HomeMy WebLinkAbout020 Application SubmittalBDN, LLC Chart of Responses – 10-17-19 Page - 1
BDN LLC/SMERSH GEODUCK AQUACULTURE PROJECT - CASE# MLA 19-00036
CHART OF RESPONSES TO JEFFERSON COUNTY
LETTER DATED JULY 10, 2019
COMMENT
NO. ISSUE RESPONSE
1 Provide Chart of Responses Chart provided via this document
2 Parking and stockpiling See new annotated Site Plan – BDN004R
3 Upland Work Areas See new annotated Site Plan – BDN004R
4 Description of shorelines &
critical areas
See revised documents from Confluence
Environmental listed below
5 Omitted Attachments Requested attachments provided: BDN005R-B,
BDN005R-G, BDN005R-H, BDN005R-I-1 and
BDN005R-I-2.
6 Information on proposed
rebar use
See revised SEPA Checklist (BDN005R) and revised
JARPA (BDN006R) indicating that no rebar will be
used.
7 Additional information on
land vehicle usage.
See revised Site Plan (BDN004R) showing all vehicle
parking areas, and revised SEPA Checklist
(BDN005R) and revised JARPA (BDN006R) giving
additional information on vehicle use and parking.
8 Aesthetics of rebar See revised SEPA Checklist (BDN005R) and revised
JARPA (BDN006R) indicating that no rebar will be
used.
9 Additional transportation
information.
See revised Site Plan showing all vehicle parking
areas, and revised SEPA Checklist and JARPA giving
additional information on vehicle use and parking.
10 Usage of Shine Tidelands
park.
See revised Site Plan (BDN004R) detailing all
proposed usage of Shine Tidelands park.
11 Use of nighttime lighting on
the project
See revised JARPA, Section 6e, (BDN006R) and
revised SEPA checklist, Section 11., Light and Glare
(BDN005R)
12 Vehicle parking on Madrona
Vista and Smersh upland
parcel.
See revised Site Plan showing all vehicle parking
areas, and revised SEPA Checklist (BDN005R) and
JARPA (BDN006R) giving additional information on
vehicle use and parking. There will be no parking on
Madrona Vista and limited parking on the denoted
Smersh upland parcel.
13 Use of Smersh upland parcel See revised Site Plan (BDN004R) showing all vehicle
parking areas, and revised SEPA Checklist
(BDN005R) and revised JARPA (BDN006R) giving
additional information on vehicle use and parking.
The Smersh upland parcel will no longer be used for
Oct 18 2019
Log Item 20
Page 1 of 464
BDN, LLC Chart of Responses – 10-17-19 Page - 2
material storage or as a staging areas.
14 Potential plastic pollution See revised Smersh Farm Habitat Management Plan
and No Net Loss Report, Section 3.9 (BDN005R-E)
15 Fish habitat stream impact. This stream is addressed in the revised Smersh Farm
Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report,
Section 3.5, Access, Migration, and Refugia
(BDN005R-E.) The project is greater than 150’ from
the stream, which is outside the regulatory buffer.
16 Skiff groundout impact Additional clarification added throughout the revised
Smersh Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss
Report (BDN005R-E) to indicate no impact to blank
sand due to short term temporary grounding.
17 Potential netting impact See revised SEPA Checklist (BDN005R) and revised
JARPA (BDN006R) indicating that no netting will be
used. All mention of area predator netting has been
removed from the document.
18 Potential impacts to existing
habitat functions
See revised SEPA Checklist (BDN005R) and revised
JARPA (BDN006R) indicating that no netting will be
used, and thus there will be no impacts from netting
or rebar. See also Section 3.8 of revised Smersh
Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report
(BDN005R-E), addressing wildlife impacts on
waterfowl, including dabbling and diving ducks.
19 Forseeable future action
impacts.
See submitted Cumulative Impacts Addendum
(BDN005R-D2) addressing forseeable future action
impacts.
20 Cumulative impacts of past
aquaculture projects
See submitted Cumulative Impacts Addendum
(BDN005R-D2) addressing existing aquaculture
projects.
21 Rebar visual assessment See revised SEPA Checklist (BDN005R) and revised
JARPA (BDN006R) indicating that no rebar will be
used.
Log Item 20
Page 2 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 3 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 4 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 5 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 6 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 7 of 464
SITE PLAN FOR AREA ACTIVITIES – Page 1
SITE PLAN OF ALL AREAS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY TO BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH
BDN LLC/SMERSH GEODUCK AQUACULTURE PROJECT - CASE # MLA 19000036
1
2
3
1. This parcel is owned by Applicant’s Agent/Representative BDN, LLC and will be the
primary staging area for all activities related to the operation of the proposed aquaculture project.
It can be accessed from Shine Road via a gravel roadway easement, appurtenant to that parcel,
that runs along/between parcels 8213444029 and 821344032. This parcel is not within 150 feet
of any waterbodies or Type F, N or S streams. There will be storage on this parcel of materials
used in planting or harvesting, in accordance with the planting, maintenance and harvesting
schedules set out elsewhere in the Permit Application. There will be parking of approximately 6-
8 passenger vehicles or light trucks on this property during periods of operation of the proposed
aquaculture project.
2. This parcel is owned by Applicant and will be a secondary parking area for activities
related to the operation of the proposed aquaculture project. It can be accessed from Shine Road.
There will be no clearing, grading or construction on this parcel by BDN, LLC, only short term
parking in connection with planting, maintenance or harvesting per the schedules set out
elsewhere in the Permit Application. Approximately 6-8 passenger vehicles or light trucks may
be parked on this property in connection with these activities. This property is not within 150
[_______] 100m/300ft
Log Item 20
Page 8 of 464
SITE PLAN FOR AREA ACTIVITIES – Page 2
feet of any waterbody, and is not within 150 feet of any known Type F, N or S streams, but no
proposed activities at this location will in any way impact those waterbodies or streams in any
event.
3. The parking area at Hicks Park will be used only for parking of one or two private
passenger vehicles or pickup trucks for the continuing inspection of the planted areas while the
mesh tubes are still present. Such inspections will take place during periods of low “minus”
tides, which typically occur in the nighttime in the winter, and the daytime during the summer.
Parking will be for 4 hours or less, while workers perform the inspections. Workers will be
instructed not to interfere with public parking or usage at Hicks Park, and if there is public usage
that such inspections would impact or interfere with, the inspectors will be instructed to park
instead at Parcels 1 or 2 above.
No materials of any kind will ever be placed or stored at this location, and the boat
launching facilities will never be used by anyone connected with the project. This property is
within 150 feet of any waterbody, and may be within 150 feet of Type F, N or S streams, but no
proposed activities at this location will in any way impact those waterbodies or streams in any
way that differs from impacts by the general public using the park.
4. Shine Tidelands State Park, 1.4 Miles to the east of the Project, may be used for the
loading and launching of a small watercraft (less than 30 feet) at its public boat launching ramp.
One light truck vehicle will tow the watercraft to the launch ramp, and will launch and retrieve it.
Launching and retrieving will require 15 minutes or less.
During planting activities, another light truck vehicle will tow an accompanying open
trailer of supplies (with 5’ sides) to be loaded into the boat and used in the planting of parcel
721031007. Planting related activities will involve at most one daily launching and retrieval of
the vessel, and 1-5 supply trips by the accompanying trailer. Planting activities will occur once
per year, typically in June or July, over a period of 20-25 days.
During harvesting activities, the small watercraft will transport the day’s harvest of
geoducks from parcel 721031007 to the public boat launching ramp where they will be loaded
into a vehicle or vehicles for transport. Harvesting related activities will involve at most one
daily launching and retrieval of the vessel, and 1 daily trip by the accompanying vehicle or
vehicles. Harvesting activities will usually commence between five and six years after an area of
parcel 721031007 has been planted, and that planted area will typically be harvested over a one
to two year period. Harvesting activities at this location will occur only during daylight hours,
over a period of about 5 hours per day, averaging 3-4 harvest days per week during those one to
two year harvest periods.
From usage connected with other previously approved BDN activities, it is clear that
Shine Tidelands State Park has very low public usage, due to the lack of a dock, a poorly
configured boat launch ramp, and bad currents at the point of launching. No proposed activities
at this location will in any way impact the public usage of Shine Tidelands State Park, and will
not impact any nearby waterbodies or streams in any way that differs from impacts by the
general public using the park.
Note: The Army Corps of Engineers approved short term parking along Watney Lane in
connection with other previously approved BDN operations. No parking along Watney Lane is
Log Item 20
Page 9 of 464
SITE PLAN FOR AREA ACTIVITIES – Page 3
proposed in connection with the BDN Smersh Geoduck Aquaculture Project. Nor will there be
any usage of the shorelands portions of Parcel 721031007, other than for workers to occasionally
walk across these shorelands to access the planted areas of that parcel.
Log Item 20
Page 10 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 1 of 23
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(Revised 9-27-19)
Purpose of checklist:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization
or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental
impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult
with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or
"does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown.
You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate
answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-
making process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
Instructions for Lead Agencies:
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to
evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse
impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to
make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable
parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please
completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or
site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead
agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not
contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
A. Background [HELP]
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
BDN, LLC Geoduck Farm
Log Item 20
Page 11 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 2 of 23
2. Name of applicant:
BDN, LLC
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
BDN, LLC
3011 Chandler Street
Tacoma, WA, 98409
Contact person: Brad Nelson, (253) 377-3353
4. Date checklist prepared: February 2, 2019, revised September 26, 2019
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction of Project to begin immediately upon issuance of Jefferson County
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected
with this proposal? If yes, explain.
There is no currently planned expansion beyond the areas and activities described in
this document.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
A. Biological Evaluation, Marine Surveys and Assessments – 10-28-13 (See
Attachment s A1 and A2)
B. BDN Eelgrass Deliniation and Depth of Culture Survey, Confluence Environmental
Company – 10-16-15 (See Attachment B1) and Eelgrass Reverification -7-9-18 (See
Attachment B2.)
C. BDN Smersh Farm Visual Assessment‐ 2019, Confluence Environmental
Company – October, 2019 (See Attachment C.)
D. BDN Smersh Farm Cumulative Impacts Report, Confluence Environmental
Company – June, 2018 (See Attachment D10) and Addendum – October, 2019 (See
Attachment D2.)
Log Item 20
Page 12 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 3 of 23
E. BDN Smersh Farm Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report - Confluence
Environmental Company – October, 2019 (See Attachment E.)
F. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Seattle District, Programmatic Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Specific Project Information Form for Shellfish
Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters – November 1, 2016. (See
Attachment G.)
H. Letter from Robert Smith to David Greetham, dated March 29, 2017, and attached
Materials. (See Attachment H.)
I. BDN Aquaculture Gear Management Plans, (See Attachment I1, 2016 Plan, and
Attachment I 2, Revised 2019 Plan.)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
We know of no other pending applications directly affecting the property covered by our
Proposal.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
We have previously received the following government approvals, which are the only
additional approvals we understand are needed for this project:
A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 48,
Commercial Shellfish Acquaculture Activities, dated December 19, 2016. (See
Attachments J1,
J2 and J3.)
B. State of Washington Department of Ecology Letter dated January 6, 2017 confirming
that water quality concerns for the Project are adequately addressed and an
Individual 401 certification will not be required. (See Attachment K.)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe
certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead
agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)
BDN proposes to cultivate Pacific geoduck (Panopea generosa). The planting area will
consist of approximately 5.15 acres, generally between approximately +2 ft. MLLW and a 5-
meter (16.4 ft.) buffer of the native eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed edge, located between
approximately -1MLLW and -2 MLLW.
Log Item 20
Page 13 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 23
To protect geoduck seed from predators, plastic mesh tubes 5" in diameter by 14"
long will be manually placed in the substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are
exposed, before any geoduck seed is planted. The mesh tubes are placed around
the barrel of a “clam gun”, which is then used to insert the mesh tube into the
substrate such that approximately half of the tube is below the substrate and half
above it. A low pressure water hose may be used to loosen the substrate sufficiently
to properly insert the mesh tubes. Tubes will be spaced at approximately one tube
per square foot in the planting area. Only 5" to 7" of the tubes will be exposed above
the substrate. Tubes will be labeled with contact information for BDN. 12-25 workers
will work to insert these mesh tubes during each approximately 5-hour shift. This will
allow for approximately 6,000-10,000 mesh tubes to be placed per day.
Geoduck seed will then be obtained from a certified hatchery and typically planted in
the installed mesh tubes when 4-5 mm in size. The juvenile geoducks will be placed
in the installed mesh tubes by divers during times when the tubes are submerged.
No water jets will be used during placement of the seed in the mesh tubes. The
tubes will be clipped shut at the top by the divers, using plastic clips, after the seed
has been planted. Planting will begin in spring and continue through fall. Planting
activities will occur once per year, typically in June or July, over a period of 20-25
days.
No netting will be installed over the tubes, and no rebar or other materials will be
used in connection with the planting maintenance or harvest activities. The installed
mesh tubes are very resistant to dislocation during severe weather, or from geoduck
movement and activity, so no securing nets are necessary. No fill materials or other
nursery/grow-out structures will be installed on the site.
There will be no removal of native materials from the site during site preparation.
Excessive amounts of macroalgae (e.g. Ulva) may be hand-raked away from the
planting area, but will be left on the site. Successive tides will redistribute algae
across the site.
Site inspections will be made weekly, or more frequently if needed due to adverse
weather or citizen complaints, to ensure that mesh tubes have not become
dislodged. BDN has implemented an aquaculture gear maintenance plan, appended
as Attachment I-2, to address potential gear escapement and to facilitate quick
recovery of any gear displaced by storm activity. Site inspections will be generally
conducted by 2-4 BDN employees walking the tidelands and surrounding areas at
low tide. Site maintenance will also include monitoring and relocation of built-up drift
microalgae (e.g. Ulva). If low tide periods occur at night, these workers may use
individual LED headlamps for such inspection and maintenance work. If any
maintenance work is required, this will be performed by as many as four people, but
should typically require no more than 1 hour for each such maintenance event. No
vessel operations will take place at night.
Two years after planting, when the geoducks have reached a depth sufficient to
avoid predators, beach workers will remove the tubes by hand at low tide. Consistent
with Corps requirements, if any herring spawn is found on the mesh tubes, they will
not be removed until the eggs have hatched. The mesh tubes will be placed in large
bags and removed for reuse or proper upland disposal.
Log Item 20
Page 14 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 5 of 23
Usually, harvesting will begin between five and six years after planting; the exact timing of
harvesting will depend on a variety of environmental and economic factors. The total
harvest window is expected to be 1-2 years. The majority of harvesting will be conducted at
high tides by divers using surface-supplied air. A small amount of beach harvesting will be
conducted during the "cleanup" harvest phase at the end of the harvesting period when
there are fewer geoducks remaining on the beach. Both dive harvests and beach harvests
use the same extraction equipment. A diesel or gasoline engine located on the work skiff is
used to power a water jet nozzle that loosens the substrate around each geoduck. The
engine will have a muffler to minimize noise impacts. The water intake hose will include a
2.36 mm wire mesh.screen covering the intake to prevent fish entrainment in the low-
pressure pump. The water jet nozzle is at the end of an approximately 150' long, 1.5"
delivery hose. The nozzle is approximately 27" long and may supply up to 20-30 gallons of
water per minute at 40 psi
After geoducks are removed from the substrate as described above, they will be stored in
crates located on the work skiff prior to transport off-site. During both dive and beach
harvesting, the work skiff will not be anchored in any native eelgrass beds. Dive harvests will
be conducted during daylight hours. Divers work within a 150' radius of the work skiff at
depths of 5' to 20' using surface supplied air. The vessel engine will be turned off while
divers are working for diver safety. When beach harvesting, the skiff is regularly moved so
that it always remains near the water's edge. Water hoses are then run from the skiff to the
beach. Dive harvests will employ 1 diver and 2 support workers in the skiff. Dive harvesting
will usually last for 3-to 6 hours each harvest day. Beach harvests will employ 2 workers on
the beach and 2 support workers on the skiff.
Harvesting activities at this location will occur only during daylight hours, over a period of
about 5 hours per day, averaging 3-4 harvest days per week during the one to two year
harvest period. BDN will comply with Corps' conditions associated with herring, surf smelt,
and sand lance spawning.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of
the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
Address: 1160 Shine Road, Port Ludlow, WA, 98365
Waterbody: Squamish Harbor
1/4 Section: NW Section, 03 Township, 27N Range 01E
Latitude: 47.865575-47.866644
Longitude: 122.661410 - 122.66364
Tidal elevation: Between -2 and +2 MLL W
B. Environmental Elements [HELP]
1. Earth [help]
a. General description of the site:
(circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
Log Item 20
Page 15 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 6 of 23
Gently Sloping Tidelands
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Approximately 1% slope. The site slopes about 4 feet over its approximately 400 foot width,
from +3 MLLW to -2 MLLW.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural
land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of
these soils.
Substrate at the Smersh site consists mainly of well‐sorted, clean, sand with an adjacent
sandy, gravelly beach.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of
any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
There is no proposed filling, excavation or grading.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
No impervious surface will be created as part of this project.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
No erosion is anticipated so no erosion control measures will be implemented.
2. Air [help]
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
The only anticipated emissions will be from engines and pumps on one small harvest
vessel (under 40’) or from skiff mounted engine-driven pumps when dive or beach
harvesting is occurring on the project. Usually, harvesting will begin between four and
seven years after planting, but the total harvest window is expected to be 1 year.
Dive harvests will be conducted only during daylight hours. Vessel engines will be turned off
while divers are working for diver safety. When beach harvesting, a skiff with a gasoline
powered pump will be used to provide water for extraction. Dive harvesting will usually last up
to 5 hours each day, and beach harvesting will be done only in a low tide window of 3 hours or
Log Item 20
Page 16 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 7 of 23
less. Thus, the emissions from the use of no more than two small gasoline or diesel engines
associated with harvesting should not have a significant impact on air quality in the vicinity of
the project.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
None that are known to applicant
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Not applicable.
3. Water [help]
a. Surface Water: [help]
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
The Project area consists of Squamish Harbor saltwater tidelands that are exposed
and covered on a daily basis. Shine Creek, a freshwater creek, is approximately 1.5
miles to the west. A small un-named stream enters Squamish Harbor near the
project site.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Yes. See A. 11. above, which describes the nature and extent of all work to be performed
at the site, all of which would be within 200 feet of all described waters except for Shine
Creek.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
There is no proposed filling, excavation or grading.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
Yes, being tidelands, the site lies withing the 100 year flood plain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground Water: [help]
Log Item 20
Page 17 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 8 of 23
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so,
give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn
from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose,
and approximate quantities if known.
No.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number
of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
None.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
No runoff (including storm water) will result from Project operations.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so,
describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern
impacts, if any:
There should be none needed.
4. Plants [help]
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
_ X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
____ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_ X_ shrubs
____ grass
____ pasture
____ crop or grain
____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
Log Item 20
Page 18 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 9 of 23
_X__ water plants: eelgrass
____ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
There will be no removal of native materials during site preparation. Excessive amounts of
macroalgae (e.g. Ulva) may be hand-raked away from the planting area, but left on the site.
Successive tides will redistribute algae across the site. The project may result in the
removal of non-native dwarf Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) located in the proposed
planted area.
Macroalgae beds are not found in or near the project area. Green algae (Ulva) were present
at a very low density, attached to a small number of hard objects such as derelict clam shells.
Macroalgae density is anticipated to increase in the project area due to geoduck farming as
the mesh tubes provide solid substrate required by macroalgae for attachment and growth.
Because the project will be located outside of a 16‐foot protective buffer from native eelgrass,
no negative effects are anticipated to occur to eelgrass due to the proposed project and there
may be an ecological lift from the potential increase in other macroalgal species on the tubes
and netting.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered plant species are found on the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
All project activity will occur at least 16 feet away from native eelgrass (Zostera marina).
Also see b. above.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has classified Z. japonica growing on
commercial aquaculture sites as a "Class C" noxious weed (Pleus 2012). This category is
for abundant, widespread non·native species that are difficult to control. The primary
concern with Z. japonica in relation to shellfish aquaculture is that it occurs on mid-intertidal
areas that were previously bare mud and sand flats. Z. japonica can potentially grow to the
extent that shellfish planting and harvesting cannot be done successfully (Fisher et al.
2011). In addition, extensive Z. japonica can reduce water flow by up to 40% in comparison
to bare mudflats (Tsai et al 2010). Filter-feeding species, including geoduck, could have
their growth or survival affected by this reduction. Given the WDFW classification of Z.
japonica, any loss at the site could be viewed as a positive. However, this classification
does not necessarily mean that Z. japonica presence is detrimental from the perspective of
ecosystem structure and function.
5. Animals [help]
Log Item 20
Page 19 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 10 of 23
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site.
Examples include:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________
See Attachment A1, “Biological Evaluation, Marine Surveys and Assessments –
10/28/13, in particular Section II, Pages 9-12, and Attachments 1 through 4 to that
Evaluation.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The following fish, marine mammal, and bird species listed under the Endangered Species
Act may occur, or have critical habitat within the proposed action area:
Puget Sound Chinook
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum
Puget Sound Steelhead
Bull Trout
Yelloweye Rockfish
Boccacio Rockfish
Marbled Murrelet
Southern Resident Killer Whale
For more details, see Attachment A 1, “Biological Evaluation, Marine Surveys and
Assessments – 10/28/13”, in particular Section II, Pages 9-12, and Attachments 1 through 4
to that Evaluation, and Attachment A 2, “Confluence Environmental Company Addendum to
Biological Evaluation – 9/23/16.”
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Yes. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum salmon may migrate along the shoreline of the site.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The protection of juvenile geoduck as provided in 11 above will preserve those shellfish
from predators. Further, see “BDN Smersh Farm Habitat Management Plan and No Net
Loss Report - Confluence Environmental Company – October 2019 (Attachment E), and
BDN Aquaculture Gear Management Plan, 10/17/19`. (Attachment I-2) for more detailed
description of Project measures to be taken to preserve or enhance wildlife.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
None.
6. Energy and Natural Resources [help]
Log Item 20
Page 20 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 11 of 23
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Diesel or gasoline powered small engines will be used to power vessels and harvesting
equipment during the planting, growing and harvesting phases.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Because the energy use connected with the Project in minimal, there are no specific
conservation measure planned for the Project
7. Environmental Health [help]
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
There is no known contamination or possible contamination at the site from present or
past uses.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development
and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines
located within the project area and in the vicinity.
There are no known existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life
of the project.
The only toxic chemicals anticipated to be stored or used in connection with the Project
are gasoline and diesel fuels for operating land based vehicles, harvest vessels, air
pumps, and water pumps. No toxic chemical will be produced by development or
operation of the Project.
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
The only special emergency services that might be required in connection with the
Project would be oil spill response and cleanup. Such services are provided through the
Washington Department of Ecology, and for the Project would most likely be provided by
Log Item 20
Page 21 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 12 of 23
the WSDOE response team based in Olympia, which provides year- round, statewide,
24-hour a day response services.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Land vehicles (e .g. all-terrain vehicles or trucks) shall be washed in an upland area such
that wash water is not allowed to enter any stream, waterbody, or wetland. Wash water
shall be disposed of upland in a location where all water is infiltrated into the ground (i.e.,
no flow into a waterbody or wetland). Land vehicles shall be stored, fueled, and
maintained in a vehicle staging area located 150 feet or more from any stream,
waterbody, or wetland.
For boats and other gas-powered vehicles or power equipment that cannot be fueled in a
staging area 150 ft. away from a waterbody or at a fuel dock, fuels shall be transferred in
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-compliant portable fuel containers 5 gallons or
smaller at a time during refilling. A polypropylene pad or other appropriate spill protection
and a funnel or spill-proof spout shall be used in the event of a spill. A spill kit shall be
available and used in the event of a spill. All spills shall be reported to the Washington
Emergency Management Office at (800) 258-5990. All waste oil or other clean-up
materials contaminated with petroleum products shall be properly disposed of off-site.
All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any stream, waterbody, or wetland shall be
inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected
shall be repaired in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes operation and
documented in a record that is available for review on request by any regulatory or
enforcement personnel.
Except as to water-borne boats and vessels, the direct or indirect contact of toxic
compounds including creosote, wood preservatives, paint, etc. with the marine
environment shall be prevented. For water-borne boats and vessels, all paints and other
compounds coming into contact with the water will be approved for such use under all
applicable rules and regulations.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
The uplands neighboring the proposed Smersh geoduck farm are rural residential, and they
are zoned as shoreline residential under the current Shoreline Master Plan for Jefferson
County. There are numerous single‐family residential houses in the Shine neighborhood
which is bordered on the north side by the heavily trafficked State Route (SR) 104. Between
6,000 and 22,000 vehicles pass the Shine neighborhood each day on SR 104 (15,000
average annual daily trips) traveling at 60 miles per hour (WSDOT 2017). Existing noise in
the area includes that which is typically found associated with water‐dependent activities
(e.g., boat use), residential uses (e.g., vehicle use, lawn mowers, beach walking), and
vehicular traffic. Using the standard that 10 percent of the average annual daily traffic
represents hourly average traffic (WSDOT 2018) leads to 1,500 vehicles per hour passing
near the Shine neighborhood on SR 104. At 60 mph the sound from vehicle traffic is
approximately 75 dBA at 50 feet (WSDOT 2018). This sound level attenuates to
approximately 45 dBA at 800 feet which is approximately the halfway point between the
Log Item 20
Page 22 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 13 of 23
Smersh parcel and SR 104. The estimated noise level based on population density is
approximately 40 to 45 dBA (FTA 2006).
Measurements of ambient underwater noise were recorded at the Hood Canal Bridge in
2004. Median background peak sound pressure was between 118.2 and 137.5 dBPEAK re 1
µPa and median root mean squared (RMS) levels were 115 and 135 dBRMS re 1 µPa
(Battelle 2005).
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi-
cate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise‐generating elements of the proposed project are consistent with existing use of the
surroundings (small boat use and walking on the beach). Both airborne and underwater
noise would be generated from the proposed project when boats are used to access the
project site and during the operation of pumps for harvest on a 5‐ to 7‐year cycle.
The proposed project does not include the use of heavy equipment. Access to the site
would occur about once a month, and more frequently during limited periods for activities
such as planting or harvesting. Access would be via the upland parcels or via boat. The
outboard motors typically used on boats used for aquaculture typically create a noise level
of about 60 dBA at 50 feet (Berger et al. 2010). However, once at the site, boat engines
would be turned off until employees are ready to leave. Small diesel or gas‐powered
water pumps with hoses would be used to harvest the geoducks for several days every 5
to 7 years. While noise levels of the water pumps have not been directly measured, they
are considerably quieter than the outboards, referenced above, that produce a sound level
of 60 dBA at 50 feet. Based on an ambient noise level of approximately 40 dBA to 45 dBA,
terrestrial noise associated with the proposed project is expected to attenuate to ambient
conditions 199 to 285 feet from the pumps. The landward margin of the geoduck planting
area is approximately 160 feet from the ordinary high water line, leading to the conclusion
that nearby residents will be exposed to only slight increases in noise if they approach within
close proximity to the shoreline near the project site.
The loudest noise source proposed for the project is expected to increase noise levels by 15
dBA to 20 dBA above ambient noise levels (assuming 60 dBA produced by the water pump
and 40 to 45 dBA ambient noise).
Underwater noise would also be generated from the motors on boats used to transport gear
and personnel to the project area and the small engines used for the water pumps during a
geoduck harvest.
For more information on anticipated noise generation, see BDN Smersh Farm Habitat
Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – Confluence Environmental Company –
October, 2019 (See Attachment E, pages 9-12.)
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
There is no evidence that increases in either airborne or underwater noise from the use of
boat motors or water pumps associated with the rearing and harvest of geoducks would
result in negative effects to fish and wildlife species. Noise resulting from aquaculture
operations throughout Washington State was reviewed with respect to potential effects to
fish, marine mammals, and birds listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (NMFS 2009, USFWS 2009, NMFS 2011). These reviews found that noise
Log Item 20
Page 23 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 14 of 23
levels did not exceed disturbance thresholds that would affect foraging, migration,
reproduction, or fitness for any of the ESA‐listed species in Puget Sound. The proposed
shellfish aquaculture operation in Squamish Harbor would not significantly alter noise above
existing background conditions. Therefore, harvest operations are not anticipated to
increase underwater noise to a level that will result in a loss of ecological functions, and no
specific measures are planned or needed to reduce or control the already minimal noise
impacts. Nonethless, applicant plans to locate the water pumps used during harvesting in
an insulated box, thereby decreasing pump noise.
8. Land and Shoreline Use [help]
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land
uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
The site is currently vacant tidelands, located on a heavily altered shoreline in a
medium‐density, residential neighborhood. The shoreline has been altered by rip rap
hardening.
There is a concrete boat ramp and gravel parking lot on the adjacent public property.
Riparian trees have been removed from a number of the adjacent properties to increase
private views, and a paved roadway is adjacent to the shoreline for approximately 1 mile
next to the Smersh parcel.
The uplands neighboring the proposed Project are rural residential, and they are zoned as
shoreline residential under the current Shoreline Master Plan for Jefferson County. There
are numerous single‐family residential houses in the Shine neighborhood which is bordered
on the north side by the heavily trafficked State Route (SR) 104.
The proposed project will not affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe.
How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to
other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how
many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
No.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal
business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling,
and harvesting? If so, how:
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
There are no structures currently on the site
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
Log Item 20
Page 24 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 15 of 23
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Log Item 20
Page 25 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 16 of 23
RR-5 – Rural Residential
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
RR-5 Rural Residential
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Aquatic – Shoreline Residential
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify.
Yes. Portions of the Project Area are classified as Wetlands Critical Area, FEMA Flood Zone
Critical Area, Seismic Hazard Critical Area, Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone, and Critical
Aquifer Recharge Area.”
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
12-25 workers will work in 5-hour shifts to plant mesh tubes during the geoduck planting
phase, which will take place once every 5-7 years. The work will be sporadic, depending on
tides and weather, beginning in the spring and lasting through the fall. After planting, weekly
site inspections will be conducted by 2-4 BDN employees walking the tidelands and
surrounding areas at low tide. 6-12 months after planting, the mesh tubes will be removed
from the tubes by hand, again by 12-25 workers working in 5-hour shifts. This work will also
be sporadic, depending on tides and weather, and will be done from winter to early summer.
Usually, harvesting will begin between four to seven years alter planting; the exact timing of
harvesting will depend on a variety of environmental and economic factors. The total harvest
window is expected to be 1-2 years. Dive harvests will employ 1 diver and 2
support workers in the skiff. Dive harvesting will usually last up to 5 hours each day for two
divers. Beach harvests will employ 2 workers on the beach and 2 support workers on the
skiff.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None planned, as there will be no displacement.
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Log Item 20
Page 26 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 17 of 23
See Attachments C through E for descriptions of the compatability of the project with existing
and projected land uses and plans.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any:
None are required, as there are no anticipated impacts to agricultural and forest lands of
long-term commercial significance.
9. Housing [help]
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid-
dle, or low-income housing.
No housing units will be provided.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics [help]
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No structures are proposed. The only artificial objects that will be placed on the subject
tidelands are mesh tubes 5” in diameter by 14” long, which will be placed into the sandy
substrate at an approximate density of 1 tube per square foot with 5” to 7” of the tube
exposed above the substrate.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
15 to 20 homes have unobstructed view of the proposed geoduck planting area when nearby
trees are in the leaf‐off condition. The estimate of 15‐20 homes with unobstructed
views will be reduced during the summer when trees have a cover of leaves that are likely to
more fully block views. For more detail on potential and actual visual obstruction, see
Attachment C, BDN Smersh Farm Visual Assessment‐, Confluence Environmental Company
– October, 2019.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Log Item 20
Page 27 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 18 of 23
The proposed project will be visible for only short duration during very low tides. Geoduck
mesh tubes will initially be black and of low visibility, and will quickly take on a natural color due
to colonization by aquatic flora and fauna. Maintenance will occur monthly, and after any storm
events, to ensure farm is tidy and tubes have not become dislodged. While not in use,
equipment will be stored off-site.
11. Light and Glare [help]
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
No work will be performed at night other than checking of mesh tubes and other gear by beach
maintenance workers on an as-needed basis (see Item A. 11. above for a more detailed
description of this work.) Beach maintenance workers will use individual LED headlamps (with
an output of 6000 lumens or less) to provide a narrow beam of individual lighting for that
worker. Overall, the project will not produce any significant light or glare that will be visible to
upland owners.
No vessel operations will be performed at night.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
12. Recreation [help]
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The only nearby designated recreational opportunity is the neighboring park, which is primarily
a boat launching ramp, usable at high tide only, with an associated gravel parking lot. The
main informal recreational activites are beach walking by resident and visitors at low tide, and
use of the water over the project at high tide by recreational boaters.
Log Item 20
Page 28 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 19 of 23
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
The boat ramp is only useable during high tide, when the geoduck tubes would be submerged,
so there is no displacement of that use. There will be no impacts to beach access as the
project is located on private tidelands that are not currently accessible by the public. The
project will not impact recreational boating use in any significant way. Dive harvest vessels will
be small, and moored over the project tidelands in such a way as to not significantly interfere
with other vessels in the area.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None are proposed, as none are necessary
13. Historic and cultural preservation [help]
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years
old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so,
specifically describe.
No such structures or sites exist in the project area.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation?
This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or
areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted
at the site to identify such resources.
No landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation are known to
exist at the site.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on
or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of
archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
No consultations or studies have been undertaken, since the project consists of bare tidelands
with no evidence of any prior habitation or human use.
The Corps of Engineers has determined that cultural resource surveys are not required for this
project.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to
resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
No specific measures are proposed.
14. Transportation [help]
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Log Item 20
Page 29 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 20 of 23
Land access to the project site is via Shine Road, a public street running parallel to the
shoreline and serving the adjacent tidelands and upland properties. Public Highway SR 104
runs roughly parallel to the shoreline and at the location of the project is about ¼ mile north of
Shine road.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally
describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
The site is not directly served by public transit, but the Jefferson Transit Route #7, Poulsbo, has
a bus stop approximately 1.2 miles to the East at the western end of the Hood Canal bridge.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal
have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
The project will not require any additional parking spaces, and will not eliminate any existing
parking spaces.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle
or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
No.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be
trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models
were used to make these estimates?
During active planting and beach harvest activites, passenger vehicle and light truck trips (to
deliver or load geoducks or other project materials) will be generated each day. During beach
inspection periods, passenger vehicle trips will be generated each day. During waterborne
harvesting, light truck trips (to deliver or load geoducks or other project materials) will be
generated each day.
For details of expected numbers and durations of vehicle trips connected with these activites,
see annotations to Site Plan of Areas Used, as submitted with this Checklist and the related
Conditional Use Permit application materials.
No data or transportation models were used to make these estimates.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest
products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
No.
Log Item 20
Page 30 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 31 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 22 of 23
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or
at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Log Item 20
Page 32 of 464
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses revised October 17, 2019 Page 23 of 23
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
Log Item 20
Page 33 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 028
Log Item 20
Page 34 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 029
Log Item 20
Page 35 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 030
Log Item 20
Page 36 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 031
Log Item 20
Page 37 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 032
Log Item 20
Page 38 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 033
Log Item 20
Page 39 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 034
Log Item 20
Page 40 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 035
Log Item 20
Page 41 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 036
Log Item 20
Page 42 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 037
Log Item 20
Page 43 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 038
Log Item 20
Page 44 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 039
Log Item 20
Page 45 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 040
Log Item 20
Page 46 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 041
Log Item 20
Page 47 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 042
Log Item 20
Page 48 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 043
Log Item 20
Page 49 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 044
Log Item 20
Page 50 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 045
Log Item 20
Page 51 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 046
Log Item 20
Page 52 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 047
Log Item 20
Page 53 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 048
Log Item 20
Page 54 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 049
Log Item 20
Page 55 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 050
Log Item 20
Page 56 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 051Log Item 20 Page 57 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 052Log Item 20 Page 58 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 053
Log Item 20
Page 59 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 054
Log Item 20
Page 60 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 055
Log Item 20
Page 61 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 056
Log Item 20
Page 62 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 057
Log Item 20
Page 63 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 058
Log Item 20
Page 64 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 059
Log Item 20
Page 65 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 060
Log Item 20
Page 66 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 061
Log Item 20
Page 67 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 062
Log Item 20
Page 68 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 063
Log Item 20
Page 69 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 064
Log Item 20
Page 70 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 065
Log Item 20
Page 71 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 066
Log Item 20
Page 72 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 067
Log Item 20
Page 73 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 068
Log Item 20
Page 74 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 069
Log Item 20
Page 75 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 070
Log Item 20
Page 76 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 071
Log Item 20
Page 77 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 072
Log Item 20
Page 78 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 073
Log Item 20
Page 79 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 074
Log Item 20
Page 80 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 075
Log Item 20
Page 81 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 076
Log Item 20
Page 82 of 464
To: Pamela Sanguinetti, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
cc: Robert Smith, Plauché & Carr LLP
Brad Nelson, BDN
From: Grant Novak, Confluence Environmental Company
Date: September 13, 2016
Re: Addendum to Biological Evaluation of BDN LLC Smersh Geoduck Aquaculture Project
(NWS‐2013‐1268)
This document is intended to amend the Biological Evaluation (“BE”) provided by Marine Surveys and
Assessments, Inc., dated October 28, 2013. At the request of the Corps, Confluence has performed
additional eelgrass surveys to confirm the location of native eelgrass (Zostera marina) at the
Smersh/Nelson site. This Addendum updates the BE through updating the location of native eelgrass
on the site, revising the location of proposed geoduck planting consistent with the location of the
eelgrass bed and Corps’ eelgrass buffer requirements, and provides additional analysis regarding the
potential for indirect effects to threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) due to potential impacts to eelgrass from geoduck culture and harvest activities. This
Addendum is intended to supplement the original analysis in the BE and any descriptions or analysis
not modified herein should be considered to still be valid and accurate.
A. REVISIONS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based upon the updated eelgrass survey, BDN has revised its proposed planted area as shown on Figure
1. The revised planted area will consist of approximately 5.15 acres, generally between approximately
+2 ft. MLLW and a 5‐meter (16.4‐ft) buffer of the dense Z. marina bed edge, located between
approximately ‐1 MLLW and ‐2 MLLW.1,2 There are also a couple of minor modifications to BDN’s
proposed operations as compared to what is described in the BE. BDN employees working at the
Smersh parcel will park at public parking areas on Madrona Vista and use property owned by James
1 On a July 21, 2016 site visit, the Corps requested clarification as to whether area netting would be used. As noted
in the original BE, “Area netting over the tubes may be installed to prevent tube dislocation during severe weather”
(BE, pg. 5) and “Once [mesh] caps have been removed, area netting will be put down to contain tubes, as the
growing geoducks will begin to push these out of the sand” (BE, pg. 6). BDN anticipates that area nets may be used
for a maximum of four years to protect geoducks from predators and to provide additional protection against tube
dislodgement.
2 The tidal elevations described herein are approximate. The planted area, location of the eelgrass bed, and extent of
the eelgrass buffer are all described by GPS coordinates that have been provided to the Corps.
Appellant
Exhibit 45 page 1106
Log Item 20
Page 83 of 464
www.confenv.com page 2 of 7
Smersh located across the street from the project site as a staging area.3 Further, while BDN may use a
skiff in the manner described in Section 4.b.(1) of the BE (pg. 6), most site inspections will be conducted
by walking the beds at low tide.
B. ADDITIONAL EELGRASS SURVEYS
Confluence performed several additional eelgrass surveys on the Smersh parcel. On September 4, 2015,
Confluence used a towed video system with integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) to collect
information about native eelgrass presence/absence. The towed video data were collected in transects
running perpendicular to the beach and spaced about every 45 feet. In addition, a transect that ran
parallel to the shoreline was collected along the anticipated eelgrass bed edge and landward of the
edge. The video system electronically recorded latitude and longitude to aid in the mapping of native
eelgrass locations. A differential GPS (dGPS) with sub‐meter accuracy was used to collect positions at
one second intervals during the towed video surveys. To aid mapping, a proprietary program created by
Confluence was used when reviewing the video to characterize the presence/absence of eelgrass. The
entirety of the field‐collected video data was reviewed in the office on a high definition monitor to
ensure that habitat variables were accurately characterized. Tabular data describing the vegetative
cover, substrate material, relief, and complexity were then joined, using a time stamp, to the dGPS
positions thereby allowing the high quality characterization of video in the office to be linked to the
dGPS positions and video data collected in the field.
During the September 29, 2015 survey, the edge of native eelgrass was confirmed using snorkel‐based
surveys and a dGPS unit at the Smersh site. Two biologists snorkeled the landward native eelgrass
boundary using a floating dGPS unit to precisely collect location data. The biologists divided the area
into two eelgrass zones: patchy vs. continuous. These zones were mapped according to the following
criteria: (1) Patchy = individual shoots or small patches of native eelgrass (typical of shoots migrating
from the main eelgrass bed), (2) Continuous = the main native eelgrass bed with few locations where
eelgrass was absent (typical of a fringe eelgrass bed). The landward edge of the patchy eelgrass zone
was considered to be the upper (or landward) extent of native eelgrass habitat. Underwater video,
using a GoPro HERO4 camera, was collected during the snorkel‐based surveys. The results from the
September 2015 eelgrass surveys are depicted in Figure 2.
Pursuant to the Corps’ request, Confluence conducted another eelgrass survey on the Smersh parcel on
July 20, 2016 to reconfirm the extent of the eelgrass bed surveyed in 2015. A surveyor walked the Z.
marina bed edge, recording the location using a GPS unit with decimeter accuracy. The location of the
marina bed edge was substantially similar to that mapped by Confluence in 2015 and is depicted in
Figure 1.
3 Depending on the source of geoduck seed, the size of planted seed may be 4-5 mm as opposed to the 10-15 mm
seed described in the BE.
Appellant
Exhibit 45 page 1107
Log Item 20
Page 84 of 464
www.confenv.com page 3 of 7
C. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS REGARDING EFFECTS TO EELGRASS
Effects to eelgrass have the potential to result in changes to ecosystem functions provided by eelgrass
beds at the Smersh/Nelson site and, thereby, to ESA‐listed species that may benefit from those
services.
1. Location of Eelgrass Beds
Both native eelgrass (Z. marina) and non‐native dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica) are present at the
proposed Smersh/Nelson geoduck culture site. Z. marina is abundant at subtidal and lower intertidal
elevations, while Z. japonica is very sparsely distributed at higher intertidal elevations. A bed of dense,
robust Z. marina is located seaward of the extreme low tide elevation (approximately ‐2 ft. mean lower
low water [MLLW]) (Figure 1). Landward of this dense bed edge the beach is substantially composed of
bare sand with occasional patches of sparse Z. japonica. No Z. marina is present landward of
approximately ‐2’ MLLW. Planting of geoducks is planned between approximately +2 ft. MLLW and a 5‐
meter (16.4‐ft) buffer of the dense Z. marina bed edge (Figure 1).
2. Effects to Native Eelgrass from Planting and Maintenance Activities
As mentioned above, the project will incorporate a 5‐meter buffer from the identified Z. marina
eelgrass bed, consistent with the Corps’ conservation measure included in the Programmatic Biological
Assessment concerning Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters (“PBA”). The
Biological Opinions submitted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) and U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service both confirm that the buffer will adequately protect eelgrass for new shellfish farms.
For example, NMFS found that new farms “will be required to follow the 16‐foot buffer requirements
from native eelgrass, this is not expected to diminish eelgrass density or function of existing eelgrass.”
NMFS, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Programmatic Opinion and Magnuson‐
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: Washington
State Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture and Restoration Programmatic (2016), at pg. 72.
3. Impacts to Non‐Native Eelgrass (Z. japonica)
The project may result in the removal of Z. japonica located in the planted area or adverse effects to Z.
japonica from project operations. However, Z. japonica is not a threatened or protected species. To the
contrary, the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (NWCB) has classified Z. japonica as a
Class C noxious weed (WAC 16‐750‐015). Aquatic plants on the noxious weed list are considered “to be
highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control . . .” (WAC 16‐750‐001). In adopting the listing,
the NWCB justified the regulation partially based on concerns that Z. japonica can increase the
deposition of silt and detritus. Protecting Z. japonica would be contrary to the State’s designation of the
Appellant
Exhibit 45 page 1108
Log Item 20
Page 85 of 464
www.confenv.com page 4 of 7
plant as a Class C noxious weed. Therefore, impacts to Z. japonica existing on the site is considered to
be a less than significant impact.4
4 This amends statements made in the original BE that “Z. japonica will not be removed from the site during
planting. Instead, planting will occur through these patches” (BE, pg. 5) and “Still, any activities that reduce harm to
Z. japonica, such as planting around the patches, would maintain additional valuable habitat at this site” (BE, pg.
15). While the initial BE notes that Z. japonica creates three-dimensional habitat and complexity as compared to
mudflats (pg. 15), as noted above, geoduck aquaculture provides similar three-dimensional complexity through the
introduction of tubes and canopy nets. Further, BDN’s operations west of the project site have documented that
BDN’s proposed geoduck aquaculture can coexist with Z. japonica.
Appellant
Exhibit 45 page 1109
Log Item 20
Page 86 of 464
www.confenv.com page 5 of 7 Figure 1. Proposed Geoduck Planting Plan and July 2016 Eelgrass Density ZonesAppellant Exhibit 45 page 1110Log Item 20 Page 87 of 464
www.confenv.com page 6 of 7 Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Plan and September 2015 Eelgrass Density ZonesAppellant Exhibit 45 page 1111Log Item 20 Page 88 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
BDN EELGRASS DELINEATION AND DEPTH OF
CULTURE SURVEY, HOOD CANAL,
WASHINGTON
DRAFT
Prepared for:
BDN, Inc.
October 16, 2015
Log Item 20
Page 89 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
BDN EELGRASS DELINEATION AND DEPTH OF CULTURE
SURVEY, HOOD CANAL, WASHINGTON
DRAFT
Prepared for:
BDN, LLC
3011 Chandler St.
Tacoma, WA 98409
Attn: Brad Nelson, Robert Smith
Prepared by:
Marlene Meaders, Phil Bloch, Chris Cziesla, and Grant Novak
Confluence Environmental Company
October 16, 2015
Log Item 20
Page 90 of 464
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Eelgrass Delineation ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Towed Video Surveys ......................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Snorkel-Based Surveys ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Depth of Culture ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Native Eelgrass – BDN West Site ................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Native Eelgrass – BDN East/Smersh Site .................................................................................. 10
3.3 Depth of Culture ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 13
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 14
APPENDICES
A – Site Photos
B – Depth Measurement and Tidal Corrections
TABLES
Table 1 – Eelgrass Delineation Sites in Hood Canal, Washington ............................................................ 1
FIGURES
Figure 1 — Study Area Vicinity ................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2 — Towed Video Transects at the BDN Sites in Hood Canal, Washington ................................... 5
Figure 3 — Eelgrass at the BDN West Site in Hood Canal, Washington ................................................... 9
Figure 4 — Eelgrass at the BDN East/Smersh Site in Hood Canal, Washington ..................................... 11
Figure 5 — Comparison with DNR SVMP monitoring observations at BDN East/Smersh Site in Hood
Canal, Washington ....................................................................................................... 12
Log Item 20
Page 91 of 464
Page 1
BDN EELGRASS DELINEATION AND DEPTH OF CULTURE
SURVEY, HOOD CANAL, WASHINGTON
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document summarizes an eelgrass (Zostera marina) delineation and depth of culture survey
conducted on September 4 and September 29, 2015, at an existing and proposed geoduck (Panopea
generosa) farm in Hood Canal, Washington (Figure 1). The existing and proposed farm areas are
currently owned and/or leased by BDN, LLC (BDN). An eelgrass delineation was performed by
Confluence Environmental Company (Confluence) at four sites west of the Hood Canal Bridge (Table 1).
Table 1 – Eelgrass Delineation Sites in Hood Canal, Washington
Site Tax Lot Parcels Intertidal Elevation
Range (ft MLLW)
Total Intertidal
Area (acre)
Proposed
Culture Area
(acre)
BDN West Site
821334078, 821334011,
821334076, 821334075,
821334074
+10.0 to -2.0 ft
MLLW 6.351 3.661
Former Washington
Shellfish Site 821334073 +10.0 to -2.0 ft
MLLW 5.32 2.23
Former Mocean
Shellfish Site 821334079 +10.7 to -2.0 ft
MLLW 0.74 0.565
BDN East/Smersh
Site 721031007 +10.7 to -2.0 ft
MLLW 8.33* 3.52*
MLLW = mean lower low water
+10.70 ft MLLW = mean higher high water (Lofall Datum Station ID 9445088)
1 As identified in MS&A 2013a,b
2 As identified in Washington Shellfish 2012
3 As identified in MS&A 2014
4 As identified in Ma 2012
5 As identified in Corps 2012
BDN previously commissioned an eelgrass delineation of these sites (MS&A 2013a,b, MS&A 2014). At
the BDN West Site, native eelgrass was identified predominantly from -1.9 feet (ft) to -2.9 ft mean
lower low water (MLLW), although individual native eelgrass shoots were identified as far up the beach
as -1.4 ft MLLW. In addition, Japanese eelgrass (Z. japonica) was a major component of the vegetation
throughout the intertidal zone. Japanese eelgrass covered intertidal habitat from -1.5 ft to above +2 ft
MLLW. At the former Washington Shellfish Site, native eelgrass was observed to extend to
approximately -1.8 ft MLLW with “a few blades” observed along multiple transects in areas otherwise
dominated by Japanese eelgrass (Z. japonica) between up to approximately +1.0 ft MLLW. Japanese
eelgrass was observed above approximately +1.8 feet MLLW, however in many transects there was a
gap of 50 or more linear feet between the observed native eelgrass bed and Japanese eelgrass
observations (MS&A 2014). At the BDN East/Smersh Site, native eelgrass was identified predominately
Log Item 20
Page 92 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 2
from -1.5 ft to -3.0 ft MLLW. Patchy Japanese eelgrass was observed from -1.5 ft to approximately +2 ft
MLLW.
During a July 1, 2015 site visit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) noted a concern that the prior
eelgrass delineations performed in 2013 and 2014 did not appear to reflect current eelgrass conditions in
July 2015 and that they may have included inaccurate identification of native eelgrass (Z. marina) as
compared to Japanese eelgrass (Z. japonica). On July 30, 2015, the Corps requested new eelgrass surveys
for the following parcels: NWS-2013-1147 (Tjemsland lease), NWS-2013-1223 (BDN), NWS-2013-1223
(Garten lease), NWS-2013-1268 (Smersh), and NWS-2012-1210 (BDN -formerly Washington Shellfish). In
a separate letter dated September 4, 2015, the Corps expressed concern regarding planting on the
former Mocean Shellfish Site (NWS-2012-1099) within 10 horizontal feet of eelgrass and waterward of a
-1.5 tidal elevation, and requested information regarding prior work conducted on the site.
The two objectives of the eelgrass delineation performed on September 4 and September 29, 2015
were to identify the landward extent of the native eelgrass at the four BDN sites associated with the
proposed and existing geoduck culture (as identified in Table 1), and identify the depth of culture at the
former Mocean Shellfish Site.
Log Item 20
Page 93 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth Page 3 Figure 1 — Study Area Vicinity Log Item 20
Page 94 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 4
2.0 METHODS
The following sections provide a description of the methods used for the eelgrass delineation at the
BDN West Site, former Mocean Site, former Washington Shellfish Site, and BDN East/Smersh Site. In
addition, the methods used to determine the depth of culture at the former Mocean Shellfish Site is
also provided.
2.1 Eelgrass Delineation
Towed video and snorkel-based transects were used to identify the extent of native eelgrass in the
survey areas.
2.1.1 Towed Video Surveys
During the September 4, 2015 survey, a towed video system with integrated Global Positioning System
(GPS) was used to collect information about native eelgrass presence/absence. Towed video data were
collected in transects running perpendicular to the beach and spaced about every 45 feet (Figure 2). In
addition, a transect that ran parallel to the shoreline was collected along the anticipated eelgrass bed
edge and landward of the edge. The video system electronically recorded latitude and longitude to aid
in the mapping of native eelgrass locations. The boat maintained a consistent speed and the video was
constantly monitored to confirm that it was close enough to the seafloor to determine vegetative
cover. Actual position of the boat was recorded at all times during the surveys.
A differential GPS (dGPS) with sub-meter accuracy was used to collect positions at one second intervals
during the towed video surveys. The clocks in the video GPS and dGPS were synchronized and the time
of each point was recorded to the nearest second. To aid mapping, a proprietary program created by
Confluence was used when reviewing the video to characterize presence/absence of native eelgrass.
The entirety of the field-collected video data was reviewed in the office on a high definition monitor to
ensure that habitat variables were accurately characterized. The video mapping program was synched
with the video data through the video’s time stamp. The program allowed the reviewer to create
tabular records defining the habitat characterization at one second intervals as the video was being
viewed. These tabular data describing the vegetative cover, substrate material, relief, and complexity
were then joined, using the time stamp, to the dGPS positions thereby allowing the high quality
characterization of video that occurred in the office to be linked to the highly accurate dGPS positions
and video data collected in the field. This provided an accurate and efficient way to create eelgrass
delineation maps of the study areas.
Log Item 20
Page 95 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth Page 5 Figure 2 — Towed Video Transects at the BDN Sites in Hood Canal, Washington Log Item 20
Page 96 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 6
2.1.2 Snorkel-Based Surveys
During the September 29, 2015 survey, the edge of native eelgrass was confirmed using snorkel-based
surveys and a dGPS unit at the BDN East/Smersh Site. Because video interpolation has limitations in
terms of accurately depicting information between transects, two biologists snorkeled the landward
native eelgrass boundary using a floating dGPS unit to precisely collect location data. The biologists
divided the area into two eelgrass zones: patchy vs. continuous. These zones were mapped according
to the following criteria:
Patchy = individual shoots or small patches of native eelgrass (typical of shoots migrating from
the main eelgrass bed).
Continuous = the main native eelgrass bed with few locations where eelgrass was absent
(typical of a fringe eelgrass bed).
The landward edge of the patchy eelgrass zone was considered to be the upper (or landward) extent of
native eelgrass habitat identified below. Underwater video, using a GoPro® HERO4 camera, was
collected during the snorkel-based surveys.
2.2 Depth of Culture
Depth of culture was evaluated at the former Mocean Shellfish Site during the September 29, 2015
survey using the location of existing PVC tubes as a reference. Depth and time were collected at five
locations. These depth measurements were then corrected for tidal height using the predicted tide
levels at Lofall, WA (Station ID 9445088) and the difference between predicted and preliminary1 tide
levels at Port Townsend, WA (Station ID 9444900). There was no attempt to account for barometric
pressure, and the depth readings were collected from the side of the research vessel.
1 Note that verified data was not available as of October 12, 2015.
Log Item 20
Page 97 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 7
3.0 FINDINGS
The following information is a summary of findings at the four sites in Hood Canal where an eelgrass
delineation and depth of culture survey was conducted. Approximately 17 transects were on or adjacent
to the BDN west site, 10 transects were on or adjacent to the former Washington Shellfish site and 5
transects are on or adjacent to the former Mocean site. A combined total of 26 video transects were
collected at the BDN West, former Mocean and former Washington Shellfish sites and 18 video
transects collected at the BDN East/Smersh Site (see Figure 2). The findings are divided by site and type
of survey.
Screen captures from the towed video camera are provided in Appendix A.
3.1 Native Eelgrass – BDN West Site, former Mocean Site and former
Washington Shellfish Site
Eelgrass at the BDN West Site was a mix of the native and Japanese eelgrass species (Figure 3). Eelgrass
zonation at this site was less distinct on visual inspection than typical Puget Sound or West Coast sites
(e.g., Shafer et al. 2008, Britton-Simmons et al. 2010, Ruesink et al. 2010). In addition, morphology was
not a dependable characteristic for identification. For example, length and width of blades gradually
become narrower and shorter with depth, rather than a distinct difference between the two species.
Even root structure (e.g., two roots at each node for Japanese eelgrass vs. clusters of roots at each node
for native eelgrass) was not straight-forward at this site.
Almost the entire intertidal area of the BDN West Site was covered in eelgrass (both Z. marina and Z.
japonica). The main native eelgrass bed was a fringe bed between -10 ft to -2 ft MLLW. Above this
elevation, native eelgrass and Japanese eelgrass were intermixed within a transition area between -2 ft
and -1.5 ft MLLW where there was a gradual shift in the dominance to Japanese eelgrass as the depth
became shallower. Native eelgrass remained present in small patches and individual shoots throughout
the lower intertidal up to the highest elevations surveyed by video (in excess of +1 ft MLLW). In
addition, above approximately -2 ft MLLW, eelgrass blades were extensively covered in epiphytes such
that many individual blades had a brownish appearance, making visual identification difficult. The
gradual transition of morphological characteristics made clear delineation of native and Japanese
eelgrass populations challenging from visual evidence alone. Therefore, we could not definitively
identify a landward boundary (using towed video methods) of where the native eelgrass ended and the
Japanese eelgrass began.
At the former Washington Shellfish Site, existing geoduck culture areas appear to be placed at higher
elevations than the primary native eelgrass (Z. marina) bed, however individual Zostera marina shoots
intermixed with Zostera japonica do occur in areas where culture operations are present. Culture
operations do not appear to influence the location of native eelgrass when tubes were present. These
observations are consistent with the August 11, 2014 survey of the site which reported “a few blades” of
native eelgrass present in some areas between -2.0 ft MLLW and +1.0 ft MLLW (MS&A 2014).
Log Item 20
Page 98 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 8
At the former Mocean Site existing geoduck culture areas were found in areas where native eelgrass
shoots were present However, culture operations did not appear to influence the location of native
eelgrass when tubes were present. Information related to baseline conditions was not available, and so
it was not possible to determine whether these areas were colonized by eelgrass after tubes were
added or whether it existed prior to the installation of tubes. The only conclusion that can be made in
terms of the interaction between eelgrass and existing culture is that both eelgrass and geoduck
aquaculture coexist under current operations.
Log Item 20
Page 99 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 9
Figure 3 — Eelgrass at the BDN West Site, Former Mocean Site, and Former Washington Shellfish
Site in Hood Canal, Washington
Log Item 20
Page 100 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 10
3.2 Native Eelgrass – BDN East/Smersh Site
Eelgrass at the BDN East/Smersh Site followed typical zonation patterns identified throughout Puget
Sound and along the West Coast (e.g., Shafer et al. 2008, Britton-Simmons et al. 2010, Ruesink et al.
2010), where the native eelgrass occurred lower in the intertidal/subtidal (typically below -2 ft MLLW),
the Japanese eelgrass occurred higher (above -1.5 ft MLLW), and a relatively unvegetated zone
occurred between -2 ft and +2 ft MLLW (Figure 4). Additionally, the morphology of the two eelgrass
species was distinct, with smaller, shorter blades identifying the Japanese eelgrass and wider, longer
blades identifying the native eelgrass. This distinction between species was also confirmed by
evaluating eelgrass root structure, as described above. The native eelgrass occurred in two basic zones:
patchy and continuous. The patchy zone extended up to -1.5 ft MLLW and the continuous zone
occurred from -2 ft to -16 ft MLLW. This is in accordance with the prior surveys performed by Marine
Surveys and Assessments on the parcel.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maintains an eelgrass monitoring location
adjacent to the BDN East/Smersh Site. The DNR site, HDC2518, is characterized as having a mix of
native and Japanese eelgrass. Washington DNR’s monitoring efforts were compared to the underwater
video monitoring described above for the BDN East/Smersh Site (Figure 5). There was good agreement
between the two surveys. Therefore, eelgrass bed depths described above are, in part, taken from
eelgrass observations made by Washington DNR in transects immediately adjacent to transects
observed in this study (DNR 2015).
3.3 Depth of Culture
The location of existing culture operations at the former Mocean Shellfish Site was identified by the
lower extent of culture tubes. The depth collected at these locations ranged from -1.2 ft to -1.9 ft MLLW
(or an average of -1.5±0.3 ft MLLW). While this estimate is more accurate than a visual survey during a
low tide event, it does not represent the level of accuracy that a land-based survey tied to the nearest
monument can obtain. For example, tidal corrections between observed and predicted tides at the
reference site (Port Townsend) suggest that predicted tides may be under or over estimated by 0.3 feet.
The calculations associated with the depth of culture is provided in Appendix B.
Log Item 20
Page 101 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 11
Figure 4 — Eelgrass at the BDN East/Smersh Site in Hood Canal, Washington
Log Item 20
Page 102 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 12
Figure 5 — Comparison with DNR SVMP monitoring observations at BDN East/Smersh Site in Hood
Canal, Washington
Log Item 20
Page 103 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 13
4.0 SUMMARY
This report addresses the potential concerns raised by the Corps raised during its July 1, 2015 visit and
July 30, 2015 and September 4, 2015 letters.
A distinct native eelgrass bed was identified at the BDN East/Smersh Site with only minor overlap of
Japanese eelgrass within the native eelgrass zone. There was a clear transition between the two species
at this site, and the majority of intertidal habitat beyond the native eelgrass boundary was unvegetated
habitat. The upper extent of native eelgrass was between -2 and -1.5 ft MLLW. Conversely, at the BDN
West Site, the transition between native eelgrass and Japanese eelgrass was gradual with a number of
locations where mixing occurred between the two species. There was no clear break where native
eelgrass ended and non-native Japanese eelgrass started at this site.
At the Former Washington Shellfish Site, there was evidence that geoduck clams are located in areas
that currently have native eelgrass. The presence of tubes does not appear to restrict native eelgrass
presence. While there is no way to determine, based on the information collected, whether geoduck
clams were originally planted in native eelgrass, both native eelgrass and geoduck culture appear to be
able to coexist.
The elevations at which culture tubes were present in the former Mocean Shellfish Site was estimated
to be -1.5±0.3 ft MLLW, which is approximately where the culture was proposed based on the hand-
drawn map provided by Mocean Shellfish, Inc. in their application materials and Corps permit.
Although, no clear indication of where planting would occur was provided in the permit, other than
newly positioned shellfish2 would be 10 ft from native eelgrass and higher than a -2 ft MLLW tidal
elevation. While the method used to determine depth of planting is more accurate than a visual survey,
the only way to determine the exact elevation of this culture area is to conduct a land survey of the
area.
2 “Newly positioned shellfish” is defined as shellfish being placed within a portion of the project area where
aquaculture was not located and had not previously occurred as of the date the permit was issued.
Log Item 20
Page 104 of 464
BDN– Eelgrass Delineation and Culture Depth
Page 14
5.0 REFERENCES
Britton-Simmons, K.H., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, E.K. Day, K.P. Booth, K. Cartwright, S. Flores, C.C. Garcia,
T.L. Higgins, C. Montanez, A. Rames, K.M. Welch, and V. Wyllie-Echeverria. 2010. Distribution
and performance of the nonnative seagrass Zostera japonica across a tidal height gradient on
Shaw Island, Washington. Pacific Science 64(2):187-198.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2012. NWS-2012-1099: Mocean Shellfish, Inc. Department of the
Army, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. November 2, 2012.
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) 2015. Eelgrass Monitoring GIS Database accessed
at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/aquatics/aquatic-science/nearshore-habitat-
eelgrass-monitoring on October 12, 2015.
Ma, C. 2012. Nationwide Permit 48 Pre-Construction Notification Form for Existing Commercial
Shellfish Activities, Renton, Washington. September 15, 2012.
MS&A (Marine Surveys & Assessments). 2013a. BDN LLC Geoduck Aquaculture Project: Biological
Evaluation. Marine Surveys & Assessments, Port Townsend, Washington. October 23, 2013.
MS&A. 2013b. BDN LLC/Smersh Geoduck Aquaculture Project: Biological Evaluation. Marine Surveys &
Assessments, Port Townsend, Washington. October 28, 2013.
MS&A. 2014. Technical Memorandum: Methodology for Eelgrass and Macroalgae Surveys for BDN
LLC’s formerly McRae Parcel. Marine Surveys & Assessments, Port Townsend, Washington,
October 31, 2014.
Ruesink, J.L., J. Hong, L. Wisehart, S.D. Hacker, B.R. Dumbauld, M. Hessing-Lewis, and A.C. Trimble.
2010. Congener comparison of native (Zostera marina) and introduced (Z. japonica) eelgrass at
multiple scales within a Pacific Northwest estuary. Biol Invasions 12:1773-1789.
Shafer, D.J., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and T.D. Sherman. 2008. The potential role of climate in the
distribution and zonation of the introduced seagrass Zostera japonica in North America. Aquatic
Botany 89:297-302.
Washington Shellfish Inc. 2012. Nationwide Permit 48 Pre-Construction Notification Form for Existing
Commercial Shellfish Activities, Gig Harbor, Washington. November 5, 2012.
Log Item 20
Page 105 of 464
Appendix A
Site Photos
Log Item 20
Page 106 of 464
BDN Eelgrass: Appendix A
Page A-1
Photo 1 – Continuous native eelgrass (Zostera marina) at the BDN West Site (Transect 6).
Photo 2 – Continuous native eelgrass (Zostera marina) at the BDN West Site (Transect 24).
Log Item 20
Page 107 of 464
BDN Eelgrass: Appendix A
Page A-2
Photo 3 – Possible mixed populations of native eelgrass (Zostera marina) and Japanese
eelgrass (Z. japonica) at the BDN West Site (Transect 16).
Photo 4 –Possible mixed populations of native eelgrass (Zostera marina) and Japanese
eelgrass (Z. japonica) at the BDN West Site (Transect 18).
Log Item 20
Page 108 of 464
BDN Eelgrass: Appendix A
Page A-3
Photo 5 –Upper elevation edge within the patchy native eelgrass (Zostera marina) zone at
the BDN East/Smersh Site (Transect 28).
Log Item 20
Page 109 of 464
BDN Eelgrass: Appendix A
Page A-4
Photo 6 –Patchy Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) at the BDN East/Smersh Site (Transect
28).
Photo 7 –Unvegetated habitat at the BDN East/Smersh Site above -2 ft MLLW (Transect 44).
Log Item 20
Page 110 of 464
BDN Eelgrass: Appendix A
Page A-5
Photo 8 –Continuous native eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed at the BDN East/Smersh Site with
clear unvegetated break landward of the bed (Transect 38).
Photo 9 –Japanese eelgrass bed (Zostera japonica) at the BDN East/Smersh Site (Transect
39).
Photo 10 –Example of geoduck culture tubes in Japanese eelgrass bed (Zostera japonica) at the former
Washington Shellfish (Transect 26).
Log Item 20
Page 111 of 464
Appendix B
Depth Measurements and
Tidal Corrections
Log Item 20
Page 112 of 464
BDN Eelgrass: Appendix B
Page B-1
Station ID# 9445088 (Lofall, WA)
Tide Predictions:
Date Day Time Hgt
9/29/2015 Tue 6:10 AM 10.88 H
9/29/2015 Tue 12:12 PM 2.13 L
9/29/2015 Tue 6:07 PM 11.35 H
Station ID# 9444900 Port Townsend, WA
Predicted vs. Preliminary
Date
Time
(LST/LDT)
Predicted
(ft)
Preliminary
(ft)
Difference
(ft)
Tide at
Lofall (ft)
Depth at
Site (ft) Notes
9/29/2015 10:36 2.6 2.6 0.1 3.0
9/29/2015 10:42 2.5 2.6 0.1 3.0 Low for Port
Townsend, WA
9/29/2015 10:48 2.5 2.6 0.2 2.9
9/29/2015 10:54 2.4 2.6 0.2 2.9
9/29/2015 11:00 2.4 2.6 0.3 2.9
9/29/2015 11:06 2.4 2.7 0.3 2.9
9/29/2015 11:12 2.4 2.7 0.3 2.8
9/29/2015 11:18 2.4 2.7 0.3 2.8
9/29/2015 11:24 2.4 2.7 0.4 2.8
9/29/2015 11:30 2.4 2.7 0.3 2.8
9/29/2015 11:36 2.4 2.8 0.3 2.8
9/29/2015 11:42 2.5 2.8 0.3 2.8
9/29/2015 11:48 2.5 2.8 0.3 2.7
9/29/2015 11:54 2.6 2.9 0.3 2.7
9/29/2015 12:00 2.6 2.9 0.3 2.7
9/29/2015 12:06 2.7 3.0 0.3 2.6
9/29/2015 12:12 2.8 3.1 0.3 2.4 2.13 ft = Low for
Lofall, WA
9/29/2015 12:18 2.9 3.2 0.3 2.5
9/29/2015 12:24 3.0 3.3 0.3 2.6
9/29/2015 12:30 3.0 3.4 0.3 2.7 1.9 Depth = 56"
9/29/2015 12:36 3.1 3.5 0.3 2.8
9/29/2015 12:42 3.2 3.6 0.3 2.9 1.7 Depth = 57"
9/29/2015 12:48 3.4 3.7 0.3 3.0
9/29/2015 12:54 3.5 3.8 0.3 3.1 1.5 Depth = 53"
9/29/2015 13:00 3.6 3.9 0.3 3.3
9/29/2015 13:06 3.7 4.0 0.3 3.4 1.3 Depth = 53"
9/29/2015 13:12 3.8 4.1 0.3 3.5 1.2 Depth = 54"
9/29/2015 13:18 3.9 4.2 0.3 3.6
Log Item 20
Page 113 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
To: Anna Bausher, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
cc: Rick Mraz, Washington State Department of Ecology; Brad Nelson, BDN Inc.
From: Grant Novak, Confluence Environmental Company
Date: July 9, 2018
Re: BDN Inc. - Proposed Smersh Geoduck Farm: 2018 Zostera marina bed edge re-verification
This memo summarizes the findings of surveys conducted by Confluence Environmental Company
(Confluence) to re‐verify the location of the landward edge of the native eelgrass (Zostera marina)
bed on Jefferson County parcel 721031007 (Smersh parcel). The bed edge was previously surveyed in
2016 by Confluence. Representatives of the U.S. Corps of Engineers (Matthew Bennett, Pamela
Sanguinetti, and Deborah Schaeffer) visited the Smersh parcel on July 21, 2016 to confirm the
findings of the 2016 eelgrass delineation. The Corps was in agreement with the methods and agreed
that the boundaries of the dense and patchy eelgrass beds were appropriately mapped at that time.
Because more than one year has lapsed since the previous survey was completed, the Washington
State Department of Ecology and Jefferson County have requested that the bed edge be re‐verified to
ensure the proposed geoduck aquaculture project will be sighted at least 16 feet from native eelgrass
so as to reduce the potential for negative impacts to protected resources.
A biologist knowledgeable in Pacific Northwest seagrass identification and survey methods visited
the Smersh parcel during low tide on June 28th between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm. During the time of the
survey, water elevations ranged from ‐0.3 feet to ‐1.6 feet relative to mean lower low water (MLLW).
The surveyor crisscrossed the entirety of the parcel while scanning the substrate to the left and right
in an effort to locate and identify any submerged aquatic vegetation at the site, with a specific focus
on locating native eelgrass.
As with previous surveys, very small, sparse patches of non‐native Japanese eelgrass
(Zostera japonica) were found widely distributed between approximately +2 feet and ‐1 foot MLLW.
No native eelgrass was found above ‐1 foot MLLW. A dense bed of native eelgrass with a patchy
margin was observed below approximately ‐1 to ‐2 feet MLLW. The location of the landward edge of
the native eelgrass bed was accurately recorded using a differential GPS with sub‐meter accuracy.
The 2018 bed edge closely matches the 2016 bed edge in some areas but the patchy margin has
receded waterward in many areas (Figure 1). Nowhere has the bed expanded landward of the 2016
margin. Thus, the geoduck planting area proposed in 2016, and permitted by the Corps in 2017, will
not be altered in the application for a Jefferson County conditional use permit.
Log Item 20
Page 114 of 464
www.confenv.com page 2 of 2
Figure 1. Comparison of 2016 and 2018 Native Eelgrass Bed Edge.
Log Item 20
Page 115 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment‐ 2018
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
BDN, Inc.
October, 2019
Log Item 20
Page 116 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment‐ 2018
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
BDN, Inc.
Attn: Brad Nelson
Prepared by:
Grant Novak
Confluence Environmental Company
October, 2019
Log Item 20
Page 117 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD .................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Inventory .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Scenic Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.1 Environmental Condition ......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Spatial Definition ..................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.3 Adjacent Scenery .................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Sensitivity Level ............................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Number of Viewers ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1 View Duration.......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Visibility ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.3.1 View Obstruction ..................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.2 Distance Offshore/Observer Position ...................................................................................................... 9
3.3.3 Viewshed Coverage ................................................................................................................................ 9
3.4 Extent of Probable Visual Impact ..................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 10
FIGURES
Figure 1. Smersh Parcel and Vicinity. ................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Area and Distances from High Water ....................................................... 2
Figure 3.Visual Assessment Inventory Categories ................................................................................................ 4
Figure 4. Proportion of month the upper margin (Chart A) and lower margin (Chart B) of the geoduck planting
will be visible based on NOAA tide data from Jan 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2017. .......................................... 7
Figure 5. Proportion of Month Tidal Elevation Range is Within Farm Boundary ................................................... 8
Figure 6. Visual Impact Classifications ................................................................................................................ 10
Log Item 20
Page 118 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
BDN, Inc. has leased parcel 721031007 (Smersh parcel) on Shine Road west of the Hood Canal
Bridge and is proposing to operate a geoduck farm at the site (Figure 1). A conditional use permit
is requried by Jefferson County and, as part of the permit application, a visual assessment has been
requested by the County pusrsuant to Jefferson County code 18.25.440(4)(f). The following
document presents an assessment of the potential effects to nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of
the shoreline that might occur due to geoduck aquaculture operations on the Smersh parcel.
BDN, Inc proposes to plant up to 5.15 acres of geoducks at the site between +2 feet and
approximately ‐2 feet relative to mean lower low water (MLLW) (Figure 2). The lower boundary of
planting has been determined based on the location of the eelgrass bed below approximately ‐2
feet MLLW (Confluence 2016). Geoduck will be planted outside of a 16 foot horizontal buffer from
the eelgrass bed (Figure 2). To protect geoduck seed from predators, plastic mesh tubes 5ʺ in
diameter by 14ʺ long will be manually placed in the substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are
exposed, before any geoduck seed is planted. The mesh tubes are placed around the barrel of a
“clam gun”, which is then used to insert the mesh tube into the substrate such that approximately
half of the tube is below the substrate and half above it. A low pressure water hose may be used to
loosen the substrate sufficiently to properly insert the mesh tubes. Tubes will be spaced at
approximately one tube per square foot in the planting area. Only 5ʺ to 7ʺ of the tubes will be
exposed above the substrate. Tubes will be labeled with contact information for BDN. 12‐25
Figure 1. Smersh Parcel and Vicinity.
Log Item 20
Page 119 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 2
workers will work to insert these mesh tubes during each approximately 5‐hour shift. This will
allow for approximately 6,000‐10,000 mesh tubes to be placed per day.
Geoduck seed will then be obtained from a certified hatchery and typically planted in the installed
mesh tubes when 4‐5 mm in size. The juvenile geoducks will be placed in the installed mesh tubes
by divers during times when the tubes are submerged. No water jets will be used during
placement of the seed in the mesh tubes. The tubes will be clipped shut at the top by the divers,
using plastic clips, after the seed has been planted. Planting will begin in spring and continue
through fall. Planting activities will occur once per year, typically in June or July, over a period of
20‐25 days.
No netting will be installed over the tubes, and no rebar or other materials will be used in
connection with the planting maintenance or harvest activities. The installed mesh tubes are very
resistant to dislocation during severe weather, or from geoduck movement and activity, so no
securing nets are necessary. No fill materials or other nursery/grow‐out structures will be
installed on the site.
Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Area and Distances from High Water
Log Item 20
Page 120 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 3
2.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD
2.1 Overview
This visual assessment follows protocols and methods outlined in the Department of Ecology’s
Aquaculture Siting Study (Ecology 1986) developed by the State of Washington to assess visual
effects that might be experienced due to aquaculture activities. In Ecology’s study, they
incorporated and expanded upon visual assessment techniques identified by the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and refined the applicable techniques
to focus on assessments of aquaculture. The result is the Visual Assessment Workbook which
provides an analytical process for evaluating visual impacts of aquaculture.
The USFS identified nine assumptions related to visual quality that were adopted by Ecology in
their analytical process to assess visual impacts of aquaculture:
1. People have certain scenic expectations
2. View duration is critical;
3. Number of viewers is critical;
4. Diversity increases scenic value;
5. Retention of distinctive character is desirable;
6. Each setting varies in capacity to absorb visual alteration;
7. Landmarks/focal points receive critical scrutiny;
8. Viewing angle is critical; and
9. Viewing distance is critical.
The BLM identified three principles related to visual quality that were adopted by Ecology in their
analytical process to assess visual impacts of aquaculture:
1. Landscape character is primarily determined by the four basic visual elements of form,
line, color, and texture. Although all four elements are present in every landscape, they
exert varying degrees of influence.
2. The stronger the influence exerted by these elements, the more interesting the landscape.
3. The more visual variety in a landscape, the more aesthetically pleasing the landscape.
Variety without harmony, however, is unattractive, particularly in terms of alterations
(cultural modifications) that are made without care.
The principles and assumptions outlined by the USFS and BLM were incorporated by Ecology into
a visual assessment method that inventories the surrounding landscape to quantify visual
characteristics of the landscape and the proposed aquaculture operations, and incorporates the
landscape inventory scores within an analysis matrix to arrive at an overall visual impact score.
Log Item 20
Page 121 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 4
2.2 Inventory
The Ecology defined inventory of visual characteristics includes three categories: scenic quality,
sensitivity level, and visibility. Scenic quality incorporates individual rating scores of
environmental condition, spatial definition, and adjacent scenery to determine a high, moderate,
or low scenic quality rating. Site sensitivity level is an accounting of the number of potential
viewers and their potential view duration of the project area (i.e., Smersh geoduck farm). The
visibility category identifies key observation points and evaluates the visibility of the aquaculture
site based on obstructions, distance from viewer, and the amount of the viewers cone of vision
taken up by the aquaculture activity (Figure 3).
2.3 Analysis
In the analysis step, the scores from the inventory of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility
are incorporated into an overall score to determine the severity of the probable visual impact. The
four classifications of visual impact are:
1. Class I (Severe Visual Impact) – Any permanently visible aquaculture facility will likely
have a severe visual impact that cannot be mitigated for. This category is applicable only in
wilderness areas.
Figure 3.Visual Assessment Inventory Categories
Log Item 20
Page 122 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 5
2. Class II (High Visual Impact) – Areas where permanently visible aquaculture facilities will
likely be visually obtrusive.
3. Class III (Moderate Visual Impact) – Areas where permanently visible aquaculture facilities
will be visually evident.
4. Class IV (Low Visual Impact) – Areas where existing visual disruptions dominate or areas
with low sensitivity/visibility.
3.0 FINDINGS
A site visit was made to the Shine neighborhood and surrounding locale on April 18, 2018 during a
daylight low tide to inventory the scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility of the area within
the viewshed of the proposed Smersh geoduck farm. A hard copy of the visual assessment
workbook was consulted during the site visit and notes and scores were cataloged in the
workbook (Appendix A) for incorporation into this assessment.
3.1 Scenic Quality
Scenic quality is a combination of environmental condition, spatial definition, and adjacent
scenery. Each of these elements is described in more detail below.
Summary Category Rating: Moderate scenic quality – Areas with a combination of some
outstanding features and some that are fairly common.
3.1.1 Environmental Condition
Environmental condition is the capacity of the landscape to accept human alteration without
losing its natural visual character.
3.1.1.1 Environmental Condition Rating
Individual Element Rating: Moderate
Environmental condition was rated as Moderate based on distinctive landscape character, the
nearby public park and public use area, and areas with visible evidence of human activity, but not
at a dominating level. The Smersh site is located on a heavily altered shoreline in a medium‐
density, residential neighborhood. The shoreline has been altered by rip rap hardening, there is a
concrete boat ramp and gravel parking lot in the adjacent public property, riparian trees have been
removed from a number of the adjacent properties to increase private views, and the paved
roadway is adjacent to the shoreline for approximately 1 mile to the west of the Smersh parcel.
Log Item 20
Page 123 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 6
3.1.2 Spatial Definition
Spatial definition is the degree of spatial enclosure and volume created by the flat plane of the
water body and the surrounding landforms.
3.1.2.1 Spatial Definition Rating
Individual Element Rating: Moderate
Spatial dfinition was rated as moderate based on the shoreline form with concave embayments ½
mile to 2 miles across. Squamish Harbor is approximately 2 miles across at the Smersh site and
Hood Canal is approximately 3 miles across at the Smersh site.
3.1.3 Adjacent Scenery
Adjacent scenery refers to the adjacent shoreline edge, landform, and vegetation which define the
embayment. Influence, detail, and clarity diminish with distance. In general, impact of this
variable increases as the degree of enclosure increases, or as the embayment size or the distance to
the opposite shoreline decreases.
3.1.3.1 Adjacent Scenery Rating
Individual Element Rating: Low
Adjacent scenery was rated as low based on the lack of variety in form, line, color, and texture.
Trees obscure views from neighboring residences, clear cutting is visible in the managed forests to
the west, managed forests are visible on all adjacent shorelines, and most shorelines being greater
than 1 mile from viewpoints.
3.2 Sensitivity Level
Sensitivity level refers to the number of potential viewers, adjacent travel routes, use areas, or the
amount of existing residential development.
Summary Category Rating: Low – few adjacent travel routes and medium‐density residential
development. Further, because geoducks will be located in the intertidal zone, they will be
underwater for the majority of the time and the duration when they are visible will be short. This
rating is described in more detail below.
3.2.1 Number of Viewers
Individual Element Rating: Low
This element was rated as low because the potential number of viewers of the Smersh Site is low.
At low tide, the upper margin of the geoduck planting at +2 feet elevation is visible from only 12
residences while the lower margin of the geoduck planting at ‐2 feet elevation is visible from only
20 residences (See Appendix B – Photos 11 and 12). The site is not visible from the heavily‐
Log Item 20
Page 124 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 7
travelled state route 104 and, while it may be visible from Shine road during some tidal stages,
Shine road is a neighborhood access route and not heavily travelled. The neighboring park is little
more than a boat ramp and gravel parking lot. The boat ramp is only useable during high tide,
when the mesh geoduck tubes would be submerged, so there is little opportunity for visitors to see
aquaculture activities.
3.2.1 View Duration
Individual Element Rating: Low
It is important to note that tides low enough to expose the planting area follow a seasonal pattern
in the Puget Sound region. Larger‐magnitude summer low tides occur during daylight hours,
while winter low tides occur at night. Therefore, mesh geoduck tubes are more visible in summer,
and minimally visible in winter.
While the presence of medium‐density residential development may lead to a moderate score for
the Sensitivity Level category, aquaculture equipment and activities are only visible during
daylight low tides for a small percentage of each month. Figure 4 illustrates that the upper margins
of the geoduck planting area are visible a maximum of 16% of any single month (Chart A) and the
entire planted area is visible a maximum of only 2% of a month (Chart B) (NOAA 2018).
A. B.
Figure 4. Proportion of month the upper margin (Chart A) and lower margin (Chart B) of the
geoduck planting will be visible based on NOAA tide data from Jan 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2017.
Figure 5 presents the tidal range in Hood Canal throughout the year overlaid by the farm
boundary. It should be noted that, while geoduck will be planted between +2 feet and ‐2 feet
elevation, the geoduck tubes may extend up to 7 inches (0.6 feet) above the sediment so the farm
boundary has been shown between ‐1.4 feet and +2.6 feet to represent the tidal elevation of the
mesh geoduck tubes. As can be seen in Figure 5, tidal elevation seldom goes as low as the upper
Log Item 20
Page 125 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 8
farm boundary and even more rarely goes as low as the lower farm boundary, further illustrating
that the aquaculture activities will be exposed only a minor portion of a month.
3.3 Visibility
Visibility is a combination of the following elements, which are discussed in more detail below:
view obstruction, distance offshore/observer position, and viewshed coverage.
Summary Category Rating: Low
Visibility is rated low due to obstructed views from vegetation and landform as well as large
distances between geoduck planting area and potential viewers. Also, geoduck tubes have very
low relief and natural macroalgae colonizes equipment rapidly leading to natural color and texture
(See Appendix B – Photos for examples).
3.3.1 View Obstruction
View obstruction is related to the degree of obstruction in viewing the farm by vegetation,
landform, or man‐made objects.
3.3.1.1 View Obstruction Rating
Individual Element Rating: Moderate – Partially obstructed view
15 to 20 homes have unobstructed view of the proposed geoduck planting area. During the site
visit, nearby trees were in the leaf‐off condition. The estimate of 15‐20 homes with unobstructed
Figure 5. Proportion of Month Tidal Elevation Range is Within Farm Boundary
Log Item 20
Page 126 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 9
views will be reduced during the summer when trees have a cover of leaves that are likely to more
fully block views.
3.3.2 Distance Offshore/Observer Position
Visibility is critically related to the distance the farm is located from observation points and the
height of key observation points above sea level.
3.3.2.1 Distance Offshore/Observer Position Rating
Individual Element Rating: Low – Areas with little visibility
This element is rated low because distance from most potential viewers (i.e. visible residences and
Shine road) to aquaculture is greater than 1500 feet and between 20 feet and 50 feet above sea level.
3.3.3 Viewshed Coverage
Viewshed coverage is related to the percentage of the normal cone of vision occupied by the
proposed aquaculture facility.
3.3.3.1 Viewshed Coverage Rating
Individual Element Rating: Low
The proposed geoduck planting area covers less than 5% of the cone of vision when viewed from
nearby residences. The project is only 500 feet wide along the nearly 2‐mile‐long northern
shoreline of Squamish Harbor.
3.4 Extent of Probable Visual Impact
Scores from the inventory of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility are incorporated into an
overall score to determine the severity of the probable visual impact.
Scenic Quality Summary Category Rating: Moderate
Sensitivity Level Summary Category Rating: Moderate
Visibility Summary Category Rating: Low
Log Item 20
Page 127 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – 2018
October 2019 Page 10
Using the matrix provided in the Visual Assessment Workbook to determine the extent of visual
impact of the project site leads to a Class IV Low Visual Impact. This determination is based on the
fact that the site is visible only a small portion of the time, the site is not visible from heavily
traveled routes, the surroundings are heavily altered by local residential development, and the
mesh geoduck tubes will quickly take on a natural color due to colonization by aquatic flora and
fauna (see photo 13 in Appendix B). Based on the resultant Class IV Low Visual Impact rating, the
project should require no mitigation measures to reduce visual effects.
4.0 REFERENCES
Confluence Environmental Company. 2016. BDN Eelgrass Bed Delineation – 2016 – Final Report.
October 31, 2016.
Ecology (WA State Department of Ecology). 1986. Aquaculture siting study. Prepared by EDAW
Inc. and CH2M/Hill for State of Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018. Tides and Currents Website –
Tide Predictions at Gage 99445088 at Lofall, WA from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2017.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions.html?id=9445088&legacy=1
Figure 6. Visual Impact Classifications
Log Item 20
Page 128 of 464
Appendix A
Visual Assessment Workbook
Log Item 20
Page 129 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 130 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 131 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 132 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 133 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 134 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 135 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 136 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 137 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 138 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 139 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 140 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 141 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 142 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 143 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 144 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 145 of 464
Appendix B
Photos
Log Item 20
Page 146 of 464
SMERSH FARM VISUAL ASSESSMENT – 2018 Appendix B: Photos October 2019 Page 1 Photo Index - Numbers correspond to the photo numbers in the following appendix. Arrows indicate the viewing direction of the photo. Log Item 20 Page 147 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos
Page 2 October 2019
Photo 1 — View of proposed geoduck planting area from neighboring public boat ramp. Orange
boundary is approximate location of proposed geoduck.
Photo 2 — View of proposed geoduck planting area from western property boundary looking
east.
Log Item 20
Page 148 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos
October 2019 Page 3
Photo 3 — View of proposed geoduck planting area looking east from neighboring public boat
ramp.
Photo 4 — View from residential driveway approximately 1000 feet north of proposed geoduck
planting area.
Log Item 20
Page 149 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos
Page 4 October 2019
Photo 5 — View from residential driveway approximately 500 feet north of proposed geoduck
planting area.
Photo 6 — View from Shine Road approximately 400 feet northeast of proposed geoduck
planting area. Note boat that is also visible in phots 1-3.
Log Item 20
Page 150 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos
October 2019 Page 5
Photo 7 — View from approximately 1500 feet east of proposed geoduck planting area from
Shine Road looking in direction of farm. This view is typical of most residences in the area. The
high bluff blocks views of the proposed aquaculture. This photo was taken at low tide but no
exposed beach is visible.
Photo 8 — View from approximately 1500 feet east of proposed geoduck planting area from
Shine Road looking in direction of farm. This view is typical of most residences in the area. The
high bluff blocks views of the proposed aquaculture. This photo was taken at low tide but no
exposed beach is visible.
Log Item 20
Page 151 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos
Page 6 October 2019
Photo 9 — View of active geoduck farm from Shine Road. Looking to east during low tide.
Photo 10 — View of active geoduck farm from Shine Road. Looking to west during low tide.
Log Item 20
Page 152 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos October 2019 Page 7 Photo 11 — Houses with line-of-sight visibility to center of proposed aquaculture (approximately +1 feet MLLW). Orange circles indicate residences that may be able to see the farm when tides are low enough. Photo taken at 12:10pm on April 18, 2018. Tidal elevation approximately -0.35 feet MLLW. Photo 12 — Houses with line-of-sight visibility to lower margin of proposed aquaculture (approximately -2 feet MLLW). Orange circles indicate residences that may be able to see the farm when tides are low enough. Photo taken at 12:12pm on April 18, 2018. Tidal elevation approximately -0.34 feet MLLW. Log Item 20 Page 153 of 464
Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos
Page 8 October 2019
Photo 13 — Example of PVC geoduck tubes colonized by natural flora and fauna within months
of installation. Note scoters diving to feed on attached organisms. Note that PVC tubes are not
planned for this project but colonization of mesh tubes by native organisms is expected to be
similar for this project.
Log Item 20
Page 154 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
BDN Inc.
SMERSH FARM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REPORT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Brad Nelson, BDN Inc.
June 2018
Log Item 20
Page 155 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
BDN Inc.
SMERSH FARM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REPORT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
BDN Inc.
3011 S. Chandler St.
Tacoma, WA 98409
Attn: Brad Nelson
Authored by:
Confluence Environmental Company
June, 2018
Log Item 20
Page 156 of 464
BDN Inc. - SMERSH FARM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REPORT
June 2018 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Biological Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.1.1 Filtration .................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1.2 Turbidity During Harvest ........................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Habitat Functions ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2.1 Sediment Character/Quality ...................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2.2 Sediment Supply and Delivery .................................................................................................. 4
3.1.2.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Impacts to Navigation ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Impacts to Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Impacts to Public Access .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
TABLES
Table 1. Possible impacts due to the proposed project. ................................................................................................. 6
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project area and vicinity. ................................................................................................................................. 1
Log Item 20
Page 157 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
BDN, Inc. has leased parcel 721031007 (Smersh parcel) on Shine Road, west of the Hood Canal
Bridge, and is proposing to operate a geoduck farm at the site (Figure 1). A conditional use
permit is required by Jefferson County and, as part of the permit application, a cumulative
impacts assessment has been requested by the County pursuant to Jefferson County Code (JCC)
18.25.440 and JCC 18.25.590.
This report provides an assessment of cumulative impacts that may result from the proposed
project. Cumulative environmental effects can be defined as environmental effects caused by
the combined results of past, current, and future activities. This assessment incorporates the
following factors in an assessment and summation of potential cumulative impacts: current
ecological functions, human factors influencing shoreline processes, foreseeable future shoreline
development, beneficial effects of regulatory programs, and conservation measures.
Figure 1. Project area and vicinity.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BDN, Inc proposes to plant up to 5.15 acres of geoducks at the site between +2 feet and
approximately ‐2 feet relative to mean lower low water (MLLW). The lower boundary of
planting will be determined based on the location of the eelgrass bed below approximately ‐2
feet MLLW (Confluence 2016).
Log Item 20
Page 158 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 2
To protect juvenile geoduck until they can burrow deep enough to avoid predators, PVC tubes
4” in diameter by 10” long would be placed into the sandy substrate. Tubes would be placed at
an approximate density of 1 tube per square foot with 3” to 5” of the tube exposed above the
substrate. Area netting may be placed over the tubes to prevent them from becoming dislodged
during severe weather. Tubes would be removed after 18‐24 months once the geoduck have
reached a sufficient size and depth to avoid predation.
Routine maintenance of the proposed geoduck aquaculture area ensures that gear is preserved
on‐site, and would begin once gear has been installed. Maintenance would occur monthly, and
also immediately following large storm events. Maintenance activities may include monitoring
shellfish weight and health, picking up unnatural debris, ensuring that predator netting is
suitably anchored to the substrate, and ensuring that PVC tubes are not becoming dislodged
from the substrate. Maintenance would typically be done by a two‐person crew over a 4‐hour
period.
Geoduck will be harvested 5‐7 years after planting. Netting may remain on the site until harvest
to protect the crop from theft and/or predation.
3.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Potential effects to fish and wildlife habitat, boat navigation, aesthetics, and public access/use
are considered in this assessment. Biological impacts and visual impacts have been assessed in
detail in separate reports (Confluence 2018a, Confluence 2018b). Summaries of the findings of
those assessments are included below in addition to evaluations of effects to boat navigation
and public access.
3.1 Biological Impacts
Biological impacts are discussed below as a function of potential effects to water quality (i.e.
filtration by shellfish, turbidity during harvest) and physical habitat functions (i.e. sediment
quality, sediment supply and delivery, submerged aquatic vegetation). Additional detail on
each of these elements is provided in Confluence 2018a.
3.1.1 Water Quality
Potential effects to water quality and fish and wildlife species or their habitat are different
during the growing and harvest phases of geoduck aquaculture. During the growth phase,
geoducks filter phytoplankton and other particles from the water column. During harvest,
sediment is re‐suspended into the water column. These two aspects are addressed in further
detail below.
Log Item 20
Page 159 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 3
3.1.1.1 Filtration
The depth at which photosynthetic submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) can grow is limited by
the depth at which light penetrates through the water column. Shellfish aquaculture can result
in a beneficial reduction in turbidity, and increase in light penetration, due to removal of
phytoplankton and particulate organic matter through filtration. Improvements to water clarity
and light penetration can improve habitat conditions through the growth of SAV.
Shellfish aquaculture or the presence of a naturally dense bivalve community may provide
some control of human nutrient loading to water bodies. Bivalves remove phytoplankton and
suspended sediment from the water column through filtration, which can have a net benefit to
water quality. When shellfish are harvested, sequestered nutrients are permanently removed
from the system which benefits areas with high nutrient loading, such as Hood Canal.
Shellfish aquaculture infrastructure also provide microhabitats for communities of nitrifying
microbes. Through filtration, sequestration, and hosting of nitrifying microbes commercial
shellfish aquaculture can be considered a net benefit to water quality ecosystem functions.
3.1.1.2 Turbidity During Harvest
Geoducks can be harvested when the tide is out or by divers when the tide is in, both methods
use a water jet to loosen the sediment around the geoduck which causes a temporary increase in
suspended sediment and turbidity. A geoduck harvest event is limited geographically and
temporally compared to natural storm events which increase suspended sediment and turbidity
to comparable levels.
Exposure to high levels of suspended sediment can stress fish and result in reduced survival
and growth but studies have shown that fish are likely to avoid localized, elevated turbidity
events such as a geoduck harvest.
Both the timing and intensity of activities are below the natural disturbance regime of typical
Puget Sound storm events and mobile species are able to avoid the harvest area. Thus, harvest
is not anticipated to result in negative impacts to ecological functions.
3.1.2 Habitat Functions
In‐water activities have the potential to alter sediment character/quality, sediment supply and
delivery, or distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation. Changes to these elements could
result in either negative or beneficial alteration of habitat in the vicinity of the project. The
potential effects to each of these elements from geoduck culture and harvest is discussed further
below.
Log Item 20
Page 160 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 4
3.1.2.1 Sediment Character/Quality
Sediment along the north shore of Squamish Harbor is primarily sandy in the lower elevations
with gravel and cobble on the upper intertidal beach. No sediment contaminants are known in
the proposed project area and the surrounding land use is low density residential and not
industrial, as is typically associated with sediment contamination. The proposed project will
not be using any chemicals that may cause sediment contamination. The proposed project
would not change existing sediment character or quality.
3.1.2.2 Sediment Supply and Delivery
The beach slopes gradually and has exposure to wind generated waves from the south, where
winter storms typically come from in Puget Sound. East of the project area there is a high
eroding bluff that supplies sediment to the beach. Net shore‐drift of sediment is to the west,
from the eroding bluff toward the proposed project site. Shoreline armoring is prevalent along
the north shore of Squamish Harbor, which may generally limit sediment supply in the area.
The two types of potential disturbances associated with shellfish aquaculture that could affect
sediment supply and delivery include the use of tubes and netting that slow the transport of
sediments, and sediment re‐suspension due to harvest activities.
A small accumulation of sediment may collect in the proposed geoduck tubes and is expected to
rapidly redistribute through wave and current action after one or two tidal cycles following the
removal of nets and tubes.
During a geoduck harvest, the overlying sediments are loosened around the clam by a low‐
pressure water hose. Although this activity results in minor, localized changes in elevation and
sediment grain size, both quickly return to baseline conditions within one month after harvest.
In summary, geoduck harvest and the presence of culture tubes and/or cover nets do not lead to
significant impacts to sediment transport or bathymetry. Minor changes in elevation may
persist for up to 1 month, but these effects are insignificant compared to the natural sediment
dynamics along the shoreline associated with the project area.
3.1.2.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
A dense bed of eelgrass (Zostera marina) extends from approximately ‐3 ft MLLW, waterward of
the project area to an unknown depth. A narrow band of sparse, patchy eelgrass is landward of
the dense bed between approximately ‐2 and ‐3 feet MLLW. Several sparse patches of non‐
native dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica) were observed distributed throughout the proposed
project area.
Macroalgae beds are not found in or near the project area. Green algae (Ulva spp) were present
at a very low density, attached to a small number of hard objects such as derelict clam shells.
Log Item 20
Page 161 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 5
Macroalgae density is anticipated to increase in the project area due to geoduck farming as the
PVC tubes and cover netting provide solid substrate required by macroalgae for attachment
and growth.
Because the project will be located outside of a 16‐foot protective buffer from native eelgrass, no
negative effects are anticipated to occur to eelgrass due to the proposed project and there may
be an ecological lift from the potential increase in other macroalgal species on the tubes and
netting.
3.2 Impacts to Navigation
Geoducks are grown in sediment and infrastructure (netting and tubes) that has very low relief
(less than 5 inches). This would not result in any impacts to boat navigation.
3.3 Impacts to Aesthetics
A visual impacts assessment was completed as part of this project and indicates that visual
impacts due to the project would be very low (Confluence 2018b). The proposed geoduck
planting area covers less than 5 percent of the cone of vision when viewed from nearby
residences. The project is 500 feet wide along the nearly 2‐mile‐long northern shoreline of
Squamish Harbor.
The Smersh site is located on a heavily altered shoreline in a medium‐density, residential
neighborhood. The shoreline has been altered by rip rap hardening, there is a concrete boat
ramp and gravel parking lot on the adjacent public property, riparian trees have been removed
from a number of the adjacent properties to increase private views, and the paved roadway is
adjacent to the shoreline for approximately 1 mile next to the Smersh parcel.
Tides low enough to expose the planting area follow a seasonal pattern in the Puget Sound
region. Larger‐magnitude summer low tides occur during daylight hours, while winter low
tides occur at night. Therefore, geoduck tubes and netting are more visible in summer, and
minimal in winter. Also, geoduck tubes and nets have very low relief and natural macroalgae
colonizes equipment rapidly, quickly resulting in natural color and texture.
Given the site is visible only a small portion of the time, the site is not visible from heavily
traveled routes, the surroundings are heavily altered by local residential development, and the
geoduck tubes and netting will quickly take on a natural color due to colonization by aquatic
flora and fauna, there would be only very low impacts to aesthetics.
3.4 Impacts to Public Access
There will be no impacts to beach access as part of this project as the project is located on
private tidelands that are not currently accessible by the public.
Log Item 20
Page 162 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 6
4.0 CONCLUSION
Based on communication with Jefferson County no other like actions are present or proposed in
the area that will cumulatively increase impacts to the area (Bausher 2018). As presented above,
the proposed project would have minimal negative impact on the local shoreline and some
beneficial impacts. Past and current use of the area is residential and any impacts to the
shoreline are incorporated into existing background conditions. Thus, the cumulative impact of
the project on the local ecosystem would range from none to minor as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Cumulative Impact Determinations.
Impact Category Cumulative Impact
Determination Rationale for Impact Determination
Biological (Water Quality and
Habitat Functions)
None Filtration by geoducks may improve water quality in the
vicinity of the proposed project area.
Turbidity will be temporarily increased during harvest,
but this will not negatively impact habitat because
effects are similar to monthly storm events.
Sediment character and quality will not change as part
of the proposed project.
Sediment supply and delivery may be temporarily
impacted by accumulating sediment during the
proposed project and releasing sediment during
harvest.
Submerged aquatic vegetation may be beneficially
impacted during the proposed project by increasing the
locations where algae can establish.
Navigation None The proposed project has very low relief (e.g., 0.25
feet).
Aesthetics Minor The proposed project will be visible for only short
duration during very low tides.
Maintenance will occur monthly to ensure farm is tidy
and tubes have not become dislodged.
While not in use, equipment will be stored off-site.
Public Access None Proposed project is located on private tidelands with no
public access.
Log Item 20
Page 163 of 464
BDM – Smersh Geoduck Farm Cumulative Impacts Report
June 2018 Page 1
5.0 REFERENCES
Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2016. BDN Eelgrass Delineation –
Final Report. October 31, 2016.
Confluence. 2018a. Smersh Farm Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report. June, 2018.
Confluence. 2018b. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment. June, 2018.
Bausher, A. 2018. Personal communication between Anna Bausher, Jefferson County –
Development Review Division, and Grant Novak, Confluence Environmental. June, 14, 2018
Log Item 20
Page 164 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 165 of 464
BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum – Page 1
BDN Inc.
SMERSH FARM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REPORT
June 2018 ADDENDUM 1
4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM NEARBY CURRENT PROJECTS AND REASONABLY
FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS.
Conditional use permits require that consideration be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for
like actions in the area. The total impact of a proposal and like proposals should remain consistent with the
policies of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) and should not produce substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
The SMP defines “Cumulative impacts” or “cumulative effects” as “the combined impacts of a proposed
development action along with past impacts and impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development actions.
(JCC 18.25.100(3)(aa)). “Reasonably foreseeable” is defined as “predictable by an average person based on
existing conditions, anticipated build-out, and approved/pending permits.” (JCC 18.25.100(18)(d))
4.0.1 Other existing nearby projects
All known existing nearby projects that could be considered as potentially producing impacts similar
to that of the proposed Smersh project are as follows:
4.0.1.1 Former Washington Shellfish Farm (821334073) BDN acquired this parcel in 2014,
which was associated with an existing geoduck farm operated by Washington Shellfish for several
years and then operated by BDN pursuant to a lease from Washington Shellfish starting in 2013.
Washington Shellfish filed for coverage under the 2012 Nationwide Permit 48 for existing shellfish
farms in October 2012. The Corps confirmed receipt of a complete application, assigning it reference
number NWS-2012-1210, and confirmed that BDN could continue to farm the parcel within the
existing footprint previously farmed by Washington Shellfish. Similar to the current Smersh parcel,
the Corps required updated eelgrass maps. The Corps approved coverage for this parcel on March 14,
2017.
4.0.1.2 BDN Parcel (821334011) BDN submitted its Corps application for this parcel at the
same time as the Corps application for the current Smersh parcel. Farming on this parcel was
approved by the Corps on March 14, 2017.
4.0.1.3 Former Mocean Shellfish Farm (821334079). BDN acquired this parcel in 2014,
which was associated with an existing geoduck farm operated by Mocean Shellfish. The parcel was
approved by the Corps for geoduck cultivation in 2012 pursuant to Corps approval NWS-2012-1099.
The parcel was reverified by the Corps under Nationwide Permit 48 on March 14, 2017.
4.0.1.4 Hood Canal Mariculture Project. Other than the nearby projects all owned or leased
by BDN, the only known permitted shellfish operation within 10 Miles of the Subject Project is
operated by Hood Canal Mariculture, Inc. This is a floating farm located at Hood Head, about 3 miles
from the subject project to the east of the Hood Canal Bridge. It primarily grows seaweed on
Log Item 20
Page 166 of 464
BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum – Page 2
suspended cultivation lines located over 2.64 acres of aquatic lands leased from the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (Lease #20-B12535). There is some associated mussel and oyster
production, also using suspended bags or trays. This project is visually and geographically isolated
from that of applicant, being three miles away at Hood Head. There is no physical or aesthetic
interaction between these projects at all, and thus no cumulative impact results from their co-existence
and simultaneous operation.
4.0.2 Potential future nearby projects
4.0.2.1 Garten and Tjemsland Parcels (821334078, 821334075, 821334074, and 821334076).
BDN submitted its Corps application for these parcels at the same time as the Smersh parcel. The
Corps reference numbers are NWS-2013-1147 and NWS-2013-1223. These have not been approved
by the Corps for planting, and BDN is not currently pursuing approval by the Corps or the County.
BDN is not conducting any activities on these parcels and will not do so without obtaining all
necessary Corps or County approvals.
4.0.2.2 Other pending or approved applications before Jefferson County or Corps of
Engineers. It is our understanding that there are currently no applications pending for any similar
aquaculture projects within a 5 mile radius of the Smersh project, and that no county permits have
been granted for any other similar nearby projects that have yet to be constructed. Appendix A is a
listing of all known applications to or approvals granted by the Corps of Engineers for aquaculture
projects located in Jefferson County between 2007 and 2016. This listing was obtained from official
court records for the case of The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Case No 2:16-CV-00950, pending in the Federal District Court, Western District of
Washington. As can be seen, the only applications pending or approved by the Corps of Engineers
involving projects within a 10 mile range of the Smersh projects are the BDN projects and the Hood
Canal Mariculture projects addressed above. A Freedom of Information Act request to the Corps for a
confirming and updated listing is pending, and this submission will be updated if and when additional
area projects with Corp pending or granted applications are identified.
4.0.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis.
As noted above, The Jefferson County SMP defines “Cumulative impacts” or “cumulative effects” as
applying only to impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development actions. (JCC
18.25.100(3)(aa)). The SMP then defines “Reasonably foreseeable” as projects “predictable by an
average person based on existing conditions, anticipated build-out, and approved/pending permits.’
(emphasis supplied.)( JCC 18.25.100(18)(d)). It is BDN’s position that analysis of the BDN projects,
the Hood Canal Mariculture project, and any other pending or reasonably anticipated nearby similar
projects satisfies the requirements of JCC 18.25 entirely. All projects that fall within this requirement
are addressed below so as to demonstrate that their cumulative impacts will not produce substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment. This analysis will be based on the Corp’s NWP 48
Cumulative Effects Analysis and the Corp’s Programmatic Cumulative Effects Analyses.
4.0.3.1 Corps NWP 48 approval of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. Shellfish
aquaculture operations are subject to numerous federal environmental laws and regulations, including
the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. To fulfill the objectives of these laws and
regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers permits for commercial shellfish
aquaculture activities in state waters. Aquaculture projects are required to secure permits from the
Corps in addition to permits or leases issued by an appropriate state or local government agency.
Log Item 20
Page 167 of 464
BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum – Page 3
The Corps has developed several types of general permits that authorize common activities that cause
only minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts. These include Nationwide and
Regional General Permits, and Programmatic General Permits.
NWP 48 is the nationwide permit developed by the Corps for Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture
Activities. The Corp’s NWP 48 decision documents issued at both the National and Washington State
(Seattle District) level specifically address the cumulative impact of historical conditions, current
conditions, and future trends surrounding commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in the Hood
Canal area. Specifically, language in the National Decision Document Determinations found that
‘...the issuance of this NWP will…result in no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse
effects on the aquatic environment." (Decision Document, Nationwide Permit 48, December 21, 2016,
pp 73-74) The Seattle District also concluded that "...this NWP…will authorize only those activities
that have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects" in the Hood
Canal area (Seattle District Supplement to the National Decision Document for 2017 Nationwide
Permit 48 and Regional Conditions, March 19, 2017, p. 1160)
BDN has received Corps approval under NWP 48 not only for the Smersh project, but for all of its
currently active nearby aquaculture projects. Hood Canal Mariculture has received Corps approval
for its activities. (NWS-2008-00502) Thus, consistent with NWP 48 regulations, the Corps has found
that the Smersh project will have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse
environmental effects.
4.0.3.2 Corps Programmatic Cumulative Effects analysis of the proposed project. In
connection with NWP 48, the Corps has developed a Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA),
which includes Programmatic Biological Opinions (PBOs) produced by the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These PBO’s focus on impacts to listed species,
critical habitat, and essential fish habitat (including eelgrass and forage fish), and are based on current
baseline conditions and projected future shellfish activities in Washington waters. Effects regarding
water quality, substrate and sediments, vegetation, benthic community, fish and birds, contaminants,
and noise are examined in these PBO’s.
The BDN, Smersh, and Hood Canal Mariculture projects were all found to meet the PBA
requirements for cumulative impacts in the Hood Canal region based on the PBA’s 20-year planning
horizon, which considered current acreage plus anticipated growth through 2036. As the National
Marine Fisheries Service notes, "In the PBO, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of
anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to
the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat." (NMFS, Revised ITS and
Biological Opinion Errata, September 30, 2016)
The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PBO’s cite cumulative
environmental benefits associated with shellfish aquaculture, including long term improved water
quality, sequestration of carbon and nutrients, creation of habitat via culturing equipment and
materials; nutrient enhancement that supports invertebrates, macroalgae, and seagrasses; and benefits
to animal and plant life of minor benthic disturbances that expose infauna to predation and increase
the depth of oxygenated sediments.
4.0.4 Conclusion – Minor, Acceptable Cumulative Impacts.
Log Item 20
Page 168 of 464
BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum – Page 4
Hood Canal has 342.6 kilometres (212.9 mi) of shoreline and 42.4 square kilometres (16.4 sq mi) of
tideland. (Chapter 3 of the State of the Nearshore Report, King County Department of Natural
Resources, Seattle, Washington, 2001) The Current BDN projects are .00066% of this acreage, and
.00047% of this total shoreline. The Hood Canal Mariculture project is .00026% of this acreage and
utilizes no shoreline. So current nearby aquaculture projects impact a miniscule .00092%, (less than
1/10th of 1%) of Hood Canal tidelands, and.00047% (less than 1/20th of 1%) of Hood Canal shoreline.
Adding the Smersh project to this total brings the cumulative impact of all of these operations to
.00142% (less than 1/7 of 1%) of Hood Canal acreage, and .00116% (less than 1/9th of 1%) of Hood
Canal shoreline. Thus, adding the Smersh project makes no significant impact on the overall Hood
Canal environment.
BDN has no current plans to seek a CUP for the Garten and Tjemsland projects, thus there are no
applications pending. Therefore, because there are no “anticipated build-out, and approved/pending
permits” for these parcels, they should not be included in the cumulative impacts analysis under JCC
18.25.100(18)(d). Even if they were included in the analysis, they would increase the acreage and
shoreline impact numbers by .00027%, a miniscule amount.
Adding the Smersh aquaculture project would not introduce any qualitatively new activity into the
area. It would make only a small increase in the tiny amount of tidelands devoted to an aquaculture
usage that is preferred under Washington law (RCW 90.58.020.) More importantly, from the
applicable biological data there is no evidence that adding the Smersh project, and even potentially the
Garten and Tjemsland properties, would have any significant negative cumulative impact on the
environment. The data shows a cumulative positive, rather than negative biological effect from
introducing geoducks into these areas.
The project will not impede marine traffic. The only potentially negative effects of the Smersh
project, and other potential similar nearby projects, are aesthetic – being visual and noise impacts
connected with planting, maintenance and harvesting. BDN’s application shows that added boat and
vehicle traffic connected with the project is de minimis compared to non-aquaculture vehicle and boat
traffic, and will not significantly increase vehicle noise or congestion, especially since non-public area
parking will be provided for all beach workers as necessary.
Visual effects are similarly minimal, with the planned mesh tubes visible in the upper margins
of the geoduck planting area a maximum of 16% of any single month and the entire planted area
visible a maximum of only 2% of any month (Smersh Farm Visual Assessment, Page 7.) Since mesh
tubes will be present for only 2 years during a 6-7 year planting/harvest cycle (JARPA, Page 6), the
period of visual impact would be only .0066% , or 2/3 of 1% of that period. Again, this is a minimal
cumulative visual impact.
Similarly, harvest and beach maintenance activities will be visible to neighboring residents only for a
limited time. Planting will take place over a period of 20-25 days, and harvesting activities will take
place about 5 hours per day, averaging 3-4 harvest days per week during the one to two year harvest
period. So for 84-98% of the time during the 6-7 year harvest cycle, there will be no mesh tubes
visible at all, even at low or minus tides, and on most days during that cycle there will be no planting
or harvesting activities at all.
Thus, the Smersh proposal is consistent with the policies of the Jefferson County SMP, and will not
produce substantial adverse effects either individually or cumulatively. It will have no impact on the
Log Item 20
Page 169 of 464
BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum – Page 5
local area environment that in any way differs from that already occurring there, and will not add any
activities that differ qualitatively from those already occurring in the area. The cumulation of those
activities with the other nearby current BDN projects, and with the few other known or anticipated
potential area projects (presently being only the Garten and Tjemsland parcels), will have at most a
minor increased visual and noise effect which is more than offset by the proven biological benefits of
geoduck aquaculture.
APPENDIX A
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AQUACULTURE PERMIT
APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS – JEFFERSON COUNTY
2007-2016
Corps
Number Name Waterbody Latitude/ Longitude Cultivated & Fallow (acres) Acres not in Aquaculture Total Area (acres) Pending - Existing/ New Distance from NWS 2013-01268 NWS‐2007‐
01158
Coast Seafoods Co. Quilcene Bay 47.80314
-122.86462
25 0 25 Exst 10+
Miles
NWS‐2007‐
01412
Penn Cove Shellfish,
LLC‐‐Jefferson
Quilcene Bay 47.79098
-122.85165
21.57 0 21.57 Exst 10+
Miles
NWS-2008-
00247
J&G Gunstone Clams,
Inc.
Scow Bay 48.03709
-122.69741
0.5 0 0.5 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2008-
00502
Hood Canal
Mariculture
Hood Head 47.88373
-122.613858
5.74 5.74 Exst 3+
Miles
NWS-2008-
00564
J&G Gunstone Clams,
Inc.
Discovery Bay 47.99585
-122.85116
8 0 8 Exst 15
Miles
NWS-2008-
00567
J&G Gunstone Clams,
Inc. – Jefferson 9
Diamond Point 48.07327
-122.9253
10 0 10 Exst 21+
Miles
NWS-2009-
01481
J&G Gunstone Clams,
Inc.
Scow Bay 48.03913
‐122.69844
0.5 0 0.5 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2012-
00362
Marrowstone Island
Shellfish LLC –
Hoffstater Lease
Marrowstone
Island
48.06131
-122.69074
1.11 0 1.11 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2012-
00377
Marrowstone Island
Shellfish LLC – Erving
Lease
Marrowstone
Island
48.0547
-122.69123
0.71 .18 0.89 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2012-
00379
Marrowstone Island
Shellfish LLC –
Buckland Lease
Marrowstone
Island
48.0547
-122.69324
0.45 0.11 0.56 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2012-
00380
Marrowstone Island
Shellfish LLC –
Johnson N. Lease
Marrowstone
Island
48.05898
-122.69729
0.6 0.15 0.75 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2012-
00381
Marrowstone Island
Shellfish LLC –
Rempel Lease
Marrowstone
Island
48.05368
-122.70137
0.37 0.09 0.46 Exst 12+
Miles
NWS-2012-
00421
Marrowstone Island
Shellfish LLC – Lunde
Lease
Marrowstone
Island
48.041
-122.69992
0.39 0.1 0.49 Exst 12+
Miles
Log Item 20
Page 170 of 464
BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum – Page 6
NWS-2012-
1099
BDN LLC -
Mocean Shellfish
Squamish
Harbor
47.868025
-122.674814
0.56 0 0.56 Exst <1 Mile
Corps
Number Name Waterbody Latitude/ Longitude Cultivated & Fallow (acres) Acres not in Aquaculture Total Area (acres) Pending - Existing/ New Distance from NWS 2013-01268 NWS-2012-
1210
BDN LLC (WA
Shellfish)
Squamish
Harbor
47.867972
‐122.67377
5.3 5.3 Exst <1 Mile
NWS-2013-
01147
BDN (Brad Nelson)
Tjemsland Lease
Squamish
Harbor
47.867 ‐122.67505
0.73 0.73 Exst <1 Mile
NWS-2013-
01222
BDN (Brad Nelson) Squamish
Harbor
47.867
-122.675
0.92 0.92 Exst <1 Mile
NWS-2013-
01223
BDN (Brad Nelson)
Garten Lease
Squamish
Harbor
47.867
-122.675
2.02 2.02 New <1 Mile
NWS-2013-
01268
BDN (Brad Nelson)
Smersh Lease
Squamish
Harbor
47.865422
-122.661214
10.62 10.62 New Subject
Project
NWS-2014-
00171
Penn Cove Quilcene Bay 3.1 3.1 New 10+
Miles
NWS-2016-
00021
Dabob Bay Oyster Co. Hood Canal 47.615667
-122.974537
11.28 11.28 New 20+
Miles
Log Item 20
Page 171 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
Smersh Farm Habitat Management Plan and
No Net Loss Report - 2018
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
BDN, LLC
October 2019
Log Item 20
Page 172 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
Smersh Farm Habitat Management Plan and
No Net Loss Report - 2018
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
BDN, LLC
Attn: Brad Nelson
Prepared by:
Grant Novak
Confluence Environmental Company
October 2019
Log Item 20
Page 173 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Planting and Grow-Out .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Site Inspection ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Mesh ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Tube Removal......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Harvesting ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Habitat Management Plan ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Maintenance, Repair, and Operation ...................................................................................................... 6
2.4.2 Species-Specific Activities ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.3 Farm Plan Record-Keeping Log ............................................................................................................. 8
3.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Noise.............................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1.1 Airborne Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1.2 Underwater Noise ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.2 Effects of Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2.1 Effects of Airborne Noise ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2.2 Effects of Underwater Noise ................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.3 Summary of Noise Effects .................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Effects to Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.3 Filtration Effects .................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.4 Harvest Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.5 Summary of Effects to Water Quality .................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Sediment Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1 Existing Sediment Conditions ............................................................................................................... 17
Log Item 20
Page 174 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page ii
3.3.2 Effects to Sediment Quality ................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Sediment Transport and Bathymetry ............................................................................................................. 19
3.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.4.2 Effects to Sediment Transport and Bathymetry .................................................................................... 19
3.4.3 Addition of Gear .................................................................................................................................... 19
3.4.4 Harvest Activities .................................................................................................................................. 20
3.4.5 Summary of Effects to Sediment Tranport and Bathymetry .................................................................. 20
3.5 Migration, Access, and Refugia ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 21
3.5.2 Effects to Migration, Access, and Refugia ............................................................................................ 21
3.6 Forage Fish .................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.6.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.6.2 Effects to Forage Fish ........................................................................................................................... 22
3.6.3 Spawning Habitat Overlap .................................................................................................................... 22
3.6.4 Sediment Mobilization ........................................................................................................................... 23
3.6.5 Summary of Effects to Forage Fish ...................................................................................................... 23
3.7 Benthic Infauna and Epifauna ........................................................................................................................ 23
3.7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.7.2 Effects to Benthic Infauna and Epifauna ............................................................................................... 23
3.7.3 Culture Tube Placement Effects ........................................................................................................... 23
3.7.4 Harvest Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 24
3.7.5 Summary of Effects to Benthic Infauna and Epifauna ........................................................................... 25
3.8 Waterfowl ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.8.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 25
3.8.2 Summary of Effects to Waterfowl .......................................................................................................... 25
3.9 Aquatic Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 27
3.9.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 27
3.9.2 Effects to Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 28
3.10 Plastics and toxicity ....................................................................................................................................... 28
3.10.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.10.2 Summary of Effects from Plastics and Toxicity ..................................................................................... 28
Log Item 20
Page 175 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page iii
3.11 Summary of Potential Effects......................................................................................................................... 30
4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 32
TABLES
Table 1. Underwater Noise Thresholds by Functional Hearing Group ......................................................................... 12
Table 2. Clearance Rate Calculations for Pacific Oyster, Manila Clam, and Geoduck ................................................ 15
Table 3. Summary of Potential Effects from Geoduck Aquaculture ............................................................................. 30
FIGURES
Figure 1. Smersh Parcel and Vicinity. ............................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Area and Distances from High Water ................................................................ 3
Log Item 20
Page 176 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
BDN, Inc., (BDN) has leased parcel 721031007 (Smersh parcel) on Shine Road, in Squamish Harbor,
west of the Hood Canal Bridge and is proposing to operate a geoduck farm at the site (Figure 1). A
conditional use permit is required by Jefferson County and, as part of the permit application, a
habitat management plan and no net loss report are required (JCC 18.25.440).
The standard of “No Net Loss” of ecological functions was established by Washington State in the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and is implemented through a framework outlined in Jefferson
County’s Shoreline Master Program. This document presents an assessment of the proposed
aquaculture activities and demonstrates how geoduck aquaculture at the Smersh parcel will be
managed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project, if approved with current design, will consist of the following elements as described
below. Potential impacts described herein are based on this current design.
BDN proposes to plant up to 5.15 acres of geoducks at the site between +2 feet and approximately ‐2
feet relative to mean lower low water (MLLW) (Figure 2). The lower boundary of planting has been
determined based on the location of the eelgrass bed below approximately ‐2 feet MLLW
(Confluence 2016, Confluence 2018). To protect geoduck seed from predators, plastic mesh tubes 5ʺ
Figure 1. Smersh Parcel and Vicinity
Log Item 20
Page 177 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 2
in diameter by 14ʺ long will be manually placed in the substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are
exposed, before any geoduck seed is planted. The mesh tubes are placed around the barrel of a
“clam gun”, which is then used to insert the mesh tube into the substrate using Hand pressure such
that approximately half of the tube is below the substrate and half above it. A low pressure water
hose may be used to loosen the substrate sufficiently to properly insert the mesh tubes. Tubes will
be spaced at approximately one tube per square foot in the planting area. Only 5ʺ to 7ʺ of the tubes
will be exposed above the substrate. Tubes will be labeled with contact information for BDN. 12‐25
workers will work to insert these mesh tubes during each approximately 5‐hour shift. This will
allow for approximately 6,000‐10,000 mesh tubes to be placed per day.
Geoduck seed will then be obtained from a certified hatchery and planted in the installed mesh
tubes when 4‐5 mm in size. The juvenile geoducks will be placed in the installed mesh tubes by
divers during times when the tubes are submerged. No water jets will be used during placement
of the seed in the mesh tubes. The tubes will be clipped shut at the top by the divers, using plastic
clips, after the seed has been planted. Planting will begin in spring and continue through fall.
Planting activities will occur once per year, typically in June or July, over a period of 20‐25 days.
No netting will be installed over the tubes, and no rebar or other materials will be used in
connection with the planting, maintenance or harvest activities. The installed mesh tubes are very
resistant to dislocation during severe weather, or from geoduck movement and activity, so no
securing nets are necessary. No fill materials or other nursery/grow‐out structures will be installed
on the site.
Log Item 20
Page 178 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 3
2.1 Planting and Grow-Out
Locations for geoduck clam aquaculture do not typically require much, if any, site preparation prior
to planting because they are located in sandflats or mudflats that do not have large substrate
materials. Substrate composition in the proposed culture area is primarily sand.
There will be no removal of native materials from the site during site preparation. Excessive
amounts of macroalgae (i.e., Ulva) will be hand‐raked away from the planting area but left on‐site.
Successive tides will redistribute algae across the site. Non‐native dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica),
which is very sparsely distributed throughout the proposed planting area (Confluence 2016,
Confluence 2018), will not be removed during planting. Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) will not be
disturbed and all geoduck planting will occur outside of the 16‐foot buffer from eelgrass bed as
delineated by Confluence Environmental Company (Confluence) in July 2016 and reverified in
2017. Site preparation, if any, would occur at the same time as culture tube installation.
Geoduck seed are highly vulnerable to predation because of their small size and the shallow depth
at which they reside in the substrate when small. There will be no active predator removal from the
site. Predator control would be achieved through exclusion by planting geoduck seed into plastic
mesh culture tubes. Two years after planting, when the geoducks have reached a depth sufficient to
avoid predators, beach workers will remove the tubes by hand at low tide. Consistent with Corps
Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Area and Distances from High Water
Log Item 20
Page 179 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 4
requirements, if any herring spawn is found on the mesh tubes, they will not be removed until the
eggs have hatched. The mesh tubes will be placed in large bags and removed for reuse or proper
upland disposal.
Usually, harvesting will begin between five and six years after planting; the exact timing of
harvesting will depend on a variety of environmental and economic factors. The total harvest
window is expected to be 1‐2 years. The majority of harvesting will be conducted at high tides by
divers using surface‐supplied air. A small amount of beach harvesting will be conducted during the
ʺcleanupʺ harvest phase at the end of the harvesting period when there are fewer geoducks
remaining on the beach. Both dive harvests and beach harvests use the same extraction equipment.
A diesel or gasoline engine located on the work skiff is used to power a water jet nozzle that
loosens the substrate around each geoduck. The engine will have a muffler to minimize noise
impacts. The water intake hose will include a 2.36 mm wire mesh screen covering the intake to
prevent fish entrainment in the low‐pressure pump. The water jet nozzle is at the end of an
approximately 150ʹ long, 1.5ʺ delivery hose. The nozzle is approximately 27ʺ long and may supply
up to 20‐30 gallons of water per minute at 40 psi.
After geoducks are removed from the substrate as described above, they will be stored in crates
located on the work skiff prior to transport off‐site. During both dive and beach harvesting, the
work skiff will not be anchored in any native eelgrass beds. Dive harvests will be conducted during
daylight hours. Divers work within a 150ʹ radius of the work skiff at depths of 5ʹ to 20ʹ using surface
supplied air. The vessel engine will be turned off while divers are working for diver safety. When
beach harvesting, the skiff is regularly moved so that it always remains near the waterʹs edge.
Water hoses are then run from the skiff to the beach. Dive harvests will employ 1 diver and 2
support workers in the skiff. Dive harvesting will usually last for 3‐to 6 hours each harvest day.
Beach harvests will employ 2 workers on the beach and 2 support workers on the skiff.
Harvesting activities at this location will occur only during daylight hours, over a period of about 5
hours per day, averaging 3‐4 harvest days per week during the one to two year harvest period.
BDN will comply with Corpsʹ conditions associated with herring, surf smelt, and sand lance
spawning.
Site inspections will be made weekly, or more frequently if needed due to adverse weather or
citizen complaints, to ensure that mesh tubes have not become dislodged by storm activity. Site
inspections will be generally conducted by 2‐4 BDN employees walking the tidelands and
surrounding areas at low tide. Site maintenance will also include monitoring and relocation of
built‐up drift macroalgae (e.g. Ulva). If low tide periods occur at night, these workers may use
individual LED headlamps for such inspection and maintenance work. If any maintenance work is
required, this will be performed by as many as four people but should typically require no more
than 1 hour for each such maintenance event. No vessel operations will take place at night.
Log Item 20
Page 180 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 5
2.2 Maintenance
2.2.1 Site Inspection
Regular site inspections will be made during low tides to ensure that mesh tubes have not become
dislodged and drifted onto the beach. All unnatural debris will be removed from the beach to
prevent it from entering the water. These regular inspections will continue until all tubes have been
removed from the beach. Inspections will typically be made with 2 to 4 workers and staged from
the 24‐foot work skiff. Inspections will include monitoring for build‐up of drift macroalgae. Ulva
can unexpectedly inundate a given farm, covering tubes entirely and choking out all sea‐life below,
including juvenile geoduck clams. Drift algae is typically heaviest in late spring to mid‐summer
months. If a given farm area becomes heavily infested with the drift algae, the algae can be picked
up and moved to the top of the farm area where it can be distributed on the upper beach portion
that is not used for farming.
2.2.2 Mesh Tube Removal
The tubes will be removed when the geoducks have reached a depth sufficient to avoid predators.
The depth to which the geoducks can burrow is typically substrate driven, and they tend to burrow
more quickly in sandy substrates versus those substrates containing a mixture of shell or gravel. In
sandier substrates, the geoducks may burrow to the desired protective depth of 18 to 24 inches in 18
months, whereas in substrates with more gravel, it may take as much as 24 months to accomplish
this. In either case, tube removal should be completed within 24 months of planting.
All gear installed on a particular beach must be removed during the lowest tides of the year. When
a particular beach is ready for gear removal, workers will come to the beach by boat and remove all
mesh tubes by hand. Consistent with Corps requirements, prior to removal, mesh tubes will be
inspected for herring spawn. If any herring spawn is found, no tubes will be removed until eggs
have hatched. Workers will remove the mesh tubes by hand and place them in large bags that will
be stored on the work boat until all the gear is removed from the site for reuse or proper upland
disposal at an approved disposal site.
Tube removal will be done from winter to early summer to avoid Ulva buildup, as the weight of
accumulated Ulva can add thousands of pounds to aquaculture equipment. A crew of 10 workers
will be used to remove approximately 5,000 tubes per day.
2.3 Harvesting
Typically, harvesting will begin between five and six years after planting; the exact timing of
harvesting will depend on a variety of environmental and economic factors. The total harvest
window is expected to be 1‐2 years. The majority of harvesting will be conducted at high tides by
divers using surface‐supplied air. A small amount of beach harvesting will be conducted during the
ʺcleanupʺ harvest phase at the end of the harvesting period when there are fewer geoducks
remaining on the beach. Both dive harvests and beach harvests use the same extraction equipment.
Log Item 20
Page 181 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 6
A diesel or gasoline engine located on the work skiff is used to power a water jet nozzle that
loosens the substrate around each geoduck. The engine will have a muffler to minimize noise
impacts. The water intake would be fitted with screens that meet National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) screening criteria to prevent fish entrainment in the low‐pressure pump. The water jet
nozzle is at the end of an approximately 150ʹ long, 1.5ʺ delivery hose. The nozzle is approximately
27ʺ long and may supply up to 20‐30 gallons of water per minute at 40 psi.
Harvesting would be accomplished by 2‐ to 4‐person teams. After geoducks are removed from the
substrate as described above, they will be stored in crates located on the work skiff prior to
transport off‐site. During both dive and beach harvesting, the work skiff will not be anchored in
any native eelgrass beds. Dive harvests will be conducted during daylight hours. Divers work
within a 150ʹ radius of the work skiff at depths of 5ʹ to 20ʹ using surface supplied air. The vessel
engine will be turned off while divers are working for diver safety. When beach harvesting, the
skiff is regularly moved so that it always remains near the waterʹs edge. Water hoses are then run
from the skiff to the beach. Dive harvests will typically employ 1 diver and 2 support workers in
the skiff. Dive harvesting will usually last for 3‐to 6 hours each harvest day. Beach harvests will
employ 2 workers on the beach and 2 support workers on the skiff.
Harvesting activities at this location will occur only during daylight hours, over a period of about 5
hours per day, averaging 3‐4 harvest days per week during the one to two year harvest period.
BDN will comply with Corpsʹ conditions associated with herring, surf smelt, and sand lance
spawning.
2.4 Habitat Management Plan
Avoidance, conservation, and minimization measures that would be adopted at the proposed
geoduck farm are consistent with those outlined in relevant shellfish culture conservation measures
adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in their programmatic consultation with the
NMFS (2016a) and USFWS (2016) on Nationwide Permit 48 for shellfish farming in the State of
Washington. Avoidance of potential effects, where possible, is the priority. The avoidance,
conservation, and minimization measures at the proposed geoduck farm include the following and
are described in more detail in Sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3:
Maintenance, Repair, and Work
Species‐Specific Activities
Farm Plan Record‐Keeping Log
2.4.1 Maintenance, Repair, and Operation
1. Damage to aquatic vegetation and substrates from boats or barges will be avoided through
the following practices:
Boats and barges shall be moored and operated in deeper water and away from
aquatic vegetation to prevent potential impacts from propeller scour or anchors.
Log Item 20
Page 182 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 7
If boats need to come into the project area for personnel or gear access, then vessels
shall not ground in native eelgrass or attached kelp beds.
Groundings will be minimal and temporary and only occur in areas of blank sand
where a boat’s grounding will have no effect on fish and wildlife conservation areas
or intertidal habitat. Vessels would have approximately 20 square feet of ground
contact for up to 6 hours per day during approximately 10 low tide workdays per
year.
Measures shall be implemented to prevent anchors, chains, and ropes from dragging
on the bottom. No vessels will be anchored over native eelgrass beds.
Intertidal areas shall not be used to store materials such as tools, bags, marker stakes,
or mesh tubes. Materials that are not in use or immediately needed shall be removed
to an off‐site storage area and the site kept clean of litter.
All excess or unsecured materials and trash shall be removed from the beach prior to
the next incoming tide.
Moving large substrate materials (e.g., logs, rocks) during aquaculture operations
shall be avoided to the extent feasible. Where the relocation of such features is
necessary, they shall be relocated no farther than another section of the nearby beach.
There shall be no modification of substrate in an effort to improve conditions for
geoduck clam aquaculture.
2. Operators of vehicles or machinery will reduce contamination from vehicles and equipment
through the following practices:
Pump intakes (e.g., geoduck harvest) that use seawater shall be screened in
accordance with NMFS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
criteria to protect fish life.
Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, asphalt, or tires) shall not be discharged or
used as fill (e.g., create berms, or provide nurseries).
All vessels operated within 150 feet of any stream, waterbody, or wetland shall be
inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the staging area. Repair any leaks
detected in the staging area before resuming operation.
3. At least once a month and directly following storm events, beaches in the project vicinity
shall be patrolled by crews who will retrieve aquaculture debris (e.g., mesh tubes) that
escape from the project area. Within the project vicinity, locations shall be identified where
debris tends to accumulate due to wave, current, or wind action, and after weather events
these locations shall be patrolled by crews who will remove and dispose of debris
appropriately.
Log Item 20
Page 183 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 8
4. The grower shall not use tidelands waterward from the line of mean higher high water
(MHHW) for the storage of aquaculture gear. All aquaculture gear shall be stored and
sorted at an upland facility and transported to the project area at the time of deployment.
5. The grower shall ensure that mesh culture tubes are secured in the substrate to prevent
them from escaping from the project area.
6. Employees shall be trained in meeting environmental objectives.
2.4.2 Species-Specific Activities
1. A Pacific herring spawn survey shall be conducted prior to undertaking the activities listed
below if any of these activities occur outside the Tidal Reference Area 13 in‐water work
window, which is April 15 through January 14 (Washington Administrative Code [WAC]
220‐110‐271). Activities requiring a spawn survey include: (1) mesh culture tube placement,
(2) geoduck harvesting, and (4) culture tube removal. Vegetation, substrate, and aquaculture
equipment (e.g., mesh tubes) shall be inspected for Pacific herring spawn. If herring spawn
is present, these activities are prohibited in the areas where spawning has occurred until the
eggs have hatched and spawn is no longer present (typically 2 weeks). Records shall be
maintained, including the date and time of surveys; the area, materials, and equipment
surveyed; results from the survey; etc. The record of Pacific herring spawn surveys shall be
made available to the Corps, NMFS, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), upon
request.
2. Shellfish culturing shall not be placed above the tidal elevation of +7 feet MLLW if the area
is documented as surf smelt spawning habitat by WDFW (note the project will be confined
below +2 feet MLLW).
3. Shellfish culturing shall not be placed above the tidal elevation of +5 feet MLLW if the area
is documented as Pacific sand lance spawning habitat by WDFW (note the project will be
confined below +2 ft MLLW).
2.4.3 Farm Plan Record-Keeping Log
Logs will be kept to record the timing, personnel, and findings of the following surveys and/or
cleanup activities.
1. Pacific herring spawn surveys: The grower shall maintain a record with the following
information and the record shall be made available upon request to the Corps, NMFS, and
USFWS: date of survey, location of area patrolled, surveyor name, and whether herring
spawn was observed in the project area.
2. Spills or cleanups conducted on the beach: The grower shall maintain a record with the
following information and the record shall be made available upon request to the Corps,
Log Item 20
Page 184 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 9
NMFS, and USFWS: date of patrol, location of areas patrolled, description of the type and
amount of retrieved debris, and other pertinent information.
3.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS
The “no net loss” standard contained in WAC 173‐26‐186 requires that the impacts of shoreline use
and/or development (e.g., geoduck aquaculture) be identified and mitigated such that there are no
resulting adverse impacts to ecological functions or processes. The Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) defines no net loss as meaning that no significant adverse impacts to preexisting
ecological function shall occur as a result of proposed shoreline development. Jefferson County
further defines no net loss as “the maintenance of the aggregate total of the county shoreline
ecological functions over time.” Ecological function is defined by the County as “the work
performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the
maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline’s natural
ecosystem” (JCC 18.25.100(5)(a)).
In the following analysis, habitat and species indicators serve as a proxy for ecological function. By
avoiding impacts to species and the habitats upon which they rely, impacts to ecological functions
will be avoided as well.
The following specific factors are assessed in the following analysis of effects:
Noise
Water quality
Sediment quality
Sediment transport and bathymetry
Migration, access, and refugia
Forage fish
Benthic infauna and epifauna
Waterfowl
Aquatic vegetation
Plastics and toxicity
Log Item 20
Page 185 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 10
3.1 Noise
Changes in noise can result behavioral disturbance or, if loud enough, injury. The following section
describes existing noise conditions and expected effects of the proposed action.
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
Existing sources and levels of airborne as well as underwater noise are described in this section.
3.1.1.1 Airborne Noise
The uplands neighboring the proposed Smersh geoduck farm are rural residential, and they are
zoned as shoreline residential under the current Shoreline Master Plan for Jefferson County. There
are numerous single‐family residential houses in the Shine neighborhood which is bordered on the
north side by the heavily trafficked Sstate Route (SR) 104. Between 6,000 and 22,000 vehicles pass
the Shine neighborhood each day on SR 104 (15,000 average annual daily trips) traveling at 60 miles
per hour (WSDOT 2017). Existing noise in the area includes that which is typically found
associated with water‐dependent activities (e.g., boat use), residential uses (e.g., vehicle use, lawn
mowers, beach walking), and vehicular traffic. Using the standard that 10 percent of the average
annual daily traffic represents hourly average traffic (WSDOT 2018) leads to 1,500 vehicles per hour
passing near the Shine neighborhood on SR 104. At 60 mph the sound from vehicle traffic is
approximately 75 dBA at 50 feet (WSDOT 2018). This sound level attenuates to approximately 45
dBA at 800 feet which is approximately the halfway point between the Smersh parcel and SR 104.
The estimated noise level based on population density is approximately 40 to 45 dBA (FTA 2006).
3.1.1.2 Underwater Noise
Measurements of ambient underwater noise were recorded at the Hood Canal Bridge in 2004.
Median background peak sound pressure was between 118.2 and 137.5 dBPEAK re 1 μPa and median
root mean squared (RMS) levels were 115 and 135 dBRMS re 1 μPa (Battelle 2005).
3.1.2 Effects of Noise
Noise‐generating elements of the proposed project are consistent with existing use of the
surroundings (small boat use and walking on the beach). Both airborne and underwater noise
would be generated from the proposed project when boats are used to access the project site and
during the operation of pumps for harvest on a 5‐ to 7‐year cycle. The potential to affect fish and
wildlife in relation to noise is described below.
3.1.2.1 Effects of Airborne Noise
The proposed project does not include the use of heavy equipment. Access to the site would occur
about once a month, and more frequently during limited periods for activities such as planting or
harvesting. Access would be via the upland parcels or via boat. The outboard motors typically used
on boats used for aquaculture typically create a noise level of about 60 dBA at 50 feet (Berger et al.
2010). However, once at the site, the engine would be turned off until employees are ready to leave.
Log Item 20
Page 186 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 11
Small diesel‐ or gas‐powered water pumps with hoses would be used to harvest the geoducks for
several days every 5 to 7 years. While noise levels of the water pumps have not been directly
measured, they are considerably quieter than the outboards, referenced above, that produce a
sound level of 60 dBA at 50 feet. Based on an ambient noise level of approximately 40 dBA to 45
dBA, terrestrial noise associated with the proposed project is expected to attenuate to ambient
conditions 199 to 285 feet from the pumps. The landward margin of the geoduck planting area is
approximately 160 feet from the ordinary high water line, leading to the conclusion that nearby
residents will be exposed to only slight increases in noise if they approach within close proximity to
the shoreline near the project site.
Noise associated with aquaculture operations during planting, maintenance, and harvesting
activities could, if loud enough, result in temporary displacement of birds and/or masking of
communication among foraging birds. Strachan et al. (1995 as cited in USFWS 2009) observed that
marbled murrelets around heavy boat traffic do not appear to be adversely affected by the ambient
noise of urban areas. Other waterbirds have shown behavioral changes in response to noise, but not
to the extent that would cause population‐level effects as long as distances of approximately 164
feet to 328 feet are maintained from nesting habitats (Carney and Sydeman 1999, Borgmann 2010).
Because bald eagles are a state sensitive species in Washington, and protected under the federal
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, there is an emphasis on ensuring that shoreline activities, in
general, do not disturb eagles. WDFW studied the response of nesting bald eagles for a 2‐year
period (1993‐1994) in relation to recreational pedestrian activity and wildstock geoduck harvest
activities within eight territories in Puget Sound (Watson et al. 1995). Eagles flushed in response to
4 percent of 890 potential disturbances, and only 1 of 34 responses was a result of geoduck harvest
activities. Effects to eagle foraging from geoduck harvest activity was considered statistically
insignificant at the frequency tested1, and eagles tended to forage evenly throughout the day with
or without a harvest vessel present. Similar effects are anticipated due to the proposed project.
The threshold for masking marbled murrelet communication is an in‐air noise level of 29 dB
sensation level (SL) or 29 dB above ambient noise level (Teachout 2013). This threshold was
informed by two critical hearing demands: (1) communication between conspecifics (at‐sea or in
terrestrial habitat), and (2) detection of the presence of corvid predators in terrestrial habitat. It is
unlikely that the noise generated by the proposed geoduck aquaculture operation would result in
masking marbled murrelet communication because the use of water pumps during a wet harvest
(the loudest noise source proposed for the project) is expected to increase noise levels by 15 dBA to
20 dBA above ambient noise levels (assuming 60 dBA produced by the water pump and 40 to 45
dBA ambient noise).
Considering the distances from nesting sites from the proposed project area, negative effects
associated with increased human presence are not anticipated at this site. Even if some short‐term
1 Frequency of geoduck harvest activities tested by Watson et al. (1995) included two weekday bouts when harvest boats were
present, followed by two weekend control days when boats were absent, for a total of 296 observational bouts and 1,896 hours.
Log Item 20
Page 187 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 12
avoidance behavior is observed, there is nothing to indicate that this reaction would impact the
overall foraging ability of birds present in the project area. Therefore, it is unlikely that such
temporary displacement from foraging activities in the limited project area would result in reduced
foraging success, nesting success, or fitness of overwintering birds. This concurs with the
conclusions reached by USFWS (2016), that determined exposures and effects of aquaculture‐
related noise to marbled murrelets are insignificant.
3.1.2.2 Effects of Underwater Noise
Underwater noise would also be generated from the motors on boats used to transport gear and
personnel to the project area and the small engines used for the water pumps during a geoduck
harvest. Underwater noise thresholds for fish, cetaceans, pinnipeds, and marbled murrelets are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Underwater Noise Thresholds by Functional Hearing Group
Functional Hearing Group Underwater Noise Thresholds
Behavioral Disruption Threshold Injury Threshold
Fish > 2 grams
Fish < 2 grams
Fish all sizes
150 dB RMS
187 dB Cumulative SEL
183 dB Cumulative SEL
Peak 206 dB
Marbled Murrelet 150 dB RMS* 208 dB SEL (barotrauma)
202 dB SEL (injury)
Low-Frequency (LF)
Cetaceans 120 dB RMS** LE,LF,24h:199 dB Cumulative SEL
(non-impulsive sound source)
Mid-Frequency (MF)
Cetaceans 120 dB RMS** LE,MF,24h: 198 dB Cumulative SEL
(non-impulsive sound source)
High-Frequency (HF)
Cetaceans 120 dB RMS** LE,HF,24h: 173 dB Cumulative SEL
(non-impulsive sound source)
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)
(Underwater) 120 dB RMS** LE,PW,24h: 201 dB Cumulative SEL
(non-impulsive sound source)
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)
(Underwater) 120 dB RMS** LE,OW,24h: 219 dB Cumulative SEL
(non-impulsive sound source)
1 dB re 1 μPa2 -sec = sound exposure level (SEL)
RMS = root-mean-square; this is the square root of the mean square of a single pile driving impulse pressure event
*USFWS considers this to be a guideline, not a threshold
** NMFS’s interim sound threshold for behavioral effects
Source: NMFS 2016b, Teachout 2013
To estimate underwater noise that might result from geoduck aquaculture, we reviewed Table 3.73
of Wyatt (2008) to find a close approximation of the underwater noise generated from boats that
would be used for the proposed project. In order to estimate the worst‐case scenario for underwater
noise, the parameters used for this analysis were the 21‐ft Boston Whaler vessel with a 250
horsepower Johnson 2‐cycle outboard motor operating at full speed and producing sound
measured at 147.2 dB RMS re 1μPa at 1 meter. Following Equation 1, underwater sound of this level
attenuates to the disturbance sound level for marine mammals 213 feet from the boat. Sound levels
produced by the boat do not reach injury levels for any marine mammal group. Nor do sound
levels reach disturbance or injury levels for murrelets and fish.
Log Item 20
Page 188 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 13
Equation 1 R1 (in meters) = R2 (in meters)*10((V‐120)/15)
R1 = 1m*10(147.2 dB‐120 dB)/15)
R1 = 65 m (213 ft)
Where:
R1 = range in meters of the sound pressure level; R2 = distance from the sources of the initial
measurement; V = transmission loss; and dB = decibels
3.1.3 Summary of Noise Effects
According to NMFS’s 2009 assessment of potential impacts to endangered species due to geoduck
aquaculture activities, “A very low level of vessel operations will be associated with the
aquaculture activities (small and larger work boats and barges). Vessels would remain relatively
immobile until work is complete, with minimal sound and insignificant potential for disturbance.”
There is no evidence that increases in either airborne or underwater noise from the use of boat
motors or water pumps associated with the rearing and harvest of geoducks would result in
negative effects to fish and wildlife species. Noise resulting from aquaculture operations
throughout Washington State was reviewed with respect to potential effects to Endangered Species
Act (ESA‐listed fish, marine mammals, and marbled murrelets (NMFS 2009, USFWS 2009, NMFS
2011). These reviews found that noise levels did not exceed disturbance thresholds that would
affect foraging, migration, reproduction, or fitness for any of the ESA‐listed species in Puget Sound.
The proposed shellfish aquaculture operation in Squamish Harbor would not significantly alter
noise above existing background conditions. Therefore, harvest operations are not anticipated to
increase underwater noise to a level that will result in a loss of ecological functions
3.2 Water Quality
This section describes existing water quality conditions and the expected effects of the proposed
project.
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
Water quality effects are a function of water circulation (or flushing rate and transportation) and
inputs into the system. Due to its proximity to the entrance to Hood Canal, Squamish Harbor
flushes quickly compared to southern Hood Canal. No waters near the project area are listed on the
Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (Ecology 2018), indicating that upland sources of
pollution are low and circulation maintains good water quality parameters.
Log Item 20
Page 189 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 14
3.2.2 Effects to Water Quality
Potential effects to water quality and fish and wildlife species or their habitat are different for the
various phases of potential aquaculture activities. The following discussion is broken down into (1)
filtration effects and (2) harvest effects.
3.2.3 Filtration Effects
Per Thom et al. (2008), Pacific Northwest estuaries are light limited, which reduces the depth at
which eelgrass and other light‐dependent species (e.g., macroalgae/kelp) can be successful.
Shellfish aquaculture can result in a beneficial reduction in turbidity due to removal of
phytoplankton and particulate organic matter through filtration (Peterson and Heck 2001, Newell
and Koch 2004, Cranford et al. 2011). By consuming phytoplankton and particulate organic matter,
shellfish decrease turbidity, thereby increasing the amount of light reaching the sediment surface
that is available for photosynthesis (Dame et al. 1984, Koch and Beer 1996, Newell 2004, Newell and
Koch 2004). Improvements to water clarity and light penetration can improve habitat conditions
that promote the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and other aquatic vegetation.
A large body of literature indicates that shellfish aquaculture, or the presence of a dense bivalve
community, may provide some control of human nutrient loading to water bodies (Newell 2004,
Shumway et al. 2003, Newell et al. 2005, Burkholder and Shumway 2011, Kellogg et al. 2013, Banas
and Cheng 2015, Bricker et al. 2015). Bivalves remove more nutrients from the water column than
they input as biodeposits, which can have a net benefit to water quality. As bivalves filter organic
matter from the water column, they assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus into their shells and tissue.
When shellfish are harvested, the sequestered nutrients are permanently removed from the system.
According to Newell (2004), this process of bioextraction is one of the only methods available that
removes nutrients after they have entered an aquatic system, which can then make that system
more resilient to nutrient loading and, ultimately, decreases in dissolved oxygen. High nutrient
loading, and resulting decreases in dissolved oxygen, are a known problem in Hood Canal.
Similarly, bivalve filter‐feeding also serves an important role in improving water quality conditions
through benthic‐pelagic coupling, which is when biodeposits become incorporated into surficial
sediments, and microbially mediated processes facilitate nitrification‐denitrification coupling to
permanently remove sediment‐associated nitrogen as nitrogen gas.
The amount of benefit to water quality is dependent on species‐specific filtration rates. A recent
effort to calculate filtering capacity within south Puget Sound (Ferriss 2015) compiled clearance
rates for Pacific oyster, Manila clam, and geoduck (Table 2). According to Banas and Cheng (2015),
a modeling study that used the data compiled by Ferriss (2015), the potential for local control by
shellfish was shown to be possible in areas with reduced circulation such as Henderson, Eld,
Totten, Hammersley, and upper Case inlets, and Oakland Bay. While Banas and Cheng’s study
focused on southern Puget Sound, Hood Canal exhibits similar circulation patterns and clearance
rates when compared to southern Puget sound. Therefore, shellfish filtration could have a positive
Log Item 20
Page 190 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 15
influence on local water quality parameters, even if small compared to the inputs into the system
from residential development, municipal wastewater, agriculture, or other non‐point sources.
Table 2 Clearance Rate Calculations for Pacific Oyster, Manila Clam, and Geoduck
Species Indiv. Wwet (g) L hr-1 indiv-1 L hr-1 Wwet-1 Source
Pacific oyster 11.52 3 0.260 Kobayashi et al. 1997, Ruesink et al. 2006
Manila clam 18.19 1 0.060 Ruesink et al. 2006, Solidoro et al. 2003
Geoduck 980 3 0.003 Davis 2010
Source: Ferriss 2015, Banas and Cheng 2015
An example of the potential benefits offered by shellfish filtration and nutrient sequestration is
provided by Kellogg et al. (2013), who partially quantified the removal of nutrients from the water
column at a subtidal oyster reef restoration site compared to an adjacent control site in the
Choptank River within Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. The authors indicated that denitrification rates
at the oyster reef in August were “among the highest ever recorded for an aquatic system.” In
addition, a significant portion (47% and 48%) of the available nitrogen and phosphorus were
sequestered in the shells of live oysters and mussels. An ancillary benefit of the shellfish reef
structure, which is also true for shellfish aquaculture, was that the structure and faunal composition
provided ample microhabitats for communities of nitrifying microbes. One of the conclusions by
Kellogg et al. (2013) was that oyster reef restoration could be considered a “safety net” to reduce
additional downstream impacts to water quality. Because geoduck aquaculture provides many of
the same benefits, with the added benefit of the total removal of anthropogenically derived
nutrients at harvest, commercial shellfish aquaculture can be considered a net benefit to water
quality ecosystem functions.
3.2.4 Harvest Effects
During harvest, suspended sediment and turbidity can be increased for a short period near the
harvest activity. Harvest events are limited in space (about 0.1 acre per day), duration (4 to 6 hours
per day), and occurs infrequently (once every 5 to 7 years) compared to the entire culture cycle. The
intensity and duration of turbid conditions are related to the concentration of suspended sediment,
suspended sediment grain size, water temperature, currents, and tidal flow conditions at the site
(NMFS 2009). Golder (2016) modeled sediment movement and suspension of sediment (primarily
sand) disturbed during a geoduck harvest in Case Inlet. Sediment particles were shown to settle
back to the bed rapidly and only a minor fraction was transported a distance of about 300 feet. This
result is consistent with total suspended solids (TSS) collected by Short and Walton (1992) during a
geoduck harvest in the Nisqually Reach, where it was noted that most sediment was deposited
within 3 feet of the harvest hole, and only “small quantities of material” were transported beyond
150 feet from the harvest zone. TSS measured by Short and Walton (1992) at the harvesting location
ranged from 4 to 21 mg/L. While a visible harvest plume persisted for approximately 30 minutes
Log Item 20
Page 191 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 16
after harvest and extended approximately 330 feet down current, almost all TSS measurements
within 131 feet of the harvest were shown to be within 1 mg/L of background TSS.
New research from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station in British Columbia,
Canada, has shown similar or lower effects from wet geoduck harvest events. A 2‐year research
program in both intertidal and subtidal habitats reported that the measurable sediment plume
generated during a geoduck harvest event was generally limited to within approximately 16 feet of
the harvest plot, and TSS levels were similar to those reported during typical storm conditions (Liu
et al. 2015). In addition, a harvest event did not result in significant changes to sediment grain size
down‐current.
Cornwell et al. (in review) evaluated the nutrients released from a typical commercial geoduck
harvest using low‐pressure water hoses. The study found that: (1) the amount of nutrients released
into the water column during harvesting is low, (2) the moderate concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus found in sediments and released during harvest make a relatively small contribution to
overall nutrient discharges into Puget Sound, and (3) localized effects are likely to be negligible.
A typical geoduck harvest event is limited in space (about 0.1 acre for 1 day), duration (4 to 6
hours), and occurs infrequently with respect to the entire culture cycle (i.e., 5‐ to 7‐year grow‐out
period prior to harvest). In comparison, a typical storm event in Puget Sound occurs once per
month and transports material over thousands of kilometers. Therefore, both the timing and
intensity of activities are well below the natural disturbance regime of a typical Puget Sound habitat
and harvest is not anticipated to result in loss of ecological functions.
Exposure to high levels of suspended sediment can cause behavioral stress in fish (e.g., gill flaring),
sublethal effects (e.g., gill damage, increased susceptibility to disease), or reduced survival and
growth. Newcombe and MacDonald (1991) suggested that a good indicator of suspended sediment
effects is the product of sediment concentration and duration of exposure. Fisher et al. (2008)
evaluated whether the TSS generated during a harvest event could result in significant effects to
fish using the suspended sediment risk assessment model developed by Newcombe and Jensen
(1996). The results indicate that fish are likely to exhibit avoidance responses to the localized TSS
levels generated during a harvest event. Because there is no confinement of the harvest area (i.e.,
the site is located along an open shoreline) there is no mechanism to entrap fish and expose them to
increased suspended sediments for a significant amount of time.
Published literature that addresses suspended sediment effects to juvenile and larval estuarine
fishes also report limited effects at the concentrations generated during a geoduck harvest event.
Juvenile Chinook salmon have been observed to increase their rates of foraging in relation to
increased turbidity (18‐150 nephelometric turbidity units [NTUs]), which was attributed to the
increase in cover provided by turbid waters (Gregory and Northcote 1993, Gregory 1994). The
maximum concentration of turbidity that juvenile Chinook salmon experienced before reduced
foraging was observed was 150 NTUs for individuals that were 2 to 3 inches in fork length
(Gregory 1994). Studies have also reported increased feeding incidence and intensity for larval
Log Item 20
Page 192 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 17
Pacific herring at TSS concentrations ranging from 500 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L (Boehlert and Morgan
1985). Boehlert and Morgan (1985) attributed the enhanced feeding to improved “visual contrast of
prey items on the small perceptive scale used by the larvae.” Finally, Griffin et al. (2012) noted that
TSS levels of 400 mg/L did not result in adverse effects for Pacific herring larvae for exposure times
of 16 hours. All of the TSS and turbidity levels noted in these examples are either within or
significantly higher than levels measured during a geoduck harvest, indicating that a harvest
would be unlikely to raise TSS to a level or duration that would have negative effects on salmon
and forage fishes. Also, environmental effects of geoduck harvests have been shown to be similar
to, or less than, the effects of periodic natural storms. Therefore, harvest activities are unlikely to
have a negative effect on fish.
3.2.5 Summary of Effects to Water Quality
Bivalves can improve water quality and mitigate anthropogenic sources of nitrogen in coastal
systems through filtration of nitrogen by absorbing phytoplankton in the water column (Newell
2004, Lindahl et al. 2005, Zhou et al. 2006). Conversely, a harvest event can potentially impact water
quality. Although a harvest event may increase suspended sediment for short periods of time (one
to two tidal cycles), it is typically confined to a small area (from 3 feet to 150 feet from the harvest
area) and occurs infrequently (every 5 to 7 years).
Fish would be expected to either avoid the sediment plume generated during a geoduck harvest or
use the plume as a foraging opportunity. Suspended sediment and turbidity levels measured
during geoduck harvest events were within or lower than the range in which juvenile Chinook
salmon and Pacific herring larvae were observed to successfully forage (Boehlert and Morgan 1985,
Gregory 1994). Overall, effects from suspended sediments are considered insignificant and habitat
may potentially be improved in local areas if shellfish improve water quality conditions. No net
loss of ecological function is anticipated due to water quality impacts from geoduck aquaculture.
3.3 Sediment Quality
This section describes existing sediment quality conditions and the expected effects of the proposed
action.
3.3.1 Existing Sediment Conditions
No sediment quality studies have been completed for the specific project site but the lack of historic
industrial development in Hood Canal indicates that sediment is unlikely to contain deleterious
substances regulated by the state. Substrate at the Smersh site consists mainly of well‐sorted, clean
sand.
3.3.2 Effects to Sediment Quality
Bivalve filter feeding serves an important role through benthic‐pelagic coupling, which is the
consumption of nutrients (via filtration of phytoplankton) and creation of biodeposits (feces and
Log Item 20
Page 193 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 18
pseudofeces). Nitrogen and phosphorus that are not digested are excreted as soluble ammonia and
biodeposits in the form of feces. When these biodeposits become incorporated into aerobic, surficial
sediments, microbially mediated processes facilitate nitrification‐denitrification coupling to
permanently remove sediment‐associated nitrogen as nitrogen gas (Newell 2004, Kellogg et al.
2013).
The biodeposits created through bivalve filter feeding contribute to organic materials in the
sediment surface, as described above. Predator exclusion netting is not planned for this project,
rather, plastic mesh culture tubes are intended to individually protect geoducks during grow out.
No studies exist that measure effects of such individual mesh tubes but some studies have
examined area nets covering shellfish aquaculture beds. The impacts of such netting is presented
here to provide a conservative estimate of potential impacts that might be expected to arise from
mesh tubes. Studies have identified changes in geochemical characteristics associated with the
sediment under predator exclusion netting when used in Manila clam (or other hard clam)
aquaculture operations, but the majority of literature indicates that these changes do not represent
negative impacts to the surrounding environment. According to Bendell‐Young (2006) and Bendell
et al. (2010), there may be statistically significant changes in the organic content of sediments under
Manila clam netting. However, other studies indicated that small, detectable changes under netting
do not appear to be significant in terms of overall impacts to sediment quality (Spencer et al. 1997,
Munroe and McKinley 2007). Further, many authors report that effects from the use of predator
exclusion nets are short‐term and do not persist following net removal (Simenstad and Fresh 1995,
Spencer et al. 1998). Based on a review of 35 peer‐reviewed articles, Munroe et al. (2015) concluded
that, “predator netting is an effective environmentally acceptable means of farming clam crops.”
Because individual mesh tubes allow natural sediment transport and mixing more readily than area
nets, which may stabilize sediments, mesh tubes are expected to have even less impact than area
nets which have been shown to be an environmentally responsible method of farming clams.
A study conducted for the Washington Sea Grant Geoduck Aquaculture Research Program
assessed the influence of geoduck aquaculture on sediment nutrient regeneration (Cornwell et al. in
review). During the culture period of the study, porewater nutrient concentrations of nitrogen and
soluble reactive phosphorus were higher at culture sites than at reference sites. The release of
nitrogen and phosphorus species during harvest resulted in a minor increase in nutrient
concentration of water surrounding the geoduck harvest, suggesting that the liquefication of
sediments does not release a large percentage of the accumulated nutrients in the porewater. The
authors concluded that when extrapolated to all Puget Sound cultivated geoduck harvest on a daily
basis, the harvest release of nutrients represents an inconsequential fraction of anthropogenic
inputs into Puget Sound, leading to the conclusion that geoduck harvest is unlikely to reduce
ecological function due to sediment or water quality effects.
Grounding of vessels may occur occasionally and temporarily during harvest of geoducks. Vessels
would have approximately 20 square feet of ground contact for up to 6 hours per day during
approximately 10 low tide workdays per year. Because the proposed farming area is composed of
Log Item 20
Page 194 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 19
well‐sorted, clean sand, no effect is anticipated to fish or wildlife habitat. Sand does not support
attachment of flora and fauna that would provide feeding or refuge opportunities for local fish and
wildlife. Additionally, because sand within the proposed planting area is loosely consolidated, any
visible scars or footprints from the grounded vessel would be washed away within one tidal cycle
of the grounding. Impacts from grounding would be similar to what might be expected from an
individual walking the beach at low tide. An occasional crab or fish may become entrapped
beneath the grounded vessel but no long term negative impacts would occur to fish and wildlife
populations nor the habitats upon which they rely for breeding, rearing, migration, or growth to
maturity.
3.4 Sediment Transport and Bathymetry
This section describes existing sediment transport and bathymetry conditions and the expected
effects of the proposed action.
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
Sediment along the north shore of Squamish Harbor is primarily sandy in the lower elevations with
gravel and cobble on the upper intertidal beach. The beach slopes gradually and has a relatively
high exposure to waves, winds, and currents during storm events. East of the project area there is a
high bluff composed of various layers of glacial sediment. The bluff is characterized by massive
erosion that threatens several structures on the top of the bluffs (ESA Adolphson et al. 2008). The
shoreline is classified as unstable recent landslide (Ecology 1978). Net shore‐drift is to the west as
indicated by sediment accumulations on the east side of obstacles and the westward prograding
spit at the mouth of Shine Creek ESA Adolphson et al. 2008). In the nearshore, eelgrass beds are
patchy in the intertidal zone and continuous below MLLW. Shoreline armoring is prevalent along
the north shore of Squamish Harbor, with about 26 percent of this reach armored (Jefferson County
2008). A boat ramp extends onto the beach next to the project parcel, with a parking lot located on
fill. The effect of the armoring and boat ramp are unclear, but are likely having at least a minor
effect on sediment erosion and input.
3.4.2 Effects to Sediment Transport and Bathymetry
No dredging or placement of fill is proposed as part of the project. The two types of potential
disturbances associated with shellfish aquaculture that could affect sediment transport and
bathymetry include: (1) addition of gear that slows the transport of sediments, and (2) pulse
disturbances due to effects of harvest activities (Dumbauld et al. 2009). These potential disturbances
are described below.
3.4.3 Addition of Gear
Mesh culture tubes used in geoduck clam aquaculture can slow currents near the substrate,
resulting in accumulation of sediment under and around the mesh tubes. Golder (2011) estimated
the potential accumulation of sediment within the tubes from an existing geoduck aquaculture
Log Item 20
Page 195 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 20
operation in south Puget Sound. Based on a visual inspection, an average height of 2.5 ±0.5 inches
of sediment accumulation was reported within the 4 inches of tube that was exposed above the
sediment bed. This equates to a volume of approximately 31.4±6.3 cubic inches per tube. Golder
(2011) then calculated net accumulation over a 1‐acre area to be approximately 29.3 cubic yards (cy)
of sediment. This minor amount of net accumulation is expected to rapidly redistribute through
wave and current action after 1 or 2 tidal cycles (or a few days with typical wave conditions)
following the removal of mesh culture tubes.
3.4.4 Harvest Activities
During a geoduck harvest, the overlying sediments are loosened around the clam by adding water
through a 0.5‐inch‐ to 0.6‐inch‐diameter hose. Although this activity results in minor, localized
changes in elevation and sediment grain size, both quickly return to baseline conditions post‐
harvest. At Samish Bay, Horwith (2009) reported that minor post‐harvest elevation drop was not
evident within 1 month of a harvest. Post‐harvest resettling of sediments occurs as water content
decreases, leading to an increase in shear strength and resistance to erosion. In laboratory
experiments with fine‐grained marine sediment, resistance to resuspension was shown to double
approximately every 12 hours (Southard et al. 1971 as cited in Short and Walton 1992). Therefore,
the sediment redeposited during a harvest event will tend to regain its original shear strength
within 1 or 2 days after harvest.
Grounding of vessels may occur occasionally and temporarily during harvest of geoducks. Because
the proposed farming area is composed of well‐sorted, clean sand, no effect is anticipated to fish or
wildlife habitat. Sand does not support attachment of flora and fauna that would provide feeding
or refuge opportunities for local fish and wildlife. Additionally, because sand within the proposed
planting area is loosely consolidated, any visible scars or footprints from the grounded vessel
would be washed away within one tidal cycle of the grounding. Impacts from grounding would be
similar to what might be expected from an individual walking the beach at low tide. An occasional
crab or fish may become entrapped beneath the grounded vessel but no long term negative impacts
would occur to fish and wildlife populations nor the habitats upon which they rely for breeding,
rearing, migration, or growth to maturity.
3.4.5 Summary of Effects to Sediment Tranport and Bathymetry
In summary, geoduck harvest or the presence of mesh culture tubes does not lead to significant
negative effects to sediment transport or bathymetry. Minor changes in elevation may persist for up
to 1 month, but these effects are considered to be short‐term with no lasting changes to the
surrounding sediment structure. The changes associated with geoduck aquaculture operations are
insignificant compared to the dynamic nature of sediment distribution potential (e.g., storms,
littoral drift, etc.) along the shoreline associated with the project area. No loss of ecological function
is anticipated due to changes in sediment transport or bathymetry.
Log Item 20
Page 196 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 21
3.5 Migration, Access, and Refugia
This section describes existing migration, access, predation, and refugia conditions and the
expected effects of the proposed project.
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
Shine Creek, approximately 1.5 miles to the west supports chum and coho salmon and cutthroat
and steelhead trout spawning. The Shine Creek estuary is likely rearing habitat for natal and non‐
natal juvenile pink, chum, coho, and Chinook salmon (ESA Adolphson et al. 2008). A small stream
enters Squamish Harbor near the project site (>150 feet to the north) and is presumed cutthroat
trout habitat (Correa 2003). This small stream does not support salmon because access to upstream
habitat is hindered by (1) the very small size of the stream, and (2) the steep gradient where the
stream flows through shoreline armoring (i.e., boulder riprap). Sand lance spawning has been
documented along the beach to the west of the project and herring are known to spawn in the
eelgrass beds offshore (Penttila 2000, Long et al. 2003).
The project site is a sandy, gravelly beach with no man‐made structures. Juvenile salmonids and
other fish may use the intertidal area, when inundated, for migration, access, and refugia.
3.5.2 Effects to Migration, Access, and Refugia
Mesh culture tubes are the only material planned for use in aquatic areas for this project. Mesh
tubes extend only 5 to 7 inches above the substrate surface No other equipment is planned for use
in the project and no excavation or alteration of the beach is planned. Mesh culture tubes will not
block migration or access to habitat in the project area.
The planting area is over 150 feet from the mouth of the nearby stream. All species of Puget Sound
salmon are well documented utilizing estuarine and nearshore habitat in their migrations from
their natal freshwater watersheds to the ocean and back (Duffy et al. 2010). Salmon are known to
feed in habitat similar to that found in the project area, ingesting amphipods, copepods, larval fish,
and terrestrial insects (Fresh et al. 2006). Depending on the tidal cycle, fish can easily swim over,
around, or through mesh culture tubes if necessary. Many researchers have reported that
aquaculture gear is similar (or superior) to adjacent eelgrass habitat in terms of the diversity and
abundance of benthic fauna and fish (Meyer and Townsend 2000, DeAlteris et al. 2004, Pinnix et al.
2005, Powers et al. 2007).
Sand lance spawn in sandy substrate in the upper intertidal zone between MHHW and +5 feet
(MLLW) (Pentilla 2007). Because project planting, grow‐out, and harvest will not extend above +2
feet elevation, access to sand lance spawning habitat will not be reduced.
As long as the gear is properly maintained, mesh geoduck culture tubes in the intertidal area are
not expected to affect migration, access, or refugia pathways for fish that utilize shallow water. The
presence of aquaculture gear may even serve as additional foraging habitat or cover from
predators. Because occasional vessel grounding in the highly dynamic sandy shoreline
Log Item 20
Page 197 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 22
environment will be of short duration and occur only occasionally during a 2‐year harvest period,
no impacts to areas of fish and wildlife migration, access, and refugia are anticipated. No loss of
ecological function is expected to occur due to effects to migration, access, and refugia.
3.6 Forage Fish
This section describes existing forage fish conditions and the expected effects of the proposed
project.
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
Sand lance spawning has been documented along the beach to the west of the project and herring
are known to spawn in the eelgrass beds offshore (Penttila 2000; Long et al. 2003). Sand lance
spawn in sandy substrate in the upper intertidal zone between MHHW and +5 feet (MLLW)
(Pentilla 2007) and typically select substrate with a diameter between 0.2 and 0.4 millimeters. In the
project area, the substrate found in the elevation range sand lance typically spawn is primarily
gravel, which is sub‐optimal for sand lance spawning. A dense eelgrass bed is found in the subtidal
zone at least 16 feet from the proposed planting area.
3.6.2 Effects to Forage Fish
There are two potential effects to forage fish from the proposed geoduck aquaculture operation,
including: (1) spawning habitat could be overlapped, and (2) forage fish spawning areas could
receive suspended sediments during a harvest event. The potential for these effects to be significant
to forage fish or their habitat in the project area are discussed below.
3.6.3 Spawning Habitat Overlap
The proposed culture activities are not located at shoreline elevations where sand lance spawn.
Culture will be confined to the intertidal and subtidal zone below +3 MLLW, while the forage fish
spawn elevation begins at +5 MLLW. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to impact
spawning habitat of these forage fish species. When the site is accessed by boat, boats would not be
beached above +5 ft MLLW. Boats will be moored or grounded in areas waterward of +5 ft MLLW.
Foot traffic for routine maintenance and beach surveys for debris will use consistent paths and will
not occur where potential forage fish spawning habitat may exist.
In some cases, aquaculture gear can provide a new substrate for herring spawn attachment in an
otherwise unstructured environment. Growers will be trained by a WDFW‐certified biologist to
recognize herring spawn. If herring spawn is observed within the geoduck farm, then those areas
will be avoided until the eggs have hatched. Vessels will not be grounded in areas where herring
spawn is observed. This conservation measure has been adopted by the Corps as part of the ESA
consultation process with the Services on the Programmatic Consultation for Shellfish Activities in
Washington State Inland Marine Waters (NMFS 2016a, USFWS 2016).
Log Item 20
Page 198 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 23
Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a loss of ecological function due to the project
overlapping forage fish spawning habitat.
3.6.4 Sediment Mobilization
If forage fish do spawn near the project area, there is a low potential for adversely impacting
spawning beds with sediment mobilized during harvest. Fines make up a small percentage of the
farm substrate, and sands (because they are denser) drop out of the sediment plume within a few
meters (Short and Walton 1992, Golder 2011). Therefore, there will be no loss of ecological function
due to effects to forage fish spawning habitat resulting from sediment mobilization.
3.6.5 Summary of Effects to Forage Fish
Because the project does not overlap sand lance spawning habitat, and because farming activity will
halt if herring spawn are observed within the project area, no loss of ecological function is
anticipated due to negative effects to forage fish spawning. Additionally, because sediments
mobilized during geoduck harvest settle out of the water column within a few feet of harvest
activity, no net loss of ecological function is anticipated due to mobilized sediment.
3.7 Benthic Infauna and Epifauna
This section describes existing benthic infauna and epifauna conditions and the expected effects of
the proposed action.
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
Observations of epifauna in the proposed project area were consistent with Puget Sound sandflat
habitats (Dethier 1990, Dethier and Schoch 2005). Species observed at the project site include
various amphipods, various isopods, various polychaete worms, sand sole, English sole, various
sculpins, various shrimp, Dungeness crab, red rock crab, and various hermit crabs,
3.7.2 Effects to Benthic Infauna and Epifauna
Geoduck aquaculture may affect the benthic faunal community, including community changes
during: (1) culture tube placement and use in 1st two years of grow out, and (3) harvesting. The
effects of each action, the relative recovery period, and potential effects to benthic fauna are
discussed below.
3.7.3 Culture Tube Placement Effects
Placement of mesh culture tubes is not expected to significantly affect benthic epifauna. Once the
tubes are placed, they are rapidly encrusted with epibiota that create a reef‐type structure and a
biogenic source for associated food organisms of juvenile salmonids (Cheney 2009, VanBlaricom et
al. 2013). Specific studies evaluating the use of geoduck farms by salmonids and other fish are
ongoing. However, based on shellfish aquaculture studies in similar sandflat habitats, the effects
from culture tubes are likely beneficial to salmonids and other fishes because of the additional food
Log Item 20
Page 199 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 24
resources available (Cheney 2009, NMFS 2011, NMFS 2016b, USFWS 2016). In fact, NMFS (2016b)
concluded that increased densities of benthic infauna at intertidal geoduck clam aquaculture sites
may persist even after removing protective tubes and netting. For example, at one aquaculture site
in southern Puget Sound, ENVIRON 2008 (as cited in NMFS 2016b) found the average number of
infaunal benthic organisms per sediment core from an unprotected seeded area was greater than
the density of infaunal benthic organisms found in a reference area located outside of the
aquaculture site. Thuesen and Brown (2011, as cited in NMFS 2016b) observed an increase in
biodiversity of benthic fauna in an intertidal geoduck farm using PVC tubes and predator nets, and
species richness was significantly higher compared to a control site and compared to a geoduck
farm without tubes and netting. Data from the Pacific Shellfish Institute (Cheney 2009) documented
up to a 30 percent increase of harpacticoid copepods (e.g., typical salmonid prey items) on mesh
tubes and nets at an existing geoduck aquaculture plot in Spencer Cove on Harstine Island.
3.7.4 Harvest Effects
Shellfish harvest disrupts the sediment and results in the loss of some benthic fauna (Hall and
Harding 1997, Ferns et al. 2000), although that does not mean that the loss is a significant impact to
that resource. The recovery rate of infauna varies in response to the timing and magnitude of the
disturbance as well as the location of the site to populations of organisms and the mobility of
organisms affected (Dernie et al. 2003). Intertidal habitats are exposed to a wide range of natural
disturbance regimes that are dominated by physical processes such as tides, storm‐generated
waves, inter‐annual variation in climate, and nearshore sediment transport. It is generally assumed
that benthos found in more dynamic sand and gravel habitats will recover more quickly following
physical disturbance than those found in less energetic muddy habitats based on the adaptive
strategies of the respective assemblages found in these environments (Kaiser et al. 1998, Ferns et al.
2000). Microcosm studies appear to support this hypothesis (Dernie et al. 2003). In general, benthic
infauna recovered very quickly (weeks to months) in terms of both diversity and abundance from
small‐scale disturbances, especially within clean sand communities.
Price (2011) and VanBlaricom et al. (2015) reported that potential effects to benthic invertebrates
from a geoduck harvest event are within the natural disturbance regime. This work compared the
benthic community within harvested and non‐harvested plots and found that effects to benthic
infauna during geoduck harvest are similar to effects resulting from wind and wave energy due to
natural storms. Detectable disturbances quickly become indistinguishable from control plots
(VanBlaricom et al. 2015). Recovery of the benthic infauna is relatively rapid after a geoduck
harvest event because infauna are still preserved in roughly the same location, leading to rapid
recolonization (Price 2011). In addition, because a harvest cycle occurs every 5 to 7 years, there
would unlikely be compounded effects due to repeated harvesting of the same area (Liu et al. 2015).
The main conclusion from VanBlaricom et al. (2015) was that communities in Puget Sound are well
adapted to accommodate various types of disturbance. Because the frequency of disturbance from
geoduck harvest occurs at a much lower rate than storm events, infaunal and epifaunal populations
are unlikely to experience long‐term negative effects. Based on this evaluation, it was determined
Log Item 20
Page 200 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 25
that there were no long‐term measurable effects to resident populations of invertebrates from
geoduck harvest, and the intensity of potential effects was equivalent to natural disturbances.
3.7.5 Summary of Effects to Benthic Infauna and Epifauna
Overall, the research indicates that the benthic infaunal and epifaunal community is not affected or
returns to baseline, or near baseline conditions, once the gear is removed or harvest is complete
(VanBlaricom et al. 2013, Price 2011, McDonald et al. 2015, Liu 2015, VanBlaricom et al. 2015). Small
benthic invertebrates produce more than one generation per year and thus have rapid
recolonization rates. Intertidal species have adapted to habitat changes. Chronic low‐intensity or
sporadic medium‐intensity intertidal substrate disturbances are within the range of “behavioral or
ecological adaptability” (Jamieson et al. 2001). Therefore, no net loss in ecological function is
anticipated due to impacts to benthic infauna and epifauna.
3.8 Waterfowl
3.8.1 Existing Conditions
Embayments of North Puget Sound provide important breeding and rearing habitat for waterfowl
and shorebirds. A variety of diving and dabbling ducks are likely to use the shorelines near the
proposed project for foraging, breeding, and loafing. The clean, well‐sorted sand at the proposed
project site does not currently provide good foraging habitat for diving and dabbling ducks. The
sandy beach may provide foraging opportunities for shorebirds during low tides.
3.8.2 Summary of Effects to Waterfowl
Studies of waterfowl use in aquaculture farms have shown either positive impacts (e.g. increasing
avian species richness and abundance due to increased foraging opportunities) or benign impacts
(eliciting no significant difference in use from natural beds). Through their foraging habits,
migrating marine shorebirds can significantly alter the community structure of wild bivalve
populations in soft‐bottom intertidal areas (Lewis et al. 2007). At shellfish aquaculture sites, some
species of marine birds feed directly on the shellfish products themselves (Dankers and Zuidema
1995), while others feed on the macrofauna and flora that colonize shellfish aquaculture gear
(Hilgerloh et al. 2001). Shellfish growers have documented numerous bird species foraging on their
shellfish beds, including scoters, dunlins, killdeer, godwits, sand pipers, eagles, great blue herons,
and gulls. Figure 3 presents a few of the species mentioned using shellfish beds for foraging habitat.
Due to the relatively recent history of geoduck aquaculture, and the fact that intertidal geoduck
beds are exposed for a short portion (approximately 6%) of the culture cycle, there are limited
examples that illustrate how birds interact with geoduck aquaculture gear. However, there is both
anecdotal evidence and some photography to show potential interactions. One of the best examples
is the mutually beneficial relationship between shellfish aquaculture practices and scoters. In some
areas, geoduck nursery tubes, oyster crops, and culture gear will get coated with sets of mussels.
When not protected by nets, the young mussels attract scoters that provide a service to growers by
grazing the fouling mussels off the crops and gear. At the Foss farm in Case Inlet, crews removed
Log Item 20
Page 201 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 26
nets and when they returned the following night to clean out the mussels, they were gone. They
removed more nets and deployed a GoPro® camera to discover scoters were cleaning off what
ended up being thousands of pounds of mussels (Figure 4).
Figure 3 Marine Birds Foraging in Shellfish Beds
Note: least sand pipers on oyster bags (top left), dunlins in oyster bed (top right), and godwits (bottom) around and on
oyster bags.
Log Item 20
Page 202 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 27
Figure 4 Scoters Foraging on Mussels Encrusting Geoduck Culture Tubes
Note: photograph taken using a Go‐Pro camera on the Foss farm in Case Inlet.
Source: Dewey, pers. comm., 2015
Shorebirds may be temporarily displaced from the farm during site inspections or harvesting but
there are numerous undisturbed shorelines in the near vicinity that provide foraging and loafing
opportunities during such short duration and temporary activities.
3.9 Aquatic Vegetation
This section describes existing submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) conditions and the expected
effects of the proposed action.
3.9.1 Existing Conditions
A dense bed of eelgrass extends from approximately ‐3 ft MLLW, waterward of the project area to
an unknown depth. A narrow band of sparse, patchy eelgrass is adjacent to the dense native
eelgrass bed between approximately ‐2 and ‐3 feet MLLW. No native eelgrass was identified
landward of the upper edge of the patchy eelgrass bed. Several very sparse patches of non‐native
dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica) were observed distributed throughout the project area.
Log Item 20
Page 203 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 28
Macroalgae beds are not found in or near the project area. Typical of sand‐ and silt‐dominated
habitats in Puget Sound, ulvoids were present at a very low density (<2% surface coverage)
throughout the mid‐ and low‐intertidal zone (approximately +2 to ‐2 feet MLLW) attached to hard
objects such as derelict clam shells.
3.9.2 Effects to Aquatic Vegetation
Macroalgae density is anticipated to increase in the project area due to geoduck farming as the
mesh culture tubes provide solid substrate required by macroalgae for attachment and growth.
Because the project will be located outside of a 16‐foot protective buffer from native eelgrass, no
negative effects are anticipated to occur to eelgrass due to the proposed project. No net loss in
ecological function will occur due to impacts to aquatic vegetation.
3.10 Plastics and toxicity
3.10.1 Existing Conditions
Plastics are commonly used in the marine environment. A few examples of marine plastics are
buoys, floats, nets, fishing line, and boat components. Increased generation of both macroplastics
and microplastics have been identified as potential as concerns for aquaculture equipment.
Macroplastics are defined as any solid material greater than 5 millimeters (mm) or 0.2 inches in
diameter, while microplastics are materials less than 5 mm that are primarily composed of synthetic
polymers (Baker et al. 2011, Davis and Murphy 2015).
Microplastics may enter the marine environment from primary sources (e.g., pellets in facial scrubs
entering marine waters through water treatment plant effluent), or from the disintegration of larger
plastic materials. Microplastics were sampled from the upper 1.6 ft of the Puget Sound water
column by the Center for Urban Waters and the University of Washington (Baker et al. 2011). The
study reported that microplastics are ubiquitous in all coastal waters. Within Puget Sound,
microplastic concentrations were found to be highly variable in space and time, did not appear to
be correlated to specific source locations, and were similar to levels in the open North Atlantic and
Eastern Pacific. Comparatively, Davis and Murphy (2015) collected material directly from beaches
rather than from the water column. This study reported that the majority of microplastics observed
were located in north and central Puget Sound, typically in close proximity to marinas and urban
centers. Styrofoam was by far the majority (75% of the count) of anthropogenic microdebris found
in these areas, followed by plastic fragments (9%) and glass (12%). There appears to be a strong
positive correlation between the areas of high microplastic abundance and population density.
3.10.2 Summary of Effects from Plastics and Toxicity
Concerns have been raised at Shoreline Hearings Board hearings regarding the potential for
aquaculture activities to release micro‐ or macro‐plastic debris or to leach metals into the
environment (Baker 2012). No PVC is planned for use in this project so leaching of metals or other
Log Item 20
Page 204 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 29
toxic chemicals from PVC will not occur. Mesh culture tubes planned for this project are made of
high‐strength, long‐wearing High Density Poly‐Ethylene (HDPE) that, once lodged into the
sediments, are very difficult to dislodge. The use of difficult‐to‐dislodge mesh tubes combined with
beach patrols reduces risk of tubes escaping as macroplastic debris. During a more recent Shoreline
Hearings Board hearing, Dr. VanBlaricom (2013) observed that tubes that were inadvertently
dislodged filled in quickly with sediment in close proximity to the farm where they were collected
during maintenance patrols of the farm. Unlike PVC tubes, flexible mesh tubes have been shown to
be especially difficult to dislodge from the sediments due to the mesh becoming integrally locked
with compacted sediments.
The potential to create microplastics was thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Joel Baker in 2012. Dr. Baker
found that PVC tubes, which are much less abrasion resistant than HDPE, are unlikely to degrade
based on the low ultraviolet exposure (i.e. tubes are under water most of the time), low wave
energy, and debris management plans (Baker 2012). To confirm that microplastics were not created
within a tube field, bulk sediment samples were taken from existing geoduck tube fields and tested
in an EPA‐approved lab. Dr. Schenk (2011) reported that there was no evidence of microplastics in
the sediment samples. Further confirmation that microplastics are not created due to geoduck
aquaculture was based on a review of stomach samples from fish collected in geoduck tube fields.
Dr. VanBlaricom (2013) testified that, out of 235 fish collected from geoduck aquculture farm, there
was no evidence of microplastics in their stomachs. While there are no known data specific to the
potential to generate microplastics from the use of HDPE materials, there is no evidence that
microplastics are a significant issue driving net loss of fish or wildlife habitat in Puget Sound (Davis
and Murphy 2015). According to Schoof (pers. comm., 2015), the life cycle of HDPE used for
aquaculture is much longer than manufacture’s specifications (e.g., decades vs. 2 years). Therefore,
due to HDPE’s strength and integrity, it is unlikely that use of HDPE materials would significantly
contribute to the generation of microplastics.
In a review of potential impacts of microplastics in the marine environment, Andrady (2011)
commented that microplastics were most likely generated on beaches, which would have extended
exposure to light and weathering if not collected. The author mentioned that beach cleanups are an
effective mitigation strategy to avoid or limit the creation of microplastics. He concluded his
comments on beach cleanup by stating, “Beach cleanup therefore can have an ecological benefit far
beyond the aesthetic improvements of the beaches, and by reducing microplastics, contributes
towards the health of the marine food web.” The conditions of farm approval include maintenance
of the project area, which would include cleaning up unnatural debris.
In summary, with proper farm management, it is unlikely that geoduck aquaculture farming would
result in the creation of macro‐ or microplastic debris. There is no evidence that existing farms in
Puget Sound are creating plastics debris or resulting in metals leaching into the sediment from the
use of PVC tubes or HDPE materials. Therefore, with proper farm management, no net loss of
ecological function is anticipated from plastics or toxicity.
Log Item 20
Page 205 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 30
3.11 Summary of Potential Effects
Although shellfish aquaculture can result in short‐term, localized changes, overall there is a
potential net gain, or at worst, insignificant effect, as demonstrated above. Table 3 is a summary of
potential direct effects for each parameter discussed above.
Table 3 Summary of Potential Effects from Geoduck Aquaculture
Parameter Potential Effect Duration Level of Effect
Noise
Airborne Noise: minor increase
above background when boats or
pump motors are in use
Underwater Noise: minor
increase above background
when boats motors are in use
Airborne Noise: during
transit (boat motor) and
during harvest (pump)
Underwater Noise:
during transit
Airborne Noise: insignificant
Underwater Noise:
insignificant
Water Quality
Filtration: increased water clarity
locally by reducing plankton
blooms and nutrients
Harvest: increased suspended
sediments and nutrients
Fish Behavior: avoidance or
increased foraging
Filtration: during grow-
out
Harvest: during harvest
and for about 1-2 tidal
cycles
Fish Behavior: during
harvest
Filtration: beneficial (albeit
small)
Harvest: insignificant
Fish Behavior: insignificant to
beneficial
Sediment Quality
Sediment quality: increased
density of geoducks can result in
increased organic content,
especially with mesh tubes in
place.
Sediment quality: when
mush tubes are in place
(maximum of 2 years)
Sediment quality:
insignificant
Sediment
Transport and
Bathymetry
Tubes: minor accretion of
sediments within the tube area
Harvesting: changes to elevation
and grain size
Tubes: 2 years of grow-
out cycle; baseline
conditions within 1-2 tidal
cycles
Harvesting: 1-4 months
Tubes:
insignificant
Harvesting: insignificant
Migration,
Access, and
Refugia
Tubes: the vertical relief (4-5
inches) is different than sandflat
habitat
Tubes: when tubes are
present
(2 years)
Tubes:
insignificant
Forage Fish
Spawning: potential overlap with
forage fish spawning habitat;
largely avoided with spatial
separation and conservation
measures
Sediment mobilization: sediment
migrates to spawning beds;
unlikely with wave energy
Larvae ingestion: forage fish
larvae ingested by geoduck filter
feeding; unlikely based on size
Spawning: planting,
maintenance, and
harvest
Sediment mobilization:
harvest
Larvae ingestion: grow-
out (5-7 years)
Spawning: insignificant
Sediment mobilization:
insignificant
Larvae ingestion:
insignificant
Benthic Infauna
and Epifauna
Benthic fauna: potential increase
of prey, but also short-term
change of community structure
Benthic fauna: baseline
conditions within several
months; 6 months post-
harvest
Benthic fauna: insignificant
Log Item 20
Page 206 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 31
Parameter Potential Effect Duration Level of Effect
Waterfowl
Beneficial effect due to increased
forage on mesh culture tubes
Potential displacement of
foraging or loafing birds.
1-2 years of 5-7 year
cycle.
Beneficial Foraging:
Potentially significant
beneficial effect.
Displacement: Insignificant
since sandy habitat of farm is
not prime foraging habitat for
waterfowl. Also, mesh tubes
will not preclude use of
farmed area by waterfowl
and/or shorebirds.
Aquatic
Vegetation
Eelgrass and Attached Kelp:
none present in project area
Macroalgae: drift macroalgae
would be disturbed, but not taken
out of the system
Eelgrass and attached
kelp: not applicable
Macroalgae: planting,
maintenance, and
harvest activities
Eelgrass and attached kelp:
not applicable
Macroalgae: insignificant
Plastics and
Toxicity
Macroplastic debris
Microplastic debris
Toxic leachates
1-2 years of 5-7 year
cycle.
Macroplastic debris:
Insignificant with farm
management plan
Microplastic debris:
Insignificant with use of
HDPE
Toxic leachates: Insignificant
with use of HDPE
Log Item 20
Page 207 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 32
4.0 REFERENCES
Andrady, A.L. 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1596‐
1605.
Baker, J. 2012. Transcript of expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB # 11‐
019). March 1, 2012.
Banas, N.S. and W. Cheng. 2015. An oceanographic circulation model for south Puget Sound. In:
WSG (Washington Sea Grant), Shellfish Aquaculture in Washington State, Final Report to the
Washington State Legislature. December 2015. 92 pp.
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. 2005. Hydroacoustic Measurements During Pile Driving at the
Hood Canal Bridge, September Through November 2004. Report PNWD‐3621 prepared for the
Washington State Department of Transportation.
Bendell, L.I., C. Duckham, T.L’Espérance, and J.A. Whiteley. 2010. Changes in geochemical
foreshore attributes as a consequence of intertidal shellfish aquaculture: A case study. Marine
Ecology Progress Series. 404:91‐108.
Bendell‐Young L.I. 2006. Contrasting the community structure and select geochemical
characteristics of three intertidal regions in relations to shellfish farming. Environ Conserv. 33:
21–27.
Berger, E.H., Neitzel, R., and Kladden, C.A., 2010. Noise navigator TM sound level database with
over 1700 measurement values. University of Washington, Department of Environmental &
Occupational Health Sciences, Seattle. Available at:
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/893209O/children‐and‐hearing‐protection.pdf
Boehlert, G.W. and J.B. Morgan. 1985. Turbidity enhances feeding abilities of larval Pacific herring,
Clupea harengus pallasii. Hydrobiologia. 123: 161‐170.
Borgmann, K.L. 2010. A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds. Audubon
California, Tiburon, California.
Bricker, S.B., J. Ferreira, C. Zhu, J. Rose, E. Galimany, G. Wikfors, C. Saurel, R. Landeck Miller, J.
Wands, P. Trowbridge, R. Grizzle, K. Wellman, R. Rheault, J. Steinberg, A. Jacob, E. Davenport,
S. Ayvazian, M. Chintala, and M. Tedesco. 2015. An Ecosystem Services Assessment using
bioextraction technologies for removal of nitrogen and other substances in Long Island Sound
and the Great Bay/Piscataqua Region Estuaries. NCCOS Coastal Ocean Program Decision
Analysis Series No. 194. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers
for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD and United States Environmental Protection
Log Item 20
Page 208 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 33
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI. 154
pp + 3 appendices
Burkholder, J.M. and S.E. Shumway. 2011. Bivalve shellfish aquaculture and eutrophication. In: S.E.
Shumway. Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment. Wiley‐Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A Review of Human Disturbance Effects on Nesting
Colonial Waterbirds. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology. 22(1): 68‐79.
Cheney, D. 2009. Notes on data collected for National Marine Aquaculture Initiative. Provided by
Plauché & Carr on September 12, 2013.
Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2016. Eelgrass Delineation – Final Report.
October 31, 2016. Prepared for BDN, Inc., Tacoma, WA.
Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2018. BDN Inc. BDN Inc. ‐ Proposed Smersh
Geoduck Farm: 2018 Zostera marina bed edge re‐verification. Technical memorandum
prepared for BDN, Inc., Tacoma, WA.
Cornwell, J.C., M.S. Owens, and R.I.E. Newell. in review. The influence of culture and harvest of
geoduck clams (Panopea generosa) on sediment nutrient regeneration. Aquaculture.
Correa, G. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors WRIA 16, Washington
Conservation Commission
Cranford, P.J., J.E Ward, and S.E. Shumway. 2011. Bivalve filter feeding: Variability and limits of
the aquaculture biofilter. In: S.E. Shumway (ed). Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment.
Wiley‐ Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Dame, R.F., R.G. Zingmark, and E. Haskin. 1984. Oyster reefs as processors of estuarine materials. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 83:239‐247.
Davis, J.P. 2010. DNR Molluscan Study DRAFT Report: clearance rate estimates in geoduck clams.
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.
Davis, W. and A.G. Murphy. 2015. Plastic in surface waters of the Inside Passage and beaches of the
Salish Sea in Washington State. Marine Pollution Bulletin 97:169‐177.
Dernie, K.M., M.J. Kaiser, and R.M. Warwick. 2003. Recovery rates of benthic communities
following physical disturbance. Journal of Animal Ecology. 72: 1043‐1056.
Dethier, M. 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State.
Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,
Washington. 56 pages.
Log Item 20
Page 209 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 34
Dethier, M. and G. Schoch. 2005. The consequences of scale: Assessing the distribution of benthic
populations in a complex estuarine fjord. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 62: 253‐270.
DeAlteris J.T., B.D. Kilpatrick, and R.B. Rheault. 2004. A comparative evaluation of the habitat
value of shellfish aquaculture gear, submerged aquatic vegetation and a non‐vegetated seabed.
Journal of Shellfish Research (2004) 23: 867‐874.
Duffy, E.J., D.A. Beauchamp, R.M. Sweeting, R.J. Beamish, and J.S. Brennan. 2010. Ontogenetic diet
shifts of juvenile Chinook salmon in nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 139(3): 803‐823.
Dumbauld, B.R., J.L. Ruesink, and S.S. Rumrill. 2009. The ecological role of bivalve shellfish
aquaculture in the estuarine environment: a review with application to oyster and clam culture
in West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture. 290(3‐4): 196‐223.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 1978. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume
Eleven, Jefferson County. General editor Carl Youngman.
Ecology. 2018. Washington State’s Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) list. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapviewer/default.aspx?res=1366x768 (accessed May 25, 2018).
ENVIRON 2008?
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidance. FTA‐VA‐90‐103‐06. May, 2006.
Ferns, P.N., Rostron, D.M. and Siman, H.Y. 2000. Effects of Mechanical Cockle Harvesting on
Intertidal Communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37(3), pp.464‐474.
Ferriss, B. 2015. Appendix: Filtering capacity calculations. In: WSG (Washington Sea Grant),
Shellfish Aquaculture in Washington State, Final Report to the Washington State Legislature.
December 2015.
Fisher, J.P., M. Meaders, S. Luchessa, and K. Mueller. 2008. A supplemental analysis of the
environmental concerns associated with intertidal geoduck clam aquaculture: Effects of wild
geoduck genetics, potential for toxin resuspension, and effects on soft‐sediment associated
communities. ENVIRON International Corporation. Seattle, Washington. October 23, 2008.
Fresh, K.L., D.J. Small, H. Kim, C. Waldbillig, M. Mizell, M. Carr, and L. Stamatiou. 2006. Juvenile
salmon use of Sinclair Inlet, Washington, in 2001 and 2002. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife Technical Report No. FPT 05‐08. Olympia, Washington.
Golder (Golder Associates Inc.). 2011. Assessment of coastal sediments and shoreline morphology
impacts – proposed Longbranch shellfish farm: Shoreline Substantial Development permit –
Log Item 20
Page 210 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 35
Longbranch Shellfish Farm. Submitted by Golder. Submitted to Plauché & Stock. LLP (now
Plauché & Carr, LLP). February 15, 2011.
Golder. 2016. Coastal Sediments and Geomorphology Characterization of the Proposed Iverson
Geoduck Farm in Support of the Biological Assessment. August 31, 2016.
Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk of predation, and visual ability on the
foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271‐284. In: Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and
R.J. Feller (eds.). Theory and application in fish feeding ecology. Proceedings of GUTSHOP ’92,
The Belle W. Burach Library in Marine Science, no. 18.
Gregory, R.S. and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 50: 233–240.
Griffin, F.J., T. DiMarco, K.L. Menard, J.A. Newman, E.H. Smith, C.A. Vines, and G.N. Cherr. 2012.
Larval Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) survival in suspended sediment. Estuaries and Coasts.
35(5): 1229‐1236.
Hall, S.J. and Harding, M.J. 1997. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: the effects
of mechanical harvesting of cockles on non‐target benthic infauna. Journal of Applied Ecology,
pp.497‐517.
Horwith, M. 2009. Resilience of soft‐sediment communities after geoduck harvest in Samish Bay,
Washington. University of Washington, Department of Biology. Presentation to the Shellfish
Aquaculture Regulatory Committee (SARC).
Jamieson, G, R. O’Boyle, J. Arbour, D. Cobb, S. Courtenay, R. Gregory, C. Levings, J. Munro, I.
Perry, and H. Vandermeulen. 2001. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Objectives and
Indicators For Ecosystem‐based Management. Sidney, British Columbia, 27 February – 2 March
2001. CSAS Proc. Ser. 2001/09: 140 pp.
ESA Adolphson, Searun Consulting, LaRoche+Associates, and Coastal Geologic Services. 2008.
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project – Final Shoreline Restoration Plan.
Prepare for Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Ecology Grant
#G0600343. October 2008.
Kaiser, M.J., Laing, I., Utting, S.D. and Burnell, G.M. 1998. Environmental Impacts of Bivalve
Mariculture. Journal of Shellfish research, 17(1), pp.59‐66.
Kellogg, M.L., Cornwell, J.C., Owens, M.S. and Paynter, K.T. 2013. Denitrification and nutrient
assimilation on a restored oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 480, pp.1‐19.
Kobayashi, M., E.E. Hofmann, E.N. Powell, J.M. Klinck, and K. Kusaka. 1997. A population
dynamics model for the Japanese oyster, Crassostrea gigas. Aquaculture 149:285–321.
Log Item 20
Page 211 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 36
Koch, E.W., and S. Beer. 1996. Tides, light and the distribution of Zostera marina in Long Island
Sound, USA. Aquatic Botany. 53(1‐2): 97‐107.
Lindahl, O., R. Hart, B. Hernroth, S. Kollberg, L. O. Loo, L. Olrog, A. S. Rehnstam‐Holm, J.
Svensson, S. Svensson, and U. Syversen. 2005. Improving marine water quality by mussel
farming: A profitable solution for Swedish society. Ambio 34:131‐138.
Liu, W., C.M. Pearce, and G. Dovey. 2015. Assessing potential benthic impacts of harvesting the
Pacific geoduck clam, Panopea generosa, in intertidal and subtidal sites in British Columbia,
Canada. Journal of Shellfish Research 34(3), pp.757‐775.
Long, K., N.E. Harrington and P.J. Mackrow. 2003. Forage fish spawning site investigation for
Eastern Jefferson County, Northeastern Kitsap County and North Mason County, North
Olympic Salmon Coalition. Second year status report to the Jefferson County Marine Resources
Committee.
McDonald, P.S., A.W.E. Galloway, K.C. McPeek, and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2015. Effects of geoduck
(Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) aquaculture gear on resident and transient macrofauna
communities of Puget Sound, Washington USA. Journal of Shellfish Research.
Meyer D.L., and E.C. Townsend. 2000. Faunal utilization of created intertidal eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) reefs in the southeastern United States. Estuaries (2000) 23: 34‐45
Munroe, D., and R. S. McKinley. 2007. Commercial Manila clam (Tapes philippinarum) culture in
British Columbia, Canada: The effects of predator netting on intertidal sediment characteristics.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 72:319‐328.
Munroe, D., J. Kraeuter, B. Beal, K. Chew, M. Luckenbach, and C.P. Peterson. 2015. Clam predator
protection is effective and necessary for food production. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15300552
Nelson, T.A. and Waaland, J.R. 1997. Seasonality of eelgrass, epiphyte, and grazer biomass and
productivity in subtidal eelgrass meadows subjected to moderate tidal amplitude. Aquatic
Botany, 56(1), pp.51‐74.
Newell, R. I. E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension‐
feeding bivalve molluscs: a review. Journal of Shellfish Research 23:51‐61.
Newell, R.I.E., and E.W. Koch. 2004. Modeling seagrass density and distribution in response to
changes in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization.
Estuaries. 27: 793‐806.
Newell, R.I., Fisher, T.R., Holyoke, R.R. and Cornwell, J.C. 2005. Influence of eastern oysters on
nitrogen and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. In The comparative roles of
suspension‐feeders in ecosystems pp. 93‐120.
Log Item 20
Page 212 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 37
Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11(1):72‐82.
Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis
for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. In North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 16:693‐727.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal
Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington State.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2011. Re‐initiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Programmatic Consultation and
Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
eNMFS. 2016a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Biological Programmatic Opinion and
Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation for Shellfish Aquaculture Activities in Washington State (COE Reference Number
NWS‐2014‐12
NMFS. 2016b. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary
Threshold Shifts. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐OPR‐
55, 178 p.
Penttila, D. 2000. Documented spawning areas of the pacific herring (Clupea), surf smelt
(Hypomesus) and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes) in East Jefferson County. Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Division Manuscript Report.
Penttila, D.E. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Prepared in support of the Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical Report 2007‐03.
Peterson, B.J., and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2001. Positive Interactions between suspension‐feeding bivalves
and seagrass—a facultative mutualism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213: 143‐155.
Pinnix W.D., T.A. Shaw, K.C. Acker and N.J. Hetrick. 2005. Fish communities in eelgrass, oyster
culture, and mudflat habitats of North Humboldt Bay, California. Final Report. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Technical Report Number
TR2005‐02, Arcata, California.
Powers, M.J., C.H. Peterson, H.C. Summerson, and S.P. Powers. 2007. Macroalgal growth on
bivalve aquaculture netting enhances nursery habitat for mobile invertebrates and juvenile
fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 339: 109‐122.
Log Item 20
Page 213 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 38
Price, J. 2011. Quantifying the ecological impacts of geoduck (Panopea generosa) aquaculture harvest
practices on benthic infauna. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ruesink, J.L., B.E. Feist, C.J. Harvey, J.S. Hong, A.C. Trimble, and L.M. Wisehart. 2006. Changes in
productivity associated with four introduced species: ecosystem transformation of a ‘pristine’
estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311:203–215.
Schenk, R. 2011. Report of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Longbranch
geoduck culturing facility. Expert report submitted to Pierce County Hearing Examiner re
Longbranch Shellfish Farm. Institute for Environmental Research and Education (IERE).
February 15, 2011.
Schoof, R. 2015b. Personal communication regarding the life cycle of HDPE. Ramboll‐ENVIRON.
rschoof@ramboll.com November 10, 2015.
Short, K.S. and R. Walton. 1992. The transport and fate of suspended sediment plumes associated
with commercial geoduck harvesting, Final Report. Prepared for the State of Washington
Department of Natural Resources. Prepared by Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, Washington.
Shumway, S.E., C. Davis, R. Downey, R. Karney, J. Kraeuter, J. Parsons, R. Rheault, and G. Wikfors.
2003. Shellfish aquaculture – In praise of sustainable economies and environments. World
Aquaculture 34(4):15‐18.
Simenstad, C.A. and K.L. Fresh. 1995. Influence of intertidal aquaculture on benthic communities in
Pacific Northwest estuaries: Scales of disturbance. Estuaries and Coasts. 18(1):43‐70.
Solidoro, C., D.M. Canu, and R. Rossi. 2003. Ecological and economic considerations on fishing and
rearing of Tapes phillipinarum in the lagoon of Venice. Ecological Modelling 170:303–318.
Southard, J.B., R.A. Young, and C.D. Hollister. 1971. Experimental erosion of calcareous ooze.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 76(24), 5903‐5909. (as cited in Short and Walton 1992)
Spencer, B.E., M.J. Kaiser, and D.B. Edwards. 1996. The effect of Manila clam cultivation on an
intertidal benthic community: The early cultivation phase. Aquaculture Research. 27: 261‐276.
Spencer, B.E., M.J. Kaiser, and D.B. Edwards. 1997. Ecological effects of intertidal Manila clam
cultivation: Observations at the end of the cultivation phase. J. Appl. Ecol. 34(2): 444‐452.
Spencer, B.E., M.J. Kaiser, and D.B. Edwards. 1998. Intertidal clam harvesting: Benthic community
change and recovery. Aquaculture Research. 29(6):429‐437.
Strachan, G., M. McAllister, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at‐sea and foraging behavior.
Pages 247‐53. In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and
conservation of the marbled murrelet. PSW‐GTR‐152. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany,
CA. 420 pp. (as cited in USFWS 2009)
Log Item 20
Page 214 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 39
Teachout, E. 2013. Conducting masking analysis for marbled murrelets & pile driving projects.
Presentation for WSDOT biologists and consultants. November 19, 2013.
Thom, R.M., S.L. Southward, A.B. Borde, and P Stoltz. 2008. Light requirements for grown and
survival of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Pacific Northwest (USA) Estuaries. Estuaries and
Coasts 31:969‐980.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Biological Opinion: Nationwide Permit #48 for
Shellfish Aquaculture, State of Washington. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation.
USFWS reference 13410‐2008‐F‐0461. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by
USFWS, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Olympia, Washington. March 2009. 198 pp.
USFWS. 2016. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers – Seattle District Programmatic Consultation for Shellfish Activities in
Washington State Inland Marine Waters.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/160907/USFWS_Final%20BiOp_AQ
%2020160826.pdf (accessed September 15, 2016).
VanBlaricom, G.R. 2013. Expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB # 13‐006c).
August 13 and 15, 2013.
VanBlaricom, G.R., A. J.L. Price, P.S. McDonald, J.R. Cordell, T.E. Essington, A.W.E. Galloway,
M.N. Dethier, and D.A. Armstrong. 2013. Evaluations of the ecological effects of geoduck
(Panopea generosa) aquaculture harvest practices on benthic organisms in southern Puget Sound,
2008‐2012. Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office, Tumwater, Washington.
VanBlaricom, G.R., J.L. Price, J.D. Olden, and P.S. McDonald. 2015. Ecological effects of the harvest
phase of geoduck clam (Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) aquaculture on infaunal communities in
southern Puget Sound, Washington USA. Journal of Shellfish Research 34(1):171‐187.
Watson, J.W., D. Mundy, J.S. Begley, and D.J. Pierce. 1995. Responses of nesting Bald Eagles to the
harvest of Geoduck Clams (2002). Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington, USA.
WSDOT. 2017. State Highway Log – Planning Report 2017 – SR 2 to SR 971.
WSDOT. 2018. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects, Advanced Training
Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Services, Olympia,
Washington
Wyatt, R. 2008. Review of existing data on underwater sounds produced by the oil and gas
industry. Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) Joint Industry Program report on Sound and Marine
Life.
Log Item 20
Page 215 of 464
BDN Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report – 2018
October 2019 Page 40
Zhou, Y., H. S. Yang, T. Zhang, S. L. Liu, S. M. Zhang, Q. Liu, J. H. Xiang, and F. S. Zhang. 2006.
Influence of filtering and biodeposition by the cultured scallop Chlamys farreri on benthic‐
pelagic coupling in a eutrophic bay in China. Marine Ecology Progress Series 317:127‐141.
Log Item 20
Page 216 of 464
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com
To: Anna Bausher, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
cc: Rick Mraz, Washington State Department of Ecology; Brad Nelson, BDN Inc.
From: Grant Novak, Confluence Environmental Company
Date: July 9, 2018
Re: BDN Inc. - Proposed Smersh Geoduck Farm: 2018 Zostera marina bed edge re-verification
This memo summarizes the findings of surveys conducted by Confluence Environmental Company
(Confluence) to re‐verify the location of the landward edge of the native eelgrass (Zostera marina)
bed on Jefferson County parcel 721031007 (Smersh parcel). The bed edge was previously surveyed in
2016 by Confluence. Representatives of the U.S. Corps of Engineers (Matthew Bennett, Pamela
Sanguinetti, and Deborah Schaeffer) visited the Smersh parcel on July 21, 2016 to confirm the
findings of the 2016 eelgrass delineation. The Corps was in agreement with the methods and agreed
that the boundaries of the dense and patchy eelgrass beds were appropriately mapped at that time.
Because more than one year has lapsed since the previous survey was completed, the Washington
State Department of Ecology and Jefferson County have requested that the bed edge be re‐verified to
ensure the proposed geoduck aquaculture project will be sighted at least 16 feet from native eelgrass
so as to reduce the potential for negative impacts to protected resources.
A biologist knowledgeable in Pacific Northwest seagrass identification and survey methods visited
the Smersh parcel during low tide on June 28th between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm. During the time of the
survey, water elevations ranged from ‐0.3 feet to ‐1.6 feet relative to mean lower low water (MLLW).
The surveyor crisscrossed the entirety of the parcel while scanning the substrate to the left and right
in an effort to locate and identify any submerged aquatic vegetation at the site, with a specific focus
on locating native eelgrass.
As with previous surveys, very small, sparse patches of non‐native Japanese eelgrass
(Zostera japonica) were found widely distributed between approximately +2 feet and ‐1 foot MLLW.
No native eelgrass was found above ‐1 foot MLLW. A dense bed of native eelgrass with a patchy
margin was observed below approximately ‐1 to ‐2 feet MLLW. The location of the landward edge of
the native eelgrass bed was accurately recorded using a differential GPS with sub‐meter accuracy.
The 2018 bed edge closely matches the 2016 bed edge in some areas but the patchy margin has
receded waterward in many areas (Figure 1). Nowhere has the bed expanded landward of the 2016
margin. Thus, the geoduck planting area proposed in 2016, and permitted by the Corps in 2017, will
not be altered in the application for a Jefferson County conditional use permit.
Log Item 20
Page 217 of 464
www.confenv.com page 2 of 2
Figure 1. Comparison of 2016 and 2018 Native Eelgrass Bed Edge.
Log Item 20
Page 218 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 002
Log Item 20
Page 219 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 003
Log Item 20
Page 220 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 004
Log Item 20
Page 221 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 005
Log Item 20
Page 222 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 006
Log Item 20
Page 223 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 007
Log Item 20
Page 224 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 008
Log Item 20
Page 225 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 009
Log Item 20
Page 226 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 010
Log Item 20
Page 227 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 011
Log Item 20
Page 228 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 012
Log Item 20
Page 229 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 013
Log Item 20
Page 230 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 014
Log Item 20
Page 231 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 015
Log Item 20
Page 232 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 016
Log Item 20
Page 233 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 017
Log Item 20
Page 234 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 018Log Item 20 Page 235 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 019
Log Item 20
Page 236 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 020Log Item 20 Page 237 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 021Log Item 20 Page 238 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 022
Log Item 20
Page 239 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 023Log Item 20 Page 240 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 024Log Item 20 Page 241 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 025Log Item 20 Page 242 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 026Log Item 20 Page 243 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 027
Log Item 20
Page 244 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 028
Log Item 20
Page 245 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 029
Log Item 20
Page 246 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 030
Log Item 20
Page 247 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 031
Log Item 20
Page 248 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 032
Log Item 20
Page 249 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 033
Log Item 20
Page 250 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 034
Log Item 20
Page 251 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 035
Log Item 20
Page 252 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 036
Log Item 20
Page 253 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 037
Log Item 20
Page 254 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 038
Log Item 20
Page 255 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 039
Log Item 20
Page 256 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 040
Log Item 20
Page 257 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 041
Log Item 20
Page 258 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 042
Log Item 20
Page 259 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 043
Log Item 20
Page 260 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 044
Log Item 20
Page 261 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 045
Log Item 20
Page 262 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 046
Log Item 20
Page 263 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 047
Log Item 20
Page 264 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 048
Log Item 20
Page 265 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 049
Log Item 20
Page 266 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 050
Log Item 20
Page 267 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 051Log Item 20 Page 268 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 052Log Item 20 Page 269 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 053
Log Item 20
Page 270 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 054
Log Item 20
Page 271 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 055
Log Item 20
Page 272 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 056
Log Item 20
Page 273 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 057
Log Item 20
Page 274 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 058
Log Item 20
Page 275 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 059
Log Item 20
Page 276 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 060
Log Item 20
Page 277 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 061
Log Item 20
Page 278 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 062
Log Item 20
Page 279 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 063
Log Item 20
Page 280 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 064
Log Item 20
Page 281 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 065
Log Item 20
Page 282 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 066
Log Item 20
Page 283 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 067
Log Item 20
Page 284 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 068
Log Item 20
Page 285 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 069
Log Item 20
Page 286 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 070
Log Item 20
Page 287 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 071
Log Item 20
Page 288 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 072
Log Item 20
Page 289 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 073
Log Item 20
Page 290 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 074
Log Item 20
Page 291 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 075
Log Item 20
Page 292 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 076
Log Item 20
Page 293 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 077
Log Item 20
Page 294 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 078
Log Item 20
Page 295 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 079
Log Item 20
Page 296 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 080
Log Item 20
Page 297 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 081
Log Item 20
Page 298 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 082
Log Item 20
Page 299 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 083
Log Item 20
Page 300 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 084
Log Item 20
Page 301 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 085
Log Item 20
Page 302 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 086Log Item 20 Page 303 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 087
Log Item 20
Page 304 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 088Log Item 20 Page 305 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 089
Log Item 20
Page 306 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 090
Log Item 20
Page 307 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 091
Log Item 20
Page 308 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 092
Log Item 20
Page 309 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 093
Log Item 20
Page 310 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 094
Log Item 20
Page 311 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 095
Log Item 20
Page 312 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 096
Log Item 20
Page 313 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 097
Log Item 20
Page 314 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 098
Log Item 20
Page 315 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 099
Log Item 20
Page 316 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 100
Log Item 20
Page 317 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 101
Log Item 20
Page 318 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 102
Log Item 20
Page 319 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 103
Log Item 20
Page 320 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 104
Log Item 20
Page 321 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 105
Log Item 20
Page 322 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 106
Log Item 20
Page 323 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 107
Log Item 20
Page 324 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 108
Log Item 20
Page 325 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 109
Log Item 20
Page 326 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 110
Log Item 20
Page 327 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 111
Log Item 20
Page 328 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 112
Log Item 20
Page 329 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 113
Log Item 20
Page 330 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 114
Log Item 20
Page 331 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 115
Log Item 20
Page 332 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 116
Log Item 20
Page 333 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 117
Log Item 20
Page 334 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 118
Log Item 20
Page 335 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 119
Log Item 20
Page 336 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 120
Log Item 20
Page 337 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 121
Log Item 20
Page 338 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 122
Log Item 20
Page 339 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 123Log Item 20 Page 340 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 124Log Item 20 Page 341 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 125Log Item 20 Page 342 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 126
Log Item 20
Page 343 of 464
42
1 86
Log Item 20
Page 344 of 464
42
2 86
Log Item 20
Page 345 of 464
42
3 86
Log Item 20
Page 346 of 464
42
4 86
Log Item 20
Page 347 of 464
42
5 86
Log Item 20
Page 348 of 464
42
6 86
Log Item 20
Page 349 of 464
42
7 86
Log Item 20
Page 350 of 464
42
8 86
Log Item 20
Page 351 of 464
42
9 86
Log Item 20
Page 352 of 464
42
10 86
Log Item 20
Page 353 of 464
42
11 86
Log Item 20
Page 354 of 464
42
12 86
Log Item 20
Page 355 of 464
42
13 86
Log Item 20
Page 356 of 464
42
14 86
Log Item 20
Page 357 of 464
42
15 86
Log Item 20
Page 358 of 464
42
16 86
Log Item 20
Page 359 of 464
42
17 86
Log Item 20
Page 360 of 464
42
18 86
Log Item 20
Page 361 of 464
42
19 86
Log Item 20
Page 362 of 464
42
20 86
Log Item 20
Page 363 of 464
42
21 86
Log Item 20
Page 364 of 464
42
22 86
Log Item 20
Page 365 of 464
42
23 86
Log Item 20
Page 366 of 464
42
24 86
Log Item 20
Page 367 of 464
42
25 86
Log Item 20
Page 368 of 464
42
26 86
Log Item 20
Page 369 of 464
42
27 86
Log Item 20
Page 370 of 464
42
28 86
Log Item 20
Page 371 of 464
42
29 86
Log Item 20
Page 372 of 464
42
30 86
Log Item 20
Page 373 of 464
42
31 86
Log Item 20
Page 374 of 464
42
32 86
Log Item 20
Page 375 of 464
42
33 86
Log Item 20
Page 376 of 464
42
34 86
Log Item 20
Page 377 of 464
42
35 86
Log Item 20
Page 378 of 464
42
36 86
Log Item 20
Page 379 of 464
42
37 86
Log Item 20
Page 380 of 464
42
38 86
Log Item 20
Page 381 of 464
42
39 86
Log Item 20
Page 382 of 464
42
40 86
Log Item 20
Page 383 of 464
42
41 86
Log Item 20
Page 384 of 464
42
42 86
Log Item 20
Page 385 of 464
42
43 86
Log Item 20
Page 386 of 464
42
44 86
Log Item 20
Page 387 of 464
42
45 86
Log Item 20
Page 388 of 464
42
46 86
Log Item 20
Page 389 of 464
42
47 86
Log Item 20
Page 390 of 464
42
48 86
Log Item 20
Page 391 of 464
42
49 86
Log Item 20
Page 392 of 464
42
50 86
Log Item 20
Page 393 of 464
42
51 86
Log Item 20
Page 394 of 464
42
52 86
Log Item 20
Page 395 of 464
42
53 86
Log Item 20
Page 396 of 464
42
54 86
Log Item 20
Page 397 of 464
42
55 86
Log Item 20
Page 398 of 464
42
56 86
Log Item 20
Page 399 of 464
42
57 86
Log Item 20
Page 400 of 464
42
58 86
Log Item 20
Page 401 of 464
42
59 86
Log Item 20
Page 402 of 464
42
60 86
Log Item 20
Page 403 of 464
42
61 86
Log Item 20
Page 404 of 464
42
62 86
Log Item 20
Page 405 of 464
42
63 86
Log Item 20
Page 406 of 464
42
64 86
Log Item 20
Page 407 of 464
42
65 86
Log Item 20
Page 408 of 464
42
66 86
Log Item 20
Page 409 of 464
42
67 86
Log Item 20
Page 410 of 464
42
68 86
Log Item 20
Page 411 of 464
42
69 86
Log Item 20
Page 412 of 464
42
70 86
Log Item 20
Page 413 of 464
42
71 86
Log Item 20
Page 414 of 464
42
72 86
Log Item 20
Page 415 of 464
42
73 86
Log Item 20
Page 416 of 464
42
74 86
Log Item 20
Page 417 of 464
42
75 86
Log Item 20
Page 418 of 464
42
76 86
Log Item 20
Page 419 of 464
42
77 86
Log Item 20
Page 420 of 464
42
78 86
Log Item 20
Page 421 of 464
42
79 86
Log Item 20
Page 422 of 464
42
80 86
Log Item 20
Page 423 of 464
42
81 86
Log Item 20
Page 424 of 464
42
82 86
Log Item 20
Page 425 of 464
42
83 86
Log Item 20
Page 426 of 464
42
84 86
Log Item 20
Page 427 of 464
42
85 86
Log Item 20
Page 428 of 464
42
86 86
Log Item 20
Page 429 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 078
BDN LLC AQUACULTURE GEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN
10/26/2016
Puget Sound Commercial Aquaculture Corps DA #s: NWS-2013-1147 (Tjemsland),
NWS-2013-1222 (BDN), NWS-2013-1223 (Garten), NWS-2013-1268 (Smcrsh),
NWS-2012-1210 (BDN-Formerly Washington Shellfish),
and NWS-2012-1099 (BDN -Formerly Mocean Shellfish)
This Aquaculture Gear Management Plan is submitted on behalf of BDN LLC to properly
maintain its aquaculture gear on the above referenced parcels, reduce the potential for gear
escapement, and quickly recover gear that may be displaced by storm activity.
1. Geoduck tubes and any canopy nets will be marked to identify ownership, including an
appropriate contact number. If BDN uses small nets covering individual tubes, they will
be securely fastened.
2. Non-secured gear and equipment will be removed from the farm area when crews are not
present. This does not apply to planted gear. AH gear installed in the project area will be
kept neat and secure.
3. Beaches within one-half mile of the farm shall be patrolled (subject to the beach owner's
permission to enter) by BDN on a weekly basis and within a day following a severe storm
event. Any observed geoduck farm gear or equipment will be retrieved regardless of its
source. Any equipment retrieved must either be repaired and placed back into service or
properly disposed of at an appropriate upland disposal site.
4. In addition, BDN will retrieve or repair any escaped or damaged aquaculture equipment
that it encounters while conducting routine maintenance activities associated with
geoduck culture. If the escaped gear cannot be repaired and replaced on the shellfish bed,
it will be properly disposed of on land.
5. BDN will implement annual employee training regarding marine debris issues and how to
identify loose culture gear and proper gear repair and removal methods.
6. BDN will conduct semi8rulual cleanups in Squamish Harbor in coordination with other
interested parties or organizations, which will include walking portions of the bay and
shorelines to pick up escaped shellfish gear and other trash (regardless of whether it is
generated by the project). The volume of shellfish gear collected shall be recorded.
7. BDN will conduct an annual diver survey of its fanned parcels and adjacent parcels,
including photo and/or video documentation each parcel's appearance.
Log Item 20
Page 430 of 464
County's Exhibit 4 - Page 079
8. BON plans to have a full-time manager living nearby the farm to quickly respond to
potential farm issues and implement the above maintenance tasks. The farm manager
will maintain a log book of all such gear management activities.
9. Net Maintenance
a. If any nets or more than 20 tubes are observed to have escaped from the project area,
upon discovery, BDN will immediately contact the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District, Regulatory Branch ("Corps"). BDN will call the Project Manager
(Pam Sanguinetti) at (206) 764-6904 or the Regulatory Branch main line at (206 )
764-3495 to notify the Corps of the escapement.
b. Upon notification, BDN will initiate actions to secure any untethered nets and resolv e
any navigat ional hazards, as appropriate.
c. BDN will initiate an emergency inspection to document (including photos) the
incident and determine the cause of failure (e.g. storm condition s, etc.).
<l. BDN will again contact the Corps by telephone within 72 hours of the original
notification to report on the results of the emergency inspection .
e. In the event of a significant escapement of nets or tubes, or several separate
escapement events, the Corps may require preparation of a recovery and repai r plan.
If such a plan is required, it must be based on profess ional recommendations and
discussions with the Corps. Upon approval of the proposed plan by the Corps, BDN
will implement the plan .
10. This necessity of this plan shall be reevaluated by the Corps and BDN upon the
culmination of the first geoduck planting and harvest cycle, based on the success of the
preventative measures described herein, the observed potential for gear escapement and
required repair activities, and amount of escaped gear.
Log Item 20
Page 431 of 464
BDN, LLC Revised Gear Management Plan 10/17/19 - 1
BDN LLC AQUACULTURE REVISED GEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN
10/17/2019
Puget Sound Commercial Aquaculture Corps DA #NWS-2013-1268
(Smersh)
This Aquaculture Gear Management Plan is submitted on behalf of BDN LLC to
properly maintain its aquaculture gear on the above referenced parcel, reduce the
potential for gear escapement, and quickly recover gear that may be displaced by
storm activity.
1. Geoduck mesh tubes will be marked to identify ownership, including an
appropriate contact number.
2. Non-secured gear and equipment will be removed from the farm area when crews
are not present. This does not apply to planted gear. All gear installed in the
project area will be kept neat and secure.
3. Beaches within one-half mile of the farm shall be patrolled (subject to the beach
owner's permission to enter) by BDN on a weekly basis and within a day
following a severe storm event. Any observed geoduck farm gear or equipment
will be retrieved regardless of its source. Any equipment retrieved must either be
repaired and placed back into service or properly disposed of at an appropriate
upland disposal site.
4. In addition, BDN will retrieve or repair any escaped or damaged aquaculture
equipment that it encounters while conducting routine maintenance activities
associated with geoduck culture. If the escaped gear cannot be repaired and
replaced on the shellfish bed, it will be properly disposed of on land.
5. BDN will implement annual employee training regarding marine debris issues
and how to identify loose culture gear and proper gear repair and removal
methods.
6. BDN will conduct semiannual cleanups in Squamish Harbor in coordination
with other interested parties or organizations, which will include walking
portions of the bay and shorelines to pick up escaped shellfish gear and other
trash (regardless of whether it is generated by the project). The volume of
shellfish gear collected shall be recorded.
7. BDN will conduct an annual diver survey of its farmed parcels and adjacent
parcels, including photo and/or video documentation each parcel's appearance.
8. BDN plans to have a full-time manager living nearby the farm to quickly respond to
potential farm issues and implement the above maintenance tasks. The farm manager
will maintain a log book of all such gear management activities.
Log Item 20
Page 432 of 464
BDN, LLC Revised Gear Management Plan 10/17/19 - 2
9. If more than 20 mesh tubes are observed to have escaped from the project
area, upon discovery, BDN will immediately contact the U.S. Anny Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch ("Corps"). BDN will call the
10. Project Manager (Pam Sanguinetti) at (206) 764-6904 or the Regulatory
Branch main line at (206)764-3495 to notify the Corps of the escapement.
Upon notification, BDN will initiate actions to secure any escaped materials
and to resolve any navigational hazards, as appropriate. BDN will initiate an
emergency inspection to document (including photos) the incident and
determine the cause of failure (e.g.storm conditions, etc.).
BDN will again contact the Corps by telephone within 72 hours of the original
notification to report on the results of the emergency inspection.
In the event of a significant escapement of mesh tubes, or several separate
escapement events, the Corps may require preparation of a recovery and repair plan.
If such a plan is required, it must be based on professional recommendations and
discussions with the Corps. Upon approval of the proposed plan by the Corps, BDN
will implement the plan.
11. This necessity of this plan shall be reevaluated by the Corps and BDN upon the
culmination of the first geoduck planting and harvest cycle, based on the success of
the preventative measures described herein, the observed potential for gear
escapement and required repair activities, and amount of escaped gear.
Log Item 20
Page 433 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 434 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 435 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 436 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 437 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 438 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 439 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 440 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 441 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 442 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 443 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 444 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 445 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 446 of 464
Log Item 20 Page 447 of 464
Appellant
Exhibit 54 page 1342
Log Item 20
Page 448 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 1 of 16
(AMENDED)
WASHINGTON STATE
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form1,2 [help]
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
NOTE: RESPONSES AS AMENDED 10-4-19
Part 1–Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith’s Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help]
BDN LLC Geoduck Farm
Part 2–Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help]
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Nelson, Brad
2b. Organization (If applicable)
BDN LLC
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
3011 Chandler Street
2d. City, State, Zip
Tacoma, WA 98409
2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
(253) 377-3353 (253) 566-1178 brad@seaproducks.com
1Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
• If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495.
• Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias__resourcecenter/jarpa_jarpa_form/9984/jarpa_form.aspx.
For other help, contact the Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
AGENCY USE ONLY
Date received:
Agency reference #:
Tax Parcel #(s):
Log Item 20
Page 449 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 2 of 16
Part 3–Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this
application.) [help]
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Sheppard, Kenneth
3b. Organization (If applicable)
Simburg, Ketter, Sheppard & Purdy, LLP
3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
999 Third Ave., Suite 2525
3d. City, State, Zip
Seattle, WA, 98104
3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
(206) 382-2600 (206) 223-3929 ksheppard@sksp.com
Part 4–Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help]
☐ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
☐ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
☐ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
☐ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don’t know, contact
the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to
apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Smersh, James
4b. Organization (If applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
P.O. Box 1246
4d. City, State, Zip
Mercer island, WA 98040
4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
(206) 963-5571 smershconstruction@gmail.com
Log Item 20
Page 450 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 3 of 16
Part 5–Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help]
☐ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help]
☒ Private
☐ Federal
☐ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
☐ Tribal
☐ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help]
Project Area is aquatic. Nearby Street address of upland property: 1160-1254 Shine Road
5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help]
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
5d. County [help]
Jefferson
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help]
¼ Section Section Township Range
NW 3 27N 1E
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help]
• Example: 47.03922 N lat. / -122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83)
NW Corner: 47.866644, - 122.663644; NE Corner: 47.866313, -122.661231; SW Corner: 47.865831, -
122.663884; SE Corner: 47.865575, -122.661410
5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help]
• The local county assessor’s office can provide this information.
Jefferson County Parcel 721031007
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help]
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known)
Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA, 98368 721031008
Mark & Judith Johnson 1234 Shine Road, Port Ludlow, WA, 98365 721031023
E&S Davis Living Trust P.O. Box 65351, Port Ludlow, WA, 98365 721831024
James and Susan Simpkins 24215 SE 34th Place, Issaquah, WA 98029 721031025 Log Item 20
Page 451 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 4 of 16
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
None
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
Squamish Harbor
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
5l. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help]
A survey was conducted on 8/20/13 to record habitat conditions at the site of the proposed project. Substrate
and other features identified were as follows: sand, pea gravel, cobble, barnacles, mud, scattered Anthlopeura
elegantissima, and patchy sand dollars. The microalgae consisted of Ulva, native eelgrass (Zostera marina), and
non-native dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica). See the Biological Evaluation for additional detail.
The site has also been surveyed several times to map the extent of the Z. marina bed. Confluence
Environmental conducted an eelgrass survey on July 20, 2016 to reconfirm the extent of the eelgrass bed
previously surveyed In September 2015. Both Z. marina and Z. japonica are present within the project site. Z.
marina is abundant at subtidal and lower intertidal elevations, while Z. japonica is very sparsely distributed at
higher intertidal elevations. A bed of dense, robust Z. marina is located seaward of the extreme low tide
elevation (approximately -2 ft. MLLW). Landward of this dense bed edge the beach is substantially composed of
bare sand with occasional patches of sparse Z. japonica. No Z. marina is present landward of approximately -2
ft. MLLW. Planting of geoducks is planned between approximately +2 MLLW and a 5-meter (16.4 ft.) buffer of
the dense Z. marina bed edge. The eelgrass survey performed by Confluence is attached to the enclosed
Specific Project Information Form ("SPIF").
Because more than one year has lapsed since the previous survey was completed, the Washington
State Department of Ecology and Jefferson County requested that the bed edge be re‐verified to ensure the
proposed project will be sited at least 16 feet from native eelgrass so as to reduce the potential for negative
impacts to protected resources. A biologist knowledgeable in Pacific Northwest seagrass identification and
survey methods visited the Smersh parcel during low tide on June 28th, 2018 between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm. At
that time, water elevations ranged from ‐0.3 feet to ‐1.6 feet relative to MLLW. The surveyor crisscrossed the
entire parcel while scanning the substrate to the left and right to locate and identify any submerged aquatic
vegetation, with a specific focus on locating native eelgrass. As with previous surveys, very small, sparse
patches of non‐native Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) were found widely distributed between
approximately +2 feet and ‐1 foot MLLW. No native eelgrass was found above ‐1 foot MLLW. A dense bed of
native eelgrass with a patchy margin was observed below approximately ‐1 to ‐2 feet MLLW. The location of the
landward edge of the native eelgrass bed was accurately recorded using a differential GPS with sub‐meter
accuracy. The 2018 bed edge closely matches the 2016 bed edge in some areas but the patchy margin has
receded waterward in many areas Nowhere has the bed expanded landward of the 2016 margin. Thus, the
geoduck planting area proposed in 2016, and permitted by the Corps in 2017, will not be altered in the
application for a Jefferson County conditional use permit. (See attached Proposed Smersh Geoduck Farm:
2018 Zostera marina bed edge re-verification, dated July 9, 2018.)
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [help]
Log Item 20
Page 452 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 5 of 16
The tidelands have been used for typical beach recreational activities.
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help]
The adjacent upland properties are single family residential. Nearby tidelands include existing geoduck farms.
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. [help]
The site currently has a decayed bulkhead above MHHW and a small rock jetty on the western border.
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help]
From the east end of the Hood Canal Bridge, take the bridge west on SR 104. Go 1.8 miles and turn left onto
Shine Road. The Project site is located 1.1 miles to the west.
Part 6–Project Description
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help]
The proposed project would establish an intertidal geoduck farm.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help]
The purpose of this proposed project is to grow geoduck for a wholesale market.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help]
☒ Commercial ☐ Residential ☐ Institutional ☐ Transportation ☐ Recreational
☐ Maintenance ☐ Environmental Enhancement
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
☒ Aquaculture
☐ Bank Stabilization
☐ Boat House
☐ Boat Launch
☐ Boat Lift
☐ Bridge
☐ Bulkhead
☐ Culvert
☐ Dam / Weir
☐ Dike / Levee / Jetty
☐ Ditch
☐ Dock / Pier
☐ Dredging
☐ Fence
☐ Float
☐ Floating Home
☐ Geotechnical Survey
☐ Land Clearing
☐ Marina / Moorage
☐ Mining
☐ Outfall Structure
☐ Retaining Wall
(upland)
☐ Road
☐ Scientific
Measurement Device
☐ Stairs
☐ Stormwater facility
☐ Swimming Pool Log Item 20
Page 453 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 6 of 16
☐ Buoy
☐ Channel Modification
☐ Ferry Terminal
☐ Fishway
☐ Piling/Dolphin
☐ Raft
☐ Utility Line
☐ Other:
Log Item 20
Page 454 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 7 of 16
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. [help]
• Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
• Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
BDN proposes to cultivate Pacific geoduck (Panopea generosa). The planting area will consist of
approximately 5.15 acres, generally between approximately +2 ft. MLLW and a 5-meter (16.4 ft.) buffer
of the native eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed edge, located between approximately -1MLLW and -2
MLLW.
To protect geoduck seed from predators, plastic mesh tubes 5" in diameter by 14" long will be
manually placed in the substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are exposed, before any geoduck
seed is planted. The mesh tubes are placed around the barrel of a “clam gun”, which is then used to
insert the mesh tube into the substrate such that approximately half of the tube is below the substrate
and half above it. A low pressure water hose may be used to loosen the substrate sufficiently to
properly insert the mesh tubes. Tubes will be spaced at approximately one tube per square foot in the
planting area. Only 5" to 7" of the tubes will be exposed above the substrate. Tubes will be labeled
with contact information for BDN. 12-25 workers will work to insert these mesh tubes during each
approximately 5-hour shift. This will allow for approximately 6,000-10,000 mesh tubes to be placed per
day.
Geoduck seed will then be obtained from a certified hatchery and typically planted in the installed
mesh tubes when 4-5 mm in size. The juvenile geoducks will be placed in the installed mesh tubes by
divers during times when the tubes are submerged. No water jets will be used during placement of
the seed in the mesh tubes. The tubes will be clipped shut at the top by the divers, using plastic clips,
after the seed has been planted. Planting will begin in spring and continue through fall. Planting
activities will occur once per year, typically in June or July, over a period of 20-25 days.
No netting will be installed over the tubes, and no rebar or other materials will be used in connection
with the planting, maintenance or harvest activities. The installed mesh tubes are very resistant to
dislocation during severe weather, or from geoduck movement and activity, so no securing nets are
necessary. No fill materials or other nursery/grow-out structures will be installed on the site.
There will be no removal of native materials from the site during site preparation. Excessive amounts
of macroalgae (e.g. Ulva) may be hand-raked away from the planting area, but will be left on the site.
Successive tides will redistribute algae across the site.
Site inspections will be made weekly, or more frequently if needed due to adverse weather or citizen
complaints, to ensure that mesh tubes have not become dislodged. BDN has implemented an
aquaculture gear maintenance plan, appended as Attachment K, to address potential gear
escapement and to facilitate quick recovery of any gear displaced by storm activity. Site inspections
will be generally conducted by 2-4 BDN employees walking the tidelands and surrounding areas at
low tide. Site maintenance will also include monitoring and relocation of built-up drift microalgae (e.g.
Ulva). If low tide periods occur at night, these workers may use individual LED headlamps for such
inspection and maintenance work. If any maintenance work is required, this will be performed by as
many as four people, but should typically require no more than 1 hour for each such maintenance
event. No vessel operations will take place at night.
Two years after planting, when the geoducks have reached a depth sufficient to avoid predators,
beach workers will remove the tubes by hand at low tide. Consistent with Corps requirements, if any
herring spawn is found on the mesh tubes, they will not be removed until the eggs have hatched. The
mesh tubes will be placed in large bags and removed for reuse or proper upland disposal.
Usually, harvesting will begin between five and six years after planting; the exact timing of harvesting
will depend on a variety of environmental and economic factors. The total harvest window is expected
Log Item 20
Page 455 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 8 of 16
to be 1-2 years. The majority of harvesting will be conducted at high tides by divers using surface-
supplied air. A small amount of beach harvesting will be conducted during the "cleanup" harvest phase
at the end of the harvesting period when there are fewer geoducks remaining on the beach. Both dive
harvests and beach harvests use the same extraction equipment. A diesel or gasoline engine located
on the work skiff is used to power a water jet nozzle that loosens the substrate around each geoduck.
The engine will have a muffler to minimize noise impacts. The water intake hose will include a 2.36
mm wire mesh screen covering the intake to prevent fish entrainment in the low-pressure pump. The
water jet nozzle is at the end of an approximately 150' long, 1.5" delivery hose. The nozzle is
approximately 27" long and may supply up to 20-30 gallons of water per minute at 40 psi.
After geoducks are removed from the substrate as described above, they will be stored in crates
located on the work skiff prior to transport off-site. During both dive and beach harvesting, the work
skiff will not be anchored in any native eelgrass beds. Dive harvests will be conducted during daylight
hours. Divers work within a 150' radius of the work skiff at depths of 5' to 20' using surface supplied
air. The vessel engine will be turned off while divers are working for diver safety. When beach
harvesting, the skiff is regularly moved so that it always remains near the water's edge. Water hoses
are then run from the skiff to the beach. Dive harvests will employ 1 diver and 2 support workers in the
skiff. Dive harvesting will usually last for 3-to 6 hours each harvest day. Beach harvests will employ 2
workers on the beach and 2 support workers on the skiff.
Harvesting activities at this location will occur only during daylight hours, over a period of about 5 hours
per day, averaging 3-4 harvest days per week during the one to two year harvest period. BDN will
comply with Corps' conditions associated with herring, surf smelt, and sand lance spawning.
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [help]
• If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or
stage.
Start Date: Immediately upon issuance
of Jefferson County Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit.
End Date: Continuous ☐ See JARPA
Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help]
$515,000
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help]
• If yes , list each agency providing funds.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
Log Item 20
Page 456 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 9 of 16
Part 7–Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
☒ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help]
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help]
☒ Not applicable
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help]
• If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System? [help]
• If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [help]
• If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
• If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [help]
Not Applicable
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [help]
Activity (fill,
drain, excavate,
flood, etc.)
Wetland
Name1
Wetland
type and
rating
category2
Impact
area (sq.
ft. or
Acres)
Duration
of impact3
Proposed
mitigation
type4
Wetland
mitigation area
(sq. ft. or
acres)
Not Applicable Log Item 20
Page 457 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 10 of 16
1 If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as “Wetland 1”). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such
as a wetland delineation report.
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with
the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
4 Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic
yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help]
No fill will be used.
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
Not Applicable
Part 8–Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation
In Part 8, “waterbodies” refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help]
☒ Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
[help]
☐ Not applicable
Fueling of vessels will be done at gas stations and never on the water. Vessels will either be moored directly
offshore of the site outside of eelgrass beds and/or grounded for a maximum of five hours during the low tide
runs to accommodate cultivation activities (planting, maintenance, and harvesting). BDN will comply with all
conditions provided in the Corps' 2015 Programmatic Biological Assessment for Shellfish Activities in
Washington State Inland Marine Waters.
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No
Log Item 20
Page 458 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 11 of 16
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project’s adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? [help]
• If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
• If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
No mitigation plan has been prepared because there are no known adverse impacts on non-wetland
waterbodies.
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used
to design the plan.
• If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help]
Not Applicable
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help]
Activity (clear,
dredge, fill, pile
drive, etc.)
Waterbody
name1
Impact
location2
Duration
of impact3
Amount of material
(cubic yards) to be
placed in or removed
from waterbody
Area (sq. ft. or
linear ft.) of
waterbody
directly affected
Not Applicable
1 If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as “Stream 1”) The name should be consistent with other documents provided.
2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and
indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain.
3 Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help]
Not applicable; there is no fill associated with the proposed project.
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
Not applicable; there is no excavation or dredging associated with the proposed project.
Log Item 20
Page 459 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 12 of 16
Part 9–Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help]
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
Army Corps of
Engineers
Pam Sanguinetti (206) 764-6904 3/14/2017
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology’s 303(d) List? [help]
• If Yes, list the parameter(s) below.
• If you don’t know, use Washington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment tools at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-
Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d.
☐ Yes ☒ No
9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help]
• Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110018
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [help]
• Go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Water-availability/Watershed-look-up to find the WRIA #.
WRIA 17 Quilcene-Snow
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity?
[help]
• Go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Freshwater/Surface-water-quality-standards/Criteria for the
standards.
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not applicable
During all site activities (anchor installation, planting, maintenance and harvest) turbidity will not exceed:
• 10 NTUs over background when the background is 50 NTUs or less; or
• A 20 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTUs.
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline
environment designation? [help]
• If you don’t know, contact the local planning department.
• For more information, go to: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-
planning/Shoreline-laws-rules-and-cases.
☐ Urban ☐ Natural ☒ Aquatic –Shoreline Residential ☐ Conservancy ☐ Other: Log Item 20
Page 460 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 13 of 16
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help]
• Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-practices-water-typing for the Forest Practices Water Typing System.
☒ Shoreline ☐ Fish ☐ Non-Fish Perennial ☐ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology’s most current stormwater
manual? [help]
• If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
☐ Yes ☒ No – Not Applicable
Name of manual:
9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help]
• If Yes, please describe below.
☐ Yes ☒ No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help]
Private tidelands
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help]
• If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No
9l. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project
area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
See Biological Evaluation
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
See Biological Evaluation
Log Item 20
Page 461 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 14 of 16
Part 10–SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
•Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.oria.wa.gov/opas/.
•Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
•For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help]
•For more information about SEPA, go to https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/SEPA-environmental-review.
☐ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
☒ A SEPA determination is pending with Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(lead agency). The expected decision date is Thirty Days after submission of a completed Permit
Application .
☐ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help]
☐ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
☐ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
☐ Other:
☐ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
☐ Substantial Development ☒ Conditional Use ☐ Variance
☐ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other City/County permits:
☐ Floodplain Development Permit ☐ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
☐ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ☐ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption – Attach Exemption Form
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
☐ Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (See Attached DOE Letter dated 1-6-17 that Certification is not
required)
Log Item 20
Page 462 of 464
ORIA-16-011 Page 15 of 16
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
☐ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ☐ Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard:
☐ General Bridge Act Permit ☐ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects)
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
☐ Section 401 W ater Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) on tribal lands where tribes do
not have treatment as a state (TAS)
Tribal Permits: (Check with the tribe to see if there are other tribal permits, e.g., Tribal Environmental Protection Act, Shoreline
Permits, Hydraulic Project Permits, or other in addition to CWA Section 401 WQC)
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) where the tribe has treatment
as a state (TAS).
Log Item 20
Page 463 of 464
Log Item 20
Page 464 of 464