HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA-13 Appellants Response to Respondents MTD waAppellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 1 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Consolidated Hearing Process for Rock
Island Shellfish Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit Application
(SDP2024-00006) and Appeal of SEPA
MDNS Issued for Such Application
Case No 072525
APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE
TO RESPONDENTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS
The County and the Applicant, Respondents, have moved to dismiss Appellants’ SEPA appeal
for the stated reason that appellants failed to file timely comments on the “environmental
impacts” of Applicant’s proposal. Appellants respond as follows:
A.If Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, the MDNS and the SEPA appeal are moot.
B.Appellants have a specific right to appeal under JCC 18.40.810(3) and (6), and JCC
18.10.160 (P), as affirmed by JCC 18.40.280.
C.JCC 18.40.330, cited by Respondents, does not bar this SEPA appeal.
D.The implication by Respondents, that lack of timely comment on environmental
documents should be construed as a lack of objection to them, is betrayed by the very
WAC they cite and does not apply to this case.
A.If Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, the MDNS and the SEPA appeal are
moot.
There is an “order of operations” in the decision-making of this case, even if it doesn’t follow the
order of proceedings, which requires a combined open-record hearing. The first decision is
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 2 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
whether the Notice of Application is fatally flawed. If it is, the case must be dismissed, and the
MDNS and SEPA appeal are moot.
Appellants have laid out in their own Motion to Dismiss that the Notice of Application in
this case is legally deficient, due to errors, omissions, and misleading and inaccurate statements.
We won’t repeat them here, but we WILL observe that the declarations of Donna Frostholm and
Robert Carson filed with the instant Motion reveal even more errors:
1) The declarations both admit that the Notice of Application was posted on Carson’s
property, which is at the end of an unpaved, switch-backed, dead-end posted non-County
road. This violates JCC 18.40.210(2), which directs:
(2) Posting. For all Type II and III Permits, the applicant shall post a notice of
application on the property as follows:
(a) A single notice board shall be placed at the midpoint of the site road frontage
or as otherwise directed by the county for maximum visibility, where it is
completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians.
(b) Additional notice boards may be required where the site does not abut a
public road, for a large site that abuts more than one public road, or the
administrator determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide
adequate public notice. (Emphasis added.)
There is no public traffic on this road, due to unstable geologic conditions. Ms.Frostholm
knows this, as reflected in the pre-application conference document. (“Killapie Beach
Road: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners previously closed this road
by resolution.”) PreApp pp 2-3, attached. In any case, her declaration states that she
visited the site the day after the Notice of Application was posted. She could not have
missed the following sign, posted on Killapie Beach Road, where the pavement ends—
roughly 837 feet before one gets to the site. No wonder no one saw the poster.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 3 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
Photo by Marilyn Showalter, July 17, 2025
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 4 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
The County was obligated, but failed, to post the sign where people would see it—
namely on Shine Road.
2) The declarations reveal that there are at least three versions of the Notice of Application:
i) the official one in the County file that is also filed with the department of Ecology,
which has (the wrong) case number 2024-00001 and a May 3, 2024 comment deadline;
ii) a notice that was physically posted and also emailed to agencies and nearby property
owners, which has (the wrong) case number 2024-00001 and an August 9, 2024 comment
deadline; and iii) a notice that has the (correct) case number 2024-00006 and an August
9, 2024 deadline that was published in the Port Townsend Leader. All three notices
contain all the other deficiencies outlined in Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Thus, the Frostholm and Carson declarations further reveal why the Notice of Application was
fatally flawed and why this proceeding should be dismissed on that basis, in which case the
MDNS and SEPA Appeal are moot. Even assuming the Notice is adequate, however, Appellants
have a right to appeal the MDNS, as explained in the following section.
B. Appellants have a specific right to appeal under JCC 18.40.810(3) and (6), and JCC
18.10.160 (P).
JCC 18.40.810, under Article X of Chapter 18.40, provides in subsections (3) and (6):
(3) Appeal of a Threshold Determination for Type III Permits – Open Record Hearing.
The decision of the responsible official on Type III permits making a threshold
determination of a DNS, 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, Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. . .
(6) Who May Appeal. An applicant or other party of record, as defined in
Chapter 18.10 JCC, may file a SEPA appeal as provided in this article. (Emphasis added)
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 5 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
JCC 18.10.160 (P), in turn, defines “Parties of record”:
“Parties of record” means persons or entities who wish to receive a copy of the hearing
examiner’s decision and notice of upcoming hearings. (Emphasis added)
Finally, JCC 18.40.280 (3)(b) both authorizes and orders (“shall”) the Hearing Examiner to:
Hold an open record appeal hearing and make a decision on:
“(iii) Appeals of SEPA threshold determinations made pursuant to Article X of
this chapter.” (Emphasis added; as noted, JCC 18.40.810, above is under Article X.)
It’s beyond question that Appellant Showalter is a party of record within the meaning of
the definition above. On November 30, 2023, in an email to Donna Frostholm and Josh Peters,
she requested “to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these
[Carson’s] parcels.” Ms. Frostholm wrote four emails concerning Ms. Showalter’s email. First,
she replied to Ms. Showalter, on December 4, 2023, stating that the County had no relevant
records. Second, a bit later on December 4, 2023, she wrote to correct the name “Rock Point” to
“Rock Island.” Third, on December 20, 2023, she apparently examined the Ms. Showalter’s
email, again, and realized it (“There is one email . . .”) had been omitted from an initial
screening for a public-records response. Fourth, on December 20, 2023, she forwarded Ms.
Showalter’s email to the County public records officer for review. (She was informed that it was
Ms. Showalter’s public records request.) The very next day, December 21, 2023, she in fact
received a shoreline application (for an exemption) from Carson’s attorney, Mr. DeNike. Thus,
the County had actual, legal, constructive, reviewed, and re-reviewed notice that Ms. Showalter
qualified as a Party of Record. And yet, the County failed to send the Notice of Application to
Ms. Showalter; marked “n/a” on the box “interested parties” in the NOA packet included in Ms.
Frostholm’s declaration; and chose not to send information it knew was responsive but outside
the formal “window” of Ms. Showalter’s public records request. (Emails attached.)
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 6 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
Appellants acknowledge that Jan Wold did not have the same type of correspondence with
the County. But she was similarly blindsided by the same notification deficiencies. In addition,
groups who appeal are encouraged to consolidate their comments and name a single point of
contact. It is not necessary for each person in a group to qualify as a party of record. Nor is there
a minimum size of such a group. As a practical matter, Ms. Showalter will be the contact for
Appellants, whether there are two or only one.
C. JCC 18.40.330, cited by Respondents, does not bar this SEPA appeal.
Respondents point to this portion of JCC 18.40.330 as a “baseline rule”:
JCC 18.40.330 Administrative appeals.
In the absence of a specific right of appeal authorized under this UDC, there shall be
no right to administrative appeals. (Emphasis added.)
Well, the code provisions cited in section (B), above, articulate just such a specific right of
appeal—the specific right to make a SEPA appeal, specifically who may bring the appeal, and
specific authorization for the Hearing Examiner to hear the case. It’s difficult to think of what
could be more specific.
Nor, as Respondents suggest, does JCC 18.40.330(3) bar Appellants’ SEPA appeal. That
provision is permissive, not restrictive, and certainly doesn’t overrule the explicit authorizations
discussed in point (B), above.
JCC 18.40.330 (3) SEPA Decisions.
(a) The responsible official’s DNS or 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 18.40.780).
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 7 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
In addition, Respondents’ implied but not elaborated interpretation of how the word
“environmental” operates here is unwarranted and unsupported. The term should carry the
same scope as it does in the title “State Environmental Policy Act,” which is broad,
indeed, and also clearly encompasses procedural requirements. If it did not encompass
procedural issues, one would arrive at an absurd position. It would mean, for example, that
one could not appeal an MDNS where there was no previous notice of application
whatsoever, because there would not have been an opportunity to comment on the
environmental impacts. (That’s not many steps from what has happened in this case.) More
generally, procedural aspects are always part and parcel of “environmental” issues, because
the process—and defects in the process—affect how, what, when, and where one can make
an “environmental” comment. Of course, the merit of procedural objections must be
evaluated by the Hearing Examiner in the context of the case.
D. Appellants are not barred from raising environmental issues.
Respondents write of:
state law, which states that the lack of timely comment by members of the public on
environmental documents “shall be construed as lack of objection to the environmental
analysis” if reasonable notification methods were used. WAC 197-11-545(2).
(Emphasis added.)
But reasonable methods were not used, as amply described in section (A) above and in
Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss, so WAC 197-11-545(2) is not satisfied.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 8 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
In giving notice of an application, it is not reasonable to:
• post a notice where no one will see it
• label a case with the wrong case number
• provide a comment deadline of two months earlier than the date of the notice
• include links in a notice that lead nowhere
• omit legally required information regarding other known, needed permits
• omit conditions being considered
• include incorrect information regarding appeal
• circulate three different notices as if they were the same one
• fail to send the notice to one who has explicitly requested it in advance
Further, that all of these errors occurring within a single notice process is worse than just
unreasonable. It shows a willful disregard for providing the public the accurate information it
needs to make informed and timely comments. Given these errors, no assumptions may be made
regarding Appellants’ or the general public’s views regarding environmental analyses.
The cases cited by Respondents on this issue do not help their position. The PCHB case
contains the exact passage quoted by Respondents and requoted at the beginning of this section
(D), including that adequate notice is a prerequisite. Friends of Grays Harbor v Olympic Clean
Air Agency, ELUHO Document: 2025-05-22 Order Summary Judgment p. 22. In the other case,
Johnson v City of Mercer Island, 186 Wash. 2d 1013 (2016), a LUPA case, no one alleged that
the content of the notice itself was deficient, inaccurate, misleading, or misposted; the issue was
which rule governed the appropriate timeline for the notice.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
Appellants’ Response to Marilyn Showalter
County/Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Page 9 of 9 marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
Finally, an entire open record hearing is yet to be held under the Shoreline Management
Act. Members of the public have a right to raise any relevant issue, including environmental
issues, which the Hearing Examiner must consider, even if not raised at an earlier stage.
(Otherwise, there would be little point to a public hearing.) And of course, under
18.25.670 Burden of proof, “Permit applicants/proponents have the burden of proving that the
proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the [Shoreline Management] Act
and this program.”
For the reasons above, the Motion to Dismiss brought by the County and the Applicant
should be either declared moot (if Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted) or denied.
Respectfully submitted for Appellants this 22nd day of July, 2025.
Marilyn Showalter
___________________________________
Marilyn Showalter
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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 PM/Virtual
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://co.jefferson.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 JCC18.25.440 – 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
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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 (JARP A) 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.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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 agenc y 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 wi th 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.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm
<DFrostholm@co.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.)
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.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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 <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.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.)
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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.showalter@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JEFFERSON COUNTY SUPPORT <jeffersoncountywa@govqa.us>
Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:17ථAM
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
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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.
Not all public documents are available in electronic format. If the document(s) requested are not
available electronically, we will make them available for inspection or by paper copy in accordance
with the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW
You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and you'll receive an email
when your request has been completed. Again, thank you for using the Public Records
Center.
Jefferson County
If you do not see an acknowledgement/Confirmation email from jeffersoncountywa@mycusthelp.net please check
your junk mail. You may need to add jeffersoncountywa@mycusthelp.net to your safe senders list.
Communications with Jefferson County in regards to your public records request will come from this email address.
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
To:KHugoniot@co.jefferson.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, WA 98368
(360) 385-9174
khugoniot@co.jefferson.wa.us
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
To:KHugoniot@co.jefferson.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.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 <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.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,
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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.showalter@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JEFFERSON COUNTY SUPPORT <jeffersoncountywa@govqa.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
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13
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.
Not all public documents are available in electronic format. If the document(s) requested are not
available electronically, we will make them available for inspection or by paper copy in accordance
with the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW
You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and you'll receive an email
when your request has been completed. Again, thank you for using the Public Records
Center.
Jefferson County
If you do not see an acknowledgement/Confirmation email from jeffersoncountywa@mycusthelp.net please check
your junk mail. You may need to add jeffersoncountywa@mycusthelp.net to your safe senders list.
Communications with Jefferson County in regards to your public records request will come from this email address.
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the Public Records Center.
CA received 07/22/25
EXHIBIT CA-13