HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP24 Showalter Basket Visibility SDP 2024-00006To: Jefferson County Hearing Examiner, SDP2024-00006 Rock Island
Fm: Marilyn Showalter, 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365, August 17, 2025
BASKETS WILL BE VISIBLE WHENEVER THE TIDE IS AT OR BELOW 7.25 FEET
The tide is at or below 7.25 feet 73% of the daylight hours in June, July, and August
1. This submission responds to the Staff Report’s observations, CL10, pp 8-11, that:
a)“The SEAPA baskets will be mostly submerged when the tide is in.”
b)“Visual and aesthetic impacts are expected to be minimal.”
c)“Small boats and recreationists can still access and use this portion of the shoreline”
d)“Recreational uses (such as kayaking, bird watching) can continue if this
proposal is approved and implemented.”
e)“The area had previously been used for aquaculture for decades (until 2017) so
this proposal is not likely to have adverse impacts on the character of those areas
in the vicinity of the project area.”
f)“The natural character of the shoreline would be retained.”
g)“The proposal . . . does not have sufficient height to affect views from the water.”
2. Mr. Carson proposes to install three-foot-three-inch-tall (3.25ft) SEPA baskets on two
acres of his tidelands between +4 ft tide to -4.2 ft tide level that would look like this
(from Applicant’s Habitat Management Plan, EXH 02, p. 12/103):
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT AP24
Showalter Cmts on Visibility
SDP 2024-00006 Rock Island p. 2
3. The top-most baskets installed at +4 ft tide level will be visible at tides at or lower than
+7.25 ft (4+3.25 = 7.25).
Not to Scale
4. The lower the tide, the more baskets will be visible, but some or all of the baskets will
be visible whenever the tide is at or below +7.25’.
5. The lower-most row will be visible at tides at or below -.95’ (-4.2 + 3.25 = -.95)—or just
below a zero tide.
6. The lowest daylight tides are in the summer months, and that is also when recreationists
are most likely to be on the water. These include kayakers, canoers, paddleboarders,
sailboarders, rowers, ski-doos, and boaters who are crabbing or fishing, or just enjoying
Hood Canal.
7. Per the calculations of retired economist Steve Aos (see page 4), the tide is at or below
7.25 feet 73% of the daylight hours of June, July, and August.
8. Contrary to the Staff Report’s claim that “The natural character of the shoreline would
be retained,” there is nothing natural about two acres of hard HDPE plastic and iron
rebar, some portion of which is visible 73% of daylight in the summer time. The
photo above, provided in the Application, speaks for itself.
9. Contrary to the Staff Report’s claim that The proposal . . . does not have sufficient
height to affect views from the water,” two acres of three-foot high iron and massive
plastic imposes a very different, far-less pleasing view of the water and shoreline for
boaters and paddlers, compared to a natural view. There is and never has been
anything close to gear of that height and mass in the tidelands along Shine Road side
of Squamish Harbor.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT AP24
Showalter Cmts on Visibility
SDP 2024-00006 Rock Island p. 3
10. Contrary to the Staff Report’s claim that “Small boats and recreationists can still
access and use this portion of the shoreline,” no, they cannot—unless they want to
risk their paddles or oars, windsurfing keels, or trolling motors causing a disaster by
hitting the tops of the rebar and hard HDPE plastic.
11. Nor is it fully correct that “Recreational uses (such as kayaking, bird watching) can
continue if this proposal is approved and implemented.” As just mentioned, the area
will be essentially off-limits to water users, due to the danger of running into rebar
and SEAPA baskets. (The greatest danger is to unaware operators of keeled
windsurfers and motorized boats trolling close to shore, when the rebar and baskets
are just fully covered and not visible). Regarding birding, the natural setting, which is
a pleasure for many birders, including boaters (including me), will be compromised
at that location. Further, diving birds, including the ESA-listed Marbled Murrelet
may behave differently in the presence of the massive gear.
12. There are several problems with the Staff Report’s statement that: “The area
had previously been used for aquaculture for decades (until 2017) so this
proposal is not likely to have adverse impacts on the character of those areas
in the vicinity of the project area.”
a) Whatever was there eight years ago should not be the baseline for
comparison. This proposal is for a new operation.
b) Whatever was previously there was flat on the ground, not 3.25 feet high.
c) The record does not support the claim that the area was used for
aquaculture for “decades,” at least not legally. See attached passage from
the Record of Decision for Mr. Carson’s federal permit. (“The project
activity was not previously verified as being approved before 18 March
2007.”) (If the prior activity was illegal, i.e, not federally approved after
2007, either, it would be against public policy to recognize it as part of the
legitimate “character” of the area.)
d) The acreage of the prior oyster operation is not clear. Perhaps it was ¼
acre. Mr. Carson’s federal permit is for ¼ acre. He is applying for a
permit eight times as large (two acres). Two acres of 3.25’ high rebar
and HDPE introduces a decidedly more adverse “character” of the vicinity
than a quarter acre of gear on the ground, even if the gear is now derelict.
CONCLUSION: The opinions in the Staff Report discussed above are conclusory and are
not backed by convincing evidence. On the contrary, they are contradicted by the evidence
presented here.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT AP24
Showalter Cmts on Visibility
SDP 2024-00006 Rock Island p. 4
1
From: US Army Corps of Engineer’s Record of Decision (8-15-2024) for Carson’s Letter of Permission
(LOP) permit (9-12-2024) for shellfish cultivation on ¼ acre of tidelands:
1.5 Existing conditions and any applicable project history
Project History: An application was received by the Corps on 8 May 2023 to cultivate and harvest
Kumamoto oysters. This is a new operation that has not been previously authorized by the Corps.
As referenced in Section 1.3.1, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) PBOs were approved on 02 September 2016 and 30 September 2016, and 26
August 2016, respectively. Commercial shellfish operations that had not been granted a permit,
license, or lease from a state or local agency specifically authorizing commercial shellfish mariculture
activities and that were occurring within a defined geographic footprint prior to 18 March 2007 are
considered “new” in accordance with the NMFS/USFWS PBOs and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The project activity was not previously verified as being approved before 18 March 2007 by
a state or local agency and is therefore considered “new” for ESA purposes. Existing Conditions:
The proposed project would be a new commercial operation to cultivate and harvest Kumamoto
oysters on approximately 0.25 acres of North Hood Canal. According to the applicant, old rusting
racks and bags left by a previous oyster farm (Sea Garden) remain on the tidelands and would be
removed as part of this application. (CENWS – ODR File Number, NWS-2020-00323-AQ, pp 3-4,
Emphasis added)
1 Steve Aos, steveaos@msn.com; Shine resident; economist; retired Executive Director, Washington State Institute
for Public Policy; recipient 2017 Outstanding Achievement Award, Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis, SBCA
Awards - Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (benefitcostanalysis.org); profile “The Great Evaluator,” State
Legislatures Magazine, Nat Council of State Legislatures, The Great Evaluator_SL Magazine July 2013 (ncsl.org)
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT AP24