HomeMy WebLinkAboutsdp2024-00001 staff report
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 1 of 16
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development ) PROPOSED FINDINGS,
Application ) CONCLUSIONS, AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS
File Number: SDP2024-00001
Applicant: Rock Point Oyster Company, 1733 Dabob Post Office Road, Quilcene, WA 98376
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Application: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit
application to raise oysters using a floating upwelling system (FLUPSY) in Tarboo Bay. This is an ‘after-
the-fact’ application as the FLUPSY was installed in Tarboo Bay in 2016 and has been used to grow
shellfish seed at an existing oyster farm. The proposal includes a cable that runs approximately 300 feet
from an existing electrical box (that was installed in the 1970s) along the shoreline to the FLUPSY. A
Biological Assessment was submitted. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist.
Regulatory Authority: JCC 18.25.020 states that uses and developments, as defined in Article II of the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), shall comply with the program if the proposed
activity is within shoreline jurisdiction. Aquaculture is included in Article II (JCC 18.25.100(1)(bb)) and
is, therefore, subject to SMP policies, prohibitions, and regulations. Per Table JCC 18.25.220 and JCC
18.25.440(3)(a), (c), and (d), this application is to be reviewed as a Type III Shoreline Substantial
Development permit.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Location: The FLUPSY is located in Tarboo Bay (northern extent of Dabob Bay), as shown on the
figure on page 2. The location of the FLUPSY would not change if the shoreline permit were to be
approved.
Project Area Conditions: The FLUPSY was installed in the subtidal habitat of Tarboo Bay, just west of
Dabob Post Office Road, which is where the upland facilities for Rock Point Oyster Company are located.
Tarboo Bay is bounded on the west by Bolton Peninsula and Long Spit, to the south by Dabob Bay, and
to the north by relatively undeveloped, forested state-owned parcels. The project area is near Quilcene.
Shoreline Designation: Pursuant to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program the shoreline
environment designation below OHWM is Priority Aquatic. The shoreline environment designation for
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 2 of 16
the adjacent shoreland shellfish facilities located along Dabob Post Office Road is Conservancy and it is
Natural for the spit just east of the FLUPSY location, as shown in the figure below.
Comprehensive Plan: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted December 10, 2018) states
that the goals, policies, and regulations of the SMP are considered part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Date of Application: The shoreline application was submitted on December 5, 2023. The application
was deemed complete on January 3, 2024.
Site Visit: A site visit was made to the project area on June 11, 2024.
State Environmental Policy Act Review: The proposal is subject to review under SEPA. A Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance was issued by Jefferson County on August 20, 2024 (Exhibit 27).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with the Type III permitting process, the application with SEPA was noticed as was the
public hearing.
Notice of Application: The application was noticed on April 3, 2024:
• Published in The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on April 3, 2024 (Exhibit 8);
• Posted on the property on April 2, 2024 (Exhibits 9 and 25);
• Sent to agencies and tribes on April 3, 2024 (Exhibit 8); and
• Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on April 2, 2024 (Exhibit 8).
Comments Received: Comments sent to DCD are listed below.
• Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) sent an email on May 2, 2024 asking DCD to
check the proposal relative to JCC 18.25.440(4)(e)(vii), which pertains to navigation and other
uses at proposed aquaculture locations (Exhibit 12).
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 3 of 16
• Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) submitted a comment on April 3, 2024
about lease areas. This agency sent a corrected comment later that same day stating that the
earlier comment did not apply to a DNR lease area (Exhibit 10).
• Marilyn Showalter submitted comments by email on May 3, 2024. She questioned how the
FLUPSY was transported to Tarboo Bay; asked about the electrical box and cable; noted
differences between the JARPA submitted to Ecology in 2021 and DCD for the current shoreline
application; indicated potential unpermitted expansion of aquaculture operations; and included
documents pertaining to a 401 Water Quality Certification submitted to Ecology in 2021 (Exhibit
13).
• Sue Corbett submitted a comment by email on May 3, 2024. Since this is an ‘after-the-fact’
application, she stated that the county should require documents from the applicant to determine
if any additional permits may be needed (Exhibit 14).
• Jan Wold submitted comments on May 3, 2024. She listed actions that the county needs to take
prior to issuing a permit (such as get additional information about the electrical system, look into
potential expansion of operation) and she addressed threatened and endangered species that have
the potential to occur in the project area (Exhibit 15).
Staff Comment: The following presents the staff responses to comments received during noticing.
• Ecology – In response to navigational concerns, DCD made a site visit to the project area. The
site visit was timed to observe conditions when a high tide was receding. Based on observations
made during the site visit, it does not appear that the FLUPSY or the electrical cable would
interfere with navigation or other uses of Tarboo Bay.
• DNR – No response required.
• Marilyn Showalter – The applicant submitted responses to comments sent in by this commentor
(Exhibit 22). Responses by the applicant included a clarification as to how the FLUPSY was
moved to Tarboo Bay, how the electric cable was secured, why no new upland development was
needed to connect to a power source; provided clarifications for discrepancies between permitting
documents prepared 2021 and those submitted for the current application; and stated that Case
Shoal aquaculture is not in the project area used by the FLUPSY. Further clarification of
aquaculture development within the intertidal and subtidal parcel where the FLUPSY is located is
provided in Exhibit 25.
• Sue Corbett – The applicant submitted a response to the Corbett comment (Exhibit 22) and
provided further clarification during a meeting between DCD and applicant on July 29, 2024
(Exhibit 25). Case Shoal is a separate property owned by Rock Point Oyster. Previous actions
taken by the applicant within the property where the FLUPSY was located are consistent with
JCC 18.25.440(4)(b) and would, therefore, not have required a shoreline permit from the county.
• Jan Wold – In response to these comments, the county has looked further into the electrical
system used to power the FLUPSY and the extent of expansion in the project area. The electrical
cable is new and was attached to an existing structure that has been supplying power to the
shellfish operation for decades. Many of the concerns expressed by this commentor pertain to
protection of species and habitats. DCD has determined that information submitted by the
applicant (Exhibits 2 and 25) demonstrate that the installation and operation of the FLUPSY is
not likely to negatively affect listed species or their required habitats. The county did not receive
comments from agencies or tribes that would indicate the FLUPSY may have the potential to
adversely affect shoreline habitats used by listed species.
Notice of Public Hearing: The public hearing scheduled for November 14, 2024 was noticed on October
30, 2024 (Exhibit 34):
• Published in The Port Townsend/Jefferson County Leader on October 30, 2024;
• Posted on the property;
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 4 of 16
• Sent to those who commented on the proposal on October 30, 2024; and
• Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on October 29, 2024.
JEFFERSON COUNTY APPROVALS REQUIRED/APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
The proposal was reviewed against all relevant requirements, specifically:
• Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 10, 2018; and
• Jefferson County Code, Title 18 – Unified Development Code, adopted December 18, 2000 and
effective January 16, 2001, as amended, including Chapter 18.25 JCC (SMP).
STAFF FINDINGS
The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code, including the Shoreline Master Program.
1. Proposal. The applicant is proposing to grow shellfish seed in a FLUPSY in the subtidal waters of
Tarboo Bay as part of existing shellfish farm operations and the electricity needed to run the FLUPSY
will be provided by cable secured to the substrate and attached to an existing power source.
2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed shoreline development is subject to the goals
and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The shoreline goal (EN-G-4) states:
Implement Chapter 18.25 JCC to protect shoreline functions and processes while allowing
appropriate development and uses within the shorelines of Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master
Program) and is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan goal and the policies of ensuring the
proposal complies with SMP goals and policies (Policy EN-P-4.1) and working cooperatively with
Ecology (Policy EN-P-4.2).
3. Jefferson County Code - Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22 JCC). The proposed development is within
shoreline jurisdiction and is subject to the critical area regulations specified in Chapter 18.22 JCC.
The application was reviewed for the potential presence of critical areas under the provisions of the
Unified Development Code. After an initial Geographic Information System mapping review, the
following critical areas were determined have the potential to be present in the project area: fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas (marine water serves as a primary association for listed fish species,
commercial and recreational shellfish areas) and frequently flooded areas.
Staff Comment: Tarboo Bay is regulated as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA).
The applicant submitted a Biological Assessment prepared by Confluence Environmental Company
(dated May 2023). This report provides impact minimization and conservation measures to FWHCAs,
and these measures have been added as permit conditions at the end of this staff report. The Biological
Assessment states that other FWHCAs, such as eelgrass and kelp beds and forage fish are not present in
the project area.
The proposal will be located in an area mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood
Insurance Rate Map (panel 53031C0910C) as Zone AE. The proposed project requires a flood
development permit, which is incorporated into the shoreline permit. The proposal meets the definition
of development, but not structure, in JCC 15.15.050. For local permitting, the proposal must comply
with the Biological Opinion (BiOp). One way to meet the BiOp requirements is through the federal
permitting process. Since this proposal requires a permit from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the BiOp will be met. To ensure compliance
with the BiOp, a condition of approval includes the requirement to obtain the Corps permit prior to
beginning any work on this project and to adhere to federal permit conditions while operating the
FLUPSY.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 5 of 16
The proposal was noticed to federal and state agencies and to tribes. DCD did not receive comments
from agencies or tribes that would indicate fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas would be
adversely affected by the proposal.
4. Jefferson County Code - Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC). The proposal is subject
to all applicable policies and regulations of the Jefferson County SMP.
Staff Comment: The proposal is subject to following sections of the SMP:
JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture
JCC 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria
JCC 18.25.230 through 18.25.250 (Article V) Shorelines of statewide significance
JCC 18.25.270 through 18.25.320 (Article VI) General policies and regulations
Each of these sections of the SMP are addressed below and staff has provided comments. It should
be noted that the applicant submitted responses to SMP regulations and those responses are included
in Exhibit 25.
JCC 18.25.440(1) presents polices pertaining to aquaculture. The following policies are applicable to
this proposal:
(a) Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is
important to the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of
Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: The proposal expands on an existing commercial operation and is consistent with
this policy.
(b) The county should support aquaculture uses and developments that:
(i) Protect and improve water quality; and
(ii) Minimize damage to important nearshore habitats; and
(iii) Minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters; and
(iv) Minimize the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, such as those resulting from in-water
structures/apparatus/equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate disturbance/modification
(including rate, frequency, and spatial extent).
Staff Comment: There may have been some turbidity to install the FLUPSY and cable and there is
the potential for some turbidity on a weekly basis when the bins and rafts are washed; however, this is
expected to be localized and of short duration. Since the FLUPSY is used to raise shellfish, the
proposal would be expected to protect water quality in the bay. Measures to protect water quality
include ensuring no unsuitable materials are discharged into the water, no toxic compounds are used,
and no petroleum products are released into the water.
Nearshore habitats are not expected to be damaged. The FLUPSY is located in an area that has been
used in the past for commercial aquaculture, it does not rest on subtidal substrates, and measures in
the Biological Assessment must be implemented (and are included as conditions of approval).
Recreational boats will still be able to use the water in the vicinity of the project area. Small boats
(such as kayaks) would be able to bypass the FLUPSY and float over the electrical cable. Larger
boats would be expected to use the deeper water in Dabob Bay.
Cumulative impacts have been addressed by the applicant and are expected to be minimal. The area
where the FLUPSY and cable were placed has been in aquaculture use and the proposal under review
supports existing operations.
(d) Aquaculture use and development should locate in areas where biophysical conditions, such as
tidal currents, water temperature and depth, will minimize adverse environmental impacts. Individual
aquaculture uses and developments should be separated by a sufficient distance to ensure that
significant adverse cumulative effects do not occur.
Staff Comment: Tarboo Bay has been in use for decades and is a productive area to raise shellfish.
Based on this, conditions in Tarboo Bay are appropriate for aquaculture. Placing the FLUPSY within
an area currently used for aquaculture minimizes the potential for adverse impacts.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 6 of 16
(j) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas including shellfish habitat conservation areas are
critical habitats. Shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and bedlands
are allowed uses. Such activities include but are not limited to bed marking, preparation, planting,
cultivation, and harvest.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy.
JCC 18.25.440(2) present uses and activities prohibited outright. This section of the SMP pertains to
in-water finfish aquaculture.
Staff Comment: In-water finfish aquaculture is not proposed.
JCC 18.25.440(3) identifies regulations for aquaculture by shoreline environment designation:
(a) Priority Aquatic. Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject o the use and development
regulations of the adjacent upland shoreline environment, except all finfish aquaculture (in-water
and upland) is prohibited.
(c) Natural. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to
policies and regulations of this program. Geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional
use permit (C(d)). All finfish aquaculture is prohibited, except in-water finfish aquaculture may be
allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)) where the area within the county’s jurisdiction extends
seaward more than eight miles from the OHWM, as measured perpendicularly from shore. This does
not require facilities to locate eight miles offshore; see other provisions of this section for siting
requirements and supplemental maps for additional information.
(d) Conservancy. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to
policies and regulations of this program. Geoduck and upland finfish aquaculture may be allowed
with a conditional use permit (C(d)). In-water finfish aquaculture is prohibited.
Staff Comment: The proposal is being reviewed against all applicable policies and regulations in the
SMP, including the shoreline substantial development criteria.
JCC 18.25.440(4) presents the shoreline regulations for aquaculture:
(a) When a shoreline permit is issued for a new aquaculture use or development, that permit shall
apply to the initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility or farm. If the
initial approval is a shoreline substantial development permit, it shall be valid for a period of five
years with a possible one-year extension. If the initial approval is a conditional use permit, it shall
be valid for the period specified in the permit.
Staff Comment: The shoreline substantial development permit is valid for five years.
(b) Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated in
any existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development, and shall not
require a new permit, unless or until:
(i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or more than
25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to the
conditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. If the
amount of expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10-year period,
the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable
permit requirements of this section; or.
(ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington.
Staff Comment: The shellfish farm, including actions taken since February 2014, is not increasing by
more than 25 percent; therefore, this provision does not apply to the current application.
(c) Aquaculture uses and activities involving hatching, seeding, planting, cultivating, raising and/or
harvesting of planted or naturally occurring shellfish shall not be considered development, as defined
in Article II of this chapter, and shall not require a shoreline substantial development permit, unless:
(i) The activity substantially interferes with normal public use of surface waters; or
(ii) The activity involves placement of any structures as defined in Article II of this chapter; or
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 7 of 16
(iii) The activity involves dredging using mechanical equipment such as clamshell, dipper, or
scraper; or
(iv) The activity involves filling of tidelands or bedlands.
Staff Comment: Structures are proposed and, therefore, this proposal requires a shoreline substantial
development permit.
(d) The county shall assess the potential for interference described in subsection (3)(c) of this section
on a case-by-case basis. All proposed new aquaculture uses or developments shall submit a joint
aquatic permit application (JARPA) and SEPA checklist to enable assessment by the county.
Activities shall not be considered to substantially interfere with normal public use of surface waters,
unless:
(i) They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of public tidelands; and
(ii) They involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar apparatus on a
regular basis and in a manner that substantially obstructs public access, or passage from public
facilities such as parks or boat ramps; or they exclude the public from more than one acre of
surface water on an ongoing or permanent basis.
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a JARPA and an Environmental Checklist, which were
noticed to agencies, tribes, and the public, and reviewed by the county. Based on the information
submitted, the proposal would not substantially interfere with normal public use of surface waters.
(e) Aquaculture activities not listed in subsection (4)(c) of this section and listed activities that fail to
meet any of the criteria in subsection (1)(b) of this section shall require a shoreline substantial
development permit (SDP) or conditional use (CUP), and shall be subject to all of the following
regulations:
(i) Subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures and apparatus associated with aquaculture
use shall be located, designed, and maintained to avoid adverse effects on ecological functions
and processes.
(ii) The county shall consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities/farms to prevent
adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and adjoining land uses. The
county shall determine what constitutes acceptable placement and concentration of commercial
aquaculture in consultation with state and federal agencies and tribes based on the specific
characteristics of the waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the vicinity of the farm/facility.
(iii) Upland structures accessory to aquaculture use that do not require a waterside location or
have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers
required by this program.
(iv) Overwater work shelters and sleeping quarters accessory to aquaculture use/development
shall be prohibited.
(v) Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed 10 feet in
height above the water’s surface. The administrator may approve hoists and similar structures
greater than 10 feet in height when there is a clear demonstration of need. The 10-foot height
limit shall not apply to vessels.
(vi) Floating/hanging aquaculture facilities and associated equipment, except navigation aids,
shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment in order to minimize
visual impacts.
(vii) Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation or access to
adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas. Mitigation shall
be provided to offset such impacts where there is a high probability that adverse impacts would
occur. This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that an operator is required to provide
access across owned or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners.
(viii) Aquaculture uses and developments, except in-water finfish aquaculture, shall be located at
least 600 feet from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion haulouts, seabird nesting
colonies, or other areas identified as critical feeding or migration areas for birds and mammals.
In-water finfish facilities, including net pens, shall be located 1,500 feet or more from such areas.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 8 of 16
The county may approve lesser distances based upon written documentation that U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and affected
tribes support the proposed location.
(ix) Aquaculture uses and development shall be sited so that shading and other adverse impacts
to existing red/brown macro algae (kelp), and eelgrass beds are avoided.
(x) Aquaculture uses and developments that require attaching structures to the bed or
bottomlands shall use anchors, such as helical anchors, that minimize disturbance to substrate.
(xi) Where aquaculture use and development are authorized to use public facilities, such as boat
launches or docks, the county shall reserve the right to require the applicant/proponent to pay a
portion of the maintenance costs and any required improvements commensurate with the
applicant’s/proponent’s use.
(xii) Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to control
birds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations.
(xiii) Aquaculture use and development shall avoid use of chemicals, fertilizers and genetically
modified organisms except when allowed by state and federal law.
(xiv) Non-navigational directional lighting associated with aquaculture use and development
shall be used whenever possible and area lighting shall be avoided and minimized to the extent
necessary to conduct safe operations. Non-navigational lighting shall not adversely affect vessel
traffic.
(xv) Aquaculture waste materials and by-products shall be disposed of in a manner that will
ensure strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including
but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water
Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW).
Staff Comment: The following addresses subsections (i) through (xv):
(i) Adverse impacts to the environment would not be expected if the FLUPSY were to be
permitted. The FLUPSY is not likely to alter or otherwise affect subtidal substrates, cause
turbidity, or result in the loss of eelgrass, kelp, forage fish habitat, or anadromous salmonid
passage. This proposal is subject to review under SEPA and DCD did not receive any comments
from federal or state agencies or from tribal representatives that would indicate the proposal may
have adverse effects on the shoreline environment if the FLUPSY and cable are retained in the
current location in Tarboo Bay.
(ii) Cumulative impacts were assessed as part of the review and there is no indication that this
proposal would result in adverse cumulative impacts to the shoreline environment (Exhibit 2).
The FLUPSY is located in an area that has been used to raise oysters for decades and would not
be a geographic expansion.
(iii) No new upland structures or other development are proposed. The electrical cable connects
in with a structure that has been in the shorelands for decades.
(iv) Not applicable as overwater shelters and sleep areas are not proposed.
(v) The FLUPSY has a maximum height of 30 inches above surface water. No portion of the
structure will be more than 10 feet above the surface of the water.
(vi) Based on the information submitted, no visual impacts would be expected. The FLUPSY is
made of aluminum with Trax decking. It has a low profile and is located in an area that has been
previously developed for aquaculture uses. The closest residential structure on private property
owned by others is approximately 0.25 mile from the FLUPSY.
(vii) The proposal is not expected to materially interfere with navigation, access to waterfront
properties, public recreational areas, or areas used by tribes so no mitigation was required. Rock
Point Oyster owns the intertidal and subtidal areas in the vicinity of the project area. The cable is
attached to the substrate and is not expected to affect navigation. The FLUPSY has a small
footprint relative to the size of the bay and would not be expected to be a barrier to navigation.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 9 of 16
(viii) The proposal is not within 600 feet of a National Wildlife Refuge, haul out location, nesting
colony, or critical feeding and migration areas (Exhibit 2). DCD did not receive any comments
during noticing that would indicate such areas are present in or near the project area.
(ix) The proposal avoids kelp and native eelgrass. Neither kelp nor eelgrass is mapped in the
project area on the Ecology Coastal Atlas, and neither was identified in the project area by the
project biologists (Exhibit 2).
(x) The FLUPSY is attached to the subtidal substrate using helical screw anchors or standard
claw anchors at each of the four corners.
(xi) Boats will be launched from a private dock that currently exists as part of the existing farm
operation. Use of public facilities is not proposed and, to ensure compliance with this regulation,
a condition has been added to the permit.
(xii) Predator control is not proposed, and the permit is conditioned to prohibit the use of lethal
and harmful predator control.
(xiii) Chemicals, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms are not proposed, and to ensure
compliance with this regulation, the permit is conditioned to prohibit the use of these substances
unless allowed by state and federal law.
(xiv) No noticeable light or glare is expected from this project as work will occur during daylight
hours. No lighting is proposed and the permit is conditioned to prohibit use of lighting at night.
(xv) Waste materials and by-products will be disposed of at upland facilities owned by Rock
Point Oyster. A permit condition is added to ensure that all unnecessary gear is removed from the
project area and disposed of at an approved off-site facility to ensure compliance with federal and
state requirements.
(f) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging aquaculture use and development or bottom
culture involving structures, the county may require a visual analysis prepared by the
applicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. The
analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively
mitigated.
Staff Comment: The proposal would be located in an area with low to no visibility from adjacent
residential parcels. The FLUPSY floats on the surface of the water and the maximum height is about
30 inches, which is not likely be a visual or aesthetic issue for those in the vicinity of the project area.
This proposal is not expected to have adverse impacts on the character of area.
JCC 18.25.440(6)(a) and (b) present application requirements for aquaculture.
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted all information needed to show compliance with SMP
requirements. As noted above, the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the character of the
area.
JCC 18.25.540 presents substantial development permit criteria: To be authorized, all uses and
developments shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with this program and
the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit,
statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required.
Staff Comment: The application was reviewed against all applicable sections of the SMP.
JCC 18.25.230(1) states: In accordance with RCW 90.58.020, the county shall manage shorelines of
statewide significance in accordance with this section and in accordance with this program as a
whole. Preference shall be given to uses that are consistent with the statewide interest in such
shorelines. Uses that are not consistent with this section or do not comply with the other applicable
policies and regulations of this program shall not be permitted on shorelines of statewide
significance.
Staff Comment: The proposal is a preferred use that is consistent with statewide interests. For this
reason, the department is recommending approval with conditions.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 10 of 16
JCC 18.25.230(2) provides requirement for approving a use or development within a shoreline of
statewide significance:
(a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest.
Staff Comment: As stated in JCC 18.25.440(1)(a), aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of
regional and statewide interest. This proposal is consistent with the above-referenced policy.
(b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
Staff Comment: The natural character of the shoreline is not expected to be altered by this proposal.
(c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
Staff Comment: The long-term benefit is the use of the shoreline for a preferred, water-dependent
commercial development. RCW 90.58.020 allows alteration of the natural shoreline condition for
this type of shoreline use.
(d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
Staff Comment: The proposal is not expected to alter shoreline resources or ecological conditions.
Any disturbances to the shoreline environment to insert anchors into the substrate would be of limited
duration and the disturbed sediments would be expected to settle in close proximity to the anchors.
(e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
Staff Comment: This proposal is not intended to increase public access as the project area consists of
private intertidal and subtidal land.
(f) Increase recreational opportunities of the public in the shorelines.
Staff Comment: The proposal is not intended to increase recreational opportunities, but those that
have existed would be able to continue.
(g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100.
Staff Comment: This RCW pertains to SMP contents and provisions; the proposal is consistent with
this section of the RCW.
JCC 18.25.240 designates shorelines of statewide significance.
Staff Comment: The proposal location meets subsection (2), which includes the waters of Hood
Canal between the OHWM and the line of extreme low tide south of the line between Tala Point and
Foulweather Bluff.
JCC 18.25.250 presents use preferences within shorelines of statewide significance.
(1) When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or
enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist;
Staff Comment: Restoration or enhancement is not proposed. However, the Biological Assessment
addresses measures to conserve the natural environment and the permit is conditioned to comply with
these measures.
(2) State and federal resource agencies, co-managers, and tribes, shall be consulted for development
proposals that affect anadromous fish, shellfish, marine birds, and other shoreline resources;
Staff Comment: The proposal was noticed to allow input from other agencies and interested parties.
No comments were received from federal or state agencies or from tribal staff that would indicate
shoreline resources may be adversely affected by the proposal if all permits are obtained and all
permit conditions are followed.
(3) Areas that are subject to commercial timber harvest pursuant to the Forest Practices Act and
RCW 90.58.150 should be reforested as soon as possible and in accordance with the Forest Practices
Act and the Forest and Fish Report.
Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal.
(4) Uses that are sustainable, that do not deplete natural resources, and that are compatible with
other approved uses shall be preferred over uses that do not have these qualities;
Staff Comment: Aquaculture is a preferred use and is assumed to be consistent with this provision of
the SMP.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 11 of 16
(5) Uses that provide long-term benefits shall be preferred over uses that provide only short-term
gains;
Staff Comment: This aquaculture proposal would provide long-term economic benefits and may
provide some level of water quality improvements.
(6) Uses that preserve aesthetic qualities shall be preferred over uses that impact aesthetic qualities;
Staff Comment: The proposal will extend up to about 30 inches above the water line and is not
expected to impact aesthetic qualities if the proposal is approved.
(7) Uses that require a shoreline location shall be preferred over non-water-related uses. Non-
water-related uses should be located outside the shoreline jurisdiction or in areas where they will not
interfere with or displace preferred uses or public access;
Staff Comment: This aquaculture proposal requires a shoreline location.
(8) Commercial shellfish beds, areas that support recreation and tourism, and other economic
resources of statewide importance shall be protected;
Staff Comment: The proposed aquaculture farm would be an economic resource.
(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;
Staff Comment: Excavation and land clearing are not proposed.
(10) All public access and recreation use and development shall be designed to protect the
ecological resources upon which such activities depend; and
Staff Comment: Public access and recreation are not proposed.
(11) Public and private development shall be encouraged to provide trails, viewpoints, water access
points and water-related recreation opportunities where conditions are appropriate for such uses.
Staff Comment: Not applicable to aquaculture applications.
JCC 18.25.270 addresses critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection.
Staff Comment: A Biological Assessment was submitted to address ecological protection. No
development is proposed in shoreline buffers.
JCC 18.25.280 addresses historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources.
Staff Comment: No comments were received from Washington Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation or the tribes. The area has been reviewed previously as part of federal
permitting and no resources were identified. The applicant has stated that if any inadvertent
discoveries are made, Rock Point Oyster will comply with applicable county regulations (Exhibit 2).
To ensure compliance, a condition pertaining to inadvertent discoveries has been added as a permit
conditions.
JCC 18.25.290 addresses public access.
Staff Comment: Aquaculture proposals are not required to provide public access.
JCC 18.25.300 addresses shoreline setbacks and height.
Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal.
JCC 18.25.310 addresses vegetation conservation.
Staff Comment: The proposal avoids native eelgrass and kelp, and is consistent with this provision.
No alteration of vegetation above OHWM is proposed.
JCC 18.25.320 addresses water quality and quantity.
Staff Comment: Subtidal sediment would have been disturbed to install the anchors, but water
quality and quantity were not likely negatively affected by installation nor will water quality or
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 12 of 16
quantity be negatively affected by routine cleaning/maintenance of the FLUPSY. Water quality
impacts from the FLUPSY and cable are expected to be negligible.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Based on the above findings, staff recommended conditions are presented below. These conditions may
be modified by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner and the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
1. The permittee shall obtain final approval from Washington State Department of Ecology prior to
beginning any work on this aquaculture proposal.
2. Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as described above shall
receive separate review from this Department.
3. The permittee is authorized to construct and operate a FLUPSY as part of existing aquaculture
operations.
4. Flood hazard reduction measures shall be used in compliance with the Jefferson County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 15.15 of the Jefferson County Code.
5. To comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Biological Opinion, the permittee
shall obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and shall comply with all conditions in
the federal permit, including those that pertain to protection of federally-listed species.
6. If public boat launches are needed to support existing operations, the applicants shall negotiate all
applicable fees with the public entity, including maintenance.
7. Chemicals and fertilizers are prohibited.
8. Active predator control was not proposed and is not approved for this aquaculture farm. Non-lethal
pest control techniques shall be used.
9. Toxic compounds shall not be used or come in contact with the marine environment.
10. All aquaculture gear shall be stored at an upland site and transported to the project area when ready
to be used. Equipment and unnecessary gear shall not be stored on the tidelands.
11. The permittee shall ensure that proper disposal of gear and trash occurs. Gear that is not immediately
needed shall be removed from the project area. All excess or unsecured materials and trash shall be
removed from the project area prior to the next incoming tide.
12. Skiffs shall be used in a manner that minimizes disturbance to marine flora and fauna.
13. Work at night was not proposed and use of lighting is not permitted.
14. Navigational lighting for night work was not proposed and is not permitted.
15. Vessels used within any waterbody, including wetlands, shall be inspected daily for leaks. The
permittee shall ensure all leaks are detected and repaired prior to the vessel leaving the staging area.
16. The permittee shall ensure skiffs do not drag anchors, chains, ropes, or other vessel equipment
through intertidal and subtidal substrates.
17. All gas-powered vehicles, including vessels, shall contain a spill kit.
18. Clearing, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities above ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
are prohibited.
19. The permittee shall ensure workers are adequately trained so that the aquaculture use complies with
all biological reports submitted to the county and with all permit conditions intended to protect the
natural shoreline environment
20. As required by other Conditions of Approval, the Permittee shall operate the Project as described in its application materials and supporting reports, and in compliance with other state or federal
permits issued for any aspect of this project, including without limitation the following
requirements and others added to provide clarity and transparency for the Permittee, County Staff, Project neighbors, and the general public, in any subsequent compliance or enforcement
matter: A. The Permittee shall label the FLUPSY with identification so that it can be more easily
identified if discovered to have moved from its initial location.
B. The Permittee has stated that the FLUPSY and electrical cable shall be used in Tarboo Bay to
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 13 of 16
raise oysters. The Permittee shall regularly update the inventory of all non-biodegradable gear and materials used as part of this aquaculture project (including without limitation plastic items),
categorizing the type, volume, location, and intended use of such materials. A copy of such
written inventory shall be submitted to the Shoreline Administrator, and placed in the Permit file, with updates provided as needed to keep the inventory current, at least on a semi-annual basis.
C. The Permittee shall clean the FLUPPSY at intervals of about once a week.
D. Oysters are to be harvested by hand.
E. Any installation activities undertaken in connection with this Project shall be conducted in
compliance with any applicable fish or habitat related work windows.
F. The Permittee shall determine if the FLUPSY has come loose in the Project area within 24
hours of storm events or king tide events or as soon as safe conditions exist, with the retrieval by
Permittee of the FLUPSY has escaped.
G. The Permittee shall retrieve any escaped equipment within 72 hours of the Permittee receiving
notification of the presence of the Permittee’s escaped equipment, or as soon as safe conditions
exist.
H. The Permittee is to provide contact numbers/email addresses for addressing and responding to
reports of any permit violations (including without limitation reports of escaped equipment), and
this information is to be regularly updated and posted on the Rock Point Oyster website, shared
with the County, and shared with individuals who request the contact information from the
Permittee.
21. All activities and development authorized by this permit shall be consistent with the approved
Project site plan and details included in the application materials, and compliant with current
County codes, state regulations, health and safety codes, and federal law applicable to any aspect
of the project or aquaculture operations, including without limitation all applicable standards and
regulations for aquaculture projects found in JCC 18.25.440.
22. The Permittee shall obtain any associated permit, lease, license, or approval required by any state,
federal, tribal, or other regulatory body with jurisdiction over any aspect of the project or
proposed aquaculture operations. Any conditions of regulatory agency permits, leases, licenses,
or approvals issued for any aspect of this project shall be considered conditions of approval for
this permit and are incorporated herein by this reference, including, without limitation terms of
any the permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
23. The Permittee shall comply with all professional report conclusions and recommendations
submitted in connection with the pending application for this project, as approved, referenced,
relied-upon, and/or modified by the County.
24. Filing with the Department of Ecology; no construction allowed until appeal periods (and
any appeals) have concluded. Consistent with WAC 173-27-190, it is expressly understood that
construction or development activities pursuant to this permit shall not begin and are not
authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology as
defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated
within twenty-one days from the date of such filing have been terminated; except as provided in
RCW 90.58.140(5)(a) and (b).
25. Term of Permit. Consistent with JCC 18.25.440(4), because this shoreline substantial
development permit is issued to authorize a new aquaculture use or development, this permit shall
apply to the initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility or farm, and
such approval shall be valid for a period of five years after the effective date of this permit;
provided, that the County’s Shoreline Administrator may authorize a single extension for a period
not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed
before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension has been given to parties of record
and the Department of Ecology. Any change to the time limits of this permit other than those
authorized by this Condition shall require a new permit application.
26. As explained in JCC 18.25.440(4)(b), ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or
changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not
considered new use/development, and shall not require a new permit, unless or until:
(i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or more than
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 14 of 16
25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to the
conditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. If the
amount of expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10-year period,
the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit
requirements of this section; or
(ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington.
27. JCC 18.25.780 provides that any shoreline permit issued by the County may be rescinded or
modified upon a finding by the hearing examiner that the permittee or their successors in interest
have not complied with conditions attached thereto, and that the administrator shall initiate
recession or modification proceedings by serving written notice of noncompliance to the
permittee or their successors and notifying parties of record at the original address provided in
application review files.
28. Violations of a Shoreline Permit, including any conditions of approval, are subject to enforcement
action by County or State officials, which can include substantial fines or penalties, abatement,
corrective action, or other remedies set forth in County Codes and state shoreline regulations.
Prepared by Project Planner Donna Frostholm, October 30, 2024.
SDP2024-00001 Rock Point Oyster Company Page 15 of 16
ATTACHMENT A:
EXIBIT LIST
ROCK POINT OYSTER: SDP2024-00001
EXHIBIT LIST
Item No:Item/description Date Type
1 Pre-application meeting notes 11/7/2023 A
2 Shoreline application 12/5/2023 A
3 Emails with representative: status of review 1/23 - 3/6/2024 G
4 Email: Marilyn Showalter, request to be a party of record, commnets & DCD reply 3/18/2024 G
5 Email: Sue Corbett, request to be a party of record & DCD reply 3/18/2024 G
6 Email: Jan Wold, request to be a party of record & DCD reply 3/18/2024 G
7 Emails with representative: schedule notice of application 3/21 - 4/2/2024 N
8 Certificate: notice of application 4/2/2024 N,S
9 Affidavit of posting 4/4/2024 N,S
10 Email: DNR comment and follow up 4/3/2024 C
11 Emails with rep: requested a meeting at end of comment period 4/10/2024 G
12 Email: Ecology comment 5/2/2024 C
13 Email: Showalter comments 5/3/2024 C
14 Email: Corbett comments 5/3/2024 C
15 Email: Wold comments 5/3/2024 C
16 Email: representative requesting comments 5/7/2024 G
17 Email: DCD reply email to representative 5/14/2024 G
18 Email: Showalter comment erratum 5/23/2024 G
19 Email: Request for Additional Information 5/29/2024 G
20 Email: Communications with rep in June 6/4 - 6/12/2024 G
21 Email: Property owner communictions with Assessor's Office 5/30/2024 G
22 Email: Response to comments and additional information requires 6/15/2024 A
23 Affidavit of publication N,S
24 Email: Communications with representative in July 7/17 - 7/23/2024 G
25 Email: Meeting Notes and Applicant Responses 7/29 - 7/30/2024 G
26 Email: Communications with representative in August 8/12 - 16/2024 G
27 SEPA Threshold Determination 8/20/2024 S
28 Email: Communication with representative in September 9/5 - 18/2024 S
29 Emails: Schdule public hearing 9/19 - 23/2024 G
30 Emails: Coordinate public hearing 10/16/2024 G
31 Emails: Send case file to Office of the Hearing Examiner 10/25/2024 G
32 Emails: Public hearing communications with Represenative 10/28 - 30/2024 G
33 Emails: Communications with Office of the Hearing Examiner 10/28 - 30/2024 G
34 Notice of Public Hearing 10/28 - 30/2024 N
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Key to Types
A = Application L = Maps
C = Comments N = Notices
G = General R = Reports
S = SEPA
H:\exhibit lists\exhibit list rp 1 of 1