HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-678
C.. In.1\
Page 1 of2
2. (.p l,:,{
- I C?
Jeanie Orr
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:08 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: SMP --
From: Linda Kay Smith [mailto:lkwisesmith@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 20097:19 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Cc: rattemann@pugetsound.org
Subject: SMP --
Dear Planning Commission
I walk the shorelines of Jefferson County and recognize its value to the community. I headed a water
board in a community in MA and after moving here have been involved in community education on our
water bodies and our drinking water.
I appreciate the Planning Commission's work to review the SMP based on citizen comments. However,
the Planning Commission has eliminated important safeguards that would protect shoreline habitat and
water quality as new growth occurs
Please don't roll back the environmental safeguards proposed in the citizen committee's draft. Our
shorelines are where we live and work, and we don't want them devalued or compromised by over
development.
Please reinstate the science-based buffers for all of Jefferson County shorelines. These buffers are sized
to reduce erosion and flooding of our homes, prevent chemicals from poisoning shellfish beds, keep our
beaches clean enough to swim in, and our salmon streams cool.
We support the Planning Commission's revision to make it easy for homes to be rebuilt after a fire.
However, rolling back science-based buffers to address undersized lots is like throwing the baby out
with the bath. Instead of reducing environmental safeguards on 60 miles of shoreline, the County needs
to come up with a cheap and easy process that allows development on nonconforming lots while
protecting water quality and habitat.
We support the previous drafts, which require geoduck aquaculture to obtain a conditional permit. There
are too many unanswered questions about the modern way of farming geoduck, and the science on the
issue is due in within a few years. We can modify that later, ifit proves there's no harm to the near shore
habitat.
We support the previous draft which banned the use of pens to raise fish on the shore. Canada has
experienced many problems with pen fish, and until such time that the science is clear, we need to keep
this practice off our shores. !!!!
6/18/2009
Page 2 of2
The draft removes important safeguards to protect sensitive habitats from mining. Mining should not be
allowed in the Conservancy environment, and additional protections are needed.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments
Linda Smith
6/18/2009