HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP13 Notice of Appeal SEPA mitigated determination - Robert CarsonNOTICE 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
marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
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.
AP1allp1
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.110
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.
all p2
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
l)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, yet failed to e-Issue the NOA
I informed DCD of errors a, b, i, j, and l, 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:
all p3
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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, yet
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 MLA19-
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.
all p4
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 SMA
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).
all p5
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.)
1 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 escape on Port Gamble Bay) 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.
all p6
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 vague, not referenced, and not effectively 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.
all p7
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p8
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
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/
AP 2
all p9
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE C
From Log Item 3 (Application), SDP2024-0006, page 78/103
Includes uplands)
IMAGE D
Google Earth Pro Image dated 5-19-2019
AP 3
all p10
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE E
Google Maps, Screenshot June 1, 2025. White line is 100 feet.
IMAGE F
Jefferson County Parcel Map, screenshot June 1, 2025
all p11
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE G
Shows solar panel structure
Photo taken by Marilyn Showalter, May 30, 2025
AP 4
all p12
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE H
Storage Structure with Electrical Conduit
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif’s department, December 10, 2024
AP 5
all p13
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE I
Uses include: Refrigeration, firewood, paperwork, boat storage, shellfishing equipment.
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif’s department, December 10, 2024
all p14
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE J
Uses include equipment storage
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif’s department, December 10, 2024
all p15
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE K
At least five propane tanks and two fuel tanks, flatbed, structure
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif’s department, December 10, 2024
all p16
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE L
Another angle: cooking equipment, tires, fuel tanks
all p17
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE M
Van, fuel tank, electrical wire.
Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif’s department, December 10, 2024
all p18
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
IMAGE N
From drone video by Sheriff’s office December 10, 2025, via KOMO news
all p19
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.jefferson.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
Commented [MS1]: This is the wrong file number,
misleading the viewer from the get-go. The correct one
is SDP2024-00006.
Commented [MS2]: The comment deadline is a date
preceding the date 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 [MS3]: 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 url 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.
AP 6
all p20
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/
Commented [MS5]: 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 [MS6]: This is incorrect. SMA SEPA
decisions by the Hearing Examiner must be appealed
to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
Commented [MS7]: This is incorrect. SMA decisions
by the Hearing Examiner must be appealed to the
Shorelines Hearings Board.
Commented [MS8]: Again, there is no email address
that might be used to send in comments. But in any
event, for more information, the reader is directed to
use a website.
Commented [MS9]: This url 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.)
all p21
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
The application submittal and related documents are available online:”
https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=5992344&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson
For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page at”
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/
Commented [MS10]: This url 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.
Commented [MS11]: This url 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.)
AP 7
all p22
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 I email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
FINAL
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS
DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
PROPONENT:
May 20, 2025
SDP2024-00006
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.
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 [MS2]: 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 [MS3]: 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 terms and conditions.
Commented [MS4]: 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.
AP 8
all p23
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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(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 43.21c
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.
Date
SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish 2
Commented [MS5]: Too vague. What materials? What
kinds of materials? What kinds of records? What in the
minimum information 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 appropriate information.
Commented [MS7]: Much of this gear is upland, just
confirming the integration of uplands and tidelands
Commented [MS8]: Who is “the Administrator”? A fuller
name, title, and address should be provided, if in fact this
the appropriate person to receive the appeal.
all p24
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.jefferson.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
AP 9
all p25
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/
all p26
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
AP 10
all p27
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p28
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
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.
Marilyn Showalter & Jan Wold
MSJW)
Appellants
Case No. 072525
SDP2024-00006)
Appeal of Jefferson County
Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance (MDNS) (SEPA
Appeal)
vs
APPELLANTS’ MOTION to DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE) DUE TO
ERRONEOUS NOTICE
PROCEDURES
Jefferson County,
Respondent
Rock Island Oyster (Robert Carson),
Respondent/Applicant
AP 11
all p29
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 trying 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).
all p30
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.)
all p31
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 197-11-355
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.
Att 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.
all p32
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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).
all p33
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 M) 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 O, 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.
all p34
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p35
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
Att 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.
all p36
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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., Att 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
all p37
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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/ Marilyn Showalter,
Marilyn Showalter, Contact for Appellants
all p38
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.jefferson.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
A
AP 12
all p39
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/
all p40
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
B
all p41
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p42
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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;
C
AP 13
all p43
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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]
all p44
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
WAC 197-11-355
Optional DNS process.
1) If a GMA county/city with an integrated project review process
RCW 36.70B.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 36.70B.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).
all p45
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p46
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p47
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
9
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
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/
D, E
AP 14
all p48
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
F all p49
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
G
AP 15
all p50
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p51
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 bi
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.
all p52
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
AP 16
all p53
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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]
I
AP 17
all p54
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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; jmurphy@co.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
agosnell@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.
J
AP 18
all p55
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
K
AP 19
all p56
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 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.all
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.)
Lall p58
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
M
all p59
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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,
N all p60
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p61
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From:Jesse DeNike
To:dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Cc:Marjorie Carson
Subject:Rock Island Shellfish
Date:Thursday, December 21, 2023 4:28:31 PM
Attachments:l.Frostholm.12.21.23.pdf
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
Plauché & Carr LLP
1218 3rd Avenue
Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
206) 588-4188
jesse@plauchecarr.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.
O
AP 20
all p62
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Pacific Northwest Office
1218 3rd Ave, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
206.588.4188
Gulf Coast Office
1110 River Rd S, Suite 200
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
225.256.4026
all p63
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
To:lizzie.carp@ecy.wa.gov; SEPA.reviewteam@doh.wa.gov; sepa@dahp.wa.gov; SEPACENTER@dnr.wa.gov;
R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov; stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov; lstrong@jamestowntribe.org;
apapiez@skokomish.org; shlanay1@skokomish.org; mpowers@pgst.nsn.us; ascagliotti@jamestowntribe.org;
pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil; JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us; TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us;
SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us; PMingo@co.jefferson.wa.us; eric@portofpt.com; bgraham@jeffpud.org;
Chris.Chappell@dnr.wa.gov; OR-SEPA-REVIEW@wsdot.wa.gov; media@parks.wa.gov;
allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil; Lynn.wall1@navy.mil; timothy.l.westcott@uscg.mil; pweems@skokomish.org;
crossi@pnptc.org
Cc:news@peninsuladailynews.com; news@ptleader.com
Subject:SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shoreline Permit Application with SEPA Notice
Date:Wednesday, July 10, 2024 9:47:13 AM
Attachments:sdp2024-00006 ris reviewer letter.pdf
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.co.jefferson.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 Frostholm, PWS
Associate Planner - Lead/Wetland Specialist
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368
360-379-4466 dfrostholm@co.jefferson.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.
PAP 21
all p64
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
Notice of App Rock ISLAND.pdf
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.)
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:
Q
AP 22
all p65
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Furthermore, there are no documents shown as attachments at this site:
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
all p66
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p67
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p68
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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,
Marilyn Showalter
Marilyn Showalter
Attached: Markup of Notice portion; and whole MDNS document SDP2024-00006
Cc: Josh Peters, Donna Frostholm, and Phil Hunsucker
R
all p69
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 43.2 IC.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 43.2lc 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 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. 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.110(6)(d)).
A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the Administrator by mail or by personal delivery, and must be
received by 4:00 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 with this Section shall not be considered.
Commented [MS1]: This term “Notice” should
be in the top title of the issued MDNS document,
to alert the reader that it is both an MDNS and a
Notice of the MDNS. Alternatively, the Notice
should be issued as a separate document.
Commented [MS2]: This time conflicts with
the time of 4:00 pm further down in this Notice.
Commented [MS3]: This date (May 21, 2025)
is SIX days following posting and distribution of
this Notice (May 15, 2025). It also conflicts with
a 14-day allowance further down in this Notice,
and with Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure
3.1(a).
Commented [MS4]: This is the wrong office
and the wrong address to bring an appeal. Per
Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure 3.1(a), an
appeal must be filed with the Office of the
Hearing Examiner.
Commented [MS5]: There is no “Article IV of
this chapter” in this Notice. The highlighted
language appears to be a copy/paste from the JCC
but it needs to be modified to be appropriate to a
Notice.
Commented [MS6]: A 14-day period conflicts
with the six-day period and date at the beginning
of the MDNS. See also Hearing Examiner Rules
of Procedure 3.1(a).
Commented [MS7]: The MDNS is titled as a
Final” determination, not a “threshold
determination.”
Commented [MS8]: There us no “subsection
4)” or “this section” in this Notice.
Commented [MS9]: As previously stated,
under Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure
3.1(a), the appeal must be filed with the Hearing
Examiner’s office, not the “Administrator.”
Commented [MS10]: “4:00 pm” conflicts with
4:30 pm” at the beginning of the Notice.
Commented [MS11]: These factors both
require elements that are NOT in Hearing
Examiner’s Rules of Procedure 3.1(b) and omit a
factors th.a..t IS required.
Commented [MS12]: There is no “Section” in
the MDNS and the whole sentence is in error
all p70
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Jefferson County, Washington Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure:
all p71
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p72
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p73
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
May 2025 Page 1
Noce of Applicaon
Choose One: Oponal DNS or MDNS Process]
Date of Issuance: [Enter date]
Enter city or county name] has received a permit applicaon for the following project.
Date of Permit Applicaon: [Enter date of permit applicaon submial]
Date of Determinaon of Completeness: [Enter date of applicaon determined complete]
Date of Noce of Applicaon: [Enter date of Noce of Applicaon]
Comment Due Date: [Enter date and me comments due]
Agency Contact: [Enter name of staff contact, email, and phone number]
Agency File Number: [If applicable, enter agency le number]
Descripon of Proposal: [Enter name and descripon of the proposal. The proposal is the total
scope of the project, it is not limited to only a descripon of the lead agency’s permit decision.]
Locaon of Proposal: [Enter address, parcel number and/or latude-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: Determinaon of
Nonsignicance (DNS) OR Migated Determinaon of Nonsignicance (MDNS)]. The oponal
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 migaon secon below, for DNS delete)
The following condions are proposed to migate the adverse environmental impacts of the
proposal:
S
from: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-document-templates
all p74
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
May 2025 Page 2
List impacts and associated migaon measures proposed under SEPA. These
condions are in addion to migaon required by the development regulaons 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 submied by the date and
me 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]
Exisng Environmental Documents: [List any exisng environmental documents used as part of
the review process for this proposal]
Preliminary determinaon of the development regulaons that will be used for project
migaon and consistency: [Enter applicable development regulaons]
Public Hearing: [Include date, me, place, and type of hearing, if applicable]
Enter any other informaon required by RCW 36.70B.110 or deemed appropriate]
all p75
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
1
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.
152 W. Cedar Street, Sequim, WA 98382
PH (360) 683-4908 FAX (360) 681-0552
ANTICIPATED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
under the optional Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) process in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197 -11-355
all p76
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
2
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.
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
The likely MDNS for this proposal is expected to contain
mitigation measures which shall be implemented by the applicant to ensure the project does not
have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. These conditions are preliminary in
nature and are subject to change upon discovery or receipt of new information
below)
all p77
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
3
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.
all p78
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
T
AP 23
all p79
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 2nd day of July, 2025,
Jan Wold
Jan Wold
all p80
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.”
U
AP 24
all p81
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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,
all p82
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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,
Marilyn Showalter
Marilyn Showalter
all p83
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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, jesse@plauchecarr.com
Aimee Muul, aimee@plauchecarr.com
s/ Marilyn Showalter_____07-03-2025_________
Marilyn Showalter, Contact for Appellants
all p84
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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’ REPLY TO
RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS (WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
DUE TO ERRONEOUS NOTICE
PROCEDURES
The gist of Respondents’ response to Appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of proper
notification is that: the errors are minor and have been or are being “fixed,” and the Appellants
have not shown they were harmed. The broader public, in particular the community of Shine,
which also did not get proper notice, is completely ignored. Also not addressed is why the initial
notification of any process is so important: if people are not properly notified at the outset, they
may never have the opportunity to weigh in on the process, or if they do, it’s at a less influential
stage.
In this Reply, in an effort to keep clear who’s saying what, text from the
Respondents’ responses is indented in italics. An asterisk signifies that emphasis has been
added. Points are listed in the order of Appellants’ motion to dismiss. The issue of prejudice
is covered after the recitation and discussion of errors. At the outset Respondents assert:
Appellants’ Motion argues the NOA had several errors. Appellants’ arguments must
be rejected because they have failed to demonstrate that any error was committed,
any errors were inconsequential and harmless, and many alleged violations do not
relate to SEPA compliance.*
This is quite a remarkable statement—that Appellants have failed to demonstrate any error.
Respondents themselves imply error in the very next phrase, and they admit error in their
responses, which means, of course, that Appellants have demonstrated error.
AP 25
all p85
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
A.
Notice Requirements [Issue A]. Appellants contend the NOA failed to comply with
the notice requirements set forth in the Jefferson County Code (JCC), Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), and the State Environmental Practices Act (SEPA),
including JCC 18.40.190(5). Motion at 2. However, there is no evidence of
deficiency identified in their motion.*
Appellants’ Reply: This conclusory statement is belied by evidence supplied in
Respondents’ own admissions, as well in Appellants’ Motion and replies, below.
B.1
Case number [Issue B.1] The NOA initially had one digit off in the case
number (“SDP2024-00001” instead of “SDP2024-00006”). This was a
scrivener’s error and timely corrected on subsequent documents. See First
Declaration of Donna Frostholm at 8.*
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents admit the error. 2) The error is five digits off the
correct number, not one. 3) It does not matter if a “scrivener” or someone else made the
error; what matters is what readers see. 4) The error was not “timely corrected” on the NOA
itself. It is still not corrected. The NOA is the same as it was on the day it was issued—the
same as shown in Ms. Frostholm’s Second Declaration, Attachment A, and in the online
county files, and at the department of Ecology Register. An error here is not corrected by a
fix there. Changing the text in a new publication or later email just means the NOA was not
actually published; instead, there are now at least three versions of a notice, but only one is
the NOA. In order to correct the NOA, it should be reissued as “CORRECTED Notice of
Application.” 5) This error was not corrected, as claimed, on the notice posted on the
property, Ex A to First Carson Declaration (which no one saw, however—see B.13).
B2
Public comment period [Issue B.2] The NOA initially had the incorrect month
May” instead of “August”). This was a scrivener’s error and timely corrected for
the public notices published in the newspaper and posted on the property. Exhibit C
to First Frostholm Decl.; Exhibit A to First Carson Decl.*
all p86
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents admit their error. 2) There’s that pesky scrivener again, but
what matters is what is stated on the NOA. 3) The error was not corrected on the NOA, which
would require a CORRECTED NOA. What is published in the newspaper is not the NOA, and
no one is obligated to search the paper for classifieds, especially when the NOA itself is online.
4) The poster physically posted at the property may have had the correct comment deadline, but
it had all the other errors, including the incorrect case number.
B.3 Covered in B.1 and B.2, above, regarding whether publishing or physically posting a
partially) corrected notice corrects the NOA. Appellants argue it doesn’t.
B.4-6
Website Links [Issues B.4, B.5, and B.6]. Appellants argue that the NOA included
website links that did not work. Motion at 3-4. Website links are not required by SEPA,
and hence this cannot form a basis for reversal. File paths are now provided.*
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents don’t contest that the weblinks didn’t work, so those errors
are admitted. 2) Respondents’ logic is indefensible. It is one thing to be silent on a topic that is
not required, and quite another to include false and misleading information on any topic, required
or not. Respondents’ logic would mean that a notice could be full of false and misleading
information, but as long as the topic is not “required,” the errors should be tolerated. There is a
fundamental obligation for the government to provide, and an expectation of the public to
receive accurate information—whether or not it is required. 3) Respondents don’t document
where the file paths are “now” provided, but they are not provided on the NOA online or via the
Self -Service” portal for Carson’s parcel numbers. Att.A¡ If someone finds the NOA online, it
has the same dead-end links, and no corrected NOA has been issued or filed.
B.7 Appellants withdraw this objection (regarding identifying other needed permits).
all p87
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
B.8
JCC 18.40.190(11)(d) and WAC 197-11-355(2)(b) [Issue B.8]. Appellants
contend the NOA failed to list conditions to mitigate environmental impacts. Motion
at 4. However, the NOA did list measures that would be taken to minimize or
mitigate impacts, including 16.5-foot buffers from native eelgrass and removal of
gear that a prior operator left in the farming area. Second Frostholm Decl. 10, Ex.
A. The NOA also states applicable policies and performance standards in the
Jefferson County Code and Comprehensive Plan would be used to form permit
conditions. Second Frostholm Decl., Ex. A. This is consistent with SEPA regulatory
reform, pursuant to which project impacts are to be principally addressed through
development regulations. Moss, 109 Wn. App. at 15-19. As such, no specific, SEPA
mitigation measures were identified at the time of NOA issuance that could have
been listed. Second Frostholm Decl. 8; JCC.40.190(11)(d); WAC 197-011-
355(2)(b).*
Appellants Reply: 1) “Conditions,” “measures,” and “policy and performance standards” are
not the same thing. The NOA might describe measures in the summary of the proposal, and it
might mention policies and performance standards, but conditions are mandates imposed by the
County as the price of and part of the permit. It is these conditions, that, if being considered in
the optional process, must be stated in the NOA. 2) Respondents have mischaracterized the
requirement by stating that “no specific” “measures” had been identified at the time of the NOA
issuance. But JCC and WAC sections above cast a wider net, requiring the NOA to list
conditions being “considered.” Per both JCC 18.40.190 (11)(d) and WAC 197-11-355 (2)(b):
The notice of application shall list the conditions being considered to mitigate
environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected;*.Att.B, p. 1
3) Appellants confess to being totally baffled by Ms. Frostholm’s narrative of the SMA/SEPA
process, in particular:
10. The NOA included a description of the proposal, which listed measures the applicant
was proposing to minimize potential impacts to the shoreline environment (e.g., avoiding
eelgrass, extent of proposed project area, removal of derelict gear). These were included in
the project description at the time the application was noticed because they were known by
DCD and could serve as a basis for developing conditions. The optional DNS process is
used to determine if a proposed project has the potential to cause significant adverse
impacts, and the results of this process are then used to draft permit conditions.
all p88
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
11. Furthermore, the two biological reports cited in the NOA description were
available to the public for review during the 30-day comment period. The text of
these reports could also be used to draft permit conditions.*
It seems clear from the Declaration that the County was considering the “measures” and
biological reports” as possible “conditions.” Why, then, weren’t they listed in the NOA?
Respondents’ answer appears to be found in the last sentence of paragraph 10, above:
according to Ms. Frostholm, conditions are drafted at the end of the optional process. That may
be true for the final conditions, but the purpose of listing “conditions being considered” at the
beginning of the optional process (in the NOA) is to allow comment on them by the public. Plus,
it’s required. What does this requirement even mean if the conditions are drafted/floated only at
the end of the shortened optional process? Neither Ms. Frostholm nor the Respondents explain.
Appellants are just looking at the plain language of the law: “list the conditions being considered
to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected.” Given that Ms. Frostholm
had learned of various structures and derelict equipment on both the tidelands and uplands on
unstable soil on a closed road, Atts C, F, and given her acknowledgment that measures in the
application and studies might form the basis for conditions, it’s not credible that the County did
not expect to issue an MDNS. (And in fact, it did issue an MDNS—with conditions.)
B.9
Email Addresses Not Provided [Issue B.9]. The NOA solicited comments by mail,
email, personal delivery, and facsimile, but did not include an email address. Second
Frostholm Decl., Ex. A. Email submission is not required by SEPA. Contact
information for DCD has always been provided. Appellants fail to demonstrate any
prejudice. Motion at 5.*
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents implicitly concede that the NOA did not provide an
email address. 2) Respondents’ response is non-responsive. It is true that commenters aren’t
required to submit comments by email, but they are entitled to submit comments by email
under JCC 18.40.220(3) (“Comments may be mailed, emailed, personally delivered or sent
all p89
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
by facsimile.”) By not providing an email address, the County cut off this entitlement,
absent further, burdensome and unnecessary work by a determined would-be commenter.
Email is also, by far, the most-preferred mode of comment-delivery. It’s absence is a barrier.
B.10
Grammar [Issue B.10]. Appellants contend the NOA includes a confusing sentence
structure. Motion at 5. Grammatical perfection is not required. Importantly, there
was no error here; as stated above, conditions to mitigate adverse impacts are
not required to be included in the NOA.*
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Appellants did not challenge the grammar of this sentence in the
NOA; it’s grammatically correct. It’s the logic and substance that are wrong:
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 permits conditions intended to mitigate
environmental impacts.*
2) Respondents did not address Appellants’ contention that a reader would think conditions
aren’t formed until after the proposal is already “approved,” especially since conditions being
considered aren’t listed in the NOA. 3) Respondents’ contend that “conditions to mitigate
adverse impacts are not required to be included in the NOA.” This evades responding to what
Appellants actually contended: that conditions “being considered” are required to be included in
the NOA in the optional process, per the identical language in JCC 18.40.190 (11)(d) and WAC
197-11-355 (2)(b): “The notice of application shall list the conditions being considered to
mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected.” See Point B.8 above.
B.11 and B.12
Additional appeals [Issues B.11 and B.12]. The NOA correctly states the final
permit decision will be made by the Hearing Examiner but inadvertently references
the wrong jurisdiction for appeals post Hearing Examiner decision.*
all p90
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents have admitted the error. 2) A better word than
inadvertently” might be “carelessly,” or “without checking its accuracy.” The many (now
admitted) errors in this NOA suggest that it was cut and pasted from other documents without
regard to its accuracy, in dereliction of the County’s duty to provide sufficient and accurate
information in the NOA.
B.13
Public Records [Issue B.13]. Separate public records request apparently did not
include the NOA’s affidavit of posting. Alleged inadequacies with a public records
response must be pursued through a separate process, not the Project’s SEPA
appeal. Additionally, Appellants could have specifically requested this document. An
affidavit of posting was timely made and was provided in Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss, First Declaration of Donna Frostholm, Ex. B
Appellants’ Response: 1) Appellants weren’t complaining about the response to a public
records request. Appellants were saying one could not determine, due to the lack of
pertinent information provided in a public records response, where the physical notice-board
was posted. This information has now been provided in Robert Carson’s First Declaration.
There, he declares, that
I picked up the notice board and installed it at the Property pursuant to Jefferson
County’s instructions on Tuesday, July 9, 2024. . . Shortly after I installed the
notice board at the Property, DCD personnel visited the Property while I was
present at it and confirmed that the notice board was properly posted.*
2) The notice board was not properly posted. JCC 18.40.210(2) 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.*
all p91
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Here is where a grammar (actually, punctuation) lesson applies. The clause “where it is
completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians” applies to the rest of the sentence preceding
it, because the rest of the sentence is a single long clause. I.e., There must be at least one poster
board installed “where it is completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians.” The other
bolded language confirms this reading of this Code provision, as does the purpose of notification.
There is no public traffic on this road, due to unstable geologic conditions. It’s not even a road,
though it is a county right of way. The poster was placed at the end of a “road” marked “dead
end,” and was posted approximately 837 feet after the pavement ends where sign states “End of
County Road.” Ms.Frostholm knows this, as reflected in her pre-application conference
document. (“Killapie Beach Road: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
previously closed this road by resolution.”).Att.D. In any case, when she visited the site shortly
after the NOA was posted, she could not have missed the road signs and rough conditions..Att.F.
The County was obligated, but failed, to post the sign where people would see it—namely on
Shine Road. No one did or could see the poster. See.Att.G, emails from Shine neighbors.
B.14
Requesting Notice Prior to Application [Issue B.14]. Appellant submitted a request
via email on November 30, 2023, requesting to be notified of “any permit processes
with aquaculture on these parcels”. Motion at 6. Appellants do not live within the
required 300 feet required for mailing pursuant to JCC 18.40.210. Appellants’
request was not specific to the Project. Appellants have not identified any legal
violations or a right to submit an open-ended request for any application processes
for multiple properties, and no such right is provided by SEPA. Hence, no violation
of SEPA occurred that could form a basis for reversing the MDNS.*
Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents have fashioned a “Catch 22,” where requests for notification
must identify a specific “Project,” but if the specific “Project” hasn’t been created, the interested
person is ineligible to be notified of it. 2) In fact, Ms. Showalter did identify the project with
all p92
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
great precision. She identified the parcel numbers, the name of the owner, the name of the road,
the type of activity (“aquaculture”), and a Coastal Zone Management application that included
Ecology’s assigned ID number and the latitude and longitude of the project..Att.E.
3) The “multiple properties” were three contiguous parcels owned by the same person and
comprising about 4.75 acres of land and tidelands. 4) Ms. Frostholm wrote about this request at
least five times, including the day before she received Carson’s application..Att.E. This request
should have lodged in her mind and records. 5) The notification packet included in Ms.
Frostholm’s Second Declaration (page 5 of the pdf) includes a box called “Interested Parties.”
Obviously, these must be people who express interest before the NOA. This box was marked
n/a” but should have included Ms. Showalter, who should have been sent the NOA.
D-G. The MDNS. Appellants’ Reply: Appellants are stunned that Respondents think DCD could
add or substract requirements to the County Code governing how to file a SEPA appeal. Under
JCC Article X, SEPA, JCC 18.40.810 (8) Form of Appeal, the appellant “shall submit a written
appeal in the form and manner set forth in Chapter 2.30 JCC and the Hearing Examiner Rules of
Procedure.”*.Att.B. Yet: [E1 “Appellants do not identify any provision of SEPA that prohibits an
MDNS from instructing appeals to be filed with an additional body.”] [E2 “Appellants identify no
violation of SEPA from the MDNS request to include this {standing} information in an appeal
statement”* Reply: The MDNS required the standing element, which was repealed in 2019. Att B
E3 re Rule 3.1(b)(5) requiring a copy of the document being appealed, “This is not a SEPA
requirement.” Reply: Yes, it is..Att.B.] [E4 “Signing an appeal is standard practice, the MDNS
did not violate SEPA in requesting a signature.” Reply: No, the MDNS required the signature
shall contain . . . signed by the appellant)”* This requirement was repealed in 2019..Att.B.
Requests and information are one thing. Requirements are another; the County may not improvise.
all p93
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
A reader by now should be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed,” Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 13, (Note: this is a Division I case.)
The NOA: was posted where no one could see it; is titled with the wrong case number; provides
a comment deadline two months earlier than its issue date; fails to provide an email address for
people to comment by email; includes information links that lead nowhere; omits conditions
being considered; includes incorrect information regarding appeal; and was not sent it to one
who explicitly requested it in advance. The MDNS has additions and omissions in violation of
JCC Article X SEPA and reveals a shocking view by DCD that such improvisation is lawful.
The MDNS wrongly instructs the original of the appeal to be delivered to the DCD
Administrator, when DCD is an opposing party to the case, violating appearance of fairness
laws. Finally, “Willful” means “intentionally” or “deliberately,” as opposed to “accidentally.”
WILLFUL. If a person (Greg Ballard) is warned that certain elements of an MDNS he sent are
erroneous, and he next sends a second MDNS with identical elements, then he has included those
elements deliberately, or willfully—whether or not they are, or he believes they are erroneous.
As for harm, please refer to Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss, pp 9-10 and their attached
declarations, and 2nd Declaration of Ms. Showalter. But equally injured is the general public,
especially members of the Shine community (including Appellants), who never saw (and could
not have seen) the NOA, which was required by law to be posted where they could see it. If this
and the other errors had been corrected in a new NOA, a very different case might have
developed. Appellants have 56 years of public service between them and have learned that the
best way to serve the public after making a mistake is to admit it and fix it. Since that is not
happening, and for the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, July 29, 2025, Marilyn Showalter, Contact for Appellants
all p94
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Downloaded 07-27-2025
A
AP 26
all p95
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
EXCERPTS OF JCC 18.40 ARTICLE X, “SEPA” IMPLENTATION
Highlighting and bolding of text added for ease of reference)
18.40.710 Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to adopt regulations that implement SEPA, consistent with the
SEPA rules. This is accomplished by ensuring that: . . .
3)Opportunity for public involvement is included in the decision-making process.
18.40.770 Substantive Authority
3)The county designates and adopts by reference the following county plans, ordinances and
policies as the basis for exercise of county authority pursuant to this article:
a)The county adopts by reference the policies in the following Jefferson County plans and
ordinances:
i)The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;
ii)The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, as now exists or may hereafter be amended;
18.40.780 Public notice and comment. [Note: text reflects update in Ordinance 11-1216-24]
1). . . As an alternative, the responsible official may use the “optional DNS process” pursuant
to WAC 197-11-355.
a)The notice of application shall contain the information regarding the optional DNS process
as set forth in JCC 18.40.190(11), and shall be noticed as set forth in JCC 18.40.210.
JCC 18.40.190 Notice of Application - Contents
The notice of application shall include the following:
11)Pursuant to WAC 197-11-355, a statement on the first page of the notice of
application that:
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;
18.40.210 Notice of application – Mailing, publication, and posting requirements.
2)Posting. 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.
B
AP 27
all p96
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
18.40.810 Appeals.
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.
Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure [Current]
Rule 3.1 Notice of Appeal
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.
Compare to Rule REPEALED by Ordinance 12 1028 19 - Laserfiche WebLink p 75/188
October 28, 2019
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.
JCC 18.10.160. “Parties of record” means persons or entities who wish to receive a copy
of the hearing examiner’s decision and notice of upcoming hearings.
all p97
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
To:jesse@plauchecarr.com
Cc:marlene.meaders@confenv.com
Subject:RE: PRE2024-00005 Rock Island Pre-App Questions
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:13:52 PM
Hi Jesse,
Meeting time confirmed. And thank you for letting me know that Marlene will be attending. I will
send both of you a meeting invite using GoToMeeting. Please be aware that you may need to load
GoToMeeting onto your computer to get into the pre-app.
As a follow up to your email below and just to make sure I am clear about the upland gear stockpile
and welding location, it sounds like parcels 965100009, -010, and -011 will be used for this. Please
confirm. I need to be clear on this because upland access to these parcels via Killapie Beach Road is
closed under Jefferson County Resolution 22- 99 and, given how steep the slopes are at these three
parcels, I am assuming there is no upland location for stockpiling gear and welding at the toe of the
slope. Please let me know if the intent is to use Killapie Beach Road as part of this proposal. If so, I
will let you know what your next step is in the event that you want start addressing this issue prior to
the pre-app.
Regards,
Donna Frostholm, PWS
Associate Planner - Lead/Wetland Specialist
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368
360-379-4466 dfrostholm@co.jefferson.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.
From: Jesse DeNike <jesse@plauchecarr.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:49 AM
To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Marlene Meaders (marlene.meaders@confenv.com) <marlene.meaders@confenv.com>
Subject: RE: PRE2024-00005 Rock Island Pre-App Questions
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Donna,
Thank you for the email. Tuesday March 26 at 2:00 works well. Marlene Meaders of Confluence
Environmental Company (cc’d here) will also attend the pre-app meeting on behalf of Rock Island.
I need to be clear on this because upland access to these parcels via Killapie Beach Road is
closed under Jefferson County Resolution 22- 99 and, given how steep the slopes are at these three
parcels, I am assuming there is no upland location for stockpiling gear and welding at the toe of the
slope.
As a follow up to your email below and just to make sure I am clear about the upland gear stockpile
and welding location, it sounds like parcels 965100009, -010, and -011 will be used for this.
C
AP 28
all p98
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
In response to your questions in the second paragraph below, the three parcels listed in the pre-app
submittal were identified because those parcels include the tidelands upon which the oyster farm will
be located. No new work including ground disturbance is proposed on the uplands.
I look forward to meeting with you next Tuesday.
Jesse
From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:39 AM
To: Jesse DeNike <jesse@plauchecarr.com>
Subject: PRE2024-00005 Rock Island Pre-App Questions
Jesse,
A virtual pre-app could be held Tuesday, March 26 at 2:00 or Thursday, March 28 at 11:00. Do
either of these times work for you? Please provide the names of those who will be attending.
The pre-app submittal states some the gear will be welded at an upland location and indicates the
three parcels owned by Robert Carson will be used. Please confirm the upland location(s) to be used
for this proposal. Is any ground disturbance needed to stockpile and weld the gear on the upland
parcels? Will this upland work occur within shoreline jurisdiction?
Regards,
Donna Frostholm, PWS
Associate Planner - Lead/Wetland Specialist
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368
360-379-4466 dfrostholm@co.jefferson.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.
all p99
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
D
AP 29
all p100
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p101
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 bi
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.
all p102
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
E
AP 30
all p103
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p104
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p105
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p106
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p107
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From:Donna Frostholm
To:Josh Peters
Subject:FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011
Date:Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:51:20 PM
Attachments:142854 Application Rock Island Squamish.pdf
Josh,
Not sure if you were planning to deal with the email below or ask someone to look into it.
I believe the CZM was issued a few days ago. This is one where Robert Carson was told he needed a
shoreline permit for his aquaculture proposal from the county, and the first step was to apply for a
pre-app. He contacted Department of Ecology and it is my understanding that Ecology sent a letter
to Carson supporting the guidance DCD gave him. I do not know if he has applied for a pre-app, but
he was opposed to getting a local shoreline permit.
Donna
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
all p108
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From:Josh Peters
To:Donna Frostholm; Greg Ballard; Emily Calkins
Cc:Erin Martin
Subject:FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011
Date:Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:01:39 PM
Thanks, Donna.
Greg and Emily, do we know whether we have a pre-app request for this or not? Thx!
From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:51 PM
To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and
965100011
Josh,
Not sure if you were planning to deal with the email below or ask someone to look into it.
I believe the CZM was issued a few days ago. This is one where Robert Carson was told he needed a
shoreline permit for his aquaculture proposal from the county, and the first step was to apply for a
pre-app. He contacted Department of Ecology and it is my understanding that Ecology sent a letter
to Carson supporting the guidance DCD gave him. I do not know if he has applied for a pre-app, but
he was opposed to getting a local shoreline permit.
Donna
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.
all p109
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From:Greg Ballard
To:Josh Peters; Donna Frostholm; Emily Calkins
Cc:Erin Martin
Subject:RE: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011
Date:Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:06:08 PM
Donna is the lead on this & I have not done anything regarding this case.
GregB
From: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:02 PM
To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Ballard
GBallard@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Emily Calkins <ECalkins@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Erin Martin <EPMartin@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and
965100011
Thanks, Donna.
Greg and Emily, do we know whether we have a pre-app request for this or not? Thx!
From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:51 PM
To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and
965100011
Josh,
Not sure if you were planning to deal with the email below or ask someone to look into it.
I believe the CZM was issued a few days ago. This is one where Robert Carson was told he needed a
shoreline permit for his aquaculture proposal from the county, and the first step was to apply for a
pre-app. He contacted Department of Ecology and it is my understanding that Ecology sent a letter
to Carson supporting the guidance DCD gave him. I do not know if he has applied for a pre-app, but
he was opposed to getting a local shoreline permit.
Donna
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
all p110
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
all p111
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.)
all p112
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p113
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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,
all p114
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Red diamond denotes Killapie “end of county road” sign, @875' from yellow rectangle denoting NOA
F
AP 31
all p115
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Photo provided by Donna Frostholm
AP 32
all p116
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Photo provided by Donna Frostholm
all p117
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Image provided by Donna Frostholm
all p118
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Fwd: Oops
John Fabian Jul 24, 2025, 2:20 PM
to jeffbocc
FYI. Is this compliant with county codes?
Best wishes.
John Fabian
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Fabian <fabianj@olympus.net>
Date: July 24, 2025 at 2:08:30 PM PDT
To: dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Subject: Oops
I heard from a neighbor, about a shellfish application related to our home on Shine
Road. We did not get any other notice.
John Fabian
G
AP 33
all p119
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Notice of potential Shine area Shellfish Proposal not
posted where people in the area have any chance to see it
Inbox
Steve Dittmar Thu, Jul 24, 2:40 PM
to dfrostolm
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
I am a Shine area resident since 2012 and live at 30 Watney Ln (off of Shine Rd). I am
about 1.25 miles from Killapie Beach road and travel by it every time I go to/across the
Hood Canal Bridge, which is several times a week.
I keep an eye out for notices for proposals like this and have not seen this notice
anywhere visible from Shine Road. I understand from Marilyn Showalter that this notice
was posted far beyond the end of the paved portion of Killapie Beach Road where the
road turns into more of a path than a road and the posting was beyond the sign stating
end of county road” which implies private property is beyond. Neighbors are walking
and driving along Shine road daily but certainly not down this path that appears to be
private. I believe there is only one occupied house on Killapie Beach road so that road
is likely only travelled by that one resident and their driveway is before the end of the
pavement. Save to say it is likely no one had an opportunity to see this posted notice.
Please reset the comment period and repost the notice up at the very beginning of
Killapie Beach road where it connects to Shine Road so our community has an
opportunity to read the notice and provide input.
My hunch is that you received little or no input from this essentially hidden notice. I
believe this lack of community input completely misrepresents the actual level of
community interest and likely input if/when the community is able to see the notice.
Thank you for considering my input
Steve Dittmar
206.619.6822
all p120
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Marcia Case
From: Marcia Case <bruce.marciacase@gmail.com>
Date: July 26, 2025 at 11:39:58 AM PDT
To: dfrostolm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Subject: Killapie Beach Road
Did not see a public notice posting for a shellfish operation on Killapie Beach Road. Is
there going to be a shellfish operation happening on this road?
Bruce Case
253.394.2873
Sent from my iPhone
all p121
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Oyster farm
Carolyn Eagan Sat, Jul 26, 11:14 AM
to dfrostholm
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
I am writing to tell you that I just learned from a neighbor about a proposed oyster farm
off of Killapie Beach Rd. It is my understanding that the county is obligated to post
notice of any shellfish operations. I never saw a notice and I drive by there all the time. I
am asking that a notice be posted in a visible location and that that the time for
comments start when the notice is posted.
Thank you
Carolyn Eagan
Sent from my iPhone
all p122
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Notification
cpmarquis@yahoo.com Fri, Jul 25, 7:55 AM
From: cpmarquis@yahoo.com <cpmarquis@yahoo.com>
To: dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us <dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 at 07:54:48 AM PDT
Subject: Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Notification
Re: Never Saw Notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
We live at 1662 Shine Road Port Ludlow WA. Please be advised that we never saw
any notice of a plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road.
We drive by Killapie Beach Road on a regular basis as that is the route we take to
cross Hood Canal Bridge and return. We don't know of any one that goes down Killapie
Road as it is only to a private residence There is only one road that carries public
traffic in and out of the Shine community, and that is Shine Road. The notice was
apparently posted at the site which is not visible to anyone except maybe but the
people living on Killapie Beach Road. We believe this notice should have been posted
on Shine Road where it would be visible to vehicles as well as pedestrians in order for
there to be proper notice for comment.
If we had not learned about this proposal from Marilyn Showalter, we wouldn't know
about it at all. We request the County post a new notice with a new public comment
period. Thank you.
Charles and Patricia Marquis
all p123
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Marcia Schwendiman Jul 24, 2025, 4:45 PM
To: Donna Frostholm
Re: I Never Saw Notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
I live at 23 Longmire Lane, Port Ludow, WA 98365. I'm writing to tell you that I never
saw any notice of a plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road. I regularly
drive and walk Shine road between my home and the Hood Canal Bridge and
sometimes the closed roads that the County no longer maintains.
There is only one road that carries public traffic in and out of the Shine community, and
that is Shine Road. If you are going to post a notice where you want people to see it, it
needs to be posted on Shine Road. It is my understanding that under Jefferson County
Code, the County is required to post a physical notice "where it is completely visible
to vehicle traffic and pedestrians.” It appears to me that this was not done.
We learned only last week that the notice was posted down at the site. Killapie Beach
Road is marked with a sign and red diamond, just a short distance in from Shine Road,
that says "End of County Road.” No one would have seen this walking or driving.
If I hadn't learned about this proposal from Marilyn Showalter, I wouldn't know about it at
all. I think the County should post a new notice with a new public comment period.
I would like to know that you received this e-mail from me. Please reply
to marciaschwendiman@gmail.com.
Thank you,
Marcia Schwendiman
23 Longmire LN
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
all p124
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Never Saw Notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal
Inbox
Elena Rodriguez Brenna Fri, Jul 25, 1:39 PM
to dfrostholm
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
I'm a resident of the Shine community. I understand from my fellow community member,
Marilyn Showalter, that there is a proposed plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie
Beach Road. I never saw any notice regarding this plan.
I live at 110 Harbor View Pl, and travel up and down the length of Shine Road by foot
and by car frequently. Shine is the only road traveled by the public and the entire
community to get in and out of this area. Shine Road is where a public notice must be
posted if you expect the public it is aimed at to see it. Otherwise, the public is not being
informed.
If Ms. Showalter had not alerted me to this matter, I would not know anything about it.
The county should post a new notice with a new public comment period.
Thank you for your attention.
Elena R. Brenna
110 Harbor View Place
Port Ludlow WA 98365
all p125
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Never saw a notice for a Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal.
Inbox
Sara Davis Jul 27, 2025, 9:19 PM (2 days
ago)
to dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
My name is Sara Davis. My husband and I live at 1254 Shine Road, Port Ludlow WA
98365. It has come to our attention that a posted public notice for a Killapie Beach
Shellfish Proposal was posted at the end of Killapie Beach Road. This is in an area where
the ground is unstable. This road has one house on it and is a dead end. There is no reason
to ever drive down Killapie Beach Road. Posting a public notice on a road that almost no
one ever uses to notify the whole community seems unfortunate. If the sign was meant for
people to see who live in this area the sign should be posted where everyone can see it.
Since everyone who lives in the area navigates Shine Road to get to Highway 104 it seems
appropriate that the sign should have been posted on Shine Road near the entrance to
Killapie Beach Road.
Please reconsider a plan which will allow the community an opportunity to read this public
notice and give them time to respond to it. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Sara and Ed Davis
1254 Shine Road
Port Ludlow WA 98365
all p126
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
We Have Never Seen Any Public Notice of the Killapie Beach
Shellfish Proposal
BC West Thu, Jul 24, 2:17 PM
to dfrostholm
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
I live at 1482 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow.
I have just today been made aware of an application for a shellfish operation off of
Killapie Beach Road.
I am writing to tell you I have never seen any public notice along Shine Rd. of any such
application or plan, and I drive up/down that stretch of Shine Rd. multiple times each
week.
If not for the information provided to me by my neighbor, Marilyn Showalter, I would
have had no awareness whatsoever of this application.
Since Shine Rd. is the only road in/out of this community, and any application of this
type has an impact on this community. As such, I think it is incumbent on the county
and/or any other involved agency) to prominently post any public notices on Shine Rd.
to ensure the community is fully aware of such applications, in order to have a fair and
reasonable opportunity to be informed and respond per public notice guidelines.
I request the County post a new public notice and initiate a new public comment period
for this application.
Thank you.
William and Cheryl West
all p127
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From: Sue Corbett <suec71@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Subject: Flawed notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal
To: <dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Re: Flawed notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal
Donna Frostholm,
I live in Shine at 31 Churchill Lane, Port Ludlow. I am writing to complain that notice of
the proposed shellfish operation was never posted along Shine Road. I never saw the
notice as it was not visible from Shine Road. Killapie Beach Road is closed to traffic
because it is a slide area. What is the use of a notice that is out of public view.
The county should post a new notice with a new comment period.
Respectfully,
Sue Corbett
Suec71@gmail.com
all p128
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Hidden Posting for Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal
Nellie Andersen Mon, Jul 28, 10:38 AM
to dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us, Nezam
Dear Ms. Frostholm,
We live at 162 Longmire Lane, Port Ludlow which is a road off of Shine Road. We are
concerned and disappointed to learn that the notice for a plan for a shellfish operation
off of Killapie Beach Road was not posted in a visible place for our community to see.
There is only one road that carries public traffic in and out of the Shine community, and that
is Shine Road. If you are going to post a notice where you want people to see it, it needs to
be posted on Shine Road. As posted, it feels like this information was being hidden from
view.
If we hadn't learned about this proposal from Marilyn Showalter, we wouldn't know about it
at all. We request that the County post a new notice with a new public comment
period. Thank you.
Nellie Andersen & Nezam Tooloee
162 Longmire Lane
Port Ludlow, WA. 98365
all p129
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
SECOND 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 an appellant in this case (072525, SDP2024-00006).
2. Like others in my community of Shine, I did not see any physical posted notice of the
Application in the case. I now know why: it was posted where neither I nor anyone else
could possibly see it.
3.I have already written in my (first) Declaration (attached to Appellants’ Motion to
Dismiss) how my efforts to be notified personally did not succeed. I would like to add
here that, had the physical notice been posted on Shine Road, which is the only road in
and out of the Shine community, I would have seen it, or been alerted to it, within one or
two days—at most.
4. Due to both failures in notification, I did not happen upon the Notice of Application
NOA) until August 29, 2024 (Attachment 1)—and then, only because the heading of the
NOA incorrectly carried the case number of a case I happened to be following. As is
evident from the attachments in Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss and to this Declaration,
I’ve spent a great deal of time, for sure over 70 hours, trying to sort through the errors
and urging the County to issue a corrected NOA. I firmly believed it would, until I
received the MDNS.
5.That is a harm in itself, but it also means I was delayed in addressing the underlying
Application—like starting a race but not being allowed to take the first step until long
after the starting gun goes off.
AP 34
all p130
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
6. If this NOA goes forward and the MDNS is approved as is, I and the environment face
unnecessary risks (which are harms) of fire damage, bank erosion on a Shoreline of
Statewide Significance, litter on a public beach just west of the proposed site on which
my house fronts (DNR Beach 59), and interference with feeding habits of Marbled
Murrelets, which are endangered and I have documented near the site, to name a few.
This is why the County should be analyzing the full parcels (uplands and tidelands), and
why further conditions regarding enforcement are needed, as Appellants articulated in
their Appeal. But we—and the Shine community—deserve proper and complete notice of
the application so that we can timely and adequately review it.
7. Regarding fire, only yesterday I received a sobering evaluation from our East Jefferson
Fire Department Chief (Attachment 2), who reports that:
Fire engines won’t be able to go beyond the “End of County Road” sign on
Killapie Beach Road. . . . . Besides the quality of the dirt/gravel road on
Killapie Beach Road, the overgrown brush poses a hazard to our vehicles,
especially if it were on fire. We like to see the brush cleared back from the road’s
edge between five – ten feet, ideally ten. It is the responsibility of the property
owner to maintain emergency vehicle access.
8. The problem is that the road is closed, people don’t live on it, development is barred, and
yet Mr. Carson has “stuff” down there, including himself and his car sometimes, and
including a large solar panel that reportedly provides electricity to something. I don’t
believe there are permits for this electrical operation. Chief Black suggested I contact the
Building Code people at DCD. I will, but that is exactly what I think the County should
do. But the MDNS closed off “the uplands” as part of the Application. I think that is a
mistake for several reasons and hope to convince them of that, if a new NOA is issued.
Signed this 29th day of July, 2025
Marilyn Showalter
all p131
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Objection to Defective Notice in SDP 24-00001 Rock Island
and Request for Re-Issuance
Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Aug 29, 2024, 12:03 PM
to Donna, Philip
Hello, Donna.
I have just become aware of a Notice (attached) in SDP 24-00001 Rock Island. The
Notice is defective for at least two reasons:
1) The deadline for comment is erroneous, as it is before the date of issuance. (The
Notice was issued July 10, 2024. The stated deadline for comment is May 3, 2024.)
2) The Notice was not sent to all parties of record. As the email exchange below
establishes, I requested to be notified of any process under the county SMP regarding
Rock Island and related parcels. Included in that email exchange is the following
paragraph from me to you and Josh Peters, dated November 30, 2023.
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.
Yellow highlighting in original. Bolding added here.)
In order to cure these defects, I request that you issue a new notice to all parties of
record, including me, and provide in the notice a lawful comment deadline.
Thank you--Marilyn Showalter
Marilyn Showalter
1596 Shine Rd
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
360) 259-1700 (cell)
marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
all p132
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
THIRD and FOURTH Defects in the Notice in Rock ISLAND
Public Notice and Request for Re-Issuance SDP2024-
00006
Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Nov 13, 2024, 4:06 PM
to Donna, Philip
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.)
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:
all p133
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Furthermore, there are no documents shown as attachments at this site:
all p134
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355
all p135
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p136
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p137
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p138
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Bret Black Jul 28, 2025, 1:10 PM (23 hours ago)
to Robert, me
Marilyn,
You have some good questions and valid concerns. I will do my best to answer them. If
you feel I missed something, please give me another call.
I drove the area this morning. Fire engines won’t be able to go beyond the “End of
County Road” sign on Killapie Beach Road. In fact, I don’t think we can get an
ambulance down there either. These conditions are prevalent throughout the Shine
area, Paradise Bay, and where I live on Tala Shore Drive. Besides the quality of the
dirt/gravel road on Killapie Beach Road, the overgrown brush poses a hazard to our
vehicles, especially if it were on fire. We like to see the brush cleared back from the
road’s edge between five – ten feet, ideally ten. It is the responsibility of the property
owner to maintain emergency vehicle access.
EJFR and our County partners have put a lot of effort towards developing a strategic
plan addressing the wildfire threat facing JC residents. Please take a look here at
our Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns
Bret Black - Fire Chief
Cell 360-381-0292
bblack@ejfr.org
AP 35
all p139
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 9:12 PM
To: Bret Black <bblack@ejfr.org>
Subject: Killapie Beach Rd Dead End
Dear Chief Black,
Attached are images of the property, owned by Robert Carson, that we are concerned
about. It's at the end of Killapie Beach Road, which is a public right of way but which is
marked "End of County Road" a short way in from Shine Road. (A county ordinance
barred development on the hillside, due to unstable soil.)
The first pdf shows where the property is (yellow) and where the "End of County Road"
sign is (red).
The second is a packet of images related to fire hazard and the shoreline. Some of the
junk may have been removed; I don't know how much. But the big solar panel structure
was still there when I took the photo on May 30, 2025. (The photos from December
2024 are from the Sheriff's office after an infamous theft in which the perpetrators stole
11,000 of jewelry from Mr. Carson and tried to escape in a sinking dinghy with no
paddle. Jewelry thieves arrested after SUV crash leads to rowboat escape on Port
Gamble Bay)
Part of our concern is that the uplands WERE a part of an application for a shellfish
operation, but DCD carved off the uplands from the tidelands for review, so they are not
reviewing the uplands for impacts, including fire safety.
I'll be interested to hear your perspective on safety hazard, both regarding what's down
there, and how the fire department would handle a fire if one ever started there.
Thank you so much. My contact information is below. Sorry I didn't get this to you until
now.
Marilyn Showalter
1596 Shine Rd
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
360) 259-1700 (cell)
marilyn.showalter@gmail.com
all p140
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
AP 36
all p141
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p142
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
Photo by Marilyn Showalter, July 17, 2025
all p143
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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)
all p144
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.)
all p145
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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).
all p146
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p147
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p148
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p149
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p150
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p151
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 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.
all p152
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p153
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.)
all p154
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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 10:17AM
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
all p155
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p156
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p157
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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,
all p158
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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
all p159
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13
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.
all p160
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT AP13