Get concerned. Get educated. And speak up!

To their credit, that’s the advice you’ll hear from both supporters and opponents of the proposed Fred Hill Materials pit-to-pier operation in Jefferson County and Hood Canal.

And that’s not just good advice, it’s essential. Without informed, concerned comments from the public, it’s possible that critical elements may be missing in Jefferson County’s environmental review of the multi-million-dollar project.

When Fred Hill Materials announced plans for its pit-to-pier gravel operation five years ago, it seemed a possible win-win for the economy and the environment. The project could bring more than 100 new workers into the county, and the firm announced plans to donate a half-million tons of gravel and sand to restore degraded beaches throughout Puget Sound.

Since then, things have changed. Although Hill has shown a continual good-faith commitment to environmental sensitivity in the operation, the environment itself has changed; Hood Canal’s oxygen levels have dropped, imperiling marine life and local economies which rely upon it. Although causes of the low-oxygen problems have not been fully determined, it appears many are human-caused. Because of that there’s an even greater need than before to safeguard the Canal’s ecology, particularly with a major pier-and-shipping project that could introduce many new factors.

In addition, organized opposition has developed with the Hood Canal Coalition, which has raised a variety of new concerns and objections about the project.

As proposed the project would mine gravel from Fred Hill’s existing pit near Shine and move it on a 4-mile-long conveyor belt to Thorndyke Bay on Hood Canal. At an 1,100-foot-long pier, gravel would be loaded onto barges and ships. Ships would require opening the Hood Canal Bridge; barges would not.

Approximately 2 million tons of sand and gravel would be transported from the site the first year, gradually increasing to 4 million tons or more.

Now, Jefferson County and Hill are ready to start a long-awaited environmental review, beginning with a public meeting on Sept. 27 in Port Townsend. The first stage — scoping — will determine what elements should be included in an environmental impact statement. County officials and Hill had planned to begin this phase earlier, but about a year was lost due to disagreements over which consultant to hire, plus other factors.

Public comments and information presented will be used in drafting the environmental impact statement — a process which easily could take a year or more.

Despite the controversies, all parties agree on one thing: the need for comprehensive public input. John Fabian of the Hood Canal Coalition urges people to focus on their personal concerns, and on an "end-to-end" look at the project. Fred Hill spokesman Dan Baskins also encouraged people do their homework and speak up on issues of concern.

The Kitsap Sun’s editorial board has taken no "pro" or "con" position on the project. But a couple of things are clear.

One is that since the project was announced five years ago, the environmental bar has been raised because of Hood Canal’s declining health.

The other is that because of many complexities in the project and in the Canal’s ecology, a thorough environmental assessment is critical to the decision-making process — and the public’s help is needed in ensuring that evaluation is as comprehensive as possible.
If you have something to say, we urge you to attend the Sept. 27 meeting in Port Townsend, or to submit written comments by e-mail to fhmpit2pier@co.jefferson.wa.us; or by mail to Michelle Farfan, Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368.