HomeMy WebLinkAboutHX06 DECISION 051426 with Exhibit List
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Before Hearing Examiner
Gary N. McLean
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
Application for a Type III Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit for
Aquaculture, submitted by
ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH
(ROBERT CARSON),
Applicant
_________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SSDP File No. SDP2024-00006
DECISION
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION.
The applicant failed to satisfy all approval criteria so the requested permit must be
denied.
II. BACKGROUND AND APPLICABLE LAW.
There is no dispute that this project requires a Type III Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, assigned application file no. SDP2024-00006, which is subject to
public notice, public hearing, and a decision by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. The
project also required a concurrent Critical Areas review, and a separate State Environmental
Protection Act (“SEPA”) review, which resulted in a Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance. (Staff Report, pages 1-5).
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 2 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Jurisdiction of Hearing Examiner.
The County Code vests the Hearing Examiner with authority to hear and issue
decisions on applications for Type III land use decisions. (See JCC 18.40.040, explaining
Project permit application framework, Table 8-1, types of permits, decisions required, and
Table 8-2, showing final decision made by the Hearing Examiner on Type III land use
matters). Further, the County’s Shoreline Master Program, found in Ch. 18.25 JCC, explains
that: “The hearing examiner is vested with the authority and responsibility to: (a) Approve,
condition, or deny shoreline substantial development permits, variance permits and
conditional use permits after considering the findings and recommendations of the
administrator;” and “(e) Approve, approve with conditions, or deny substantial development
permits, variance permits and conditional use permits.” (JCC 18.25.610(2)(a) and (e)).
Critical Areas Review.
Because the pending project is located within the County’s shoreline jurisdiction,
reviews for consideration of Critical Areas protections included in Ch. 18.22 of the County’s
Code occur as part of the Shoreline permit review addressed in this Decision. (See JCC
18.22.220(2), which reads: “The department shall perform a critical area review for any
application submitted for a regulated activity. Reviews for multiple critical areas shall occur
concurrently. For critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, critical area review shall occur
as part of the shoreline review process.”; and JCC 18.22.200(6) – “When any provision of
this chapter is in conflict with any other section of the Jefferson County Code, the provision
that provides most protection to the critical area shall apply, except that any critical area
occurring within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act also shall follow the
policies and regulations in Chapter 18.25 JCC”).
III. RECORD.
All exhibits entered into evidence as part of the record, and an audio recording of the
public hearing, are maintained by the County, and may be examined or reviewed by
contacting the County’s public records officer.
Exhibits:
Staff Report, recommending approval subject to conditions, prepared by Project
Planner Donna Frostholm, with 15 pages, and the attached list of exhibits, prepared
and updated by County Staff.
Testimony: The public hearing for this matter was conducted using an online audio/video
platform coordinated by County staff, accessible to parties and members of the public using
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 3 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
sign-in details provided in public notices. The following persons provided testimony under
oath as part of the record during the open-record hearing held on August 19, 2025. The
summaries below are intended to generally describe the testimony and principal themes
raised during the public-comment portion of the hearing and are not intended as a verbatim
transcript of any speaker’s remarks. All testimony and comments submitted during the
hearing process were considered by the Examiner, whether or not each specific issue, nuance,
or concern raised by a particular speaker is individually summarized herein.
1. Donna Frostholm, Project Planner, prepared Staff Report and served as the primary Staff
representative through the public hearing, for Jefferson County Department of Community
Development.
2. Jesse DeNike – Applicant’s attorney, appeared on behalf of the applicant and coordinated the
applicant’s hearing presentation and responses to comments and questions. Mr. DeNike did
not appear as a fact witness but provided legal arguments and written materials supporting
the application that are included as part of the record.
3. Robert Carson, the applicant, answered questions posed by his attorney, provided testimony
regarding background information, his hopes for use of the property.
4. Terry Benson, local resident, owns Lot 13, on Killapie Beach Road above the beach where
the applicant’s operation is proposed. Opposes project, expressed concerns about the
applicant and his use of the property.
5. Erin Ewald, Director of Regulatory Affairs for Taylor Shellfish, strongly supports the
application.
6. Marilyn Showalter, local resident, lives along Shine Road west along the same beach where
the applicant’s project is located. Opposes the project. Expressed concerns about violations
of the SMA, need for cleanup on the property. Spoke twice.
7. Tracy Benson, local resident, expressed concerns about condition of Killapie Road as access
to the applicant’s property and possible the oyster farm.
8. Jan Wold, local resident, lived on Shine Road resident for over a decade, expressed concerns
about noticing, possible cumulative effects, potential for navigation hazard.
9. Gordon King, from Port Townsend, has been a shellfish farmer for about 44 years, about 34
years in Jefferson County. Works for Taylor Shellfish, as Director of Mussel Farms. Strongly
supports food farming, says it should be allowed to prosper.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT.
Based on the record, and following consideration of all the evidence, testimony,
codes, policies, regulations, and other information included therein, the undersigned issues
the following findings of fact.
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 4 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
1. All statements of fact included in previous or following sections of this Decision that
are deemed to be findings of fact are incorporated by reference into this section as findings
of fact issued by the Hearing Examiner.
2. Robert Carson, doing business as Rock Island Shellfish, is the applicant in this matter,
seeking approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a commercial shellfish
aquaculture operation in Hood Canal, in unincorporated Jefferson County. The application
was assigned File No. SDP2024-00006. The Staff Report identifies the applicant as Robert
Carson (Rock Island Shellfish), with a mailing address of P.O. Box 181, Port Gamble,
Washington. (Staff Report, page 1).
3. The application seeks shoreline substantial development permit approval, together
with associated flood development permit review, to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea
sikamea) within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack-and-basket system. Staff
described the proposed system as using SEAPA baskets, a near-bottom culture system, to be
installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between approximately +4 feet
and -4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket would be stocked with oyster seed, with
oysters grown to full size before commercial harvest and sale. (Staff Report, page 1).
4. The proposal is located in Hood Canal, just west of the Hood Canal Bridge. The Staff
Report explains that the site plan showing the proposed farm location is included as Exhibit
20, page 5. The proposed aquaculture operation is immediately adjacent to three parcels
owned by the applicant. Staff’s position is that no upland activity related to the aquaculture
application was proposed on those three subject parcels or within shoreline jurisdiction
elsewhere in the County, and that no new buildings, ground clearing, or staging areas to
support aquaculture operations were proposed as part of the application. (Testimony of Ms.
Frostholm; Staff Report, page 1).
5. The project area has a history of aquaculture use. The tidelands had previously been
used for decades to raise oysters by an entity known as Sea Garden, but that operation ceased
at some point in 2017. Staff further explained that the County determined the prior Sea
Garden farm had been abandoned under JCC 18.25.100(1)(a), and that the proposed Rock
Island Shellfish farm would therefore need to obtain a shoreline permit before operating a
shellfish farm at this location. (Staff Report, page 2).
6. Some derelict gear from the prior aquaculture operation remains in the intertidal zone.
Staff explained that old, rusting equipment would be removed as part of the current proposal.
Native and non-native eelgrass are present in the intertidal zone, and Staff reported that
oysters would be raised at least 16.5 feet from areas where native eelgrass occurs. Staff also
identified steep, forested bluffs near the northern end of the project area, with the Hood Canal
Bridge approximately 0.25 mile to the east. (Staff Report, page 2).
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 5 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
7. The shoreline environment designation for the applicant’s property below the
Ordinary High-Water Mark is Aquatic, and the adjacent shoreland is designated Natural
under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. The County’s Shoreline Master
Program applies because aquaculture is a regulated shoreline use/development, and Staff
identified JCC 18.25.020, JCC 18.25.100(1)(bb), Table JCC 18.25.220, and JCC
18.25.440(3)(b) and (c) as provisions requiring review of the application as a Type III
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. (Staff Report, page 2).
8. Aquaculture is a favored shoreline use under applicable shoreline policies when
responsibly sited, designed, permitted, and operated. The Staff Report recognizes aquaculture
as a use subject to the policies, prohibitions, and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program,
and Taylor Shellfish submitted comments emphasizing that aquaculture is recognized as a
preferred use of Washington tidelands under the Shoreline Management Act and Jefferson
County’s Shoreline Master Program. The Examiner has issued several decisions over recent
years approving shoreline permits for aquaculture operations that demonstrated compliance
with applicable codes and policies.
9. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and Habitat Management Plan, and the
proposal was subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act. Staff issued a
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on May 20, 2025. A SEPA appeal was filed by
Marilyn Showalter and Jan Wold on June 3, 2025. By Order issued prior to the public
hearing, the appeals of the County’s SEPA threshold determination were dismissed,
following motions raising undisputed facts and controlling legal authority referenced in a
joint motion brought by the County and the applicant. (See Order on Motions, dismissing
SEPA appeals; and Respondents’ Joint Motion to Dismiss SEPA appeals). Washington's
legislature, courts, and state agencies recognize that, with the exception of avoiding an EIS,
a DNS [or MDNS] does not bind subsequent decision makers tasked with independently
assessing shoreline permit applications. Accordingly, the County's MDNS issued for this
proposal does not constrain the Examiner in his review of the proposal and deciding if the
application satisfies all applicable policies and approval criteria found in the Shoreline
Management Act or the County’s Shoreline Master Program codified in JCC Chapter 18.25.
(See discussion and analysis of the topic in Bellevue Farm Owners Association v. Shorelines
Hearings Board, 100 Wash.App. 341, 997 P.2d 380 (2000, Div. 2).
10. The Staff Report, issued before the public hearing, recommended approval of the
requested Shoreline permit with conditions. Staff’s recommended conditions included
provisions addressing project operations, biological report compliance, limitation on
clearing, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities above ordinary high-water mark,
prohibition on staging or storage within Killapie Beach Road right-of-way, and prohibition
on use of Killapie Beach Road in support of shellfish operations.
11. The record also establishes that unpermitted development and unresolved code
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 6 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
compliance issues exist on the applicant’s adjacent shorelands. Staff reported that
unpermitted development occurs in the adjacent shorelands, that development on the three
parcels owned by the applicant is within the shoreline buffer, and that Staff proposed to
address those violations through a Voluntary Compliance Agreement that would allow the
applicant time to obtain after-the-fact permits or remove development from the properties.
12. The applicant’s three parcels are not legally divided in a way that separates upland
portions of the property from the tidelands proposed for use in the shoreline permit
application. As explained in the Order Reopening Record, the applicant’s tidelands proposed
for use in this application are part of the same tax parcels — the same “property” — that also
include upland areas where undisputed and ongoing code violations appear in the record.
13. The record identifies alleged violations on the applicant’s property including, but not
necessarily limited to, placement of containers, installation of rock cages, placement of
gravel, installation of utility lines, and stockpiling of materials on the property. The Order
Reopening Record noted that development and uses, including ground-disturbing activities
within shoreline jurisdiction, require permits.
14. The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s position that some or many problematic
site conditions were inherited from a prior operator or property owner. That fact is relevant
to context, but it does not resolve the permit question. The record also indicates that this
applicant undertook work or brought objects and materials onto the property that required
permits or otherwise constituted violations of County codes, given the nature of the work or
placement of items on the site.
15. Before issuing a final decision, the Examiner reopened the record to allow the
applicant, the Department, and parties of record to address whether upland code violations
had been corrected, whether JCC 19.10.075 applied or should apply to the pending shoreline
permit application, what specific provisions of any Voluntary Compliance Agreement or
alternative corrective process should apply, and whether any bond, security instrument, or
other financial assurance should be required if the shoreline permit were approved.
16. The reopened record did not establish that the applicant had corrected the unresolved
code compliance issues on the upland portions of the property. Shine Neighbors argued that
nothing had been corrected since the public hearing and that the applicant had not identified
work completed, dates of correction, or substantial progress toward compliance. The
applicant disputed that JCC 19.10.075 required denial in the absence of a formal stop work
order, notice of violation, or notice of violation and order of abatement, but the applicant did
not establish through the reopened record that the site had been brought into compliance.
17. Taylor Shellfish submitted comments in support of the application, emphasizing the
general environmental, economic, and food-production benefits of shellfish aquaculture, the
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 7 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
seasonal and biologically driven nature of aquaculture operations, and Taylor’s view that
upland compliance matters should be handled through separate County enforcement
mechanisms. Those comments are credible and helpful as to the value of shellfish aquaculture
generally, but Taylor Shellfish is not the applicant, does not own or control the subject
property, and is not responsible for correcting the unresolved compliance issues on the
applicant’s property.
18. The central issue in this Decision is therefore not whether shellfish aquaculture is a
preferred or beneficial shoreline use. It is. The central issue is whether this applicant, on this
property, with this record of unresolved shoreline-jurisdiction compliance issues on the same
property proposed for commercial aquaculture use, has carried the burden of demonstrating
that the requested shoreline permit should be approved at this time.
19. The requested permit is a Type III Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for
aquaculture. Staff identified the proposal as subject to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program, including JCC 18.25.440, addressing aquaculture; JCC 18.25.540, addressing
substantial development permit criteria; JCC 18.25.230 through 18.25.250, addressing
shorelines of statewide significance; and JCC 18.25.270 through 18.25.320, addressing
general shoreline policies and regulations, including no net loss requirements, among other
things. (Staff Report, pages 3-12).
20. Under JCC 18.25.540, all shoreline uses and developments must be planned and
carried out in a manner consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the policy of the
Shoreline Management Act, regardless of whether a shoreline permit, exemption, variance,
or conditional use permit is required. Staff concluded that the application was reviewed
against applicable sections of the SMP. The Examiner agrees that these provisions supply
the governing framework for review but does not agree that the applicant has satisfied all
applicable criteria on this record.
21. The Examiner recognizes that aquaculture is identified in JCC 18.25.440(1)(a) as a
preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to
Jefferson County’s economic viability, cultural heritage, and environmental health. Staff
found that the proposal is consistent with that general aquaculture policy. The Examiner
accepts that general premise, and notes that multiple permits have been approved over the
last few years authorizing shellfish and aquaculture businesses in Jefferson County.
22. JCC 18.25.440(1)(b), however, does not support aquaculture without qualification. It
states that the County should support aquaculture uses and developments that protect and
improve water quality, minimize damage to important nearshore habitats, minimize
interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters, and minimize the
potential for cumulative adverse impacts, including those resulting from in-water structures,
apparatus, equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate disturbance or modification.
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 8 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
23. Staff’s favorable analysis of JCC 18.25.440(1)(b) relied in substantial part on the
premise that no upland facilities are proposed, that project gear would be placed to avoid
impacts to eelgrass, that navigation impacts would be limited, and that public use of the
intertidal surface waters could continue as it has in the past. Those are relevant facts, and they
support Staff’s conclusion that some aspects of the proposed in-water aquaculture gear may
be capable of satisfying some shoreline criteria if considered in isolation.
24. But the Examiner does not review the in-water gear in a vacuum. The pending
application concerns use of tidelands that are part of the same tax parcels as adjacent upland
shorelands, and the record establishes that there are unresolved code compliance problems
on the same property. The Order Reopening Record explained that the applicant’s property
is not legally segregated into separate parcels containing uplands on one side and tidelands
on another; rather, the tidelands proposed for use are part of the same property that includes
upland areas where undisputed and ongoing violations of various County codes appear in the
record.
25. The record identifies unresolved violations on the three parcels owned by the
applicant, including but not necessarily limited to placement of containers, installation of
rock cages, placement of gravel, installation of utility lines, and stockpiling of materials on
the property. (See, for example, the proposed, but never-signed Voluntary Correction
Agreement (Ex. 51), which provides a “Summary of Violations” that was not rebutted by any
evidence or substantive testimony from the applicant during the public hearing, or in
response to the Order Reopening the record, which reads: “Violations on the three parcels
[i.e. the property at issue in this application, all owned by the applicant] include, but may
not be limited to, placement of containers on the property, installation of rock cages,
placement of gravel, installation of utility lines, and stockpiling of materials on the property.
Development and uses, including ground-disturbing activities, within shoreline jurisdiction
require permits”; also see unrebutted summary of activities and work undertaken by the
applicant on the property without permits, i.e. code violations, relying on correspondence
between the County and the applicant’s attorney, provided in Ex. AP18 and corrected version
AP23, written comments re: Shoreline Permit Application from Ms. Showalter).
26. The unresolved compliance issues are not unrelated background noise. They concern
the same property, shoreline jurisdiction, shoreline buffers, and development activity relevant
to the County’s ability to determine whether shoreline uses and developments have been
planned and will be carried out in a manner consistent with the SMP and the Shoreline
Management Act. A permit applicant bears the burden of establishing compliance. The
applicant did not carry that burden by limiting the application to the tidelands while leaving
significant, unresolved compliance issues on the associated shorelands to future discussions,
future permits, future enforcement, or a future VCA that has not been executed.
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 9 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
27. The Examiner recognizes the applicant’s argument that no formal stop work order,
notice of violation, or notice of violation and order of abatement has issued, and that JCC
19.10.075 therefore does not mechanically require denial. The applicant’s reply forcefully
makes that argument and asserts that, absent such a formal enforcement instrument, JCC
19.10.075 provides no basis for denial. The Examiner does not need to decide this application
with consideration of JCC 19.10.075. Instead, this application fails because, under the
shoreline permit approval criteria themselves, the record does not demonstrate that the
requested shoreline development approval is consistent with responsible shoreline
management, the public interest, or the SMP’s requirement that shoreline uses and
developments be planned and carried out in a compliant manner.
28. The Examiner further recognizes the applicant’s position that alleged code violations
should be resolved through Title 19 enforcement mechanisms, rather than in this shoreline
permit proceeding, and that the Hearing Examiner should not independently adjudicate every
alleged code violation in the first instance. The Examiner does not purport to replace the
County’s enforcement officials, impose civil penalties, or issue a notice of violation. But the
Examiner must decide whether the shoreline permit application before him satisfies
applicable shoreline approval criteria. In making that permit decision, the Examiner may
consider the applicant’s unresolved site-wide compliance record where that record bears
directly on whether the proposal is properly planned, whether conditions are sufficient, and
whether the public interest would be served by approval.
29. The applicant also argues that the upland matters fall outside the scope of the
application because the proposed aquaculture operation itself is limited to the tidelands, and
because the County Code does not require every site condition on a parcel to be considered
in every permit application. The Examiner agrees only in part. An applicant may, in some
cases, seek approval for a discrete activity without placing every unrelated aspect of a parcel
at issue. But that principle does not require the County to approve a new commercial shoreline
use on a property where unresolved shoreline-jurisdiction development issues on the same
property remain uncorrected, unpermitted, and insufficiently addressed by any binding
corrective mechanism.
30. Staff’s analysis of critical areas recognizes that Hood Canal is regulated as a fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area, that the proposal is within a floodplain, that the adjacent
bluff is a geologically hazardous area, and that the shorelands were not included in the
proposal. Staff therefore concluded that no geotechnical report was required for the adjacent
bluff. That conclusion depends on the premise that the uplands and shorelands can be
excluded from meaningful review for this application. Given the unresolved shoreline-
jurisdiction compliance problems on those same shorelands, the Examiner is not persuaded
that the record adequately demonstrates compliance with the SMP and related critical areas
protections for the property as a whole.
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 10 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
31. Staff found that the proposal is allowed in the Natural shoreline designation and that
aquaculture activities, except geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to the policies
and regulations of the SMP. The Examiner agrees that the use may be allowed in the
applicable designation. “May be allowed,” however, does not mean “must be approved.” A
permitted or conditionally allowed use still must satisfy applicable criteria, and a proposal
may be denied where the applicant fails to demonstrate compliance with those criteria.
32. Staff also found that, because the prior Sea Garden aquaculture operation had been
abandoned, the Rock Island Shellfish proposal is treated as a new aquaculture application.
That finding is important. This is not merely ongoing maintenance, harvest, restocking, or
replanting of an existing permitted operation. It is a new shoreline permit application, and it
must stand or fall on the applicant’s present record and present showing of compliance with
applicable codes and approval criteria.
33. JCC 18.25.440(4)(a) provides that, when a shoreline permit is issued for a new
aquaculture use or development, that permit applies to the initial siting, construction, and/or
planting or stocking of the facility or farm, and if the initial approval is a shoreline substantial
development permit, it is valid for five years with a possible one-year extension. Approval
would therefore confer a meaningful, multi-year shoreline development authorization. On
this record, such an authorization would be premature because the property remains subject
to unresolved compliance issues and the applicant has not established that those issues will
be corrected before or in connection with commencement of the proposed aquaculture
operation.
34. The Examiner credits portions of Staff’s technical analysis regarding eelgrass
avoidance, predator control, chemical controls, lighting, and removal of unnecessary gear.
Staff found, for example, that oysters would be raised at least 16.5 feet from native eelgrass
patches, that rebar racks would minimize substrate disturbance, that harmful predator control
and unauthorized chemical use would be prohibited by condition, and that unnecessary gear
would be removed and disposed of off-site. These findings support the proposition that the
in-water aquaculture design includes measures to avoid some environmental impacts.
35. Those measures are not enough to support approval of this application at this time.
The unresolved concern is not merely whether the SEAPA baskets can be placed 16.5 feet
from native eelgrass, or whether headlamps will be limited during night work. The unresolved
concern is whether the applicant has shown that the proposed shoreline use of this property,
viewed in context with existing shoreline-jurisdiction compliance issues on the same
property, has been planned and will be carried out consistently with the SMP.
36. The reopened record confirms that this problem was not cured after the hearing. The
Examiner reopened the record to ask whether upland code violations had been corrected;
whether JCC 19.10.075 applies or should apply; what specific VCA provisions or alternative
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 11 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
permits and timelines should apply; and whether a bond or other financial assurance should
be required if the permit were approved. These questions were intended to determine whether
the unresolved compliance problem could be addressed in a manner sufficient to support
permit approval.
37. Hearing examiners generally lack jurisdiction to consider requests for equitable relief.
See HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Co., 148 Wn.2d 451, 471, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003); Chaussee v.
Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 640, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984). In this instance,
the request to ignore upland portions of property included as part of the same legal tax parcel
is analogous to a request for equitable relief, essentially asking the Examiner to adjust or
ignore otherwise binding legal principles like looking at a property / parcel as a whole when
weighing a request for a shoreline permit on a property that includes ongoing code violations
along the shoreline as well as upland on the same parcel.
38. Any request for a shoreline permit may be denied when approval would be
inconsistent with fundamental policies of the Shoreline Management Act in RCW 90.58.020,
including without limitation whether permit approval would be inconsistent with the “overall
best interest of the state and people generally” – “In the implementation of this [Shoreline
Management] policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of
natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent
with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.” RCW 90.58.020.
39. The Examiner has independent authority under JCC Title 18, including Chapter
18.25, to deny a shoreline permit because the applicant bears the burden to show the whole
application complies with the SMA/SMP. Ongoing, uncorrected upland violations are highly
relevant because they occurred within the shoreline buffer, critical areas, and habitat
conservation areas, and were allegedly in furtherance of establishing, operating, or starting
cleanup needed for a new oyster farming operation.
40. JCC 18.25.250 and JCC 18.22.660 address certain mitigation/restoration policies that
are relevant to this application. These codes reflect and implement the principle that
wrongdoing or damage connected to a requested approval should be remedied rather than
rewarded. Specifically, JCC 18.25.250(1)(“When shoreline development or redevelopment
occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such
opportunities exist”) and (9)(“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”) are not adequately
addressed as part of this application file. The record establishes unresolved code compliance
issues and less than desirable, environmentally problematic conditions that remain
uncorrected on both upland and tideland portions of the applicant’s property, but this
application does not propose any credible, reliable restoration and/or enhancement conditions
addressing upland problems. There is no evidence showing that the un-permitted clearing,
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 12 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
grading, and other code violations upland from the shoreline have been corrected and/or that
they do not have any ongoing adverse impacts to shoreline functions and processes.
41. JCC 18.22.660 broadly requires mitigation of impacts in critical areas, including
upland areas along the shoreline of the applicant’s property. These include “Rectifying the
adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the
historical condition or the condition existing at the time of the initiation of a project.” (JCC
18.22.660(2)(c)).
42. This application does not include a preponderance of evidence to establish that the
ongoing code violations in critical areas located on the applicant’s property have been
repaired, rehabilitated, or restored, or that there is any credible and reliable mechanism in
place to ensure that such mitigation work occurs. Such mitigation is clearly in the public’s
interest. Without any concrete plan to accomplish such mitigation, this application must be
denied.
43. The applicant did not provide evidence that the property had been brought into
compliance. Shine Neighbors argued that nothing had been corrected and that no dates,
completed work, substantial progress, executed VCA, or specific publicly reviewed
remediation plan had been provided. The applicant disputed the legal significance of the
alleged violations and proposed that upland issues could be resolved through a future County-
approved schedule, revised condition, or possible VCA, but did not demonstrate that actual
correction had occurred.
44. The County’s initial enforcement-related materials contemplated that, if DCD and the
applicant could not reach agreement on how unpermitted development would be addressed,
DCD would ask that all development be permitted or removed before beginning shellfish
operations. Shine Neighbors quoted that statement from Log Item 51 and argued that the
County later changed position by proposing approval with later VCA details. Regardless of
how the County characterizes its present recommendation, the record before the Examiner
does not contain an executed VCA or a concrete corrective plan sufficient to reliably ensure
that existing violations will be corrected before the new commercial shoreline use begins.
45. A condition requiring later resolution of upland compliance issues would not be
adequate on this record. Conditions may properly refine, mitigate, and enforce an otherwise
approvable project. But a condition should not be used to supply the basic showing of
compliance that the applicant failed to make. Here, the proposed future compliance pathway
remains too undefined as to required permits, required removals, required restoration, timing,
sequencing, public review, and consequences of noncompliance. Approval under those
circumstances would shift the risk of noncompliance from the applicant to the shoreline
environment, the County, and neighboring property owners.
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 13 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
46. The availability of future enforcement tools does not establish that the applicant has
satisfied applicable shoreline approval criteria.
47. The Examiner also recognizes Taylor Shellfish’s comments and witness testimony at
the hearing supporting approval, including their view that shellfish aquaculture provides
environmental, food-production, and economic benefits, and that upland compliance matters
should be handled through separate County enforcement mechanisms rather than linked to
the tidelands aquaculture permit. Taylor Shellfish’s comments are credible as to the general
value of shellfish aquaculture and the industry’s support for fellow aquaculture farmers
generally. But Taylor Shellfish is not the applicant, does not own or control the subject
property, and is not responsible for correcting the unresolved compliance issues on this site.
48. The Examiner gives weight to Taylor Shellfish’s testimony and comments insofar as
they reinforce that responsible aquaculture is favored and can be environmentally beneficial.
But those comments do not cure the applicant’s failure to provide an adequate record of
compliance for this particular property. The fact that a large, experienced, and well-respected
shellfish company supports aquaculture generally, and supports this proposal, does not mean
that this applicant has carried his burden.
49. The public interest criterion is not satisfied by allowing an applicant to proceed with
a new commercial shoreline use while serious unresolved compliance issues remain on the
same property, especially where the applicant has not signed a VCA, has not demonstrated
substantial correction, and has not provided a specific and enforceable corrective plan. The
public interest is served by responsible aquaculture and by responsible shoreline
management. It is not served by allowing unresolved shoreline-jurisdiction violations to
remain in place while a new commercial shoreline approval is granted in the hope that future
revenue, future discussions, or future enforcement will solve the problem.
50. The Examiner finds that this application fails to satisfy the requirement found in JCC
18.25.540 that shoreline uses and developments be planned and carried out in a manner
consistent with the SMP and the policy of the State’s Shoreline Management Act. The failure
is not based on the biological unsuitability of oyster aquaculture in Hood Canal, nor on even
an inkling of opposition to aquaculture [the Examiner is a known consumer and personal fan
of Washington shellfish products], nor on an automatic application of JCC 19.10.075. The
failure is based on this applicant’s unresolved compliance record on the same shoreline
property and the absence of an adequate showing that approval of this new shoreline
commercial use would be consistent with responsible shoreline management.
51. The Examiner further finds that the application does not adequately satisfy direction
in JCC 18.25.440(1)(b) that the County support aquaculture uses and developments that
minimize cumulative adverse impacts, including impacts associated with land-based facilities
and associated development. Staff’s finding that no upland facilities are proposed does not
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 14 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
resolve the concern, because the record shows unresolved upland shoreline-jurisdiction
development and use issues on the same property. The applicant has not provided a credible
or reliable basis to conclude that those unresolved conditions will be corrected before
commencement of the proposed aquaculture operation.
52. The Examiner finds that the application does not provide an adequate basis to
conclude that approval would be consistent with the policies governing shorelines of
statewide significance and general shoreline management regulations. The record may
support the conclusion that some components of the in-water gear can be conditioned to
reduce impacts, but the record does not support the broader conclusion that the proposed
shoreline use of this property has been planned and will be carried out in a manner consistent
with the SMP, where significant violations remain unresolved and uncorrected.
53. Throughout this hearing process, including after the record was reopened, the
applicant had opportunities to create a reliable record that unresolved compliance issues
would be corrected if approval were granted. He could have signed the proposed VCA,
proposed specific revisions to it, identified the corrective permits he would pursue, provided
a concrete sequence and timeline for removal or permitting of unpermitted materials and
improvements, or offered financial assurance tied to correction. The reopened record gave
him yet another opportunity to do so. The applicant did not provide that kind of concrete,
enforceable corrective showing.
54. The applicant’s failure to provide a concrete corrective commitment substantially
weakens the reliability of assurances that unresolved compliance issues can safely be deferred
until after permit approval. The Examiner is not persuaded that approval should issue first,
with the County, the shoreline environment, and neighboring property owners left to rely on
later voluntary correction.
55. Because the applicant has not met the burden of proof required for a shoreline
substantial development permit, the Examiner finds that the application should be denied.
This denial should not discourage any future application supported by a materially different
record, including correction of existing violations, execution and demonstrated
implementation of an acceptable VCA, issuance of required corrective permits, written
confirmation from the County that the property has been brought into compliance, or other
reliable evidence establishing that the proposed aquaculture operation will proceed as part of
a compliant and responsibly managed shoreline property.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this Type III Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit application under JCC 18.40.040 and JCC 18.25.610(2),
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 15 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
including authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny shoreline substantial
development permits after considering the findings and recommendations of the
administrator.
2. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested shoreline permit
satisfies applicable approval criteria and is consistent with the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program, Chapter 18.25 JCC, and the policies of the Shoreline Management Act,
Chapter 90.58 RCW.
3. This application is not in any way denied because of the type of use proposed. To the
contrary, JCC 18.25.440(1)(a) recognizes aquaculture, which includes oyster farming, as a
preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest. The County’s shoreline
regulations also recognize shellfish aquaculture activities within public and private tidelands
and bedlands as allowed uses. JCC 18.25.440(1)(j).
4. However, the designation of aquaculture as a preferred or allowed use does not require
approval of this application. JCC 18.25.020 provides that all uses and developments within
shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the SMP and Chapter 90.58 RCW. JCC 18.25.020(3)
further provides that classification of a use or development as permitted does not necessarily
mean the use or development is allowed, but instead means it may be permitted subject to
review and approval by the County and/or the Department of Ecology.
5. JCC 18.25.010 identifies the purposes of the SMP, including promotion of the health,
safety, and general welfare of the community; ensuring, at minimum, no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and processes; planning for restoration of shorelines impaired or
degraded in the past; and implementing the policies of RCW 90.58.020, including protection
of the public interest and protection against adverse effects to public health, land, vegetation,
wildlife, waters of the state, and aquatic life.
6. JCC 18.25.030 provides that the SMP’s policies and regulations are intended to
protect shoreline ecological functions by requiring current and potential ecological functions
to be identified and understood when evaluating new uses and developments; requiring
adverse impacts to be mitigated to ensure no net loss; ensuring that all uses and developments,
including preferred uses, will not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions;
preventing cumulative impacts to the greatest extent practicable; fairly allocating the burden
of preventing cumulative impacts among development opportunities; and including
regulations and regulatory incentives to restore shoreline ecological functions where such
functions have been degraded by past actions.
7. JCC 18.25.440 supports aquaculture when properly managed and when consistent
with the SMP. JCC 18.25.440(1)(b) directs County support toward aquaculture uses and
developments that protect and improve water quality, minimize damage to important
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 16 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
nearshore habitats, minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface
waters, and minimize cumulative adverse impacts, including impacts from in-water
structures, apparatus, equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate disturbance or
modification.
8. JCC 18.25.440(4)(e)(i) requires subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures
and apparatus associated with aquaculture use to be located, designed, and maintained to
avoid adverse effects on ecological functions and processes. JCC 18.25.440(4)(e)(ii) requires
the County to consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities or farms to prevent
adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and adjoining land uses,
based on the specific characteristics of the waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the
vicinity of the farm or facility.
9. The applicant has not demonstrated consistency with those SMP requirements on this
record. The record establishes unresolved shoreline-jurisdiction compliance issues on the
same property proposed for the new commercial aquaculture use; no executed VCA; no
Certificate of Correction; no specific corrective permits; no specific removal, restoration, or
compliance schedule; and no other concrete, enforceable corrective mechanism sufficient to
demonstrate that the property will be brought into compliance before or in connection with
commencement of the proposed aquaculture operation.
10. The Examiner does not deny the application as a penalty for past violations, does not
issue a Title 19 enforcement order, does not impose civil penalties, and does not determine
that JCC 19.10.075 mechanically bars the application in the absence of a formal stop work
order, notice of violation, or notice of violation and order of abatement. The unresolved
compliance record is considered for the narrower and proper permit-review purpose of
determining whether the applicant has carried the burden of proof under Chapter 18.25 JCC.
11. Conditions of approval would not cure the applicant’s failure of proof on this record.
A condition requiring later correction may be appropriate for an otherwise approvable
project, but the undefined possibility of future correction, future staff review, future
enforcement, or a future VCA is not an adequate substitute for the applicant’s present burden
to demonstrate consistency with the SMP, the Shoreline Management Act, and the public
interest.
12. The comments and testimony from Taylor Shellfish and other aquaculture supporters
are credible as to the general value of responsible shellfish aquaculture, but they do not
establish that this applicant has satisfied the approval criteria for this property. Taylor
Shellfish is not the applicant, does not own or control the subject property, and is not
responsible for correcting unresolved compliance issues on the applicant’s property.
13. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested shoreline substantial
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 17 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
development permit would be properly managed, consistent with the SMP, protective of
shoreline ecological functions, protective of the public interest, and consistent with the
SMP’s requirements for no net loss, restoration of degraded shoreline functions, and
prevention of cumulative adverse impacts.
14. The denial of this application does not preclude submission of a new shoreline permit
application by the same or a different applicant supported by a materially different record,
including correction of existing violations, execution and meaningful implementation of an
acceptable VCA, issuance of required corrective permits, written County confirmation that
the property has been brought into compliance, or other reliable evidence demonstrating that
the proposed aquaculture operation will proceed as part of a compliant and responsibly
managed shoreline property.
15. Any finding or other statement contained in a previous section of this Decision that is
deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such and incorporated by reference.
VI. DECISION.
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence
presented through the course of the open record hearing, and all materials contained in the
contents of the record, the undersigned Examiner DENIES the Type III Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, assigned application File No. SDP2024-00006, for the Robert Carson
(Rock Island Shellfish) Aquaculture Project on Hood Canal.
ISSUED this 13th Day of May, 2026
_____________________________
Gary N. McLean
Hearing Examiner
DECISION ON ROBERT CARSON (ROCK ISLAND
SHELLFISH) APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – FILE NO.
SDP2024-00006
Page 18 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Final Decision,
Request for Reconsideration or Clarification,
Appeal Rights
The Hearing Examiner is authorized to issue Final Decisions for matters listed in JCC 2.30.080(2).
Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be subject to a request for reconsideration or clarification, by parties with standing
and in the time and manner specified in the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure, including without
limitation HEx Rules 6.5 and 6.6.
JCC 18.25.750(4) provides that the applicant/proponent or any party of record may request reconsideration of any final
action on a Shoreline Permit by the decision maker within 10 days of notice of the decision. Such requests shall be filed on
forms supplied by the county. Grounds for reconsideration must be based upon the content of the written decision. The
decision maker is not required to provide a written response or modify his/her original decision. He/she may initiate such
action as he/she deems appropriate. The procedure of reconsideration shall not preempt or extend the appeal period for a
permit or affect the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, unless the applicant/proponent requests the abeyance of
said permit appeal period.
JCC 18.25.750(5) explains that “Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a decision on a shoreline substantial
development permit, shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit may be filed by the applicant/proponent or any
aggrieved party pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 within 21 days of filing the final decision by Jefferson County with the
Department of Ecology.”
State law provides short deadlines and strict procedures for appeals and failure to timely comply with filing and service
requirements may result in dismissal of any appeal. Persons seeking to file an appeal are encouraged to promptly review
appeal deadlines and procedural requirements and confer with advisors of their choosing, possibly including a private
attorney.
EXHIBIT LIST
SDP2024-00006 ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH
KEY for this exhibit list:
A = Application, C = Comments, G = General, S = SEPA, L = Maps, N = Notices, R = Reports
AP = Appellant, RI = Applicant, CL = County legal
Item No: Item/description Date Type
1 Pre-application meeting notes/submittal 4/26/2024 G
2 Application 6/3/2024 A
3 Email with representative, re: Schedule Notice
of Application
7/1-2/2024 G
4 Notice of Application 7/9/2024 N, S
5 Affidavit of Posting 7/9/2024 N, S
6 Comment - Public Works 7/10/2024 C
7 Photos - Site Visit 080724 8/7/2024 G
8 Email from representative 8/14/2024 G
9 Email follow up - Public Works 8/14/2024 G
10 Comment - Showalter 8/29/2024 C
11 Request for Additional Information and
Applicant Response
8/16-30/2024 G
12 Communications with representative 9/13-27/2024 G
13 Communications with representative 10/8-17/2024 G
14 Communications with representative 11/12-26/2024 G
15 Photos - Site Visit 120424 12/4/2024 G
16 Email - Showalter 11/13/2025 C
17 Communications with Public Works 12/16/2024 G
18 Communications with representative 12/6-23/2024 G
19 Communications with representative 1/8-13/2025 G
20 Communications with representative (Request for
Add'I Info, Applicant Response, and Scheudule On-
site Meeting)
1/15-24/2025 G
21 Communications with Public Works 1/22/2025 G
22 Photos - Site visit 012725 1/28/2025 G
23 Communications with representative 1/29-2/5/2025 G
24 Site Visit Meeting Notes 2/3/2025 G
25 Letter from representative, re: rock gabions 2/27/2025 A
26 Phone call with representative - brief summary 2/6/2025 G
27 Phone call with representative - brief summary 3/12/2025 G
28 Phone call with representative - brief summary 3/18/2025 G
29 Phone call with representative - brief summary 3/24/2025 G
30 Communications with representative 4/17-21/2025 G
31 Communications with representative 5/5-12/2025 G
32 Email - Showalter 5/12-13/2025 G
33 Coordination with Office the Hearing Examiner -
Public Hearing
5/15/2025 G
34 Threshold Determination 5/15-20/2025 N, S
35 Email - Corbett 5/20/2025 G
36 Email - Showalter 5/20/2025 G
37 Email - Office of the Hearing Examiner 5/22/2025 G
38 Email - Brenna 5/23/2025 G
39 Emails - Schedule Public Hearing 5/22-6/2/2025 G
EXHIBIT LIST ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH PERMIT – FILE NO. SDP2024-00006
Page 1 of 4
40 SEPA Appeal 6/3/2025 S
41 Receipt by Email 6/9/-12/2025 G
42 Pre-hearing Issues 6/10/2025 G
43 Email to schedule pre-hearing conference 6/17/2025 G
44 Order Confirming Pre-hearing Conference 7/3/2025 G
45 Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Application 8/1/2024 N,S
46 Pre-hearing email 7/8/25 G
47 Photos: Notice of Public Hearing 7/29/25 N,S
48 Emails, re: Appellants’ Lists 7/30/25 G
49 Emails from Residents 7/24–29/2025 C
50 Notice of Public Hearing 7/30/2025 N,S
51 Email to representative, re: VCA 7/31/2025 G
52 Emails from Residents 8/13-17/2025 C
53 Email from Sue Corbett 8/11/2025 G
54 Emails from Residents 08/19/25
55 Emails from Residents 08/19/25
56 Wold Verbal Comment
57 Shold Letter
CA-01 Email confirmation of SEPA-MDNS Appeal
SDP2024-00006 Rock Island (Robert Carson)
SEPA Appeal SPD2024-00006
CA-02 SDP2024-00006 Rock Island (Robert Carson)
SEPA Appeal dated June 10, 2025
CA-03 SEPA Appeal – Appellants’ Motion for
Continuance of SEPA/Public Hearing Date
6/3/2025
CA-04 SEPA Appeal – Appellants’ Motion for Adoption
of Administrative Practices for this Case
6/3/2025
CA-05 Rock Island Shellfish’s Response to Appellants’
Motion for Continuance of SEPA/Public Hearing
Date
6/24/2025
CA-06 Rock Island Shellfish’s Response to Appellants’
Motion for Adoption of Administrative Practices
6/24/2025
CA-07 Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss (Without
Prejudice) Due to Erroneous Notice
Procedures
6/25/2025
CA-08 Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss 6/25/2025
CA-09 [PROPOSED] Order Granting Respondents’
Motion to Dismiss
7/3/2025
CA-10 First Declaration of Robert Carson 7/15/2025
CA-11 First Declaration of Donna Frostholm 7/15/2025
CA-12 Certificate of Service 7/15/2025
CA-13 Appellants' Response to Respondents' Motion
to Dismiss
7/15/2025
CA-14 Joint Response to Appellants' Motion to
Dismiss
7/15/2025
7/22/2025
7/22/2025
CA-15 Second Declaration of Donna Frostholm 7/22/2025
CA-16 Certificate of Service 7/22/2025
CA-17 Joint Response to Appellants' Motion to
Dismiss
7/23/2025
CA-18 Rock Island Shellfish Preliminary Witness and
Exhibit Lists (Applicant) 072925
7/29/2025
CA-19 Programmatic Biological Assessment
(Applicant 072925)
7/29/2025
CA-20 Shellfish NMFS Biop (Applicant 072925) 7/29/2025
EXHIBIT LIST ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH PERMIT – FILE NO. SDP2024-00006
Page 2 of 4
CA-21 NMFSBiOp Errata Memo Revised (Applicant
072925)
7/29/2025
CA-22 Shellfish USFWS BiOp 2016 08 26 (Applicant
072925)
7/29/2025
CA-23 Certificate of Service (County 072925) 7/29/2025
CA-24 Witness and Exhibit List (County 07/29/25) 7/29/2025
CA-25 Certificate of Service (County 072925) 7/29/2025
CA-26 Respondents' Reply on Motion to Dismiss
(County 072925)
7/29/2025
CA-27 Third Declaration of Donna Frostholm (County
072925)
7/29/2025
CA-28 Appellants Reply w att 072525 2024-00006 7/29/2025 AP
CA-29 Second Declaration Marilyn Showalter 7/29/2025 AP
CA-30 Appellants’ Index to Exhibits 7/29/2025 AP
CA-31 NOTICE OF APPEAL SEPA Mitigated
Determination of non-significance (MDNS)
sdp2024-00006 073025
CA-32 Appellant's Index to Exhibits 073025Z
7/30/2025 AP
7/30/2025 AP
AP01 Updated Google Earth map - parcel map
sequence
8/5/2025 AP
AP02 Gravel receipts 8/5/2025 AP
AP03 Building Estimate 8/5/2025 AP
AP04 Photo hearing notice poster 8/5/2025 AP
AP05 Frostholm email re hearing 073025 8/5/2025 AP
AP06 sdp2024-00006 Notice of Hearing 07-30-2025 8/5/2025 AP
AP07 12-16-2024 Frostholm email 8/5/2025 AP
AP08 Ltr DeNike to Frostholm 12-21-2023 8/5/2025 AP
AP09 Ltr re Abandonment 01-24-2024 8/5/2025 AP
AP10 AP10 Notice of Appeal SEPA mitigated
Determination of non-significance (MDNS)
MLA19-00008 BDN Smersh Application
8/5/2025 AP
AP11 AP11 SEPA Environmental Checklist 05-05-
2025
8/5/2025 AP
AP12 Index to Compendium Document 8/5/2025 AP
AP13 AP13 Notice of Appeal SEPA mitigated
determination - Robert Carson
8/5/2025 AP
AP14 Appellants List of Exhibits 8/5/2025 AP
AP15 Appellants REQUEST FOR SITE VISIT 8/5/2025 AP
AP16 Showalter Obj No Staff Rpt w att SDP 2024-
00006
08/09/25 AP
AP17 Showalter Reply to Cnty Response re Staff
Report
08/11/25 AP
AP18 Showalter SMA Cmts SDP 2024-00006 08/14/25 AP
AP19 Showalter Annotated Staff Report SDP 2025-
00006
08/14/25 AP
AP20 Showalter Request to Examine SDP 2024-
00006
08/15/25 AP
AP21 Showalter Request for Documents Order SDP
2024-00006
08/15/25 AP
AP22 Photos of Oyster Gear that has washed up on
DNR Public Beach 59
08/15/25 AP
AP23 CORRECTED Showalter SMA Cmts SDP
2024-00006
08/18/25 AP
AP24 Showalter Basket Visibility 08/18/25 AP
RI01 Shellfish_PBA_30_Oct_2015 - Applicant Rock
Island (RI)
8/5/2025 RI
EXHIBIT LIST ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH PERMIT – FILE NO. SDP2024-00006
Page 3 of 4
RI02 Shellfish_NMFS_Biop_2016_09_02 8/5/2025 RI
RI03 NMFSBiOpErrataMemoRevisedITS 8/5/2025 RI
RI04 Shellfish_USFWS_BiOp_2016_08_26 8/5/2025 RI
RI05 Applicant Final Witness and Exhibit Lists - Rock
Island RI
8/5/2025 RI
RI06 l.Response Staff Report 08/19/25 RI
RI07 Response to HX Order Rock Island Reopening
Record
02/13/26
RI08 Reply re Order Reopening Record 03/27/26 RI
CL01 2025 08 05 Certificate of Service 8/5/2025 RI
CL02 CL02 - 2025 08 05 JC and Applicant's Joint
Resonse to MDNS Appeal Brief FINAL
8/5/2025 RI
CL03 2025 08 05 Witness and Exhibit List 08/05/25 CL
CL04 2025 08 05 JeffCo Response to Site Visit 08/05/25 CL
CL05 2025 08 05 1st Amended Witness and Exhibit
List
08/05/25 CL
CL06
2025 08 05 Certificate of Service
08/05/25 CL
CL07 2025 08 05 Respondents Response to MDNS
Appeal Brief FINAL
08/05/25 CL
08/11/25 CL
08/11/25 CL
CL08 2025 08 05 Witness and Exhibit List 08/11/25 CL
CL09 2025 08 11 County Response to Allegation of
No Staff Report
08/11/25 CL
CL10 2025 08 11 STAFF REPORT.pdf Signed 08/11/25 CL
CL11 2025 08 18 Jefferson County Update to
Hearing Examiner Prior to Hearing
08/18/25 CL
CL12 2026 03 26 JeffCo Reply to Response
Reopening Record
03/26/26 CL
EXHIBIT LIST ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH PERMIT – FILE NO. SDP2024-00006
Page 4 of 4