HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 08 02 Planning Commission Agenda PacketVacant – District 1 LD Richert – District 2 Richard Hull, Chair – District 3 Kevin Coker – District 1 Matt Sircely, Vice Chair -District 2 Chris Llewellyn – District 3 Cynthia Koan – District 1 Lorna Smith – District 2 Michael Nilssen – District 3
1
AGENDA
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
General Meeting – August 2, 2023
This will be a virtual-only meeting.
You can join this meeting remotely by using the following methods:
Zoom Meeting: Meeting ID: 886 7104 7253 Passcode: 894561 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88671047253?pwd=OU8vTWZGWTVRRGNRVEQ1c2k0WDVadz09
This option will allow you to join the meeting live. You will need to enter an email address. If you wish to provide public comment, click on the hand icon at the bottom of the screen to “raise your hand.”. Participation will be up to the Chair of the meeting Audio-only: For one tap mobile copy and paste: +12532158782,,88671047253#,,,,*894561#Please sign on 5 to 10 minutes before the official start of the meeting to check sound and video quality This video will be closed-captioned enabled.
5:30 PM Chair Welcome and Overview Presentation
1.Call to Order/Roll Call
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes
a.Draft meeting minutes for June 29, 2023
4.Planning Commission Updates (10 minutes)
5.DCD Staff and Director Updates (5 minutes)
PUBLIC COMMENT
6.Public comments from attendees about any topic that is not on the agenda. Public comments on
agenda items can be given during the agenda item’s section. When the Chair recognizes you to
speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that each public
comment is limited to three minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
7.Transmitted Information – General Information Items to Read and Receive
a.BERK Consultants (BERK) update for SMP Periodic Review project
b.BERK memorandum re: shoreline setback information and policy options
Vacant – District 1 LD Richert – District 2 Richard Hull, Chair – District 3 Kevin Coker – District 1 Matt Sircely, Vice Chair -District 2 Chris Llewellyn – District 3 Cynthia Koan – District 1 Lorna Smith – District 2 Michael Nilssen – District 3
2
c.BERK memorandum re: aquaculture regulation analysis
d.DCD SMP Periodic Review webpage: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-
Master-Program-Periodic-Review
e.Correspondence to Planning Commission
i.Gordon King email 7/12/23 with two attachments re: SMP Periodic Review
1.“Ecological Effects of the Harvest Phase of Geoduck (Panopea generosa
Gould, 1850) Aquaculture on Infaunal Communities in Southern Puget
Sound, Washington” – Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, 171-187,
2015.
2. 2017 03 07 Email C McGowan to S Pozarycki
ii.Letter from Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 7/31/23 re: SMP Period Review
REGULAR BUSINESS
8.Shoreline Master Program Update
•Progress report
•Set hearing date
9.Plan for Planning Commission retreat
•Date
•Location
•General goals
621 Sheridan St. P: 360-379-4450 Port Townsend, WA, 98368 PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us
1
MEETING MINUTES
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Rescheduled (Special) Meeting – Thursday, June 29, 2023
Tri Area Community Center, 10 West Valley Road, Chimacum, Washington 98325
4:30 PM Shoreline Master Program and Shoreline User’s Guide Open House
5:30 PM Welcome Chair and Overview Presentation
1.Call to Order/Roll Call
District 1 District 2 District 3
Vacant Sircely Hull
Coker Smith – Unexcused Absence Nilssen
Koan Richert—Excused Absence Llewelyn
One Vacancy; 6 of 8 Commissioners Present; Quorum = 5; Majority vote for tonight’s
business = 4
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes
Motions
Motion
#
Motion 1st 2nd Yay Nay Abstain
1 Motion to Approve minutes Kevin Matt 5 1 0
2 Motion to Approve modified agenda (Chair added second public comment
period after BERK presentation.)
By Acclamation
PUBLIC COMMENT
4.Summary of Public Comments:
No general public comments.
5.Planning Commission Updates:
a.Cynthia Koan attended presentation by Gregg Colburn, Runstad Department of Real
Estate, University of Washington, and author of “Homelessness is a Housing Problem”.
The lack of housing is the major issue creating homelessness. Consider bringing the
research/researcher into the discussion of Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA housing planning.
Presentation materials are found on AV Capture at:
https://media.avcaptureall.cloud/meeting/e8159260-fd15-45ba-a4be-6906916acb4f
Item 3.a.
621 Sheridan St. P: 360-379-4450 Port Townsend, WA, 98368 PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us
2
6.DCD Staff and Director Updates:
a.Joel Peterson, Associate Planner:
i.The PC Staff Desk is operational again. Please send communications or
information to be disseminated to PC, directly to
PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us.
ii.Provided an abridged history of PC roles and special Task Force roles, and that they
can overlap and with confusion over who is the lead. This is the nature of citizen
groups. We acknowledge and discuss this frustration so that we can formulate a
way for all to be accountable to each other and work together.
iii.WA Dept. of Commerce is providing planning grants to local jurisdictions for
Comprehensive Plan periodic reviews. DCD will be receiving a total of $350,000
over two years.
iv.PC Retreat in late August or early September will provide opportunity to prioritize
& recommend periodic update work.
b.Josh Peters, Director, Community Development:
i.The RFPs for on-call Community Development Services has closed & DCD is setting
up consulting work to tackle work backlog.
ii.Another wave of hiring of staff positions is occurring soon, depending on outcome
of union bargaining for new contract.
iii.Collective Bargaining with the UFCW3000 union may have outcome soon.
CONSENT AGENDA
7.General Information Transmitted: No information transmitted.
REGULAR BUSINESS
8.BERK Presentations9. Cancellation of July 5 meeting
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 7:18 PM
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 2, 2023, at 5:30.
These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of_____, 2023. ____________________________ Richard Hull, Chair Joel Peterson, Secretary
1
Jefferson County
Progress Draft SMP Revisions
July 28, 2023 | Prepared by BERK Consulting and Shannon & Wilson
Meeting Date and Description
Location: Virtual
Date: August 2, 2023
SMP Study Session: 5:30-7:30pm
Description: The Planning Commission will have a study session to review draft revisions to the SMP in
response to the Washington Department of Ecology Initial Determination of Consistency. There will be a
public comment opportunity on the agenda.
Background
On September 30, 2022, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) transmitted its Initial
Determination of Consistency on the Draft Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), just about a
year after the submittal of the Planning Commission recommendations regarding the SMP Periodic
Update in October 2021. The consultant team drafted changes to the SMP in response to Planning
Commission recommended changes and Ecology comments.
The Planning Commission held two meetings in June to review Ecology comments and the draft changes to
the SMP (June 7, 2023 and June 29, 2023). June 29 was a special meeting and also included a
community open house, which shared a draft Shoreline User Guide, highlighted public input received to
date, and provided an opportunity for attendees to provide feedback.
Based on public input, Planning Commission recommendation, and Ecology comments, the consultant team
has identified the following key topics for discussion:
Modest Home Provision: The provision’s purpose is to allow a reasonable sized home on a lot that is
nonconforming in depth while protecting buffer functions. Proposed changes to the SMP include:
Clarifying the defined dimensions of a nonconforming lot (less than the sum of standard buffer +
10’ building setback + 40’ house + 20’ street setback [50’ if abutting a highway])
Clarifying modest home provision applies to both new construction and replacement of an
existing home
Adding an option for applicants to prove the site is not subject to geologic hazards by
submitting a geotechnical report attesting the home would neither be at risk from nor would
increase risk of landslides or erosion on and off site
Item 7.a.
July 28, 2023 Jefferson County | Planning Commission SMP Review Cover Sheet 2
Adding criteria that the proposed development is not a no-bank marine shoreline
Removing cross reference to common line
Common Line Provision: The provision’s purpose is to provide new single-family residences with
shoreline views that are adequate and comparable to adjacent residences, although not necessarily
equal. In response to Ecology’s comments and the Planning Commission discussion at the June 29
meeting, the staff and consultant team have been evaluating the relationship between buffer
reduction/averaging, modest home, and common line provisions. While that discussion is ongoing, two
options are presented below for further discussion at the August 2, 2023, Planning Commission
meeting:
Continued Amendments to the Common Line Provision – Proposed changes to the SMP include:
Shifting common line to apply to conforming lots (opposed to applying to nonconforming lots)
Shortening the distance between the proposed home and adjacent home(s) from 300’ to 150’
Requiring applicant to demonstrate that buffer reduction or averaging consistent with JCC
18.25.270(4)(i) would not provide adequate and comparable shoreline views, and that the
proposed reduction is the minimum necessary
Requiring applicant to provide 80% of the remaining buffer with native vegetation (unless it can
be demonstrated that a lesser area would meet the no net loss standard)
Adding a maximum buffer reduction of 50% to correct the provision in JCC 18.22.640(1)
(Critical Areas) that includes a provision that a buffer can be reduced with no lower limit
(proposed after additional analysis by the consultant team)
Remove the Common Line Provision
Analysis performed by consultant team suggests that the common line provisions may not be
necessary for either nonconforming or conforming lots. See Attachment G for more information
on the Common Line Provision.
Aquaculture: Extensive revisions to the aquaculture regulations included in the SMP were not
originally envisioned during the SMP periodic update scoping effort. The initial revisions were limited
to those changes required by Ecology. The SMP presented in the June 26, 2021, public hearing held
by the Planning Commission included those edits. There was extensive public comment regarding the
aquaculture regulations from shoreline property owners and some comments from Taylor Shellfish
during subsequent Planning Commission meetings. As a result, staff and the consultant team were
asked to evaluate and incorporate Kitsap County’s aquaculture regulations. The Kitsap County SMP
integration was completed for the County’s October 2021 SMP submittal to Ecology. Staff and the
consultant team are continuing to review public comments and evaluate the various code options, with
an eye to the regulatory reform objectives of the Board of County Commissioners. See Attachment H
for more information on proposed amendments to aquaculture regulations.
July 28, 2023 Jefferson County | Planning Commission SMP Review Cover Sheet 3
August 2, 2023 Study Session Material
The following documents are provided along with this memo:
SMP Progress Draft – Progress draft set of revisions to the SMP in response to Ecology
recommended and required comments.
SMP Periodic Review Checklist – Tool for cities and counties subject to the SMA to ensure their SMP
complies with current state laws, rules, and guidance and is consistent with the local comprehensive
plan and development regulations.
SMP Ocean Management Checklist – Tool for cities and counties in Clallam, Jefferson, Grays
Harbor, and Pacific Counties to use to ensure their SMP implements the Ocean Resource
Management Act (ORMA) and is consistent with the Washington State Marine Spatial Plan.
Initial Determination Matrix – Set of required and recommended changes from Department of
Ecology.
Project Permit Application Framework – Proposed amendments to JCC 18.40.040 that change
shoreline substantial development permits under the Jefferson County SMP from a Type III permit
decision to a Type II permit decision.
Draft Shoreline User Guide – Progress draft of Shoreline User Guide, a document intended to help
residents, applicants, and those who prepare documents on behalf of their clients understand some of
the shoreline policies, regulations, and permitting processes.
Common Line Memo – Proposed additional regulations to Jefferson County common line buffer
code.
Aquaculture Memo – Tool to assist all parties with comparing proposed amendments to aquaculture
regulations from the May 2021 version of the SMP that was the subject of a June 2021 Planning
Commission public hearing with the current version, and to help establish possible additional revisions.
Next Steps
Per WAC 173-26-104(4), the next step is for Jefferson County to consider the required and
recommended changes identified by Ecology, as well as additional public input, and formally adopt the
amendment through resolution or ordinance, then send the final SMP submittal for formal agency
approval as outlined in WAC 173-26-110. Jefferson County intends to develop revisions with the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The County intends to hold an additional public
hearing with the Planning Commission. As well, the SMP Task Force is being reinitiated to review the
materials.
An approximate schedule is outlined below.
July 28, 2023 Jefferson County | Planning Commission SMP Review Cover Sheet 4
Attachments
SMP Progress Draft, June 30, 2023
SMP Periodic Review Checklist, June 30, 2023
SMP Ocean Management Checklist, June 30, 2023
Initial Determination Matrix of Recommended and Required Changes, September 30, 2022
Project Permit Application Framework, June 30, 2023
Progress Draft Shoreline User Guide, June 30, 2023
Common Line Memo, July 28, 2023
Aquaculture Memo, July 28, 2023
• Review: June-July 2023
• Hearing (TBD) and Recommendations: August-October
2023
Planning Commission Review &
Recommendations
• November-December 2023
Board of County Commissioners Approval
400 North 34th Street Suite 100 PO Box 300303 Seattle, Washington 98103-8636 206 632-8020 Fax 206 695-6777
www.shannonwilson.com
105602-007.1-M1.rev.docx/wp/pkl 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Josh Peters, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
FROM: Amy Summe, PWS, Shannon & Wilson
DATE: July 28, 2023
PROJECT: Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
PROJ. #: 105602-007.1
SUBJECT: Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
INTRODUCTION
As currently written, the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) includes standard buffer widths
that are uniform across all environment designations: 150 feet for marine and riverine
shorelines and 100 feet for lake shorelines. These buffers could be varied on all lots
consistent with the critical areas provisions regarding buffer reduction and buffer
averaging. In addition, nonconforming lots could pursue an alternative buffer through the
modest home or common line provisions. Other modifications would require a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance.
In response to Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology’s) comments and
Planning Commission discussion, at the June 29, 2023, meeting, the Jefferson County staff
and consultant team have been evaluating the relationship between the buffer
reduction/averaging, modest home, and common line buffer provisions. While that
discussion is ongoing, the following memo provides two options for further discussion at
the August 2, 2023, Planning Commission meeting: 1) continued amendments to the
common line provision or 2) remove the common line provision.
COMMON LINE AMENDMENT OPTION
Latest Draft
The following text is taken from the draft Cumulative Impacts Assessment Addendum
produced on June 30, 2023, and summarizes the common line buffer code evolution through
that date:
In the course of this SMP update process, the details of the County’s common line
buffer provisions were re-evaluated. The first topic of consideration related to
addressing Ecology’s Initial Determination comment about potential interactions
Item 7.b.
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 2 July 28, 2023
between the Modest Home Provision and the common line buffer. Ecology noted
that “further consideration is needed for if/when/how this Common Line provision
applies in relation to (5)(a) Modest Home Provision, if the two can be used together
on a single project, how they apply iteratively/ hierarchically, and the relationship to
the buffer averaging/reduction allowance at .270(4)(j)).” After consideration of
various potential scenarios, it was ultimately determined that the common line
buffer was not a mechanism that added any benefit to either property owners or the
environment in the Modest Home Provision (nonconforming lot) context.
However, the stated purpose of the common line buffer in the SMP is to provide new
single-family residences with shoreline views that are adequate and comparable to
adjacent residences, although not necessarily equal. While not the purpose of the
Modest Home Provision on nonconforming lots, an incidental side effect is that
developments on those properties are positioned closer to the water such that they
are likely to have adequate and comparable views without further buffer reduction.
This is not a value or circumstance that applies only to nonconforming lots, but
should be available to conforming lots that may be adjacent to properties (whether
conforming or nonconforming) with homes much closer to the water.
For this reason, the common line buffer strategy has been proposed as an option for
conforming lots. To protect ecological functions and limit application to properties
where views are actually constrained by adjacent closer development, the revised
regulations require demonstration that buffer reductions or averaging consistent
with JCC 18.25.270(4)(i) would not provide sufficient relief from those view limits,
and propose shortening the distance between the proposed home and adjacent
home(s) from 300 feet to 150 feet1. In addition, a requirement for providing 80% of
the remaining buffer with native vegetation has been added unless it can be
demonstrated that a lesser area would meet the no net loss standard.
Potential Further Refinement
SMP provision JCC 18.25.270(4)(i) cross-references the buffer reduction and averaging
provisions in JCC 18.22.640(1) and (2), which read:
1 150 feet was selected as a more appropriate distance after reviewing some scenarios and considering
other jurisdictions’ limits (e.g., Mason County requires adjacent residences to be within 150 feet of the
lot line; Chelan County allows it to be applied if the undeveloped lot is less than 100 feet wide). The
Douglas County example in Ecology’s SMP Handbook (Chapter 11, Vegetation Conservation, Buffers
and Setbacks) allows common line buffer to be applied to undeveloped lots with a maximum width
of 150 feet.
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 3 July 28, 2023
(1) The administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-
case basis; provided, the specific standards for avoidance and minimization in JCC
18.22.660 shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
administrator that all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The buffer reduction shall not adversely affect the habitat functions and
values of the adjacent FWHCA [Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Area] or other critical area.
(b) The buffer shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard
buffer, unless it can be demonstrated through a special report prepared by a
qualified professional that there will be no net loss of FWHCA functions or
values.
(c) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and
the gradient does not exceed 30 percent.
(2) The administrator shall have the authority to average buffer widths on a case-by
case basis; provided, the specific standards for avoidance and minimization in JCC
18.22.660 shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
administrator that all the following criteria are met:
(a) The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than
that which would be contained within the standard buffer and all increases in
buffer dimension are parallel to the FWHCA.
(b) The buffer averaging does not reduce the functions or values of the
FWHCA or riparian habitat, or the buffer averaging, in conjunction with
vegetation enhancement, increases the habitat function.
(c) The buffer averaging is necessary due to site constraints caused by
existing physical characteristics such as slope, soils, or vegetation.
(d) The buffer width averaging does not reduce the buffer to less than
75 percent of the standard width or 50 percent for single-family residential
development.
(e) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and
the gradient does not exceed 30 percent.
(f) Buffer averaging shall not be allowed if FWHCA buffers are reduced.
JCC 18.22.640(1) allows for a 25% buffer reduction if the applicant can demonstrate that the
reduction ”shall not adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent
FWHCA or other critical area.” However, the buffer can be further reduced with no lower
limit provided the applicant can demonstrate “through a special report prepared by a
qualified professional that there will be no net loss of FWHCA functions or values.” In
shoreline jurisdiction, this lack of a lower limit is not appropriate. Incidentally, this would
also eliminate the need for a common line provision and possibly for some of the other
pathways for buffer adjustments contained in JCC 18.25.270 (Critical areas, shoreline
buffers, and ecological protection) or JCC 18.25.660 (Nonconforming development).
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 4 July 28, 2023
A possible correction that would provide a smoother connection between the referenced
JCC 18.22.640 and the SMP, and a more logical progression from buffer averaging/reduction
to the common line buffer, is to add a buffer reduction limit within the SMP in JCC
18.25.270(4)(i) as shown below.
Buffer Reduction or Averaging. Proposals that request a decrease in the standard
shoreline buffer of this program shall not require a shoreline variance if all of the
shoreline critical area approval criteria in JCC 18.22.640(1) and (2) are met, with the
addition of a 50% maximum buffer reduction in JCC 18.22.640(1)(b). All other
shoreline buffer reduction or shoreline buffer averaging proposals shall require a
shoreline variance.
Using a 50% maximum buffer reduction as the lower limit is consistent with the lower limit
established for buffer averaging in JCC 18.22.640(2).
Exhibit 1 below is a simplified illustration showing the possible progression between the
different buffer options on a conforming lot.
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 5 July 28, 2023
Exhibit 1: Illustration of Single-Family Residence Buffer Reduction Options on Conforming Lot
During the June 29, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, additional questions were asked
about the proposed reduction of the distance between adjacent homes from 300 to 150 feet in
the common line provisions. The following simplified exhibits attempt to illustrate the
results of that change using the same vacant parcel as a starting point. The required 10-foot
building setback from the buffers is not shown.
Scenario 1 (Exhibit 2) assumes that the nearest homes are 300 feet away and close to the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (the blue polygons), so that the proposed new
residence would no longer be able to use common line buffer. However, buffer reduction
(up to 50%) would still be an option with appropriate documentation. The red and orange
dashed lines indicate a viewshed from the new residence using the standard buffer and the
maximum reduced buffer, respectively. In this scenario, the viewshed from the new home
at the standard buffer and at the maximum reduced buffer are very wide and nearly
VACANT (Owner 1)
County
DEVELOPED (Owner 1)
DEVELOPED (Owner 2)
Home at Standard Buffer (150’)
Home at Maximum Reduced Buffer (75’)
Home at Common Line Buffer
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 6 July 28, 2023
identical. Even if the new home were located as far forward as the common line buffer
(white dashed line), the viewshed increase is virtually nonexistent.
Exhibit 2: Illustration of Single-Family Residence Viewshed Implications if the Common Line Buffer Adjacent Property Threshold Remained at 300 Feet
Scenario 2 (Exhibit 3 below) assumes that the nearest homes are 150 feet away, the limit
included in the current code proposal, and close to the OHWM (the blue polygons), so that
the proposed new residence could potentially use the common line buffer if the applicant
could demonstrate that the maximum buffer reduction does not provide sufficient view
benefits. The red and orange dashed lines indicate a viewshed from the new residence
VACANT
Home at Standard Buffer (150’)
Home at Maximum Reduced Buffer (75’)
Home at Common Line Buffer
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 7 July 28, 2023
using the standard buffer and the maximum reduced buffer, respectively. In this scenario,
the viewshed from the new home at the standard buffer and at the maximum reduced
buffer are very wide and nearly identical. Even if the new home were located as far forward
as the common line buffer (white dashed line), the viewshed increase is minimal.
Exhibit 3: Illustration of Single-family Residence Viewshed Implications with the Common Line Buffer Adjacent Property Threshold Reduced to 150 Feet
REMOVE COMMON LINE
The brief analysis provided above suggests that the common line provisions may not be
necessary for either nonconforming or conforming lots.
VACANT
Home at Standard Buffer (150’)
Home at Common Line Buffer
Home at Maximum Reduced Buffer (75’)
MEMORANDUM Common Line Buffer – Additional Exploration and Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 8 July 28, 2023
As already noted, the modest home provision of the current SMP would likely place most
homes in a position on their shallow, nonconforming lot that would incidentally provide
“shoreline views that are adequate and comparable to adjacent residences, although not
necessarily equal.” Any incremental shift waterward potentially allowed by using the
common line provision, depending on the actual location of adjacent residences, is not
expected to provide significant added view benefits.
Both conforming and nonconforming lots currently are able under JCC 18.25.270(4)(i) to
reduce the buffer (with no lower limit) if they can demonstrate in a “special report prepared
by a qualified professional that there will be no net loss of FWHCA functions or values.”
Even if a lower reduction limit of 50% of the standard buffer is added to the SMP, as
included in the common line amendment option above, it could be challenging to
demonstrate that the 50% reduction does not already provide the occupants with “shoreline
views that are adequate and comparable to adjacent residences, although not necessarily
equal.”
DISCUSSION
Staff and the consultant team will continue to consider the relationships between all of these
provisions and evaluate other scenarios, along with Planning Commission and public input.
Under any of these options, it is important to note that applicants are required to reduce the
buffer the minimum amount necessary and to demonstrate that the proposal will not result
in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
AJS:MJS/ajs
400 North 34th Street Suite 100 PO Box 300303 Seattle, Washington 98103-8636 206 632-8020 Fax 206 695-6777
www.shannonwilson.com
105602-007.1-M2.docx/wp/aec 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Josh Peters, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
FROM: Amy Summe, PWS, Shannon & Wilson
DATE: July 28, 2023
PROJECT: Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
PROJ. #: 105602-007.1
SUBJECT: Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Extensive revisions to the aquaculture regulations included in the Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) were not originally envisioned during the SMP periodic update scoping effort
undertaken by the citizen task force appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The
initial revisions were limited to those changes related to geoduck aquaculture required by
Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology’s) amendments to the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-241(3)(b) in 2011. The SMP presented in the June 26,
2021, public hearing held by the Planning Commission included those edits.
In subsequent Planning Commission meetings held in July, August, September, and October
2021, extensive public input regarding the aquaculture regulations was received from
shoreline property owners and some input from Taylor Shellfish representatives. During
those meetings, staff and the consultants were asked to evaluate Kitsap County’s
regulations. The team reported back to the Planning Commission in August that although
the Kitsap County SMP had more detail, most of the items included in the regulations were
explicitly or more generally addressed in Jefferson County’s SMP. The final direction from
the Planning Commission in September was to fully incorporate the elements from the
Kitsap County SMP's aquaculture section; the Kitsap County SMP integration was
completed for the County’s October 2021 SMP submittal to Ecology.
With resumption of SMP review and discussion at the Planning Commission in June 2023,
there have been additional opportunities for public input on this topic. Staff and the
consultant team are continuing to review comments and evaluate the various code options,
with an eye to the regulatory reform objectives of the Board of County Commissioners. The
following table (Exhibit 1) provides a tool to assist all parties with comparing the May 2021
version of the SMP that was the subject of a June 2021 public hearing with the current
version of the SMP, and to help establish possible additional revisions.
Item 7.c.
105602-007.1 2 July 28, 2023
MEMORANDUM
Exhibit 1: Aquaculture Regulations Comparison: 2021 Public Hearing Version and Current Draft Version
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
JCC 18.25.220, Table 18.25.220 - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Shoreline Environment Designation
Changed the use table to show that new geoduck aquaculture requires a Conditional Use Discretionary Permit - CU(d). This CUP require approval by the Administrator but, at the discretion of the Administrator, may be referred to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and final decision.
Further amended the use table as requested by a number of public comments to require a new category of CUP (standard) for new geoduck aquaculture (which includes expansion and conversion from other aquaculture uses). Consistent with the Planning Commission direction to incorporate Kitsap County aquaculture regulations, conversion was specifically identified as requiring a CUP. The standard CUP requires a hearing.
For reference, WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(A) specifically says:
Conditional use permits are required for new commercial geoduck aquaculture only. Where the applicant proposes to convert existing nongeoduck aquaculture to geoduck aquaculture, the requirement for a conditional use permit is at the discretion of local government.
JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture.
(3)Shoreline Environment Regulations.
Amended the designation-specific regulations to be consistent with the use table as described above – primarily that new geoduck aquaculture requires a CU(d). Further amended the designation-specific regulations to specify that new geoduck aquaculture requires a standard CUP. Amend to be consistent with any amendments to the use table as identified above.
(4)Regulations - General.
The following clarification to the 25% expansion threshold was modified consistent with staff docket/code interpretations.
(b) Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated inany existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development, and shallnot require a new permit, unless or until:
(i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or morethan 25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to theconditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. Ifthe amount of expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10-yearperiod, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject toapplicable permit requirements of this section; or. This calculation of 25% expansion appliesto both in-water and above OHWM development; or
(ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state ofWashington.
(b)(i) below was further modified to provide more clear explanation of how the 25% threshold is calculated. It also made it clear that the threshold does not apply to expanded geoduck aquaculture – per public comments, any tidelands not previously subject to geoduck aquaculture were requested to require a CUP with a hearing.
(b)(ii) regarding species not previously cultivated in Washington was modified to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP per Planning Commission direction.
(b) Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated in any existing orpermitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development, and shall not require a new permit, unless oruntil:
(i)TheFor non-geoduck aquaculture, the physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25percent or more than 25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to theconditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto.. If the amount ofexpansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10-year period, the entire operation shall beconsidered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements of this section; or. Thiscalculation of 25% expansion applies separately and cumulatively to both in-water and above OHWMdevelopment (e.g., the in-water expansion cannot exceed 25% of the original in-water area, the above OHWMdevelopment cannot exceed 25% of the original above OHWM development area, nor can the combined in-waterand above OHWM expansion exceed 25% of the original combined area). Any expansions of existing geoduckaquaculture operations require a permit for the expanded area if the existing operation is already permitted or forthe entire operation if not already permitted; or
(ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington. Projectapplicants proposing to introduce aquatic species that have not previously been cultivated in Washington Stateare responsible for pursuing required state and federal approvals relating to the introduction of such species, asdetermined by applicable state and federal agencies. A plan for monitoring and adaptive management shall alsobe submitted for county review, unless the operation is conducted in a fully contained system with no waterexchange to the shoreline. The county shall provide notice and time to comment for appropriate agencies inaccordance with county procedural requirements, and shall circulate the monitoring and adaptive managementplan. Upon approval, the plan shall become a condition of project approval.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(e) Aquaculture activities not listed in subsection (4)(c) of this section and listed activities that fail tomeet any of the criteria in subsection (1)(b) of this section shall require a shoreline substantial
The following edits to (e)(v) were made to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP (within the general development standards) per Planning Commission direction. Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the
MEMORANDUM Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 3 July 28, 2023
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
development permit (SDP) or conditional use permit (CUP), and shall be subject to all of the following regulations:
(v) Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed 10 feetin height above the water’s surface. The administrator may approve hoists and similarstructures greater than 10 feet in height when there is a clear demonstration of need. The 10-foot height limit shall not apply to vessels.
(e) Aquaculture activities not listed in subsection (4)(c) of this section and listed activities that fail to meet any of thecriteria in subsection (1)(b) of this section shall require a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP) or conditionaluse permit (CUP), and shall be subject to all of the following regulations:
(v) Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed, including any items storedupon such structures such as materials, garbage, tools, or apparatus, shall be designed and maintained to minimizevisual impacts. The maximum height for items stored upon such structures shall be limited to three feet, asmeasured from the surface of the raft or the dock, unless shoreline conditions serve to minimize visual impacts (forexample: high bank environments, shorelines without residential development), but in no case shall the heightexceed the lesser of six feet from the surface of the raft or the dock or 10 feet in height above the water’s surface.The administrator may approve hoists and similar structures greater than 10 feet in height when there is a cleardemonstration of need. The 10-foot height limitlimits shall not apply to vessels or to materials and apparatusremoved from the site on a daily basis. Materials that are not necessary for the immediate and regular operation ofthe facility shall not be stored waterward of the OHWM.
WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(vii) Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation, or accessto adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas. Mitigationshall be provided to offset such impacts where there is high probability that adverse impactwould occur. This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that an operator is required toprovide access across owned or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners.
The following edits to (e)(vii) were made to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP (within the general development standards) per Planning Commission direction.
(vii)Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation, or access to adjacent waterfrontproperties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas, or other water-dependent uses. Mitigation shall beprovided to offset such impacts where there is high probability that adverse impact would occur. This provision shallnot be interpreted to mean that an operator is required to provide access across owned or leased tidelands at lowtide for adjacent upland owners.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(xii) Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to controlbirds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations.
The following edits to (e)(xii) were made to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP (within the general development standards) per Planning Commission direction.
(xii)In order to avoid or limit the ecological and aesthetic impacts from predator control measures associated withaquaculture siting and operations, the following shall apply:
(A) Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to control birds andmammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations.
(B) Predator exclusion devices shall be firmly attached or secured so as not to become dislodged.
(C) Predator exclusion devices shall blend with the natural environment.
(D) Aquaculture operators shall routinely inspect and maintain predator exclusion devices.
(E) Predator exclusion devices such as rubber bands, small nets, and area netting can be dislodged and posea hazard to birds, marine mammals, and other wildlife and domestic animals. Once dislodged, such devices shall be promptly recovered and/or disposed of to minimize the risk of harm to wildlife and, if not, may be subject to public nuisance regulations.
(F) Predator exclusion devices shall be removed as soon as they are no longer needed to perform protectivefunctions.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
-- The following provisions were added to (4)(e) to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP (within the general development standards) per Planning Commission direction. The first sentence of (xv), however, was simply relocated from the existing SMP’s finfish-specific provisions in (5)(t)(ii) as it seems appropriate for application to all aquaculture, not just finfish.
(xvi) Equipment, structures and materials shall not be discarded in the water and shall not be abandoned in theupland. Aquaculture structures and equipment used on tidelands below ordinary high water shall be of sound construction, with the owners’ identifying marks where feasible, and shall be so maintained. Abandoned or unsafe structures and/or equipment shall be promptly removed or repaired by the owner.
(xvii) No garbage, wastes or debris shall be allowed to accumulate at the site of any aquaculture operation, exceptfor in proper receptacles.
(xviii) All floating and submerged aquaculture structures and facilities in navigable waters shall be marked inaccordance with U.S. Coast Guard requirements.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
MEMORANDUM Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 4 July 28, 2023
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
Language from WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(C) was added as a new (4)(f).
(f) Aquacultural facilities shall be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquaticlife, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
This language from WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(C) was renumbered as a new (4)(e)(xix).
(xix) Aquacultural facilities shall be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establishnew nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
-- The following provisions were added to (4) to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP (within the general development standards) per Planning Commission direction.
(f) Jefferson County will notify affected tribes of new shoreline permit applications utilizing the applicable notificationprocess in Chapter 18.40 JCC (Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation).
(g) No processing of any aquaculture product, except for the sorting and culling of the cultured organism and the washingor removal of surface materials or organisms after harvest, shall occur in or over the water unless specifically approved by permit. All other processing and related facilities shall be located on land and shall be subject to the regulations for commercial uses (JCC 18.25.450) and industrial uses (JCC 18.25.470), in addition to the provisions of this section.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
(5)Regulations - Finfish.
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(b) All in-water finfish aquaculture (in-water and upland) proposals for facilities/operations shall:
(i) Provide the county, at the applicant’s/operator’s expense, a site characterization survey,baseline surveys, and annual monitoring as described in the 1986 Interim Guidelines, orsubsequent documents approved by the state. The applicant/operator shall also provide thecounty with copies of all survey and monitoring reports submitted to Washington Departmentsof Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources.
(ii)Submit an operations plan that includes projections for:
(A) Improvements at the site (e.g., pens, booms, etc.) and their relationship to the naturalfeatures (e.g., bathymetry, shorelines, etc.);
(B) Number, size and configuration of pens/structures;
(C)Schedule of development and maintenance;
(D) Species cultured;
(E) Fish size at harvest;
(F) Annual production;
(G) Pounds of fish on hand throughout the year;
(H) Average and maximum stocking density;
(I) Source of eggs, juveniles, and broodstock;
(J) Type of feed used;
(K) Feeding method;
(L) Chemical use (e.g., anti-fouling, antibiotics, etc.); and
(M) Predator control measures.
The aquaculture regulations include an Application Requirements subsection (original 6, but now 7). In the interest of consolidating all of the application requirements into a single section to assist both applicants and reviewers as suggested by the Planning Commission, the operations plan requirements within (5)(b)(ii) within the finish regulations were relocated to (7)(c).
(b)In addition to the application requirements for all aquaculture listed in JCC 18.25.440(7) below, Aall in-water finfishaquaculture (in-water and upland) proposals for facilities/operations shall:
(i) Provide the county, at the applicant’s/operator’s expense, a site characterization survey, baseline surveys, andannual monitoring as described in the 1986 Interim Guidelines, or subsequent documents approved by the state.The applicant/operator shall also provide the county with copies of all survey and monitoring reports submitted toWashington Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources.
(ii) Submit an operations plan that includes projections for:
(A) Improvements at the site (e.g., pens, booms, etc.) and their relationship to the natural features (e.g.,bathymetry, shorelines, etc.);
(B) Number, size and configuration of pens/structures;
(C) Schedule of development and maintenance;
(D) Species cultured;
(E) Fish size at harvest;
(F) Annual production;
(G) Pounds of fish on hand throughout the year;
(H) Average and maximum stocking density;
(I) Source of eggs, juveniles, and broodstock;
(J) Type of feed used;
(K) Feeding method;
(L) Chemical use (e.g., anti-fouling, antibiotics, etc.); and
(M) Predator control measures.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(iv) Where the county does not have expertise to analyze the merits of a report provided by anapplicant, the applicant may be required to pay for third-party peer review of said report.
As this section under the finfish regulations has broader applicability to all applicant-provided reports, it was also relocated to (7)(f) under the Application Requirements subsection.
(iv) Where the county does not have expertise to analyze the merits of a report provided by an applicant, theapplicant may be required to pay for third-party peer review of said report.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
MEMORANDUM Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 5 July 28, 2023
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(k) Marine Mammals and Birds.
(i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum of 1,500 feet from habitats ofspecial significance for marine mammals and seabirds.
(ii) Only nonlethal techniques (e.g., anti-predator netting) shall be allowed to prevent predationby birds and/or mammals on the cultured stocks.
Because predator control/exclusion regulations have been consolidated above under (4)(e)(xii), which already included a measure prohibiting lethal methods of predator control, (k)(ii) was removed from these finfish regulations to eliminate redundancy.
(k) Marine Mammals and Birds.
(i)All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum of 1,500 feet from habitats of special significancefor marine mammals and seabirds.
(ii) Only nonlethal techniques (e.g., anti-predator netting) shall be allowed to prevent predation by birds and/ormammals on the cultured stocks.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
There were no edits to the original SMP text in the May 2021 draft SMP.
(t) Local Services.
(i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
(A) Provide estimates of high, average, and low volumes of waste to be produced,including catastrophic events;
(B) Provide a waste management plan to include the method and frequency of collection,storage and disposal; and
(C) Ensure compliance with local, state, federal waste disposal requirements.
(ii) Equipment, structures and materials shall not be discarded in the water and shall not beabandoned in the upland.
As mentioned above, former (t)(ii) in these finfish regulations was related to subsection (4) (general standards) as it has broad applicability. This resulted in a reorganization/name for this material based on the revised content.
(t)Local Services. (i)Waste Management. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located andoperated to:
(Ai) Provide estimates of high, average, and low volumes of waste to be produced, including catastrophic events;
(Bii) Provide a waste management plan to include the method and frequency of collection, storage and disposal; and
(Ciii) Ensure compliance with local, state, and federal waste disposal requirements.
(ii) Equipment, structures and materials shall not be discarded in the water and shall not be abandoned in theupland.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
(6)Regulations - Geoduck. [New section]
The May 2021 draft SMP included an entirely new section regulating geoducks based on WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv). Under (a)(1), the 25% expansion allowance was included to follow the pattern set in the existing SMP under (4)(b)(i) for expansions of other aquaculture types.
(a) Conditional use permits.
(i) CUPs are required for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. Where the applicant proposesto convert existing nongeoduck aquaculture to commercial geoduck aquaculture, a conditional use permit is only required if the conversion includes an increase of more than 25% of either the in-water or above-OHWM operations area or facilities. If the expansion exceeds 25%, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements of this section. required.
(ii) All subsequent cycles of planting and harvest shall not require a new conditional use permitunless a specific project or practice would substantially interfere with normal public use of the surface waters, including public access or passage, and was not considered during review or approval of the original conditional use permit.
(iii) A single conditional use permit may be submitted for multiple sites within an inlet, bay orother defined feature, provided the sites are all under control of the same applicant and within the same shoreline permitting jurisdiction.
(iv) The CUP issued by the county shall include monitoring and reporting requirementsnecessary to verify that geoduck aquaculture operations are in compliance with shoreline limits and conditions set forth in the CUP and to support cumulative impacts analysis.
(v) The county shall review the considerations listed in WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(L)(I)-(XII)during development of permit conditions necessary to avoid or limit impacts from geoduck aquaculture siting and operations and to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. The listed considerations are regarding impervious materials, motorized vehicles, time periods for limited activities, site alterations, property corner markers, mitigation measures, predator exclusion devices, turbidity minimization, use of barges/vessels, navigation rights, housekeeping practices, and public access.
(a)(i) was modified in response to public comments, as noted in (4)(b)(i) modifications discussion above, to establish that the 25% allowed increase threshold does not apply to expanded geoduck aquaculture – per public comments, any tidelands not previously subject to geoduck aquaculture were requested to require a CUP with a hearing.
(a)(ii) was modified in response to Ecology’s required/recommended changes in its September 2022 Initial Determination comments.
(a)(iv) was modified in response to Ecology’s recommended changes in its September 2022 Initial Determination comments.
(b) was modified in response to Ecology’s recommended changes in its September 2022 Initial Determination comments.
A new (c) was added based on WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(H).
(a) Conditional use permits.
(i)CUPs are required for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. Where the applicant proposes to convert includingconversion of existing nongeoduck aquaculture to commercial geoduck aquaculture and expansions of existing commercial geoduck aquaculture, a conditional use permit is only required if the conversion includes an increase of more than 25% of either the in-water or above-OHWM operations area or facilities. If the expansion exceeds 25%, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements of this section. required.
(ii)All subsequent cycles of planting and harvest shall not require a new conditional use permit unless a specificproject or practice would substantially interfere with normal public use of the surface waters, including public access or passage, and was not considered during review or approval of the original conditional use permit.
(iii) A single conditional use permit may be submitted for multiple sites within an inlet, bay or other defined feature,provided the sites are all under control of the same applicant and within the same shoreline permitting jurisdiction.
(iv) The CUP issued by the county shall include monitoring and reporting requirements necessary to verify thatgeoduck aquaculture operations are in compliance with shoreline limits and conditions set forth in the CUP and to support cumulative impacts analysis.
(v) The county shall review the considerations listed in WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(L)(I)-(XII) during development ofpermit conditions necessary to avoid or limit impacts from geoduck aquaculture siting and operations and to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. The listed considerations are regarding impervious materials, motorized vehicles, time periods for limited activities, site alterations, property corner markers, mitigation
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
MEMORANDUM Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 6 July 28, 2023
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
(b) Siting and design. In addition to the siting provisions of subsections (4)(f) and (g), commercialgeoduck aquaculture should only be allowed where sediments, topography, and land and water access support geoduck aquaculture operations without significant clearing or grading.
measures, predator exclusion devices, turbidity minimization, use of barges/vessels, navigation rights, housekeeping practices, and public access.
(b) Siting and design. In addition to the siting provisions of subsection (4), commercial geoduck aquaculture shouldshall only be allowed where sediments, topography, and land and water and shall not be abandoned in the uplandaccess support geoduck aquaculture operations without significant clearing or grading.
(6c) Commercial geoduck aquaculture workers shall be allowed to accomplish on-site work during low tides, which may occur at night or on weekends. Where such activities are necessary, noise and light impacts to nearby residents shall be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable.
(7)Regulations – Application Requirements.
There was no up-front guidance language to the application requirements in the May 2021 draft SMP. The following language was added/relocated, consistent with Ecology recommendation in the September 2022 Initial Determination, to provide some general guidance to applicants about how they can reduce redundancy, utilize/submit materials prepared for other agencies, and to clarify that the list of requirements is flexible based on what is applicable to a specific proposal. The redundancy reduction emphasis is based on WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(E) and was included in the May 2021 draft as (7)(b).
In addition to the minimum application requirements in JCC 18.25.630, aquaculture applications shall include the following information. To minimize redundancy, applicants are encouraged to include supporting permit applications and studies otherwise required by state and federal agencies to provide the information required below. The county may require submittal of these materials. The county shall accept these materials and only require additional application materials to the extent needed to address information in subsections (a) through (d). Where requested information is not applicable to a specific proposal, the application shall not be required to include all items listed under this section as long as it is demonstrated why the information does not apply, with concurrence from the administrator.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
In the May 2021 draft SMP, modifications to the application requirements were made to add specific requirements for geoduck in WAC 13-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(F) (such as the baseline ecological survey, no net loss, management practices). The geoduck application requirements seemed like appropriate requirements for all aquaculture considering what would be needed for the County to evaluate consistency with the SMP and requirements for no net loss of ecological functions, so those items were integrated into this existing section.
(a) Prior to issuing a permit for any proposed aquaculture use or development, the county mayrequire copies of permit applications and/or studies required by state and federal agencies to(a) Toensure provisions of this program are met, including, but not limited to,applicants must submit thefollowing information:
(i) Anticipated(i) A baseline ecological survey of the proposed site to allow consideration of theecological effects.
(ii) A narrative description and timeline of anticipated planting and harvest cycles and potentialplans for future expansion or change in species grown or harvest practices.
(iiiii) Number, types and dimensions of structures, apparatus or equipment.
(iiiiv) Predator control methods.
(ivv) Anticipated levels of noise, light, and odor and plans for minimizing their impacts.
(vvi) Potential impacts to animals, plants, and water quality due to the discharge of waste waterfrom any upland development.
(vi(vii) Measures to achieve no net loss of ecological functions consistent with the mitigation sequence described in WAC-173-26-201 (2)(e).
(viii)Management practices that address impacts from mooring, parking, noise, lights, litter,and other activities associated with operations.
(ix) Proof of application for an aquatic lands lease from the Washington State Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) or proof of lease or ownership if bedlands are privately held.
(viix) Department of Health (DOH) Shellfish Certification Number.
The list of application requirements was reorganized into broader categories (e.g., site plan, baseline ecological survey, operational plan) for which there’s a list of details (some new and some just relocated into the categories from the original (7) or from the original operations plan requirements in (5)(b)(ii)) to be included in each of those elements. Many of the specific details that were added came from the Kitsap County SMP as directed by the Planning Commission. It is reiterated that only those pieces of information applicable to the proposal need to be included in the application.
(a)Prior to issuing a permit for any A site plan, including:
(i) The perimeter of the proposed aquaculture operation area;
(ii) Existing bathymetry depths based on mean lower low water (MLLW datum);
(iii) Adjacent upland use, vegetation, presence of structures, docks, bulkheads and other modifications;
(iv) Areas where specific substrate modification will take place or development, the county may require copies ofpermit applications and/where structures or studies required by statematerials will be constructed or installed;
(v) Number, types and federal agencies to ensuredimensions of structures, apparatus, equipment, or otherimprovements, including food and equipment storage areas.
(vi) Access provisions for marine or vehicle traffic, processing structures or facilities; and
(vii) Location of this program are metstorage or processing structures or facilities.
(b) A baseline ecological survey, including, but not limited a description of existing and seasonal conditions, andassessment of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on each of the survey items. Where applicable to the subjectproposal, the following shall be included in the survey. Note: information: regarding wind conditions, current flows andflushing rates (subsections (7)(b)(iii) through (v) of this section) will generally not be applicable to shellfish aquacultureapplications.
(i)Water quality;
(ii) Tidal variations;
(iii) Prevailing storm wind conditions;
(iv) Current flows at each tidal cycle;
(v) Flushing rates;
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
MEMORANDUM Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 7 July 28, 2023
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
(viiixi) Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFWWDFW) commercial aquatic farm ornoncommercial, personal consumption designation.
(ixxii) Proof of application for any permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Department of Health, or other agency.
(xxiii) Proof of application for any state and federal permits/approvals including any requiredfederal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.,ESA).
(b) To reduce redundancy, applicants are encouraged to submit supporting permit applications andstudies required by state and federal agencies to provide the information required by the county in subsection (a). The county may require submittal of these materials.
(vi) Littoral drift;
(vii) Sediment dispersal, including areas of differing substrate composition;
(viii) Areas of aquatic, intertidal and upland vegetation complexes; an aquatic vegetation habitat survey must beconducted according to the most current WDFW and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers eelgrass and macroalgae survey guidelines; and
(ix) Aquatic and benthic organisms present, including forage fish, and spawning and other lifecycle use of, oradjacent to, the site.
(c) An operational plan, which includes the following, when applicable:
(i) Species and quantity to be cultured or reared on an annual basis, including pounds of fish on hand throughoutthe year;
(ii)Anticipated size of species at harvest ;
(iii) Source of eggs, juveniles, broodstock or other aquatic product;
(iv) A narrative description of implementation methods, including average and maximum stocking density, plantingand harvest schedule/cycles, phasing options, and time of day, and potential plans for future expansion or change in species grown or harvest practices.;
(ii) Number, types and dimensions of structures, apparatus or equipment.
(iii(v) Schedule of development and maintenance;
(vi) Predator control methods. including types of predator exclusion devices;
(iv)(vii) Anticipated use and type of any feed, herbicides, antibiotics, vaccines, growth stimulants, antifoulingagents, or other chemicals and an assessment of predicted impacts;
(viii)Anticipated levels of noise, lightand management practices that minimize and address impacts from mooring,parking, noise, light, litter, and odor and plans for minimizing their impacts.other activities associated withoperations;
(v) Potential(ix) Methods and location of waste disposal and sanitation facilities;
(x) Number of employees/workers necessary for the project, including average and peak employment;
(xi) Methods to address pollutant loading, including biological oxygen demand (BOD);
(xii) A schedule for water quality monitoring, where required;
(xiii) Description of waste water management, including potential impacts to animals, plants, and water quality dueto the discharge of waste water from any upland development.; and
(vi) Proof of application for an aquatic lands lease from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR) or proof of lease or ownership if bedlands are privately held.
(vii) Department of Health (DOH) Shellfish Certification Number.
(viii) Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) commercial aquatic farm or noncommercial, personal consumptiondesignation.
(ix) Proof of application for any permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Health, orother agency.
(x) Proof of application for any state and federal permits/approvals including any required federal consultationunder Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., ESA).
(b(xix) Measures to address direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to achieve no net loss of ecological functions consistent with the mitigation sequence described in JCC 18.25.270(2)(d).
The following language was modified consistent with staff docket/code interpretations.
(c) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging or upland aquaculture use and development orbottom culture involving structures, the county may require a visual analysis prepared by theapplicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.including what views in the vicinity would be altered or obstructed, such as public access views andviews from substantial numbers of private residences, and proposed measures to reduce impacts.
The following language was further modified to incorporate language included in Kitsap County’s SMP per Planning Commission direction.
(d) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging or upland aquaculture use and development or bottom cultureinvolving structures or installation of materials such as tubes or predator exclusion devices, the county mayshall requirea visual analysis, including photo analysis/simulation of the proposed activity, prepared by the applicant/proponentdescribing. The analysis shall describe effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. within a quarter-
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
MEMORANDUM Aquaculture Regulations Analysis
Jefferson County SMP Periodic Update
105602-007.1 8 July 28, 2023
May 2021 Current Draft Potential Amendments
The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively mitigated. mile of the site during a range of tides from mean high to mean low, including what views in the vicinity would be altered or obstructed, such as public access views and views from substantial numbers of private residences, and shall identify proposed measures to reduce impacts. The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively mitigated.
See (7)(a) above for the list of applications/permits that were originally required in the SMP and continued to be required in the May 2021 SMP. Relocated the list of potential other applications and reports from what was in the original SMP, and in (7)(a) in the May 2021 SMP, to a new subsection (e). Additional example applications/permits/reports were added from the corresponding section in the Kitsap County SMP.
(e) Other applications and reports, when applicable or requested, to ensure compliance with permit conditions, whichmay include:
(i) Proof of an accepted application for an aquatic lands lease from the Washington State Department of NaturalResources (DNR), including a waiver of preference rights to access for navigation from the upland property owner, if applicable or proof of lease or ownership if bedlands are privately held.
(ii) Applicable Department of Health (DOH) licenses, certificates, or other approvals.
(iii)Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) aquatic farm registration, fish stocking permit, and/or fish transportpermit.
(iv) Proof of an accepted Washington Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit, if applicable;
(v) Water quality studies;
(vi) Reports on solids accumulation on the bottom resulting from the permitted activity along with its biologicaleffects;
(vii) Report on growth, productivity, and chemical contamination of shoreline plants and animals within or adjacentto the proposed site;
(viii) Noise level assessments, including mitigation measures to minimized impacts; and/or
(ix) Monitoring and adaptive management plan for introduction of aquatic species not previously cultivated inWashington State.
(x)Proof of application for any other permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Health,WDFW, Ecology, or other agency, including any required federal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., ESA).
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
See (7)(a) above for the list of applications/permits that were originally required in the SMP and continued to be required in the May 2021 SMP. This modification was a relocation from the finfish regulations in the original SMP, and retained in the May 2021 SMP in (5)(b)(iv). This provision seemed appropriate for application to all County reviews of aquaculture submittals.
(f) Where the county does not have expertise to analyze the merits of a report provided by an applicant, the applicantmay be required to pay for third-party peer review of said report.
Potential amendments are being considered by staff and the consultant team based on evaluation of the WAC requirements, regulatory reform objectives, public comment, and Planning Commission input.
AJS:KLW/ajs
1
Josh Peters
From:Gordon King <GordonK@taylorshellfish.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 12, 2023 12:03 PM
To:Joel Peterson
Cc:George Terry; Josh Peters
Subject:Re: Materials for Planning Commissioners.
Attachments:ecological-effects-of-the-harvest-phase-of-geoduck.pdf; 20170307_Email C McGowan to S Pozarycki
_RE.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Due By:Tuesday, July 18, 2023 8:00 AM
Flag Status:Completed
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you
are not expecting them.
Thank you Joel and Planning Commissioners,
I have listened to public comment related to the update of SMP. A reoccurring theme/comment is that
harvesting geoduck destroys the natural benthos to three feet down. I am attaching a research paper by
Glenn VanBlaricom, published in a reputable science journal, which addresses those concerns. His work
indicates that such claims are not backed up by research.
Additionally an Army Corps Draft Cumulative Impacts paper was repeatedly used by Public Commenters as a
reference paper. As the public commentor mentioned it was a "draft" and although parts have some truth it
never got past being a draft because it wanders off into inaccurate speculative fantasy not based on existing
aquaculture practices or current regulations and agencies control. To lend truth to what I am saying I am
including exchanges between staff at the Army Corp and the author Pozarycki .
Please feel free to contact me for further clarification.
Gordon King
Director of Mussel Farms
130 SE Lynch RD Shelton, WA 98584
W: 360-432-3338| C: 360-490-9511
gordonk@taylorshellfish.com
Item 7.e.i.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Ecological Effects of the Harvest Phase Of Geoduck (Panopea generosa Gould,
1850) Aquaculture on Infaunal Communities in Southern Puget Sound,
Washington
Author(s): Glenn R. Vanblaricom, Jennifer L. Eccles, Julian D. Olden and P. Sean Mcdonald
Source: Journal of Shellfish Research, 34(1):171-187.
Published By: National Shellfisheries Association
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2983/035.034.0121
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2983/035.034.0121
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
Item 7.e.i.1.
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE HARVEST PHASE OF GEODUCK (PANOPEA GENEROSA
GOULD, 1850) AQUACULTURE ON INFAUNAL COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN PUGET
SOUND, WASHINGTON
GLENN R. VANBLARICOM,
1,2* JENNIFER L. ECCLES,
2 JULIAN D. OLDEN
2 AND
P. SEAN MCDONALD
2,3
1U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Aquatic
and Fishery Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Mailstop 355020, Seattle,
WA 98195-5020;
2School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, College of the Environment, University of
Washington, Mailstop 355020, Seattle, WA 98195-5020;
3Program on the Environment, College of the
Environment, University of Washington, Mailstop 355679, Seattle, WA 98195-5679
ABSTRACT Intertidal aquaculture for geoducks (Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) is expanding in southern Puget Sound,
Washington, where gently sloping sandy beaches are used for field culture. Geoduck aquaculture contributes significantly to the
regionaleconomy,buthasbecomecontroversialbecauseofarangeofunresolvedquestionsinvolvingpotentialbiologicalimpacts
on marine ecosystems. From 2008 through 2012, the authors used a ‘‘before–after-control-impact’’ experimental design,
emphasizing spatial scales comparable with those used by geoduck culturists to evaluate the effects of harvesting market-ready
geoducks on associated benthic infaunal communities. Infauna were sampled at three different study locations in southern Puget
Sound at monthly intervals before, during, and after harvests of clams, and along extralimital transects extending away from the
edges of cultured plots to assess the effects of harvest activities in adjacent uncultured habitat. Using multivariate statistical
approaches,strongseasonalandspatialsignalsinpatternsofabundancewerefound,buttherewasscantevidenceofeffectsonthe
community structure associated with geoduck harvest disturbances within cultured plots. Likewise, no indications of significant
‘‘spillover’’ effects of harvest on uncultured habitat adjacent to cultured plots were noted. Complementary univariate approaches
revealed little evidence of harvest effects on infaunal biodiversity and indications of modest effects on populations of individual
infaunal taxa. Of 10 common taxa analyzed, only three showed evidence of reduced densities, although minor, after harvests
whereas the remaining seven taxa indicated either neutral responses to harvest disturbances or increased abundance either during
or in the months after harvest events. It is suggested that a relatively active natural disturbance regime, including both small-scale
andlarge-scaleeventsthatoccurwithcomparableintensitybutmorefrequentlythangeoduckharvesteventsinculturedplots,has
facilitated assemblage-level infaunal resistance and resilience to harvest disturbances.
KEY WORDS:aquaculture, benthic, disturbance, extralimital, geoduck, infauna, intertidal,Panopea generosa, Puget Sound,
spillover
INTRODUCTION
Aquaculture operations are proliferating and diversifying in
nearshore marine habitats across the globe (e.g., Naylor et al.
2000, Chopin et al. 2001, Goldburg & Naylor 2005, Buschmann
et al. 2009, Lorenzen et al. 2012, Samuel-Fitwi et al. 2012).
Although frequently of positive societal benefit, aquaculture
enterprises have raised concerns regarding possible negative
ecological consequences among resource managers, scientists,
conservation advocacy organizations, political leaders and legis-
lators, and the interested lay public (e.g., Simenstad & Fresh
1995, Newell 2004, Sara 2007, Dumbauld et al. 2009, Forrest
et al. 2009, Coen et al. 2011, Hedgecock 2011). Since the early
2000slocalizedbutintensivepoliticalcontroversyhasemergedin
communitiesnearsouthernPugetSound,Washington,regarding
development of geoduck (Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) aqua-
culture operations on gently sloping intertidal sand habitats.
Geoduck aquaculture activity is increasingly contributing to
Puget Sound s total commercial geoduck production that also
includes substantial wild harvests. In 2011, cultured geoducks
comprised about 25% of the total commercial harvest in
Washington and generated revenues of about US$20 million.
Asa consequenceofexpandinggeoduck aquacultureoperations,
many questions and concerns have emerged regarding ecological
effects of harvesting activities.
The focus of the current study was on the evaluation of
possible ecological changes to marine ecosystems as a result of
habitat disturbances associated with geoduck aquaculture activ-
ityinsouthernPugetSound.Ecologicaldisturbanceisconsidered
here as ‘‘any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts
ecosystem, community, or population structure and changes
resources, substratum availability, or the physical environment’’
(Pickett & White 1985, p. 8). Disturbances in general may be
natural or anthropogenic and may occur on a wide range of
magnitudes and spatiotemporal scales. Natural disturbances are
known to be important determinants of community dynamics in
many marine benthic habitats (e.g., Connell 1978, VanBlaricom
1982,Sousa1984,Dumbauldetal.2009).However,frequentand
intensive anthropogenic disruptions may overwhelm evolved
natural resistance or resilience to habitat disturbance in benthic
communities (Sousa 1984, Paine et al. 1998).
The geoduck aquaculture cycle includes the following phases,
each constituting potential ecological disturbances to resident
organisms.Younghatcheryclamsareoutplantedattheinitiation
of the cycle. At the same time, predator exclusion structures are
placedtolimitlossesofyoungclamstomobileconsumerssuchas
crabs and shorebirds. Structures include arrays of vertically
placedPVCtubingextendingabovethesedimentsurface.Young
*Corresponding author. E-mail: glennvb@uw.edu
DOI: 10.2983/035.034.0121
Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, 171–187, 2015.
171
clams are placed in sediments within the tubes (typically 3–4
individuals per tube), after which tubes are covered either with
largenetsthatextendovertheentiretubefield,orindividual‘‘cap
nets’’ that cover each tube but leave intervening spaces un-
covered. Typical initial stocking density at outplanting is 20–30
clams/m2. The tubes and netting are removed 1–2 y after
outplanting when clams are sufficiently large and deeply buried
that risks of predation are minimal. Tube diameter, tube density,
within-tube clam density at outplanting, netting type, andtiming
ofremovaloftubesandnettingvarybygrowerpreference.Clams
are left in place for the grow-out phase until they reach optimal
market size.
The culture cycle is terminated by harvest 5–7 y after out-
planting. During low tides, individual clam siphons are located
visually and marked with small wooden stakes pressed into the
sediment. Individual clams so located are subsequently extracted
by hand after liquefaction of sediments within a radius of 15–30 cm
ofthesiphon,extendingintothesediment thelength oftheclam
siphon. Liquefaction is achieved with a handheld nozzle
(‘‘stinger’’) supplied with seawater pumped into an attached
hose from a small barge offshore. The process is highly efficient
in the hands of experienced harvesters, with extraction of each
clam requiring 5 sec or less under optimal conditions. Time
requiredforcompleteharvestofagivenculturedplotmayrange
from a few days to many months. Duration of harvest varies
with plot size, density of market-size clams, weather and sea
conditions, availability of skilled and experienced laborers, and
grower preference. Harvests may be done during high tides by
divers also using stingers if schedules for extreme low tides are
unfavorableinthecontext oflaboravailability,market price,or
shipping cost conditions.
Disturbance of sediments as a result of cultured geoduck
harvests may have ecological consequences that extend beyond
cultured plots to adjacent areas of unharvested substrata,
causing extralimital changes in benthic communities. There is
significant management interest in potential ‘‘spillover’’ effects
of geoduck harvest, particularly relating to the regulation of the
spatial scope of cultured geoduck plots and the potential
requirements for uncultured buffer zones between cultured plot
boundaries. Geoduck harvest activities produce disturbances
confined to explicit spatial boundaries and create a distinctive
interface in physical processes between harvested and unhar-
vested substrata. When harvest occurs, suspended sediments,
biogenic detritus, and possibly benthic organisms could be
carried onto adjacent sediments either by water pumped
across intertidal habitats during harvest or by along-shore
currents during flood tides immediately after harvest. The
export of benthic organisms, sediment, detritus, and nutrient
materials could affect resident infaunal populations at in-
tensities varying with distances from the edges of harvested
plots.
Reported here are the results of a field study to determine
whethergeoduckaquacultureharvestoperationsalterbenthic
infaunal invertebrate assemblages of intertidal sandflats in
southern Puget Sound. Infaunal assemblages as response
variables were chosen for three reasons. First, the opinion of the
authors aprioriwas that selected organisms would likely be
more sensitive to cultured geoduck harvest effects than other
ecosystem components, given that the physical habitats of
infaunaaredirectlydisturbed in harvest operationsby design.
Second, benthic infauna and epifauna in the Puget Sound
regionareknowntobeimportantaspreyformammals, birds,
mobile invertebrates, and fish, including juvenile salmonid
populations migrating from natal freshwater habitats sea-
ward via Puget Sound. Minimization of detrimental distur-
bances to significant prey populations is viewed as crucial to
restoration of imperiled salmonid populations in the region.
Third,theknownhighdensitiesofinfaunainhabitatsusedfor
geoduck aquaculture ensured that samples collected in the
current study would produce high counts of organisms, with
zero values rare or absent, facilitating an effective and
rigorous community-based investigation in a quantitative
context.
Three related hypotheses (identified by number in the sub-
sequent text) were tested using coupled multivariate and
univariate statistical methods to evaluate the significance of
relevant contrasts:
1. Within plots subject to harvests (‘‘harvest plots’’), infaunal
assemblages will be similar to those in adjacent plots not
designated for harvest (‘‘reference plots’’) before harvest
occurs.
2. Prior to harvest, infaunal assemblages for a range of
distances away from the edge of harvest plots (‘‘transect
samples’’) will be similar to assemblages in harvest plots and
to adjacentreference plots. After harvest,data from transect
samples will show a trend of increasing similarity to data
from reference plots, and decreasing similarity to data from
within harvest plots, with increasing distances away from
the edges of harvest plots.
3. Within harvest plots, benthic infaunal assemblages will be
altered significantly after completion of harvests as a conse-
quence of harvest-related disturbances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Areas
Thestudywasconductedatintertidallocationsinthesouthern
basin of Puget Sound, Washington. Puget Sound is an estuarine
fjord, with the southern basin defined as the interconnected
marine waters south and west of Tacoma Narrows (47.27 N,
122.55 W). Thesurfaceareaofthe basin is 449km
2 at mean high
water, including 67.4 km
2 of intertidal habitat (Burns 1985). The
areacontainsextensivegentlyslopingsandy and muddyintertidal
habitats, many of which are biologically appropriate for bivalve
aquaculture operations. Mean daily tidal fluctuation in the
southern basin ranges from 2.7–3.2 m in a mixed semidiurnal
pattern (Mofjeld et al. 2002), with a maximum range of 6.5 m for
single tidal exchanges at the extreme southern limit of the basin
(National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration2014).Surfacewatertemperaturesrangeannually
from ;8to;16 C, and salinities range from 27–30, with the
exception of periods of dilution from riverine flooding (Collias
et al. 1974, Dethier & Schoch 2005).
Threestudy sites werechosen (Fig.1)based onthreecriteria.
First, selected sites were involved in production-scale commer-
cial aquaculture at the time of the anticipated field sampling.
The study site selections had the purpose of fostering relevance
of the current study to the spatial and temporal scales typical of
the geoduck aquaculture industry. Second, the culture cycle at
selected sites was approaching the terminal harvest phase,
which allowed sampling before, during, and after harvest at
VANBLARICOM ET AL.172
treatment and adjacent reference plots in time periods #30 mo.
Third, sediments, slope, and exposure to weather and sea were
generally similar among the selected sites and were, in all cases,
similar to the typical physical attributes of sites customarily
used by the geoduck aquaculture industry (gently sloping
intertidal sediments that are primarily fine sands with silt/clay
fractions <20%bymass,andatleastmoderatelyprotectedfrom
exposure to wind and sea by local topography).
Thethreestudysiteswereasfollows.‘‘Foss’’(47.22 N,122.82
W) was located on the eastern shore of Case Inlet near Joemma
Beach State Park. ‘‘Manke’’ (47.20 N, 122.84 W)wasnearPt.
Wilson on the eastern shore of Harstene Island, which forms the
western shore of Case Inlet. Cultured plots at Foss and Manke
were operated by Taylor Shellfish, Inc. (Shelton, WA) specifically
for geoduck aquaculture at the time of the current study.
‘‘Chelsea’’ (47.13 N, 122.96 W) was on the northwestern shore
of Eld Inlet. At the time of this study, the cultured plot at Chelsea
was owned by Chelsea Farms, LLC (Olympia, WA), with nearby
areas used for Manila clam (Venerupis philippinarum [Adams and
Reeve, 1850]) and Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas [Thunberg,
1793]) aquaculture as well as for geoducks. Neither Taylor
Shellfish, Inc., nor Chelsea Farms, LLC, made any effort what-
soever to influence study design, sampling procedures, generation
and analysis of resulting data, or interpretations of results as
provided herein or elsewhere.
Sampling Design and Methods
We used a ‘‘before–after-control-impact’’ design (Green
1979), establishing a cultured (i.e., ‘‘impact’’) plot containing
mature geoducks and an unplanted reference (i.e., ‘‘control’’)
plot, each measuring at least 2,500 m
2,ateachofthe
three sites. Cultured plots at each site were subject to geoduck
harvest throughout the course of the study whereas reference
plots experienced no harvest activity. None of the study plots
had been used for geoduck aquaculture prior to this project.
Withineach site,theculturedandreferenceplotswereofequal
size and shape, with similar sedimentary composition (based
on qualitative assessments apriori), slope, and elevation
within the tidal zone. Cultured and reference plots were
separated by a buffer zone of at least 75 m to minimize effects
of intrinsic differences resulting from location, and simulta-
neously provided adequate separation distance to reduce
potential extralimital effects of the harvest process on the
referenceplot (Fig.2A).PlotsweremarkedwithPVCstakesat
the two shoreward corners. Cultured and reference plots were
divided into 100 3 100-unit Cartesian grids, and 10 sampling
points were selected randomly within each plot for each
sampling date, without replacement across sampling dates.
One core sample was collected at each sampling point on each
sampling date.
At each site, at least one extralimital transect was estab-
lished, extending away from each cultured plot and running
parallelto the shoreline fora distance of50–60m. Eachtransect
extended from an origin at the midpoint of one of the two edges
of the cultured plot that ran perpendicular to the shoreline. The
entire length of each transect was in an area free of planted
geoducks or other types of aquaculture except at Chelsea, where
the first 10 m of the transect crossed over a young cohort of
Figure 1. Locations of study sites in southern Puget Sound, Washington. Coordinates (latitude and longitude) for each site are provided in the text.
Shaded areas are land; white areas are water.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 173
planted geoducks. Areas spanned by transects experienced no
harvest activity during the course of the study.
At each site, three benthic core samples were taken on each
samplingdateatdistancesof2,5,10,20,and50mfromtheedge
of the cultured plot along the transect (2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30,
and 60 m at Chelsea). At each distance, one sample was taken
on the transect line, and one each approximately 30 cm to either
side (in shoreward and seaward directions) of the transect line.
Core sampling points along the transect lines were shifted
slightly (#1 m) to avoid resampling the same point during
subsequent sampling events.
Benthic core samples were 5 cm in diameter with a surface area
of 19.6 cm
2, a depth of 10 cm, and a volume of 196 cm
3.All
contents of each core sample were placed unscreened in 500-mL
jars and preserved in 10% buffered formalin solution immediately
after collection. According to the laboratory processing methods
of Simenstad et al. (1991) and Sobocinski et al. (2010), freshwater
was added to each sample followed by mixing until sediments
settled to the bottom and elutriated organisms floated to the
surface. Fluid was decanted through a 500-mm screen, and all
organisms retained on the collection screen were removed and
preserved in 70% isopropanol for eventual identification and
enumeration. The process was repeated several times for each
sample to ensure that all organisms had been separated from the
sediments. Organisms were identified to the level of species or
genuswhenfeasible,butinallcasesatleasttofamilylevel.Family-
level identification of infaunal organisms has been found to be
sufficient for many types of marine environmental studies (e.g.,
Ferraro & Cole 1990, Somerfield & Clarke 1995, Herna´ndez
Arana et al. 2005), including some in Puget Sound (e.g., Dethier
2010). Identified samples were subjected to quality assurance and
control checks by specialists to ensure accurate identification.
Infaunalbiomassdensitieswerenotestimatedinthecurrentstudy.
Each site was sampled as often as possible, but no more
frequently than monthly, as allowed by low tide patterns and by
competing sampling activities at other study sites. The minimum
goal for each site was four monthly sampling events prior to
harvest, monthly sampling events during harvest activities for as
long as they continued, and four monthly sampling events after
completion of the harvest. The study design did not include
sampling targeted specifically to times immediately after harvest
activity (i.e., within hours to a few days), possibly resulting in
underestimation of short-term ecological consequences of har-
vesting. The actual number of dates sampled was different from
site to site as a result of variations in harvest timing and site
accessibility. Harvest duration and sampling duration varied by
site,andmodestdifferencesinsedimentcompositionweredetected
among sites. As a result, data from each site were analyzed
independently and the sites were not considered replicates.
For descriptive summaries, numbers of organisms in each
core sample (hereinafter, ‘‘sample’’) were converted to esti-
mated densities (individual organisms of all species per square
meter). For each sampling date, all samples were averaged to
single point estimates for each taxon in each plot by date, with
certain exceptions as noted later. Standard errors were calcu-
lated for each point estimate.
For direct assessment of within-plot harvest effects, analyses
were done for the following categories: treatment (samples col-
lected on cultured plots vs. reference plots), date (samples collected
on each sampling date), and harvest state (samples collected during
different periods of geoduck harvest). Harvest state subcategories
were before the geoduck harvest (preharvest), during harvest
(midharvest or harvest period), and after harvest (postharvest).
For assessment of extralimital effects of harvesting based on
transect sampling, categories were treatment (samples collected
in cultured plots and reference plots vs. samples collected at
various distances along transects from the cultured plot edges),
date (samples collected on each sampling date), and harvest
state (samples collected during different periods of geoduck
harvest, with subcategories as indicated earlier).
Patterns of abundance in a species of particular interest in
a management context—the benthic gammaridean amphipod
Figure2. Diagram of physical layout (planview) usedforeachof thethreestudyareas. (A) Relative positionsofculturedandreferenceplotsat each
site and placement of extralimital transects at Foss (only one transect was established at Manke and Chelsea, respectively). (B) Example random
placementofcoresamplesitesforculturedplotateachsiteoneachsamplingdate,andlayoutoftransectcoresampleplacementatFoss.Similarcore
sample placement protocols were used on the single transects at Manke and Chelsea. Diagrams are not to scale. Additional details are provided
in text.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.174
Americorophium salmonis (Stimpson, 1857)—were evaluated
along with organisms occurring frequently in samples. The
amphipod A. salmonis is known to be an important prey species
for juvenile out-migrating salmonid fish populations in Puget
Sound, particularly Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
[Walbaum, 1792]).
Multivariate Analyses
Permutation-based analyses of variance (perMANOVAs
[Anderson 2001]) were used to test for differences by site,
treatment, date, and harvest state according to square root-
transformed abundance data and Bray-Curtis indices of com-
munity similarity (Bray & Curtis 1957). For extralimital
transect data, perMANOVAs were used to evaluate differences
by plot type and distance on transects (treatment), date, and
harvest state. In addition, the interaction of data subsets
representing treatment and harvest state was tested for data
collected from treatment and reference plots. A significant
result from a test of the harvest state 3 treatment interaction
term indicated an effect of the harvest state on one of the
treatments—specifically, the effect of the midharvest state on
the cultured plot or on locations along extralimital transect
lines.
Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dis-
persion (HMD [Anderson 2006]) were conducted to contrast
levels of variability in community structure between treatment
and reference plots, and for contrasts among plot data and
locations on extralimital transects. Homogeneity of multivari-
atedispersion uses a Bray-Curtis distance matrixof species data
to calculate the average distance in multivariate space between
individual samples and the calculated centroid of the sample
group. The average distance and the associated variability are
compared between groups and tested for significance with
permutation tests. An increase in the multivariate dispersion
of samples with increased disturbance was predicted by Caswell
and Cohen (1991). In addition, a number of environmental
impact studies have reported that the variability of species
TABLE 2.
Mean densities (measured in individuals per square meter SE) rounded to nearest integer by site and plot type for all sampling dates
during the study as determined from core samples.
Taxon
Foss Manke Chelsea Culture
mean
Reference
mean
Overall
meanCulture Reference Culture Reference Culture Reference
Americorophium
salmonis
3,529 (882) 11,936 (710) 1,579 (796) 2,498 (952) 15 (8) 7 (5) 1,568 (441) 4,140 (1,080) 2,854 (597)
Cumella vulgaris 567 (194) 490 (127) 435 (80) 1,531 (307) 1,611 (540) 1,630 (637) 862 (203) 1,291 (254) 1,077 (163)
Rochefortia spp. 287 (92) 367 (113) 1,462 (419) 3,395 (743) 1,181 (190) 2,584 (497) 1,061 (194) 2,332 (388) 1,696 (227)
Micrura spp. 188 (52) 520 (94) 268 (38) 347 (46) 192 (35) 211 (60) 222 (24) 347 (40) 284 (24)
Capitellidae 718 (596) 310 (185) 979 (434) 772 (404) 4,368 (2,501) 1,241 (258) 2,040 (883) 807 (195) 1,424 (454)
Goniadidae 1,217 (450) 1,700 (636) 900 (234) 1,436 (452) 1,369 (366) 1,125 (268) 1,139 (182) 1,401 (261) 1,270 (162)
Spionidae 766 (154) 602 (159) 406 (101) 833 (150) 1,567 (446) 1,499 (367) 887 (174) 995 (151) 941 (115)
Hesionidae 2,728 (449) 9,495 (3,304) 4,288 (2,110) 5,547 (598) 552 (286) 848 (280) 2,634 (920) 5,014 (1,175) 3,824 (755)
Phyllodocidae 252 (80) 126 (47) 505 (113) 538 (80) 124 (47) 269 (105) 312 (58) 341 (55) 326 (40)
Polynoidae 97 (33) 146 (58) 123 (26) 332 (56) 187 (51) 207 (88) 137 (22) 242 (41) 190 (24)
Listed taxa are those identified and described in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Dominant infaunal taxa in core sample data selected on the basis of frequencies of occurrence or (for Americorophium salmonis)
ecological significance.
Taxon Category Frequency Ecological notes
Americorophium salmonis (Stimpson, 1857)Amphipod crustacean 0.71 TD, SDSS
Cumella vulgaris (Hart, 1930)Cumacean crustacean 0.92 EFDF
Rochefortia spp. Ve´lain, 1877 Bivalve mollusc 0.98 CTD, SF
Micrura spp. Ehrenberg, 1871 Nemertean 0.94 M, DF
Capitellidae Grube, 1862 Polychaete annelid 0.94 BD, DF
Goniadidae Kinberg, 1866 Polychaete annelid 0.94 MCOS
Spionidae Grube, 1850 Polychaete annelid 0.98 TD or M, SDSS
Hesionidae Grube, 1850 Polychaete annelid 0.94 MCOS
Phyllodocidae O¨rsted, 1843 Polychaete annelid 0.81 MCOS
Polynoidae Malmgren, 1867 Polychaete annelid 0.81 MCOS
Frequency calculations are based on all core samples taken during all sampling events within cultured and reference plots at all three study sites
duringthestudy.IntheSpionidae,modeofhabit(tubedwellerormobile)variesbyspecies.BD,burrowdweller;CTD,commensaldwellerintubesof
otherinvertebrates;DF,depositfeeder;EFDF,epistratefeeder(scrapesattacheddetritalorlivingplantorbacterialcellsfromindividualsandgrains)
whenlivinginsandyhabitats,depositfeederwhenlivinginmuddyorsiltyhabitats(Weiser1956);M,mobile;MCOS,mobilecarnivore,omnivore,or
scavenger (varies by species within the family); SDSS, selective detritivore on sediment surface; SF, suspension feeder; TD, tube dweller.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 175
abundance in samples collected from disturbed areas was
greater than the variability of samples collected from undis-
turbed areas when evaluated with HMD (Warwick and Clarke
1993). For contrasts of data from treatment and reference plots
usingHMDanalyses,dataoninfaunalabundancebyindividual
sample were used because averaging samples could mask
important intersample variability, given the large number of
replicate samples collected. At each site, HMD analyses were
used to test differences between the cultured and reference plots
withineachharveststate,withinplotsamongharveststates,and
amongsamplesfromplotsandvaryingdistancesonextralimital
transects.
Univariate Analyses
Individual sample diversity was calculated using the Shan-
non index (Shannon 1948) (also known as Shannon s diversity
index, the Shannon-Wiener index, and the Shannon-Weaver
index) on log-transformed data (e.g., Warwick et al. 1990).
Two-sample t-tests were used to assess differences in diversity
indices between plots within sites for each sampling date. In
addition, one-way univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were used to evaluate the significance of differences in diversity
indices between plot types on each date, between plot types for
each harvest state, and within plot types between harvest states.
Some components of our data failed to meet underlying
assumptions on which ANOVA methods are based, including
normality and homoscedasticity. The subject assumptions are
often violated by ecological data, but ANOVA procedures are
frequently robust to the discrepancies (e.g., Underwood 1981).
Analysis of variance methods have been applied in a number of
other studies with data characteristics similar to ours (e.g.,
Smith & Brumsickle 1989, Warwick et al. 1990, Thrush et al.
1996, Kaiser et al. 1996, Anderson & Underwood 1997, Kaiser
et al. 2006).
Generalized linear mixed models (McCullagh & Nelder
1989) were used assuming Poisson–distributed data to examine
the factors contributing to abundance of selected individual
infaunal taxa from our core samples. These analyses were
applied to Americorophium salmonis and the nine other in-
dividual taxa (species, genera, or families) identified from high
frequencies of occurrence in core samples (Table 2). For
univariate analyses, data from all sites were considered together.
The fixed effects of month, plot type, harvest phase, and their
interaction were included, as well as random effects of site.
Models were fitted by maximum likelihood assuming a Laplace
approximationinthelme4 package(Bates &Maechler2010)ofR
software (R Development Core Team 2011). Likelihood ratio
testswereusedtocomparemodelsformally,includingtheharvest
state 3 treatment interaction term. Regression coefficients and
their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each model.
RESULTS
Descriptive Patterns
Percentages of sand in benthic habitats were 99.1 at the Foss
study site, 98.8 at Manke, and 86.0 at Chelsea (Price 2011).
Overall,50discernibleanimaltaxawereidentifiedinthesamples.
The numerically dominant taxa were generally small (maximum
length of individuals,<1 cm) and resided on or within a few
centimeters below the sediment surface. The sampled benthic
communities at all three sites consisted primarily of small poly-
chaete worms (Annelida), crustaceans (Arthropoda), and bi-
valves (Mollusca) (Tables 1 and 2). Polychaetes were numerical
dominants at all sites followed by crustaceans (Fig. 3). Taxo-
nomic compositions of the samples generally resembled those
reported previously for southern Puget Sound (Dethier et al.
2003, Dethier 2005, Dethier & Schoch 2005, Dethier 2010,
Dethier et al. 2010, Dethier et al. 2012).
Multivariate Contrasts by Site and Plot Type
Infaunal abundance was significantly different among study
sites (perMANOVA; Table 3). At Foss and Manke, the infaunal
sample data from the cultured plots were significantly different
from those ofreference plots(perMANOVA;Table3 and Fig. 4,
topandmiddlepanels).AtChelseathecoresampledatafromthe
two plotsdid not differ significantly(perMANOVA;Table 3and
Fig. 4, bottom panel).
The perMANOVA analyses identified a number of signifi-
cant differences based on site, date, or treatment in contrasts
within and between plots (Table 3). However, none of the three
assessments of the interaction term harvest state 3 treatment
were found to be significant (perMANOVA; Table 3). For
Figure3. Taxonomiccompositionofallinfaunasummedasproportionsof
numbers of individuals in samples in cultured and reference plots during
preharvest, midharvest, and postharvest states at each study site. In each
plot, taxonomic categories are from bottom to top, polychaetes, crusta-
ceans, bivalves, echinoderms, and all other taxa combined. The echino-
derm category does not appear in the Chelsea plot because numbers in
samples were zero or near zero.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.176
within-plot contrasts, there were several cases of significant
effects of both date and harvest state on reference plot data,
illustrating that harvest state is a proxy for date and emphasiz-
ing the premise that the harvest state 3 treatment interaction
term is the uniquely informative metric for assessment of
harvest effects within the current study design. Analytical
results were inconsistent with hypotheses 1 and 3 as defined
earlier. Because the interaction term was not significant in any
case, significant differences between plots at Foss and Manke
were likely the result of factors other than harvest-related
disturbances.
ResultsforHMDanalysesforculturedandreferenceplotsat
the three study sites likewise did not fit expectations consistent
with geoduck harvesting as a primary source of disturbance.
Eight significant contrasts were identified for comparisons
within plot type among harvest states, of which four were in
reference plots and four were in cultured plots (Table 4). These
results are inconsistent with the hypothesis of greater compo-
sitional variation in cases of frequent disturbance as posited in
the literature (e.g., Caswell & Cohen 1991, Warwick & Clarke
1993)ifharvestingofculturedgeoducksistheprimarysourceof
disturbance in cultured habitats. The results are also inconsis-
tent with hypotheses 1 and 3. Occurrence of significant contrasts
for HMD values in reference plots is consistent with active sources
of variability or disturbance other than geoduck harvesting in the
study areas.
Multivariate Contrasts by Distance on Extralimital Transects
There was little indication of trends in summed infaunal
densities with increased distance from the cultured plot in three
of the four extralimital transects (Fig. 5). On the Foss south
transect, a significant trend was observed during the midharvest
period. All other variations within transects were consistent
with random distributions in space and time.
Significant effects of harvest state 3 treatment interaction
terms were not detected for any combination of data from plots
and transect distances at any of the study sites (perMANOVA;
Tables 5, 6, and 7). In comparison, there were many cases of
significant terms for contrasts of data from specific transect
locations with treatment, date, and harvest state (Tables 6 and
7). Patterns in the results are inconsistent with an ecologically
significant effect of harvest extending beyond the limits of the
cultured plots. Conversely, the results are consistent with
significant variation in transect and plot data based on pro-
cesses independent of harvest activities. The results are also
inconsistent with hypothesis 2.
Within each site, the HMD values for community data from
thepreharveststateweresimilaracrosstheculturedandreference
plots and the various distances along transects (Tables 8 and 9).
At Foss and Manke, the HMD values for cultured plots in-
creased during the midharvest state whereas values in reference
plots either remained relatively constant or decreased. For both
sites,HMDcalculations for cultured plotsduring the midharvest
state were significantly different from values at most transect
distancesandthereferenceplot(Table9).Duringthepostharvest
state at Foss, HMD values in the cultured plot remained high
whereas values for most transect locations and the reference plot
returned to near preharvest levels. At Manke, postharvest HMD
valuesweresimilartopreharvestvaluesatmosttransectdistances
andincultured andreference plots.Homogeneityofmultivariate
dispersion values increased for most distances on the Chelsea
transectduring the midharveststate. However,permutation tests
revealed that infaunal data from Chelsea were most similar
among locations during midharvest (Table 9). In summary,
HMD analyses for transect data were generally inconsistent with
hypothesis 2.
Univariate Analyses
Values for the Shannon index for core samples at Foss and
Chelsea were similar between the cultured and reference plots
over time (Fig. 6, top and bottom panels). At Manke, index
values fluctuated more among dates on both plots, but the
cultured plot had consistently lower diversity indices (Fig. 6,
middle panel). When diversity values were averaged by harvest
state, there was a mixture of significant and nonsignificant
values in contrasts between plots for each harvest state and
within plots among harvest states (Table 10).
TABLE 3.
Summary of permutation-based analyses of variance results
for contrasts at scales of study sites and plots.
Scale Contrast R2 df P value
Among sites All sites 0.37 2 <0.001
Foss vs. Manke 0.19 1 <0.001
Foss vs. Chelsea 0.44 1 <0.001
Manke vs. Chelsea 0.27 1 <0.001
Among sites within
plot type, cultured
plots
Foss vs. Manke 0.19 1 <0.001
Foss vs. Chelsea 0.41 1 <0.001
Manke vs. Chelsea 0.24 1 <0.001
Among sites within
plot type,
reference
plots
Foss vs. Manke 0.39 1 <0.001
Foss vs. Chelsea 0.56 1 <0.001
Manke vs. Chelsea 0.38 1 <0.001
Within site between
plot type, by
treatment
Foss 0.41 1 <0.001
Manke 0.45 1 <0.001
Chelsea 0.09 1 NS
Within site between
plot type, by date
Foss 0.60 10 0.01 #P <0.05
Manke 0.62 16 <0.001
Chelsea 0.75 13 <0.001
Within site between
plot type, by
harvest state
Foss 0.18 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Manke 0.17 2 <0.001
Chelsea 0.08 2 NS
Within site between
plot type, harvest
state3treatment
interaction
Foss 0.02 2 NS
Manke 0.03 2 NS
Chelsea 0.03 2 NS
Within site within
plot type, by date,
cultured plots
Foss 1.00 10 <0.001
Manke 1.00 16 <0.001
Chelsea 1.00 13 <0.001
Within site within
plot type, by
harvest state,
cultured plots
Foss 0.25 2 NS
Manke 0.25 2 <0.001
Chelsea 0.13 2 NS
Within site within
plot type, by date,
reference plots
Foss 1.00 10 <0.001
Manke 1.00 16 <0.001
Chelsea 1.00 13 <0.001
Within site within
plot type, by
harvest state,
reference plots
Foss 0.32 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Manke 0.25 2 0.001 #P <0.01
Chelsea 0.11 2 NS
NS:P $0.05.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 177
Species-specific contrasts, using generalized linear mixed
models, provided results in six categories for the 10 taxa
analyzed (Table 11). As noted the analyses were based on the
protocol that a significant interaction result for harvest state3
treatment was an indication of a significant effect of harvest
activities on subject populations, manifested by density data
either during or after the harvest events in the study areas. Three
taxa, the gammaridean amphipod Americorophium salmonis,the
cumacean Cumella vulgaris, and the polychaete family Capitelli-
dae experienced increased abundance in harvest plots compared
with reference plots both during and after harvest activities.
Conversely, two other taxa, the bivalve genus Rochefortia and the
polychaete family Phyllodocidae, experienced reductions in har-
vest plots compared with reference plots during and after
harvests.Two taxa in a thirdgroup, the nemertean genusMicrura
and the polychaete family Spionidae, were not affected positively
or negatively by harvests either during or after harvest events.
Data for the remaining three taxa indicated more complex
population-level response patterns to harvests. The polychaete
family Goniadidae showed increased abundance in harvested
plots during harvest compared with reference plots, but the
effect did not persist after completion of harvest. The poly-
chaetefamilyPolynoidaewasnotinfluencednumericallyduring
harvest, but declined in harvest plots compared with reference
plots after harvest was completed. Last, the polychaete family
Hesionidae was affected negatively by harvest activities during
harvests compared with reference plots, but the negative effect
did not persist after harvest was completed.
DISCUSSION
The current study revealed only modest effects on infaunal
communities from the harvest phase of geoduck aquaculture
operations. Multivariate analyses indicated an absence of
significant shifts in community composition (both means and
variability) at any of the three study sites as a result of
harvesting activities. Similarly, little evidence of a significant
‘‘spillover’’ effect of cultured geoduck harvest operations was
found on resident infaunal communities. Univariate ANOVAs
provided no evidence of significant impacts of cultured clam
harvest on the biodiversity of resident infauna. Of the 10 most
frequently sampled infaunal taxa, only three indicated evidence
of reduction in abundance persisting as long as 4 mo after
conclusion of harvest activities. None of the proportionate
changes in the three affected taxa approached local extinction.
Our results led to the rejection of the three hypotheses listed
earlier. Some of the data suggested consistency with hypothesis
1, with significant differences between treatment category at the
Foss and Manke sites. However, analyses of the harvest state3
treatment interaction term revealed that the subject differences
were the result of plot properties independent of harvest-related
disturbance effects. Despite scattered temporary exceptions, it
is apparent that none of the hypotheses is generally applicable
to the study sites.
The results are similar to a recent experimental study of
ecosystem-level effects of geoduck aquaculture done in British
Columbia,Canada(DepartmentofFisheriesandOceans2012).
Abundance of resident infauna showed temporary effects of
clam harvest disturbance and a strong pattern of seasonal
effects. There were observed effects of harvest on sediment
chemistry and physical structure within but not beyond the
planted area. All observed effects were temporary. Interpreta-
tion of results may have been compromised to some degree by
the small plot size used in the British Columbia study compared
with commercially operated geoduck farms.
The benthic community data collected in the current study
revealed variation in community composition among sites.
Sediment grain-size distribution at the Chelsea study site was
substantially different from the other two sites, which were
similar to one another, and likely contributed to community
differences (e.g., Gray 1981, Dethier & Schoch 2005). It has
been shown that salinity decreases from north to south in Puget
Sound (Collias et al. 1974, Dethier & Schoch 2005), and that
variation in salinity can affect benthic community structure in
a number of locations, including Puget Sound (Tenore 1972,
Bulger et al. 1993, Constable 1999, Smith & Witman 1999,
Dethier & Schoch 2005). Differences among sites in resident
benthic communities were consistent with previous studies that
found substantial variation in benthic assemblages among
intertidal sand flats in Puget Sound (Dethier et al. 2003, Dethier
Figure 4. Mean densities of all infauna summed as thousands of in-
dividuals per square meter (%1 SE) from samples in each plot for each
sampling date at each study site. Data from cultured plots are shown with
white boxes and solid lines, and from reference plots with black diamonds
and dashed lines. Vertically oriented rectangles represent midharvest
periods on cultured plots. Note that scales on both the horizontal and
vertical axes differ among study sites.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.178
&Schoch2005).Intertidal sand flats in Case Inlet, the location
of the Foss and Manke study sites, are particularly notewor-
thy for high beach-to-beach and year-to-year variation in
resident benthos (Dethier 2005).
Because of the habitat variations described earlier, it was
determined that the three study sites could not be considered
replicates. Asaresultthedatawereanalyzedseparatelyforeach
site. Such an approach had the unavoidable effect of reducing
statistical power for detection of significant differences. Never-
theless, a number of significant differences were found in the
data relating to date, a proxy for both season and harvest state,
and between study plots within the current study sites. The
resulting contention is that the current study had the ability to
detect major patterns of variation in the system, and that
natural spatial and temporal variability in the subject assem-
blagesweresubstantiallymoreimportantthaneffectsofharvest
disturbances. When differences were found in abundance
patternsbetweenplotswithinstudysitesassociatedwithharvest
state, it was invariably also found that harvest state was
effectively a proxy for seasonal variation in harvested plots.
Thus, harvest state unavoidably covaried with date and asso-
ciated seasonal effects, and was not an informative stand-alone
treatment factor for understanding harvest effects. Consistently,
the most informative metric in this study for an unambiguous
harvest impact, the harvest state3treatment interaction term,
was not significant in the analyses. Interaction term R2 values
were consistently low, typically explaining less than 5% of
variation in the data. When date was used as the explanatory
variable, significant values resulted in nearly all cases. Date as
a factor had high R2 values, usually accounting for more than
50% of the variation in the community data set.
With regard to multivariate assemblage contrasts and
univariate biodiversity analyses used in the current study, the
decision to analyze data from different study sites indepen-
dently raises questions regarding the propriety of applying
ANOVAs to the data (e.g., Hurlbert 1984). The dilemma in
design of the current study was the large size and relative
scarcity of potential study plots that fit the selection criteria.
Hurlbert s (1984) design rubrics to the contrary notwithstand-
ing, Oksanen (2001) has argued that large-scale field studies
with attributes such as those used in the current study are fully
appropriate for the application of ANOVAs. It is noted that
Hurlbert s (1984) dogmatic perspective on design and analysis
in field ecology has become increasingly questioned (e.g.,
Oksanen 2001, Schank & Koehnle 2009). Oksanen (2001)
asserts that reflexive application of Hurlbert s dogma to cases
TABLE 4.
Summary of homogeneity of multivariate dispersion analytical results for contrasts at scales of study sites and plots.
Scale Contrast df P value
Among harvest states within plot type, Foss
cultured plots
Preharvest vs. midharvest 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Preharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Midharvest vs. postharvest 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Among harvest states within plot type, Manke
cultured plots
Preharvest vs. midharvest 1 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Midharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Among harvest states within plot type, Chelsea
cultured plots
Preharvest vs. midharvest 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Preharvest vs. postharvest 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Among harvest states within plot type, Foss
reference plots
Preharvest vs. midharvest 1 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Midharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Among harvest states within plot type, Manke
reference plots
Preharvest vs. midharvest 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Preharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Midharvest vs. postharvest 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Among harvest states within plot type, Chelsea
reference plots
Preharvest vs. midharvest 1 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest vs. postharvest 1 NS
Withinsiteswithinplottype,amongharveststates All states, Foss culture plot 2 0.001 #P <0.01
All states, Foss reference plot 2 0.001 #P <0.01
All states, Manke culture plot 2 NS
All states, Manke reference plot 2 0.01 #P <0.05
All states, Chelsea culture plot 2 NS
All states, Chelsea reference plot 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Within sites between plot type, within harvest
states
Foss, preharvest 1 NS
Foss, midharvest 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Foss, postharvest 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Manke, preharvest 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Manke midharvest 1 <0.001
Manke postharvest 1 NS
Chelsea preharvest 1 NS
Chelsea midharvest 1 NS
Chelsea postharvest 1 NS
NS,P $0.05.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 179
of design dilemmas such as that in the current study amounts to
‘‘entirely unwarranted stigmatization of a reasonable way to
test predictions referring to large-scale systems (p. 27).’’
In contrast to the results of the current study, other in-
vestigations of effects of shellfish harvesting have reported
detectable impacts and variable durations of community re-
covery ranging from a few months to a year (Kaiser et al. 1996,
Hall & Harding 1997, Spencer et al. 1998, Mistri et al. 2004,
Morello et al. 2006). Results of the current study are also
different from many other experimental studies that found
significant effects of various types of disturbance on benthic
infauna, with recovery times ranging from several weeks up to 9
mo (e.g., VanBlaricom 1982, Smith & Brumsickle 1989, Thrush
et al. 1996, Dernie et al. 2003, Zajac & Whitlatch 2003, Kaiser
et al. 2006). There are several possible reasons for the strikingly
different results in the current study. First, physical habitat
modifications associated with geoduck harvest may be unlike
other types of harvest-associated disturbances of benthic in-
fauna. Bottom trawling, suction dredge harvesting, and clam
raking, as examples, are substantially different methods with
associated disturbances qualitatively distinctive from one an-
other as well as from geoduck harvest. Second, experimental
studies on benthic community disturbance have used methods
such as sediment removal, sterilization, and defaunation,
setting the point of initiation of observed recovery sequences
at 0 abundance by definition. The method by which geoducks
are harvested has the potential to displace benthic organisms
Figure 5. Mean densities of all infaunal organisms summed as individuals
per square meter from samples in cultured and reference plots, and on
extralimital transects at each distance, within harvest states. Black bars
representdensitieswithinculturedplotsandwhitebarsrepresentreference
plots. Gray bars indicate densities at specific distances (in meters) from
cultured plot edges on transects. Note that scales on both the horizontal
and vertical axes differ among study sites.
TABLE 5.
Summary of permutation-based analyses of variance results
for contrasts within plots and transect locations within study
sites by date and by harvest state.
Transect and contrast
Location on
transect (m)R2 df P value
Foss North, date 2 1.00 10 <0.001
5 1.00 10 <0.001
10 1.00 10 <0.001
20 1.00 10 <0.001
50 1.00 10 <0.001
Foss North, harvest
state
2 0.38 2 <0.001
5 0.33 2 0.01 #P <0.05
10 0.26 2 NS
20 0.27 2 NS
50 0.25 2 NS
Foss South, date 2 1.00 10 <0.001
5 1.00 10 <0.001
10 1.00 10 <0.001
20 1.00 10 <0.001
50 1.00 10 <0.001
Foss South, harvest
state
2 0.27 2 NS
5 0.29 2 NS
10 0.27 2 NS
20 0.27 2 NS
50 0.37 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Manke North, date 2 1.00 16 <0.001
5 1.00 16 <0.001
10 1.00 16 <0.001
20 1.00 16 <0.001
50 1.00 16 <0.001
Manke North, harvest
state
2 0.23 2 0.001 #P <0.01
5 0.16 2 0.001 #P <0.01
10 0.27 2 <0.001
20 0.24 2 <0.001
50 0.12 2 0.001 #P <0.01
Chelsea North, date 2 1.00 13 <0.001
5 1.00 13 <0.001
10 1.00 13 <0.001
12 1.00 13 <0.001
15 1.00 13 <0.001
20 1.00 13 <0.001
30 1.00 13 <0.001
60 1.00 13 <0.001
Chelsea North, harvest
state
2 0.12 2 NS
5 0.18 2 NS
10 0.15 2 NS
12 0.12 2 NS
15 0.16 2 NS
20 0.16 2 NS
30 0.16 2 NS
60 0.26 2 NS
Locations include cultured plot, reference plot, and each sampled
distance on transect lines. NS,P $0.05.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.180
without injury or death, allowing recolonization of disturbed
patches immediately after harvest. Third, the scales of distur-
bances evaluated in other published studies are different from
the scale of disturbances occurring at harvest of cultured
geoducks. Most experimental studies reported in the peer-
reviewed literature used small patches (surface area,<5m2)to
quantify disturbance effects and implemented a spatially uni-
form disturbance regime. Geoduck harvest occurs on large
TABLE 6.
Summary of permutation-based analyses of variance results
for contrasts within plots within study sites and within transect
locations by treatment, date, and harvest state (part 1).
Transect and contrast
Location on
transect (m)R2 df P value
Foss North, cultured
plot, treatment
2 0.10 1 0.01 #P <0.05
5 0.17 1 <0.001
Foss North, cultured
plot, date
2 0.62 10 0.001 #P <0.01
5 0.59 10 0.01 #P <0.05
10 0.67 10 <0.001
20 0.68 10 <0.001
50 0.68 10 <0.001
Foss North, cultured
plot, harvest state
2 0.21 2 <0.001
5 0.18 2 0.001 #P <0.01
10 0.19 2 0.001 #P <0.01
20 0.18 2 0.01 #P <0.05
50 0.17 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Foss North, reference
plot, treatment
2 0.23 1 <0.001
5 0.28 1 <0.001
10 0.17 1 0.001 #P <0.01
20 0.17 1 <0.001
50 0.11 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Foss North, reference
plot, date
10 0.64 10 0.001 #P <0.01
20 0.59 10 0.01 #P <0.05
50 0.66 10 <0.001
Foss North, reference
plot, harvest state
2 0.18 2 0.01 #P <0.05
10 0.16 2 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.16 2 0.01 #P <0.05
50 0.18 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Foss South, cultured
plot, treatment
2 0.15 1 <0.001
5 0.14 1 <0.001
10 0.11 1 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.13 1 <0.001
50 0.19 1 <0.001
Foss South, cultured
plot, date
2 0.58 10 0.01 #P <0.05
5 0.62 10 0.001 #P <0.01
10 0.64 10 <0.001
20 0.60 10 0.001 #P <0.01
Foss South, cultured
plot, harvest state
2 0.16 2 0.01 #P <0.05
5 0.17 2 0.01 #P <0.05
10 0.18 2 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.16 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Foss South, reference
plot, treatment
2 0.19 1 <0.001
5 0.21 1 <0.001
10 0.16 1 <0.001
50 0.18 1 0.001 #P <0.01
Foss South, cultured
plot, date
10 0.58 10 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.70 10 <0.001
50 0.64 10 0.01 #P <0.05
Foss South, cultured
plot, harvest state
2 0.16 2 0.01 #P <0.05
5 0.17 2 0.01 #P <0.05
10 0.17 2 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.18 2 0.001 #P <0.01
50 0.19 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Analyses were done for all transect locations (cultured plot and
reference plot as well as each transect location), but only statistically
significant results are shown.
TABLE 7.
Summary of permutation-based analyses of variance results
for contrasts within plots within study sites and within transect
locations by treatment, date, and harvest state (part 2).
Transect and contrast
Location on
transect (m)R2 df P value
Manke North, cultured
plot, treatment
5 0.05 1 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.10 1 <0.001
Manke North, cultured
plot, date
2 0.66 16 <0.001
5 0.62 16 <0.001
10 0.65 16 <0.001
20 0.57 16 0.001 #P <0.01
50 0.63 16 <0.001
Manke North, cultured
plot, harvest state
2 0.16 2 <0.001
5 0.16 2 <0.001
10 0.18 2 <0.001
20 0.14 2 <0.001
50 0.17 2 <0.001
Manke North, reference
plot, treatment
2 0.09 1 <0.001
5 0.05 1 0.01 #P <0.05
10 0.06 1 0.001 #P <0.01
20 0.06 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Manke North, reference
plot, date
2 0.57 16 0.001 #P <0.01
5 0.67 16 <0.001
10 0.64 16 <0.001
20 0.66 16 <0.001
50 0.64 16 <0.001
Manke North, reference
plot, harvest state
2 0.16 2 <0.001
5 0.19 2 <0.001
10 0.17 2 <0.001
20 0.16 2 <0.001
50 0.14 2 <0.001
Chelsea North, cultured
plot, treatment
60 0.07 1 0.01 #P <0.05
Chelsea North, cultured
plot, date
2 0.72 13 <0.001
5 0.69 13 <0.001
10 0.75 13 <0.001
12 0.68 13 <0.001
15 0.66 13 <0.001
20 0.67 13 <0.001
30 0.69 13 <0.001
60 0.66 13 <0.001
Chelsea North, cultured
plot, harvest state
5 0.11 2 0.01 #P <0.05
20 0.11 2 0.01 #P <0.05
60 0.12 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Chelsea North, reference
plot, treatment
30 0.07 1 0.01 #P <0.05
60 0.12 1 <0.001
Chelsea North, reference
plot, date
2 0.69 13 <0.001
5 0.68 13 <0.001
10 0.70 13 <0.001
12 0.66 13 <0.001
15 0.64 13 <0.001
20 0.67 13 <0.001
30 0.67 13 <0.001
60 0.58 13 0.001 #P <0.01
Chelsea North, reference
plot, harvest state
60 0.11 2 0.01 #P <0.05
Analyses were done and are presented as described in Table 6.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 181
spatial scales (plots that are typically 2,500 m
2 or larger in
surface area) and creates a nonuniform disturbance regime
within harvested plots. Survival of outplanted geoducks, typi-
cally placed in uniform distributional arrays, is generally less
than 100% over time. Spatial variability of clam mortality is
normal within a cultured plot during the multiyear production
cycle, often resulting in nonuniform spatial distributions of
clamswithin culturedplotsatthetimeofharvest.Itfollows that
disturbances associated with harvest of a cultured plot will be
patchy in space. Another level of patchiness is associated with
likely variation among individual cultured clams in detection
probability of siphons on the sediment surface at harvest. If
the visibility of individual geoducks to a harvester is patchy in
space, then clam-by-clam harvest disturbances will also be
patchy in space. The scale and patchiness involved in geoduck
harvest compared with the uniform disturbance and small
scale of other experimental disturbance studies could diffuse
any impacts over such a large area so that the effect of harvest
is undetectable and possibly trivial from the ecosystem
perspective.
The univariate analyses in the current study of selected
individual taxa involved inclusion of site as a random effect and
are not subject to the criticisms of design as emphasized by
Hurlbert(1984).Threetaxawereidentifiedwithabundancethat
increased during the harvest phase in cultured plots and
remained elevated in the months after completion of harvest.
Such patterns suggest the possibility that the presence of adult
geoducks at high densities near the termination of the culture
cycle had a negative effect on the subject populations, and that
TABLE 8.
Summaryofhomogeneityofmultivariatedispersionanalytical
results within study sites and plots among transect locations.
Site Harvest state P value
Within site within harvest state,
among transect locations,
Foss North
Preharvest NS
Midharvest 0.001 #P <0.01
Postharvest 0.001 #P <0.01
Within site within harvest state,
among transect locations,
Foss South
Preharvest 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest 0.001 #P <0.01
Postharvest 0.001 #P <0.01
Within site within harvest state,
among transect locations,
Manke North
Preharvest 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest <0.001
Postharvest 0.01 #P <0.05
Within site within harvest state,
among transect locations,
Chelsea North
Preharvest 0.001 #P <0.01
Midharvest 0.01 #P <0.05
Postharvest NS
Transect locations include cultured plot and reference plot as well as
each sampled location on transects. All indicated contrasts had 6
degrees of freedom. NS,P $0.05.
TABLE 9.
Summary of homogeneity of multivariate dispersion analytical results within study sites between cultured plots and transect
locations (the latter include the reference plot as well as each sampled location on transects) for each study site.
Contrast and location (m) Harvest state P value, Foss North P value, Foss South P value, Manke North P value, Chelsea North
Cultured plot vs. reference plot Preharvest NS NS <0.001 NS
Midharvest <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NS
Postharvest 0.01 #P <0.05 0.01 #P <0.05 NS NS
Cultured plot vs. 2 m Preharvest NS NS NS NS
Midharvest NS <0.001 <0.001 NS
Postharvest <0.001 0.01 #P <0.05 NS <0.001
Cultured plot vs. 5 m Preharvest NS NS NS NS
Midharvest <0.001 0.001 #P <0.01 <0.001 NS
Postharvest <0.001 0.01 #P <0.05 0.001 #P <0.01 NS
Cultured plot vs. 10 m Preharvest NS 0.01 #P <0.05 0.001 #P <0.01 0.001 #P <0.01
Midharvest 0.01 #P <0.05 NS <0.001 NS
Postharvest NS 0.01 #P <0.05 NS NS
Cultured plot vs. 12 m Preharvest ———NS
Midharvest ———NS
Postharvest ———NS
Cultured plot vs. 15 m Preharvest ———NS
Midharvest ———NS
Postharvest ———NS
Cultured plot vs. 20 m Preharvest NS NS 0.001 #P <0.01 NS
Midharvest 0.001 #P <0.01 0.01 #P <0.05 <0.001 NS
Postharvest NS 0.001 #P <0.01 0.01 #P <0.05 NS
Cultured plot vs. 30 m Preharvest ———<0.001
Midharvest ———NS
Postharvest ———0.01 #P <0.05
Cultured plot vs. 50 m Preharvest NS NS NS —
Midharvest <0.001 <0.001 0.001 #P <0.01 —
Postharvest 0.01 #P <0.05 <0.001 NS —
Cultured plot vs. 60 m Preharvest ———0.001 #P <0.01
Midharvest ———0.001 #P <0.01
Postharvest ———NS
NS,P $0.05.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.182
the effect was removed at the time of harvest. The putative
mechanisms for such an impact are unclear, but potentially
could include modification of chemical or physical attributes of
the sediments. Another plausible mechanism is subtle modi-
fication of microscale patterns of water movement as a con-
sequence of the high living biomass density of geoducks in
cultured plots. Cummings et al. (2001) identified variations in
abundance of some species of an infaunal assemblage that were
linkedinverselytovariationsindensitiesinadultpopulationsof
a large filter-feeding bivalve. Elucidation of causal linkages
between reduced densities of geoducks at harvest and sub-
sequent infaunal abundance patterns was beyond the scope of
the current study. The matter would be an informative topic for
future study.
It is suggested that a principal reason for the apparent
insensitivity of resident infauna to cultured geoduck harvest
disturbances in southern Puget Sound is accommodation of the
infaunal assemblage to a significant natural disturbance regime.
It has been hypothesized that rates of ecosystem recovery from
disturbances correlate with the extent to which species in the
subject ecosystem have adapted to past disturbances (e.g.,
Connell 1978, Connell & Keogh 1985), and that benthic
ecosystems in sandy sediments show rapid resilience to distur-
bances (Collie et al. 2000). The intertidal zone of Puget Sound is
affected by an array of disturbance processes that vary by
frequency, intensity, physical and chemical attributes, and
spatial scale. Disturbances with a high potential for ecological
significance in the region include (1) small waves resulting from
normal windshear (e.g., Maunder1968,Anderson 1972,Clarke
et al. 1982, Gabrielson & Lukatelich 1985), (2) wakes from
vessel passage (e.g., Crawford 1984, Garrad & Hey 1987,
Osborne & Boak 1999, Bishop 2007), (3) thermal stress
associated with daytime low tides in summer months (e.g.,
Dethier 2010, Dethier et al. 2010, Dethier et al. 2012), (4) large
waves caused by wind storms (e.g., Lynott & Cramer 1966,
Reed 1980, Steenburgh & Mass 1996, Mass & Dotson 2010), (5)
flooding events caused by maxima in rainfall or snowmelt in
watersheds draining to Puget Sound (e.g., Ferber et al. 1993,
Zhu & Newell 1998, Colle & Mass 2000, Frascari et al. 2006,
Lohrer et al. 2006, Forrest et al. 2007, Hermand et al. 2008,
Warner et al. 2012), and (6) sediment liquefaction and small
tsunami generation by seismic activity and associated subaerial
and possibly submarine landslides (e.g., Atwater 1987, Hamp-
ton et al. 1996, Atwater 1999, Williams & Hutchinson 2000,
Sherrod 2001, Gonza´lez 2002, Ichinose et al. 2004, Wiest et al.
2007, Kao et al. 2008, Arcos 2012). Tidally driven along-shore
currents may intensify disturbance effects by transporting
suspended or epibenthic materials away from disrupted loca-
tions (e.g., Adams et al. 2007, Bourrin et al. 2008, Denny et al.
2013).Benthiccommunities of PugetSoundhavelikelyadapted
to the array of natural disturbances and could therefore be
resilient to other similar types of physical disturbances, in-
cluding those of anthropogenic origin. The small-scale and
large-scale natural disturbancestypical of the area provide a rate
of physical intervention to intertidal sedimentary environments
substantially greater than rates of significant disturbances caused
by geoduckaquacultureoperations ina givenplot.Inaddition, it
is noted that Puget Sound is quite young in geological and
oceanographic contexts, being only 5,000 y of age in current
configuration after glacial recession, resultant isostatic rebound,
and eustatic sea level rise (Armstrong et al. 1965, Easterbrook
1969,Burns1985,Thorson1989,Bucknametal.1992,Finlayson
2006). As a consequence, resident marine assemblages may be
dominated by relatively opportunistic species arguably accom-
modated to and relatively unaffected by physical disturbances of
various types. Thus, it is argued that the prevailing natural
disturbance climate in the region has effectively selected the
infaunal assemblage toward tolerance of and resilience to the
types of disturbances associated with geoduck aquaculture
operations. Naturally evolved characteristics preadaptive to
effects of anthropogenic disturbances are known for a number
of marine and freshwater benthic species across many habitat
types (e.g., Pearson & Rosenberg 1978, Tomassetti & Porrello
2005, Melzner et al. 2009, Gabel et al. 2011).
As also noted in McDonald et al. (2015), it is cautioned that
projection of the current study results to larger temporal or
spatial scales may be inappropriate in the absence of additional
Figure6. Shannondiversityindexvaluesfromsamplesineachplotforeach
sampling date at each study site. Data from cultured plots are shown with
white boxes and solid lines, and from reference plots with black diamonds
and dashed lines. Arrows indicate sample dates with significant differences
between reference and cultured plots (P <0.05). Vertically oriented
rectangles represent midharvest periods on the cultured plots. Note that
scales on both the horizontal and vertical axes differ among study sites.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 183
studies. The sites for the current study were relatively isolated
from other geoduck aquaculture plots, and were being used for
aquaculture of geoducks for the first time. The data may not
provide a sufficient basis for unequivocal extrapolation to cases
when a given plot is exposed to a long series of successive
geoduck aquaculture cycles. Likewise, it may not be appropriate
to extend the findings of the current study to cases when
a number of separate plots are adjacent to one another and
encompass significantly larger surface areas than any single
plot. Resolution of the questions of larger spatial and
TABLE 10.
One-way analysis of variance results for Shannon indices of diversity for samples at all sites.
Study site and scale Contrast F value P value
Foss, between treatments Preharvest 0.68 NS
Midharvest 0.24 NS
Postharvest 3.49 NS
Manke, between treatments Preharvest 19.24 <0.001
Midharvest 30.12 <0.001
Postharvest 12.92 <0.001
Chelsea, between treatments Preharvest 5.35 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest 0.001 NS
Postharvest 1.60 NS
Foss, within cultured plot, between harvest states Preharvest vs. midharvest 0.17 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 17.74 <0.001
Midharvest vs. postharvest 13.59 <0.001
Manke, within cultured plot, between harvest states Preharvest vs. midharvest 15.36 <0.001
Preharvest vs. postharvest 4.97 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest vs. postharvest 2.41 NS
Chelsea, within cultured plot, between harvest states Preharvest vs. midharvest 0.04 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 4.79 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest vs. postharvest 3.04 NS
Foss, within reference plot, between harvest states Preharvest vs. midharvest 0.56 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 3.70 NS
Midharvest vs. postharvest 0.67 NS
Manke, within reference plot, between harvest states Preharvest vs. midharvest 0.37 NS
Preharvest vs. postharvest 4.08 0.01 #P <0.05
Midharvest vs. postharvest 4.84 0.01 #P <0.05
Chelsea, within reference plot, between harvest states Preharvest vs. midharvest 10.38 <0.001
Preharvest vs. postharvest 3.58 NS
Midharvest vs. postharvest 0.14 NS
Analyzed contrasts include differences between reference and cultured plots for each state as well as differences between states within each plot. All
indicated contrasts had 1 degree of freedom. NS,P $0.05.
TABLE 11.
Results of univariate assessments of harvest impacts with generalized linear mixed models for abundant or ecologically significant
individual infaunal taxa as sampled by coring.
Taxon
Results of likelihood ratio tests Apparent effect of harvest on populations
Chi square P value During harvest After harvest
Americorophium salmonis 108.54 <0.001 Positive Positive
Cumella vulgaris 82.13 <0.001 Positive Positive
Rochefortia spp.38.19 <0.001 Negative Negative
Micrura spp.0.82 NS Neutral Neutral
Capitellidae 271.51 <0.001 Positive Positive
Goniadidae 15.89 <0.001 Positive Neutral
Spionidae 1.41 NS Neutral Neutral
Hesionidae 362.82 <0.001 Negative Neutral
Phyllodocidae 24.32 <0.001 Negative Negative
Polynoidae 8.07 0.01 #P <0.05 Neutral Negative
The test statistic is the likelihood ratio test for the interaction term harvest state3treatment. The metric represented is the sign of the coefficient of
theinteractiontermforwhichharvestphaseisbeforeharvest,midharvest,orpostharvest,andtreatmentiseitherculturedplotorreferenceplot.All
indicated contrasts had 2 degrees of freedom. Taxa are those described in Tables 1 and 2. NS,P $0.05.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.184
temporal scales will be a major challenge for geoduck farmers
as they continue production on existing plots and expand into
new areas, and will be an important research goal in the
interests of informed management policies by natural resource
agencies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this work was provided by the Washington state
legislature, the National Aquaculture Research Program of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Wash-
ington State Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources,
the Royalty Research Fund of the University of Washington,
the Shellfish Management Department of the Point No Point
Treaty Council, and the Ecosystems Branch of the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey. Access to study sites was facilitated by Taylor
Shellfish,Inc.;ChelseaFarms,LLC;andD.Adams,M.Adams,
T. Bloomfield, S. Bloomfield, B. Foss, L. Foss, J. Lentz, and
B.Phipps.J.Cordell,M.Dethier,andJ.Toftprovidedguidance
and expertise on laboratory procedures and infaunal taxonomy
crucial to completion of the current study. K. Armintrout,
K. Connelly, B. Cummings, J. Eggers, A. Fuller, A. Galloway,
M. Langness, K. McPeek, P. F. Stevick, and many volunteers
provided vital laboratory and field support for the project. The
staff of the Washington Sea Grant Program, particularly
P. Dalton and R. Waters, provided generous and valuable
administrative support. C. Schwartz provided expert and
patient guidance and artistic skill in improving article graphics.
Constructively critical comments were provided on draft ver-
sions of the manuscript by D. Cheney, S. Shumway, and two
anonymous reviewers. J. Davis and B. Vadopalas provided
additional editorial guidance and assistance. The authors offer
sincere thanks to all. Any use of trade product or firm name
herein is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, P. N., P. Ruggiero, G. C. Schoch & G. Gelfenbaum. 2007.
Intertidal sand body migration along a megatidal coast, Kachemak
Bay, Alaska.J. Geophys. Res.112(F02007):1–19.
Anderson, F. E. 1972. Resuspension of estuarine sediments by small
amplitude waves.J. Sediment. Petrol.42:602–607.
Anderson, M. J. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate
analyses of variance.Austral Ecol.26:32–46.
Anderson, M. J. 2006. Distance-based tests for the homogeneity of
multivariate dispersions.Biometrics 62:245–253.
Anderson, M. J. & A. J. Underwood. 1997.Effects of gastropodgrazers
on recruitment and succession of an estuarine assemblage: a multi-
variate and univariate approach.Oecologia 109:442–453.
Arcos, M. E. M. 2012. The A.D. 900–930 Seattle-fault-zone earthquake
with a wider coseismic rupture patch and postseismic submergence:
inferences from new sedimentary evidence.Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
102:1079–1098.
Armstrong, J. E., D. R. Crandall, D. F. Easterbrook & J. R. Noble.
1965. Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and chronology in southwestern
British Columbia and northwest Washington.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.
76:321–330.
Atwater,B.F.1987.EvidenceforgreatHoloceneearthquakesalongthe
outer coast of Washington state.Science 236:942–944.
Atwater, B. F. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of a Seattle earthquake to
A.D. 900–930.Seismol. Res. Lett.70:232.
Bates, D. M. & M. Maechler. 2010. lme 4. Linear mixed-effects models
using S4 classes. Available at: http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/.
Bishop, M. J. 2007. Impacts of boat-generated waves on macroinfauna:
towards a mechanistic understanding.J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
343:187–196.
Bourrin,F.,P.L.Friend,C.L.Amos,E.Manca,C.Ulses,
A. Palanques, X. Durrieu de Madron & C. E. L. Thompson. 2008.
Sediment dispersal from a typical Mediterranean flood: the Teˆ t
River, Gulf of Lions.Cont. Shelf Res.28:1895–1910.
Bray, J. R. & J. T. Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest
communities of southern Wisconsin.Ecol. Monogr.48:35–49.
Bucknam, R. C., E. Hemphill-Haley & E. B. Leopold. 1992. Abrupt
uplift within the past 1700 years at southern Puget Sound, Wash-
ington.Science 258:1611–1614.
Bulger,A.J.,B.P.Hayden,M.E.Monaco,D.M.Nelson&
G. McCormick-Ray. 1993. Biologically-based salinity zones derived
from a multivariate analysis.Estuaries 16:311–322.
Burns, R. E. 1985. The shape and form of Puget Sound. Puget Sound
Books, Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington.
Seattle: University of Washington Press. 100 pp.
Buschmann, A. H., F. Cabello, K. Young, J. Carvajal, D. A. Varela &
L. Henriquez. 2009. Salmon aquaculture and coastal ecosystem
health in Chile: analysis of regulations, environmental impacts and
bioremediation systems.Ocean Coast. Manage.52:243–249.
Caswell, H. & J. E. Cohen. 1991. Disturbance, interspecific interaction
anddiversityinmetapopulations.Biol.J.Linn.Soc.Lond.42:193–218.
Chopin, T., A. H. Buschmann, C. Halling, M. Troell, N. Kautsky,
A. Neori, G. P. Kraemer, J. A. Zertuche-Gonzalez, C. Yarish &
C. Neefus. 2001. Integrating seaweeds into marine aquaculture
systems: a key toward sustainability.J. Phycol.37:975–986.
Clarke, T. L., B. Lesht, R. A. Young, D. J. P. Swift & G. L. Freeland.
1982. Sediment resuspension by surface-wave action: an examina-
tion of possible mechanisms.Mar. Geol.49:43–59.
Coen, L. D., B. R. Dumbauld & M. J. Judge. 2011. Molluscan shellfish
aquaculture and best management practices. In: S. E. Shumway,
editor.ShellfishaquacultureandtheEnvironment.Chichester,West
Sussex, UK: Wiley. pp. 239–295.
Colle, B. A. & C. F. Mass. 2000. The 5–9 February 1996 flooding event
over the Pacific Northwest: sensitivity studies and evaluation of the
MM5 precipitation forecasts.Mon. Weather Rev.128:593–617.
Collias, E. E., N. McGary & C. A. Barnes. 1974. Atlas of physical and
chemical properties of Puget Sound and its approaches. Seattle,
WA: University of Washington Press. 235 pages.
Collie, J. S., S. J. Hall, M. J. Kaiser & I. R. Poiner. 2000. A quantitative
analysis of fishing impacts on shelf–sea benthos.J. Anim. Ecol.
69:785–798.
Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs.
Science 199:1302–1310.
Connell,J.H. &M.J. Keogh.1985.Disturbance andpatchdynamicsof
subtidalmarineanimalsonhardsubstrata.In:S.T.A.Picket&P.S.
White, editors. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch
dynamics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 125–147.
Constable, A. J. 1999. Ecology of benthic macro-invertebrates in soft-
sediment environments: a review of progress toward quantitative
models and predictions.Aust. J. Ecol.24:452–476.
Crawford, F. S. 1984. Elementary derivation of the wake pattern of
a boat.Am. J. Phys.52:782–785.
Cummings, V. J., S. F. Thrush, J.E.Hewitt&G.A.Funnell.2001.
Variable effect of a large suspension-feeding bivalve on infauna:
experimentinginacomplexsystem.Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser.209:159–175.
Denny, J. F., W. C. Schwab, W. E. Baldwin, W. A. Barnhardt, P. T.
Gayes, R. A. Morton, J. C. Warner, N. W. Driscoll & G. Voulgaris.
2013. Holocene sediment distribution on the inner continental shelf
of northeastern South Carolina: implications for the regional
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 185
sediment budget and long-term shoreline response.Cont. Shelf Res.
56:56–70.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2012. Assessing benthic habitat
impacts of small-scale, intertidal aquaculture of the geoduck clam
(Panopea generosa). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Scien-
tific Advisory Report 2011/083. Nanaimo, Canada: Center for
Science Advice, Pacific Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Pacific Biological Station. 9 pp.
Dernie, K. M., M. J. Kaiser, E. A. Richardson & R. M. Warwick. 2003.
Recovery of soft sediment communities and habitats following
physical disturbance.J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.285:415–434.
Dethier, M. N. 2005. Spatial patterns and temporal trends in shoreline
biota in Puget Sound: analyses of data collected through 2004.
Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA: Washington Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. 27 pp.
Dethier, M. N. 2010. Variation in recruitment does not drive the cline in
diversity along an estuarine gradient.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.410:43–54.
Dethier, M. N., J. Ruesink, H. Berry & A. G. Springer. 2012.
Decoupling of recruitment from adult clam assemblages along an
estuarine shoreline.J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.422–423:48–54.
Dethier,M. N., J. Ruesink,H. Berry, A. G. Springer & B. Reeves.2010.
Restricted ranges in physical factors may constitute subtle stressors
for estuarine biota.Mar. Environ. Res.69:240–247.
Dethier, M. N. & G. C. Schoch. 2005. The consequences of scale:
assessing the distribution of benthic populations in a complex
estuarine fjord.Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.62:253–270.
Dethier, M. N., G. C. Schoch & J. Ruesink. 2003. Spatial and temporal
variability of shoreline biota in south and central PugetSound: 2001
samples and analyses. Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA:
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 46 pp.
Dumbauld, B. R., J. L. Ruesink & S. S. Rumrill. 2009. The ecological
role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture in the estuarine environment:
a review with application to oyster and clam culture in west coast
(USA) estuaries.Aquaculture 290:196–223.
Easterbrook, D. J. 1969. Pleistocene chronology of the Puget lowland
and San Juan islands, Washington.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.80:2273–
2286.
Ferber, G. K., C. F. Mass, G. M. Lackmann & M. W. Patnoe. 1993.
Snowstorms over the Puget Sound lowlands.Weather Forecast.
8:481–504.
Ferraro, S. P. & F. A. Cole. 1990. Taxonomic level and sample size
sufficient for assessing pollution impacts on the Southern California
Bight macrobenthos.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.67:251–262.
Finlayson,D.2006.ThegeomorphologyofPugetSoundbeaches.Puget
Sound Nearshore Partnership report no. 2006-02. Washington Sea
Grant Program. Seattle: University of Washington. 45 pp.
Forrest, B. M., P. Gillespie, C. D. Cornelisen & K. M. Rogers. 2007.
Multiple indicators reveal river plume influence on sediments and
benthosinaNewZealandcoastalembayment.N.Z.J.Mar.Freshw.
Res.41:13–24.
Forrest, B. M., N. B. Keeley, G. A. Hopkins, S. C. Webb & C. M.
Clement. 2009. Bivalve aquaculture in estuaries: review and synthe-
sis of oyster cultivation effects.Aquaculture 298:1–15.
Frascari, F., F. Spagnoli, M. Marcaccio & P. Giordano. 2006.
Anomalous Po River flood event effects on sediments and the water
column of the northwestern Adriatic Sea.Clim. Res.31:151–165.
Gabel, F., M. T. Pusch, P. Breyer, V. Burmester, N. Walz & X.- F.
Garcia.2011.Differentialeffectofwavestressonthephysiologyand
behaviour of native versus non-native benthic invertebrates.Biol.
Invasions 13:1843–1853.
Gabrielson, J. O. & R. J. Lukatelich. 1985. Wind-related resuspension
of sediments in the Peel-Harvey estuarine system.Estuar. Coast.
Shelf Sci.20:135–145.
Garrad, P. N. & R. D. Hey. 1987. Boat traffic, sediment resuspension
and turbidity in a Broadland River.J. Hydrol.(Amst.) 95:289–297.
Goldburg, R. & R. Naylor. 2005. Future seascapes, fishing, and fish
farming.Front. Ecol. Environ 3:21–28.
Gonza´lez, F. I. 2002. Puget Sound Tsunami Sources: 2002 workshop
report. Seattle WA: Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 36 pp.
Gray, J. S. 1981. The ecology of marine sediments. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. 185 pp.
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for environ-
mental biologists. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Interscience. 257 pp.
Hall, S. J. & M. J. C. Harding. 1997. Physical disturbance and marine
benthic communities: the effects of mechanical harvestingof cockles
on non-target benthic infauna.J. Appl. Ecol.34:497–517.
Hampton,M.A.,H.J.Lee&J.Locat.1996.Submarinelandslides.Rev.
Geophys.34:33–59.
Hedgecock, D. 2011. Genetics of shellfish on a human-dominated
planet. In: S. E. Shumway, editor. Shellfish aquaculture and the
environment. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley. pp. 339–357.
Hermand, R., C. Salen-Picard, E. Alliot & C. Degiovanni. 2008.
Macrofaunal density, biomass, and composition of estuarine sedi-
ments and their relationship to the river plume of the Rhone River
(NW Mediterranean).Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.79:367–376.
Herna´ndez Arana, H. A., R. M. Warwick, M. J. Attrill, A. A. Rowden
& G. Gold-Bouchot. 2005. Assessing the impact of oil-related
activities on benthic macroinfauna assemblages of the Campeche
Shelf, southern Gulf of Mexico.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.289:89–107.
Hurlbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological
field experiments.Ecol. Monogr.54:187–211.
Ichinose, G. A., H. K. Thio & P. G. Somerville. 2004. Rupture process
and near-source shaking of the 1965 Seattle-Tacoma and 2001
Nisqually, intraslab earthquakes.Geophys. Res. Lett.31(L10604):1–4.
Kaiser, M. J., K. R. Clarke, H. Hinz, M. C. V. Austen, P. J. Somerfield
& I. Karakassis. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of
benthic biota to fishing.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.311:1–14.
Kaiser, M. J., D. B. Edwards & B. E. Spencer. 1996. Infaunal
community changes as a result of commercial clam cultivation and
harvesting.Aquat. Living Resour.9:57–63.
Kao, H., K. Wang, R.- Y. Chen, I. Wada, J. He & S. D. Malone. 2008.
Identifying the rupture plane of the 2001 Nisqually, Washington,
earthquake.Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.98:1546–1558.
Lohrer, A. M., S. F. Thrush, C. J. Lundquist, K. Vopel, J. E. Hewitt &
P. E. Nicholls. 2006. Deposition of terrigenous sediment on subtidal
marine macrobenthos: response of two contrasting community
types.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.307:115–125.
Lorenzen, K., M. C. M. Beveridge & M. Mangel. 2012. Cultured fish:
integrative biology and management of domestication and interac-
tions with wild fish.Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc.87:639–660.
Lynott, R. E. & O. P. Cramer. 1966. Detailed analysis of 1962
Columbus Day windstorm in Oregon and Washington.Mon.
Weather Rev.94:105–117.
Mass, C. & B. Dotson. 2010. Major extratropical cyclones of the
northwest United States: historical review, climatology, and synop-
tic environment.Mon. Weather Rev.138:2499–2527.
Maunder, W. J. 1968. Synoptic weather patterns in the Pacific North-
west.Northwest Sci.42:80–88.
McCullagh, P. & J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized linear models, 2
nd
edition. London: Chapman and Hall. 532 pp.
McDonald, P. S., A. W. E. Galloway, K. C. McPeek & G. R.
VanBlaricom. 2015. Effects of geoduck (Panopea generosa Gould,
1850) aquaculture gear on resident and transient macrofauna
communities of Puget Sound, Washington.J. Shellfish Res.
34:189–202.
Melzner, F., M. A. Gutowska, M. Langenbuch, S. Dupont,
M. Lucassen, M. C. Thorndyke, M. Bleich & H.- O. Po¨rtner.
2009. Physiological basis for high CO2 tolerance in marine ecto-
thermic animals: pre-adaptation through lifestyle and ontogeny?
Biogeosciences 6:2313–2331.
Mistri, M., E. Cason, C. Munari & R. Rossi. 2004. Disturbance of
a soft-sediment meiobenthic community by clam hand raking.Ital.
J. Zool.(Modena) 71:131–133.
VANBLARICOM ET AL.186
Mofjeld,H.O.,A.J.Venturato,V.V.Titov,F.I.Gonza´lez & J. C.
Newman. 2002. Tidal datum distributions in Puget Sound, Wash-
ington, based on a tide model. NOAA technical memorandum
OAR PMEL-122. Seattle, WA: National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Labora-
tory. 35 pp.
Morello, E. B., C. Froglia, R. J. A. Atkinson & P. G. Moore. 2006.
Medium-termimpactsofhydraulicclamdredgersonamacrobenthic
community of the Adriatic Sea (Italy).Mar. Biol.149:401–413.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. 2014. Tide tables 2014: West coast of North and South
America includingHawaii: High and low water predictions. Brewer,
ME: North Wind Publishing. 422 pp.
Naylor,R.L.,R.J.Goldburg,J.H.Primavera,N.Kautsky,M.C.M.
Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney & M. Troell.
2000. Effect of aquacultureonworldfishsupplies.Nature 405:1017–1024.
Newell, R. I. E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated
populations of suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs: a review.
J. Shellfish Res.23:51–61.
Oksanen,L. 2001.Logicof experimentsin ecology:ispseudoreplication
a pseudoissue?Oikos 94:27–38.
Osborne, P. D. & E. H. Boak. 1999. Sediment suspension and
morphological response under vessel-generated wave groups: Tor-
pedo Bay, Auckland, New Zealand.J. Coast. Res.15:388–398.
Paine, R. T., M. J. Tegner & E. A. Johnson. 1998. Compounded
perturbations yield ecological surprises.Ecosystems (N. Y.) 1:535–545.
Pearson, T. H. & R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in
relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environ-
ment.Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.16:229–311.
Pickett, S. T. A. & P. S. White, editors. 1985. The ecology of natural
disturbance and patch dynamics. New York: Academic Press.
472 pp.
Price, J. L. 2011. Quantifying the ecological impacts of geoduck
(Panopea generosa) aquaculture harvest practices on benthic in-
fauna. Masters thesis, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
College of the Environment, University of Washington. 136 pp.
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for
statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Reed, R. J. 1980. Destructive winds caused by an orographically
induced mesoscale cyclone.Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.61:1346–1355.
Samuel-Fitwi, B., S. Wuertz, J. P. Schroeder & C. Schultz. 2012.
Sustainability assessment tools to support aquaculture develop-
ment.J. Clean. Prod.32:183–192.
Sara,G.2007.Ecologicaleffectsofaquacultureonlivingandnon-living
suspended fractions of the water column: a meta-analysis.Water
Res.41:3187–3200.
Schank, J. C. & T. J. Koehnle. 2009. Pseudoreplication is a pseudopro-
blem.J. Comp. Psychol.122:421–433.
Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication.Bell
Syst. Tech. J.27:379–423, 623–656.
Sherrod,B.L. 2001.Evidenceforearthquake-inducedsubsidence about
1100 yr ago in coastal marshes of southern Puget Sound, Wash-
ington.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.113:1299–1311.
Simenstad, C. A. & K. L. Fresh. 1995. Influence of intertidal aquacul-
tureonbenthiccommunitiesinPacific-Northwestestuaries:scalesof
disturbance.Estuaries 18:43–70.
Simenstad, C. A., C. T. Tanner, R. M. Thom & L. L. Conquest. 1991.
Estuarine habitat assessment protocol. Seattle: US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10. 191 pp.
Smith, C. R. & S. J. Brumsickle. 1989. The effects of patch size and
substrate isolation on colonization modes and rates in an intertidal
sediment.Limnol. Oceanogr.34:1263–1277.
Smith, F. & J. D. Witman. 1999. Species diversity in subtidal land-
scapes: maintenance by physical processes and larval recruitment.
Ecology 80:51–69.
Sobocinski, K. L., J. R. Cordell & C. A. Simenstad. 2010. Effects of
shoreline modifications on supratidal macroinvertebrate fauna on
Puget Sound, Washington beaches.Estuaries Coasts 33:699–711.
Somerfield, P. J. & K. R. Clarke. 1995. Taxonomic levels, in marine
community studies, revisited.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.127:113–119.
Sousa,W.P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.15:353–391.
Spencer, B. E., M. J. Kaiser & D. B. Edwards. 1998. Intertidal clam
harvesting: benthic community change and recovery.Aquacult. Res.
29:429–437.
Steenburgh, W. J. & C. F. Mass. 1996. Interaction of an intense
extratropical cyclone with coastal orography.Mon. Weather Rev.
124:1329–1352.
Tenore, K. R. 1972.Macrobenthosof the Pamlico River estuary, North
Carolina.Ecol. Monogr.42:51–69.
Thorson, R. M. 1989. Glacio-isostatic response of the Puget Sound
area, Washington.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.101:1163–1174.
Thrush, S. F., R. B. Whitlatch, R. D. Pridmore, J. E. Hewitt, V. J.
Cummings & M. R. Wilkinson. 1996. Scale dependent recoloniza-
tion: the role of sediment stability in a dynamic sandflat habitat.
Ecology 77:2472–2487.
Tomassetti, P. & S. Porrello. 2005. Polychaetes as indicators of marine
fish farm organic enrichment.Aquacult. Int.13:109–128.
Underwood, A. J. 1981. Techniques of analysis of variance in experi-
mental marine biology and ecology.Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu.
Rev.19:513–605.
VanBlaricom, G. R. 1982. Experimental analyses of structural regula-
tion in a marine sand community exposed to oceanic swell.Ecol.
Monogr.52:283–305.
Warner, M. D., C. F. Mass & E. P. Salathe´, Jr. 2012. Wintertime
extreme precipitation events along the Pacific Northwest coast:
climatology and synoptic evolution.Mon. Weather Rev.140:2021–
2043.
Warwick, R. M. & K. R. Clarke. 1993. Increased variability as
a symptom of stress in marine communities.J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol.172:215–226.
Warwick, R. M., K. R. Clarke & Suharsono.1990. A statistical analysis
of coral community responses to the 1982–83 El Nin˜ointhe
Thousand Islands, Indonesia.Coral Reefs 8:171–179.
Weiser, W. 1956. Factors influencing the choice of substratum in
Cumella vulgaris Hart (Crustacea, Cumacea).Limnol. Oceanogr.
1:274–285.
Wiest, K. R., D. I. Doser, A. A. Velasco & J. Zollweg. 2007. Source
investigation and comparison of the 1939, 1946, 1949 and 1965
earthquakes, Cascadia subduction zone, western Washington.Pure
Appl. Geophys.164:1905–1919.
Williams, H. & I. Hutchinson. 2000. Stratigraphic and microfossil
evidence for late Holocene tsunamis at Swantown Marsh, Whidbey
Island, Washington.Quat. Res.54:218–237.
Zajac, R. N. & R. B. Whitlatch. 2003.Communityand population-level
responses to disturbance in a sand flat community.J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol.294:101–125.
Zhu,Y.&R.E.Newell.1998.Aproposedalgorithmformoisturefluxes
from atmospheric rivers.Mon. Weather Rev.126:725–735.
ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF GEODUCK AQUACULTURE HARVEST 187
From:McGowan, Chiara V CIV USARMY CENWS (US)
To:Pozarycki, Scott V CIV USARMY CENWS (US)
Subject:RE:
Date:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:54:00 AM
Ok thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Pozarycki, Scott V CIV USARMY CENWS (US)
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:53 AM
To: McGowan, Chiara V CIV USARMY CENWS (US) <Chiara.V.Reillo@usace.army.mil>
Subject: RE:
It was never finished. It's nonsense in its current version.
-----Original Message-----
From: McGowan, Chiara V CIV USARMY CENWS (US)
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:50 AM
To: Pozarycki, Scott V CIV USARMY CENWS (US) <Scott.V.Pozarycki@usace.army.mil>
Subject: RE:
Ok - I thought you had said you were or had been re-writing sections based on muffy's comments (in parallel to
what I was editing)... Just want to make sure I have the latest version?
-----Original Message-----
From: Pozarycki, Scott V CIV USARMY CENWS (US)
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:40 AM
To: McGowan, Chiara V CIV USARMY CENWS (US) <Chiara.V.Reillo@usace.army.mil>
Subject: RE:
There isn't a current version other than the initial draft.
-----Original Message-----
From: McGowan, Chiara V CIV USARMY CENWS (US)
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 10:41 AM
To: Pozarycki, Scott V CIV USARMY CENWS (US) <Scott.V.Pozarycki@usace.army.mil>
Subject:
Can you send me your most current version of the cum ef paper - and the word document of assumptions / answers
to your questions from last week? Thanks
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
COE 125862
Item 7.e.i.2.
July 31, 2023
Via email: jpeters@co.jefferson.wa. us Via email: michelle.mcconnell@ecy.wa.gov
Josh Peters, Director Michelle McConnell, Shoreline Planner
Jefferson County DCD Washington State Department of Ecology
Development Services Department 300 Desmond Drive SE
621 Sheridan St. Lacey, WA 98503
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review Comments
Dear County and Planning Commissioners,
The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (JST) and the Jefferson County communities’ health and well‐being are
intricately tied to the health of our waters and marine resources. The Tribe’s Usual and Accustomed
Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Grounds encompasses part of Jefferson County, and it is vitally important to
the Tribe to protect these resources for all our futures. We value the County’s efforts to manage and
regulate these important lands and waters for all of us and appreciate all the work needed to update this
Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe has reviewed the updates to the SMP and we are submitting the following
comments for your consideration. The Tribe supports both commercial aquaculture for local food
production and restoration projects involving aquaculture activities to protect the local resources, improve
water quality and protect the Tribe’s Treaty Rights. Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Elders have expressed
increased interest in pursuing aquaculture for both food sovereignty and maintaining traditional practices of
seafood harvest and commerce. Jamestown agrees that aquaculture operations shall utilize best practices.
We thank you for this opportunity to participate in Jefferson County’s Periodic Review of the Shoreline
Master Program.
Sincerely,
Sissi P. Bruch, PhD, Environmental Planning Biologist
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
1033 Old Blyn Highway
Sequim, WA 98382
(360)461‐3006
Email: sbruch@jamestowntribe.org
Item 7.e.ii.
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 7/31/2023 Page 2 of 3
Comments on Jefferson County SMP
1.Add definition of a buoy. This is needed to understand that any area which has buoy moorage for at
least 10 boats at a density of one boat per acres in any water is considered a marina1.
2.Add to the current definition of marina. Any area which has buoy moorage for at least 10 boats at a
density of one boat per acres in any water is considered a marina1.
3.Pg. 99. 18.25.350.1.e.i. “Mooring buoys are generally preferred over docks, piers or floats” [and will
not exceed a density of 10 boats per 10 acres without a marina designation];
4.Pg. 100. 18.25.350.2.a.ii,iii,vi. Ensure that tracking of boat density does not exceed 10 boats per 10
acres to prevent triggering a marina designation1.
5.Pg. 137. 18.25.440.4.b.ii. Modify text to ensure that native species are not included so that efforts at
restoration and enhancement, [which often involve the application of conservation aquaculture], are
not hampered. “The facility proposes to culƟvate [non‐naƟve] species not previously culƟvated in the
state of Washington. Project applicants proposing to introduce aquaƟc species that have not previously
been culƟvated in Washington State are responsible for pursuing required state and federal
approvals…”
6.Pg. 140. 18.25.400.4.e.xii.E/F. Reword to remove negaƟve associaƟons that unnecessarily highlight
harmful effects, as this could be said of marinas or other commercial uses. “Predator exclusion devices
[that become dislodged], such as rubber bands, small nets, and area netting can be dislodged and pose
a hazard to birds, marine mammals and other wildlife and domestic animals. Once dislodged, such
devices shall be promptly recovered and/or disposed of to minimize the risk of harm to wildlife and, if
not, may be subject to public nuisance regulations. (F) Predator exclusion devices shall be removed
[from the environment] as soon as they are no longer needed to perform protective functions.”
7.Pg 148. 18.24.400.7. Wording is confusing and unclear in the introduction to this section titled
“Regulations – Application Requirements.” Statements like “The county may require submittal of
these materials” leaves the applicant unsure of which state and federal permit application and studies
the county would request. It might be best to leave the statement out and clean the wording up to
read as follows:
“In addition to the minimum application requirements in JCC 18.25.630, aquaculture applications shall
include the following information, if not already provided to the county as part of submitted local,
state or federal permit applications and supporting studies. To minimize redundancy, applicants are
encouraged to include supporting permit applications and studies otherwise required by state and
federal agencies to provide the information required below. The county may require submittal of these
materials. The county shall accept [any additional supporting permit applications and studies required
by state and federal agencies that fulfill] these materials and only require additional application
materials to the extent needed to address information in subsections (a) through (d). Where requested
information is not applicable to a specific proposal, the application shall not be required to include all
items listed under this section as long as it is demonstrated why the information does not apply, with
concurrence from the administrator.
8.Pg. 149. 18.24.400.7.b. This section lists 9 items to be included in the baseline ecological survey that
do not apply to all applicants. A table showing which items go with which type of aquaculture practice
(shellfish, geoduck, finfish, etc.) would be helpful, as was done in the Clallam County SMP. This list is
onerous and may inhibit small, minimal impact growers or resource practitioners, such as Tribes. Puget
sound Restoration Fund, MRC’s etc. from obtaining their permits.
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 7/31/2023 Page 3 of 3
9. Pg. 151. 18.24.400.7.g. This statement should be clarified that it applies only to finfish. It should read:
“Where the county does not have expertise to analyze the merits of a report provided by an applicant
[for a finfish permit], the applicant may be required to pay for third‐party peer review of said report.”
1 DOH‐ Office of Shellfish and Water Protection: Directive Memorandum. (Attached)
Page 1 of 2
Department of Health
Office of Shellfish and Water Protection
Directive Memorandum
Title: Definition of Marina and Marina Closure Zones for
the purpose of classifying shellfish growing areas Number DM 009
References: National Shellfish Program Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish
Chapter 246-282 WAC
Applies to: Shellfish Program Staff
Contact: Bob Woolrich, Manager, Growing Area Section
Phone: 360-236-3329 Email: bob.woolrich@doh.wa.gov
Effective Date: July 9, 2013 Review Date: July 9, 2013
Approved: Jerrod Davis, Director
Office of Shellfish and Water Protection
Direction:
The Department of Health Office of Shellfish and Water Protection (OSWP) is responsible for
determining areas that are unsuitable for shellfish harvest in order to protect public health. The
National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish (NSSP
Guide). requires that a Prohibited area (“closure zone”) be established in and around marinas.
This directive memorandum clarifies the definition of a marina and describes how marina
closure zones are determined for the purpose of classifying shellfish growing areas, consistent
with the NSSP Guide. The NSSP Guide is the national standard for shellfish sanitation
approved by the FDA and adopted by reference into Chapter 246-282 WAC.
Background:
We use the NSSP Guide, the FDA guideline Evaluation of Marinas by State Shellfish Sanitation
Control Official, and the FDA’s 2002 Program Element Evaluation Report for the Growing Area
Element (Marinas) of the NSSP for the State of Washington as guidelines when defining a
marina for the purpose of shellfish growing area classification.
NSSP Guide
The NSSP Guide defines a marina as: “any water area with a structure (docks, basin,
floating docks, etc…) which is:
(a) Used for docking or otherwise mooring vessels; and
(b) Constructed to provide temporary or permanent docking space for more than ten
boats.”
Office of Shellfish and Water Protection
Directive Memorandum 009# Effective July 9, 2013
Page 2 of 2
We include mooring buoys in the definition of a “structure.” Mooring buoys are secured to
the waterway bed and are permanent anchor lines that a boat can be tied to instead of a
dock.
Evaluation of Marinas by State Shellfish Sanitation Control Officials
This FDA guideline states: “Because every discharge from a marine toilet has the potential
to transmit pathogens, every watercraft (barge, houseboat, or boat), public or private, that
can produce a discharge from a marine toilet shall be considered when using this guideline
to evaluate shellfish growing waters.”
2002 Program Element Evaluation Report for the Growing Area Element (Marinas) of the
NSSP for the State of Washington
This document states: “The State of Washington’s definition of a marina is consistent with
the NSSP-MO definition. Additionally, any area which has buoy moorage for at least 10
boats is also considered a marina.”
Position:
Definition of a Marina
We interpret the NSSP Guide definition of a marina to include mooring buoys for the purpose of
shellfish growing area classification. In counting boats towards the definition of a marina, we
count any boat large enough to accommodate a marine toilet. We do not count small boats that
can’t reasonably accommodate a marine toilet such as open skiffs, kayaks, etc.
We use a density threshold of one boat per acre in any water area to count boats towards the
definition of a marina. This may increase if local hygrographic conditions justify the need for an
area greater than one acre. Enclosed bays with a mean water depth of less than 12 feet are
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may also require more acreage per boat.
Determining Marina Closure Zones
A permanent marina closure zone is established for areas that always have more than 10 boats
docked or moored there. However, many marine areas in Washington reach this number only
during the boating or fishing season. For these areas a “conditional closure” is established for
those seasons. Also, if there is a confirmed threat of discharge from a boat that endangers
water quality, we may establish a temporary closure zone.
We use a computer model to analyze dilution rates of boat discharges in marinas. The
computer model, developed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), helps us
determine the size of a marina closure zone. Guidance for using the VIMS model is provided in
the 1989 VIMS document Determination of Marina Buffer Zones Using Simple Mixing and
Transport Models. We have developed additional policy for calculation of boat discharge rates
to use with the VIMS model (see Determining Boat Discharge Rates for Marina Closure Areas).
Contact Person: Bob Woolrich, Manager
Shellfish Growing Area Section
Office of Shellfish and Water Protection
Department of Health
PO Box 47824
Olympia, WA 98504-7824
360.236.3330