For four years, citizens of Bainbridge Island have been told that the shoreline containing Strawberry Cannery Cove was "the 186th worst of 201 reaches." Turns out, City of Bainbridge Island staff and grant providers planning a park there, were describing the wrong shoreline. Read the press release that details one more mistake in the way the John Nelson Park was managed.
Friends of Cannery Cove
7823 Westerly lane NE
B. Is., WA 98110
May 4, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact person: Gerald Elfendahl, 206-842-4164
Attachments:
Graph 1 - Bainbridge Island shoreline characterizations comparing true Strawberry Cannery Cove ranking with longtime false characterization.
Table 1 - Distribution of shoreline scores
N E W S R E L E A S E
JUDGE AFFIRMS FISHERIES PERMIT,
FINDS CITY ERROR IN PORTRAYAL
OF BAINBRIDGE IS. SHORELINE:
IT IS ONE OF BEST, NOT WORST
For four years, citizens of Bainbridge Island have been told that the shoreline containing Strawberry Cannery Cove was "the 186th worst of 201 reaches." Turns out, City of Bainbridge Island staff and grant providers planning a park there, were describing the wrong shoreline.
That is one of many facts State Administrative Hearing Judge Kimberly Boyce found as she reviewed Friends of Cannery Cove's Formal Appeal of the City Hydraulic Permit Application (HPA) to excavate the popular Cove's historic and cultural landscape. Judge Boyce also affirmed the HPA on April 30.
"The Appeal was instrumental in getting to the truth - the fact that the City has used the wrong rating from the start. This calls the whole decision-making process into question," Friends of Cannery Cove assert.
One of best, not worst
Decision makers were told that this reach represented one of the worst waterfronts on the Island. In fact, they had used data from the wrong shoreline. Rather than being one of the worst shorelines, it is one of the best. (See attached Graph and or Table.)
While the verdict affirmed the permit, it did not look at alternatives, measure amount of improvements or evaluate costs. The HPA Appeal narrowed itself only to protection of fish life. All agreed that the site could be improved for fish. The HPA review is restricted to fish and so does not address or make rulings on other issues such as whether the project could be improved for people, whether the conditions apply of John Nelson's land gift and exchange for public park purposes, whether the site is actively used now as many had sworn, or whether it was abandoned as City permit claimed.
Background
The four-acre waterfront property at 240 Weaver Road is within four blocks from the heart of downtown Winslow, the Island's urban center. Pedestrians reach it easily by trail from the west end of Winslow Way. The property was obtained by the public in exchange for another property given to the City for a public Park by John Nelson, a Swedish immigrant. His gift made the acquisition possible. Undeveloped as a park for 55 years, Nelson's land was exchanged five years ago for the waterfront property. Nelson and his heir envisioned "recreation, amusement and education for the people." Excitement over the new park diminished in many quarters when the City courted grants to make it a fish and wildlife preserve "exclusively" and forever. The present City plan destroys all of the existing expansive shore side meadows, paved sidewalks, picnic plaza and work yard; excavates and submerges a half acre of popular waterfront, provides the public only a view of the water, except for a five-foot wide gravel trail to high tide only leaving boaters to run a muck across tide flats 95% of the time.
Many envision a public park which preserves and enhances the evocative historical and cultural landscape of the Island's pre-WWII Strawberry Cannery; provides a safe water access, small boat landing, float and dry launch for kids, seniors and disabled - everyone; adequate parking and work yard; restored and enhanced landscape and seascape. An Earth Day cleanup of the Cove cleared blackberry thickets, removed Scotch broom, mowed meadows, removed a dumpster full of beach debris and celebrated with BBQ and shore side concert of koto and guitar. An April 25 banquet honored John Nelson. Students from Madrona School, the BI School District's adult living program and BI Special Needs Foundation's Stephen's House have shared in the activities.
Erroneous characterization
An independent review of project records led to the discovery that the City's characterization was for a different shoreline, one with a dredged marina and a thousand feet of protective sea wall.
"We have heard ad nauseam that Cannery Cove is '186 worst of 201' shoreline reaches around the Island to describe the reason why it needs to be 'restored'," Doug Hatfield, FOCC appellant said.
"This is no small error. It has been quoted again and again at public meetings, forums, discussions, SEPA Appeals before a Hearing Examiner, to state and federal agencies and to grant providers in competition with other jurisdictions," notes Gerald Elfendahl another FOCC appellant. (See list below of "Some places where erroneous characterizations were made.".)
In search of "186Š"
Nowhere within the Battelle Institute technical study (2004), prepared for the City to assist their shoreline management decisions, is the "186 worst of 201" claim made. (See: www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/nearshore_report.aspx,) To date, a month-old City public records request has not produced an answer as to where, when, why, how and who came up with the 186 number. What should Cannery Cove's shoreline have been ranked?
Friends of Cannery Cove analyses of Battelle's study indicate Cannery Cove's reach is of low impact and in the top or best 20th percentile, not the "worst" or bottom 20%.
Analyses, Graph and Tables
The City's claim of "186 worst of 201" also falsely identified it as a "Moderate / High impact ranking and rating of -0.725" (P. Best, 2006, 2007). Battelle's study shows that was reach # 3141, not Cannery Cove's #3140. Analyses to determine the true ranking can be seen in Graph 1 and Table 1 (both attached).
Battelle's shoreline reach descriptions and Controlling Factors (CFs) impact scores show Strawberry Plant Park reach #3140 (CF) sum is -12 or LOW IMPACT. "LOW" rankings are the best 20% with sums of 0 to-12. The erroneous reach #3141 sum is -29 or High impact. "HIGH" rankings are the worst 20% with sums of -28 to -39.
The range of impact score sums for 201 shoreline reaches were from 0 (zero) to -39. Each of these forty score values (0 to - 39) had between one and 14 shorelines. The Graph and Table show how many reaches had each score. From that, you can see how far down each shoreline is rated from the top. Battelle's study placed shorelines into five 20th percentile groups. With 201 score values, "Low" or the best shorelines would be (201 divided by 5) or the 40.2 lowest; "Low/Moderate" would be between 40.2 and 80.4. "Moderate" would be between 80.4 and 120.6. "Moderate/High" would be between 120.6 and 160.8. "High" or worst would be between 160.8 and 201.
"Just because the site had once been labelled "industrial" didn't mean it was not good functioning fish habitat. It can be good for people at the same time," echo Hatfiekld and Elfendahl . "We had best put or resources where they will do the most good. and, as Bill Ruckleshouse of Puget Sound Partnership urges, 'Take the time to understand the problems and learn to build barns together again.'"l
# # #
ADDENDA:
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------
SOME PLACES WHERE FALSE "186 of 201" CHARACTERIZATIONS WERE MADE:
1.) The City's project application, JARPA, page 11, item 7j;
2.) Elliott Bay Trustee Council Supplemental Environmental Assessment (2009) (Exhibit 218 of Appeal), page 12, paragraph 3 and page 29, paragraph 4.;
3.) Sworn declaration of Randy Carman, WDF&W & EBTC, page 4, item #14, lines 22-25. (Note: Carman, an expert witness for the City, testified April 20 during cross-examination that this was the first he'd heard of the rating error.)
4.) Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) project Pre-Application, 2006 (P. Best), page 2
5.) SRFB project Pre-Application, 2007 (P. Best), page 2
6) SRFB SSP, Evaluation, 2006 amendment, page 2
7.) April 7, 2010, before City Council by John Kern, NOAA & EBTC quoted same rankings when urging Council to keep going with project;
8.) John Myer, Puget Sound Partnership, dittoed what Kern had previously testified.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------
CITATION: Williams, Gregory D.; Thom, Ron M.; Evans, Nathan R.; BAINBRIDGE ISLAND NEARSHORE HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION & ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PRIORITIZATION, AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS, 2004, Battelle Memorial Institute, Marine Science laboratory, Sequim, WA, prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island, PNWD-3391, page 64 and Appendix C, Controlling Factors Total Score sums, pages C-8 to C-13.
Comments