. This means there is little mixing of our Islands’ and Puget waters by our strong tidal cycles, further isolating us.  These tides also create massive upwelling of clean Pacific waters along our shorelines from the bottom counter-current, and constantly bring fresh ocean waters to our shorelines.  Our Islands’ shorelines have the best flushed marine waters of any coastline in the lower US, and no local marine water quality measurements can legitimately separate the origins of local and Canadian runoff.
The ocean-truth for our Islands is that we are immersed in a huge BC system that mixes massive river outflows from the Fraser basin with Pacific Ocean waters.   BC governments have been addressing water quality issues for decades and are making progress—but, we are only a small part of their very large system.  We San Juan Islanders will be far better served by focusing on the few local area problems that we have and that we can do something about, rather than by incorrectly pursuing environmental actions that, to no avail impose laws based on incomplete information. 
It is time for the County of San Juan to step back and get the Ocean reality for our Islands right--before proceeding further with these CAO and SMP initiatives.
David Hyde, PhD 
[Note:  David Hyde, PhD, has a professional background in ocean sciences from his association with the University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and other institutes.  The information and opinions in this editorial are his own independent assessments of literature that is available for everyone to assess.  He has recently collaborated with Ed Kilduff, a Lopez Island hydrogeologist, to create a presentation entitled "San Juan Archipelago Water Quality & CAO."   Mr. Hyde has given permission for CSA to publish his editorial opinion.]
Common Sense Alliance
P.O. 1249 Friday Harbor, 98250
info@commonsensealliance.net
www.www.commonsensealliance.net

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Fortress Conservation = FU Conservation

In the last post, I referred to the Islands Trust as the Canadian version of the Friends of the San Juans. Some commenters have pointed out that my characterization of the Islands Trust is not accurate. I admit, the Islands Trust is structured differently from the Friends of the San Juans, since Islands Trust is actually part of the provincial government. Some have pointed out that the Islands Trust consists of democratically elected officials. Yes, they are "democratically elected" in a way that parallels the recent vociferous concerns about our Charter, in that the small islands participating in the Islands Trust have substantial and disproportionate influence.

Perhaps, I should have said that the Islands Trust may be what the Friends of the San Juans aspires to be as it labors in league with the Puget Sound Partnership, Stewardship Network, and Northwest Straits Commission ... to be a formal governmental body with genuine clout. In the hope of getting my facts straight on the Islands Trust, I'd like to provide a description of them per the viewpoint and research of one of their constituents, Elizabeth Nickson, a Salt Spring Island resident and the former European Bureau Chief of Life. This is what Nickson has to say about Islands Trust in her most recent book.
     Salt Spring and its four hundred sister islands big and small are run, for the most part, by a land-use outfit called the Islands Trust, the much quoted mandate of which is "to preserve and protect." Founded in a summer graduate seminar at a local university in 1974 out of a fear that the pastoral islands scattered between Vancouver and Vancouver Island were about to be overrun by developers, the proposal for it was rushed through a session of the provincial legislature and its structure codified.  The trust practices what is called fortress conservation, the typical form of conservation everywhere, which involves locking down as much land as possible and practicing "natural regulation," meaning no one touches it. Ever. Even "disturbing vegetation" is disallowed.  For most of recorded history, humans have practiced adaptive management of resources --- when a problem crops up, we solve it. If we want a landscape, we create one; a working forest, ditto.  Rangeland, farmland, townscapes --- all can be managed for bounty and health of resources and people. Natural regulation cropped up in the 1960s in almost all land-use agencies in the world and swiftly became the preferred method by which all resources and land were to be managed. Over the past five decades, natural regulation has been adopted almost everywhere. Nature knows best. Man is a virus and a despoiler and must be controlled.
     The Islands Trust went on to serve as a template for many similar organizations all over the world, including the California Coastal Commission and the Cape Cod Commission. The trust claims it is unique, but it is not, at least not anymore, and like its fellows, it differs from typical democratic government principally by subverting the normal processes of democracy in the name of good green land use.
     There are thirteen larger islands in the trust area, to which the smaller ones are attached for administrative purposes, and those larger islands elect two trustees each. When I say big, it's relative. Most of the twelve other islands have a population between four hundred and one thousand, but they each have two trustees. An off-island trustee comes in for the monthly town meeting to vote, breaking any tie. All land-use decisions are first voted on on the island and then considered at a quarterly meeting of all twenty-six trustees, called the Trust Council, which moves with all the glacial formality of the League of Nations. There is, you have no doubt gathered, no proportional representation at the trust. Salt Spring has only 8 percent of the final vote on the way any of its land is used, and in rural areas, land use is just about everything.
     The trust is a blue-chip organization; it is expensive, head-quartered in British Columbia's capital city, with forty-five full-time employees and a steady flow of consultants. From its offices streams an unending flood of glossy propaganda about ecosystems saved and dangers advancing that require more land to be saved and more regulations placed on private land, and of course on all waters, whether runoff ditch or ocean.
     Every few years, each island puts itself through a revision of its Official Community Plan. Carefully selected islanders serve on committees examining each "problem" within the trust region: affordable housing, tourism, economic development, water. Environmental movement goals are codified and tested during these thrash-tests of "participatory democracy" --- goals like limiting house sizes to less than three thousand square feet, for instance. Or requiring a permit and the consultation of a registered environmental professional ($2,500 fee to be borne by the applicant) to plant a garden within 100 feet of any body of water, man-made or natural. Or requiring a 150-foot setback from the ocean for any house, and if a house already within that 150 feet burns, it cannot be rebuilt in the same place --- well, tough luck for the stinking-rich oceanfront homeowner who just met Nemesis.
     The outcome of a year or so of such meetings, displays, and "community consultation" is an astonishing maze of regulation, the result of which is stasis and worse. Despite living within easy reach of three gleaming modern cities filled with active wealthy-ish men and women, with the exception of Salt Spring, which is graying rapidly, every island's population is in steady decline, losing young families every month. On the smaller islands, as the young leave and the economy deflates faster, even the elderly, deprived of the services that the young provide and fund, leave too.
     While the trust is supposed to deal only with land use, in typical bureaucratic mission creep it calls itself a local government. But in fact, all the other multiplying details of actual government are handled by a regional director, who spends his life dashing from committee to committee, all staffed by volunteers. ... Salt Spring is typically described as an argument surrounded by water, as, I was to find, is every other community into which the movement has inserted its brand of land-use management.
Does any of this "democracy" sound familiar? And we send Councillors to meet with these people every year?