San Juan County continues Hunter Bay dock hearing; staff and Friends of the San Juans agree on upgrades but flag tribal notice and SEPA clarity

San Juan County held a continued public hearing online on Dec. 17, 2025, to consider a shoreline substantial development permit for the Hunter Bay public dock at the end of Crab Island Road. The applicant is the county's Public Works Department; county staff and the applicant described design changes, environmental review updates and required mitigation steps, while an environmental group voiced support but urged clearer SEPA documentation and improved tribal notice.

The hearing examiner opened the session at 10 a.m. and confirmed no one was present in the hearing room; all testimony was given online and under oath. Colin Maycock, the Community Development Department's principal staff planner, summarized the project history and paperwork, saying the dock has been in place since at least 1977 and that a prior redevelopment permit approved about two years ago required a new permit after the design changed. Maycock said the revised SEPA threshold determination was issued after the project team corrected the number of creosote pilings proposed for removal—from 29 in the initial checklist to 27 in the revised materials—and that the comment and appeal windows ran as prescribed. "The county's position is that the SEPA determination is sufficient," Maycock said.

Douglas Seitz, representing San Juan County Public Works, described the design and construction approach. He said the redesign shifts the floats farther out and sets float elevation to keep the structure off the seabed at low tides, and that demolition will be phased to preserve public access where possible. Seitz said the plans call to remove two existing piles at the end of the jetty (and work on the adjacent riprap), and to replace creosote-treated piles with modern materials. "This is primarily to ensure that the floats stay off of the seabed," Seitz said of the elevation changes.

The Community Development Department and Public Works also noted a marine-mammal monitoring plan will be required as a permit condition; the department said Public Works has agreed to include that plan in its permitting package. Staff described riprap removal and replacement as limited to areas needed to install the new piles.

Tina Whitman of Friends of the San Juans offered public comment in support of the upgrades while urging clearer documentation and better tribal notification. "These are really great upgrades actually that'll make this dock more functional," Whitman said, adding the group's written comment letters had flagged instances where the SEPA checklist listed answers as unknown even though related details appeared in other Public Works reports. She also said the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community had asked to be notified about projects and that tribal notification practices should be improved: "Swinomish Indian tribal community, noted that they weren't receiving notice of projects and specifically requested that they receive notice." Whitman said she welcomed the marine-mammal monitoring plan being attached as a permit condition.

After public comment, Seitz said he had no additional response. Maycock told the examiner he had received an updated list of tribal contacts and will update the county's standard notification documentation and work with the environmental stewardship group to identify which tribal contacts want routine notice going forward. Maycock also confirmed he believed the notices for this specific application met county and state requirements; the examiner asked Maycock to email a Word version of the draft permit conditions and to ensure the marine-mammal monitoring plan is clearly referenced or detailed in the habitat report.

The examiner closed the public hearing and adjourned the online session. The record shows the SEPA comment period on the revised determination and the separate appeal period were handled in November–December 2025 (comments from Friends of the San Juans noted Nov. 17; staff submitted additional documents Dec. 11 and the appeal period closed Dec. 10 with no appeal filed). No formal vote or permit decision was recorded at the close of the hearing; the examiner requested the requested documents for the record and signaled the permit conditions will be consolidated into a single condition set for clarity.