Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA Att C Visual Assessment 2020 146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com Smersh Farm Visual Assessment FINAL REPORT Prepared for: BDN, Inc. October 2019, Revised September 2020 May 07 2021 146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com Smersh Farm Visual Assessment FINAL REPORT Prepared for: BDN, Inc. Attn: Brad Nelson Prepared by: Grant Novak Confluence Environmental Company October 2019, Revised September 2020 Smersh Farm Visual Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Inventory .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Scenic Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.1 Environmental Condition ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Spatial Definition ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.3 Adjacent Scenery .................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Sensitivity Level ............................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Number of Viewers ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.1 View Duration.......................................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Visibility ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 3.3.1 View Obstruction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3.2 Distance Offshore/Observer Position ...................................................................................................... 9 3.3.3 Viewshed Coverage ................................................................................................................................ 9 3.4 Extent of Probable Visual Impact ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 10 FIGURES Figure 1. Smersh Parcel and Vicinity. ................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Area and Distances from High Water ....................................................... 2 Figure 3.Visual Assessment Inventory Categories ................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Proportion of month the upper margin (Chart A) and lower margin (Chart B) of the geoduck planting will be visible based on NOAA tide data from Jan 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2017. .......................................... 7 Figure 5. Proportion of Month Tidal Elevation Range is Within Farm Boundary ................................................... 8 Figure 6. Visual Impact Classifications ................................................................................................................ 10 Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION BDN, Inc. has leased parcel 721031007 (Smersh parcel) on Shine Road west of the Hood Canal Bridge and is proposing to operate a geoduck farm at the site (Figure 1). A conditional use permit is requried by Jefferson County and, as part of the permit application, a visual assessment has been requested by the County purssuant to Jefferson County code 18.25.440(4)(f). The following document presents an assessment of the potential effects to nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline that might occur due to geoduck aquaculture operations on the Smersh parcel. BDN, Inc proposes to plant up to 5.15 acres of geoducks at the site between +2 feet and approximately -2 feet relative to mean lower low water (MLLW) (Figure 2). The lower boundary of planting has been determined based on the location of the eelgrass bed below approximately -2 feet MLLW (Confluence 2016). Geoduck will be planted outside of a 16 foot horizontal buffer from the eelgrass bed (Figure 2). To protect geoduck seed from predators, PVC tubes 4” in diameter by 10” long would be placed into the sandy substrate at low tide, while the tidelands are exposed, before any geoduck seed is planted. Tubes would be placed at an approximate density of 1 tube per square foot with 3” to 5” of the tube exposed above the substrate. A low pressure water hose may be used to loosen the substrate sufficiently to properly insert the PVC tubes. Tubes will be labeled with contact information for BDN. 12-25 workers will work to insert these tubes during each approximately 5-hour shift. This will allow for approximately 6,000-10,000 tubes to be placed per day. Figure 1. Smersh Parcel and Vicinity. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 2 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 PVC 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 tubes will be clipped shut at the top by the divers, using plastic clips, after the seed has been planted. Planting will begin in spring and continue through fall. Planting activities will occur once per year, typically in June or July, over a period of 20-25 days. No netting will be installed over the tubes, and no rebar or other materials will be used in connection with the planting maintenance or harvest activities. No fill materials or other nursery/grow-out structures will be installed on the site. 2.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD 2.1 Overview This visual assessment follows protocols and methods outlined in the Department of Ecology’s Aquaculture Siting Study (Ecology 1986) developed by the State of Washington to assess visual effects that might be experienced due to aquaculture activities. In Ecology’s study, they incorporated and expanded upon visual assessment techniques identified by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and refined the applicable techniques Figure 2. Proposed Geoduck Planting Area and Distances from High Water Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 3 to focus on assessments of aquaculture. The result is the Visual Assessment Workbook which provides an analytical process for evaluating visual impacts of aquaculture. The USFS identified nine assumptions related to visual quality that were adopted by Ecology in their analytical process to assess visual impacts of aquaculture: 1. People have certain scenic expectations 2. View duration is critical; 3. Number of viewers is critical; 4. Diversity increases scenic value; 5. Retention of distinctive character is desirable; 6. Each setting varies in capacity to absorb visual alteration; 7. Landmarks/focal points receive critical scrutiny; 8. Viewing angle is critical; and 9. Viewing distance is critical. The BLM identified three principles related to visual quality that were adopted by Ecology in their analytical process to assess visual impacts of aquaculture: 1. Landscape character is primarily determined by the four basic visual elements of form, line, color, and texture. Although all four elements are present in every landscape, they exert varying degrees of influence. 2. The stronger the influence exerted by these elements, the more interesting the landscape. 3. The more visual variety in a landscape, the more aesthetically pleasing the landscape. Variety without harmony, however, is unattractive, particularly in terms of alterations (cultural modifications) that are made without care. The principles and assumptions outlined by the USFS and BLM were incorporated by Ecology into a visual assessment method that inventories the surrounding landscape to quantify visual characteristics of the landscape and the proposed aquaculture operations, and incorporates the landscape inventory scores within an analysis matrix to arrive at an overall visual impact score. 2.2 Inventory The Ecology defined inventory of visual characteristics includes three categories: scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility. Scenic quality incorporates individual rating scores of environmental condition, spatial definition, and adjacent scenery to determine a high, moderate, or low scenic quality rating. Site sensitivity level is an accounting of the number of potential viewers and their potential view duration of the project area (i.e., Smersh geoduck farm). The visibility category identifies key observation points and evaluates the visibility of the aquaculture site based on obstructions, distance from viewer, and the amount of the viewers cone of vision taken up by the aquaculture activity (Figure 3). Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 4 2.3 Analysis In the analysis step, the scores from the inventory of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility are incorporated into an overall score to determine the severity of the probable visual impact. The four classifications of visual impact are: 1. Class I (Severe Visual Impact) – Any permanently visible aquaculture facility will likely have a severe visual impact that cannot be mitigated for. This category is applicable only in wilderness areas. 2. Class II (High Visual Impact) – Areas where permanently visible aquaculture facilities will likely be visually obtrusive. 3. Class III (Moderate Visual Impact) – Areas where permanently visible aquaculture facilities will be visually evident. 4. Class IV (Low Visual Impact) – Areas where existing visual disruptions dominate or areas with low sensitivity/visibility. Figure 3.Visual Assessment Inventory Categories Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 5 3.0 FINDINGS A site visit was made to the Shine neighborhood and surrounding locale on April 18, 2018 during a daylight low tide to inventory the scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility of the area within the viewshed of the proposed Smersh geoduck farm. A hard copy of the visual assessment workbook was consulted during the site visit and notes and scores were cataloged in the workbook (Appendix A) for incorporation into this assessment. 3.1 Scenic Quality Scenic quality is a combination of environmental condition, spatial definition, and adjacent scenery. Each of these elements is described in more detail below. Summary Category Rating: Moderate scenic quality – Areas with a combination of some outstanding features and some that are fairly common. 3.1.1 Environmental Condition Environmental condition is the capacity of the landscape to accept human alteration without losing its natural visual character. 3.1.1.1 Environmental Condition Rating Individual Element Rating: Moderate Environmental condition was rated as Moderate based on distinctive landscape character, the nearby public park and public use area, and areas with visible evidence of human activity, but not at a dominating level. The Smersh site is located on a heavily altered shoreline in a medium- density, residential neighborhood. The shoreline has been altered by rip rap hardening, there is a concrete boat ramp and gravel parking lot in the adjacent public property, riparian trees have been removed from a number of the adjacent properties to increase private views, and the paved roadway is adjacent to the shoreline for approximately 1 mile to the west of the Smersh parcel. 3.1.2 Spatial Definition Spatial definition is the degree of spatial enclosure and volume created by the flat plane of the water body and the surrounding landforms. 3.1.2.1 Spatial Definition Rating Individual Element Rating: Moderate Spatial definition was rated as moderate based on the shoreline form with concave embayments ½ mile to 2 miles across. Squamish Harbor is approximately 2 miles across at the Smersh site and Hood Canal is approximately 3 miles across at the Smersh site. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 6 3.1.3 Adjacent Scenery Adjacent scenery refers to the adjacent shoreline edge, landform, and vegetation which define the embayment. Influence, detail, and clarity diminish with distance. In general, impact of this variable increases as the degree of enclosure increases, or as the embayment size or the distance to the opposite shoreline decreases. 3.1.3.1 Adjacent Scenery Rating Individual Element Rating: Low Adjacent scenery was rated as low based on the lack of variety in form, line, color, and texture. Trees obscure views from neighboring residences, clear cutting is visible in the managed forests to the west, managed forests are visible on all adjacent shorelines, and most shorelines being greater than 1 mile from viewpoints. 3.2 Sensitivity Level Sensitivity level refers to the number of potential viewers, adjacent travel routes, use areas, or the amount of existing residential development. Summary Category Rating: Low – few adjacent travel routes and medium-density residential development. Further, because geoducks will be located in the intertidal zone, they will be underwater for the majority of the time and the duration when they are visible will be short. This rating is described in more detail below. 3.2.1 Number of Viewers Individual Element Rating: Low This element was rated as low because the potential number of viewers of the Smersh Site is low. At low tide, the upper margin of the geoduck planting at +2 feet elevation is visible from only 12 residences while the lower margin of the geoduck planting at -2 feet elevation is visible from only 20 residences (See Appendix B – Photos 11 and 12). The site is not visible from the heavily- travelled state route 104 and, while it may be visible from Shine road during some tidal stages, Shine road is a neighborhood access route and not heavily travelled. The neighboring park is little more than a boat ramp and gravel parking lot. The boat ramp is only useable during high tide, when the PVC geoduck tubes would be submerged, so there is little opportunity for visitors to see aquaculture activities. 3.2.1 View Duration Individual Element Rating: Low It is important to note that tides low enough to expose the planting area follow a seasonal pattern in the Puget Sound region. Larger-magnitude summer low tides occur during daylight hours, Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 7 while winter low tides occur at night. Therefore, PVC geoduck tubes are more visible in summer, and minimally visible in winter. While the presence of medium-density residential development may lead to a moderate score for the Sensitivity Level category, aquaculture equipment and activities are only visible during daylight low tides for a small percentage of each month. Figure 4 illustrates that the upper margins of the geoduck planting area are visible a maximum of 16% of any single month (Chart A) and the entire planted area is visible a maximum of only 2% of a month (Chart B) (NOAA 2018). A. B. Figure 4. Proportion of month the upper margin (Chart A) and lower margin (Chart B) of the geoduck planting will be visible based on NOAA tide data from Jan 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2017. Figure 5 presents the tidal range in Hood Canal throughout the year overlaid by the farm boundary. It should be noted that, while geoduck will be planted between +2 feet and -2 feet elevation, the geoduck tubes may extend up to 7 inches (0.6 feet) above the sediment so the farm boundary has been shown between -1.4 feet and +2.6 feet to represent the tidal elevation of the PVC geoduck tubes. As can be seen in Figure 5, tidal elevation seldom goes as low as the upper farm boundary and even more rarely goes as low as the lower farm boundary, further illustrating that the aquaculture activities will be exposed only a minor portion of a month. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 8 3.3 Visibility Visibility is a combination of the following elements, which are discussed in more detail below: view obstruction, distance offshore/observer position, and viewshed coverage. Summary Category Rating: Low Visibility is rated low due to obstructed views from vegetation and landform as well as large distances between geoduck planting area and potential viewers. Also, geoduck tubes have very low relief and natural macroalgae colonizes equipment rapidly leading to natural color and texture (See Appendix B – Photos for examples). 3.3.1 View Obstruction View obstruction is related to the degree of obstruction in viewing the farm by vegetation, landform, or man-made objects. 3.3.1.1 View Obstruction Rating Individual Element Rating: Moderate – Partially obstructed view 15 to 20 homes have unobstructed view of the proposed geoduck planting area. During the site visit, nearby trees were in the leaf-off condition. The estimate of 15-20 homes with unobstructed views will be reduced during the summer when trees have a cover of leaves that are likely to more fully block views. Figure 5. Proportion of Month Tidal Elevation Range is Within Farm Boundary Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 9 3.3.2 Distance Offshore/Observer Position Visibility is critically related to the distance the farm is located from observation points and the height of key observation points above sea level. 3.3.2.1 Distance Offshore/Observer Position Rating Individual Element Rating: Low – Areas with little visibility This element is rated low because distance from most potential viewers (i.e. visible residences and Shine road) to aquaculture is greater than 1500 feet and between 20 feet and 50 feet above sea level. 3.3.3 Viewshed Coverage Viewshed coverage is related to the percentage of the normal cone of vision occupied by the proposed aquaculture facility. 3.3.3.1 Viewshed Coverage Rating Individual Element Rating: Low The proposed geoduck planting area covers less than 5% of the cone of vision when viewed from nearby residences. The project is only 500 feet wide along the nearly 2-mile-long northern shoreline of Squamish Harbor. 3.4 Extent of Probable Visual Impact Scores from the inventory of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and visibility are incorporated into an overall score to determine the severity of the probable visual impact. Scenic Quality Summary Category Rating: Moderate Sensitivity Level Summary Category Rating: Moderate Visibility Summary Category Rating: Low Smersh Farm Visual Assessment October 2019 Page 10 Using the matrix provided in the Visual Assessment Workbook to determine the extent of visual impact of the project site leads to a Class IV Low Visual Impact. This determination is based on the fact that the site is visible only a small portion of the time, the site is not visible from heavily traveled routes, the surroundings are heavily altered by local residential development, and the PVC geoduck tubes will quickly take on a natural color due to colonization by aquatic flora and fauna (see photo 13 in Appendix B). Based on the resultant Class IV Low Visual Impact rating, the project should require no mitigation measures to reduce visual effects. 4.0 REFERENCES Confluence Environmental Company. 2016. BDN Eelgrass Bed Delineation – 2016 – Final Report. October 31, 2016. Ecology (WA State Department of Ecology). 1986. Aquaculture siting study. Prepared by EDAW Inc. and CH2M/Hill for State of Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018. Tides and Currents Website – Tide Predictions at Gage 99445088 at Lofall, WA from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2017. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions.html?id=9445088&legacy=1 Figure 6. Visual Impact Classifications Appendix A Visual Assessment Workbook     Appendix B Photos SMERSH FARM VISUAL ASSESSMENT – 2018 Appendix B: Photos October 2019 Page 1  Photo Index - Numbers correspond to the photo numbers in the following appendix. Arrows indicate the viewing direction of the photo. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos Page 2 October 2019     Photo 1 — View of proposed geoduck planting area from neighboring public boat ramp. Orange boundary is approximate location of proposed geoduck. Photo 2 — View of proposed geoduck planting area from western property boundary looking east. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos October 2019 Page 3 Photo 3 — View of proposed geoduck planting area looking east from neighboring public boat ramp.   Photo 4 — View from residential driveway approximately 1000 feet north of proposed geoduck planting area. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos Page 4 October 2019 Photo 5 — View from residential driveway approximately 500 feet north of proposed geoduck planting area.   Photo 6 — View from Shine Road approximately 400 feet northeast of proposed geoduck planting area. Note boat that is also visible in phots 1-3. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos October 2019 Page 5 Photo 7 — View from approximately 1500 feet east of proposed geoduck planting area from Shine Road looking in direction of farm. This view is typical of most residences in the area. The high bluff blocks views of the proposed aquaculture. This photo was taken at low tide but no exposed beach is visible.  Photo 8 — View from approximately 1500 feet east of proposed geoduck planting area from Shine Road looking in direction of farm. This view is typical of most residences in the area. The high bluff blocks views of the proposed aquaculture. This photo was taken at low tide but no exposed beach is visible. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos Page 6 October 2019 Photo 9 — View of active geoduck farm from Shine Road. Looking to east during low tide.   Photo 10 — View of active geoduck farm from Shine Road. Looking to west during low tide. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos October 2019 Page 7 Photo 11 — Houses with line-of-sight visibility to center of proposed aquaculture (approximately +1 feet MLLW). Orange circles indicate residences that may be able to see the farm when tides are low enough. Photo taken at 12:10pm on April 18, 2018. Tidal elevation approximately -0.35 feet MLLW. Photo 12 — Houses with line-of-sight visibility to lower margin of proposed aquaculture (approximately -2 feet MLLW). Orange circles indicate residences that may be able to see the farm when tides are low enough. Photo taken at 12:12pm on April 18, 2018. Tidal elevation approximately -0.34 feet MLLW. Smersh Farm Visual Assessment – Appendix B: Photos Page 8 October 2019 Photo 13 — Example of PVC geoduck tubes colonized by natural flora and fauna within months of installation. Note scoters diving to feed on attached organisms. Note that PVC tubes are not planned for this project but colonization of mesh tubes by native organisms is expected to be similar for this project.