Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Noreen Parks [nmparks@q.com] <br />Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:06 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Jefferson County SMP <br />Importance:High <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Stewart, <br /> <br /> <br />As a citizen of Jefferson County, I want to express (again) my support for the Shoreline Master Program <br /> <br />adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. <br /> <br /> <br />As you know, during the four-year process for drafting this program, the Department of Community <br />Development provided many opportunities for community involvement, including several direct mailings to <br />shoreline property owners. And, of course shoreline owners were represented on the Policy Advisory <br /> <br />Committee <br /> <br /> <br />The final product is an admirably balanced plan that strives to meet the needs of Puget Sounds <br />ecosystem and satisfy concerns of property owners. As a biologist and environmental writer, I was <br />pleased to see that the policies and decisions incorporated into the plan were based on peer-reviewed <br />science. To be sure, the final document is a compromise, but in my view this was a stellar example of <br /> <br />democracy in action. <br /> <br /> <br />To me, the most important elements in the plan are the folowing provisions, which were strongly <br /> <br />supported in significant testimony at all the meetings and hearings: <br /> <br /> <br />The prohibition of commercial net pen farming. Although there have been some improvements in <br />aquaculture practices, allowing net pens in Puget Sound, when we are struggling to control and <br />reverse pollution, would be very foolhardy. The health of the sound take priority over the <br />must <br /> <br />economic interests of a small number of aquaculture promoters. <br /> <br /> <br />The 150-foot shoreline buffer, which current research indicates is critical--at a minimum-- for protecting <br />shoreline functions. The allowance for flexible buffer modification where appropriate and there is <br /> <br />no net loss to shoreline functions is a compromise that should satisfy property owners. <br /> <br /> <br />The clear language in the SMP will make it easier for citizens to comprehend the policies, while providing <br />land use consistency and minimizing the need for shoreline armoring by encouraging non-structural <br /> <br />remedies. <br /> <br /> <br />I applaud the Board of County Commissioners' efforts to analyze testimony and incorporate suggested <br />ideas, where appropriate. I sincerely hope that DOE will approve the SMP and give it the strongest <br /> <br />possible support. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Thank you for the opportunity to give my input on this very important issue. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Noreen Parks <br />1 <br /> <br />