Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners has jumped out in front of what promises to be a lively debate over shoreline science.
Don Flora, a retired forest researcher, conducted a statistical analysis of data compiled in separate shoreline assessments of East Kitsap and Bainbridge Island. Flora concluded that the reports show no apparent relationship between man-made stressors and ecosystem functions. Please take a look at my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.
Not finding a correlation between these two factors does not mean that man-made structures are harmless or without effect on the ecosystem. But these findings do raise questions, as Flora points out. Download his report here (PDF 188 kb).
So far, I have been unable to find a qualified scientist who has read Flora’s report and wishes to respond on the record. I’ve heard from a few who have questions about the analysis and may prepare a response in the future.
Among the complaints about Flora’s report are these: It does not follow standard protocol for a scientific report; it is not obvious how he conducted his analysis; and it was not peer reviewed by third-party experts.
Flora told me that his intent was to create a paper that could be read by average people, and he did ask a couple of people to edit it for readability. He did not intend for it to be considered a scientific paper nor for it to be peer-reviewed in the scientific sense.
I have heard complaints that Flora did not show his work, and I found myself asking him to point me to the data tables that he used to plug numbers into the standard regression analysis — a statistical tool used to show relationships between two independent variables. I suggested to Flora that he include an appendix that would show the raw data and help people replicate his work. He thought this might be a good idea.
If you want to take a closer look, review the findings related to Bainbridge Island shoreline planning and Kitsap County shoreline planning, including the county shoreline assessments.
Some scientists find it offensive that Flora lifted data from these two reports and manipulated them to his own ends without consulting the scientists involved. Others are suspicious that Flora used these data to reach his own conclusions — a suspicion heightened because Flora is a member of KAPO. And KAPO’s press release (PDF 64 kb) about Flora’s report makes a leap that stirs the pot of controversy:
“These reviews bring into question the justification for any nearshore restorations or the need to impose any shoreline buffer zones in the upcoming Shoreline Master Program updates.”
Dealing with numerous scientific studies will be an important part of the effort to update the county’s shorelines plan. Kitsap County planners say they aren’t sure how they will deal with Flora’s report, but they intend to lean heavily on expertise from the Washington Department of Ecology to point them to reliable scientific studies.
The planners say they want to make sure that any studies upon which they rely for planning are vetted before they move into policy discussions. During the update of the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance, such studies were never fully vetted — at least not to the satisfaction of property rights advocates. KAPO members ended up arguing about science all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court — though the court did not address science issues at all when it overturned the county’s shoreline buffers. See the Sept. 9 Kitsap Sun and the Water Ways entry the next day.
I’ve always expected that experts would engage in a healthy discussion about what it will take to protect the ecological functions of the county’s shorelines. Now it appears the discussion may take on the tone of a debate. In comments posted at the bottom of today’s story, some people are showing their distrust of government while others are showing their distrust of KAPO.
I hope everyone can somehow relax enough to embark on a real
search for truth
knowledge as it relates to shoreline ecosystems. After all, isn’t
that what science is really about?
“Among the complaints about Flora’s report are these: It does not follow standard protocol for a scientific report; it is not obvious how he conducted his analysis; and it was not peer reviewed by third-party experts…
I have heard complaints that Flora did not show his work, and I found myself asking him to point me to the data tables that he used to plug numbers into the standard regression analysis — a statistical tool used to show relationships between two independent variables. I suggested to Flora that he include an appendix that would show the raw data and help people replicate his work.”
It will be interesting to see – moving forward – if the County is going to meet these same standards. I’m sure you will be evenhanded with your critiques. BTW… any word on the PSP’s inventory of existing restoration activities in Hood Canal?. There’s been an ominous silence. You don’t think they’re hoping we will forget about it, do you?
I find Flora’s analysis no more of a ‘leap’ than your so-called scientists. Further, the label ‘best available science’ is inaccurate. The more proper label should be ‘government selected theory’ as that’s generally what they are. There are no ‘laws’ of nature utilized here, just theories.
An example of this would be that advanced septic systems are now being required if the drainage on your property is TOO good. Used to be only required in poor soils. Now the health department is saying that it MIGHT lead to contaminants reaching aquifers if your soil has too good of draining characteristics (ie. too sandy).
Bottom line- all of this voodoo is why the cost of living here is much higher than most areas of the country- housing in particular.
DCR,
If you’re speaking to me, I need some clarification. First, I never said Don Flora’s report was a “leap.” I was talking about KAPO’s news release, which calls for no action by the county before the discussion even begins.
Second, I can’t remember labeling anything “best available science” except in reference to discussions about the Critical Areas Ordinance. I don’t believe this term is being used anymore, at least not in conjunction with the Shorelines Management Program. The studies under review may or may not rely on theories.
Finally, I’ll look into the septic issue when I get a chance. I have not heard of these proposed regulations, but the risk of contaminating an aquifer with chemicals — as opposed to bacteria — has always been a concern. That’s why people are advised not to flush chemicals down the drain.