Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP2024-00006 Robert Carson SEPA Appeal Rock IslandMARILYN SHOWALTER RECEIVED 1596 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 maril n.showalte nail.com 360-259-1700 JUN 1 2025 JEFFERSON COUNTY June 10, 2025 COMMISStONERS The Honorable Gary McLean Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Jefferson County Washington c/o Carolyn Galloway carolvn@co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Hearing Examiner McLean: Re: SDP2024-00006 Rock Island (Robert Carson) SEPA Appeal On June 2, 2025, I filed a Notice of SEPA Appeal in the above -entitled case, on behalf of Jan Wold and myself. I make the following requests: 1) Please post filings, including correspondence (e.g., this letter), in this matter within 24 hours of receiving them, in an online folder with a unique url. Distribute notices and orders immediately. Good administrative hygiene is important for several reasons: it enables the public to be aware of the goings-on in a public proceeding; it avoids the misleading appearance of a lack of records or new filings when those records in fact exist; it avoids the cumbersome and labor-intensive process of requesting and fulfilling public -records requests; and it reduces the chance that public records, including pleadings and orders, will be "lost" or not acted upon, when action is required. (As you know, this happened in another case, MLA19-00036, when an order to return a fee was never posted or distributed. The fee still has not been returned.) 2) Please schedule a pre -hearing conference, in order to: a. Discuss whether it's practical to brief and decide certain procedural issues (e.g., notice requirements) that might obviate the need for further hearing examiner proceedings. If so, set a briefing schedule. b. If (a) is not feasible, discuss hearing date, time needs, mechanics, and other requirements for the hearing. I understand that a hearing date of July 25 was tentatively selected before I filed the Notice of SEPA Appeal. If so, I request another date, as that week is the only full week I'm unavailable —for family obligations. c. Arrange for a list of parties of record to be transferred and maintained by the Office of the Hearing Examiner, if that has not already been accomplished. Thank you, Manly lio ter Contact for Appellants cc: Donna Frostholm, Phil Hunsucker, Jesse DeNike JEFFERSON COUNTY J30c NO. DATE RECEIVED FROM '11r] Ji'L�- 1J I� DESCRIPTION BARS p AMOUNT CURRENCY COIN CHECKS O0 (r 11 r} r ``�� Uh VL S 2, 6 RECEIVED RY a" TOTAL MARILYN G SHOWALTER STEVEN H AOS 1698 SHINE ROAD 360-259-1700 PT LUDLOW, WA 98365 11. Jun G -Ap Dime Pay to the Order of ¢�`F �%Z1 COV T y _ ! / !]�F�r1 GV_S EG ��N sI NDR E D AND L; ColumbiaBank 8oulsba 78 cola biabanA com For SrAA A 9964�_ 1: 1 2 5 108 2 7 21: 1 1D 17 2 50 10113 1437 34-827/T251 1093 HECK ARM06 �00 s isWpwrte I Dele�f onbw NIP 1�,37 n C m m 0 0 RECEIVED JUN 0 3 2025 JEFFERSON COUNTY NOTICE OF APPEAL COMMISSIONERS SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFCANCE (MDNS) FILE NUMBER: SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish (Robert Carson) JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON FULL NAMES: Marilyn Grace Showalter and Janet (Jan) Wold CONTACT, MAILING ADDRESS, AND EMAIL ADDRESS: Marilyn Showalter 1596 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 marilyn.sliowalter@jzmail.com 360-259-1700 FILE NUMBER: SDP 24-00006 DOCUMENT APPEALED: MDNS attached. STATEMENT OF INTEREST Marilyn Showalter I live on Shine Road on property I've owned for almost 50 years (since 1976). My property fronts on Squamish Harbor, Hood Canal, about a half -mile west of the parcels at issue in the MDNS. I am concerned that procedural requirements have not been met in this case, including a failure to notify me, as requested. I'm concerned about the enforceability of shellfish gear provisions, having picked up dozens of HDPE tubes in front of my property. And I'm concerned about the fire hazard posed by the structures and their contents on the subject parcels. (A serious fire occurred just up the hill from the project area in 2024, during a drought.) I'm concerned that there has been insufficient analysis of the project area. Jan Wold, POB 1340 Poulsbo, WA 98370, j^creek ,hotmail.com I live on Shine Road on property I have owned for twelve years. My property is about one mile west of this proposed commercial shellfish farm. My property fronts Squamish Harbor and Hood Canal and includes the adjacent tidelands. I am concerned about the insufficient analysis and procedural deficiencies in the processing of this Jefferson County permit and how my ability to provide public input on the permitting is adversely affected. I am concerned about the impact on the habitat on the shoreline and on the tidelands, threatened and endangered species, aesthetics (including visually from the water and from the eastern portion of the Hood Canal Floating Bridge), eelgrass, kelp, forage fish, unstable slopes, plastic pollution and especially public safety and the fire hazard caused by the debris, buildings and propane containers along this dead end road with steep slopes. CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS FOR APPEAL A. PROCEDURAL: The MDNS Does Not and Cannot Show Compliance with Procedural Requirements Every shoreline permit must be accompanied by demonstration of compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Compliance with SEPA, including all review or waiting periods, is required before a decision on an application can be made. Shoreline Permitting Manual, p. 43/69 1706029.pdf 1. The Notice of Application(NOA) is deficient in multiple critical particulars and does not comply with WAC 173-27-110, ACC 18.40.190,, and RCW 36.70B110 a) It is titled with the wrong case number, misleading the viewer at the outset. b) The deadline for commenting is a date more than two months earlier than the date of the notice, resulting in no comment period. c) The above two errors stand and draw the viewer's eye because they are bolded. d) There is no email address provided for commenting and no indication that emailed comments are allowed. e) The implication from the information that is provided is that comments must be mailed by snail mail, which is incorrect. f) The url given to view the (wrongly numbered) case file leads to a page that simply lists all Jefferson County departments. Image A, attached. g) Another url provided at the end of the NOA "for more information" leads to a non -operative page that says "We're sorry, but there is not a web page matching your entry." Image B, attached. h) If one uses the Jefferson self-help portal and goes to either the incorrect (SDP2024-00001) or the correct (SDP2024-00006) file number, there are no records --only a message that says "no records to display." i) There is a backwards sentence that states "if the permit is approved," conditions will be developed to mitigate adverse impacts, instead of stating that conditions may be developed and considered before the permit is recommended or approved. j) The NOA incorrectly states that "Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court." Hearing Examiner decisions under SMA must be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board. k) The NOA states, again, in another part of the NOA that "Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court." Appeal is to the Shorelines Hearings Board. 1) The NOA fails to state, as required by WAC 197-11-355, RCW 36.70B.110, and JCC 18.40.190, other permits known by the County to be required. The County is fully aware, as documented in many cases, including this one, that the Applicant will need, at a minimum, permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the state Department of Health, and the state Department of Ecology. m) The County failed to send the NOA to at least one person who expressly requested, in writing, before issuance of the NOA, to be informed of any application for aquaculture tied to the Applicant's property. 2. The Countv was twice advised of some deficiencies et failed to a -Issue the NOA I informed DCD of errors a, b, i, j, and 1, above on August 29, 2024, and November 14, 2024. DCD neither responded to me nor re -issued the NOA. There have been many months of time during which a correct NOA could have been issued without holding up any proceedings. At this point, one must regard these errors as deliberately adopted —or at least knowingly ignored. 3. The MDNS's appeal requirements are incorrect incomplete, and confusin The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Procedural Rules provide: RULE 3 PRE -HEARING PROCEDURES 3_1 Notice of Appeal (a) Purpose and Timing. A notice of appeal, together with the appropriate appeal fee, shall be filed with the examiner's office within 15 days of the date of the administrative decision. For enforcement actions under Chapter 8.90 JCC (Public Nuisances) an appeal or hearing fee shall not be required to file an appeal or hearing. However, the examiner may assign the costs of the hearing or appeal after the hearing. (b) Content ofNotice of Appeal. A notice of appeal from an administrative decision shall, at a minimum contain the following information: (1) full name; (2) mailing address; (3) e-mail address (if available); (4) file number, license number, or other identifying number; (5) a copy of any decision, license, order, or other administrative decision; (6) a concise statement of the factual and legal basis for the appeal citing specifically the alleged errors in the administrative official's decision; and, (7) the specific relief sought. The notice provisions in the MDNS fail to comply with Rule 3.1 and JCC 2.30.100 and are otherwise confusing or conflicting in the following ways: a) In one place, the MDNS says an appeal must be submitted to DCD at DCD's office. In another place, it says the appeal must be delivered to "the Administrator," with no name or address given. But Hearing Examiner Rule 3.1(a) instructs the appeal to be filed "with the examiner's office." These instructions need to be reconciled with a cogent provision of when, where, and to whom the notice may be lawfully delivered. b) Delivery of a SEPA appeal to the custody of DCD, which is the opposing party of the appeal, would be a violation conflict -of -interest and appearance of fairness rules. See JCC 2.30.060 and Chapter 42.36 RCW. c) The MDNS requires the notice of the SEPA appeal to establish "standing." This is a legal term and a requirement that was repealed by Ordinance 12-19. The previous bullet in the MDNS already requires a statement of the appellant's interest. Adding the repealed provision is confusing and not authorized. d) The MDNS fails to state that a copy of the challenged decision is required to be included with the notice of the SEPA appeal, as required by Hearing Examiner Procedural Rule 3.1(b)(5). This actively misleads a would-be appellant into filing a flawed appeal. e) The MDNS states that the appeal must be "signed" by the Appellant. This is not a requirement of Rule 3.1 and can be particularly onerous when multiple people or organizations are appealing. DCD has no authority to prescribe this requirement. 4. The County was advised of some of the same deficiencies in another MDNS, vet failed to issue a correct MDNS in this or that ease. More than a year ago, I pointed out some of these same deficiencies in an MDNS in MLA19- 00036, including a copy of Hearing Examiner Procedural Rule 3.1. (DCD did not respond.) Thus, DCD has had plenty of notice and time to ensure that the instant MDNS is correct, with no slow -down of the process. In addition, prior to the issuance of this MDNS, I wrote on May 10, 2025, a letter to DCD and the Hearing Examiner, outlining several other procedural problems and requesting a review and more faithful adherence to lawful procedure by DCD and the Office of the Hearing Examiner. Further, this MDNS is actually the second one issued. The first one had an appeal deadline of six days hence. I wrote to DCD informing it of that and several other errors. A new MDNS was issued (the instant one), changing the deadline but not correcting other errors. One must conclude, then, that the procedural provisions in this MDNS were deliberately chosen. As such, DCD cannot claim in good faith that it has complied with SEPA procedural requirements. 4 B. SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS Substantively, the MDNS tries way too hard to avoid (but can't avoid) evaluating pertinent upland conditions on the parcels of which the tidelands are "part and parcel," —and all of which are within the shoreline buffer. In addition, the listed conditions relating to compliance in oystering are vague and not effectively enforceable. 1. Current use of the upland portions of Carson's parcel requires review under SMA and SEPA. MDNS Condition 1 provides: 1. Use of the three upland parcels immediately adjacent to the project area and owned by the project proponent would trigger a review by Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) that includes a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. (Emphasis added.) DCD acknowledges, then, that uses in the future would trigger review. But the future is now. Carson has already cleared land, erected structures, stored valuable materials, stored propane tanks, parked vehicles, and slept on the property, to name just a few uses. All are within Shoreline Developmentjurisdiction. (All of Carson's parcels lie wholly within the shoreline buffer.) Both the Applicant and DCD appear to want to turn a blind eye to this reality, by limiting their view (and review) to the waterward part of the parcels. This is a crimped and unjustified interpretation of the SMA and SMP, but even under this interpretation, the trigger has already been pulled. In any event, the uplands are part of the project area and must be evaluated, including a site visit by DCD, as part of the application process. Of relevance: a) The recorded deeds and REETs for each of the three Carson parcels include both upland and tidal areas. b) Documents in the Application recognize that the "project area" includes the uplands, which include unstable banks. Image C. As DCD says in Log Item 1, page 2: Geologically hazardous areas: The shoreline above OHWM is mapped as a geologically hazardous area. If any clearing, grading, or other ground -disturbing activities would occur above OHWM to weld the shellfish gear, a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional will be required. c) Google Map Pro and Jeffco Parcel Map show a continuous expansion of use and development over the years Carson or his mother owned the property, including since Robert Carson has owned it. Images D, E, and F (partial chain of dated photos). d) A large structure holding 10 double -size solar panels sits at the top of a bank less than 65 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Image G. e) A "shipping container" -type structure has been installed on the property. There may be other structures, as well, and there are fenced storage areas. Images H— J. 1 f) Electricity is supplied to at least one of the structures. Image H. g) Carson appears to have ordered the construction of a structure from a commercial provider in 2022. (Jefferson Sheriff's photo can be provided.) h) At least one of the structures, an outdoor area, and a van have been used to store propane tanks and gas cans. Images K— M. i) Fire protection would be difficult, at best, as the parcels are at the bottom of a dead- end hairpin road, in a location where construction is prohibited. Image D. j) As of December 10, 2024, the property was used to store jewelry with an estimated value of $11,000.2 (Jefferson Sheriff's info can be provided.) k) Even after the date of the MDNS, Carson appears to be still using the property, when he was seen on it, and when a small white car was seen driving away from the dead- end area, on May 30, 2025. In addition to being subject generally to the SMA, Carson's parcels are further constrained by being a Critical Area and in a "Shoreline of Statewide Significance." JCC 18.25.240. As such, under JCC 18.25.250 (1) and (9): When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist; Uses that have the potential to cause significant erosion and sedimentation due to excavation, land clearing, or other activities shall be strictly regulated to prevent adverse impacts to shoreline functions and processes; (Emphasis added.) ' Images H — M are from a Jefferson County Sheriff s investigation of a world -wide -reported theft, in which Mr. Carson was the victim. (The perpetrators tried to escape in a sinking dinghy with no oars. Jewelry thieves arrested affer SUV crash leads to rowboat escape on Port Gamble Bay I received these photos in response to a public records request for records related to Mr. Carson's parcels. They had already been released to the media. I'd like to take this opportunity to state that I have met Mr. Carson once and found him pleasant and kind. In my opinion, the County has done him a disservice by failing to confront and resolve the procedural and upland issues that are part and parcel (literally) of this application process. 0 2. Before a valid SEPA determination can issue, DCD and the Applicant must resolve these upland issues. The current process should be suspended until all upland structures or uses within the shoreline buffer (i.e., all of them) are either removed or terminated; issued a permit or letter of exemption; or folded into and analyzed, including a site visit, as part of this permit process. (For a similar dynamic, see RBLD.2023-00013, Seven Sisters, requiring remediation or an approved remediation plan before continuing to next step under permit.) 3. MDNS Condition 3 is vazue, not referenced, and not effectively enforceable without more precision. Condition 3 provides: The project proponent shall comply with all terms and conditions of the programmatic consultation to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species and critical habitat. This condition lacks specificity. What consultation? The document itself should be cited, as should page numbers of "all terms and conditions" and "listed species and critical habitat." 4. MDNS Condition 4 is likewise vague, with no reference and no time -window for compliance. Condition 4 provides: All relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be implemented. Where are these "measures" and who determines whether they are "relevant"? How will compliance with them be enforced? These questions must be answered. 5. MDNS Condition 5 cannot be effectively enforced Condition 5 provides: Record -keeping logs for materials retrieved within the project area as well as those for spills and cleanups shall be maintained, and made available to Jefferson County if requested. There is no way to ensure that these records are ever made, let alone maintained. If the County requests and receives some records, it has no way of knowing whether there could and should have been other required records. Further, there is no obligation for the County to ask for any records. The way to cure this problem is to require records to be kept AND require them to be submitted to the County and posted on a regular basis. 7 SPECIFIC RELIEF SOUGHT: The Hearing Examiner is requested to declare the MDNS legally insufficient and clearly erroneous for both procedural and (if necessary) substantive reasons, and to grant such other relief as may be appropriate. STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE: We do not believe this statement and our signatures are required, but nonetheless, the above information is true and correct to the best of our knowledge. .M rilyn Showalter Date 4an zWold Date Submitted June 3, 2025, accompanied by a check payable to Jefferson County for $1400.00 Attachments: Images A — M Notice of Application Annotated MDNS Amptated �o� C / e a h Ms MDNS Clean IMAGE A From the NOA: "The application submittal and related documents are available online:" b=s:/ItcaLr,o.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExtenial/Browse.aspx?id=5992344&dbidfQ&reW=Jefferson L—rf%hWebL,k H-- jeff—an 2 Entry Pr.p-- Path 'Creation d- - -1 AW L —.dir,ed L, C.—n., .­—y Ndusln¢Faafllres O,d-- •4-71. 3 ;V E-- 1. AKtlavils —IN C— number CSO Description Fl,,Ied Date 11— 1 Surveys Fl- Name Issued Last N— s—ILC W—I MlA S.-- C—Web Documents l Number T— ..... Permits -Document iU - D-111t TYpI Pr.)N. . 511—d—I —Ilpt— P-11 N.—I PIIIIII - DIC.1— TYPI IMAGE B From the NOA: "For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page at"www.co. *efferson.wa.us/com mdevelogm en -6 IMAGE C From Log Item 3 (Application), SDP2024-0006, page 78/103 (Includes uplands) Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https: www.goople.com/maps/047.86583919999999(i-122.63897102403662.142 -- _� I Counties: Jefferson County, Washington IMAGE D Google Earth Pro Image dated 5-19-2019 10 IMAGE E Google Maps, Screenshot June 1, 2025. White line is 100 feet. IMAGE F Jefferson County Parcel Map, screenshot June 1, 2025 11 IMAGE H Storage Structure with Electrical Conduit Photo by Jefferson Co Sherrif s department, December 10, 2024 13 } v. �a• r+ ,. .�G`. �-%.� � �tiii�F.i'H _rtr"r r0 •- •, �- -i� .• - - - _ - - IMAGE J Uses include equipment storage Photo by Jefferson Co-Sherrif's department, December 10, 2024 15 IMAGE L Another angle: cooking equipment, tires, fuel tanks 17 IMAGE M Van, fuel tank, electrical wire. Photo by Jefferson Co Shen if s department, December 10, 2024 18 IMAGE N From drone video by Sheriff s office December 10, 2025, via KOMO news 19 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION SDP2024-00001 APPLICANT: ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH P.O. BOX 181 PORT GAMBLE, WA 98364 Application Received Date: June 3, 2024 Application Complete Date: June 27, 2024 Application Notice Date: July 10, 2024 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: HOOD CANALTIDELANDS AT PARCELS 965100009, 965100010, AND 965100011 (LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF KILLAPIE BEACH ROAD) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea) within private tidelands in Squamish Harbor in a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets, a near -bottom culture system, will be installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between +4 feet to -4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres (of the six -acre project area). Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) receive notice of and participate in any hearings; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Comments concerning this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on May 3, 202 the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff report The application submittal and related documents are available arilir5ey Commented [M51]: This is the wrong file number, misleading the viewer from the get -go. The correct one is SDP2024-00006. Commented [M52]: The comment deadline is a date preceding the date of the NOA. Note that the date is bolded in the NOA. So, the two figures that stand out in bold thus far are the wrong case number and a d — th t' d nt —iole to meet htl Jltestno.'eflerson.wa.uslWeblinkFacternallBrowse.a 'd=599P3448u1bid=0 =Jeff rsgrh ea ne a hs wrong an i p Commented [M53]: There is no email address here or anywhere in the NOA There is no indlcation that SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: comments are permitted to be sent by email. It The optional DNS process of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) appears that they must be mailed by snail mail. 197-11-355 is being used. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the Commented ]M541: This ud leads to a fist of county proposal. DCD reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. departments. Armed with the wrong case number (and This determination is based upon a review of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available even with the right one), a person would have a very difficult time finding the case. information. The SEPA Official has determined that: If the proposal is approved, policies and performance standards found in the Jefferson County Code and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will be used to form permit conditions intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts Additional conditions or mitigation measures maybe required under SEPA. If the threshold determination is a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) or a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS), parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examinerwithin 14 days of the final Notice of Decision. A Determination of Significance (DS) may not be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: This is a Type III permit application. An open record hearing will be scheduled and separate public notice will be provided at least 15 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven calendar days prior to such a hearing. APPEALS: The final permit decision for this Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to SupenorCourr. Project Planner: Donna Frosthohn, 360-379-,M66 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page a[� www. co.l a ffe rS on.wa.0 sic om m dev Mop m e nV Commented [MS5]: This sentence makes no sense. It says that conditions for the permit v A be developed after the proposal is approved. That puts the cart before the horse, and leads the viewer to think there is a later stage when conditions are developed. Commented [MS6]: This is incorrect. SMA SEPA decisions by the Hearing Examiner must be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Commented [MS7]: This is Incorrect. SMA decisions by the Hearing Examiner must be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Commented [MS8]: Again, there is no email address that might be used to send In comments. But in any event, for more information, the reader is directed to use a websde. Commented [MS9]: This url Is non operative. Clicking on it leads to a screen that says, 'we're sorry, but there is not a web page matching your entry.' (See attached screen shot.) "The application submittal and related documents are available pnline:' htl •Iltest.ro. efferson.wa.usMlebhnkExtemaVBrawse.as mid=59923"&dbid=0&re -Jefferson µ••aim - a[omrowm: Yrs . _ rwLSVKa Ye 'L]fw+yMwew.wMin.wy,r�r.w�nP,Fe. Yrs .•�wfm _a v�a"e5u�rrss Yes i w u hweais6r+mmp' rs p weeewMs Yrs wa Przprwarom wroomurtn" ns • m.�-.rye. ._n.uu.� m Commented [NISI01: This urt bads to a Ilst of county departments. Armed with the wrong case number (and even with the right one), a person would have a very t dlfficuk time find Irtq the case. "For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page a L� Commented [MSII]; This url Is non operative. www.co.iefin!rson.wa.uslcommdeveloament! Clicking on it bads to a screen that says, Wre sorry, but Otero Is not a web page matching your entry.' (See attached screen shot,) 5ON �b1 JEFFERSON COUNTY y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e 621 Sheridan Street t Port Townsend, WA 98368 a 360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us gs4ft!aGtn~ www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: May 20, 2025 FILENUMBER: SDP2024-00006 PROPONENT: Rock Island Shellfish (Robert Carson) P.O. Box 181 Port Gamble, WA 98364 PROPOSAL: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassoslrea sikalnea) within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets, a near -bottom culture system, will be installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between +4 feet to 42 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres (of the six -acre project area). Native eelgrass (Zosrera Inarina) occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist The proposal is immediately adjacent to three parcels owned by the applicant. No upland activity related to this aquaculture application is proposed on the three subject parcels, PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed aquaculture farm would be located below ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in Hood Canal (in private tidelands waterward of parcels 965100090, -010, and -011), just west of the Hood Canal Bridge LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Assessor's shows the project area as tidelands. NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above -described proposal. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1, Use ofthe three upland parcels immediately adjacent to the projectke4and owned by the oroleel proponent would trigger a review by Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) that includes a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 1 Use of any other upland site in Jefferson County requires a review by DCD that may trigger a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 1 The project proponent shall comply with all terms and conditions ofthe programmatic �,onsultatioaj to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species and critical habitat. 4. Alt relev= shellfish culture conservation measures adapted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be �mplrtnen;� Commented [FAS1]: The tidelands are included in the legal description of parcel numbers 965I00090, -010, and - 011. The MDNS appears to be trying to avoid focus on the upland parts of these parcel numbers by putting legal distance between the uplands and the tidelands, when they are part of the same legal parcel, as shown by Auditor's and Treasurer's recorded documents Commented IMS2]: Here again, the County is trying to segregate off a part of the legal parcels, in order to avoid having to deal with what is going on in the upland sections These upland sections ARE being used already, as many County documents show, ways that do not comply with the Shoreline Management Art. The future "would trigger" is here already, and the uses of the upland portions of the parcels need to be evaluated as part of the Application Commented [MS3]- This is too vague a term. What consultation? How does one find it, and how does one find all the terms and conditions? There needs to be specificity of the document(s), including citation(s), and there needs to be a more specific reference to terms and conditions Commented [MS4]: This phrasing it too vague "All"? Where are these found? Now of in the future? Also, use of the passive voice "shall be implemented" leaves room for ambiguity and argument 5, Record -keeping logs for materials 61ri within the 'ect area as well as those fors ills and cleanu s shall be maintained, and madep%ailabte to Jefferson County ifregtaes 6. All gas -powered vehicles, including vessels, shall contain a spill kit 7. Derelict gear from a previous shellfish�perabn shall be transported toanapproved off -site ragility. NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS): Jefferson County has determined that the above -described proposal, conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson County Codes and Ordinances, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Development Review Division. COMMENT PERIOD: This MONS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-1 I-355, Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non -significance. There is no further comment period on the DNS. APPEAL PERIOD: Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provision of Chapter 43.21c RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) must be submitted in writing by 4:30 p, m, on June 3, 2025 to the Jefferson County Development Review Division (Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368) for consideration by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Per JCC 18.40,810(3), the decision ofthe responsible official on Type II and III permits making athreshold determination of a MDNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to die Hearing Examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the Hearing Examiner, who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing as further set forth in Article IV of this chapter. The responsible official's MDNS may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or anyone commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal (as further set forth in JCC 18.40.810)_ The appeal must be in writing, in conformance with JCC 18.40.330(3), and be filed within 14 calendar days after the threshold determination is issued. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.7013. 1 10(6)(d)). Comunented [PASS]: Too vague. What materials? What kinds of materials? What kinds of records? What in the minimum information required to be kept in the record? J Commented [MS6]: Records required to be kept should also be required to be submitted to the County periodically That is the only effective and accountable way (for both the Applicant and the County) to make sure the records are !•rug seated end contain the nWopriale information Commented ]MS7]: Much of this gear is uplaod,lust nahfnming the integration of uplands and tidelands A notice of appeal shall be delivered tothe[-Unnuistmiotiby mail or by mmnat d0verL, and must be received 1by 4:30 p,m. Commented 1NIS81: Who is -die Administrator"? A fuller on the last business day ofthe appeal period, with the required appeal fee of$1,400. name, title, and address should be provided, if in fact this the appropriate person to receive then Cat. The notice ofappeal shall contain a concise statement identifying: • The decision being appealed and the identification of the application which is the subject ofthe appeal; • The name, address, and phone number oftlie appellant and his/her interest in the matter; • Appellanfs statement describing standing to appeal (i.e., how he/she is affected by or interested in the decision); • The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong, The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; The desired outcome or changes to the decision; and A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, signed by the appellant. Any notice of appeal not in full compliance with this Section shall not be considered Y� /_�,) - ,�On=j [lire. -Official Date linll A RCspOnsiplC �Ll SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION SDP2024-00001 APPLICANT: ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH P.O. BOX 181 PORT GAMBLE, WA 98364 Application Received Date: June 3, 2024 Application Complete Date: June 27, 2024 Application Notice Date: July 10, 2024 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: HOOD CANALTIDELANDS AT PARCELS 965100009, 965100010, AND 965100011 (LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF KILLAPIE BEACH ROAD) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea) within private tidelands in Squamish Harbor in a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets, a near -bottom culture system, will be installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between +4 feet to -4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres (of the six -acre project area). Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) receive notice of and participate in any hearings; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Comments concerning this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on May 3, 2024. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff report. The application submittal and related documents are available online: httpsJltest.co.iefferson.wa. uslWeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=5992344&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The optional DNS process of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355 is being used. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. DCD reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. This determination is based upon a review of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available information. The SEPA Official has determined that: If the proposal is approved, policies and performance standards found in the Jefferson County Code and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will be used to form permit conditions intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Additional conditions or mitigation measures may be required under SEPA. If the threshold determination is a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) or a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS), parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the final Notice of Decision. A Determination of Significance (DS) may not be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: This is a Type III permit application. An open record hearing will be scheduled and separate public notice will be provided at least 15 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven calendar days prior to such a hearing. APPEALS: The final permit decision for this Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. Project Planner: Donna Frostholm, 360-379-4466 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community web page at www.co.iefferson.wa.uslcommdevelo meat! ON COAL JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us 9r111 N�www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: May 20, 2025 FILE NUMBER: SDP2024-00006 PROPONENT: Rock Island Shellfish (Robert Carson) P.O. Box 181 Port Gamble, WA 98364 PROPOSAL: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea) within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets, a near -bottom culture system, will be installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between +4 feet to -4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres (of the six -acre project area). Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. The proposal is immediately adjacent to three parcels owned by the applicant. No upland activity related to this aquaculture application is proposed on the three subject parcels. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed aquaculture farm would be located below ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in Hood Canal (in private tidelands waterward of parcels 965100090, -010, and -011), just west of the Hood Canal Bridge. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Assessor's map shows the project area as tidelands. NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above -described proposal. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Use of the three upland parcels immediately adjacent to the project area and owned by the project proponent would trigger a review by Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) that includes a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 2. Use of any other upland site in Jefferson County requires a review by DCD that may trigger a shoreline permit and additional SEPA review. 3. The project proponent shall comply with all terms and conditions of the programmatic consultation to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species and critical habitat. 4. All relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be implemented. 5. Record -keeping logs for materials retrieved within the project area as well as those for spills and cleanups shall be maintained, and made available to Jefferson County if requested. 6. All gas -powered vehicles, including vessels, shall contain a spill kit. 7. Derelict gear from a previous shellfish operation shall be transported to an approved off -site facility. NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS): Jefferson County has determined that the above -described proposal, conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson County Codes and Ordinances, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Development Review Division. COMMENT PERIOD: This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non -significance. There is no further comment period on the DNS. APPEAL PERIOD: Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provision of Chapter 43.21 c RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) must be submitted in writing by 4:30 p.m. on June 3, 2025 to the Jefferson County Development Review Division (Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368) for consideration by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Per JCC 18.40.810(3), the decision of the responsible official on Type I1 and III permits making a threshold determination of a MDNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the Hearing Examiner, who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing as further set forth in Article IV of this chapter. The responsible official's MDNS may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or anyone commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal (as further set forth in JCC 18.40.810). The appeal must be in writing, in conformance with JCC 18.40.330(3), and be filed within 14 calendar days after the threshold determination is issued. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.70B.I 10(6)(d)). A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the Administrator by mail or by personal delivery, and must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period, with the required appeal fee of $1,400. The notice of appeal shall contain a concise statement identifying: • The decision being appealed and the identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; • The name, address, and phone number of the appellant and his/her interest in the matter; ■ Appellant's statement describing standing to appeal (i.e., how he/she is affected by or interested in the decision); ■ The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; • The desired outcome or changes to the decision; and • A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, signed by the appellant. Any notice of appeal not in full compliance with this Section shall not be considered. Gres Bali d "PA Responsible Official Date SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish 2