Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:John Kydd [] <br />Sent:Friday, May 07, 2010 6:15 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Dear Mr. Stewart <br /> <br />As a less than sophisticated landowner on the east side of Hood Canal for 30 years, I wish to lend strong support to <br />your efforts and those of your colleagues to get a handle on reversing the decline of Hood Canal. Kudos to you for the <br />care you have taken to review testimony and ideas, for involving owner and other stakeholders in the policy advisory <br />committee and the dedication of the staff in such a long and at times thankless process. <br /> <br />Stewardship and democratic process do not dance well with many traditional land uses. We must all yield some of what <br />we thought we owned (like the rights to develop, harvest and use) to the greater good. We must also levy upon new <br />construction a standard of care that helps remedy the lack of care of the past. In a sense there is a symmetry: the older <br />owners lose the capacity to profit from the land as they have in the past; the newer owners pay more for the privilege <br />of use. <br /> <br />I remain a bit astonished at the approval of the gravel pit at the Hamma Hamma mainly because of the lack of notice of <br />any hearing. I realize you cannot address this specific project in your regulations but you do address future end runs on <br />the approval process. I support a qualified ban on all mining projects at on or near the canal and for better oversight of <br />those that are approved. I support banning commercial net pen farming as well with the caveat that the door should be <br />open if they can find a way to do it that does not stress the Canal. The same applies for mining. If it can be done with no <br />negative impact and the owners pay for the oversight to prove that, then so be it. A blanket ban does not encourage <br />innovative research. <br /> <br />I do favor the 150 foot buffer but just as importantly the option for variance. One size does not fit all and often the <br />variance debates can increase both knowledge and understanding of the “whys” not to mention novel solutions. <br /> <br />Although I grew up in the pier and cement bulkhead era I think this is no longer the way. It will cost me more in beach <br />loss but I think the greater good is in non structural remedies. Some grasses (e.g., eelymus mollis) can do wonderful <br />things that bulkheads cannot. <br /> <br />I do most support your effort to make the technical and the legal language of regulation accessible. This is a daunting <br />task. I hope that there are contests amongst high schoolers to get the points across most clearly in their terms and that <br /> “youth versions” of various regs and policies are posted not simply on the DOE website but also on Facebook pages. <br />Videos tell this generation more than any PDF could and youth should be invited to “post it on the wall” their way as all <br />too soon they will be in charge. <br /> <br />I’d likewise hope such sites could be places to tweet concerns and issues; to honor shore line owners who do the right <br />thing, and to post writers with new ideas of how to view this complex process of transitioning how we choose to hold, <br />own and honor this wonderful land and its waters. Poems and stories are often the untapped allies of understanding <br />the stewardship of regulation. I like a good discussion of sediment status, bacterial mats and hypoxia as much as the <br />next guy but nothing beats a few good symbols. <br /> <br />I recall the Union of Concerned Scientists who labored for decades to reverse nuclear proliferation. Their periodical had <br />a symbol of a clock that each month was closer or further from midnight as a measure of the peril. I do not suggest a <br />clock here but thought should be given to simple symbols of status for the Canal as a whole and for subset areas so we <br />1 <br /> <br />