Data by the Back Door

We know the County is looking for an ecological "smoking gun" that can be used against all of us for the CAOs and SMP. We know the Friends have a propensity for "compiling data" on individual citizens (to put it mildly) so they can persecute them. If you're interested in eco-framing everyone in the County using bad ecological data, who ya gonna call?

Below are a series of emails regarding County shoreline data. It mentions the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) update, but the same information is being used for the Fish & Wildlife Habitat CAO. These and other emails reveal the Friends and their friends as some of the puppet masters of County data. Data enters the County GIS/data system with the deliberate intent to avoid any public participation or independent third-party review.

The parties involved in the emails below are Stephanie Buffum and Tina Whitman of the Friends; Amanda Azous, Land Bank Commissioner and one of the consultant authors of the County's Best Available Science (BAS) synthesis; and the cc's include Linda Lyshall, Marine Resources Committee (MRC) Coordinator; Steve Revella, MRC Chair; and Jose Carrasquero, another BAS and SMP consultant from Herrera. Colin Maycock is the County planner in charge of the SMP update.

As Tina Whitman says ... fyi ...
___________________________________________________

From: Tina Whitman [mailto:tina@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:05 AM
To: Linda Lyshall; 'Steve Revella'
Subject: FW: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

fyi

From: Tina Whitman [mailto:tina@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:04 AM
To: 'Amanda Azous'
Cc: 'Stephanie Buffum'; 'mrc@sanjuanco.com'
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Thanks Amanda,

I totally agree that a face to face meeting is the best tool to help all of us gain a better understanding of what potential changes could be made, using existing data, to address concerns of the mrc, fsj and the tac and improve our support of the inventorty document.

I appreciate your willingness to do this.

-tina

From: Amanda Azous [mailto:aazous@herrerainc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Tina Whitman
Cc: Stephanie Buffum; mrc@sanjuanco.com
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Hi Tina,

I am working on making this meeting happen outside of the County’s public participation plan, which means it must be a private meeting and not on the County’s budget. I think that is the only way to get a constructive dialogue going. I hope to know within the next few days if Herrera can do this, and have the meeting on San Juan Island (I think that would be best). I would really like to resolve these important issues or at least all leave with a better understanding of why certain decisions were made and what should be fixed where needed. I think we all want the same thing which is for the County to be able to move forward to update its SMP and prevent further degradation of our County’s shoreline and nearshore environment. I don’t have Steve Revella’s email but have copied the general MRC email.

Thank-you for your patience in this matter,

Amanda

AMANDA AZOUS

Science Associate

direct 206.787.8251 | cell 206.920.8044 | main 206.441.9080

2200 Sixth Avenue Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98121

Find Herrera online at: www.herrerainc.com

This electronic transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the recipient(s) named.  If you have received this message in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and please notify me by reply electronic mail.  Thank you.

SEATTLE, WA | PORTLAND, OR | MISSOULA, MT | OLYMPIA, WA | WINTHROP, WA | GUANGZHOU, CHINA

From: Tina Whitman [mailto:tina@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:56 AM
To: 'Colin Maycock'; 'Stephanie Buffum'; Amanda Azous; Jose Carrasquero
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Thanks colin,

From my perspective, it would be a gathering of the SMP team (consultants, staff and your tac), with representatives (small number of for efficiency) from the MRC, the lead entity, and FSJ (these groups selected for their familiarity with local data sets and ongoing concerns over current inventory framework), to discuss specific concerns over current integration of existing shoreline data sets, with a goal towards improving everyone’s understanding of the current inventory’s analytical approach and improving representation of existing data into the inventory to end up with a document that better supports next phases of the SMP.

From my own review of the document, as well as communication with tac, salmon recovery and other MRC members, I believe that face to face communication and discussion could help facilitate some changes to the inventory that would make those of us most familiar with local shoreline data sets and their ability to inform management of key processes, species and habitats much more comfortable moving forward. 

As you are aware, the formal public comment process doesn’t support the kind of interactive conversation we feel would be most productive; however, it has been the only tool available to date.

Thanks.  I look forward to working with you all.

Regard

tina

From: Colin Maycock [mailto:Colinm@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Stephanie Buffum; Amanda Azous; Tina Whitman; Jose Carrasquero
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Hey There,

Before going any further, what exactly are you trying to achieve with this proposed public meeting? Is there a specific result you expect?

Respectfully,

Colin

Colin Maycock, AICP

Planner IV

San Juan County Community Development and Planning

PO Box 947, Friday Harbor, WA

98250

Phone: 360-370-7573

Email: colinm@sanjuanco.com

From: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 4:56 PM
To: 'Amanda Azous'; 'Tina Whitman'; 'Jose Carrasquero'; Colin Maycock
Subject: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Hi Amanda, et all:

I think there is a much larger group of people besides ourselves that would like time in front of the consultants so that we can be better informed about the application of local data in the SMP. These groups include: the MRC, the Salmon Lead Entity, members of the SMP technical review team, the PSP/San Juan Initiative, Skagit Systems Cooperative and Kurt Fresh. 

We believe that such a meeting is essential in ensuring we have a credible SMP Characterization Report. We believe that this meeting should be in San Juan County, but since this is an SMP product and DOE is a part of this process,  Padilla Bay may be a good travel neutral location for all interested parties.

I would be willing to look into the availability of the facility if we can get agreement that this meeting is necessary for the good of the order. 

Stephanie

Stephanie Buffum Field

Executive Director

FRIENDS OF THE SAN JUANS

POB 1344 Friday Harbor, WA  98250

360. 378.2319 office

360.472.0404 cell

Stephanie@sanjuans.org

No Net Loss of Obfuscation

While we're not done with the CAO, the SMP controversies are heating up. There was a technical workshop on Friday, with its accompanying talk of "no net loss".  What does the Shoreline Management Act actually say?

RCW 90.58.020 - Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.

In other words, in passing the SMA, the legislature found that we were to enjoy the shorelines, not be excluded from them. Also, single family residences were explicitly named as a use that is protected under SMA.

The SMA requirement is "no net loss of shoreline ecological function", not "no change of shorelines". The "no net loss" requirement of the SMP places added emphasis on those areas defined as critical under the CAO (WAC 365-190-030), which is why some in our community want to designate all the shorelines as critical. The CAO standard is "protection" of functions and values, but under the SMA, the standard is "no net loss" of function.

However, one of the major problems with the Shoreline I&C Report, from my perspective, is that the scoring system it uses is utterly inadequate for making determinations of critical areas under the GMA or SMA.