Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:David I Tonkin [z9davton@q.com] <br />Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:58 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Cc:George Yount; Henry Werch; Matt Sircely; Ruth Gordon; William Miller; <br />dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us; pjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us; Austin, John (DOHi) <br />Subject:Letter re Locally Approved Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program <br />Attachments:Shoreline Master Plan Comments to WA DOE.doc <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Dear Mr. Stewart, <br /> <br />I have prepared a letter stating my views in support of Jefferson County's locally approved Shoreline <br />Master Program. I have attached it as a Microsoft Word document. In case you do not wish to open <br />attachments in emails from people you do not know, I have also embedded my statement below. For your <br />information, I am the elected Democratic Precinct Committee Officer for Precinct 305 (Irondale) and run <br />up-to-date anti-virus and spyware software frequently. At this time, I plan to attend the public meeting on <br />April 20 at Fort Warden. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br />David Tonkin <br />32 S. Stromberg Ave. <br />Port Townsend, WA 98368 <br />360-385-2468 <br /> <br /> <br />I am a resident of Jefferson County, and I support the Shoreline Master Program adopted by the Jefferson Board <br />of County Commissioners (BOCC). I appreciate the opportunity to express my views one more time. <br /> <br />Citizen involvement and community outreach by the BOCC, Planning Commission, and Department of <br />Community Development over a four year period were outstanding, including the participation of shoreline <br />property owners on the Policy Advisory Committee. I appreciate the care taken by the BOCC to analyze every <br />piece of testimony and to incorporate their ideas, where appropriate, using peer-reviewed science to support <br />policies and decisions. The resulting SMP was reasonably balanced, with the objective of meeting the needs of <br />both property owners and Puget Sound's ecosystem. <br /> <br />I believe the SMP generally contains clear language that makes it easier for citizens to understand it, clear <br />regulations and policies that provide land use consistency and protection of our shorelines and waterways, and <br />allows for flexible buffer modification where appropriate (i.e., where there is no net loss to shoreline functions). <br />The SMP minimizes the need for shoreline armoring by encouraging non- structural remedies. It prohibits <br />commercial net pen aquaculture farming; scientific evidence shows this practice releases strains of bacteria and <br />viruses that are very resistant to treatment and increases the likelihood of a significantly adverse impact on wild <br />fish. <br /> <br />It seems to me a majority of county residents support strong environmental safeguards to protect the water <br />quality, values and functions of the county's shorelines. The most problematic component likely deals with <br />buffers and setbacks to protect our waterways. The 150-foot buffers specified in the SMP were supported by <br />significant testimony at all meetings and hearings, and the latest scientific opinion supports them as a valid <br />compromise of buffer widths necessary to protect shoreline functions. <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />