HomeMy WebLinkAbout040 SEPA AppealDonna Frostholm
From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Carolyn Gallaway
Cc: Donna Frostholm; jesse@plauchecarr.com; Philip Hunsucker
Subject: SEPA-MDNS Appeal SDP2024-00006 Rock Island (Robert Carson)
Attachments: SEPA APPEAL SDP2024-00006.pdf
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are
not expecting them.
Hello, Carolyn.
Attached is an electronic PDF copy of the Notice of Appeal I filed with you today for SDP2024-00006, including the
$1400 fee.
When you establish a case number or url link where documents in this matter will be filed, please forward it to me.
Thanks —Marilyn
Marilyn Showalter
1596 Shine Rd
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(360) 259-1700 (cell)
ma ri lyn.showa ite r@gm a i I. co m
NOTICE OF APPEAL
SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFCANCE (MDNS)
FILE NUMBER: SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish (Robert Carson)
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FULL NAMES: Marilyn Grace Showalter and Janet (Jan) Wold
CONTACT, MAILING ADDRESS, AND EMAIL ADDRESS:
Marilyn Showalter
1596 Shine Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
in a r i l yn. showal ter@,g m ai l .corn
360-259-1700
FILE NUMBER: SDP 24-00006
DOCUMENT APPEALED: MDNS attached.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Marilyn Showalter
I live on Shine Road on property I've owned for almost 50 years (since 1976). My property
fronts on Squamish Harbor, Hood Canal, about a half -mile west of the parcels at issue in the
MDNS. I am concerned that procedural requirements have not been met in this case, including a
failure to notify me, as requested. I'm concerned about the enforceability of shellfish gear
provisions, having picked up dozens of HDPE tubes in front of my property. And I'm concerned
about the fire hazard posed by the structures and their contents on the subject parcels. (A serious
fire occurred just up the hill from the project area in 2024, during a drought.) I'm concerned that
there has been insufficient analysis of the project area.
Jan Wold, POB 1340 Poulsbo, WA 98370, j.creek ,hotmail.com
I live on Shine Road on property I have owned for twelve years. My property is
about one mile west of this proposed commercial shellfish farm. My property
fronts Squamish Harbor and Hood Canal and includes the adjacent tidelands. I am
concerned about the insufficient analysis and procedural deficiencies in the
processing of this Jefferson County permit and how my ability to provide public
input on the permitting is adversely affected. I am concerned about the impact on
the habitat on the shoreline and on the tidelands, threatened and endangered
species, aesthetics (including visually from the water and from the eastern portion
of the Hood Canal Floating Bridge), eelgrass, kelp, forage fish, unstable slopes,
plastic pollution and especially public safety and the fire hazard caused by the
debris, buildings and propane containers along this dead end road with steep
slopes.
CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS FOR APPEAL
A. PROCEDURAL: The MDNS Does Not and Cannot Show Compliance with
Procedural Requirements
Every shoreline permit must be accompanied by demonstration of
compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Compliance with
SEPA, including all review or waiting periods, is required before a decision on an
application can be made.
Shoreline Permitting Manual, p. 43/69 1706029.pdf
1. The Notice of Application (NOA) is deficient in multiple critical particulars and
does not comply with WAC 173-27-110, JCC 18.40.190, and RCW 36.70B.I 10
a) It is titled with the wrong case number, misleading the viewer at the outset.
b) The deadline for commenting is a date more than two months earlier than the date
of the notice, resulting in no comment period.
c) The above two errors stand and draw the viewer's eye because they are bolded.
d) There is no email address provided for commenting and no indication that
emailed comments are allowed.
e) The implication from the information that is provided is that comments must be
mailed by snail mail, which is incorrect.
f) The url given to view the (wrongly numbered) case file leads to a page that
simply lists all Jefferson County departments. Image A, attached.
g) 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." Image B, attached.
h) If one uses the Jefferson 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 "no records to display."
i) 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.
j) 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.
k) The NOA states, again, in another part of the NOA that "Decisions of the
Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court."
Appeal is to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
1) The NOA fails to state, as required by WAC 197-11-355, RCW 36.70B.110,
and JCC 18.40.190, other permits known by the County to be required. The
County is fully aware, as documented in many cases, including this one, that
the Applicant will need, at a minimum, permits from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the state Department of Health, and the state Department of
Ecology.
m) The County failed to send the NOA to at least one person who expressly
requested, in writing, before issuance of the NOA, to be informed of any
application for aquaculture tied to the Applicant's property.
2. The County was twice advised of some deficiencies et failed to a -Issue the NOA
I informed DCD of errors a, b, i, j, and 1, above on August 29, 2024, and November 14, 2024.
DCD neither responded to me nor re -issued the NOA. There have been many months of time
during which a correct NOA could have been issued without holding up any proceedings. At
this point, one must regard these errors as deliberately adopted —or at least knowingly ignored.
3. The MDNS's appeal requirements are incorrect, incomplete, and confusing
The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Procedural Rules provide:
RULE 3 PRE -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.
The notice provisions in the MDNS fail to comply with Rule 3.1 and JCC 2.30.100 and are
otherwise confusing or conflicting in the following ways:
a) In one place, the MDNS says an appeal must be submitted to DCD at DCD's office.
In another place, it says the appeal must be delivered to "the Administrator," with no
name or address given. But Hearing Examiner Rule 3.1 (a) instructs the appeal to be
filed "with the examiner's office." These instructions need to be reconciled with a
cogent provision of when, where, and to whom the notice may be lawfully delivered.
b) Delivery of a SEPA appeal to the custody of DCD, which is the opposing party of the
appeal, would be a violation conflict -of -interest and appearance of fairness rules. See
JCC 2.30.060 and Chapter 42.36 RCW.
c) The MDNS requires the notice of the SEPA appeal to establish "standing." This is a
legal term and a requirement that was repealed by Ordinance 12-19. The previous
bullet in the MDNS already requires a statement of the appellant's interest. Adding
the repealed provision is confusing and not authorized.
d) The MDNS fails to state that a copy of the challenged decision is required to be
included with the notice of the SEPA appeal, as required by Hearing Examiner
Procedural Rule 3.1(b)(5). This actively misleads a would-be appellant into filing a
flawed appeal.
e) The MDNS states that the appeal must be "signed" by the Appellant. 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.
4. The County was advised of some of the same deficiencies in another MDNS, vet
failed to issue a correct MDNS in this {or that) case.
More than a year ago, I pointed out some of these same deficiencies in an MDNS in MLA 19-
00036, including a copy of Hearing Examiner Procedural Rule 3.1. (DCD did not respond.)
Thus, DCD has had plenty of notice and time to ensure that the instant MDNS is correct, with no
slow -down of the process.
In addition, prior to the issuance of this MDNS, I wrote on May 10, 2025, a letter to DCD and
the Hearing Examiner, outlining several other procedural problems and requesting a review and
more faithful adherence to lawful procedure by DCD and the Office of the Hearing Examiner.
Further, this MDNS is actually the second one issued. The first one had an appeal deadline of six
days hence. I wrote to DCD informing it of that and several other errors. A new MDNS was
issued (the instant one), changing the deadline but not correcting other errors.
One must conclude, then, that the procedural provisions in this MDNS were deliberately chosen.
As such, DCD cannot claim in good faith that it has complied with SEPA procedural
requirements.
4
B. SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS
Substantively, the MDNS tries way too hard to avoid (but can't avoid) evaluating pertinent
upland conditions on the parcels of which the tidelands are "part and parcel," —and all of which
are within the shoreline buffer. In addition, the listed conditions relating to compliance in
oystering are vague and not effectively enforceable.
1. Current use of the upland portions of Carson's parcel requires review under SAM
and SEPA.
MDNS Condition 1 provides:
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. (Emphasis
added.)
DCD acknowledges, then, that uses in the future would trigger review. But the future is now.
Carson has already cleared land, erected structures, stored valuable materials, stored propane
tanks, parked vehicles, and slept on the property, to name just a few uses. All are within
Shoreline Development jurisdiction. (All of Carson's parcels lie wholly within the shoreline
buffer.) Both the Applicant and DCD appear to want to turn a blind eye to this reality, by
limiting their view (and review) to the waterward part of the parcels. This is a crimped and
unjustified interpretation of the SMA and SMP, but even under this interpretation, the trigger has
already been pulled. In any event, the uplands are part of the project area and must be evaluated,
including a site visit by DCD, as part of the application process.
Of relevance:
a) The recorded deeds and REETs for each of the three Carson parcels include both
upland and tidal areas.
b) Documents in the Application recognize that the "project area" includes the uplands,
which include unstable banks. Image C. As DCD says in Log Item 1, page 2:
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.
c) Google Map Pro and Jeffco Parcel Map show a continuous expansion of use and
development over the years Carson or his mother owned the property, including since
Robert Carson has owned it. Images D, E, and F (partial chain of dated photos).
d) A large structure holding 10 double -size solar panels sits at the top of a bank less than
65 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Image G.
e) A "shipping container" -type structure has been installed on the property. There may
be other structures, as well, and there are fenced storage areas. Images H—J. 1
f) Electricity is supplied to at least one of the structures. Image H.
g) Carson appears to have ordered the construction of a structure from a commercial
provider in 2022. (Jefferson Sheriff's photo can be provided.)
h) At least one of the structures, an outdoor area, and a van have been used to store
propane tanks and gas cans. Images K — M.
i) Fire protection would be difficult, at best, as the parcels are at the bottom of a dead-
end hairpin road, in a location where construction is prohibited. Image D.
j) As of December 10, 2024, the property was used to store jewelry with an estimated
value of $11,000.2 (Jefferson Sheriff's info can be provided.)
k) Even after the date of the MDNS, Carson appears to be still using the property, when
he was seen on it, and when a small white car was seen driving away from the dead-
end area, on May 30, 2025.
In addition to being subject generally to the SMA, Carson's parcels are further constrained by
being a Critical Area and in a "Shoreline of Statewide Significance." JCC 18.25.240. As such,
under JCC 18.25.250 (1) and (9):
When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or
enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist;
Uses that have the potential to cause significant erosion and sedimentation due to
excavation, land clearing, or other activities shall be strictly regulated to prevent adverse
impacts to shoreline functions and processes; (Emphasis added.)
Images H — M are from a Jefferson County Sheriff's investigation of a world -wide -reported theft, in which Mr.
Carson was the victim. (The perpetrators tried to escape in a sinking dinghy with no oars. Jewelry thieves arrested
after SUV crash leads to rowboat escal2c on Port GambleBay) I received these photos in response to a public
records request for records related to Mr. Carson's parcels. They had already been released to the media.
I'd like to take this opportunity to state that I have met Mr. Carson once and found him pleasant and kind. In my
opinion, the County has done him a disservice by failing to confront and resolve the procedural and upland issues
that are part and parcel (literally) of this application process.
0
2. Before a valid SEPA determination can issue DCD and the Applicant must resolve
these upland issues.
The current process should be suspended until all upland structures or uses within the shoreline
buffer (i.e., all of them) are either removed or terminated; issued a permit or letter of exemption;
or folded into and analyzed, including a site visit, as part of this permit process. (For a similar
dynamic, see RBLD.2023-00013, Seven Sisters, requiring remediation or an approved
remediation plan before continuing to next step under permit.)
3. MDNS Condition 3 is va ue not referenced and not effectivell enforceable without
more precision.
Condition 3 provides:
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.
This condition lacks specificity. What consultation? The document itself should be cited, as
should page numbers of "all terms and conditions" and "listed species and critical habitat."
4. MDNS Condition 4 is likewise vague, with no reference and no time -window for
compliance.
Condition 4 provides:
All relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers shall be implemented.
Where are these "measures" and who determines whether they are "relevant"? How will
compliance with them be enforced? These questions must be answered.
5. MDNS Condition 5 cannot be effectively enforced
Condition 5 provides:
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.
There is no way to ensure that these records are ever made, let alone maintained. If the
County requests and receives some records, it has no way of knowing whether there
could and should have been other required records. Further, there is no obligation for
the County to ask for any records. The way to cure this problem is to require records to
be kept AND require them to be submitted to the County and posted on a regular basis.
SPECIFIC RELIEF SOUGHT: The Hearing Examiner is requested to declare the MDNS
legally insufficient and clearly erroneous for both procedural and (if necessary) substantive
reasons, and to grant such other relief as may be appropriate.
STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE:
We do not believe this statement and our signatures are required, but nonetheless, the above
information is true and correct to the best of our knowledge. (Original signed and dated.)
/s/ 6/3/2025 /s/ 6/2/2025
Marilyn Showalter Date
Jan Wold Date
Submitted June 3, 2025, accompanied by a check payable to Jefferson County for $1400.00
Attachments:
Images A — M
Notice of Application Annotated
MDNS Annotated
NOA Clean
MDNS Clean
IMAGE A
From the NOA: "The application submittal and related documents are available online:"
hMs://test.co.jefferson.wa-us/WeblinkExtemaUBrowse.aspx?id=5992344&dbid=O&repo=Jefferson
Laserfiche WebUrk
.1, M— H
Jefferson
As
B—d of ---n—
[Halloo CH.
c
IhAh
Case number
Far rz
ullh
D—lipl-
Finalee Dale
Nourez
Fsl
—d D-
-1 Name
Puble'/lnr.c
-A
P c,l N.—r
GermsD--- Typc
OrGJNo
St.t.,
F-Q-1
IMAGE B
From the NOA: "For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of
Community web page at" www.co.6efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/
9
IMAGE C
From Log Item 3 (Application), SDP2024-0006, page 78/103
(Includes uplands)
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www. ov le.com/ma s! 47.865839199999996-122.63897102403662 14z
Y
R hr ` ✓/
1
Counties: Jefferson County, Washington
IMAGE D
Google Earth Pro Image dated 5-19-2019
10
IMAGE E
Google Maps, Screenshot June 1, 2025. White line is 100 feet.
IMAGE F
Jefferson County Parcel Map, screenshot June 1, 2025
Segment (R. ):
' ♦
6304
Total(ft.):
4"
63.33
'
—':SM1aw labels while Eramng
Toggle me.auromem l.bel.
L
_�g�n.m Mode
■� 3
�Keea ae mee>urem,mrs wnee me w.dge-ae,e:
IL
a �_ CIS
� i �. r1P.• -_
I�
_ •+.
■
11
IMAGE H
Storage Structure with Electrical Conduit
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif s department, December 10, 2024
13
k� r.. 4 ��: � ` - - � fay . �;.1 "�'
' ,. r�.
f . � �6 � ..:I ` ",. , ke'v - � � � T to r. � �. �' �. � .
�-
�'..
� - ...
IMAGE J
Uses include equipment storage
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif s department, December 10, 2024
15
IMAGE K
At least five propane tanks and two fuel tanks, flatbed, structure
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif s department, December 10, 2024
16
IMAGE L
Another angle: cooking equipment, tires, fuel tanks
17
IMAGE M
Van, fuel tank, electrical wire.
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif s department, December 10, 2024
18
KOMO
NEWS
4
KOMONEWS.CGM
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, 0024 il�the lastday 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
application submittal and related documents are available pnline!__
considered in the staff report, The
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
Commented [M51I: This is the wrong file number,
misleading the viewer from the get -go. The correct one
is SDP202400006.
Commented [M52]: The comment deadline is a date
preceding the dale of the NOA. Note that the date is
bolded in the NOA. So, the two figures that stand out
in bold thus far are the wrong case number and a
deadline that is wrong and impossible to meet
Commented [M53]: There is no email address here or
anywhere in the NOA. There is no indication that
comments are permitted to be sent by email. It
appears that they must be mailed by snail mail.
Commented [MS4]: This ud leads to a list of county
departments. Armed with the wrong case number (and
even with the right one), a person would have a very
difficult time finding the case.
environmental impawi Additional conditions ormitgatbDn measures tay 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 Cwd _
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 reportwill 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;
1 Commented [MSS]: This sentence makes no sense. It
says that conditions for the permit will be developed
after the proposal is approved. That puts the cart
before the horse, and leads the viewer to think there is
a later stage when conditions are developed.
Commented This is incorrect. SEPA
decisions by thehe Hearing Examiner mustt be be appealed
to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
Commented [MS7]: This is incorrect. SMA decisions
by the Hearing Examiner must be appealed to the
Project Planner: Donna Frostholm, 360-379 4466 Shorelines Hearings Board.
For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page al Commented [MSB]: Again, there is no email address
www.co.iefferson.wa.us/romtndevelgpmtlri that might be used to send in comments. But in any
th d d' ct d t
event, for more mformatlon, a rea errs re e o
use a website.
Commented [MS9]: This ud is non operative. Clicking
on it leads to a screen that says, "We're sorry, but there
is not a web page matching your entry." (See attached
screen shot,)
"The application submittal and related documents are available online:'
httpS:/ReSt.Co,lefferson.wa.u& Webli.nkExiernal/Bmwse.aspx?id=5992344&dbid--O&repo=Jefferson
�,.�me.. ❑,ate ..,
Commented [MS70]: This urt leads to a list of county
departments. Armed with the wrong case number (and
even with the right one), a person would have a very
difficult time finding the case.
"For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page Commented [MS111: This ud is non operative.
www.co.iefferson.wa.ustcommdevelnnmenW Clicking on it leads to a screen that says, "We're sorry,
but there Is not a web page matching your entry." (See
attached screen shot,)
4�5ON
JEFFERSON COUNTY
ti4 Gj
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
a
621 Sheridan Street t Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.waus
s�°I ''
'Its
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
FINAL
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS
DATE, May 20, 2025
FILENUMBER; 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 (Crassowrea nkamea) within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system. SE.APA
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 (ofthe six -acre project
area). Native eelgrass (7osrera 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 die intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be
removed as part of this proposal. The applicantsubtsitted aHabitat 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 watermark (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
NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above -described proposal
MITIGATION MEASURES:
I. Use ofthe three upland parcels immediately adjacent to the projects real nd owned by Ilse Rro ect. arta�onen
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 ofthe programmatic konsulwbon 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
�mplcmcntecl� _
Commented [MS1]: The tidelands are included in the
legal description of parcel numbers 965100090, -010, and -
011 The MDNS appears to be trying to avoid focus on the
upland parts of these parcel numbers by putting legal
distance between the uplands and the tidelands, when they
are part of the same legal parcel, as shown by Auditor's and
Treasurer's recorded documents.
Commented IMS21: Here again, the County is trying to
segregate off a part of the legal parcels, in order to avoid
having to deal with what is going on in the upland sections
These upland sections ARE being used already, as many
County documents show, ways that do not comply with the
Shoreline Management Act The future "would trigger" is
here already, and the uses of the upland portions of the
parcels need to be evaluated as part of the Application.
Commented [MS31: This is too vague a term What
consultation? How does one find it, and how does one find
all the terms and conditions? There needs to be specificity of
the document(s), including citation(s), and there needs to be
a more specific reference to terns and conditions
Commented IMS41: This phrasing it too vague. "All"?
Where are these found? Now or in the future? Also, use of
the passive voice "shall be implemented" leaves room for
ambiguity and argument.
5. Record -keeping logs for malerialskctrtcv. . within the project area a
shall be maintained, and made �vatlable to Jefferson County if rt`yut
6. All gas -powered vehicles, including vessels, shall contain a spill kit
7. Derelict gear from a previous shellfish,6pet'atio4 shall be lransppt
NOTICE OF NIITiGATED DETERMINATION OFNON-SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS): Jefferson County has detennined 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 43.21 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.
CONIMENT 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 ofthis determination on the basis ofnoncompliance with the provision of Chapter 43,21c
RCW (State Enviromnental 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 ofthe responsible official on Type It and III permits making athreshold determination of
a MDNS. approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a project wider SEP.A'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 18,4Q330(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. I 10(6)(d)),
Commented [M55]: Too vague. What materials? What
kinds of materials? What kinds of records? What in the
minimum infommation required to be kept in the record?
Commented [MS6]: Records required to be kept should
also be required to be submitted to the County periodically
That is the only effective and accountable way (for both the
Applicant and the County) to make sure the records are
being created and contain the aPProPrintc information _
Commented [1ti M' Much of this gear is upland, just
confirming the integration of uplands and tidelands
A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the 14dutims"to b7 mail or by Personal,delivery, and must be ret:eived by 4:30 p-tti. Commented [MSIi]: Who is "the Administrator"I A fuller
on the last business day of the appeal period, with the required appeal fee of$1,400. name, title, and address should be provided, if in fact this
the approMate person to receive the appeal
The nonce ofappeal shall contain aconcise 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 Iris/her interest in the chatter;
• 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 ofappeal not in full compliance with this Section shall not be considered.
r / 2,0 /2 5 -
Pare& wltdoVEPARLspmtsible Official Date
SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish
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:
htt s:iJtest.co. efferson.wa.uslWebiinkExternaliBrowse.as x7id=5992344&dbid=0&re o=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
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.iefferson.wa.us/comindevelopmentI
4�SON t,� JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
11) `C% 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 -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.
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 43.21 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.
r^ 1
Greg Ball d PA Responsible Official Date
SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish 2