Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout034 Application SubmittalDonna Frostholm � ■ t: 4t1 From: Ken Sheppard <KSheppard@sksp.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:35 PM To: Donna Frostholm�— Cc: Brad Nelson Subject: RE: MLA19-00036 BDN Additional Information Request Attachments: Cumulative Impact Addendum - 5-26-20.pdf; JARPA 5-26-20.pdf, SEPA Checklist Revised 5-26-20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Donn — We are not trying to make your life unnecessarily difficult, but Brad Nelson has for some time been interacting with and observing other projects that have been using mesh tubes, and in the interests of developing a project that will have the least negative impact on the surrounding areas, he has now concluded that it will be best to use PVC tubes, rather than mesh tubes. The primary reason for this change is that he is observing that the mesh tubes still on occasion become dislodged from the sand (he had thought this was rarer than it apparently is), and when they become dislodged they float, unlike the PVC tubes. This means that they travel more easily and further than do the PVC tubes, which stay on the bottom and are more easily tracked and retrieved. He is finding that mesh tubes are washing up on his own projects in the area. So, I have prepare a revised SEPA checklist that changes back to PVC tubing but still eliminates the use of nets and rebar. (Brad has concluded that using the nets and rebar creates more problems than it solves, and with proper planting techniques and beach patrols the PVC tubes stay on the tract without the use of nets.) I have also prepared a revised DARPA, which now uses the same project description as the revised SEPA checklist, and a revised Cumulative Impacts Analysis, which also reverts to PVC tubes and analyzes the plastics impacts based on PVC, not HDPE. I've marked and footnoted each of these revised documents so that is it clear which is the most recent version. There is still some mention of mesh tubes in the October 2019 Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report (Attachment E to the SEPA Checklist). Because this report no longer refers to the use of netting, I think it is still substantively accurate and does not really need to be revised. But let me know if you think it does, and we will arrange for that also. Thanks, Ken Sheppard Kenneth A. Sheppard Simburg, Ketter, Sheppard & Purdy, LLP 999 Third Ave., Suite 2525 Seattle, WA, 98104 (206) 382-2600 Fax: (206) 223 3929 www.sksp.com �tr r E MAY 2 8 2020 LUG ITEM - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE - ---Z- J The Information contained in this electronic file is confidential Information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or return email. Think you. From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:07 PM To: Ken Sheppard <KSheppard@sksp.com> Cc: Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Brad Nelson (braddnelson@comcast.net) <braddnelson @comcast.net>; smershconstruction@gmail.com Subject: RE: MLA19-00036 BDN Additional Information Request Hi Ken, DCD received a revised SEPA Environmental Checklist on April 17, 2020. In addition to referring the reader to Addendums M1 through M6, this checklist makes reference to area netting being placed over the tubes. The October 21, 2019 submittal no longer proposed using area netting, with Response to Comment 17 and the SEPA Checklist stating that mesh tubes would be used to control predators. Please clarify if mesh tubes or area netting will be used. If mesh tubes are still proposed, please submit an Environmental Checklist that does not reference area netting but does reference Addendum M1 through M6. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: Ken Sheppard <KSheppard@sksp.com> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 3:41 PM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@co.iefferson.wa.us>; Brad Nelson (braddnelson@comcast.net) <braddnelson comcast.net> Subject: RE: MLA19-00036 BDN Additional Information Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Donna — As per your letter, attached please find a Cover Letter, revised SEPA (with new Addendums M-1 through M-6), and Stormwater Worksheets for both privately owned upland parcels (these also appear as Addendums M-5 and M-6.) I will assume we do not need to mail you hard copies unless you request that. I have all original signatures here, if you would like me to mail them to you. Otherwise, I will just hold them in the file in case they are needed later. If there is anything else you need to satisfactorily complete our response to your 2-12-20 letter, please let me know as soon as possible. We would of course like to keep this moving along. Thanks, Ken Kenneth A. Sheppard Simburg, Ketter, Sheppard & Purdy, LLP 999 Third Ave., Suite 2525 Seattle, WA, 98104 (206) 382-260d Fax: (206) 223 3929 www.sksp.com - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE - LOG ITEM ti The information contained in this electronic file is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or return email. Thank you. From: Donna Frostholm <DFrosthalm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 9:29 AM To: Ken Sheppard <KShe and sks .com> Cc: Brad Nelson <Brad sea roducks.com>; smershconstruction@gmail.com Philip Hunsucker <P H u nsucker@co. iefferso n.wa. us> Subject: MLA19-00036 BDN Additional Information Request Ken, Attached is a letter requesting additional information for the BDN application. That letter references county stormwater forms, which are also attached. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Donna FrosthoCm, PWS Associate PCanner - Lead/WetCandSpeciaCist Jefferson County Department of Community DeveCopment 621 Sheridan Street, Port 7ownsen G -Washington 98368 36o-379-4466 r! rost hohr +I rW� l s'oli. sYts_fr+ DCD is open from 9:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm - 4:30pm Monday through Thursday; DCD is closed on Friday. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56*** ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56*** # EM LOG IT p :W.-q,-Omf LOG ITEM r of t MAY 2 8 2020 '.;. BDN Inc. SMERSH FARM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS REPORT June 2018 — Revised May 261h, 2020 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 On October 2, 2019, BDN submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, ("USACE") a request for information concerning all USACE approved aquaculture projects within a 5 mile linear shoreline distance from either direction of the reference BDN project NWS-2013-1268. This request was assigned FOIA number FA-20-002. On October 31, 2019, and December 3, 2019 the USACE responded with materials identifying the following projects: 4.0.1.1 Former Wash in on Shellfish Farm 921334073 . USACE Reference NWS-2017- 230. This parcel is a bit less than 'h mile to the west of the proposed project. 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 had applied for coverage under the 2012 Nationwide Permit 48 for existing shellfish farms in October 2012 (NWS-2012-1210), and the Corps had confirmed such coverage. BDN applied for continuing coverage under the 2017 NEP 48,and on August 22, 2017 the USACE confirmed this coverage, and 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. By letter dated September 14, 2017, the Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("JCDCD") confirmed that the proposed continuing operations at this location had not expanded so as to require a County Conditional Use Permit. (See Appendix A) 4.0.1.2 BDN Parcel (821334011). USACE Reference NWS_2017-230. This parcel is a bit less than''/z mile to the west of the proposed project, and is adjacent to the west side of the property referenced in 4.0.1.1 above. 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 August 22, 2017, and by letter dated September 14, 2017, the JCDCD confirmed that the BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 1 b )G ITEM �a Of..51_1� proposed continuing operations at this location had not expanded so as to require a County Conditional Use Permit. (See Appendix A) 4.0.1.3 Former Mocean Shellfish Farm (8213340791. USACE Reference NWS-2017-230. . This parcel is a bit less than mile to the west of the proposed project, and is adjacent to the west side of the property referenced in 4.0.1.2 above. 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 August 22, 2017, and by letter dated September 14, 2017, the JCDCD confirmed that the proposed continuing operations at this location had not expanded so as to require a County Conditional Use Permit. (See Appendix A) 4.0.1.4 Rock Point Oyster Co. 72109200I 003). USACE Reference NWS-2010-1039. This project is located at Case Shoal, about 3.5 miles by shoreline from the BDN proposed Smersh project. While its primary activity is bottom cultivation of Pacific oysters and Manila clams, and of Pacific and Kumamoto oysters in flip bags on longlines and trays, the permit includes permission to cultivate up to 7.35 acres of geoducks on a 48 acre site in Thorndyke Bay. Farming on this parcel was approved by the Corps on August 18, 2017. However, as per telephone conference with Mr. David Steele of Rock Point Oyster Co. on December 23, 2019, only one acre of the potential geoduck planting area has been found to be suitable for commercial geoduck cultivation, and it is anticipated that about'/4 acre of geoducks will be harvested each year going forward. This project is visually and geographically isolated from that of applicant, being 3.5 miles by shoreline from the BDN proposed Smersh project. 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. (See Appendix B) 4.0.1.5 Deep Blue Seafood (721194010). USACE Reference NWS-2007_1152. This project is located at Thorndyke Bay, about 5 miles by shoreline from the BDN proposed Smersh project. The permit is to cultivate 3.8 acres of geoducks on a 6 acre site in Thorndyke Bay, with 2 acres of active cultivation, approximately 2 acres of fallow tidelands, and 2 acres with no aquaculture. Farming on this parcel was approved by the Corps on August 18, 2017. As per telephone conference with Mr. Jim Smith of Deep Blue Sea, LLC on December 23, 2019, less than two acres is currently planted in geoducks. This project is visually and geographically isolated from that of applicant, being three miles away at Thorndyke Bay. 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. (See Appendix C.) 4.0.1.6 Set & Drift LLC 954600122 123). USACE Reference NWS-2015-568. This project is located in Thorndyke Bay, about 5 miles by shoreline from the BDN proposed Smersh project. It was approved by the Corps for the cultivation of up to 2.36 acres of a 3.5 acre project area with on bottom Manila clam and Pacific oysters in bags, harvested by hand, and installation of geoduck grow - out equipment, but no planting of geoduck seed, on a 15'xl5' geoduck test tube plot. Farming on this parcel was approved by the Corps on March 14, 2017. This project is visually and geographically isolated from that of applicant, being three miles away at Thorndyke Bay. The presence of a 15' x15' geoduck tube test plot, containing no geoducks, is miniscule and insignificant. 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. (See Appendix D.) 4.0.1.7 Hood Canal Mariculture Project. USACE Reference NWS-2008-502. This project is operated by Hood Canal Mariculture, Inc., and is a floating farm located at Hood Head, about 3 miles BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 2 Lf"'3G ITEM 54 from the subject project to the east of the Hood Canal Bridge. It primarily grows seaweed on suspended cultivation lines located over 2.64 acres of aquatic lands leased from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (Lease #20-1312535). 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. (See Appendix E.) 4.0.2 Potential future nearby projects 4.0.2.1 Garten rind TiC[nsiWnd Parcels 82133407$ 821334075 821334074 and 921334076). 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. BDN currently has no plans to seek approval of the Corps or County to conduct any activities on these parcels, and could not do so without obtaining all necessary Corps or County approvals. 4.0.2.2. Other Rending or qRproved applications before Corps of Engineers. On November 4, 2019, BDN submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, ("USACE") a request for information concerning all submitted and pending applications before the USACE for aquaculture projects within a 5 mile linear shoreline distance from either direction of the reference BDN project NWS-2013-1268. This request was assigned FOIA number FA-20-023. On December 10, 2019 the USACE responded by letter indicating that there are no pending applications. (See Appendix F.) 4.0.2.3. Other pending or approved al2plications before Jefferson County. It is our understanding that there are currently no applications pending before Jefferson County for any similar aquaculture projects within a 5 mile shoreline miles of the Smersh project, and that no county permits have been granted for any other similar nearby projects that have yet to be constructed. 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 approveftending ortnits.' iemphasis supplied.)( JCC 18.25.100(18)(d)). It is BDN's position that this analysis of the BDN projects and the projects identified in 4.0.1 and 4.0.2 above satisfy this requirement, since there are no known additional pending application before either the Corps of Engineers or Jefferson County. All of these projects are addressed below so as to demonstrate that their cumulative impacts will not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 4.0.3.1 Seattle District CorRs of Engineers Approval of the Cumulative Impacts of the Relevant Pro'ects. Aquaculture projects are required to secure permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in addition to permits required by other state or local government agencies. NWP 48 is the nationwide permit developed by the Corps for Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities. 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 BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 3 LOG ITEM water quality, substrate and sediments, vegetation, benthic community, fish and birds, contaminants, and noise are examined in these PBO's. The language in the National Decision Document Determinations also found generally 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 Corp's NWP 48 authorizes the District offices to make individual assessment of the cumulative impact of historical conditions, current conditions, and future trends surrounding commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in the Hood Canal area. NWP 48, Paragraph 23.: "The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal:" NWP 48, Paragraph 23 (b) then specifically requires the District office to ensure that "Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal." As a condition of its approval of the BDN Smersh project (granted on December 19, 2016 under NWS-2013-1268, Appendix G) The Seattle District Office required an extensive individual analysis of all of the activities that would take place under the subject project prior to issuing its approval of the project under NWP 48. This included a detailed biological assessment and multiple exhaustive eelgrass analysis for the site, and a detailed gear management plan, all of which have been provided to the JCDCD. These studies resulted in permit conditions for the current proposed project that, among other things, ensured that the permitted project would not conduct operations in any native eelgrass areas, and that there would be no or minimal plastic pollution from the project. Based on this individual analysis process, and as a prerequisite to the NWP 48 approval the Seattle District Office of the Corps of necessity concluded that there would be minimal cumulative impacts from permitting the BDN Smersh project. 4.0.3.3 Effect of Recent Ruling in Tire Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, V. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Recently the Federal District Court, Western District of Washington reviewed the Corps of Engineers administration of its Nationwide Permit 48 in the case of The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers re, Case No 2:16-CV- 00950, and 2:17-CV-1209. The court issued a ruling that found NWP 48 to be deficient in that it made nationwide generalized conclusions that all aquaculture activities meeting its general standards would have no cumulative impact on the environment in the areas of permitted activity. (Appendix H.) In particular, the court noted that while it "does not intend to suggest, and is not suggesting, that the general terms and conditions imposed on a nationwide, regional, or state permit cannot be relevant to and supportive of a finding of minimal impact,... [t]hey are simply too general to be the primary "data" on which the agency relies when evaluating the impacts of the permitted activities." (P.17) The court then went on to hold that "The Corps must analyze the individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity against the environmental baseline", (P.15), and that while NWP 48 allowed for the potential imposition at the District level of additional conditions or restrictions, it did not require that this take place: "The problems here are that the Corps' [nationwide] minimal impact determinations were entirely conclusory and the regional conditions that it assumed would minimize impacts were not in place at the time NWP 48 was adopted. The record is devoid of any indication that the Corps considered regional data, catalogued the species in and BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 4 LC)C,, ITEM characteristics of the aquatic environments in which commercial shellfish aquaculture activities occur, considered the myriad techniques, equipment, and materials used in shellfish aquaculture, attempted to quantify the impacts the permitted activity would likely have on the identified species and characteristics, or evaluated the impacts of the as -yet -unknown regional conditions." P.18 In particular the court was concerned that there was no individual project analysis required under NWP 48 for the effects of projects on seagrass in particular: "In some cases, such as when nets are placed over planted clam beds, any eelgrass is likely to be permanently smothered and not recover. This is because of the permanence of the nets, which are only removed between harvest and the next planting cycle." P.12. The court was also concerned that there would be no individual analysis required for such things as pesticides ("Having eschewed any attempt to describe the uses of pesticides in commercial shellfish aquaculture or to analyze their likely environmental impacts, the decision to permit such activities through NWP 48 cannot stand." P. 16) or plastics ("The Corps... relies on the fact that `[d]ivision engineers can impose regional conditions to address the use of plastics in response to these concerns.") As can be seen below, the materials submitted with the BDN application demonstrate that the Seattle District Office of the Corps actually did make the exact detailed individual analysis of each of these issues raised by the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat court in its decision. No operations in native eelgrass areas were permitted, a gear management plan was required to control possible plastics pollution. Moreover, no use of nets or pesticides are proposed under the BDN operations plan. 4.0.4 Individualized Cumulative Impacts Analysis 4.0.4.1 Cumulative Impact of Addition of Smersh Project on Hood Canal Generally, Hood Canal has 342.6 kilometers (212.9 mi) of shoreline and 42.4 square kilometers (about 10,500 acres) of tidelands. (Chapter 3 of the State of the Nearshore Report, King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington, 2001) The addition of 5.15 acres of geoduck aquaculture along an additional 600 feet of Hood Canal would impact less than 1/201' of 1 % of Hood Canal tidelands acreage, and a bit more than the same 1/20'h of 1% of Hood Canal shoreline. Thus on a quantitative basis, the cumulative impact of the proposed project is tiny. 4.0.4.2 Cumulative Impact of Addition of Smersh Project on All Existing Permitted Projects. Within Five Shoreline Miles. The cumulative cultivated area of all of the existing aquaculture projects within five shoreline miles of the proposed project is 11.02 acres, or less than 1/9th of 1% of Hood Canal tidelands, and .0006857% (a bit more than 1/15th of 1 %) of Hood Canal shoreline. Adding the Smersh project to this total brings the cumulative impact of all of these operations to .00154% (less than 1/6 of 1 %) of Hood Canal acreage, and .00116% (less than 1/81' of 1%) of Hood Canal shoreline. Thus, even on a more local level specifically considering all other existing nearby aquaculture projects, adding the Smersh project makes no significant impact on the tiny overall percentage of Hood Canal acreage and shoreline devoted to aquaculture. 4.0.4.3 Cumulative Impact of Addition of Smersh Project on All Existing Permitted Jefferson County Projects Beyond Five Shoreline Miles. Appendix I is a listing of applications to or approvals granted by the Corps of Engineers for aquaculture projects located anywhere 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. It includes the BDN proposed BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 5 LOG 17 Ilr� -14 project. This list contains projects involving 85.95 acres of Jefferson County tidelands. What this demonstrates is that in the 9 year period between 2007 and 2016, permits were granted by the USACE affecting less than 1 % of all Jefferson County tidelands. There is simply no evidence of explosive or dramatic cumulative growth of Jefferson County aquaculture projects in general, and geoduck related projects have been a small percentage of even those approved aquaculture activities. 4.0.4.4 Possible Cumulative Impact of All Pending Aquaculture Applications. 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. The Corps of Engineers indicates there are no pending applications for aquaculture operations within five shoreline miles of the Smersh project (See Appendix F.) Thus, there are no "foreseeable future actions" to be included in this cumulative impacts analysis under JCC 18.25.1009(3)(aa). 4.0.4.5 Potential future construction of residential in -water or over water appurtenant structures. There is no planned construction by BDN of in -water or over water appurtenant structures connected with the Project. Since all placement of any materials in or over the project will be on private tidelands entirely owned by applicant, such activity would not impact construction of in -water or over water appurtenant structures by any adjacent property owners, to the extent that those property owns could otherwise meet the applicable permit requirements for such construction. 4.0.4.6 Cumulative Biological Impact. In order for there to be substantial negative cumulative biological effects of the proposed project, there must be some significant demonstrated negative biological effect or effects flowing from it that can be cumulated with known or potential negative biological effects from other projects or sources. However, an objective consideration of the Biological Evaluation previously submitted with the application for the Smersh project simply does not support a conclusion of any significant negative biological effects of the proposed project. The biological area of most concern to the USACE has been eelgrass impact, and this has also been raised in discussions and contacts with the JCDCD. The multiple, detailed eelgrass surveys and analysis, coupled with the USACE requirement that no geoduck plantings take place in or near existing eelgrass beds, shows that this cannot realistically be a cumulative biological impact concern. The same is true as to fish and other marine organisms. There appears to be no realistic substantial negative impact on species at or near the project site. Simply voicing concerns that some type of biological impact might occur from the project is not a proper basis to conclude a negative cumulative biological impact from the project within the meaning of JCC 18.25.100. 4.0.4.7 Cumulative Marine, Vehicle and Pedestrian Impact. The project will not impede marine traffic at any time. Whenever the water is of sufficient depth in the surrounding areas for small boat traffic, those vessels will be able to traverse the planted tract area freely. The minimal use of vessels by BDN is addressed in the previously submitted annotated site plan (BDN004R). This tiny additional vessel usage will have minimal cumulative impact the area environment. BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 6 LOG I` E&I L s By far the dominant vehicle traffic impact on the area is from the 24-hour-per-day, seven - days -per -week vehicle traffic on Shine Road, which passes a few hundred feet from both the existing and proposed BDN projects. The addition of the few additional vehicle trips and parking activities as described in the annotated site plan (BDN004R) will have at most a tiny cumulative effect on the project area when compared to the constant visual and noise impact from Shine Road and the surrounding feeder roads, especially since non-public area parking will be provided for all beach workers as necessary. The cumulative impact on the use of W.R. Hicks County Park for recreational purposes is also de minimis (See BDN004R, Paragraph 3.) There will be no significant interference of any kind with public use of the park at any time. The existence of the Smersh project, both by itself and in conjunction with the other nearby BDN project, will have no substantial cumulative impact on pedestrian traffic along the area tidelands. A 50' to 100' wide strip of beach and tidelands at the north edge of both projects will remain undisturbed, and if the tide is out far enough to expose the planted areas, this strip will also be exposed and available for pedestrian traffic across the area of both projects. A beach walker crossing these private property areas might at worst have to alter their walking path slightly to go around the planted areas instead of over them. 4.0.4.8 Cumulative Visual Effects. Visual effects are similarly minimal, with the planned PVC 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 PVC 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 PVC 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. The Smersh Project is located about 2000 feet to the east of the existing BDN farm project. There are at most 25 homes between the two projects that might conceivably be able to see both projects simultaneously. But as can be seen from photos 9 and 10 of the previously submitted June 2018 Visual Impacts Assessment, even at a distance of a few hundred feet, the project is barely visible because the tubes extend only a few inches above the sand. As can also be seen from Photos 11 and 12, there are at most twenty houses that will be able to see the Smersh project at all. Thus, the construction of the Smersh project will have a cumulative visual impact on perhaps twenty to twenty five area homes by adding an additional geoduck farm that is theoretically visible from those properties. The tubes on the Smersh project will only be visible for 2-16% of the time. This is also true of the existing BDN project. So tubes will exist on one farm or the other for at most 32% of the time. There are at most ten homes that could realistically see both projects at once, and those homes would be distant enough from one or both projects that someone would be barely able to distinguish the BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 7 LOOG EM tubes on either project from those properties during the maximum 32% of the time the tubes would be in place. So the cumulative visual impact of the Smersh project would at most affect 25 adjacent properties 32% of the time, and the nature of that visual impact would be minimal. By far the dominant visual impact on the area is from the busy Shine Road highway, which adds far more visual disruption and noise from its 24-hour-per-day, seven -days -per -week visual and noise impact than the tiny cumulative visual impact of dark 6" diameter tubes sticking up from the sand a few inches on both the existing BDN and proposed Smersh project. 4.0.4.9 Cumulative Debris Plastics and Chemical Impact. 4.0.4.9.1 Debris. Non -secured gear and equipment will be removed from the farm area when crews are not present. The PVC tubes that will be used on the project, based on current BDN experience, only infrequently come loose from their insertion points due to wave action or geoduck activity. But in order to control any potential beach pollution or other impact from dislodged tubes or other gear, BDN will implement a comprehensive program as follows: A. Geoduck PVC tubes will be marked to identify ownership, including an appropriate contact number. This does not apply to planted gear. All gear installed in the project area will be kept neat and secure. B. Beaches within one-half mile of the farm will be patrolled 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 and will either be repaired and placed back into service or properly disposed of. If more than 20 PVC tubes are observed to have escaped from the project area, upon discovery, BDN will immediately contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch ("Corps"). Upon notification, BDN will initiate actions to secure any untethered gear and resolve any navigational hazards, as appropriate, and will initiate an emergency inspection to document the incident and determine the cause of the failure (e.g. storm conditions, etc.). C. BDN will conduct semiannual cleanups in Squamish Harbor in coordination with other interested parties or organizations, and will conduct an annual diver survey of its farmed parcels and adjacent parcels, including photo and/or video documentation each parcel's appearance. BDN will 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. The BDN Gear Management Plan goes well beyond what is required by the Corps under NWP 48, which requires only that beaches be patrolled once every three months to retrieve aquaculture debris that escapes from the Project area. The Shorelines Hearings Board has also determined that monthly beach patrols of the type proposed by BDN adequately mitigate concerns associated with marine debris. See Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. Pierce County, et al., SHB No. 14- 024, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (May 15, 2015)("Longbranch"), Findings of Fact 41-47; Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. Thurston County, et al., SHB No. 13-006c, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Oct. 11, 2013), Findings of Fact 37-38; Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. Pierce County, et al., SHB No. 11-019, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (July 13, 2012), findings of Fact 10. BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 8 # LAG ITEM Thus, the immediate and cumulative impact of debris from the project on the surrounding environment will be minimal. There are no other nearby similar projects that are situated such that any gear or materials released from them would be carried to nearby areas in such a way as to overlap with the any materials released from the proposed project. Thus there will be no cumulative debris impact from the proposed project on nearby areas. 4.0.4.9.2 Plastics impact. The tubes used on the Project will be constructed of PVC plastic. Allegations about potential adverse impacts of plastic shellfish gear include breakdown of gear with release of microplastics, and leaching of chemicals from gear. The tubes used by BDN are designed for durability in the marine environment, and incorporate UV inhibitors to ensure longevity. In the Salish Sea low ambient temperatures and sunlight, combined with the tubes being underwater and covered by bio-foulants all serve to minimize plastic gear degradation. The lack of release of microplastics from aquaculture gear is supported by available data for the Salish Sea, showing lower levels of microplastics in water and sediment in areas of active shellfish aquaculture compared with more urban shoreline areas. The allegations about chemicals leaching from plastic gear are particularly disturbing because of the complete lack of scientific support for the concerns raised. Initially, it was alleged that metals were leaching from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes used in geoduck aquaculture. Given their durability, and the fact that metals are stabilizers, this allegation is not reasonable. Additionally, it has been shown that many of the metals identified as of potential concern are only present at very low levels in the PVC pipes being used, and that metal concentrations were not increased at a farm after two cycles of geoduck culture. Similar claims about phthalate plasticizers are unsupportable because such plasticizers are used in flexible PVC, not rigid PVC. It has also been alleged that persistent organic chemicals (POCs) will adhere to microplastic particles released from gear, that the microplastics will then be ingested by aquatic biota. While this phenomenon has been observed in the laboratory with high concentrations of microplastics, new studies demonstrate this pathway is not a quantitatively important factor in biota exposures in environmental conditions. Does Plastic Shellfish Gear Increase Microplastic And Chemical Exposures? Schoof, Rosalind Ramboll, Environ US Corporation, Seattle, WA, 71st Annual Shellfish Growers Conference. 4.0.4.9.3. Chemical Impact. No pesticide usage is planned for the project, and so there will be no chemical pesticide impact, either immediate or cumulative. Conclusion — Minor, Acceptable Cumulative Impacts. 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)) Similarly, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires the consideration of the cumulative impacts of the Project, which include both direct effects, defined as those impacts "caused by the action and occur[ing] at the same time and place" and indirect effects, which are impacts "caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. Note that although indirect effects may be removed in distance from the proposed action, they nonetheless must be caused by that action; i.e., there must be a "reasonably close relationship" between the environmental effect and alleged cause. Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004). BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 9 LOG IT EM Adding the Smersh aquaculture project will 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.) From a biological standpoint, the applicable biological data shows there is no evidence that adding the Smersh project, and even potentially the Garten and Tjemsland properties, would have any significant negative cumulative biological impact on the environment. In fact, 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. Thus, consistent with both the SMP and NEPA, the above analysis shows that the Smersh proposal will not produce substantial adverse effects either individually or cumulatively. APPENDIX A JCDCD letter dated September 14, 2017 APPENDIX B Corps Rock Point Oyster Corps Approval APPENDIX C Deep Blue Seafood Corps Approval APPENDIX D Set & Drift Corps Approval APPENDIX E Hood Canal Mariculture Corps Approval APPENDIX F Corps Letter "No Applications Pending" 12-10-19 APPENDIX G approval of the BDN Smersh project (granted on December 19, 2016 under NWS-2013-1268 APPENDIX H Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat Order BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 10 LC)c CIF OF APPENDIX I CORPS OF ENGINEERS AQUACULTURE PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS - JEFFERSON COUNTY 2007-2016 - - 06 _ Name Waterbody g , m N z o Number 0 2 @2 c JJ UO _)a, << 0 V10Corps 25 daW z❑ Exst N°n E OL N I 10+ NWS-2007- Coast Seafoods Co. Quilcene Bay 47.80314 25 01158 -122.86462 Miles NWS-2007- Penn Cove Shellfish, Quilcene Bay 47.79098 21.57 0 21.57 Exst 10+ 01412 LLC--Jefferson -122.85165 Miles NWS-2008- AG Gunstone Clams, 48.03709 _ Exst Scow Bay 0.5 0 0.5 12+ 00247 Inc. -122.69741 Miles NWS-2008- Hood Canal Hood Head 47.88373 5.74 5.74 Exst 3+ 00502 Mariculture -122.613858 Miles NWS-2008- AG Gunstone Clams, Discovery Bay 47.99585 8 0 8 Exst ' 15 00564 Inc. -122.85116 1 Miles NWS-2008- J&G Gunstone Clams, Diamond Point 48.07327 10 0 10 Exst 21+ 00567 Inc. - Jefferson 9 Scow Bay -122.9253 1 Miles NWS-2009- J&G Gunstone Clams, 48.03913 0.5 0 0.5 Exst 12+ 01481 Inc. -122.69844 48.06131 1.11 0 1.11 Exst Miles 12+ NWS-2012- Marrowstone Island _ Marrowstone 00362 Shellfish LLC - Island -122.69074 Miles Hoffstater Lease Marrowstone 48.0547 12+ NWS-2012- Marrowstone Island 0.71 .18 0.89 Exst 00377 Shellfish LLC - Erving Island -122.69123 Miles Lease 48.0547 0.45 0.11 0.56 Exst 12+ NWS-2012- Marrowstone Island Marrowstone 00379 Shellfish LLC - Island -122.69324 Miles Buckland Lease 48.05898 0.6 0.15 0.75 Exst 12+ NWS-2012- Marrowstone Island Marrowstone 00380 Shellfish LLC - Island -122.69729 Miles Johnson N.Lease _ NWS-2012- Marrowstone Island Marrowstone 48.05368 0.37 0.09 0.46 Exst 12+ 00381 Shellfish LLC - Island -122.70137 Miles Rempel Lease Marrowstone 1 48.041 0.39 0.1 0.49 Exst 12+ NWS-2012- Marrowstone Island 00421 Shellfish LLC - Lunde Island -122.69992 Miles Lease Squamish 47.868025 0.56 0 0.56 Exst <1 Mile NWS-2012- BDN LLC - 1099 Mocean Shellfish Harbor -122.674814 w ? Number Name Waterbody _ 3 (A C 7 C.)fA � < O] C � N C 00 O N j U Q 2 Occ "1 .N a) X 2 fn (O y N ca J ,. U (i O << �.. aw 0zo BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 - Page 11 LOG ITEM # 3 Of 71+ NWS-2012- BDN LLC (WA Squamish 47.867972 5.3 5.3 Exst <1 Mile 1210 Shellfish) Harbor -122.67377 NWS-2013- BDN (Brad Nelson) Squamish 47.867 0.73 0.73 Exst <1 Mile 01147 Temsland Lease Harbor -122.67505 NWS-2013- BDN (Brad Nelson) Squamish 47.867 0.92 0.92 Exst <1 Mile 01222 Harbor -122.675 NWS-2013- BDN (Brad Nelson) Squamish 47.867 2.02 2.02 New <1 Mile 01223 Garten Lease Harbor -122.675 NWS-2013- BDN (Brad Nelson) Squamish 47.865422 5.15 10.62 10.62 New Subject 01268 Smersh Lease Harbor -122.661214 Project NWS-2014- Penn Cove Quilcene Bay 3.1 3.1 New 10+ 00171 1 1 1 Miles NWS-2016- Dabob Bay Oyster Co. Hood Canal 47.615667 11.28 11.28 New 20+ 00021 1 -122.974537 1 Miles BDN Cumulative Impacts Addendum Rev. 5-26-20 — Page 12 LOG ITEM `•-J I-� lJ r------------ -�---- -- I AGl ilCi15E flNL 7 ;. I_ } b ��r US ` + 2 8WAISHINGTON STATE ofEngiees'Pg ; Daterere;re[i: y 10 Seallle District Joint A vatic Resources Permit 1 Agency reference #: ; Application (JARPA) Form '�2 [help] USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. Tax Parcel #(s)• (Revised by Applicant 5-26-20) , =------------------------------------- Part 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) hel BDN LLC Geoduck Farm Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [Leip 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 L (253) 566-1178 brad@seaproducks.com lAdditional 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 htW://www.evermittinQ.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/'a a 'ar a form/9984/iar a form.afix- For other help, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or helpporia-wa.iaov. ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 1 of 15 Part' 3-Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note application.) [lieip] LUG ITEM # Authorized agent(sy ust sign 11b Athis 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. [fig] ❑ 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 ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 2 of 15 # LOG ITEM Part 5-Project Location(s) 1 I 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.) [Ijeljj ® 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.) hei Port Ludlwo, WA 98365 5d. County [coral Jefferson 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [helpj '/4 Section Section Township 27N Range 1 E NW 3 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. [I,elpl • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. Jefferson Counyt Parcel 721031007 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (if you need more space, use DARPA Attachment C.) hel Name Mailing Address P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA, 98368 Tax Parcel # (if known) Jefferson County . ....----- ....... ......... ... ....._ 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 3411 Place, Issaquah, WA 98029 ...._._................ ... ...... .......... ................. 721031025 ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 3 of 15 LOG 1 EMI 61. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. het i None 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. f!MM Squamish Harbor 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? nl� ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [tieEpj 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. hel The tidelands have been used for typical beach recreational activities. ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 4 of 15 LOG ITEM! # �. 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. [z,Cip] 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. h[ e[p] 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. [I eip] The purpose of this proposed project is to grow geoduck for a wholesale market. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [!Ielp) ® Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] © Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland) ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike / Levee / Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway ❑ Raft ❑ Other: ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 5 of 15 6e. Describe,how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific constructior methods and equipment to be used. thelnI • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. paw • 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 -1 MLLW and -2 MLLW. To protect geoduck seed from predators, PVC tubes 4" in diameter by 10" long will be manually placed in the substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are exposed, before any geoduck seed is planted. The tubes are inserted into the substrate such that at least half of the tube is below the substrate and the remainder is above it. A low pressure water hose may be used to loosen the substrate sufficiently to properly insert the tubes. Tubes will be spaced at approximately one tube per square foot in the planting area. Only X-5" 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 PVC tubes during each approximately 5-hour shift. This will allow for approximately 6,000-10,000 tubes to be placed per day. Geoduck seed will then be obtained from a certified hatchery and typically planted in the installed PVC tubes when 4-5 mm in size. The juvenile geoducks will be placed in the installed tubes by divers during times when the tubes are submerged. No water jets will be used during placement of the seed in the PVC tubes. The PVC tubes will be covered with a mesh cap and secured with UV - resistant rubber bands 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 PVC tubes are very resistant to dislocation during severe weather, or from geoduck movement and activity, so no securing nets are necessary. Any dislodged tubes do not float, and thus tend to remain on or near the tract even if dislodged, where they can be retrieved by regular beach inspections. No fill materials or other nursery/grow-out structures will be installed on the site. The project may result in the removal of non-native Japanese dwarf eelgrass (Z. japonica) located in the proposed planted area. Site inspections will be made weekly, or more frequently if needed due to adverse weather or citizen complaints, to ensure that PVC tubes have not become dislodged. BDN has implemented an aquaculture gear maintenance plan, appended as Attachment 1-2, 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 PVC tubes, they will not be removed until the eggs have hatched. The 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 "cleanup" harvest phase at the end of the harves!L9 period when there are fewer geoducks ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 6 of 15 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? (MonthNear) Iheo) If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JAR PA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start Date: Immediately uRon issuance End Date: Continuous ❑ See JARPA of Jefferson County Shoreline Attachment D Conditional Use Permit. t 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. h[ Eij $515,000 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [iieipj • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know # LO��EMaw ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 7 of 15 Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation LOG ITEM. 0 :i- _ f ® Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area, (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [t� ipj 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [held] ® Not applicable 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? (.he!p) ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? h[ eio ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? heI • 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? [Laip • 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? (ti l • 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 whafthe mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. rheln] 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. [{,eilP] Activity (fill, drain, excavate, flood, etc.) Wetland Name' Wetland type and rating category2 Impact area (sq. ft. or Acres) Duration of impact' Proposed mitigation type Wetland mitigation area (sq. ft. or acres) Not Applicable ` I ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 8 of 15 LOG ITEM ti 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. `Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation R , Enhancement E , Preservation P , Miti ation 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. [I,eeipi 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. heI 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] M 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. I Le-1 ❑ 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? [hepl ❑ Yes M No ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 9 of 15 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies? iea p] If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. 3 • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. { 1 ❑ 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. IIielp] Not Applicable 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. Ihel Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact' (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or removed waterbody from waterbody directly affected Not Applicable l - I - 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 vears the waterbodv 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. (her 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. nCi ] Not applicable; there is no excavation or dredging associated with the proposed project. ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 10 of 15 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. [i,eio] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact Army Corps of Pam Sanguinetti (206) 764-6904 3/14/2017 Engineers 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? [f,elp) • If Yes, list the parameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: hgps://ecalogv.wa.gov/Water- ShoreiineslW ter uali (Water- im rovement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d. ❑ Yes ® No 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [Iteipj • Go to http:Ncfgub epa gov!sswf11ocate;index.cfrn to help identify the HUC 17110018 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? h[ el3 • Go to hUs:ttecoloav,wa.aovNVater-ShorelfnesANater-supply/Water-availabilitvlWatershed-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? hel • Go to httns:llecology.wa.gDvlWater-ShorelineslVllater-cualtYlFresi,waterl5urface-water-cUality-standardslCriteria for the standards. M 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? f,el • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. ■ For more information, go to: htt s://e to .wa. avlWater- horetinesIShoreline- as I-mana eme tl line-coastal- planninylShoreline-laws-rtiles-and-cases. ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ® Aquatic —Shoreline Residential ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other: ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 11 of 15 LOG ITEM 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? heI l • Go to hilg:!1www,dnr,w5l.Qovlfarest-practices-water-tvpinfor the Forest Practices Water Typing System. N 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? [heip] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ❑ Yes N No — Not Applicable Name of manual: 911. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [h ipj ■ If Yes, please describe below. ❑ Yes N No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [�elpl Private tidelands 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? Leipj • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ❑ Yes N No 91. 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. [heI 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. [tje l See Biological Evaluation ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 12 of 15 `OC, I EJw 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.govlopas/. • Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or hel oria.wa. ov. • 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.) [hei>,I • For more information about SEPA, go to httips;/lecology.wa.gov/regula_tio_ns-perrnitsISEPA-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 Develo men( (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 1 ob.) t,[ EID1 ❑ 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.) Lhei 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) 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) ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 13 of 15 LOG ITEM United States Coast Guard: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) United States Environmental Protection Agency: ❑ Section 401 Water 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). ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 14 of 15 LOG ITE44 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [I)eipl The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby author' the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies ent W g the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Brad Nelson 5/26/20 Applicant Printed Name Appliiba Signature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [ht I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. r Kenneth Sheppard 5/25/20 Authorized Agent Printed Name Apt prized Agent Sign .t re _ _ Date 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) If,elp] Not required if project is on existing rights -of -way or easements (provide copy of easement with JARPA). I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. James Smersh 5/26/20 Property Owner Printed Name Property Own e ignature - Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833- 6341. ORIA publication number: ORIA-16-011 rev. 09/2018 ORIA-16-011 Revised by Applicant 5-26-20 Page 15 of 15 LUGITEM # 34 PaW 3�ct plastic , MAY 2 8 2020 p age SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 apofv" 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 SWEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part ❑). 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 1 of 22 LOG 1.T'E16-M 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, Amended through May 19, 2020 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 Al and A2) B. BDN Eelgrass Deliniation and Depth of Culture Survey, Confluence Environmental Company — 10-16-15 (See Attachment 131) 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.) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 2 of 22 LC)(� TEM 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 11, 2016 Plan, and Attachment 12, Revised 2019 Plan.) J. BDN Addendum M-1 — Use of Upland Parcel 970200001 Rev. 3/31/20 (See Attachment M-1) K. BDN Addendum M-2 — Use of Upland Parcel 821344064 Rev. 3/31/20 (See Attachment M-2) L. BDN Addendum M-3 — Use of Hicks Park. 3/31/20 (See Attachment M-3) M. BDN Addendum M-4 — Use of Shine Boat Ramp. 3/31/20 (See Attachment M-4) N. BDN Addendum M-5 — Small Stormwater Packet, Parcel 970200001, 3/31/20 (See Attachment M-5) O. BDN Addendum M-6 — Small Stormwater Packet, Parcel 821344064, 3/31/20 (See Attachment M-6) 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. Other than any applications that may be required in connection with related upland parcels 970200001 and 821344064, 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, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11.960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 3 of 22 LOG ITEM 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.) C. Any approvals required by Jefferson County for the use of upland parcesl 970200001, 821344064, Hicks Park and Shine Boat Ramp. 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 -1 MLLW and -2 MLLW. To protect geoduck seed from predators, PVC tubes 4" in diameter by 10" long will be manually placed in the substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are exposed, before any geoduck seed is planted. The tubes are inserted into the substrate such that at least half of the tube is below the substrate and the remainder is above it. A low pressure water hose may be used to loosen the substrate sufficiently to properly insert the tubes. Tubes will be spaced at approximately one tube per square foot in the planting area. Only 3"-5" 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 PVC tubes during each approximately 5-hour shift. This will allow for approximately 6,000-10,000 tubes to be placed per day. Geoduck seed will then be obtained from a certified hatchery and typically planted in the installed PVC tubes when 4-5 mm in size. The juvenile geoducks will be placed in the installed tubes by divers during times when the tubes are submerged. No water jets will be used during placement of the seed in the PVC tubes. The PVC tubes will be covered with a mesh cap and secured with UV -resistant rubber bands 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 PVC tubes are very resistant to dislocation during severe weather, or from geoduck movement and activity, so no securing nets are necessary. Any dislodged tubes do not float, and thus tend to remain on or near the tract even if dislodged, where they can be retrived by regular beach inspections. No fill materials or other nursery/grow-out structures will be installed on the site. The project may result in the removal of non-native Japanese dwarf eelgrass (Z. japonica) located in the proposed planted area. Site inspections will be made weekly, or more frequently if needed due to adverse weather or citizen complaints, to ensure that PVC tubes have not become dislodged. BDN has implemented an aquaculture gear maintenance plan, appended as Attachment 1-2, 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (NAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 4 of 22 I - 0 G ITE-1, M P -7 _3�7 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 PVC tubes, they will not be removed until the eggs have hatched. The 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 "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. For related use of upland parcels 970200001 and 821344064, Hicks park, and Shine Boat Ramp, see Addendum M-1 through M-6 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 5 of 22 LOG i EA4 Address: 1160 Shine Road, Port Ludlow, WA, 98365 Waterbody: Squamish Harbor 1/4 Section: NW Section, 03 Township, 27N Range 01 E Latitude: 47.865575-47.866644 Longitude: 122.661410 - 122.66364 Tidal elevation: Between -2 and +2 MLL W B. Environmental Elements HELP 1. Earth hf elpl a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Gently Sloping Tidelands (Note: See Addendum M-1 through M-6 for description of related upland parcels) 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. 20 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. 1►r•7 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 6 of 22 No impervious surface will be created as part of this project. Page 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 hL eM a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during constructionLoperation, 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 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 Lhei a. Surface Water: hf elp] 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11.960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 7 of 22 LOG ITEM O 4 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. M 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: hf e 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. M 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26. 2020 Page 8 of 22 # LOG ITEM P;ix'*..qT 76�� 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 h 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 X grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other 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 PVC 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 PVC tubes. 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (NAC 197.11.960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 9 of 22 LOG 17 00 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 hf eM 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 Al, "Biological Evaluation, Marine Surveys and Assessments — 10/28/13, in particular Section 11, 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 11, Pages 9-12, and Attachments 1 through 4 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 10 of 22 �L()Cl ITEM P -�-`3q 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 1-2) 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 hf elpl 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 h 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 11 of 22 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 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 12 of 22 7- 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 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 NPa and median root mean squared (RMS) levels were 115 and 135 dBRMS re 1 pPa (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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 13 of 22 ITEM 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 — June, 2018 (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 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 hLeip_j 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 14 of 22 - c; I-F P For related use of upland parcels 970200001 and 821344064, Hicks park, and Shine Boat Ramp, see Addendum M-1 through M-6 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? M e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 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 PVC 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (NAC 197.11.960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 15 of 22 surrounding areas at low tide. 6-12 months after planting, the PVC tubes will be removed 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 year. Dive harvests will employ 1 diver and 2 support workers in the skiff. Dive harvesting will usually last up to S 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: 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 hf elpl 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 lgipJ SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 16 of 22 W � �.. 1 arp" 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 PVC plastic 4" diameter by 10" long geoduck planting tubes, which will be placed into the sandy substrate at an approximate density of 1 tube per square foot with 3" to 5" of the tube exposed above the substrate. These tubes will be stored in open piles or stacks in areas in the northern half of related upland parcel 8213444032 currently covered by grass or small shrubs. Total coverage of these piles at any one time will be not more than 4,000 square feet, and the piles will not exceed 7 feet in height. 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. Tubes stored on related Parcel 8213444032, or vehicles temporarily parked there may be visible to a minor degree from three nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed project will be visible for only short duration during very low tides. Geoduck PVC tubes will initially be black or white, and will quickly take on a natural color due to colonization by aquatic flora and fauna, such that from a distance they will blend in with other beach elements, and even close up will not be a significant visual disruption to the natural landscape. 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. Piles of stored tubes on upland parcel 8213444032 will be restricted to 7 feet in height and no more than 4000 square feet of total coverage. (See Addendum M-2) 11. Light and Glare hf e 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 PVC 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 17 of 22 LOG I paqe b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? ZO c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ►CTiM d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12. Recreation hf e 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. 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 W 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 18 of 22 1- I T E�i 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 lb@jpj 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. 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 % 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 V, Poulsbo, has a bus stop approximatsly 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). M e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 19 of 22 LOG ITEM #&4 p 2- 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, about ten to twenty passenger vehicle trips, and one or two truck trips (to deliver or load geoducks or other project materials) will be generated each day. During beach inspection periods, one to two passenger vehicle trips will be generated each day. During waterborne harvesting, one or two truck trips (to deliver or load geoducks or other project materials) will be generated each day. No data or transportation models were used to make these estimates. See also Addendums M-1 through M-6 for vehicle use of related upland parcels. 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. 20 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None needed or planned. 15. Public Services hf elpl a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None needed or planned. 16. Utilities f. eEe a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other No utilites currently directly serve the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None planned or needed SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 20 of 22 C. Signature HELP The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them"to make itsAecision. / Signature: Name of signet Position and Agency/Organization Authorized Anent of Applicant Date Submitted: May 26, 2020 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions HELP (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. 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, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 21 of 22 LUG ITE44 #Oelm Of 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: 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) Responses Revised May 26, 2020 Page 22 of 22