Shaw Island residents say county’s EPF decision rests on incomplete SEPA review; county to propose MDNS clarifications

San Juan County’s Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for a proposed public-works maintenance yard on Shaw Island drew sustained criticism during an appeal hearing, where residents and experts said the county’s SEPA review lacked crucial data on soil contamination, runoff pathways, invasive-plant spread, traffic impacts and wildfire risk.

The appellants called witness Ray Glaze, a Shaw Island resident of about 27 years and a former volunteer firefighter and member of local technical advisory groups. Glaze told the examiner he submitted multiple letters and presentations opposing the essential public facility (EPF) siting and that the county’s SEPA materials left many questions unanswered. “I think I counted 40… insufficiencies,” Glaze said of the county’s checklist, describing numerous entries where the application either asserted no impact or deferred analysis without supporting data.

Why it matters: The EPF application explicitly lists material-disposal activity—placing ditch spoils and shoulder pullings—on the subject parcel at 1427 Neck Point Road, raising neighbors’ concerns that untested road material could be stockpiled near steep slopes and small tributaries that flow to Parks Bay. Glaze presented topographic and soils maps he prepared and said runoff from erosion-prone soils could carry contaminants downstream to fish habitat if materials are piled uncharacterized.

Key claims and evidence

- Contaminants and testing: Citing several technical reports and fact sheets submitted as exhibits, Glaze summarized statewide studies that found polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and other pollutants in sampled streetway solids. He said the literature shows the only reliable way to know whether roadside material is contaminated is to test it, and he criticized the county for proposing permanent disposal without prior soils characterization.

- Traffic and safety: Glaze flagged the SEPA checklist’s estimate of up to “200 trips a day” and said narrow local roads without sidewalks or streetlights would raise the risk of truck-pedestrian interactions—an acute concern for residents and school routes.

- Invasive species: He said moving and stockpiling disturbed soils can spread invasive-plant seed and that the checklist and MDNS do not identify or require the best-practice procedures he believes are standard for preventing seed dispersal.

- Burning and wildfire risk: Drawing on his volunteer fire experience, Glaze described concerns about the proposed burn area’s size, limited on-site water availability and potential for spotting. He recommended noncombustion alternatives such as chipping and said a commercial burn permit would mitigate but not eliminate risk.

County response and process defense

The county’s planner on the record, Sophie Kassem (Planner 3, Department of Community Development), said Department of Community Development staff reviewed the submitted SEPA checklist and issued an MDNS with conditions the department believes will mitigate likely adverse impacts at this siting stage. “DCD issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,” Kassem testified, and later answered affirmatively when asked whether she believed the MDNS conditions would mitigate likely adverse impacts at the current phase.

Kassem described the EPF siting process under county code (section 1830O55): submittal of multiple candidate sites, a comparative analysis, a public meeting for the affected community, and a council briefing. She said that if the council selects a site, the applicant would later apply for any required site-specific redesignation and that additional SEPA review would occur at that step.

Points of dispute: phased review and permit triggers

Appellants’ counsel argued the county deferred to future permitting steps information that could and should have been evaluated at the time of the MDNS—contending SEPA requires assessment at the earliest stage when impacts can be known. Counsel pressed whether subject-matter experts (stormwater, environmental stewardship) were consulted; Kassem said she reviewed the checklist with the responsible official (Carl Dodd) and did not recall expressly calling other department experts into the review.

Counsel also questioned whether certain future activities would require further permits that could trigger additional SEPA review. Kassem confirmed that some activities that would fit the definition of a construction yard would require either a conditional-use permit or a provisional use permit under the county code, and that clearing, grading and other permits carry their own environmental review processes.

Procedural outcome and next steps

The hearing examiner left the record open for the county to propose clarifying edits to the MDNS conditions and set a schedule: the county may submit proposed modifications and supporting materials, with a written submittal deadline of Dec. 19. The examiner confirmed the status quo remains in place while the parties confer and prepare any proposed clarifications.

What remains unresolved

Appellants urged vacatur or remand of the MDNS so the county can conduct fuller analysis now—before any site-specific approvals—pointing to uncertainties about testing of roadside materials, how stockpiles would be managed, whether burning conditions will be enforceable given local water availability, and whether invasive-species mitigation is adequate. The county signaled it may propose clarifying language (for example, explicitly requiring a burn permit) but did not concede that a full environmental-impact statement is needed.

Next procedural milestone: county proposed modifications due by Dec. 19; the examiner will review any submissions and determine whether the MDNS stands, should be modified, or should be vacated.

(For clarity: the hearing record includes several technical exhibits, SEPA checklist materials and county code citations used in testimony. Quotations are taken from the hearing transcript and have been attributed to the speakers who made them on the record.)