The City of Bainbridge Island website has a page that serves as a focal point for information about the Marine Critical Areas project. It provides a schedule of current activity, links to background documents, and to the draft ordinance. Fortunately, this proposed ordinance is now on permanent hold following a decision by the state supreme court, but the aims of city planners are made clear by their proposals.
One interesting exhibit in the background information section is the Marine Critical Areas map. It was prepared by staff using data from WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) and WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). Unfortunately, it does not include data on critical habitat for Chinook salmon.
The proposed Marine Critical Areas ordinance refers to and depends on a lengthy Nearshore Report prepared in 2004 by Battelle’s Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim.
If you scan the maps included in Appendix B, you may be struck by the variety of conditions that occur along our island’s shoreline. If so, you may wonder why the proposed ordinance treats every inch of the shoreline the same… everything defined as “critical” and 200 foot buffers for every property, developed or not.
This seems strange in light of the conclusions and recommendations included in section 3.4 of the report. We have highlighted a portion of this section below for your consideration.
3.4 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
Although Bainbridge Island is generally considered semi-rural, over 82% of shoreline parcels are developed to densities only second to the Islands urban centers, and 52% of the shoreline is armored or otherwise modified. Its nearshore ecosystems provide support for a vast number of marine plants and animals and are vital to sustaining endangered species such as salmon, although in many cases these biological functions remain unquantified. The present report outlines a science-based framework for assessing the status of nearshore ecological conditions on Bainbridge Island.
Key findings of the nearshore assessment were as follows:
• Bainbridge Island’s shoreline represents a microcosm of what is generally found in Puget Sound, with moderate levels of impacts to nearshore resources, but extreme examples of high and low impacts as well. Most management areas were considered moderately impacted by human activities.
• Of nine MAs (management areas) on Bainbridge Island, only Eagle Harbor (MA-5) was considered highly impacted; this MA included some of the most highly disturbed reaches found around the Island. Two MAs stood out as relatively undisturbed or least impacted: Murden Cove (MA-4) and Blakely Harbor (MA-6).
Our island neighbor Dr. Don Flora has presented his analysis of some of the science that is being used to justify the ordinance. And here’s a thorough review by Dr. Flora, of a 2005 report on the negative effects, if any, of bulkheads on beach sediment.
If you wish, you can read the report referred to by Dr. Flora, “Marine shoreline sediment survey and assessment, Thurston County, WA“, Herrera Environmental Consultants.
Dr. Flora was formerly employed by the United States Forest Service, where he headed watershed studies research, including stream biology, riparian ecology and related subjects. He has an MS and Doctorate from Yale.
The problem with “best available science” is that it may or may not have anything to do with the case at hand, it may or may not have been peer reviewed, and it may have been undertaken by consulting firms in studies sponsored by one political action group or another. That’s not “best available science,” it’s not even science.
Your Comments