Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA-07 RECEIVED JUL '0 3 2025 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISStONERS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT#Marilyn Showalter Showalter& Jan Wold Case No. 072525 (MSJW) (SDP2024-00006) Appellants vs Appeal of Jefferson County Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance(MDNS)(SEPA Jefferson County, Appeal) Respondent APPELLANTS' MOTION to DISMISS Rock Island Oyster(Robert Carson), (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) DUE TO ERRONEOUS NOTICE Respondent/Applicant PROCEDURES COME NOW Appellants,who move, under Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure(JCHERP)Rule 3.3(a), for an order dismissing this matter, without prejudice, because the Notice of Application (NOA) (Attachment A) and Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance(MDNS) (Att B) substantially and prejudicially fail to comply with procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), the Shoreline Management Act(SMA)the Jefferson County Code(JCC). In order to proceed with review of this project,the County should issue a new NOA, and, if appropriate, a new Determination. Appellants bring this Motion at this early stage of the proceeding, in order to allow the County some flexibility in considering its options going forward.At this stage of the proceedings, the burden of persuasion rests with the Appellants. Under any standard of review, though, including"clearly erroneous,"Anderson v. Pierce Co., 86 Wash. App. 290(1997), the NOA and MDNS fail, procedurally. 1 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION The importance of following correct procedures in processing permits cannot be overemphasized. Failure to follow the processes outlined in the SMA, WAC 173-27, and the local master program may result in the invalidation of a decision. Local planning and zoning requirements for public notice may differ from the SMA. If you are frying to combine these processes,you must be sure that you meet the SMA's requirements, or the shoreline permit process could be invalidated Far more appeals and court decisions are decided on procedural grounds than on substantive issues. ECY Shoreline Permitting Manual,page 6-5, 1706029.pdf (Emphasis added) This brief is organized as follows: a) The NOA must comply with the notice provisions of JCC, SMA,and SEPA, SMA. b) The Notice of Application procedures and content are clearly erroneous. c) The County was informed of several NOA errors and could have issued a proper notice with minimal delay but chose to proceed;the errors are therefore willful. d) The MDNS must comply with the notice provisions of SEPA, SMA, and JCC. e) The MDNS procedures and notice provisions are clearly erroneous. f) The County was notified of most of the MDNS errors and could have issued a proper notice with minimal delay but chose to proceed;the errors are therefore willful. g) The fix for the erroneous NOA and procedurally erroneous MDNS is relatively easy and will not substantially delay review of the project: issue new documents that comply with the law. A. The NOA must comply with the notice provisions of JCC, SMA,and SEPA. The notice requirements under JCC, SMA, and SEPA are laid out in Attachment C. They are similar but not identical. Notices must meet the requirements of all these laws, unless they conflict, in which case RCW and then WAC prevail. JCC 18.25.03(2). 2 B. The Notice of Application procedures and content are clearly erroneous. Facially,the NOA contains factual errors,contradictions, and omissions. In addition, required procedures for its timely distribution were not followed. Certainly,taken as a whole, it is clear that"mistakes were made"—significant, prejudicial mistakes. 1. It is titled with the wrong case number(SDP2024-00001), misleading the viewer at the outset. 2. The deadline for commenting(May 3, 2024), in bold, is a date more than two months earlier than the date of the notice, resulting in no comment period. 3. That a notice was published in the newspaper with the correct case number and comment deadline does not cure errors (1)and(2), or the other errors listed here. The published notice is not the NOA itself. The NOA is the document that is in the County files(which is also posted on the SEPA register at the state Department of Ecology), where it still resides. People have a right to rely on what is in the official file, and they should not be required or expected to find a newspaper notice if they are already perusing official County records online. Moreover, the paper did not, in fact, publish the NOA; it published a notice with different content. 4. The url given to view the (wrongly numbered)case file leads to a page that simply lists all Jefferson County departments,with no further direction. (Att D) 5. Another url provided at the end of the NOA"for more information" leads to a non- operative page that says"We're sorry, but there is not a web page matching your entry." (Att E.) 3 6. If one uses the Jefferson parcel map or self-help portal and goes to either the incorrect (SDP2024-00001)or the correct(SDP2024-00006) file number,there are no records— only a message that says"There are no records to display." (Att F) (To see how challenging it is to find online information on this case, ask your spouse or colleague to find the files using only the NOA for guidance.) 7. The NOA fails to state—as required by JCC 18.40.190(5)—other permits, including federal permits,known by the County to be required. The County was clearly aware, as documented in the Pre-Application materials it presented at its initial meeting with the Applicant (Att G), that the Aplicant will need,at a minimum, permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers,the state Department of Health, and the state Department of Ecology. This requirement alerts citizens to other important agencies and issues that can affect public feedback to the County for consideration. 8. The NOA fails—though required by JCC 18.40.190(11)(d)and WAC 197-1 1-355 (2)(b)—to "list the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected."It is not credible that the County was expecting to issue straight DNS for a proposal which had been identified as"complex"and contentious. (Au H.) At a minimum, gear and ESA conditions were"being considered." Inclusion of them in the NOA could have led, for example(and would have led,by Appellants),to timely comments on the adequacy and enforcement of gear requirements. Appellants did not have this opportunity. 4 Why is it so important to provide a list of the conditions being considered? In the optional process,the County can issue an MDNS under SEPA with no additional comment period, at which point the only way to effectively comment on the conditions in the MDNS is to pay$1400 for a SEPA appeal. (WAC 197-11- 355(2)(a)(ii);See Ecology Q&A, Att I.) Appellants in fact suffered this injury. 9. There is no email address provided for commenting and no indication that emailed comments are allowed. The implication from the information that is provided is that comments must be mailed by snail mail, which is incorrect. JCC 18.40.220(3)expressly provides that"Comments may be mailed,emailed, personally delivered or sent by facsimile." (Emphasis added.) In this day and age,the lack of a ready email address is a needless, frustrating, and significant barrier to c seeking citizens to comment. Further, DCD has routinely included email addresses in other notices (Att J), but not this one. 10. There is a backwards sentence that states"if the permit is approved,"conditions will be developed to mitigate adverse impacts, instead of stating that conditions may be developed and considered before the permit is recommended or approved. This confusingly suggests that there may be a later stage for considering conditions, and that the current stage (comments on the application) is not the appropriate stage for such consideration. 11. The NOA incorrectly states that"Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court." Hearing Examiner decisions under SMA must be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board. JCC 2.30.130(3). 5 12. The NOA wrongly states, again, in another part of the NOA that"Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court." 13. Appellants' public records request produced no record of the required affidavit-of- posting the NOA and where it was posted. 14. The County failed to send the NOA to Appellant Showalter,who expressly requested, in writing, before issuance of the NOA,to be informed of any process for aquaculture tied to the Applicant's property. On November 30,2023, seven months before the NOA was issued, Ms. Showalter emailed Ms. Frostholm,opposing any request for an exemption Carson might have submitted, adding: "I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with the parcels."(Italics added) (Att K.) Ms. Frostholm replied, on December 4,2023, that there were no records of an"application."(Att L) On December 20, 2023, Ms. Frostholm again reviewed this email, singularly, ("There is one email . . ."Att Al)to determine whether it was responsive to a public records request. (Att N) On the next day, December 21, 2023, Ms. Frostholm received a 63-page letter and attachments, requesting a permit exemption. (Att 0, email and first page of letter only.) In other words,after twice reviewing Ms. Showalter's request to be notified of relevant permit processes, and within 27 hours of the second review, Ms. Frostholm received Carson's request for an exemption—which should have lodged Ms. Showalter's interest in her mind. And yet, when it came time to email the NOA, Ms. Frostholm sent it to some 26 recipients (Att P), but not to Ms. Showalter. 6 C. The County was informed of several NOA errors and could have issued proper notice with minimal delay but chose to proceed; the errors are therefore willful. Appellants informed DCD of several errors on August 29, 2024, and November 14, 2024. (Att Q). DCD neither responded nor issued a new NOA. DCD has since been many months to issue a corrected NOA without holding up the proceedings. At this point, one must regard these errors as deliberately adopted—or at least willfully ignored. D. The MDNS must comply with the notice provisions of JCC,SMA,and SEPA. The relevant sections are laid out in Attachment B. E. The MDNS procedures and notice provisions are clearly erroneous. 1. The MDNS does not comply with Hearing Examiner Rule 3.1(a), which instructs the appeal to be filed"with the examiner's office." Instead, in one place,the MDNS says an appeal must be submitted to DCD at DCD's office. In another spot, it says the appeal must be delivered to"the Administrator,"(DCD has none)with no name or address. 2. The MDNS requires the notice of the SEPA appeal to establish"standing." This is a legal term and a requirement that was repealed by Jefferson County Ordinance 12-19. The previous bullet in the MDNS already requires a statement of the appellant's interest. Including the repealed provision suggest something needs to be added. 3. The MDNS fails to state that a copy of the challenged decision is required to be included with the notice of the SEPA appeal, under Hearing Examiner Procedural Rule 3.1(b)(5). This actively misleads a would-be appellant into filing a flawed appeal. 4. The MDNS states that the appeal must be"signed"by the appellant(s). This is not a requirement of Rule 3.1 and can be particularly onerous when multiple people or organizations are appealing. DCD has no authority to prescribe this requirement. 7 F. The County was informed of most MDNS errors and could have issued a proper notice with minimal delay but chose to proceed; the errors are therefore willful. In any event, prior to issuing the MDNS, the County was informed of many of the errors that are in the MDNS. That is because the current MDNS is actually the second one issued. The first one was issued on May 15, 2025, including, among other errors, a six-day deadline for appeal. Appellant Showalter wrote to DCD, informing it of that and many other errors. (Au R.) Several of them were the same errors she had previously pointed out in the MDNS of another recent case. DCD issued a new MDNS (the current one)that fixed the appeal deadline but not many of the other errors outlined in this brief. In addition, DCD received two other communications regarding its procedural practices. One is a letter from Ms. Showalter to DCD and the Hearing Examiner, requesting a review of certain practices, citing previous problems, and suggesting solutions, including distributing and accessing documents. The other is an admonition from the Hearing Examiner in another proceeding(in which Appellant's motion for reconsideration was received too late because DCD did not timely distribute the underlying order): Staff shall maintain a copy of the Request and a copy of this Order in the project file for the application,and should use this matter as a learning experience,to ensure that future public notices include correct information at the time they are issued, without need for subsequent corrections. As with all application reviews, public notices should be prepared and issued in accord with applicable law.Nothing in this Order,or the underlying Decision approving the applicant's permit, should be construed or interpreted to excuse errors in public notices provided in connection with other applications processed by County staff. SDP2024-00001. Order Denying Request for Reconsideration,pp 2-3. (Note: neither this Order nor the underlying Decision is in the Examiner's casefile) One can only conclude that DCD, being fully aware of all of these documents, is not interested in exercising its responsibility to"get it right." This has led to many hours by Appellants, the County public records office, and DCD itself addressing these deficiencies. 8 It has also likely deterred unknown members of the public from participating in this and other proceedings, because they weren't properly notified. But they are not here to object. G. The fix for the erroneous NOA and procedurally erroneous MDNS is relatively easy and will not substantially delay review of the project: issue new documents that comply with the law. A stitch in time saves nine. The most baffling aspect of this saga is why the County doesn't just sit down and figure out an up-to-date template (see, e.g.,Au S) for their notices—or at least carefully review any notice for which it has received comments on deficiencies and issue a corrected one. Then again, if the County gets a pass when it continues, willfully,to disregard a variety of notice requirements,perhaps it's just easier not to worry about them. But that just continues to deny the public its rights to adequate notice and opportunity to participate with the full knowledge that the law affords them. Fortunately,the fix here is not particularly onerous or time-consuming(though earlier corrections would have caused no delay at all): issue a new NOA with a 30-day comment period and,if warranted,a new MDNS with a 14-day appeal period. Regarding injury, Appellants have shown that the NOA and MDNS flat-out do not comply with the law, in multiple and significant ways. As such, it is not necessary to show actual prejudice, particularly with the NOA, which is the initial,foundational, alert the public. Such a test would be a Catch 22: parties present can't show prejudice because they in fact know about the case, but people not present, because they don't know about the case or were misled by omissions or erroneous statements in the notice, are not here to object. Such a test would nullify the notice requirements and be a recipe for the County to disregard them. Perhaps that is what has been happening. (Anderson and progeny do not address this 9 this situation the initial notice of application was not an issue.) Notice must be adequate to reach unknown recipients. The injury is to the public. In fact, however,Appellants have been injured: despite express efforts, they did not get accurate and timely notice;they were precluded from getting timely information on the case, such as a list of mitigating conditions being considered the time of the NOA; and they had to pay$1400 to challenge the MDNS and comment on the conditions. (Atts T and U.) In sum: Appellants have pointed out specific and significant failures of the NOA and MDNS to comply with the notice requirements of the JCC, SMA, and SEPA. But the totality of these errors is even greater than the sum of its parts, betraying the County's apparent indifference to informing the public it serves. An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. . . The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. (Internal citations omitted.) Mullane v.Central Hanover Bank& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306(1950), 315 The notices in this case did not reasonably convey required information(and did convey inaccurate information) and were not, under the circumstances, reasonably distributed.Appellants urge the Hearing Examiner to reach a"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,"Anderson at 302, to the detriment of the Appellants and the public.Appellants urge the Hearing Examiner,based on the legally deficient NOA and/or the legally deficient MDNS, to dismiss the case without prejudice. Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of July 2025, /s/Wader r , oeuat'te. Marilyn Showalter, Contact for Appellants 10 A JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION SDP2024-00001 APPLICANT: ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH P.O. BOX 181 PORT GAMBLE, WA 98364 Application Received Date: June 3, 2024 Application Complete Date: June 27, 2024 Application Notice Date: July 10, 2024 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: HOOD CANALTIDELANDS AT PARCELS 965100009, 965100010, AND 965100011 (LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF KILLAPIE BEACH ROAD) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea)within private tidelands in Squamish Harbor in a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets, a near-bottom culture system, will be installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between +4 feet to-4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres (of the six-acre project area). Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) receive notice of and participate in any hearings; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s)to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Comments concerning this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on May 3, 2024. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff report. The application submittal and related documents are available online: https://test.co.iefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=5992344&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The optional DNS process of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-355 is being used. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. DCD reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. This determination is based upon a review of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available information. The SEPA Official has determined that: If the proposal is approved, policies and performance standards found in the Jefferson County Code and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will be used to form permit conditions intended to mitigate adverse 11 environmental impacts. Additional conditions or mitigation measures may be required under SEPA. If the threshold determination is a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the final Notice of Decision. A Determination of Significance (DS) may not be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: This is a Type III permit application. An open record hearing will be scheduled and separate public notice will be provided at least 15 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven calendar days prior to such a hearing. APPEALS: The final permit decision for this Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. Project Planner: Donna Frostholm, 360-379-4466 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page at www.co.]efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ 12 B st_SON r�r. JEFFERSON COUNTY G4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT y � 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend,WA 98368 360-379-4450 I email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us 9rtt vG��, www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: May 20,2025 FILE NUMBER: SDP2024-00006 PROPONENT: Rock Island Shellfish(Robert Carson) P.O. Box 181 Port Gamble,WA 98364 PROPOSAL: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters(Crassostrea sikamea)within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets,a near-bottom culture system,will be installed,maintained,and operated within the intertidal zone between+4 feet to-4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres(of the six-acre project area). Native eelgrass(Zostera marina)occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. The proposal is immediately adjacent to three parcels owned by the applicant. No upland activity related to this aquaculture application is proposed on the three subject parcels. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed aquaculture farm would be located below ordinary high water mark(OHWM)in Hood Canal(in private tidelands waterward of parcels 965100090,-010,and-01 1),just west of the Hood Canal Bridge. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Assessor's map shows the project area as tidelands. NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above-described proposal. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Use of the three upland parcels immediately adjacent to the project area and owned by the project proponent would trigger a review by Jefferson County Department of Community Development(DCD)that includes a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 2. Use of any other upland site in Jefferson County requires a review by DCD that may trigger a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 3. The project proponent shall comply with all terms and conditions of the programmatic consultation to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species and critical habitat. 4. All relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers shall be implemented. 13 5. Record-keeping logs for materials retrieved within the project area as well as those for spills and cleanups shall be maintained,and made available to Jefferson County if requested. 6. All gas-powered vehicles, including vessels,shall contain a spill kit. 7. Derelict gear from a previous shellfish operation shall be transported to an approved off-site facility. NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(MDNS): Jefferson County has determined that the above-described proposal,conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson County Codes and Ordinances,would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment,and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.2I C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Development Review Division. COMMENT PERIOD: This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non-significance. There is no further comment period on the DNS. APPEAL PERIOD: Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provision of Chapter 43.21 c RCW(State Environmental Policy Act)must be submitted in writing by 4:30 p.m.on June 3,2025 to the Jefferson County Development Review Division(Jefferson County Department of Community Development,621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,Washington 98368)for consideration by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Per JCC 18.40.810(3),the decision of the responsible official on Type II and III permits making a threshold determination of a MDNS,approving a proposal subject to conditions,or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the Hearing Examiner,who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing as further set forth in Article IV of this chapter. The responsible official's MDNS may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or anyone commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal(as further set forth in JCC 18.40.810). The appeal must be in writing,in conformance with JCC 18.40.330(3),and be filed within 14 calendar days after the threshold determination is issued. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA,shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.70B.110(6)(d)). A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the Administrator by mail or by personal delivery,and must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period,with the required appeal fee of$1,400. The notice of appeal shall contain a concise statement identifying: • The decision being appealed and the identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; • The name,address,and phone number of the appellant and his/her interest in the matter; • Appellant's statement describing standing to appeal(i.e.,how he/she is affected by or interested in the decision); • The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; • The desired outcome or changes to the decision;and • A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true,signed by the appellant. Any notice of appeal not in full compliance with this Section shall not be considered. / f� $ Greg Ball d PA Responsible Official Date SDP2024-00006 Rock Islart4Sheilfish 2 C 18.40.190 Notice of application — Contents. The notice of application shall include the following: (1) The name and address of the applicant or the applicant's representative; (2) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application; (3) The street address location of the project or, if unavailable, a description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the public of its location, which may include a vicinity location (map), the location in reference to roadway intersections, or a written description (rural route box or subdivision lot and block alone are not sufficient); (4) A description of the proposed project action, use or development and a list of project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any additional studies requested under JCC 18.40.110(6); (5) The identification of state, federal or other permits required by other agencies with jurisdiction not included in the application, to the extent known by the county; (6) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and the location of where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (7) The name and phone number of the contact project planner; (8) A statement of the limits of the public comment period, which shall be 14 calendar days following the date of the notice of application (or 20 or 30 calendar days if the application involves a permit under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, as further set forth in JCC 18.40.220); (9) Statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, become a party of record, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights; (10) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of the notice of application, of the proposed project's consistency with applicable development regulations and of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation, as provided in RCW 36.70B.040 and JCC 18.40.140; 15 (11) Pursuant to WAC 197-11-355, a statement on the first page of the notice of application that: (a) The optional DNS process of WAC 197-11-355 is being used; (b) This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; (c) The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable development regulations, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and (d) A copy of the subsequent threshold determination may be obtained upon request, and will be mailed to any person commenting upon the notice of application. In addition, the notice of application shall list the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected; (12) The date, time, place and type of hearing, if applicable, and if scheduled prior to the date of the notice of application; (13) A statement of when and where a copy of the application, all supporting documentation and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and applicable development regulations may be available for public inspection; and (14) Any other information the administrator determines appropriate. [Ord. 12- 19 § 4 (Appx. C); Ord. 8-06 § 1] 16 WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. (1) If a GMA county/city with an integrated project review process (RCW 36.706.060) is lead agency for a proposal and has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it may use a single integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued (refer to subsection (4) of this section). (2) If the lead agency uses the optional process specified in subsection (1) of this section, the lead agency shall: (a) State on the first page of the notice of application that it expects to issue a DNS for the proposal, and that: (i) The optional DNS process is being used; (ii)This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; (iii) The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and (iv)A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution). (b) List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected; (c) Comply with the requirements for a notice of application and public notice in RCW 36.706.110; and (d) Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to: (i) Agencies with jurisdiction, the department of ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and (ii) Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for checklist distribution). (3) If the lead agency indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application (WAC 197-11-948). 17 (4) The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and either: (a) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section; (b) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section, if the lead agency determines a comment period is necessary; (c) Issue a DS; or (d) Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination. (5) If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (4)(a) of this section, the lead agency shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the department of ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated. 18 RULE 3 ME-HEARING PROCEDURES 3_1 Notice of Appeal (a) Purpose and Timing.A notice of appeal,together with the appropriate appeal fee,shall be filed with the examiner's office within 15 days of the date of the administrative decision.For enforcement actions under Chapter 8.90 JCC (Public Nuisances)an appeal or hearing fee shall not be required to file an appeal or hearing.However,the examiner may assign the costs of the hearing or appeal after the hearing. (b) Content of Notice of Appeal.A notice of appeal from an administrative decision shall,at a minimum contain the following information:(1)full name;(2) mailing address;(3)e-mail address(if available);(4)file number,license number,or other identifying number;(5)a copy of any decision,license,order, or other administrative decision;(6)a concise statement of the factual and legal basis for the appeal citing specifically the alleged errors in the administrative official's decision;and,(7)the specific relief sought. 19 D, E IMAGE A From the NOA: "The application submittal and related documents are available online:- https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse aspx?id=5992344&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson Laserfiche Weblink .Q rfurne Browse Search Jefferson Jefferson Name Site admest Oe5rr:pvm Par[H Number Permits IMrumxrt rope Page< in is inde+eH Entry Propenres asses.or yeS earn Boam of Commzsgr:ers Yyas rvrd Swwes Yn Creation de[e Comrnunsy Deenopment Vn ast mod:fee Cnmmun�y tevebcmem--0r0005M remxrary Housing Pa thus,Drdinarca yes FnwrnnntPtla Heaith Yes Metadata Err.se On Aftiorros Yn ire rcrns Y•s Case numb,[ Heattn Yes ICSD oeur won FMaied Date Not Kos Yas Nano A.Surveys on sass Name �nuM Date Prose<uLng A(twny yn me P:miK woes Vn MLA L;Pxror Cour[Web Dttumems Vn rul Number roa.NO( Yes anmrb-Document Type of o we,egowe vn 18 Entries IMAGE B From the NOA: "For further information,please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page at"www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ x^` IeffersonaCounty NBII OBI. f.BY0MeilIN1 &0551SS MIKES StRYN,TS s..ro,r,.rr>rrrr.. J 'mil 9 20 F Plan Number.SDP202400006 Plan Details Tab Elements Main Menu Type Shoreline(SDP) Status In Review Project Name: SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT IVR Number. 71936 Applied Date 06/03/2024 Expiration Date: 06/03/2029 District: Type III Assigned To: Frostholm,Donna Completion Date: Description: operate olf-bottom ova-er farm Summary Locations Fees ReviewsCOD Tantacts Attachments I Next Tab l Plan Details i Main Menu MfacMtents No mso.ns to resales 21 G PRE2024-00005 Pre-application Conference for New Aquaculture Rock Island Shellfish Intertidal Area Adjacent to Parcels: 965100009,-010,-011 Attendees: Jesse DeNike;Plauche&Carr LLP;Marlene Meaders,Confluence Environmental Company; Donna Frostholm,Jefferson County Department of Community Development(DCD). Pre-application Meeting Date/Location: March 26,2024/2:00 PMNirtual Owner/Applicant: Rock Island Shellfish,P.O.Box 181,Port Gamble,Washington 98364 Description of Completed Work: Install rebar racks(1 meter wide by 5 meters long by 1 meter high)and attach Seaba baskets using Seaba storm clips. Gear for shellfish operations will be welded together at an upland location. Shellfish will be raised+4 feet to-4.2 feet. Aquaculture is proposed in Hood Canal,just west of the Hood Canal Bridge. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Jefferson County Code(JCC)is available online at the Jefferson County DCD homepage: https://cojefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development Land Use: • Zoning—Upland parcels owned by Robert Carson are zoned Rural Residential One Unit/5 Acres (RR 1:5). • State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)—Proposal is subject to review under SEPA. Submit an Environmental Checklist. Shoreline Master Program(SMP): The SMP is in the process of being revised and the guidance below is based on current shoreline regulations. To be vested to the following SMP requirements,a complete shoreline application would need to be submitted prior to the effective date of the revised SMP. • Shoreline Environment Designation—Natural above OHWM;Aquatic below OHWM. • This type of aquaculture proposal would be reviewed as a shoreline substantial development permit(SSDP)application,using a Type III permitting process. Review of Type III SSDP applications require a 30-day notice of application. The final permitting decision would be made by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner,and a public hearing would be noticed. The Hearing Examiner's decision would be forwarded on to Ecology for review and filing. The proposal would be reviewed against the following sections of the SMP: o JCC 18.25.440—Aquaculture o JCC 18.25.540—Substantial Development Criteria o JCC 18.25.230 through.250(Article V—Shorelines of Statewide Significance) o JCC 18.25.270 through.320(Article VI—General Policies and Regulations) Note: The species of shellfish to be raised needs to be identified in the application. The upland location to be used for storing and welding gear needs to be addressed in the biological reports prepared by Confluence,the Environmental Checklist,and the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application form,and needs to be shown to scale on the site plan. Critical Areas: Jefferson County mapping indicates the following critical areas may be present: • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas(FWHCAs):This segment of the shoreline has the potential to serve as habitat for listed fish species. There is a 150-foot shoreline buffer associated with the marine shoreline. The Coastal Atlas maps a continuous fringe of eelgrass and a patchy fringe of kelp along the shoreline.Submit a habitat management plan prepared by a qualitied professional that is consistent with Articles VI(Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas)and 22 IX(Special Reports)of Chapter 18.22 JCC and shows compliance with shoreline no net loss requirements(JCC 18.25.270(2)),including cumulative impacts(JCC 18.25.270(3)). • Wetlands: Submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional that complies with Articles VII(Wetlands)and IX(Special Reports)of Chapter 18.22 JCC. As cumulative impacts assessment should be included in the report. Note: Once the new SMP goes into effect,wetland buffers may be larger than they are under current SMP. • Geologically hazardous areas: The shoreline above OHWM is mapped as a geologically hazardous area. If any clearing,grading,or other ground-disturbing activities would occur above OHWM to weld the shellfish gear,a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional will be required. • Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas(CARAs)and seawater intrusion protection zones(SIPZs): The property is not mapped as a CARA but is mapped as a SIPZ(coastal). The proposal is not expected to affect the SIPZ,and the JCC does not require a report for shellfish operations. • Frequently flooded areas(Zone VE). Construction will occur within a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)-mapped floodplain. If the proposal is being reviewed at the federal level for compliance with the Endangered Species Act(as part of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers permitting),no Habitat Assessment will be required by the county at the time of application. However,if no federal permit is required,a Habitat Assessment must be submitted at the time of application that is consistent with the 2013 FEMA guidance document. Archaeology/Cultural Resources: • No report required at the time of application. However,if comments are received by Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation or the Tribes during noticing that indicates archaeological or cultural resources may be affected,then a report may be required. Stormwater: • Any development landward of OHWM must comply with JCC 18.30.060(Grading and Excavation Standards)and 18.30.070(Stormwater Management),and the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. • Submit a Stormwater Calculation Worksheet and any other applicable stormwater sheets for any development landward of OHWM. • The development is required to ensure that sediments were not transported to the marine environment during construction. Application: Complete land use application includes: • Master Permit Application • Shoreline Supplemental Application • Site Plan • Diagram of installed system • Stormwater Calculation Worksheet and any applicable additional stormwater sheets • No Net Loss Report(Habitat Management Plan/Wetland Report),including Cumulative Impacts Assessment • Habitat Assessment(or Corps permitting paperwork) • Documentation that supports regulatory requirements in the SMP sections listed above • Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application(JARPA)form • Shoreline Substantial Development Application: $4,525.70($2,675.00—shoreline substantial development application;$149.00—notice of application;$149.00—notice of public hearing $12.00—notice board;$26.75—scanning fee;$1,298.44—hearing examiner fee;$215.51—5% technology fee). BUILDING REVIEW No building permit is currently required to permit the shellfish operation. 23 OTHER REGULATORY/LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS • The project must comply with the Shoreline Management Act. • The project may need a Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. • The project may require approval from Washington Department of Natural Resources. • This project may need a permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. This agency has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S.,including wetlands. • Killapie Beach Road: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners previously closed this road by resolution. Therefore,this road cannot be used for this proposal without permission from Jefferson County Public Works. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING LIMITATIONS It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the administrator shall not bind or prohibit the county's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statement or assurance made by county representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of county,state and federal codes,laws,regulations and land use plans. Pre-application meetings do not vest any portion of the proposed development proposal. 24 H From: GBallardWcorefferson.wa.u,5 To: DFrosthoIm4co.tefferson,wa.us Subject: RE:Waive Pre-app??? Date: Monday,February 26,2024 3:46:38 PM Based on the info I have,there is no info in the record that would document why we should waive a pre-app for this complicated and contention application involving multiple agencies and tribes. Thank Greg Ballard Jefferson County DCD Development Code Administrator gballard@co,jefferson.wa.us (360)379-4454 25 I As the Washington State Deparment of Ecology(ECY) SEPA FAQ- Washington State Department of Ecology: Q: What is the "optional DNS" process? A: The optional DNS process allows a lead agency to combine the SEPA comment period with the notice of application(NOA)prior to actually issuing the DNS. The notice of application must state the optional DNS process is being used and the public's opportunity to comment will be limited. It also means all mitigation conditions under consideration also must be identified. After the end of the comment period, the lead agency may issue the DNS without a second comment period. [emphasis added] 26 J • SDP2022-00019 (Termination Point, Shoreline NOA) All interested persons are invited to(a)comment on the application . . .by submitting such written comment(s) . . .to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4463, or sent via email to the assigned planner(Jenny Murphy; imurphyaco jefferson.wa.us). • ZONS2024-00002 (Shine/Miles Sand 7 Gravel NOA) SEPA comments must be received by 4:30 pm on Wednesday,November 6, 2024 to be considered. Please send comments to Andy Gosnell,the project planner at agosnellc( co jefferson.wa.us or(360)379-4458. Written comments may be mailed or dropped off at DCD's office at 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368. • SDP2023-00016 (Shoreline exemption for boat launch NOA) SEPA comments must be received by 4:30 p.m.by September 4, 2024 to be considered. Please send comments to David Johnson,the project planner at johnson@co jefferson.wa.us. 27 K From: Marilyn Showalter<marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters<JPeters@cojefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostho l m(aco.j e ffe rson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 96510001 1 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello,Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology, in which Rock Island Shellfish proposes to cultivate oysters on these parcels. They assert that they need an SMA permit from the County AND that they have applied for an exemption. (See pp2-3 of the attachment.) It's not clear, from the minimal information I have,whether these are tidelands that have actually been cultivated before, or, if so, whether the proposal amounts to an expansion requiring a CUP. If the area has been cultivated before,the proposal clearly calls for a significant change in cultivating methods, i.e., bent rebar and hard-plastic "Seaba baskets" which likely would require a CUP. Perhaps you have a JARPA with some baseline information. I have made a public records request(see below)that would include it, if you have it. If Carson/Rock Island has NOT applied for a permit or exemption under the SMA, I would like to know that,too, as it would indicate a serious error on the ECY document. 28 Thank you--Marilyn Marilyn Showalter 1596 Shine Rd Port Ludlow, WA 98365B (360)259-1700(cell) marilyn.showalter�a)gmail.com Forwarded message From:JEFFERSON COUNTY SUPPORT<jeffersoncountywa@govga.us> Date: Thu,Nov 30, 2023 at 10:17 AM Subject: County Public Records Request :: C002180-113023 To:marilyn.showalter@gmail.com<marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Dear Marilyn Showalter: Thank you for your interest in public records of Jefferson County. Your request has been received and is being processed in accordance with the State of Washington Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Your request was received in this office on 11/30/2023 and given the reference number C002180-113023 for tracking purposes. Records Requested: Please provide any records you have indicating an application or interest by Robert Carson or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe in cultivating shellfish on parcels 965100009, 965100010, or 965100011. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology in which Carson/PGS (see pp 2-3)that they need an SMA permit the from the County and that they have requested an SMA exemption from the County. I do not see any such permit information linked to the Jefferson County Parcel Map app. Your request will be forwarded to the relevant County department(s)to locate the information you seek and to determine the volume and any costs associated with satisfying your request. You will be contacted about the availability and/or provided with copies of the records in question. PLEASE NOTE: The Public Records Act does not require a governmental body to create new information, to do legal research,or to answer questions. 29 L From: Donna Frostholm To: Marilyn Showalter Subject: FW:Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009,965100010,and 965100011- CORRECTION Date: Monday,December 4,2023 3:47:23 PM Correction: The email below should have said 'Rock Island' (NOT Rock Point). From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:03 PM To: Marilyn Showalter<marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Marilyn, DCD has no record of receiving an application for the Rock Point aquaculture proposal. The information for the public records request will come in a separate email. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: Marilyn Showalter<marilvn.showalterPgmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To:Josh Peters<JPetersc co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholmPco.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello,Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology, in which Rock Island Shellfish proposes to cultivate oysters on these parcels. They assert that they need an SMA permit from the County AND that they have applied for an exemption. (See pp2-3 of the attachment.) 30 M From: aFrostholm0cojefferson.wa.us To: KHuaoniot0 co,iefferson.wa.us Subject: RE:Files provided for PRR C002180 Date: Wednesday,December 20,2023 11:14:53 AM Hi Ken, Sorry,there is one email that I do not remember seeing in the list—I will forward it on to you so you can decide if it should be included in this PRR. See next email from me. Donna @ DCD From: Ken Hugoniot<KHugoniot@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent:Tuesday, December 19, 2023 4:34 PM To: Donna Frostholm<DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Files provided for PRR C002180 Hi Donna, I actually don't have a profile for you in my PRR management system, so I didn't bother with that.All I need from you is a response to this email. I've just copied the text of the PRR below and you can view the files in Laserfiche by double-clicking on the attachment. Once you've had a look,just shoot me back a quick email reply to confirm whether you have, or are aware of, any additional potentially responsive records. Thanks again! Please provide any records you have indicating an application or interest by Robert Carson or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe in cultivating shellfish on parcels 965100009, 965100010, or 965100011. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology in which Carson/PGS(see pp 2-3) that they need an SMA permit the from the County and that they have requested an SMA exemption from the County. I do not see any such permit information linked to the Jefferson County Parcel Map app. Ken Hugoniot Jefferson County Public Records Administrator 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend,\VA 98368 (360) 385-9174 khugoniot( ico.jefferson.wa.ua. 31 N From: DFrostholm(alco.iefferson.wa.us To: KHuaoniot(aco.iefferson.wa.us Subject: FW:Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009,965100010,and 965100011- CORRECTION Date: Wednesday,December 20,2023 11:15:20 AM See below, does this need to be included? From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 3:47 PM To: Marilyn Showalter<marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011-CORRECTION Correction: The email below should have said 'Rock Island' (NOT Rock Point). From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:03 PM To: Marilyn Showalter<marilyn.showalterCagmail.com> Subject: RE: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Marilyn, DCD has no record of receiving an application for the Rock Point aquaculture proposal. The information for the public records request will come in a separate email. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: Marilyn Showalter<marilvn.showalterPgmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To:Josh Peters<JPetersPco.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm<DFrostholmPco.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello,Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 32 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology, in which Rock Island Shellfish proposes to cultivate oysters on these parcels. They assert that they need an SMA permit from the County AND that they have applied for an exemption. (See pp2-3 of the attachment.) It's not clear,from the minimal information I have, whether these are tidelands that have actually been cultivated before,or, if so, whether the proposal amounts to an expansion requiring a CUP. If the area has been cultivated before,the proposal clearly calls for a significant change in cultivating methods, i.e., bent rebar and hard-plastic "Seaba baskets" which likely would require a CUP. Perhaps you have a JARPA with some baseline information. I have made a public records request (see below)that would include it, if you have it. If Carson/Rock Island has NOT applied for a permit or exemption under the SMA, I would like to know that,too, as it would indicate a serious error on the ECY document. Thank you--Marilyn Marilyn Showalter 1596 Shine Rd Port Ludlow, WA 98365B (360) 259-1700(cell) marilyn.showalterc gmail.com Forwarded message From:JEFFERSON COUNTY SUPPORT<jeffersoncountywaPgovga.us> Date:Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:17 AM Subject: County Public Records Request :: C002180-113023 To: marilyn.showalterPgmail.com<marilyn.showalterPgmail.com> Dear Marilyn Showalter: Thank you for your interest in public records of Jefferson County.Your request has been received and is being processed in accordance with the State of Washington Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW.Your request was received in this office on 11/30/2023 and given the reference number C002180-113023 for tracking purposes. Records Requested: Please provide any records you have indicating an application or interest by 33 0 From: Jesse DeNike To: dfrostholm(@co.iefferson,wa.us Cc: Marione Carson Subject: Rock Island Shellfish Date: Thursday,December 21,2023 4:28:31 PM Attachments: I.Frostholm.12,21.23.odf Hi Ms. Frostholm, My name is Jesse DeNike, and I represent Rock Island Shellfish. You exchanged some communications with Rock Island's owner and operator, Robert Carson, earlier regarding permitting requirements for his tidelands. I am sending you the attached letter following up on that issue. I appreciate that this letter and its attachments are somewhat lengthy, and we have the holidays coming up. If you have a chance to review it before the end of the year and have any questions for me, please feel free to reach out (my cell phone is 206-225-4148). Otherwise, I'll plan to follow up with you the first week of January. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and happy holidays. Jesse Jesse DeNike Plauche&Carr LLP 1218 3rd Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle,WA 98101 (206) 588-4188 jesseftplauchecarr.com This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please call (206) 588-4188, return this email to Jesse DeNike at the above e-mail address, and delete this e-mail from your files. Thank you. 34 IA- Pacific Northwest Office Gulf Coast Office --- 1218 3rd Ave, Suite 2000 1 110 River Rd S,Suite 200 P 1 AUC H Seattle,WA 98101 Baton Rouge,LA 70802 `�C A R R LLP 206.588.4188 225.256.4026 December 21, 2023 Via email:dfrostholm@cojefferson.wa.us Donna Frostholm Associate Planner-Lead/Wetland Specialist Jefferson County DCP RE: Rock Island Shellfish/Robert Carson Continuation of Shellfish Farming Activities Dear Ms. Frostholm: I represent Rock Island Shellfish,which is owned and operated by Robert Carson.You corresponded with Mr. Carson earlier regarding permitting requirements for continuation of shellfish farming activities by Rock Island Shellfish on private tidelands owned by Mr. Carson in Jefferson County. In an email dated September 26, 2023,you provided an initial indication that historical shellfish farming activities on the tidelands have been abandoned,but you stated it may be possible to demonstrate the operations are grandfathered based on supplying additional information.You also indicated that Jefferson County permitting requirements would be determined based on the types of shellfish being grown,harvest methods, and gear types. I am writing you this letter to provide additional details regarding historic and proposed shellfish farming activities on the tidelands,along with efforts by Rock Island Shellfish to continue farming activities. On behalf of Rock Island Shellfish, I am requesting a determination that new permits are not required by Jefferson County for shellfish farming activities for two reasons. First, continuation of shellfish farming activities on the property is governed by, and authorized under,JCC 18.25.440(4)(b). The issue of abandonment is inapplicable because it only arises in the context of nonconforming uses and development,which are "[1]egally established uses,buildings, structures and/or lots of record that do not meet the specific standards of this program . . ."JCC 18.25.660(1). Rock Island Shellfish's farming activities on the properties meet the standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program("SMP") and thus are not non-conforming use or development subject to the abandonment doctrine. Second, even if the abandonment doctrine were applicable, shellfish farming activities on the properties have not been abandoned. A. Background Rock Island Shellfish is proposing to continue shellfish farming activities on private tidelands owned by Mr. Carson on Jefferson County parcel numbers 965100009, 965100010, 965100011, and 35 P From: DFrostholmCalcojefferson.wa.us To: Jizzie.caroC@ecv.wa.gov;SEPA.reviewteamOdoh.wa.aov;seoaCaldaho.wa.gov;SEPACENTERCadnr.wa.gov; R6CSolanningCladfw.wa.aov;5teohanie.iolivette(aadaho.wa.aov;Jstrong(aiamestowntribe.orq; aoaDiezCalskokomish.org;5hlanavllalskokomish.org;mDowers(@ogst.nsn.us;ascagliottk jamestowntribe.org; pamela.sanauinettiOusace.armv,mil;)Fleming(aco.iefferson,wa.us;TDuff( co.jefferson.wa.us; SSholdOcojefferson.wa.us;PMingo(@co.jefferson.wa.us;ericCaloortofpt.corrl;liarahamCTieffoud.org; Chris.ChaDoellCaldnr.wa.gov;OR-SEPA-REVIEWCalwsdot.wa.aov;media0oarks.wa.gov; 8llison.e.satter.civCalus.naw.mil;Lvnn,wall1C@navv.mil;timothv,I.westcott(ausca.mil;pweems4skokomish.orq; rossi aapnotc.org Cc: news(aloeninsuladailynews.com;newsCalotleader.com Subject: SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shoreline Permit Application with SEPA Notice Date: Wednesday,July 10,2024 9:47:13 AM Attachments: 5dp2024-00006 ris reviewer letter.Ddf Greetings All, Attached is a reviewer letter for a shoreline substantial development permit application for new aquaculture in Hood Canal that was submitted to Jefferson County Department of Community Development. The application submittal and the notice of application can be found at: https://test.cojefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=5992344&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson This proposal requires review under SEPA and has been published by Washington Department of Ecology under record number 202402953. Comments on this proposal are due by August 9, 2024. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Donna grosthoCm, TINS Associate Planner-Lead/Wet(andSpecia(ist Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street,Port Townsend,1Vasfiington 98368 360-379-4466 cffrostho1m@cojefferson.wa.us DCD IS OPEN MONDAY—THURSDAY FROM 9:00— 12:00 and 1:00 -4:30; CLOSED FRIDAY. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. 36 Q From: Marilyn Showalter To: Donna Frostholm Cc: Philip Hunsucker Subject: THIRD and FOURTH Defects in the Notice in Rock ISLAND Public Notice and Request for Re-Issuance SDP2024- 00006 Date: Wednesday,November 13,2024 4:07:21 PM Attachments: image.pnq image.pnq image.pnq image.onq Notice of App Rock ISLAND.odf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Donna and Phil, On August 29, 2024, I wrote (see email below) to object to two deficiencies of the Notice in the Rock Island hanging-rack oyster proposal: 1) I was not notified, despite my request to be notified; and 2) the stated deadline for comment preceded the issuance of the Notice. I requested that a new Notice be issued. Other than an acknowledgement of receipt, I've heard no response. I wish to add THIRD and FOURTH defects: the wrong case number, and false and misleading statements of law. THIRD DEFECT The caption of the Notice in the file (attached) states that the case is SDP2024- 00001: (I repeated this number in my email of August 29, 2024, assuming it was correct.) JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION SDP2024-00001 But that number appears to be related to the application for a FLUPSY in Quilcene/Dabob Bay. Clicking on that number on the County's new "Self-Help" site, one finds: 37 Next I Top I Paging Options I Filter Options I Main Menu Plan Number SDP2024-00001 Applied Date 12/05/2023 I Type Shoreline(SDP)SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Completion Date Expiration Date Status In Review Main Parcel 701091001 Project Name Address 1733 DABOB POST OFFICE RD QUILCENE WA 98376 Description After-the-fact SSDP for operation of a Floating Upwelling System(FLUPSY)used to grow shellfish seed that is grown on Rock Point Oyster's existing shellfish farms,including its adjacent farm in Tarboo Bay Furthermore, there are no documents shown as attachments at this site: Plan Number:SDP2024-00001 Plan Details;Tab Elements Maur Menu Type Shorehne0OP15HORELINE Status In Review SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Forged pant MS Number: 71091 Applied Date: 12/05/2023 Expiration Date. 12104t2028 District Type 111 Assigned Ta Frostholm.Donna Completion Date: Description: After-the-fact SSDP for operation of a Floating Upwelling System;FLUPSY)used to grow shellfish seed that is gown on Rock Point Oyster's existing shellfish farms.including its adjacent farm in Tarboo Bay Snnna,y Lneelbna ee.. Rn nou Osrra_crs Attachments Next Tab I Plan Details I Main Menu Attachments No records to dlmlay. The notice thus gives inaccurate and misleading information, in violation of JCC 18.40.220 (2) and JCC 18.40.190 (13), which require a notice to inform the public on how to find out more information on an application. I now see, having checked the Port Townsend Leader, that the notice that was published in the newspaper uses the number SDP2024-00006. I suggest adding a note in the public file that the notice in the file has the wrong number. I do NOT suggest removing the faulty notice, as it is a public record. In addition, it would be cured by issuing a new public notice resetting the process, as I've previously requested (and which could state that the first one has defects). FOURTH DEFECT As the Notice notes, accurately, at its beginning, it is for a "substantial development permit application." Toward the end of the Notice, however, it states (underlining for emphasis is mine): SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The optional DNS process of the State 38 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197- 11-355 is being used. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. DCD reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. This determination is based upon a review of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available information. The SEPA Official has determined that: If the proposal is approved, policies and performance standards found in the Jefferson County Code and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will be used to form permit conditions intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Additional conditions or mitigation measures may be required under SEPA. If the threshold determination is a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the final Notice of Decision. A Determination of Significance (DS) may not be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: This is a Type III permit application. An open record hearing will be scheduled and separate public notice will be provided at least 15 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven calendar days prior to such a hearing. APPEALS: The final permit decision for this Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. Contrary to the County SEPA official's determination, a final decision by the County for a Substantial Development Permit under the State Shorelines Management Act (SMA) is appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). The Notice seems to have missed the fact that the application is subject to the SMA/SMP. Please review: JCC 18.40.190 (9) Chapter 18.40 PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/SEPA IMPLEMENTATION RCW 90.58.180: Review of granting. denying. or rescinding permits by shorelines hearings board—Board to act—Local government appeals to board—Grounds for declaring rule. regulation. or guideline invalid—Appeals to court—Consolidated appeals. and Appealing a Shoreline Permit - Washington State Department of Ecology 39 What permits can be appealed? There are three types of shoreline permits that can be appealed to the SHB: • Substantial development permits:A permit for development that meets a specific dollar threshold and is considered "substantial development" under the state Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58.030(3)(e))e. • Conditional use permit:A permit for use,development, or substantial development that is classified as a conditional use in applicable shoreline master program(SMP)or is not classified at all in the SMP. • Variance permit:A permit that grants relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards in the applicable SMP. The Notice flatly contradicts the law, in violation of JCC 18.40.190 (9): JCC 18.40.190 Notice of application — Contents. The notice of application shall include the following: 9) Statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, become a party of record, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights; The Notice has not stated the actual appeal rights, so it does not comply with JCC 18.40.190, and misleads any reader. These defects are two more reasons--and serious ones--why the Notice must be re- issued with appropriate caption, to the appropriate parties, with a lawful deadline, and with legally accurate statements of law. In addition, this SAME false and misleading statement of law is contained in the Notice of Application for Rock POINT, SDP2024-00001, on for public hearing tomorrow. I am not planning to appear there, but I think it is your obligation to bring this issue to the hearing examiner's attention, as the defect is in a foundational procedural document. I will send a separate email on this point, with the appropriate caption--in an attempt to keep the two "Rocks" separate. Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and please post this email chain in the online file Rock ISLAND, SDP2024-00006. Thank you--Marilyn Marilyn Showalter 1596 Shine Rd Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (360) 259-1700 (cell) marilyn.showalter©gmail.com 40 R May 16, 2025 Greg Ballard Code Compliance Officer Department of Community Development Jefferson County Washington BY EMAIL gballard@co.jefferson.wa.us Re: Deficient Notice of MDNS,Rock Island SDP24-00006 Dear Greg: I received the attached MDNS yesterday, May 15, 2025, the day you signed it. The"Notice" portion in second half of the document contains serious errors and conflicts. It needs to be revised and re-issued. I'm dismayed that some of these errors are the very same ones that previous notices have contained and which I've pointed out. Now there are even more errors. I've attached a mark-up on the Notice portion of the document. The errors include: • The wrong time period(too short) for appeal, per the stated deadline date • Conflicting stated time-periods for appeal • Conflicting hour-times for delivering an appeal • The wrong office to receive an appeal • The wrong address for delivering an appeal • Requirements for an appeal that are not contained in Jefferson County Hearing Examiner's Rules of Procedure(some of which were repealed in 2019) • The absence of a requirement for an appeal that is in the procedural rules • References to"sections" and"subsections"that are not in or cited in the document • Mischaracterization of the nature of the document Please advise me as soon as possible that the stated May 21, 2025, deadline date is void. Sincerely, Nevtitipt Slsou alter Marilyn Showalter Attached: Markup of Notice portion;and whole MDNS document SDP2024-00006 Cc: Josh Peters, Donna Frostholm, and Phil Hunsucker 41 Commented[MS1]:This term"Notice"should be in the top title of the issued MDNS document, NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(MDNS): Jefferson County to alert the reader that it is both an MDNS and a has determined that the above-described proposal,conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson Notice of the MDNS. Alternatively,the Notice County Codes and Ordinances,would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, should be issued as a separate document. and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.2 IC.030(2)(c). This decision was -- made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson Commented [MS2]:This time conflicts with County Development Review Division. the time of 4:00 pm further down in this Notice. • COMMENT PERIOD: This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. Commented [MS3]:This date(May 21,2025) Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non-significance.There is is SIX days following posting and distribution of no further comment period on the DNS. this Notice(May 15,2025). It also conflicts with // a 14-day allowance further down in this Notice, APPEAL PERIOD: Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provision of and with Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure Chapter 43.21c RCW(State Environmental Policy Act)must be submitted in writing by 4:30 p.n>],otMav i 3,1(a). 21,2025j to the Jefferson County Development Review 1l'li (Jefferson County Department of Community Development,621 Sheridan Street,Port Townsend,Washington 98368)for consideration by Commented[MS4]•This is the wrong office the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. and the wrong address to bring an appeal. Per Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure 3.1(a),an Per JCC 18.40.810,the decision of the responsible official on Type II and III permits making a threshold appeal must be filed with the Office of the determination of a MDNS,approving a proposal subject to conditions,or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280. The open Hearing Examiner. record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the Hearing Examiner,who shall consider the Commented [MS5]:There is no "Article IV of appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single,consolidated hearing as further set this chapter"in this Notice.The highlighted forth in Article IV of this chapter) Any requests for reconsideration shall be govemed by JCC 18.40.310. language appears to be a copy/paste from the JCC The responsible official's MDNS may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or anyone but it needs to be modified to be appropriate to a commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal(as further set forth in JCC 18.40.810), The Notice. appeal must be in writing,in conformance with JCC 18.40.330,and be filed within 14 calendar;daya after Commented[MS6]:A 14-day period conflicts the threshold determination is issued as set forth in subsection with the six-day period and date at the beginning (4)of this sectionj Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA,shall be consolidated with any \ of the MDNS.See also Hearing Examiner Rules open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.70B.110(6)(d)). of Procedure 3.1(a). A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the Administrator by mail or by personal delivery,and must be Commented[MS7]:The MDNS is titled as a received by 4:00 p.tn on the last business day of the appeal period,with the required appeal fee of$1,400' "Final"determination,not a"threshold determination." The notice of appeal shall contain a concise statement identifying: • The decision being appealed and the identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; Commented[MS8]:There us no`subsection • The name,address,and phone number of the appellant and his/her interest in the matter; \i(4)"or"this section"in this Notice. • Appellant's statement describing standing to appeal(i.e..how he/she is affected by or interested in the �.i --- - - decision); 1 Commented[M59]:As previously stated, • The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appellant shall under Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; 3.1(a),the appeal must be filed with the Hearing • The desired outcome or changes to the decision;and Examiner's office,not the"Administrator." • A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be taste,signed by the aPPe llant Commented [MS10]:"4:00 pm"conflicts with NN "4:30 pm"at the beginning of the Notice. Any notice of appeal not in full compliance with this Section shall not be:considerett Commented[M511] These factors both \ require elements that are NOT in Hearing Examiner's Rules of Procedure 3.1(b)and t= factors that IS requ'ire�c. Commented [MS12]:There is no"Section"in the MDNS and the whole sentence is in rre+-1 42 Jefferson County,Washington Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure: RULE 3 PRE-HEARING PROCEDURES 11 Notice of Appeal (a) Purpose and Tuning.A notice of appeal,together with the appropriate appeal fee,shall be filed with the examiner's office within 15 days of the date of the administrative decision.For enforcement actions under Chapter 8.90 JCC (Public Nuisances)an appeal or hearing fee shall not be required to file an appeal or hearing.However,the examiner may assign the costs of the hearing or appeal after the hearing. (b) Content of Notice of Appeal.A notice of appeal from an administrative decision shall,at a minimum contain the following information:(1)full name;(2) mailing address;(3)e-mail address(if available);(4)file number,license number,or other identifying number;(5)a copy of any decision,license,order, or other administrative decision;(6)a concise statement of the factual and legal basis for the appeal citing specifically the alleged errors in the administrative official's decision;and,(7)the specific relief sought. 43 .,��SON Cp�2 JEFFERSON COUNTY gDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT =u --.4 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 I email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us �9rtii NC'.Ca www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: May 15,2025 FILE NUMBER: SDP2024-00006 PROPONENT: Rock Island Shellfish(Robert Carson) P.O.Box 181 Port Gamble,WA 98364 PROPOSAL: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters(Crassostrea sikamea)within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets,a near-bottom culture system,will be installed,maintained,and operated within the intertidal zone between+4 feet to-4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres(of the six-acre project area). Native eelgrass(Zostera marina)occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. The proposal is immediately adjacent to three parcels owned by the applicant. No upland activity related to this aquaculture application is proposed on the three subject parcels. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed aquaculture farm would be located below ordinary high water mark(OHWM)in Hood Canal(in private tidelands waterward of parcels 965100090,-010,and-011),just west of the Hood Canal Bridge. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Assessor's map shows the project area as tidelands. • NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above-described proposal. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Use of the three upland parcels immediately adjacent to the project area and owned by the project proponent would trigger a review by Jefferson County Department of Community Development(DCD)that includes a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 2. Use of any other upland site in Jefferson County requires a review by DCD that may trigger a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 3. The project proponent shall comply with all terms and conditions of the programmatic consultation to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species and critical habitat. 4. All relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers shall be implemented. 44 5. Record-keeping logs for materials retrieved within the project area as well as those for spills and cleanups shall be maintained,and made available to Jefferson County if requested. 6. All gas-powered vehicles,including vessels,shall contain a spill kit. 7. Derelict gear from a previous shellfish operation shall be transported to an approved off-site facility. NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(MDNS): Jefferson County has determined that the above-described proposal,conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson County Codes and Ordinances,would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment,and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Development Review Division. COMMENT PERIOD: This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non-significance. There is no further comment period on the DNS. APPEAL PERIOD: Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provision of Chapter 43.21c RCW(State Environmental Policy Act)must be submitted in writing by 4:30 p.m.on May 21,2025 to the Jefferson County Development Review Division(Jefferson County Department of Community Development,621 Sheridan Street,Port Townsend,Washington 98368)for consideration by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Per JCC 18.40.810,the decision of the responsible official on Type II and Ill permits making a threshold determination of a MDNS,approving a proposal subject to conditions,or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the Hearing Examiner,who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing as further set forth in Article IV of this chapter. Any requests for reconsideration shall be governed by JCC 18.40.310. The responsible official's MDNS may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or anyone commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal(as further set forth in JCC 18.40.810). The appeal must be in writing,in conformance with JCC 18.40.330,and be filed within 14 calendar days after the threshold determination is issued as set forth in subsection (4)of this section. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA,shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.70B.I 10(6Xd)). A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the Administrator by mail or by personal delivery,and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period,with the required appeal fee of$1,400. The notice of appeal shall contain a concise statement identifying: • The decision being appealed and the identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; • The name,address,and phone number of the appellant and his/her interest in the matter; • Appellant's statement describing standing to appeal(i.e.,how he/she is affected by or interested in the decision); • The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; • The desired outcome or changes to the decision;and • A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true,signed by the appellant. Any notice of appeal not in full compliance w' this Section shall not be considered. S -4 � - �5 /Greg Ballar A Responsible Official Date SDP2024-00006 Rock Islar45Shellfish 2 S from: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-document-templates Use Agency Letterhead Notice of Application [Choose One: Optional DNS or MDNS Process] Date of Issuance: [Enter date] [Enter city or county name] has received a permit application for the following project. Date of Permit Application: [Enter date of permit application submittal] Date of Determination of Completeness: [Enter date of application determined complete] Date of Notice of Application: [Enter date of Notice of Application] Comment Due Date: [Enter date and time comments due] Agency Contact: [Enter name of staff contact, email, and phone number] Agency File Number: [If applicable, enter agency file number] Description of Proposal: [Enter name and description of the proposal.The proposal is the total scope of the project, it is not limited to only a description of the lead agency's permit decision.] Location of Proposal: [Enter address, parcel number and/or latitude-longitude if available] Project Applicant: [Enter name, phone, and email of Applicant/Proponent] SEPA Environmental Review: [Enter city or county name] has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a [Choose one: Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) OR Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)]. The optional [Enter DNS OR MDNS] process in WAC 197-11-355 is being used.This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. (If issuing a NOA with likely MDNS complete mitigation section below,for DNS delete) The following conditions are proposed to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal: May 2025 Page 1 46 [List impacts and associated mitigation measures proposed under SEPA. These conditions are in addition to mitigation required by the development regulations listed below.] Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts. Comments must be submitted by the date and time noted above to: [Enter email/URL where to submit comments]. Required Permits: The following local, state and federal permits/approvals are needed for the proposed project: [Enter the local, state and/or federal permits/approvals needed for this proposed project]. Required Studies: [List any studies that have been completed or will be completed for this proposal] Existing Environmental Documents: [List any existing environmental documents used as part of the review process for this proposal] Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and consistency: [Enter applicable development regulations] Public Hearing: [Include date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable] [Enter any other information required by RCW 36.706.110 or deemed appropriate] May 2025 Page 2 47 CITY OF tiir7SEQUJM ,dp NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE OPTIONAL DNS PROCESS,WAC 197-11-355 DATE OF APPLICATION: 12/6/2022 DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: 12/12/2022 DATE OF PUBLICATION NOTICE: 2/3/2022 COMMENT PERIOD DUE DATE: 2/23/2022 LEAD AGENCY: City of Sequim AGENCY FILE NUMBER:GRA 22-003—Johnson Heights Forest Conversion APPLICANT: Cedarland &Co, LLC, PO Box 2269,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 TAX PARCEL NO.(S):033030420030 and 033030420020 ZONING:City of Sequim-Residential R4-8,and Clallam County-SR-2 residential zoning LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:The approximately 18.31-acre project site consists of two existing parcels generally located south of Reservoir Road and west of S. 3rd Ave.The subject 14.69-acre larger parcel is currently addressed as S. Misty Meadow Lane and lies within the incorporated boundary of the City of Sequim,just south of the City's water reservoir facility. The adjoining, smaller 3.62-acre parcel is addressed as 319 W. Reservoir Road and lies within the unincorporated portion of the Sequim Urban Growth Area (Clallam County jurisdiction). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to harvest(for sale)existing mature timber through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR) Forest Practices Program on a majority portion of two adjoining parcels totaling approximately 18.31 acres lying within the City of Sequim and the unincorporated Sequim Urban Growth Area of Clallam County.The proposal includes construction of approximately 1,500 linear feet of on-site,temporary gravel road for access and logging activities along with grading work associated with an existing drainage canal (to remain)crossing the primary parcel.The applicant indicated that these two parcels will not be reforested after harvest under the DNR Forest Practices Program and are planned for conversion to residential land uses in accordance with existing zoning within a three-year period. No residential building, subdivision,or other land use permits are proposed at his time. SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This application is being reviewed under the optional Determination of Nonsignificance(DNS) process in Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-355 which provides for a combined Notice of Application and DNS for a single, integrated public,tribe, and agency comment period. Based on a review of the Environmental Checklist for probable adverse environmental impacts, and other information on file with the lead agency,the City of Sequim expects to issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). This likely determination is based on review findings,conclusions, and mitigation conditions. Agencies,tribes,and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts prior to any such threshold determination. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Comments must be submitted and received by the due date noted above(February 23,2023)to ATTN:Travis Simmons,Assistant Planner,City of Sequim, 152 W. Cedar Street,Sequim,WA 98382. To submit electronically or if you have any questions- Email:tsimmons@sequimwa.gov and Phone: (360)683-4908. 1 48 CITY OF --�-SEQUIM ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Included with the application were the following document(s): • SEPA Environmental Checklist submitted to the City of Sequim on December 6, 2022 REQUIRED PERMITS:The following known local, state, and federal permits/approvals are needed for the proposed project: • SEPA Environmental Review • City of Sequim Clearing and Grading Permit • Stormwater Drainage,Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, NPDS Review • City of Sequim Right-of-Way Permit • Potential Clallam County Demolition Permit, Septic Decommissioning, and Grading Permit or exemption • Washington State DNR Forest Practices Approval/Notification (FPA/N) Permit NOTICE OF DISCLOSURE:The City of Sequim will enter all comments received into the public record and may make these comments,and any attachments or other supporting materials,available unchanged, including any business or personal information(name,email address, phone,etc.)that you provide available for public review.This information may be released on the City's website. Comments received are part of the public record and subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you do not wish to be made public, including name and contact information. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Charisse Deschenes City of Sequim 152 W.Cedar Street,Sequim,WA 98382 Phone: 360-681-3426 Email:cdeschenes@sequimwa.gov ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION APPEAL PROCESS: Upon closure of this noticed twenty(20) calendar day agency,tribe, and public comment period,the City expects to issue a Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance. If this likely threshold determination is made,a SEPA mitigated determination of nonsignificance(MDNS) may be appealed consistent with appeal requirements established in Chapter 20.01 of the adopted Sequim Municipal Code. Notice of and appeal of a determination of significance shall follow Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C and WAC Chapter 197-11. Administrative appeals of a department action or decision must be filed within 21 calendar days of the decision or action becoming final. A written notice of appeal must be delivered to the city clerk's office by regular mail or personal delivery by 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period.The notice of appeal must include the correct appeal fee. The expected MDNS,once issued with a notice of final decision,will include appeal information and timelines. Please contact the City's SEPA Responsible Official to read or ask about procedures for SEPA appeals. MITIGATION MEASURES: An MDNS does not constitute approval of the permits for this proposal. The proposal will be reviewed for consistency with the City's Zoning Ordinance,Critical Areas Ordinance, Public Works Standards,and the Comprehensive Plan.The likely MDNS for this proposal is expected to contain mitigation measures (below)which shall be implemented by the applicant to ensure the project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Note:These conditions are preliminary in nature and are subject to change upon discovery or receipt of new information.The provided conditions do not provide the scope of outside agency comments and may be altered to adequately reflect those comments. 2 49 CITY OF SEQUIN �oP`d • WATER QUALITY All site construction shall be conducted in compliance with the most current Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. Per Department of Ecology's Water Quality/Watershed Resources Unit,Jacob Neuharth (360)742- 9751, "Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or stormdrains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt,clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW,Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington,and is subject to enforcement action. Construction Stormwater General Permit: The following construction activities require coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit: 1. Clearing,grading and/or excavation that results in the disturbance of one or more acres and discharges stormwater to surface waters of the State;and 2. Clearing,grading and/or excavation on sites smaller than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, if the common plan of development or sale will ultimately disturb one acre or more and discharge stormwater to surface waters of the State. a) This includes forest practices (including, but not limited to, class IV conversions)that are part of a construction activity that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres,and discharge to surface waters of the State;and 3. Any size construction activity discharging stormwater to waters of the State that Ecology: a) Determines to be a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the State of Washington. b) Reasonably expects to cause a violation of any water quality standard. If there are known soil/ground water contaminants present on-site, additional information (including, but not limited to:temporary erosion and sediment control plans; stormwater pollution prevention plan; list of known contaminants with concentrations and depths found; a site map depicting the sample location(s); and additional studies/reports regarding contaminant(s))will be required to be submitted. For additional information on contaminated construction sites, please contact Evan Wood at evan.wood@ecy.wa.gov,or by phone at(360) 706-4599. Additionally,sites that discharge to segments of waterbodies listed as impaired by the State of Washington under Section 303(d)of the Clean Water Act for turbidity,fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorous,or to waterbodies covered by a TMDL may need to meet additional sampling and record keeping requirements. See condition S8 of the Construction Stormwater General Permit for a description of these requirements.To see if your site discharges to a TMDL or 303(d)-listed waterbody, use Ecology's Water Quality Atlas at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/StartPage.aspx. 3 50 T • DECLARATION of JAN WOLD I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington: 1. My name is Janet Lee Wold. I have a Masters in Biology, and I had a long career in the U.S. Forest Service, including heading a one-million acre national forest with a staff of 750 people. 2. Living on Shine Road, on Squamish Harbor, as I do, I have a strong interest in preserving the natural beauty and ecological health of Hood Canal and the Salish Sea. I also have a strong interest in keeping our community of Shine safe from fire. I am also a board member of the Hood Canal Environmental Council, a 56-year old organization that works to protect the water quality and the quality of life in the Hood Canal basin." In that capacity, I try to keep our board and members informed of proposed shoreline projects, especially in Jefferson County. 3. In those regards, I have tried, with great difficulty,to follow the proposed oyster farm at the base of Killapie Road. (SDP 2024-0006). I have tried to find documents in the case but have run into virtual brick walls. The Notice of Application (NOA), in particular, which I did not know about until past the comment"deadline,"(of either May 3,2024, or August 9, 2024), was utterly confusing and frustrating. Basically, I've had to obtain relevant documents from Marilyn Showalter, who is more online-savvy than I am, but even she has had trouble finding them. 51 4. Further,the NOA lists no mitigating conditions being considered. Had there been any listed, and had I received timely notice of them, I would have commented on them, as I have reviewed and commented on dozens of proposals for shellfish operations in Puget Sound and Hood Canal (mostly at the federal level). Instead, I did not see any mitigating conditions until the Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS)came out. At that point, all I could do was appeal the MDNS,which cost me $700(my share), and whatever input I make now comes pretty late in the process. If I had been able to weigh in earlier, I would have had a better(and cheaper)chance of influencing the shape and review of the proposal, and Jefferson County would have had the benefit of considering my comments before making a SEPA determination. I also would have shared such a list with HCEC,which could have and likely would have generated more review and comments. 5. My decades of natural resource management have led to my firm belief that public participation and involvement result in better agency decisions. I always felt that I worked for the public and was there to serve the people, including listening to them and caring for their land. Sometimes it seems that ethic is declining. Signed this 2'd day of July, 2025, Jan 1No[d( Jan Wold 52 u DECLARATION of MARILYN SHOWALTER I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington: 1. My name is Marilyn Showalter. My address is 1596 Shine Road, Port Ludlow, WA 98365. I am a retired lawyer and public servant,having graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School and having joined the Washington bar in 1975. 2. I live on Squamish Harbor, Hood Canal, on property I have owned for almost half a century(since July 1976). I have a keen interest in the natural beauty and environmental health of Hood Canal,and Squamish Harbor in particular. I am also concerned about keeping our shoreline and community safe from fire, as there was a recent, frightening one during a burn ban, off Shine Road and above Killapie Beach Road. 3. Since the fall of 2023,when I first learned there might be proposal for oyster farming off Killapie Beach Road, about a half mile from my house, I have tried to find out about it and to keep track of it. This has been difficult because, for example, in a JARPA supplied by the department of Ecology(which reviews federal applications), the applicant (Robert Carson)stated that he needed and had applied for an exemption from Jefferson County. But when I inquired on November 30, 2023 (at the same time expressing opposition to any exemption and also making a public records request),the County replied, on December 4,2023,that it had not received any"application." 53 4. In my email of November 4, 2023, I also requested to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture"on Carson's parcels, which I identified. I expected,then, that if an application were made, and certainly if the County issued a notice of application, I would be informed. (I did not learn until recently that one day after my November 30, 2023, email was reviewed again—in respect of my public records request—DCD did in fact receive Carson's request for any exemption.) These communications are laid out in Attachments K-O of Appellants' Motion to Dismiss. 5. I was alarmed,then, when I came across the Notice of Application (NOA) in this case, I believe when perusing records for Rock Point and saw the Rock Island name. (The NOA for Rock Island is incorrectly captioned with the number SDP2024-00001, which is actually the case number for Rock Point.) Within one day, I wrote to DCD, protesting that I had not been notified of the NOA, but also pointing out that the comment deadline preceded the date of issuance. I wrote again,on November 13, 2024, pointing out more problems. These communications are contained in Attachment Q of Appellants' Motion to Dismiss. I fully expected that DCD would review the NOA and issue a new, correct notice. 6. The(uncorrected)NOA lists no mitigating conditions being considered. Had there been any listed, and had I received timely notice of them, I would have commented on them. Instead,there was no official mention of mitigating conditions until the Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance(MDNS)came out. At that point, if I wanted to comment on them effectively, I had to appeal the MDNS, which cost me $700 (my share). If I had been able to weigh in earlier on preliminary conditions being considered, 54 I would have had a better(and less expensive)opportunity to influence the shape and review of the proposal,and Jefferson County would have had the benefit of considering my comments before making a SEPA determination. 7. Finding records in this case was also difficult,because when I used the Jefferson County Parcel Map to locate the parcels at issue, and clicked on"All Permits—Customer Portal," I found no documents. Instead, I got a statement that"There are no records to display." Due to the combination of a mix-up in case numbers, online dead-ends when trying to find documents,the lack of receiving notice as requested, and the inability to comment early in this proceeding on conditions that likely were under consideration, I have lost the opportunity to be as effective as I might have been in this matter, at least without having to appeal the MDNS. Signed this 2nd day of July, 2025, Vecliabot Vacua€te r Marilyn Showalter 55 DECLARATION OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby declares under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that on this 3rd day of July 2025, she caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document,with attachments,to be served upon the following, via electronic mail as follows: Carolyn Gallaway, carolyn@co.jefferson.wa.us Donna Frostholm, dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us Phil Hunsucker,phunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us Jesse DeNike, iesse(a,plauchecarr.com Aimee Muul, aimee@plauchecarr.com ls! Wauim Skaevaltet 07-03-2025 Marilyn Showalter, Contact for Appellants 56