E-Mail 'Navy easement could block industry on Hood Canal' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Navy easement could block industry on Hood Canal' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

2 thoughts on “Navy easement could block industry on Hood Canal

  1. Vessel traffic through the Hood Canal Bridge requiring bridge closure is quite onerous now with the current population and level of industrial development on the Jefferson County side of Hood Canal. Much of an increase in ship traffic beyond current use would render use of a floating bridge design impractical. Are we prepared to fund and build a high-rise static bridge across Hood Canal? If this conservation easement would eliminate the need for a new bridge, I am in favor of it.

  2. We feel that development should be considered by a case by case basis similar to the conveyor to barge gravel pit development. Sure, there will be more bridge openings for marine traffic. The Navy wouldn’t want any constructive development to be liable for if there are any more Port Royal or induced damage incidents from their carelessness – we’re still recovering from the washed up oysters and beach erosion from that event. Oh – what International shipping company imported the invasive mahogany clams that are infesting Hood Canal? Is the Navy under the same constraints as private boaters for biolife contamination?
    Anyway, we feel it is best to leave this ownership of the 18-70 foot sea bed out of the hands of the Navy as the State will most likely loose the control of management and not be ready when the Navy releases interest. We do not consider giving the Navy any additional control over state resources to be an effective environmental benefit.

Comments are closed.