The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-403 Page 1 of3 Jeanie Orr (P~Vl~ vv-e1? CoVIt~ VlLe( From: Jill Silver [jsilver@10000yearsinstitute.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 20094:54 PM To: #Long-Range Planning; jeffbocc Cc: AI Scalf; Michelle McConnell Subject: Support and Adopt the SMP Update Jill Silver 888 - 53rd Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 January 30,2009 Jefferson County Planning Commission Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) DCD Long-Range Planning Sent via e-mail Re: Support for Adoption of Shoreline Master Program Update Dear Commissioners: I want to thank the Planning Commission and staff for their three years of hard work on the proposed update of the County's shoreline management plan. I strongly support its adoption - it's a legally and scientifically-sound plan - and one that does the maximum possible to balance the diverse interests and needs of our community and shoreline ecosystems. Our shorelines are the most desirable properties for development. We must integrate land use policies with current science to prevent further degradation of Puget Sound and critical riverine habitats. The information provided during the development of the critical areas ordinance (Hiatt and Silver), and available through agencies such as Washington SeaGrant (Brennan) have demonstrated that adequate buffers and better management of shoreline development are the only way to achieve this goal. We still have relatively healthy shorelines here, and are providing ecosystem services to our own communities and to the rest of Puget Sound, but we will lose those services if we don't act NOW. This update is our best effort to balance new 2/2/2009 Page 2 of3 development with shellfisheries, fin fisheries, recreation, water quality protection, and ecosystem protection. As a life-long resident of Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula shorelines, I've watched as the environmental qualities that brought my grandparents here in the early 40' s disappear little by little. Growing up in Seattle in the late '50's, my family and I had milk and chickens delivered from the Kent Valley, we shopped weekly for fresh local produce at the Pike Place Market, and we waded into Hood Canal and Puget Sound to collect oysters - we ate them on the spot. We spent many hours at beaches and in forests. On our monthly and summer-long sojourns to Rialto Beach, we drove through a continuous corridor of tall trees - broken only by Bainbridge, Sequim and Port Angeles. We fished for salmon and steelhead in the rivers, and dipped for smelt at coastal beaches. Fifty years ago, we had a much smaller population, and a much more limited understanding of the fragility and connectedness of the marine and freshwater shoreline ecosystems - or how our upland and nearshore activities negatively affect our Puget Sound and riverine habitats and the species that thrive in them. People with shoreline property had little vacation cabins and one lane gravel driveways into their shoreline properties. Things sure have changed! Kent Valley is paved; east Puget Sound ("Pugetropolis") has lost most of its populations of salmon and herring - causing ore as at the top of the food web to starve to death; the forested corridor is more clearcut and urban sprawl than forested or agricultural open space; and big homes and roads are moving up the hillslopes and bluffs all around. Orcas, salmon and steelhead are endangered, shellfish is impacted by poor water quality, and the smelt don't run as they once did. Along with the more visible changes, it's obvious to me as a life-long observer and ecologist, that there are other changes - the marine birds I watched as a child are also gone; along with their prey and habitats. When will we 'wise up', I wonder? Just look to the east! Do we want to emulate that or "be the change we need"? All that said - I attended the PC hearing and heard a number of fears and concerns from shoreline residents that must be addressed. Many of the concerns were over misconceptions of SMP requirements, and others pointed out places 2/2/2009 Page 3 of3 where language could be improved. These issues need to be cleared up! Perhaps the PC would support a public workshop that provides an overview of the plan, and responds to each comment and concern with a team comprised of members of the technical and policy advisory groups, Adolphson, DCD and the PC? It'd go a long way to improving public relations. In closing, it is our shared responsibility to protect our shorelines and water, and to steward the public "commons" which belong to, and sustain all of us. This update will help us protect the quality of life we moved here to enjoy and will support the diverse industries that still thrive here, which employ people, provide tax revenues, and are a driving force for tourism and our healthy lifestyles. It won't be easy - but it's time to move forward. We need this update. We must buffer our shorelines and manage development there. This update balances the needs of our communities, and shares the burden. Please stand up and "be the change we need"! Adopt this update! Very sincerely, JaL Saver References: Hiatt, Amy and Jill Silver. FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines. Submission to the CAO Advisory Group -05- 08-2007. Brennan, James. Marine Riparian Vegetation Communities of Puget Sound. Prepared in support of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership. Technical Report 2007-02. Washington Sea Grant. http:Upugetsoundnearshore.org/technical papersjriparian.pdf 2/2/2009