HomeMy WebLinkAbout002 - ApplicationPermit Application Page 1 of 2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451
Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
PERMIT APPLICATION
Steps in the Permit Process:
-Review application checklist to ensure all information is completed prior to submitting application.
-Make sure septic has been applied for and water availability has been proven.
-Make an appointment to meet with the Permit Technician by calling 360-379-4450.
-This is not a standalone application; it must be accompanied by a project specific supplemental application.
-Fees will be collected at intake. Additional fees may apply after review and payment is required before permit is issued.
For Department Use Only Building Permit #
Related Application #s: MLA #
Site Information
Assessor Tax Parcel Number:
Site Address and/or Directions to Property:
Access (name of street(s)) from which access will be gained:
Present use of property:
Description of Work (include proposed uses):
Wastewater - Sewage Disposal
This property is served by Port Townsend or Port Ludlow sewer system? YES
NO
If not served by sewer identified above, identify type of septic system below:
Type of Sewage System Serving Property:
Septic
Septic Permit #:
Community Septic Name of System:
Case #:
Are other residences connected to the septic system?
Additions or repairs to sewage system:
Is it a complete or partial system installation: Complete Partial
Has a reserve drainfield been designated? Yes No
Date of Last Operations & Maintenance check: Attach last report to application
Describe or attach any drainfield easements, covenants or notices on title, which may impact the property:
701-091-004
The closest address is 1733 Dabob Post Office Rd. From 101N, right on
Center Road, Right on Dabob Road, and then a sharp right onto Dabob Post Office Road. Follow the road for 1.8 miles.
Dabob Post Office Road, although access to the site is by boat.
Shellfish aquaculture
Continuation of operation of a Floating Upwelling System (FLUPSY) used to grow
shellfish seed that is grown on Rock Point Oyster's existing shellfish farms, including its adjacent farm in Tarboo Bay
4
4 N/A
N/A
N/A
Dec 05 2023
Log Item 2
Page 1 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 2 of 112
506285501.7
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
David Steele
May 2023
Log Item 2
Page 3 of 112
506285501.7
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
David Steele 1733 Dabob Post Office Road Quilcene, WA 98765
Authored by:
Kelly McDonald, Audrey Michniak, and Chris Cziesla Confluence Environmental Company
May 2023
This report should be cited as: Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2023. Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY Biological Assessment. Prepared for Rock Point Oyster, Quilcene, Washington, by Confluence, Seattle, Washington.
Log Item 2
Page 4 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Federal Nexus .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project and Action Areas .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Project Area .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Action Area ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT................................................................................ 1
3.0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures ............................................................................ 4
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.1 Water/Sediment Quality ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.2 Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Anadromous Fish ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.3.2 Forage Fish ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.3.3 Birds .......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Shorelines and Riparian Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 10
4.5 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development ..................................................................... 10
4.6 ESA-Listed Species Habitat .................................................................................................................... 10
5.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Sediment Quality .................................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 12
5.4 Prey Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 12
5.5 Migration Corridor ................................................................................................................................... 13
5.6 Summary of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................. 15
6.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................. 16
6.1 Federally Listed Species......................................................................................................................... 16
6.1.1 Puget Sound/Coastal Bull Trout, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal summer-run
chum, and Puget Sound Steelhead ........................................................................................ 17
6.1.2 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Rockfish ..................................................................................... 17
6.1.3 Marbled Murrelet ..................................................................................................................... 17
6.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species ........................................................................................... 18
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Log Item 2
Page 5 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TABLES Table 1. Federally listed species considered within the action area .............................................................................. 1
Table 2. Suitable habitat within the action area potentially used by ESA-listed species ............................................... 10
Table 3. Summary of Potential Direct Effects to Parameters ....................................................................................... 15
Table 4. Effects determinations for ESA-listed species ................................................................................................ 16
Table 5. Determination of effect to critical habitat ........................................................................................................ 18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Action Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDICES Appendix A Species Lists
Appendix B Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Log Item 2
Page 6 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Rock Point Oyster Company, Inc. (Rock Point Oyster) operates a commercial shellfish
aquaculture farm that grows and harvests Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), Kumamoto oysters
(C. sikamea) and Manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum) on 220 acres of tidelands located within
the northern portion of Tarboo Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Rock Point Oyster seeks
approval for an existing Floating Upweller System (FLUPSY) originally referenced as a nursery
float (approved permit NWS-2007-01150-AQ) within Tarboo Bay, Washington (the Project)
(Figure 1).
1.1 Federal Nexus
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the
Services to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or their designated critical
habitat. The federal action for the Project is the requirement of a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps is the
lead federal agency for this consultation.
The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to evaluate the Project to determine how it
may affect any threatened or endangered species listed under the ESA or their designated
critical habitat that may occur within the action area, as defined for this BA (see Section 1.2
below). This document synthesizes available information regarding habitat and species
occurrence in the action area and evaluates the effects that the Project might have had or is
currently having on ESA-listed species and their critical habitat. Additionally, an assessment of
the Project’s effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and administered by National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), is provided in this document.
1.2 Project Overview
The FLUPSY was constructed in 2014 and originally located in Blaine Harbor in Whatcom
County, located over 130 miles from Tarboo Bay, for the first 2 years. Blaine Harbor proved to
be operationally and logistically difficult given its significant distance from Rock Point Oyster’s
facilities. The FLUPSY was moved to Tarboo Bay and rebuilt in 2016 to be proximate to Rock
Point Oyster’s operations. Rock Point Oyster’s upland facilities adjacent to Tarboo Bay include a
remote setting facility and upwellers to set single oyster seed and grow it to a size ready for
subsequent growth in the FLUPSY.
Log Item 2
Page 7 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 2
1.3 Project and Action Areas
1.3.1 Project Area
The project area is comprised of approximately 600 square feet (ft2) of subtidal area located
directly northeast of Tarboo Spit (Figure 1). This location is within Rock Point Oyster’s Tarboo
Bay Farm and is adjacent to Rock Point Oyster’s existing pier and shellfish work floats.
Log Item 2
Page 8 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 3
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Log Item 2
Page 9 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 4
1.3.2 Action Area
The action area for ESA analysis is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by
the proposed action and not merely the immediate area directly adjacent to the action” (50 CFR
402.02). The action area includes the project site and all surrounding areas where project
activities could potentially affect the environment. The extent of the action area encompasses
direct and indirect effects, as well as any effects of interrelated or interdependent actions.
The action area consists of distinct project components and the maximum extent of potential
effects associated with each component. As the Project involves no construction-related noise,
the action area includes only the immediate area where the FLUPSY and associated power cable
are located. Therefore, the action area for the Project is defined as the 600 ft2 of subtidal area that
is the direct footprint of the FLUPSY plus the approximately 300 feet corridor of the power cable
(Figure 2). The detailed analysis of the project effects and spatial extents is included in Section 5.
Log Item 2
Page 10 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 1
Figure 2. Action Area
Note: Features highlighted in red are part of the action area.
Log Item 2
Page 11 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 1
2.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
This BA assesses the Project effects on listed species and designated critical habitat in the action
area, and documents appropriate minimization and/or conservation measures appropriate for
the continuation of the FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay. To determine if listed species, or their critical
habitat, are present near the Project, Confluence consulted the threatened and endangered
species lists prepared by the NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS;
collectively referred to as “the Services”) (NMFS 2023, USFWS 2023).
Based on the compiled information from the Services (Appendix A), the ESA-listed species that
may occur in the action area are provided in Table 1 and are addressed in this BA. Potential
effects to designated critical habitat physical and biological features (PBFs) are also analyzed in
this document.
Table 1. Federally listed species considered within the action area
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat
Bull trout (PS/Coastal DPS) Salvelinus confluentus T Yes*
Steelhead trout (PS DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss T Yes*
Chinook salmon (PS ESU) O. tshawytscha T Yes
Chum salmon (Hood Canal Summer ESU) O. keta T Yes
Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis E Yes*
Yelloweye rockfish S. ruberrimus T Yes*
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus T Yes*
DPS – Distinct population segment; ESU – Evolutionarily Significant Unit; PS – Puget Sound, T – Threatened; E – Endangered; C - Candidate * Critical habitat has been identified but does not occur within the action area.
Several West Coast ESA-listed species may occur in the general vicinity of the action area but
are not known to occur in Tarboo Bay or intertidal habitats and so were not included in this
analysis: sockeye salmon (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), green sturgeon (Acipenser
medirostris), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), Oregon
silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta), Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori),
leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), green turtle
(Chelonia mydas), black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), white abalone (H. sorenseni), Southern
Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (B. physalus),
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Northern Pacific
right whale (Eubalaena japonica), sei whale (B. borealis borealis), sperm whale (Physeter
microcephalus), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
Log Item 2
Page 12 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 2
jubatus). Due to the lack of documented occurrence in the Project and action areas, lack of
suitable habitat in the action area, and lack of potential effect, the Project action would have had
no effect on these species, and they are not discussed further in this document.
The only critical habitat designated for ESA-listed species that occurs within the action area is
for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (70 FR 52629).
Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes approximately 2,312 miles of marine
nearshore habitat in Puget Sound. Critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon is
a subset of that nearshore habitat, occurring within Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Log Item 2
Page 13 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 3
3.0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the details of the Project, including continued operations and
maintenance, and associated avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures used during
typical operations. Note that, even though this FLUPSY was not included in the Programmatic
Consultation on Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters (Corps 2015;
USFWS 2016; NMFS 2016), Rock Point Oyster follows the same conservation measures
identified in the Programmatic Consultation.
3.1 Operations and Maintenance
The FLUPSY has been operational since 2014 and located within the project area since 2016;
thus, no additional construction is needed. Continued operations and maintenance of the
FLUPSY involve no change to existing conditions.
A FLUPSY is a rectangular raft-like structure designed to upwell nutrient-rich water through
shellfish seed bins in order to provide a consistent source of nutrients to growing shellfish while
protecting seed from predation. Aluminum scaffolding is arranged to support a central housing
containing fiberglass wells, or silos. The bottom of each well is composed of a mesh screen.
Submerged troughs house a small electric pump. An electric pump with an enclosed stainless
steel screen intake (per NMFS fish screening standards) pulls water out of the adjacent
waterbody, creating a slow, upward flow of fresh seawater. Water exits each bin via a central
channel and is directed back into the waterbody through the pump. These components are
secured to floats for buoyancy, ultimately suspending the top of the silos above the water
surface while partially submerging the seed in mesh screen silos to allow water to flow through
the bins.
Floatation for the Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY is provided by rotomolded polyethylene. The
FLUPSY frame measures 9.5 feet by 17.67 feet and the FLUPSY overall measures 18 feet by 33
feet (594 square feet). The draft of the FLUPSY is 4 feet. Water flow in the center channel of the
FLUPSY is maintained by a ¾-horsepower variable speed electric ice-eater pump. Electric
power is supplied from shore via cable along the substrate. The cable is attached to a water pipe
that runs from Rock Point Oyster’s shore-side saltwater pump. It runs along the substrate
underwater, with the last 30 feet connected with a flexible pipe. The FLUPSY has 12 silos each
measuring 31 inches by 31 inches by 40 inches with stainless steel screen along the bottom. The
deck is all plastic grating supported by an aluminum framework. The FLUPSY is anchored in a
subtidal area (approximately 5 acres in size) that is at least 8 feet to 10 feet deep at low tide.
Helical, screw anchors or standard claw anchors are used at each of the four corners to hold the
FLUPSY in place.
Seed for the FLUPSY comes from the Rock Point Oyster remote setting upland facility adjacent
to the FLUPSY site. Pacific oyster and Kumamoto oyster larvae are typically purchased from
Log Item 2
Page 14 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 4
Hawaiian Shellfish or Whiskey Creek hatcheries. Shellfish are filter feeding organisms that
consume naturally occurring microalgae, bacteria, and organic debris directly from the water
that is circulated through the FLUPSY. No supplemental feeding with cultured algae or other
additives is needed. Seed from the FLUPSY is used at all of Rock Point Oyster’s farms
(including the adjacent Tarboo Bay farm and farms near Quilcene).
Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season, and
every other week during colder water seasons. The silos are lifted with a chain lift mounted on
an A-frame and washed with a hose supplied with saltwater pumped from alongside the
FLUPSY. During the growing season, the seed is emptied into small tubs and brought to shore
where it is sorted with a vibratory sifter, and then returned to the FLUPSY for continued grow-
out.
3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
The Project complies with appropriate conservation and minimization measures for the
activities outlined above. Applicable measures included in the Programmatic Consultation on
Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters (Corps 2015; USFWS 2016; NMFS
2016) are included here and followed by Rock Point Oyster to avoid and/or minimize
environmental impacts.
Prior to operation, the shellfish operator will participate in a training course to recognize
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) spawn. The training course is conducted by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Pacific Coast Shellfish
Growers Association (PCSGA).
For boats and other gas-powered vehicles or power equipment that cannot be fueled in a
staging area 150 feet away from a waterbody or at a fuel dock, fuels shall be transferred
in Environmental Protection Agency-compliant portable fuel containers 5 gallons or
smaller at a time during refilling. A polypropylene pad or other appropriate spill
protection and a funnel or spill-proof spout shall be used. A spill kit shall be available
and used in the event of a spill. All spills shall be reported to the Washington
Emergency Management Office at (800) 258-5990. All waste oil or other clean-up
materials contaminated with petroleum products shall be properly disposed of off-site.
All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any stream, waterbody, or wetland shall be
inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected
shall be repaired in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes operation and
documented in a record that is available for review on request by the Corps, NMFS, and
USFWS.
Log Item 2
Page 15 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 5
Direct or indirect contact of toxic compounds, including creosote, wood preservatives,
paint, etc., with the marine environment shall be prevented. This does not apply to
boats.
Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, asphalt, or tires) will not be discharged or used
as any part of the FLUPSY.
All shellfish gear (e.g., socks, bags, racks, marker stakes, rebar, nets, and tubes) that is
not immediately needed, or is not firmly secured to the substrate, will be moved to a
storage area landward of mean higher high water prior to the next high tide. Gear that is
firmly secured to the substrate may remain on the tidelands for a consecutive period of
time up to 7 days. Note: This is not meant to apply to the wet storage of harvested
shellfish.
Tires shall not be used as part of above and below structures or where tires could
potentially come in contact with the water (e.g., floatation, fenders, hinges). Tires
currently being used for floatation shall be replaced with inert or encapsulated
materials, such as plastic or encased foam, during maintenance or repair of the structure.
Any foam material (whether used for floatation or for any other purpose) must be
encapsulated within a shell that prevents breakup or loss of foam material into the water
and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or abrasion. Un-
encapsulated foam material used for current, on-going activities shall be removed or
replaced.
At least once every three months, beaches in the project vicinity shall be patrolled by
crews who shall retrieve debris (e.g., anti- predator nets, bags, stakes, disks, tubes) that
escapes from the project area. Within the project vicinity, locations shall be identified
where debris tends to accumulate due to wave, current, or wind action. After weather
events these locations shall be patrolled by crews who shall remove and dispose of
shellfish-related debris appropriately. A record shall be maintained with the following
information and the record shall be made available upon request to the Corps, NMFS,
and USFWS: date of patrol, location of areas patrolled, description of the type and
amount of retrieved debris, other pertinent information.
When performing other activities on-site, the grower shall routinely inspect for and
document any fish or wildlife found entrapped or entangled in nets or other shellfish
equipment, stranded behind berms or dikes, or stranded within pools impounded by or
around shellfish culturing equipment. In the event that fish, birds, or mammals are
found entangled or stranded, the grower shall: 1) provide immediate notice (within 24
hours) to WDFW (all species), USFWS/NMFS (all species) or Marine Mammal Stranding
Log Item 2
Page 16 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 6
Network (marine mammals), 2) attempt to release the individual(s) without harm, and
3) provide a written and photographic record of the event, including dates, species
identification, number of individuals, and final disposition, to the Corps and Services.
Contact USFWS Law Enforcement Office at (425) 883-8122 or the Washington USFWS
Office at (360) 753- 9440 with any questions about the preservation of specimens.
The FLUPSY will be sited and configured to minimize effects on marine mammals.
During maintenance and harvest operations, due care will be taken to avoid disturbance
of marine mammals, particularly seals and sea lions, in compliance with the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
All pump intakes (e.g., for washing down gear) that use seawater shall be screened in
accordance with NMFS and WDFW criteria.
Vessels shall not ground or anchor in native eelgrass (Zostera marina) or kelp
(rooted/attached brown algae in the order Laminariales) and paths through native
eelgrass or kelp shall not be established. If there is no other access to the site or the
special condition cannot be met due to human safety considerations, a site-specific plan
shall be developed describing specific measures and/or best management practices that
will be undertaken to minimize negative effects to eelgrass and kelp from vessel
operation and accessing the shellfish areas. The access plan shall include the following
components: (a) frequency of access at each location, (b) use of only the minimum
number of boats and/or crew members needed to conduct the work and a description of
the minimum number of boats and crewmembers needed at each visit, and (c)
consistency in anchoring/grounding in the same location and/or walking on the same
path to restrict eelgrass disturbance to a very small footprint.
Log Item 2
Page 17 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 7
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section summarizes the current conditions of the ecosystem and ESA-listed species habitat
in the action area resulting from past and present effects of all federal, state, or private actions
and other human activities; anticipated effects of all proposed federal projects in the action area
that have already undergone ESA consultation; and effects of state or private actions that are
concurrent with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The environmental baseline is
described in terms of the PBFs for critical habitat to support listed species that occur in the
action area.
4.1 Water/Sediment Quality
Tarboo Bay and one unnamed creek that flows into the bay have been included on the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 303(d) list based on bacterial fecal coliform
levels exceeding the established threshold in samples collected in 2017 (Ecology 2023).
However, Tarboo Bay is considered an “approved” shellfish growing area by the Washington
Department of Health (WDOH), suggesting that more recent sampling has shown acceptable
levels and WDOH has approved Rock Point Oyster’s growing area for shellfish cultivation and
harvesting. There are no listings for sediment within Tarboo Bay. Substrate in Tarboo Bay varies
from mud, sand, and gravel in areas with swift current (Steele, pers. comm., 2023). Substrate
within the action area consists primarily of muddy sand.
4.2 Aquatic Vegetation
There is no native eelgrass present within the action area or within 500 feet of the FLUPSY.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has documented eelgrass (a mix of Zostera
marina and Zostera japonica) within Dabob Bay, but none has been documented on the Rock
Point Oyster Tarboo Bay Farm (DNR 2023a). Kelp has not been identified in Tarboo Bay by
either Ecology (2023b) or the grower (Steele, pers. comm., 2023). The FLUPSY is located in a
subtidal location (i.e., -8 to -10 feet mean lower low water [MLLW]) that is not known to
support a sustained population of kelp, eelgrass, or other macroalgae (DNR 2023b).
4.3 Fish and Wildlife
The Project area is currently used for growing and harvesting Manila clams, and Pacific and
Kumamoto oysters. Other fish and wildlife that occur in the vicinity of the Project are discussed
in the following section.
4.3.1 Anadromous Fish
Salmonid species listed under the ESA that may occur within the action area and Tarboo Bay
include Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU, Puget Sound
steelhead DPS, and the Coastal-Puget Sound population of bull trout. All four of these ESA-
listed salmonid species may occur within Tarboo Bay for rearing, foraging, and/or migration.
Log Item 2
Page 18 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 8
Additional salmonid species that are known to occur within Tarboo Bay include coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (O. clarkii). Both wild and hatchery-raised chum
salmon and coho salmon may be present in the vicinity of the Project. Quilcene National Fish
Hatchery rears and releases coho salmon and various hatcheries within Hood Canal raise chum
salmon. Tarboo Creek, which enters Tarboo Bay at the head of the bay, is identified by WDFW
as a spawning stream for fall spawning Chinook salmon, coho salmon, fall spawning chum
salmon, and winter spawning steelhead (WDFW 2023a). Hood Canal summer-run chum
salmon have not been documented within Tarboo Creek but are known to spawn in both Big
Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers that empty into the adjacent Quilcene Bay. Therefore, chum
salmon may occur in Tarboo Bay as juveniles for rearing and foraging. Bull trout are known to
spawn in the Skokomish River Basin (approximately 40 miles south of Tarboo Bay) and are
present within Hood Canal (USFWS 2004). There is potential for bull trout to utilize Tarboo Bay
for foraging.
Salmonid populations within the vicinity of Tarboo Bay (including those in Dabob and Quilcene
bays) have had variable returns over the last two decades. Coho salmon populations specifically
in this area have been of concern in recent years. Based on surveys of live adults and redds
within both Tarboo Creek and Little Quilcene River (which empties into Quilcene Bay), coho
salmon have had low returns since approximately 2013 (WDFW 2023b). This past spawning
year (2022) was noted as one of the worst returns for coho salmon, likely due to low flows late
into the fall months (Bahls, pers. comm. 2023). Chum salmon have been more stable in recent
years but have shown similar variability. Data from the Little Quilcene River was similar to that
for Tarboo Creek. Given that populations in both waterbodies have exhibited consistent trends,
it is likely that larger-scale drivers (e.g., oceanic conditions, harvesting) are influencing the
chum salmon stocks, rather than localized or watershed-scale impacts.
4.3.2 Rockfish
Adult rockfish habitat for the two ESA-listed species – bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish –
primarily includes deepwater (>151 feet) rocky substrates and/or shallower eelgrass and kelp
beds (BRT 2009). Both species have been observed within shallower depths and non-rocky
substrates such as sand, mud, and other unconsolidated sediments (Miller and Borton 1980),
although juvenile bocaccio are the main species recognized as utilizing nearshore habitat (Love
et al. 1991). Even then, use of the nearshore is primarily in areas with rock or cobble
composition and/or in the presence of kelp species (Love et al. 1991). Rockfish larvae are pelagic
and are found in Puget Sound from August through October (Greene and Godersky 2012).
Critical habitat for rockfish includes all areas identified by NMFS as having PBFs essential to the
conservation of the listed species (79 FR 68041; Figure 33). Juvenile settlement habitats located
in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock, and/or cobble compositions that also
support kelp (families Chordaceae, Alariaceae, Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) are
essential for conservation because these features provide rockfish forage opportunities and
Log Item 2
Page 19 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 9
refuge from predators, and enable behavioral and physiological changes needed for juveniles to
occupy deeper adult habitats. The PBFs essential to the survival of rockfish in nearshore areas
include: (1) water quality and sufficient levels of DO to support growth, survival, reproduction,
and feeding opportunities; (2) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and (3) areas free of
obstruction for fish passage. Critical habitat for rockfish does not overlap with the Project area.
4.3.3 Forage Fish
Forage fish are an important dietary resource for higher trophic-level fish and marine
mammals. The three forage fish species assessed in this document for potential Project-related
effects include surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), Pacific sand lance, (Ammodytes hexapterus) and
Pacific herring. These three species make up the majority of the forage fish prey base in Puget
Sound (Bargmann 1998, Penttila 2007). Surf smelt and Pacific sand lance spawn in sand to pea-
gravel-sized sediments, at elevations starting at +5 feet MLLW and up to mean higher high
water. Pacific herring typically spawn on eelgrass or other submerged vegetation, but may use
other structures within the nearshore environment (e.g., aquaculture gear). Forage fish
generally spawn during the winter months, although surf smelt may have longer potential
spawning seasons.
Although extensive spawning surveys have been conducted by WDFW (2023c), forage fish
spawning has not been documented in the action area. The nearest documented forage fish
spawning was an occurrence of surf smelt spawning approximately 0.39 miles and sand lance
spawning approximately 0.33 miles both occurrences located to the southwest in a channel of
the upper portion of Tarboo Bay. The most recent survey was conducted in 2002. Pacific herring
spawning has been documented within 0.61 miles southwest of the Project area in the northern
portion of Dabob Bay before entering the Rock Point Oyster farm area (WDFW 2023c).
Therefore, there are no forage fish spawning areas within the action area.
4.3.4 Birds
The only bird species listed on the ESA that may occur within the action area and Tarboo Bay is
the marbled murrelet.
Marbled murrelets occur from Alaska to California and forage in coastal waters throughout
their range. Marbled murrelets forage primarily in nearshore subtidal and pelagic waters,
usually within 1.2 miles of shore. The closest at-sea density of marbled murrelets to the action
area was identified in Dabob Bay at a density of about 3 to 5 birds/sq. km (Miller et al. 2012).
Critical habitat for marbled murrelets includes only nesting locations (76 FR 61599). Such forests
are typically coniferous forests in contiguous stands with large areas of old-growth trees. No
such nesting occurs within the vicinity of the action area. The closest identified critical habitat
Log Item 2
Page 20 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 10
for marbled murrelets is approximately 7 miles west of Tarboo Bay within forested areas
adjacent to Olympic National Park.
4.4 Shorelines and Riparian Vegetation
The Project area is overwater and in a subtidal area. Upland vegetation adjacent to the tidelands
is primarily Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and red alder (Thuja plicata). Ecology (2023b)
identifies the entire Tarboo Bay area as a salt marsh bed, although the actual plants are along
the nearshore on several spits. This is consistent with the data from USFWS (2023b) where the
emergent species are located along the shoreline and the nearshore surrounding the spit. The
FLUPSY avoids saltmarsh areas.
4.5 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development
The area surrounding Rock Point Oyster’s Tarboo Bay FLUPSY is relatively undeveloped. The
nearest town (Quilcene, WA; 2020 population of approximately 600) is about 4 miles west of
Tarboo Bay. The upland area immediately proximate to the FLUPSY is occupied by Rock Point
Oyster’s facilities, including an office building, shop buildings, greenhouses, an upwelling
building, a wet storage building and tanks, and two homes. All buildings are dedicated to its
shellfish farm. There are also several other residential homes along Tarboo and Dabob bays.
4.6 ESA-Listed Species Habitat
This section summarizes the ESA-listed species that may be present in the action area. Table 2
provides a summary of the potential use of the action area for ESA-listed species.
Table 2. Suitable habitat within the action area potentially used by ESA-listed species
Species Foraging Spawning/ Nesting Migration Route Critical Habitat
Bull trout X N/A X N/A
Steelhead trout X N/A X N/A
Chinook salmon X N/A X X
Chum salmon X N/A X X
Bocaccio X N/A N/A N/A
Yelloweye rockfish X N/A N/A N/A
Marbled murrelet X N/A N/A N/A
Note: An “X” indicates that this habitat requirement is within the action area. N/A = not applicable
Log Item 2
Page 21 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 11
5.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS
This section addresses the potential mechanisms of effect from the Project to ESA-listed
individuals, and/or the environmental attributes and habitat qualities important to listed
species that may be present in the action area. Appendix B describes designated Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) for federally managed commercial fish species, potential Project effects to EFH,
and conservation measures.
Presented below are discussions of the direct and indirect effects of Project activities. Potential
effects discussed include a discussion of the following parameters:
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Aquatic Vegetation
Prey Resources
Migration Corridor
Potential effects are discussed in detail below with an emphasis on salmonids. ESA-listed
salmonids are the most likely species to be exposed to the effects of the Project. Note that the
existing baseline includes the presence of the FLUPSY because this is a continuation of use for a
structure that has been present in Tarboo Bay since 2016.
5.1 Water Quality
Impacts to water quality associated with continued operation of the FLUPSY would be limited
to minor turbidity increases during weekly washing of the bins and rafts. The amount of
material would not be significant relative to surrounding water quality conditions and would
not be a change from existing baseline conditions.
The presence of shellfish can result in a reduction in turbidity due to removal of phytoplankton
and particulate organic matter through filtration (Peterson and Heck 2001, Newell and Koch
2004, Cranford et al. 2011), although the amount of benefit provided to water quality depends
on the life stage, density, water circulation, and other factors. By consuming phytoplankton and
particulate organic matter, shellfish increase the amount of light reaching the sediment surface
that is available for photosynthesis (Dame et al. 1984, Koch and Beer 1996, Newell 2004, Newell
and Koch 2004). This benefit is likely negligible given the life stages present in the FLUPSY.
Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures (Section 3.2) to be followed by the
operator that would be protective for water quality conditions include: no unsuitable material
discharged into the water, no toxic compounds used, and use of spill prevention plans to ensure
that no petroleum products are released into the water.
In summary, FLUPSY maintenance activities have the potential to result in localized and
short-term increases in suspended sediment or turbidity. The presence of the oysters in the
Log Item 2
Page 22 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 12
FLUPSY also may help to reduce suspended sediment locally through filter feeding, however
this effect is likely negligible due to the size and life stage of the oysters. Overall, effects to water
quality are expected to be minor, temporary, and localized. No long-term adverse effects to
water quality are anticipated from the Project.
5.2 Sediment Quality
Bivalves excrete excess food and metabolic waste as pseudofeces, which may sink more rapidly
to the substrate than phytoplankton. In areas with extremely high density of bivalves or little
tidal flushing, pseudofeces may impact chemical processes in the substrate. Meseck et al. (2012)
studied water and sediment chemistry in the vicinity of a FLUPSY stocked with oysters.
Measurements near the FLUPSY were compared to estuarine transects throughout the
embayment to detect changes in total ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and oxygen that might be
caused by the FLUPSY. Sediment data showed no difference in fluxes of oxygen, hydrogen
sulfide, or total ammonia between the FLUPSY and elsewhere in the embayment.
Biological and sediment conditions under the FLUPSY have not changed since the structure was
installed in 2016 (Steele, pers. comm., 2023). Based on the existing research and observations by
Rock Point Oyster, the Project is not currently affecting sediment quality in the action area, nor
would it be expected to do so in the future.
5.3 Aquatic Vegetation
Due to the lack of eelgrass and kelp within the action area, no adverse impacts to aquatic
vegetation are occurring from the existing FLUPSY and no impacts are anticipated in the future.
The existing FLUPSY has not affected the presence of other macroalgae within the action area.
The presence of the FLUPSY does not impede the colonization or growth of aquatic vegetation.
It is located above the sediment surface by at least 4 feet. Because the structure is anchored to
the bottom and moves with the tides, there is no consistent shading pattern that would impact
aquatic vegetation. Overall, the existing FLUPSY avoids sensitive aquatic vegetation like
eelgrass and kelp and does not impact other macroalgae species that may colonize the bottom
substrate or the FLUPSY itself.
5.4 Prey Resources
The environmental response of benthic invertebrates to a FLUPSY depends on numerous factors
such as water depth, local currents (direction and speed), sediment grain size, and dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the benthic boundary layer. Multiple studies have indicated neutral or
positive effects to the benthic invertebrate community from raft culture. The complex surface
area provided by raft structures offers habitat for the colonization of organisms (biofouling) that
would be considered prey for fish (Tenore and Gonzalez 1976). Quarterly monitoring in 2013
and 2014 of the benthos at a floating geoduck nursery in southern Spencer Cove indicated no
measurable changes in sediment characteristics or benthic invertebrate community composition
Log Item 2
Page 23 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 13
(Selleck and Barrett 2013, 2014). Studies at existing mussel farm rafts at Deepwater Point and
Gallagher Cove during different seasons reported that the benthic invertebrate community was
likely enhanced by the residual organic material present in the particulate waste released from
overlying mussels (Brooks 2005). Finally, CRMC (2008) reviewed the changes associated with
suspended culture operations in Rhode Island, and found that culture in high current waters
does not disrupt the nutrient balance that would, in turn, result in changes to the benthic
invertebrate community.
The FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay is located in an area with high local currents and circulation.
Therefore, it is unlikely that psuedofeces or other organic material from the oysters in the
FLUPSY result in changes to the nutrient balance. More importantly, the FLUPSY likely has an
even lower potential influence on the benthic community as compared to mussel rafts because
they hold shellfish in early life stages and include bins with mesh designed to contain small
shellfish seed that will limit the potential for sedimentation. In summary, since no disruption of
the benthic environment or nutrient balance is likely occurring, it is unlikely that the existing
FLUPSY is altering the benthic resources for fish and wildlife in Tarboo Bay.
Another important prey resource, especially for marbled murrelet, is forage fish. Given the
subtidal location (the FLUPSY is anchored at approximately -8 feet MLLW), the project is not
expected to impact spawning habitat of surf smelt or sand lance. It is also notable that
documented surf smelt and sand lance spawning areas are well outside of the action area
(>0.3 miles to the southwest; WDFW 2023c). Herring spawn on submerged aquatic vegetation as
well as any available hard substrates such as bedrock, cobble, or raft and anchor assemblies.
The FLUPSY structure does not impact substrate or macroalgae on the bottom and may provide
additional structure for herring to spawn on. Similar to surf smelt and sand lance, documented
herring spawning locations are well outside of the action area (>0.6 miles southwest in Dabob
Bay where there are eelgrass beds (WDFW 2023c).
The continued presence of the FLUPSY and Project operations are not expected to affect forage
fish spawning habitat. Therefore, effects to marbled murrelet prey resources are considered to
be negligible. Overall, effects to prey resources within Tarboo Bay from the Project are
considered to be highly localized and minor.
5.5 Migration Corridor
Migrating fish, particularly juvenile salmonids, often travel in the shallow nearshore zone
(Fresh 2006). Overwater structures in the nearshore potentially affect migrating fish, depending
on the size and type of structure. A recent review of the effects of small overwater structures
within Puget Sound summarized fish responses to nearshore overwater structure (Lambert et
al. 2023). Based on literature assessing effects of larger structures like ferry terminals and one
study that monitored biological responses following the removal of a small overwater structure
(e.g., Toft et al. 2013), Lambert et al. (2023) acknowledged that juvenile salmonids likely avoid
Log Item 2
Page 24 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 14
areas directly beneath overwater structures and within the structure’s shadow. However, this is
dependent on the tide height, light conditions, and position in the nearshore area. Documented
impacts to migratory fish within intertidal areas are associated with structures that extend out
from upland into intertidal areas – such as docks and piers (Ward et al. 1994, Burdick and Short
1999). Within Tarboo Bay, outmigrating juvenile salmonids may avoid the direct footprint of the
FLUPSY but would not be excluded from other habitat in Tarboo Bay. Additionally, juvenile
salmonids are more likely to occur closer to the shoreline during outmigration. Therefore, the
FLUPSY is unlikely to significantly affect or impede juvenile salmonid migration. Regarding
coho salmon migration from Tarboo Creek, coho salmon fry typically rear in their natal stream
for a year before out-migrating. Therefore, outbound juveniles would be larger in size and
would not spend a significant amount of time within the estuarine environment where the
FLUPSY is located. Given the FLUPSY’s location away from shore, it is unlikely to act as a
barrier for out-migrating juvenile coho salmon.
Another concern with overwater structure is increased predation. A review conducted by
Simenstad et al. (1999) found no studies that attributed predation mortality to overwater
structures. Many authors have reported that predation associated with overwater structures
does not add significantly to juvenile salmonid mortality. For example, Cardwell and Fresh
(1979) analyzed the stomach contents of maturing Chinook salmon, copper rockfish (Sebastes
caurinus), and staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and found that only staghorn sculpin
stomachs contained juvenile salmonids, and the presence of juvenile salmonids in the stomach
contents did not change in relation to added structure. Ratté and Salo (1985) provided no
indication that predatory fish aggregated under piers, and that predators were actually less
abundant in shaded habitat. Finally, Salo et al. (1980) found that juvenile salmon composed less
than 4 percent of piscivorous fish diet in association with pier habitat.
The Project is not likely affecting adult salmonids. Returning salmonids heading to Tarboo
Creek may remain briefly within Tarboo Bay but are not likely to be impeded by the presence of
the FLUPSY. Water levels in the creek when fish are returning are a higher limiting factor in
returns compared to the presence of the FLUPSY. It is unlikely the small footprint of the
FLUPSY affects fish transiting through the bay.
Overall, effects to fish migration are not expected to be occurring from the existing FLUPSY or
continued operation of the Project. The FLUPSY does not extend from the shoreline and would
not result in consistent shading underneath. There is no evidence to support significant changes
in fish behavior resulting from the presence of the FLUPSYs. There is also no indication that
overwater structure results in increased potential for predation or impediments to adult access
to spawning areas. Therefore, the effect to the fish migration corridor from the FLUPSY is
considered to be minor.
Log Item 2
Page 25 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 15
5.6 Summary of Potential Effects
The presence and operation of the FLUPSY can result in minor, short-term, localized impacts.
No effect discussed above would result in impacts to ESA-listed individuals, and/or the
environmental attributes and habitat qualities important to listed species that may be present in
the action area. Table 3 provides a summary of potential direct effects for each parameter.
Table 3. Summary of Potential Direct Effects to Parameters
Parameter Potential Effect Duration Significance
Water Quality
Filtration: increase water clarity by reducing or controlling phytoplankton blooms and nutrients
Filtration: ongoing Filtration: negligible
Maintenance: increase suspended sediments and nutrients
Maintenance: weekly but in small volumes Maintenance: minor
Sediment Quality
Sediment Quality: introduction of shellfish feces and pseudofeces
Sediment Quality: ongoing Sediment Quality: negligible
Aquatic Vegetation
Eelgrass and Attached Kelp: avoided Eelgrass and Attached Kelp: N/A Eelgrass and Attached Kelp: N/A
Macroalgae: no shading or benthic impacts that would restrict macroalgae colonization or growth
Macroalgae: N/A Macroalgae: N/A
Prey Resources
Habitat: attachment points for fouling organisms Habitat: ongoing Habitat: potentially beneficial (i.e., source of prey)
Surf Smelt and Sand Lance: N/A Surf Smelt and Sand Lance: N/A Surf Smelt and Sand Lance: N/A
Pacific Herring: the FLUPSY structure avoids documented spawning areas and provides three-dimensional structure for spawning
Pacific Herring: ongoing Pacific Herring: potentially beneficial
Migration Corridor
Overwater Structure: existing FLUPSY includes overwater structure, but does not extend from the shoreline or block the migration corridor
Overwater Structure: Ongoing Overwater Structure: minor
Log Item 2
Page 26 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 16
6.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION
The following is a determination of effect for each species listed in Table 1. The determination is
based on the information presented in the effects analysis.
6.1 Federally Listed Species
The Project does not currently and will not affect the future viability, persistence, or distribution
of ESA-listed species potentially present in the Project or action areas. Effects of the action are
unlikely to injure or kill individual listed species, and are therefore unlikely to affect the
continuing status of the populations. There may be temporary avoidance during FLUPSY
operations, but there are no anticipated reductions in numbers, reproduction ability, or
distribution of the species. Therefore, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect ESA-listed species (Table 4).
Table 4. Effects determinations for ESA-listed species
Species Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Fish
Bull trout May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or overwintering habitat is not likely to be affected by the Project.
There is likely short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Chinook salmon May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or rearing habitat is not likely to be affected by the Project.
There may be some short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Chum salmon May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or rearing habitat would not be affected by the action.
There may be some short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Steelhead May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or rearing habitat would not be affected by the action.
There may be some short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Bocaccio rockfish May affect, not likely to adversely affect Not likely to occur in Tarboo Bay.
More typical of deepwater assemblage or nearshore habitat with eelgrass/kelp beds.
If present, there is likely short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
No changes to benthic invertebrate community (prey) or macroalgae (rearing habitat) that would affect the species.
Yelloweye rockfish May affect, not likely to adversely affect Not likely to occur in Tarboo Bay.
More typical of deepwater assemblage.
If present, there is likely short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
No changes to benthic invertebrate community (prey) or macroalgae (rearing habitat) that would affect the species.
Log Item 2
Page 27 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 17
Species Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Birds
Marbled murrelet May affect, not likely to adversely affect Uncommon within the action area.
Presence of FLUPSY or operations will not alter the effectiveness of foraging opportunities or potential forage available.
There is no nesting habitat within the action area.
6.1.1 Puget Sound/Coastal Bull Trout, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead
The Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Puget Sound/Coastal DPS of bull
trout, the Puget Sound ESU of Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and
the Puget Sound DPS of steelhead. The Project likely results in minor changes to the habitat and
species use of Tarboo Bay. The principal changes that potentially affect Puget Sound salmonid
use of Tarboo Bay include the presence of the FLUPSY (i.e., overwater cover), and minor effects
to water quality, migration and foraging habitat, and prey resources.
While Tarboo Bay is noted as potential foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for bull
trout and potential foraging or migration habitat for other Puget Sound salmonids, the Project
does not currently and is not expected to impact the future suitability of intertidal habitats for
these uses. Thus, effects to these Puget Sound salmonid populations are expected to be
insignificant and discountable. This is consistent with the determinations made by USFWS
(2016) for bull trout and NMFS (2016) for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-
run chum salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead.
6.1.2 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Rockfish
The Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish. The Project likely results in minor changes to habitat and
species use of Tarboo Bay. The principal changes that potentially affect rockfish use of Tarboo
Bay include the presence of the FLUPSY, and minor effects to water quality, migration
corridors, and prey resources.
Yelloweye rockfish primarily rely on deeper habitats than occur in the action area, so Project
activities are expected to have limited impacts on this species. Juvenile bocaccio are known to
use intertidal habitats, but changes to habitat within the action area are expected to be minor.
The impacts to Puget Sound rockfish are therefore expected to be insignificant and
discountable.
6.1.3 Marbled Murrelet
The Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets. The principal
potential effect of the Project on marbled murrelets is from changes to prey resources. As
Log Item 2
Page 28 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 18
described above, effects of the project are expected to be minor and unlikely to result in
meaningful changes to the availability or distribution of prey for marbled murrelet. This is
consistent with the determination by USFWS (2016) for marbled murrelet.
6.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species
This section provides a determination of effect for critical habitat (Table 5). The determination is
based on the information presented in the Effects Analysis (Section 5). The action area includes
designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run
chum salmon. There is designated critical habitat for bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish and Puget
Sound steelhead, but there is no designated critical habitat for these species in the action area.
Table 5. Determination of effect to critical habitat
Species PBF Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Chinook salmon, chum salmon
Nearshore marine & estuarine areas:
Forage
Free of obstruction
Natural cover
Salinity
Water quantity and quality
May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
No changes to forage for these species, and there is the potential that fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide an additional prey resource for salmonids.
No obstructions to migration would occur.
There may be some increase in available cover/refugia (e.g., anchor lines).
No changes to salinity would occur.
Only short-term changes in water quality would occur.
Log Item 2
Page 29 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 19
7.0 REFERENCES
Able, K.W., J.P. Manderson, and A.I. Studholme. 1998. The distribution of shallow water
juvenile fishes in an urban estuary: the effects of man-made structures in the Lower Hudson
River. Estuaries. 21: 731-44.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan - A plan for managing the forage fish
resources and fisheries of Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Olympia, Washington.
Bahls, P. 2023. Northwest Watershed Institute. Email to K. McDonald, Confluence
Environmental Company, January 5, 2023.
Borgmann, K.L. 2010. A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds. Audubon
California, Tiburon, California.
Borton, S. F., and B. S. Miller. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: maps and
data source sheets. Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of
Washington, Seattle WA 98195, Technical Report.
Brooks, K.M. 2005. Benthic Response at the Deepwater Point Mussel Farm in Totten Inlet, Puget
Sound, Washington State, U.S.A. Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Company, Inc., Shelton, WA
by Aquatic Environmental Sciences, Port Townsend, WA.
Cardwell, R. and K.L. Fresh. 1979. Predation upon juvenile salmon. Draft technical paper,
September 13, 1979. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington.
Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A Review of Human Disturbance Effects on Nesting
Colonial Waterbirds. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology. 22(1): 68-
79.
Cranford, P.J., J.E Ward, and S.E. Shumway. 2011. Bivalve filter feeding: Variability and limits
of the aquaculture biofilter. In: S.E. Shumway (ed). Shellfish Aquaculture and the
Environment. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council). 2008. Working Group on Aquaculture
Regulations. Report on the Deliberations of the Group and Suggestions to Guide Future
Development.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.crmc.state.ri.us/ContentPages/2448123522.p
df
Dame, R.F., R.G. Zingmark, and E. Haskin. 1984. Oyster reefs as processors of estuarine
materials. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 83:239-247.
Log Item 2
Page 30 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 20
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2023a. Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring
Data Viewer. Available at
https://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=83b8389234454abc87258
27b49272a31.
DNR. 2023b. Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas. Available at
https://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0ccc569e1cd4b5189b49
2c0ba0297c5.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2023. Washington State Water Quality
Atlas [online database]. Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/waterqualityatlas/wqa/map (accessed on January 12, 2023).
Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
Washington.
Koch, E.W., and S. Beer. 1996. Tides, light and the distribution of Zostera marina in Long Island
Sound, USA. Aquatic Botany. 53(1-2): 97-107.
Meseck, L., Y. Li, M. Dixon, K. Rivara, G. Wikfors, G. Luther III. 2012. Effects of a Commercial,
Suspended Eastern Oyster Nursery Upon Nutrient and Sediment Chemistry in a Temperate,
Coastal Embayment. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. Vol. 3: 65–79, 2012.
Miller, S.L., M.G. Raphael, G.A. Falxa, C. Strong, J. Baldwin, T. Bloxton, B.M. Galleher, M.
Lance, D. Lynch, S.F. Pearson, C.J. Ralph, and R.D. Young. 2012. Recent population decline
of the marbled murrelet in the Pacific Northwest. The Condor. 114(4): 771-781.
NAVSEA. 2003. Glacier Bay Watercraft Noise. Prepared by Naval Surface Warfare Center –
Caderock Division, Bremerton WA for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, National
Park Service, Washington DC.
Newell, R. I. E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension-
feeding bivalve molluscs: a review. Journal of Shellfish Research 23:51-61.
Newell, R.I.E. and E.W. Koch. 2004. Modeling seagrass density and distribution in response to
changes in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization.
Estuaries. 27: 793-806.
Nightingale B.J., C.A. Simenstad, Jr. 2001. Overwater structures: marine issues. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. White Paper. Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/finalmar.pdf
Log Item 2
Page 31 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 21
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal
Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington
State. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2011. Re-initiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Programmatic Consultation and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington State. NOAA, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2012. Interim sound threshold guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle,
Washington. URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/MM-sound-thrshld.cfm
NMFS. 2017. Endangered Species Act information. NMFS, West Coast Region. Available at:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html
(accessed on January 10, 2023).
NMFS. 2022. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Biological Programmatic Opinion and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation for Shellfish Aquaculture Activities in Washington State. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2023. Species Lists. NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region, Seattle, Washington. Available
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/threatened-
endangered?oq=&field_species_categories_vocab=All&field_species_details_status=All&fiel
d_region_vocab=1000001126&items_per_page=25. Accessed May 2, 2023.
Penttila, D.E. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Prepared in support of the Puget
Sound Nearshore Partnership. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical
Report 2007-03.
Peterson, B.J., and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2001. Positive Interactions between suspension-feeding
bivalves and seagrass—a facultative mutualism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213: 143-
155.
Ratté, L. and E.O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement
Bay, FRI-UW-8508. UW Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, Washington.
Salo, E. O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, C.J. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A. Simenstad. 1980. The
effects of construction of naval facilities on the outmigration of juvenile salmonids from
Hood Canal, Washington. Final Report FRI-UW-8006. University of Washington, Fish. Res.
Inst.
Log Item 2
Page 32 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 22
Seattle Audubon Society. 2016. Puget Sound Seabird Survey. Available at
http://seattleaudubon.org/seabirdsurvey/bird_detail.aspx?bird_id=224 (accessed January 13,
2023).
Selleck, J., Barrett, J. 2013. Year 1 Annual report – Geoduck Floating Nursery. Prepared for
Seattle Shellfish, LLC. July 15, 2013.
Selleck, J., Barrett, J. 2014. Year 2 Annual report – Geoduck Floating Nursery. Prepared for
Seattle Shellfish, LLC. July 15, 2014.
Simenstad, C.A., B. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals
on juvenile salmon migrating along Puget Sound shorelines: Phase I synthesis of state of
knowledge. Research Project T9903 Task A2. Washington State Department of
Transportation. Seattle, Washington.
Steele, D. Rock Point Oyster Company. Communication with K. McDonald. Confluence
Environmental Company. May 2023.
Strachan, G., M. McAllister, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at-sea and foraging
behavior. Pages 247-53. In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology
and conservation of the marbled murrelet. PSW-GTR-152. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Albany, CA. 420 pp. (as cited in USFWS 2009)
Teachout, E. 2013. Conducting masking analysis for marbled murrelets & pile driving projects.
Presentation for WSDOT biologists and consultants. November 19, 2013.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3506DAAA-4B13-4E1B-855D-
36E047E07090/0/MAMU_MaskAnalysis.pdf (accessed on January 13, 2023).
Tenore, K.R. and Gonzalez, N. 1976. Food chain patterns in the Ria de Arosa, Spain: an area of
intense mussel culture. Proc. 10th EMBS, Ostend, Belgium, 2: 601-619.
Thom, R.M., C.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, and E.O Salo. 1988. Fisheries mitigation plan for
expansion of moorage at Blaine Marina, FRI-UW-8817. Fish. Res. Inst. University of
Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Toft, J.D., J. Cordell, C. Simenstad, and L. Stamatiou. 2004. Fish distribution, abundance, and
behavior at nearshore habitats along City of Seattle marine shorelines, with an emphasis on
juvenile salmonids. Technical Report SAFS-UW-0401, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, University of Washington. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle,
Seattle, Washington.
Ward, D.L., A.A. Nigro, R.A. Farr, and C.J. Knutson. 1994. Influence of waterway development
on migrational characteristics of juvenile salmonids in the lower Willamette River, Oregon.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14: 362-371.
Log Item 2
Page 33 of 112
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 23
Weitkamp, D.E., E. Gullekson, and T.H. Schadt. 1981. Shilshole Bay fisheries resources, spring
1981. Report by Parametrix, Inc. to Port of Seattle. Seattle, Washington. 15 pages.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2023a. SalmonScape | Online Map.
Available at: https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html (accessed on January 10,
2023)
WDFW. 2023b. Spawning Ground Survey Database | Online Resource. Available at:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/sgs-data. Accessed on May 2, 2023.
WDFW. 2023c. Forage Fish Spawning Map - Washington State. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=19b8f74e2d41470cbd80
b1af8dedd6b3&extent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781#! (Accessed January 13, 2023).
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2020. Biological Assessment
Preparation for Transportation Projects, Advanced Training Manual. Washington State
Department of Transportation, Environmental Services, Olympia, Washington. Available at
https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-
standards/manuals/environmental-manual (accessed January 13, 2023).
Wyatt, R. 2008. Review of existing data on underwater sounds produced by the oil and gas
industry. Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) Joint Industry Programme report on Sound and
Marine Life.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound
DPS of Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Vol I (of II_ Puget sound Management Unit. May
2004.
USFWS. 2009. Biological Opinion: Nationwide Permit #48 for Shellfish Aquaculture, State of
Washington. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation. USFWS reference 13410-
2008-F-0461. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by USFWS, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, Olympia, Washington. March 2009. 198 pp.
USFWS. 2023. IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation [online database]. USFWS,
Portland, Oregon. Available at: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (assessed on May 2, 2023).
Log Item 2
Page 34 of 112
506285501.7
Appendix A
Species Lists
Log Item 2
Page 35 of 112
May 02, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0076915
Project Name: Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
Log Item 2
Page 36 of 112
05/02/2023 2
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Log Item 2
Page 37 of 112
05/02/2023 3
▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
Log Item 2
Page 38 of 112
05/02/2023 1
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
(360) 753-9440
Log Item 2
Page 39 of 112
05/02/2023 2
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2023-0076915
Project Name:Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY
Project Type:Aquaculture
Project Description:Continued operation of FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay, WA as part of the Rock
Point Oyster shellfish farm.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@47.8507508,-122.80507043454546,14z
Counties:Jefferson County, Washington
Log Item 2
Page 40 of 112
05/02/2023 3
1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467
Threatened
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus
Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212
Threatened
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1008
Proposed
Similarity of
Appearance
(Threatened)
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
1
Log Item 2
Page 41 of 112
05/02/2023 4
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
Log Item 2
Page 42 of 112
05/02/2023 5
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Confluence Environmental Company
Name:Kelly McDonald
Address:146 N Canal Street
Address Line 2:Suite 111
City:Seattle
State:WA
Zip:98103
Email kelly.mcdonald@confenv.com
Phone:2063973741
Log Item 2
Page 43 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 44 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 45 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 46 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 47 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 48 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 49 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 50 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 51 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 52 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 53 of 112
506285501.7
Appendix B
Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment
Log Item 2
Page 54 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. B-1
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH ................................................................................................................................ B-2
3.0 SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA .................................................................................................................... B-4
3.1 Groundfish ............................................................................................................................................ B-4
3.2 Coastal Pelagic Species ....................................................................................................................... B-4
3.3 Salmonid Species ................................................................................................................................. B-4
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................ B-4
5.0 EFH CONSERVATION MEASURES ................................................................................................................ B-5
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................... B-5
6.1 Groundfish Species EFH ...................................................................................................................... B-5
6.2 Coastal Pelagic Species EFH ............................................................................................................... B-6
6.3 Salmonid Species EFH ......................................................................................................................... B-6
7.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. B-6
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. B-7
Log Item 2
Page 55 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-1
ACTION AGENCY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
LOCATION
Tarboo Bay, Washington
PROJECT NAME
Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY
1.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as
“those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity” (NMFS 1999). For interpreting this definition, the following terms apply:
Waters—includes aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological
properties used by fish. Where appropriate, waters may include aquatic areas
historically used by fish.
Substrate—includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities.
Necessary—the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed
species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem.
Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity—includes a species’ full lifecycle
(50 CFR 600.110).
Adverse effect—any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may
include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or
reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including
individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810).
This assessment evaluates the impacts of the proposed action to determine whether it “may
adversely affect” designated EFH for federally managed fisheries species in the proposed action
area. The Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY (the Project) biological assessment (BA) details
conservation measures associated with the Project intended to avoid, minimize, or otherwise
Log Item 2
Page 56 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-2
offset potential adverse effects of the proposed action on critical habitat for species listed under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which also includes habitat designated as EFH.
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH
Under the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for
federally managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. Detailed
description and identification of EFH are contained in the fishery management plans for
groundfish (PFMC 2019a), coastal pelagic species (PFMC 2019b), and Pacific salmon (PFMC
2016).
Designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters along the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California that are seaward from the mean high water line,
including the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths to the boundary of the U.S.
economic zone, approximately 200 miles (321.9 km) offshore (PFMC 2019a, 2019b).
Designated EFH for salmonid species within marine water extends from the nearshore and tidal
submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive
economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California, north of Point Conception to
the Canadian border (PFMC 2016).
Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid fish species that have designated EFH in the action
area are listed in Table C-1. Assessment of the impacts on species that may occur in the action
area is based on life-history stages described in PFMC (2016, 2019b, 2019a).
Table C-1 Species of Fish with Designated Essential Fish Habitat in the Action Area
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name
Groundfish Groundfish (cont.)
aurora rockfish Sebastes aurora lingcod Ophiodon elongatus
arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias longnose skate Raja rhina
bank rockfish Sebastes rufus longspine thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis
big skate Raja binoculata mexican rockfish Sebastes macdonaldi
black rockfish Sebastes melanops olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides
black and yellow rockfish Sebastes chrysomelas pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus
blackgill rockfish Sebastes melanostomus pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus
blacksplotted rockfish Sebastes melanostictus pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus
blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus petrale sole Eopsetta jordani
bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis pink rockfish Sebastes eos
bronzespotted rockfish Sebastes gilli pinkrose rockfish Sebastes simulator
brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus pygmy rockfish Sebastes wilsoni
butter sole Isopsetta isolepis pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus
cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger
calico rockfish Sebastes dallii ratfish Hydrolagus colliei
Log Item 2
Page 57 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-3
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name
california scorpionfish Scorpaena gutatta redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki
california skate Raja inornata redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger
canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus
chameleon rockfish Sebastes phillipsi rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
chilipepper rockfish Sebastes goodei rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus
china rockfish Sebastes nebulosus rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus
copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus
cowcod Sebastes levis sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria
curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus
darkblotch rockfish Sebastes crameri sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
deacon rockfish Sebastes diaconus shortbelly rockfish Sebastes jordani
dover sole Microstomus pacificus shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis
dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliatus shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus
dwarf-red rockfish Sebastes rufinanus silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis
english sole Parophrys vetulus speckled rockfish Sebastes ovalis
flag rockfish Sebastes rubrivinctus spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias
flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa
freckled rockfish Sebastes lentiginosus squarespot rockfish Sebastes hopkinsi
gopher rockfish Sebastes carnatus sunset rockfish Sebastes crocotulus
grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
greenblotched rockfish Sebastes rosenblatti starry rockfish Sebastes constellatus
greenspotted rockfish Sebastes chlorostictus stripetail rockfish Sebastes saxicola
greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus swordspine rockfish Sebastes ensifer
halfbanded rockfish Sebastes semicinctus tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus
hake Merluccius productus treefish Sebastes serriceps
harlequin rockfish Sebastes variegatus vermilion rockfish Sebastes miniatus
honeycomb rockfish Sebastes umbrosus widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas
kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus
kelp rockfish Sebastes atrovirens yellowmouth rockfish Sebastes reedi
leopard shark Triakis semifasciata yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus
Coastal Pelagic Salmonid Species
market squid Loligo opalescens Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
northern anchovy Engraulis mordax coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus
Pacific mackerel Scomber japonicus
Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax
Krill or euphausiids
Log Item 2
Page 58 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-4
3.0 SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA
The following discussion includes the species (by major group) with designated EFH in the
proposed action area.
3.1 Groundfish
There are over 90 species of marine finfish included in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan, of which over 34 have life history stages associated with estuaries.
Groundfish utilize habitats such as sand, gravel, cobble, deep and shallow tidal channels,
mudflats, kelp, eelgrass, rock reef areas, and structures such as piers and jetties (Schlosser and
Bloeser 2006). Based on species descriptions of the groundfish species associated with estuaries
(PFMC 2019c), most species have been identified as utilizing multiple habitat types, with soft-
bottom habitats (sand and or mud) being used by the most species (n=20), followed by rocky
reefs and/or pier and jetty (n=13), kelp (n=8), eelgrass (n=7), and gravel/cobble (n=3).
There would be an overlap between habitats used by groundfish and the FLUPSY. There is a
potential to disturb groundfish during FLUPSY operations through human presence and
activity. Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season,
and every other week during colder water seasons. The FLUPSY is located in a subtidal area, so
fish would be able to easily avoid locations where aquaculture activities are occurring. While
there would be some energetic cost associated with avoiding culture activities, it is considered
minimal and insignificant in relation to their daily movement patterns.
3.2 Coastal Pelagic Species
The coastal pelagic species present in Tarboo Bay that are managed under the MSA utilize
habitats such as deep and shallow tidal channels as well as structures such as piers and jetties.
Prey resources of importance to coastal pelagic species include benthic copepods, crustaceans,
and diatoms. Effects of the proposed action on major types of prey resources are discussed in
Sections 5.4 and 5.5 in the BA. Based on the existing literature, prey resources are likely
increased with shellfish aquaculture gear due to the increased amount of interstitial space and
surface area available for colonization (Ferraro and Cole 2007).
3.3 Salmonid Species
Pacific salmon EFH is established for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho
salmon (O. kisutch). Juveniles of these species may spend time rearing within the action area.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Project consists of an existing FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay, Washington. Rock Point Oyster
grows oyster seed in the FLUPSY for out planting within their farm in Tarboo Bay. The seed for
Log Item 2
Page 59 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-5
the FLUPSY comes from the Rock Point Oyster remote setting upland facility adjacent to the
FLUPSY site.
Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season, and
every other week during colder water seasons. The silos are lifted with a chain lift mounted on
an A-frame and washed with a hose supplied with salt water pumped from alongside the
FLUPSY. During the growing season, the seed is emptied into small tubs and brought to shore
where it is sorted with a vibratory sifter, then returned to the FLUPSY for continued grow-out.
The location and environmental conditions of the project area are described in detail in Sections
3.0 and 4.0 of the BA. The farm and FLUPSY locations are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the BA.
5.0 EFH CONSERVATION MEASURES
Project actions comply with applicable conservation measures outlined by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers in the Programmatic Biological Assessment on Shellfish Activities in Washington
State Inland Marine Waters (Corps 2015). Measures relevant to this Project are listed in Section
3.2 of the BA.
Implementation of these conservation measures would avoid and minimize potential adverse
effects of the proposed action on EFH within the action area.
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action’s effects on ESA species and critical habitat are reviewed within the BA
(see Section 5.0). The effects discussed represent habitat characteristics and ecological processes
that have shaped and maintain the ecosystem in Tarboo Bay, which also makes them relevant to
EFH. Potential adverse effects are summarized here in relation to EFH. It is notable that the only
relevant effect to EFH noted by NMFS (2016) in their evaluation of effects to EFH from
aquaculture in Washington State was the temporary reduction in prey resources, although even
these impacts were not determined to result in large-scale effects.
6.1 Groundfish Species EFH
In addition to being EFH for groundfish species, estuaries are designated as habitat areas of
particular concern (HAPC) for groundfish species (PFMC 2019a). As described in the BA, the
Project has the potential to have impacted estuarine intertidal habitats through minor effects to
water quality, sediment quality, prey resources, and the migration corridor. Impacts to water
quality and sediment quality are primarily limited to local and short-term increases in
suspended sediments and changes due to the filter-feeding and biodeposition of the shellfish.
These changes are not expected to significantly alter the quality of the EFH or HAPC present for
groundfish species. Presence of the aquaculture gear can locally change hydrodynamic
conditions, potentially reducing flow velocities and altering sediment dynamics (Strohmeier et
Log Item 2
Page 60 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-6
al. 2005). However, the addition of aquaculture gear provides structure within a previously
unstructured habitat that would likely increase the suitability of the habitat for juvenile
groundfish utilizing these estuarine habitats.
Overall, the impacts of the Project on intertidal habitats identified as EFH and HAPC for
groundfish species are not expected to be significant. Potential effects are limited in spatial and
temporal extent.
6.2 Coastal Pelagic Species EFH
Coastal pelagic species that have the potential to occur within the action area would primarily
rely on deep and shallow tidal channel habitats. These species are pelagic by definition,
occurring within the water column and not associated with the substrate. EFH for these species
is defined by both a geographic range and a sea surface temperature range: 10°C to 26°C (PFMC
2019b). While all estuarine and marine waters out to the extent of the US economic exclusive
zone are included in the EFH, the actual geographic range is dependent on the temperature of
the upper mixed layer of the ocean. Occurrence of coastal pelagic species within Tarboo Bay
and Hood Canal would largely be dependent on nearshore dynamics and temperatures. Thus,
while these species have the potential to occur within Tarboo Bay, the likelihood of occurrence
is low. Additionally, as noted in the previous section, the impacts to intertidal habitats from the
Project are expected to be limited in spatial and temporal extent. Therefore, potential effects to
coastal pelagic species EFH from the Project are not expected to be significant.
6.3 Salmonid Species EFH
Chinook and coho salmon are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and EFH
for these species is present in the action area. The BA details the potential effects of the Project
to Chinook salmon. The effects analysis in the BA provides a surrogate for analyzing potential
impacts to designated EFH for other salmonid species. That is, the effects to Chinook salmon
habitat from the Project have similar impacts to EFH. As described in the BA, the Project is not
expected to impact ESA-listed salmonids directly or indirectly by affecting individual survival
or by significantly altering their habitat. Potential impacts of the Project to water quality,
sediment quality, prey resources, or migration corridor are either avoided through conservation
measures or limited in spatial and temporal extent.
7.0 CONCLUSION
Although there are potential effects to EFH, with the implementation of the proposed
conservation measures, the proposed activity is not expected to cause significant impacts and
will not reduce the overall value of the EFH for managed groundfish, coastal pelagic, or
salmonid species.
Log Item 2
Page 61 of 112
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-7
8.0 REFERENCES
Corps (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2015. Programmatic Biological Assessment: Shellfish
Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program, Seattle, WA.
Ferraro, S. P., and F. A. Cole. 2007. Benthic macrofauna–habitat associations in Willapa Bay,
Washington, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71:491–507.
Kaiser, M., K. Clarke, H. Hinz, M. Austen, P. Somerfield, and I. Karakassis. 2006. Global
analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series
311:1–14.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance.
NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland.NMFS. 2016. Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Programmatic Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation:
Washington State Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture and Restoration Programmatic.
NOAA, NMFS, West Coast Region, Seattle, Washington.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2016. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management
Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coast of Washington,
Oregon, and California as Amended through Amendment 19. Page 91. Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Portland, OR.
PFMC. 2019a. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon,
and Washington Groundfish Fishery. Page 159. Pacific Fishery Management Council,
Portland, OR.
PFMC. 2019b. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan as Amended through
Amendment 17. Page 49. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
PFMC. 2019c. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Appendix B.2: Life Histories,
Geographical Distributions, and Habitat Associations of Pacific Coast Groundfish Species.
Page 275. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
Schlosser, S. C., and J. Bloeser. 2006. The collaborative study of juvenile rockfish, cabezon, and
kelp greenling habitat associations between Morro Bay, California and Newport, Oregon.
Page 14. California Sea Grant and Pacific Marine Conservation Council.
Strohmeier, T., J. Aure, A. Duinker, T. Castberg, A. Svardal, and Ø. Strand. 2005. Flow
reduction, seston depletion, meat content and distribution of diarrhetic shellfish toxins in
long-line blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) farm. Journal of Shellfish Research 24:15–23.
Log Item 2
Page 62 of 112
506285501.7
Log Item 2
Page 63 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 19
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of checklist
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance,
minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an
environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult
with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or
"does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is
unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and
accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the
decision-making process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your
proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may
be significant adverse impact.
Instructions for lead agencies
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to
evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse
impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to
make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable
parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely
answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site"
should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency
may exclude (for non-projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute
meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
Log Item 2
Page 64 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 2 of 19
A. Background Find help answering background questions
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Rock Point Oyster Company Floating Upweller System (FLUPSY)
2. Name of applicant:
David Steele
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
1733 Dabob Post Office Road
Quilcene, WA 98765
360-765-4664
4. Date checklist prepared:
May 18, 2023
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Jefferson County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The FLUPSY has been operational since 2014 and located within the project area since 2016;
thus, no additional construction is needed.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No future additions or expansions are connected to this proposal. This proposal includes the
continued operation of for an existing FLUPSY originally referenced as a nursery float (approved
permit NWS-2007-01150-AQ) within Tarboo Bay, Washington. Shellfish seed from the FLUPSY is
planted at Rock Point Oyster’s existing shellfish farms in Tarboo Bay, Quilcene Bay, and
elsewhere.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Biological Assessment
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Log Item 2
Page 65 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 3 of 19
There are no other pending government approvals affecting the property.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jefferson County shoreline substantial
development permit
Log Item 2
Page 66 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 4 of 19
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you
to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information
on project description.)
The FLUPSY was constructed in 2014 and originally located in Blaine Harbor in Whatcom County,
located over 130 miles from Tarboo Bay, for the first 2 years. Blaine Harbor proved to be
operationally and logistically difficult given its significant distance from Rock Point Oyster’s
facilities. The FLUPSY was moved to Tarboo Bay and rebuilt in 2016 to be proximate to Rock
Point Oyster’s operations. Rock Point Oyster’s upland facilities adjacent to Tarboo Bay include a
remote setting facility and upwellers to set single oyster seed and grow it to a size ready for
subsequent growth in the FLUPSY.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
The project area is comprised of approximately 600 square feet (ft2) of subtidal area located directly
northeast of Tarboo Spit (Figure 1). This location is within Rock Point Oyster’s Tarboo Bay Farm and is
adjacent to Rock Point Oyster’s existing pier and shellfish work floats. The project is located on Jefferson
County Tax Parcel Numbers 701091004 & 701163002, Sections 9 and 16, Township 27N, Range 1W. The
closest street address is 1733 Dabob Post Office Road, Quilcene, WA.
Log Item 2
Page 67 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 5 of 19
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Log Item 2
Page 68 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 6 of 19
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth Find help answering earth questions
a. General description of the site:
Upland vegetation adjacent to the tidelands is primarily Douglas fir and red alder with unique salt marsh
on several spits. The upland is sparsely populated with 5 homes. There are numerous small streams
flowing into the bay. There is little submerged attached vegetation (SAV) in Tarboo Bay, limited to
channels that retain water at low tide. There is no eelgrass on or adjacent to Rock Point Oyster’s farm or
the project site. One small beach within Tarboo Bay has potential for Sand Lance spawning (approximately
1,800 feet from the FLUPSY). Long Spit, which separates Tarboo Bay from Dabob Bay, is a gravel spit that
constantly feeds gravels into and across the middle of Tarboo Bay.
Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: aquatic
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The approximate steepest slope on the site is 1.5 % from the beach to the FLUPSY located in Tarboo Bay.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural
land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of
these soils.
The substrate in Tarboo Bay is varied from mud in back areas, sand on bars, and gravels in areas with swift
currents.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
This project is located within Tarboo Bay and has no surface indications or history of unstable soils are
present in the immediate vicinity.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any
filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Not applicable, no filling, excavating or grading activities are proposed.
f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable, no clearing, or construction is proposed.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not applicable, no impervious surface will be constructed.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any.
Log Item 2
Page 69 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 7 of 19
Not applicable.
2. Air Find help answering air questions
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation,
and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities if known.
Negligible air emissions would be generated by vessels servicing the FLUPSY.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
No, there are not any off-site sources of emissions or odor that would affect this proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any.
All equipment is properly maintained to conform to EPA emission standards.
3. Water Find help answering water questions
a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Tarboo Bay is located within the northern portion of Dabob Bay, which is an inlet of the Puget Sound.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If
yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The FLUPSY is currently fully constructed and located within the project area; thus, no additional
construction is needed. Continued operation and maintenance of the FLUPSY is described in Section 6e of
the JARPA and shown on associated plans.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material.
Not applicable.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No, there will be no surface water withdrawal or diversion.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
Log Item 2
Page 70 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 8 of 19
No. The site is fully aquatic and submerged at all times.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No, there will be no discharge of waste materials.
b. Ground Water: Find help answering ground water questions
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a
general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the
well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known.
No, there will be no withdrawal from a well or discharge of waste materials into groundwater.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals…; agricultural; etc.). Describe
the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
a) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any
(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If
so, describe.
Not applicable.
b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable.
c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so,
describe.
No, the proposal will not alter or affect drainage patterns.
d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern
impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
4. Plants Find help answering plants questions
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
Log Item 2
Page 71 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 9 of 19
☐ deciduous tree: Red alder (Alnus rubra)
☐ evergreen tree: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
☐ shrubs
☐ grass
☐ pasture
☐ crop or grain
☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops.
☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
☐ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
No vegetation will be removed or altered.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
There are no threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on
the site, if any.
Not applicable.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
No noxious weeds or invasives species are known to be on or near the site.
5. Animals Find help answering animal questions
a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be
on or near the site.
Examples include:
• Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
• Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
• Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes
paucispinis), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Pacific sand lance
(Ammodytes hexapterus), Dungeness crab (Cancer magister).
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Chum salmon (O. keta)
Steelhead trout (O. mykiss)
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Log Item 2
Page 72 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 10 of 19
Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus)
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Salmonids migrate through Tarboo Bay but no obstructions to migration would occur.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
The project would comply with all conservation measures from the programmatic consultation for
shellfish aquaculture in Washington state (Corps 2015, NMFS 2016, USFWS 2016). These measures are
intended to avoid and minimize impacts to the environment and wildlife, to the extent practicable.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
A number of invasive animal species have been documented within Hood Canal and Puget
Sound and may be present on or near the site. Species that are known to occur within Hood
Canal include multiple species of tunicates (Styela clava, Ciona savignyi) and potentially the
European green crab (Carcinus maenas). European green crab were first documented in Hood
Canal in May 2022. The project complies with all regulations intended to limit the spread of
aquatic invasive species.
6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions
1. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Gasoline or diesel fuel will be used for boats in order to access the aquaculture project and load/unload
oyster seed.
2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
No, this project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties.
3. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any.
The project requires minimal energy by design and is operated to keep energy use at its
minimum.
7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe.
None.
Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
Log Item 2
Page 73 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 11 of 19
The site is listed on the Washington State 303(d) list for impaired water quality. It is listed for
the following parameters: Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Category 5). The listing ID is 60222. The most
recent exceedance of the threshold was in 2017. However, Tarboo Bay is considered an
“approved” shellfish growing area by the Washington Department of Health (WDOH),
suggesting that more recent sampling has shown acceptable levels and WDOH has approved
Rock Point Oyster’s growing area for shellfish cultivation and harvesting.
1. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development
and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines
located within the project area and in the vicinity.
There are no existing hazardous chemicals/conditions or pipelines that would affect project
development and design.
2. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life
of the project.
There will be no toxic or hazardous chemicals at the project site. The project will comply with
all conservation measures from the programmatic consultation for shellfish aquaculture in
Washington state to minimize use of toxic or hazardous chemicals.
3. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
There are no expected special emergency services needed as incident occurrence is extremely
low. However, fire and/or ambulance services may be required in the event of a worker
accident.
4. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any.
There are no anticipated environmental health hazards. Risk of diesel or oil spill or accidents is minimal
and all precautions will be used for prevention. The operator will have a Safety Policy and
Environmental Code of Practice that guides workers in safe and environmentally sound operations.
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
None will affect the proposed project.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term
or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise
would come from the site)?
During operations, noise would be limited to occasional boat use and the small motors running the pumps
on the FLUPSY.
Log Item 2
Page 74 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 12 of 19
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any.
All equipment is sound insulated to meet the requirements for maximum decibel range per
Jefferson County standards. Employees are trained in best practices to minimize noise
disturbance.
8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land
uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
The project area is currently farmed for Manila clams and oysters. There is also a pier for transporting
shellfish from boats to shore. The upland area immediately proximate to the FLUPSY is occupied by Rock
Point Oyster’s facilities, including an office building, shop buildings, greenhouses, an upwelling building, a
wet storage building and tanks, and two homes. The FLUPSY supports these existing uses.
Additional use of Tarboo Bay includes some recreational trout and salmon fishing along the shoreline and
periodic use by kayakers during high tide.
Shorelines adjacent to the project area are designated as Residential on the east and Dabob Bay Natural
Area Preserve on the west, with several spits included in the Natural Preserve shoreline environment.
Because the project site will continue to be used for aquaculture uses within Rock Point Oyster’s existing
tideland farm area and any potential impacts will be limited to the FLUPSY site, there will be no impact to
other adjacent uses.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How
much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other
uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres
in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
Not applicable.
1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal
business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling,
and harvesting? If so, how?
Not applicable.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The only structure on the site is the FLUPSY itself.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No, there will be no structures demolished.
Log Item 2
Page 75 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 13 of 19
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The current zoning classification is water, surrounded by RR-20 - Rural Residential.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The current comprehensive plan designation is Rural.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
The current shoreline master program designation is Priority Aquatic.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify.
None.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
No one residing in the completed project.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
No one will be displaced by this project.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any.
The projected land use and plans are compatible with existing use. Aquaculture is a preferred, water-
dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to the long-term economic viability,
cultural heritage and environmental health of Jefferson County. The FLUPSY is located within area
already owned by Rock Point Oyster and utilized as an aquaculture farm.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any.
Not applicable.
9. Housing Find help answering housing questions
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
There will be no housing units on this site.
Log Item 2
Page 76 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 14 of 19
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
There will be no housing units eliminated on site.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The FLUPSY floats at the surface of the water throughout the tidal cycle and does not extend
more than 2-3 feet above the water.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
No views within the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any.
The FLUPSY has been designed to minimize height above water and occurs within Rock Point
Oyster’s existing shellfish farm.
11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Very little light or glare will be produced by the project. Maintenance activities will occur primarily during
daytime hours and therefore do not need any extra lighting. No area lighting will be used on site.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No, light or glare would not be a safety hazard or interfere with views.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
No existing off-site light or glare will affect the project.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
None.
12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Log Item 2
Page 77 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 15 of 19
Some recreational trout and salmon fishing occurs on the shoreline and kayakers periodically use
Tarboo Bay during high tide.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
The proposed project would not displace any existing recreational uses. There has been no
interference with recreational uses since Rock Point Oyster installed its FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay in
2016.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities
to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
The design of the project allows for recreational boaters to easily navigate in deeper water around the
FLUPSY.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation
questions
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old
listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically
describe.
No buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible
for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This
may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas
of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the
site to identify such resources.
No.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or
near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology
and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
Engagement has been conducted with tribes in the area, including the Skokomish Tribe. Further,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated potential impacts to cultural and historic resources
as part of its prior approvals for Rock Point Oyster’s shellfish farm and concluded that no cultural
or historic resources would be impacted.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to
resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
None.
Log Item 2
Page 78 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 16 of 19
14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The project will be accessed by boat.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
No, the site is not currently served by the public transit.
c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle,
or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
NO , the project will not require any new or improved roads.
d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be
trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were
used to make these estimates?
Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season, and every other
week during colder water seasons.
Log Item 2
Page 79 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 80 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 18 of 19
Position and agency/organization: Click or tap here to enter text.
Date submitted: Click or tap to enter a date.
D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions
worksheet
IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
• Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Log Item 2
Page 81 of 112
506710225.1
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 19 of 19
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
• Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
Log Item 2
Page 82 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
1
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY FLUPSY PROJECT
DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PLAN POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS Aquaculture Policies
1. Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of Jefferson County.
Consistent with this policy, the project proposes to continue to support aquaculture uses in an area that is already utilized for aquaculture, creating a synergy with Rock Point Oyster’s existing
adjacent shellfish farm and processing facilities. Further, the FLUPSY will provide seed that can
be used to expand existing and proposed shellfish farms in Jefferson County.
2. The county should support aquaculture uses and developments that:
(i) Protect and improve water quality; and
Impacts to water quality associated with continued operation of the FLUPSY would be limited to
minor turbidity increases during weekly washing of the bins and rafts. The amount of material
would not be significant relative to surrounding water quality conditions and would not be a change from existing baseline conditions. Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures to be followed by the applicant that would be protective for water quality conditions include: no unsuitable material discharged into the water, no toxic compounds used, and use of spill
prevention plans to ensure that no petroleum products are released into the water.
(ii) Minimize damage to important nearshore habitats; and
The project would not result in any adverse impact to nearshore habitats. The FLUPSY is located in an area that is already utilized for shellfish aquaculture. Rock Point Oyster has submitted a Biological Assessment that considers the potential impacts from the FLUPSY to threatened and
endangered species and their critical habitat from the installation and operation of the system, as
well as any potential effects from the project on essential fish habitat as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. This evaluation considered both short and long-term effects of the installation and ongoing operation of the facility, and concluded that the project was not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species
and their critical habitat. No eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation was identified within the
project area.
The project has been carefully designed to minimize any potential impact on the shoreline environment. The FLUPSY has been sited at a tidal elevation where it does not make contact with the substrate. The FLUPSY uses encapsulated foam consistent with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulations. Pump intakes are also
screened pursuant to NMFS standards to protect against fish entrainment. Additional proposed conservation and minimization measures are set forth in the Biological Assessment.
Log Item 2
Page 83 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
2
(iii) Minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters; and
The project site is located in an area owned by Rock Point Oyster and utilized for its shellfish
farm. Other than Rock Point Oyster’s farm operations, there is not significant vessel traffic through the area occupied by the FLUPSY. The FLUPSY has been located in its current location since 2016 without any adverse encounters with vessel traffic or recreational uses and Rock Point Oyster has received no complaints that its current location interferes with public uses. The
power cord used to power the FLUPSY is attached to the substrate and does not interfere with
passing vessel traffic. The FLUPSY only takes up a small portion of the navigational channel and the current location allows passage around the FLUPSY by recreational users and infrequent commercial vessels. The project does not increase boat traffic as compared to existing conditions.
(iv) Minimize the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, such as those resulting from in-water structures/apparatus/equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate disturbance/modification (including rate, frequency, and spatial extent).
The project site is located in an area already used by Rock Point Oyster for its shellfish
aquaculture farm and would not result in any geographic expansion of aquaculture activities. The
FLUPSY supports Rock Point Oyster’s existing operations by providing seed for grow-out on its farm. The addition of the FLUPSY to Rock Point Oyster’s existing 220 acre shellfish farm will result in negligible impacts in relation to the existing farm activities. As further described in the Biological Assessment, its limited environmental impacts are restricted to the geographic area
immediately adjacent to the FLUPSY and there is no potential for it to contribute to other
cumulative impacts from other sources or operations. Further, the project would not set any new precedent for Jefferson County, as the County already has approved other floating aquaculture projects in other areas of the County.
3. When properly managed, aquaculture can result in long-term ecological and economic
benefits. The county should engage in coordinated planning to identify potential aquaculture areas and assess long-term needs for aquaculture. This includes working with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), area tribes and shellfish interests to identify areas that are suitable for aquaculture and protect them from uses that would threaten aquaculture’s long-term
sustainability.
The project site is located within an area that has been used for shellfish cultivation since 1935. The project would not expand the geographic footprint of the shellfish farm beyond its existing area. The proposed FLUPSY strengthens the local economy by supporting Rock Point Oyster to continue to provide consistent employment for aquaculture uses. The project also would provide
shellfish seed to other shellfish companies, thereby meeting a critical demand for shellfish seed
in Washington State. The increased demand for ancillary business services associated with the increase in shellfish production will further benefit Jefferson County’s economy.
Log Item 2
Page 84 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
3
4. Aquaculture use and development should locate in areas where biophysical conditions, such as tidal currents, water temperature and depth, will minimize adverse
environmental impacts. Individual aquaculture uses and developments should be separated by a sufficient distance to ensure that significant adverse cumulative effects do not occur.
The FLUPSY is located in an area that has been established to be highly productive for shellfish cultivation and growth for decades. The FLUPSY is elevated at least three feet off the substrate
at any given time. Further, the FLUPSY is located in close proximity to Rock Point Oyster’s
processing facilities, thereby reducing boat trips to and from the FLUPSY and associated emissions. There are no other aquaculture uses in Tarboo Bay other than Rock Point Oyster’s existing farm.
5. The county should support tideland aquaculture use and development when consistent
with this program and protect tidelands and bedlands that were acquired and retained under the Bush and Callow Acts by not permitting non-aquaculture use and development on these tidelands.
This policy is generally supportive of the expansion of aquaculture within the county. Consistent with this policy, aquaculture uses will be developed on tidelands owned by Rock Point Oyster.
6. Intensive residential uses, other industrial and commercial uses, and uses that are unrelated to aquaculture should be located so as not to create conflicts with aquaculture operations.
The project is consistent with this policy. It proposes aquaculture uses and no residential, industrial, or other commercial uses unrelated to aquaculture.
7. The county should promote cooperative arrangements between aquaculture growers and public recreation agencies so that public use of public shorelines does not conflict with aquaculture operations.
The project is consistent with this policy. The project is located within Tarboo Bay approximately 300 feet from the shoreline. Therefore, there is no conflict with public uses of the
shoreline.
8. Experimental forms of aquaculture involving the use of new species, new growing methods or new harvesting techniques should be allowed when they are consistent with applicable state and federal regulations and this program.
This policy supports approval of the project, which is for a relatively new aquaculture technique
in Washington State, to promote the growth and development of shellfish seed using FLUPSYs.
Jefferson County’s support for new aquaculture techniques is further aligned with the Department of Ecology’s Guidelines for local government updates to their shoreline master programs. The Guidelines state that “technology associated with some forms of present-day aquaculture is still in its formative stages and experimental. SMP’s should therefore recognize
the necessity for some latitude in the development of this use as well as its potential impact on
existing uses and natural systems.” WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(i)(B).
Log Item 2
Page 85 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
4
9. The county should support community restoration projects associated with aquaculture when they are consistent with this program.
The project does not include any community restoration projects; however, it is not inconsistent
with any such project.
10. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas including shellfish habitat conservation areas are critical habitats. Shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and bedlands are allowed uses. Such activities include but are not limited to
bed marking, preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest.
The FLUPSY would be installed on private tidelands where shellfish aquaculture is permitted by the County and other regulatory agencies.
11. Chemicals and fertilizers used in aquaculture operations should be used in accordance with state and federal laws, and this program.
The project does not use any chemicals or fertilizers.
12. The county recognizes upland finfish aquaculture is considered a type of agricultural production by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, RCW 36.70A.030, and 90.58.065. However, for purposes of this program, upland finfish aquaculture should instead be managed as aquaculture and aquaculture activities, as defined in
Article II of this chapter.
The project does not propose finfish aquaculture.
13. Finfish aquaculture that uses or releases herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, non-indigenous species, parasites, viruses, genetically modified organisms, feed, or other materials known to be harmful into surrounding waters
should not be allowed unless significant impacts to surrounding habitat and conflicts with adjacent uses are effectively mitigated.
The project does not propose finfish aquaculture.
14. The county should prefer all finfish aquaculture use and development (in-water and upland) that operates with fully contained systems that treat effluent before discharge
to local waters over open systems.
The project does not propose finfish aquaculture.
15. The county should allow in-water finfish aquaculture in the open waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca only when the area seaward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) which is subject to the county’s jurisdiction extends a considerable distance, and when
consistent with other provisions of this program.
The project does not propose finfish aquaculture.
Log Item 2
Page 86 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
5
16. The county should prohibit in-water finfish aquaculture in waters of Jefferson County where there are habitat protection designations in place and/or water quality issues
documented.
The project does not propose finfish aquaculture.
Aquaculture Regulations
1. Subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures and apparatus associated with aquaculture use shall be located, designed and maintained to avoid adverse effects on
ecological functions and processes.
The FLUPSY is located in an area that is already utilized for shellfish aquaculture. Rock Point Oyster has submitted a Biological Assessment that considers the potential impacts from the FLUPSY to threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat from the installation and operation of the system, as well as any potential effects from the project on essential fish habitat
as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. This
evaluation considered both short and long-term effects of the installation and ongoing operation of the facility, and concluded that the project was not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat. No eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation was identified within the project area. Forage fish spawning has also not been documented in the
project area.
Within Tarboo Bay, outmigrating juvenile salmonids may avoid the direct footprint of the FLUPSY but would not be excluded from other habitat in Tarboo Bay. Additionally, juvenile salmonids are more likely to occur closer to the shoreline during outmigration. Therefore, the FLUPSY is unlikely to significantly affect or impede juvenile salmonid migration. Regarding
coho salmon migration from Tarboo Creek, coho salmon fry typically rear in their natal stream
for a year before out-migrating. Therefore, outbound juveniles would be larger in size and would not spend a significant amount of time within the estuarine environment where the FLUPSY is located. Given the FLUPSY’s location away from shore, it is unlikely to act as a barrier for out-migrating juvenile coho salmon.
The Project is not likely affecting adult salmonids. Returning salmonids heading to Tarboo Creek may remain briefly within Tarboo Bay but are not likely to be impeded by the presence of the FLUPSY. Water levels in the creek when fish are returning are a higher limiting factor in returns compared to the presence of the FLUPSY. It is unlikely the small footprint of the FLUPSY
affects fish transiting through the bay.
Overall, effects to fish migration are not expected to be occurring from the existing FLUPSY or continued operation of the Project. The FLUPSY does not extend from the shoreline and would not result in consistent shading underneath. There is no evidence to support significant changes
in fish behavior resulting from the presence of the FLUPSY. There is also no indication that
overwater structure results in increased potential for predation or impediments to adult access to spawning areas. Therefore, the effect to the fish migration corridor from the FLUPSY is considered to be minor.
Log Item 2
Page 87 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
6
2. The county shall consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities/farms to prevent adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and adjoining
land uses. The county shall determine what constitutes acceptable placement and concentration of commercial aquaculture in consultation with state and federal agencies and tribes based on the specific characteristics of the waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the vicinity of the farm/facility.
The project site is located in an area already used by Rock Point Oyster for its shellfish
aquaculture farm and would not result in any geographic expansion of aquaculture activities. It supports Rock Point Oyster’s existing operations by providing seed for grow-out on its farm. The addition of the FLUPSY to Rock Point Oyster’s existing 220 acre shellfish farm will result in negligible impacts in relation to the existing farm activities. As further described in the
Biological Assessment, its limited environmental impacts are restricted to the geographic area
immediately adjacent to the FLUPSY and there is no potential for it to contribute to other cumulative impacts from other sources or operations. The project location is within an area already approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for shellfish cultivation.
3. Upland structures accessory to aquaculture use that do not require a waterside location or have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers required by this program.
The project does not propose any upland structures.
4. Overwater work shelters and sleeping quarters accessory to aquaculture use/development shall be prohibited.
The project does not propose overwater work shelters or sleeping quarters.
5. Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed 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 clear demonstration of need. The 10-foot height limit shall not apply to vessels.
The FLUPSY has a maximum height of 30” above the water’s surface.
6. Floating/hanging aquaculture facilities and associated equipment, except navigation aids, shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment in order to minimize visual impacts.
The FLUPSY is made of aluminum with Trax decking. As noted above, it has a low profile that
allows it to blend into the surrounding visual environment. The project is located in an area that
is characterized by existing aquaculture uses; there should be minimal alteration in view of Tarboo Bay from the shore.
Log Item 2
Page 88 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
7
7. Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation, or access to adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest
areas. Mitigation shall be provided to offset such impacts where there is high probability that adverse impact would occur. This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that an operator is required to provide access across owned or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners.
The project will not result in any interference with navigation, access to waterfront properties,
public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas. The project site is located in an area owned by
Rock Point Oyster and utilized for its shellfish farm. Other than Rock Point Oyster’s farm operations, there is not significant vessel traffic through the area occupied by the FLUPSY. The FLUPSY has been located in its current location since 2016 without any adverse encounters with vessel traffic or recreational uses and Rock Point Oyster has received no complaints that its
current location interferes with public uses. The power cord used to power the FLUPSY is
attached to the substrate and does not interfere with passing vessel traffic. The FLUPSY only takes up a small portion of the navigational channel and the current location allows passage around the FLUPSY by recreational users and infrequent commercial vessels. The project does not increase boat traffic as compared to existing conditions. The project does not involve any
development near nearshore areas or waterfront properties that would impede access. There are
no public recreation areas or tribal harvest areas near the FLUPSY location.
8. Aquaculture uses and developments, except in-water finfish aquaculture, shall be located at least 600 feet from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion haulouts, seabird nesting colonies, or other areas identified as critical feeding or migration areas
for birds and mammals. In-water finfish facilities, including net pens, shall be located 1,500 feet or more from such areas. The county may approve lesser distances based upon written documentation that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and affected tribes support the proposed location.
The project is located at least 600 feet away from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion
haulouts, seabird nesting colonies, and other areas identified as critical feeding or migration areas for birds and mammals.
9. Aquaculture use and development shall be sited so that shading and other adverse impacts to existing red/brown macro algae (kelp), and eelgrass beds are avoided.
There is no native eelgrass present within the action area or within 500 feet of the FLUPSY.
Washington Department of Natural Resources has documented eelgrass (a mix of Zostera
marina and Zostera japonica) within Dabob Bay, but none has been documented on the Rock Point Oyster Tarboo Bay Farm. Kelp has not been identified in Tarboo Bay by either the Washington State Department of Ecology or Rock Point Oyster Company. The FLUPSY is
located in a subtidal location (i.e., -8 to -10 feet mean lower low water [MLLW]) that is not
known to support a sustained population of kelp, eelgrass, or other macroalgae.
Log Item 2
Page 89 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
8
10. Aquaculture uses and developments that require attaching structures to the bed or bottomlands shall use anchors, such as helical anchors, that minimize disturbance to
substrate. The FLUPSY is anchored in a subtidal area that is at least 8 feet to 10 feet deep at low tide. Helical screw anchors or standard claw anchors are used at each of the four corners to hold the FLUPSY in place.
11. Where aquaculture use and development are authorized to use public facilities, such as boat launches or docks, the county shall reserve the right to require the applicant/proponent to pay a portion of the maintenance costs and any required improvements commensurate with the applicant’s/proponent’s use.
The project does not propose any use of public facilities. Boats are launched from a private dock associated with Rock Point Oyster’s processing facilities. 12. Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to
control birds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations. The project does not involve any predator control measures.
13. Aquaculture use and development shall avoid use of chemicals, fertilizers and genetically modified organisms except when allowed by state and federal law. The project does not use any chemicals or fertilizers.
14. Non-navigational directional lighting associated with aquaculture use and development
shall be used wherever possible and area lighting shall be avoided and minimized to the extent necessary to conduct safe operations. Non-navigational lighting shall not adversely affect vessel traffic. Maintenance activities will occur primarily during daytime hours and therefore do not need any
extra lighting. No area lighting will be used on site.
15. Aquaculture waste materials and by-products shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the
Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). Any aquaculture waste materials and by-products will be disposed of at Rock Point Oyster’s upland facilities.
Log Item 2
Page 90 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
9
Shoreline Master Program Policies
1. All shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt
from permit requirements, shall be located, designed, constructed, conducted, and maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions. Uses and developments that cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes shall be prohibited. Any use or development that causes the future ecological condition to become worse than current condition shall be prohibited.
Aquaculture is a preferred water-dependent use and the FLUPSY is proposed in a location that is
already utilized for aquaculture operations. As noted above, the project is not anticipated to result in any loss to ecological processes and functions.
2. The county shall consider the cumulative impacts of individual uses and developments, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, when
determining whether a proposed use or development could cause a net loss of ecological functions.
See above discussion regarding cumulative impacts.
3. Water-Oriented Uses/Development. When otherwise consistent with this program and Chapter 18.22 JCC, the following water-oriented uses/developments may be permitted
within a shoreline buffer without a shoreline variance. The amount and extent of buffer modification shall be the minimum needed to accommodate the allowed use/development. This allowance for water-oriented uses/developments within shoreline buffers without a shoreline variance may apply to the primary use and/or to the following accessory uses/structures: Primary uses and structures that meet the
definition of a water-dependent or water-related use/development as defined in Article II of this chapter.
The project is a water-dependent use that will be located in the water. Therefore, no buffer is appropriate or required.
4. Proponents of new shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses
exempt from permit requirements, shall:
(i) Preserve and protect historic, archaeological and cultural resources that are recorded by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and resources that are inadvertently discovered during use or development activities; and
(ii) Consult the county department of community development, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and/or other appropriate agencies prior to beginning development so there is ample time to assess the site and make arrangements to preserve historical, cultural and archaeological resources; and
Log Item 2
Page 91 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
10
(iii) Comply with all state and federal regulations pertaining to archaeological sites.
The project site was previously reviewed and evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as
part of the permitting process to issue a permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (NWS-2007-1150). No historic or cultural resources were identified. The applicant has also consulted with the Skokomish, Jamestown S’Klallam, and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes and the Tribes have not identified any cultural or historic resources within the project area. There is no
excavation or construction activity proposed; therefore, there is no possibility of disturbance to
cultural or historic resources. While there is very little likelihood of disturbance, if there is any inadvertent discovery of historic, cultural, or archaeological resources, or human remains, Rock Point Oyster will comply with County regulations concerning their identification, handling, and preservation.
5. Opportunities to provide visual and/or physical public access shall be considered during the review and conditioning of all proposed commercial and industrial shoreline developments and residential developments involving more than four residential lots or dwelling units.
The project is located over 300 feet from the shoreline; therefore, there are no impacts to public
shoreline access or opportunity to increase shoreline access. The project is not a shoreline
development.
6. View Maintenance. Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall use all feasible techniques to maximize retention of existing native shoreline vegetation while allowing for shoreline views.
The project does not impact native shoreline vegetation or shoreline views.
7. All materials that may come in contact with water shall be composed of nontoxic materials, such as wood, concrete, approved plastic composites or steel, that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Materials used for decking or other structural components shall be approved by applicable state agencies for
contact with water to avoid discharge of pollutants from wave splash, rain, or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, copper chromium arsenate or pentachlorophenol is prohibited in shoreline water bodies.
The FLUPSY is made of aluminum with plastic-encapsulated floats approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and consistent with NMFS requirements. The FLUPSY has Trax decking
which is also consistent with state and federal requirements. The only wood is treated lumber which is the trim above the water line. 8. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any ground water or surface water or to be discharged onto land. The release of oil, chemicals, genetically modified organisms or hazardous materials onto land or into the water is prohibited.
Log Item 2
Page 92 of 112
C:\Users\smithrm\Desktop\Jefferson County
Findings_USW_Active01_507261246_3.DOC
11
The project will comply with this condition. The project does not use any genetically modified organisms. The project incorporates the following best management practices to avoid the
release of oil, chemicals, or other hazardous materials:
• For boats and other gas-powered vehicles or power equipment that cannot be fueled in a staging area 150 feet away from a waterbody or at a fuel dock, fuels shall be transferred
in Environmental Protection Agency-compliant portable fuel containers 5 gallons or
smaller at a time during refilling. A polypropylene pad or other appropriate spill protection and a funnel or spill-proof spout shall be used. A spill kit shall be available and used in the event of a spill. All spills shall be reported to the Washington Emergency Management Office at (800) 258-5990. All waste oil or other clean-up materials
contaminated with petroleum products shall be properly disposed of off-site.
• Direct or indirect contact of toxic compounds, including creosote, wood preservatives, paint, etc., with the marine environment shall be prevented. This does not apply to boats.
• Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, asphalt, or tires) will not be discharged or used as any part of the FLUPSY.
• Any foam material (whether used for floatation or for any other purpose) must be
encapsulated within a shell that prevents breakup or loss of foam material into the water and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or abrasion. Unencapsulated foam material used for current, on-going activities shall be removed or replaced.
• At least once every three months, beaches in the project vicinity shall be patrolled by crews who shall retrieve debris (e.g., anti- predator nets, bags, stakes, disks, tubes) that escapes from the project area. Within the project vicinity, locations shall be identified where debris tends to accumulate due to wave, current, or wind action. After weather events these locations shall be patrolled by crews who shall remove and dispose of
shellfish-related debris appropriately. A record shall be maintained with the following information and the record shall be made available upon request to the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS: date of patrol, location of areas patrolled, description of the type and amount of retrieved debris, other pertinent information.
Log Item 2
Page 93 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 1 of 15
WASHINGTON STATE
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form1,2 [help]
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
Part 1–Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith’s Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help]
Rock Point Oyster Tarboo Bay FLUPSY
Part 2–Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help]
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Steele, David
2b. Organization (If applicable)
Rock Point Oyster Company, Inc.
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
1733 Dabob Post Office Road
2d. City, State, Zip
Quilcene, WA 98765
2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
360-765-4664 360-790-7408 dave@rockpointoyster.com
1Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
• If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias__resourcecenter/jarpa_jarpa_form/9984/jarpa_form.aspx.
For other help, contact the Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
AGENCY USE ONLY Date received:
Agency reference #:
Tax Parcel #(s):
Log Item 2
Page 94 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 2 of 15
Part 3–Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b of this application.) [help]
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Smith, Robert
3b. Organization (If applicable)
K&L Gates LLP
3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
3d. City, State, Zip
Seattle, WA 98104
3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
206-370-5743 206-370-6271 Robert.smith@klgates.com
Part 4–Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help]
☒ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
☐ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
☐ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
☐ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don’t know, contact
the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to
apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
4b. Organization (If applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
4d. City, State, Zip
4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
Log Item 2
Page 95 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 3 of 15
Part 5–Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help]
☐ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help]
☒ Private
☐ Federal
☐ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
☐ Tribal
☐ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help]
The site is aquatic. The closest street address is 1733 Dabob Post Office Road.
5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help]
Quilcene, WA 98376
5d. County [help]
Jefferson
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help]
¼ Section Section Township Range
9 27N 1W
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help]
• Example: 47.03922 N lat. / -122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83)
47.85079, -122.80507
5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help]
• The local county assessor’s office can provide this information.
701-091-004
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help]
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known)
Rock Point Oyster Company 1733 Dabob Post Office Road 701091001, 701091003 Quilcene, WA 98765
Log Item 2
Page 96 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 4 of 15
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
None
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help]
Tarboo Bay
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
5l. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help]
Upland vegetation adjacent to the tidelands is primarily Douglas fir and red alder with unique salt marsh on several spits. The upland is sparsely populated with 5 homes. There are numerous small streams flowing into the bay. There is little submerged attached vegetation (SAV) in Tarboo Bay, limited to channels that retain water at low tide. There is no eelgrass on or adjacent to Rock Point Oyster’s farm or the project site. One small beach within Tarboo Bay has potential for Sand Lance spawning (approximately 1,800 feet from the FLUPSY). Long Spit, which
separates Tarboo Bay from Dabob Bay, is a gravel spit that constantly feeds gravels into and across the middle of Tarboo Bay.
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [help]
The project site currently includes Rock Point Oyster’s FLUPSY, which was moved to the site in 2016. The site is surrounded by Rock Point Oyster’s shellfish farm which the FLUPSY supports by providing shellfish seed.
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help]
The project area is currently farmed for Manila clams and oysters. There is also a pier for transporting shellfish from boats to shore. The upland area immediately proximate to the FLUPSY is occupied by Rock Point Oyster’s facilities, including an office building, shop buildings, greenhouses, an upwelling building, a wet storage building and tanks, and two homes. The FLUPSY supports these existing uses. Additional use of Tarboo Bay includes some recreational trout and salmon fishing along the shoreline and periodic
use by kayakers during high tide.
Shorelines adjacent to the project area are designated as Residential on the east and Dabob Bay Natural Area Preserve on the west, with several spits included in the Natural Preserve shoreline environment.
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. [help]
The project site currently includes Rock Point Oyster’s existing 18’ x 33’ FLUPSY and power cable.
Log Item 2
Page 97 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 5 of 15
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help]
Head NE on US-101 for 0.2 miles from the Quilcene Post Office, slight right onto Center Road for 3.5 miles, right onto Dabob Road for 2.0 miles, sharp right onto Dabob Post Office Road for 1.8 miles. A map is attached.
Part 6–Project Description
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help]
The FLUPSY was constructed in 2014 and originally located in Blaine Harbor in Whatcom County, located over 130 miles from Tarboo Bay, for the first 2 years. Blaine Harbor proved to be operationally and logistically difficult
given its significant distance from Rock Point Oyster’s facilities. The FLUPSY was moved to Tarboo Bay and rebuilt in 2016 to be proximate to Rock Point Oyster’s operations. Rock Point Oyster’s upland facilities adjacent to Tarboo Bay include a remote setting facility and upwellers to set single oyster seed and grow it to a size ready for subsequent growth in the FLUPSY.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help]
The project is intended to obtain a County permit for the FLUPSY, which has been previously permitted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is located within Rock Point Oyster’s existing shellfish farm, which has been cultivated and farmed since 1935. The FLUPSY provides shellfish seed at all of Rock Point Oyster’s farms, including the adjacent Tarboo Bay farm and farms near Quilcene.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help]
☒ Commercial ☐ Residential ☐ Institutional ☐ Transportation ☐ Recreational
☐ Maintenance ☐ Environmental Enhancement
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
☒ Aquaculture
☐ Bank Stabilization
☐ Boat House
☐ Boat Launch
☐ Boat Lift
☐ Bridge
☐ Bulkhead
☐ Buoy
☐ Channel Modification
☐ Culvert
☐ Dam / Weir
☐ Dike / Levee / Jetty
☐ Ditch
☐ Dock / Pier
☐ Dredging
☐ Fence
☐ Ferry Terminal
☐ Fishway
☐ Float
☐ Floating Home
☐ Geotechnical Survey
☐ Land Clearing
☐ Marina / Moorage
☐ Mining
☐ Outfall Structure
☐ Piling/Dolphin
☒ Raft
☐ Retaining Wall
(upland)
☐ Road
☐ Scientific
Measurement Device
☐ Stairs
☐ Stormwater facility
☐ Swimming Pool
☐ Utility Line
☐ Other:
Log Item 2
Page 98 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 6 of 15
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. [help]
• Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
• Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
The FLUPSY has been operational since 2014 and located within the project area since 2016; thus, no additional construction is needed. Continued operations and maintenance of the FLUPSY involve no change to existing conditions. A FLUPSY is a rectangular raft-like structure designed to upwell nutrient-rich water through shellfish seed bins in order to provide a consistent source of nutrients to growing shellfish while protecting seed from predation.
Aluminum scaffolding is arranged to support a central housing containing fiberglass wells, or silos. The bottom of each well is composed of a mesh screen. Submerged troughs house a small electric pump. An electric pump with an enclosed stainless steel screen intake (per NMFS fish screening standards) pulls water out of the adjacent waterbody, creating a slow, upward flow of fresh seawater. Water exits each bin via a central channel and is directed back into the waterbody through the pump. These components are secured to floats for buoyancy, ultimately suspending the top of the silos above the water surface while partially submerging the seed in mesh screen silos to allow water to flow through the bins.
Floatation for the Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY is provided by rotomolded polyethylene. The FLUPSY frame measures 9.5 feet by 17.67 feet and the FLUPSY overall measures 18 feet by 33 feet (594 square feet). The draft of the FLUPSY is 4 feet. Water flow in the center channel of the FLUPSY is maintained by a ¾-
horsepower variable speed electric pump. Electric power is supplied from shore via cable along the substrate. The cable is attached to a water pipe that runs from Rock Point Oyster’s shore-side saltwater pump. It runs along the substrate underwater, with the last 30 feet connected with a flexible pipe. The FLUPSY has 12 silos each measuring 31 inches by 31 inches by 40 inches with stainless steel screen along the bottom. The deck is all plastic grating supported by an aluminum framework. The FLUPSY is anchored in a subtidal area (approximately 5 acres in size) that is at least 8 feet to 10 feet deep at low tide. Helical screw anchors or standard claw anchors are used at each of the four corners to hold the FLUPSY in place. Seed for the FLUPSY comes from the Rock Point Oyster remote setting upland facility adjacent to the FLUPSY site. Pacific oyster and Kumamoto oyster larvae are typically purchased from Hawaiian Shellfish or Whiskey Creek hatcheries. Shellfish are filter feeding organisms that consume naturally occurring microalgae, bacteria, and organic debris directly from the water that is circulated through the FLUPSY. No supplemental feeding with cultured algae or other additives is needed.
Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season, and every other week during colder water seasons. The silos are lifted with a chain lift mounted on an A-frame and washed with a hose supplied with saltwater pumped from alongside the FLUPSY. During the growing season, the seed is emptied into small tubs and brought to shore where it is sorted with a vibratory sifter, and then returned to the FLUPSY for continued grow-out.
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [help]
• If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage.
Start Date: N/A End Date: N/A ☐ See JARPA Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help]
$20,000
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help]
• If yes, list each agency providing funds.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
Log Item 2
Page 99 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 7 of 15
Part 7–Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
☐ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help]
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help]
☒ Not applicable
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help]
• If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? [help]
• If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [help]
• If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
• If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [help]
Log Item 2
Page 100 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 8 of 15
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [help]
Activity (fill, drain, excavate, flood, etc.)
Wetland Name1 Wetland type and rating
category2
Impact area (sq. ft. or
Acres)
Duration of impact3 Proposed mitigation type4
Wetland mitigation area (sq. ft. or
acres)
N/A
1 If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as “Wetland 1”). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter “permanent” if applicable. 4 Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help]
N/A
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
N/A
Part 8–Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation
In Part 8, “waterbodies” refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help]
☒ Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. [help]
☐ Not applicable
Log Item 2
Page 101 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 9 of 15
The project would comply with all conservation measures from the programmatic consultation for shellfish aquaculture in Washington state (Corps 2015, NMFS 2016, USFWS 2016). These measures are intended to avoid and minimize impacts to the environment and wildlife, to the extent practicable. Rock Point Oyster also
uses best management practices on all farms as outlined in the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association BMP's June 2019 version of their Environmental Codes of Practice document.
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help]
☐ Yes ☒ No
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project’s adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? [help]
• If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
• If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Don’t know
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan.
• If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help]
N/A
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help]
Activity (clear, dredge, fill, pile drive, etc.)
Waterbody name1 Impact location2 Duration of impact3
Amount of material (cubic yards) to be placed in or removed from waterbody
Area (sq. ft. or linear ft.) of waterbody directly affected
N/A
Log Item 2
Page 102 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 10 of 15
1 If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as “Stream 1”) The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 3 Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter “permanent” if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help]
N/A. The project does not propose any fill material.
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
N/A. The project does not propose any excavation or dredging.
Part 9–Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help]
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact
Department of Ecology Teresa Pucylowski 360-764-0546 12/15/22
USACE Danette Guy 206-348-3999 12/15/22
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology’s 303(d) List? [help]
• If Yes, list the parameter(s) below.
• If you don’t know, use Washington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment tools at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d.
☒ Yes ☐ No
Log Item 2
Page 103 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 11 of 15
The site is listed on the Washington State 303(d) list for impaired water quality. It is listed for the following parameters: Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Category 5). The listing ID is 60222. The most recent exceedance of the threshold was in 2017. However, Tarboo Bay is considered an “approved” shellfish
growing area by the Washington Department of Health (WDOH), suggesting that more recent sampling has shown acceptable levels and WDOH has approved Rock Point Oyster’s growing area for shellfish cultivation and harvesting.
9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help]
• Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110018
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [help]
• Go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Water-availability/Watershed-look-up to find the WRIA #.
17
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? [help]
• Go to https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Freshwater/Surface-water-quality-standards/Criteria for the standards.
☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? [help]
• If you don’t know, contact the local planning department.
• For more information, go to: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-
planning/Shoreline-laws-rules-and-cases.
☐ Urban ☐ Natural ☒ Aquatic ☐ Conservancy ☐ Other:
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help]
• Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-practices-water-typing for the Forest Practices Water Typing System.
☒ Shoreline ☐ Fish ☐ Non-Fish Perennial ☐ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology’s most current stormwater manual? [help]
• If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
☐ Yes ☐ No N/A
Name of manual:
9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help]
• If Yes, please describe below.
☐ Yes ☒ No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help]
Log Item 2
Page 104 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 12 of 15
The area has been used for commercial shellfish aquaculture since 1935.
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help]
• If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
☐ Yes ☒ No
Engagement has been conducted with tribes in the area, including the Skokomish Tribe. Further, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated potential impacts to cultural and historic resources as part of its prior approvals for Rock Point Oyster’s shellfish farm and concluded that no cultural or historic resources would be impacted.
9l. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the
project area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chum salmon (O. keta) Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus)
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
Dungeness crab, Northern Spotted Owl
Part 10–SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
• Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.oria.wa.gov/opas/.
• Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@oria.wa.gov.
• For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help]
• For more information about SEPA, go to https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/SEPA-environmental-review.
☐ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
☒ A SEPA determination is pending with Jefferson County (lead agency). The expected
decision date is ASAP .
Log Item 2
Page 105 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 13 of 15
☐ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help]
☐ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
☐ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
☐ Other:
☐ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
☒ Substantial Development ☐ Conditional Use ☐ Variance
☐ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other City/County permits:
☐ Floodplain Development Permit ☐ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
☐ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ☐ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption – Attach Exemption Form
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
☐ Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification
☐ Authorization to impact waters of the state, including wetlands (Check this box if the proposed impacts
are to waters not subject to the federal Clean Water Act)
FEDERAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
☐ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ☒ Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard: For projects or bridges over waters of the United States, contact the U.S. Coast Guard at:
☐ Bridge Permit: D13-SMB-D13-BRIDGES@uscg.mil
☐ Private Aids to Navigation (or other non-bridge permits): D13-SMB-D13-PATON@uscg.mil
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) on tribal lands where tribes do
not have treatment as a state (TAS)
Tribal Permits: (Check with the tribe to see if there are other tribal permits, e.g., Tribal Environmental Protection Act, Shoreline
Permits, Hydraulic Project Permits, or other in addition to CWA Section 401 WQC)
Log Item 2
Page 106 of 112
506710879.1
ORIA-revised 07/2022 Page 14 of 15
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) where the tribe has treatment
as a state (TAS).
Log Item 2
Page 107 of 112
05/24/2023
Log Item 2
Page 108 of 112
Log Item 2
Page 109 of 112
Supplemental Shoreline Application Page 2 of 2
These activities require a formal statement of Exemption issued by Jefferson County.
Check ‘Statement of Exemption’ box on the front of this form and submit with Permit Application
to apply for your Exemption Approval.
18.25.570 Statement of Exemptions
(1)The administrator is hereby authorized to grant or deny requests for statements of exemption from the shoreline
substantial development permit requirement for uses and developments within shorelines that are specifically listed
above. Such statements shall be applied for on forms provided by the administrator. The statement shall be in writing
and shall indicate the specific exemption of this program that is being applied to the development, and shall provide a
summary of the administrator’s analysis of the consistency of the project with this program and the Act. As appropriate,
such statements of exemptions shall contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to achieve consistency
and compliance with the provisions of this program and Act. A denial of an exemption shall be in writing and shall
identify the reason(s) for the denial. The administrator’s actions on the issuance of a statement of exemption or a denial
are subject to appeal pursuant to the appeal provisions in Article X of this chapter.
18.25.560 Exemptions listed – This is a summary from JCC18.25.560, please review the code section for
detailed information regarding these exemptions.
(1)Fair Market Value.
(2)Maintenance and Repair.
(3)Residential Bulkhead.
(4)Emergency Construction.
(5)Agriculture.
(6)Drainage.
(7)Navigation Aids.
(8)Single-Family Residences.
(9)Residential Docks.
(10) Irrigation.
(11) State Property.
(12) Energy Facilities.
(13) Site Exploration.
(14) Noxious Weeds.
(15) Watershed Restoration.
(16) Watershed restoration project”
(17) Watershed restoration plan”
(18) A public or private project, the primary purpose of
which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish
passage.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Shoreline Development Permit Fees
Type I Exemption DCD117 ($749.00)
Type II Conditional Use – Administrative DCD117 ($1,712.00)
Type II Conditional Use – Discretionary DCD117 ($1,712.00)
Type III Substantial Development DC1017 ($2,675.00)
Type III Variance DCD117 ($2,247.00)
Notice of Application; All type II and III ($149.00)
Notice of Hearing; All type III ($149.00)
Notice Board; All type II and III ($12.00)
Scan DCD122 ($26.75)
SEPA; if required per CAM or PRE DCD121 ($1,070.00)
Hearing Examiner if required CAM or PRE DCD102 ($1,298.44)
Subtotal
Technology Fee EH9999 – 5%
Total Fees* $
*Additional fees may apply.
Log Item 2
Page 110 of 112
CORPS REFERENCE:
NWS-2007-1150
APPLICANT: Dave Steele
PARCEL IDs/Owners: 701091004 / Rock Point Oyster Company PROPOSED PROJECT: Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY
Sheet 1 of 2 Date: November 10, 2023 SITE ADDRESS: 1733 Dabob Post Office Road Quilcene, WA 98376
In: Tarboo Bay Near: Quilcene County: Jefferson State: Washington
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS (West to East): 701091001/ Rock Point Oyster Company 701091003/ Rock Point Oyster Company 701163002/ Rock Point Oyster Company
Coordinate System: WA State Plane North (ft)
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY
Log Item 2
Page 111 of 112
CORPS REFERENCE:
NWS-2007-1150
APPLICANT: Dave Steele
PARCEL IDs/Owners: 701091004 / Rock Point Oyster Company PROPOSED PROJECT: Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY Sheet 2 of 2 Date: November 10, 2023 SITE ADDRESS: 1733 Dabob Post Office Road Quilcene, WA 98376 In: Tarboo Bay Near: Quilcene County: Jefferson State: Washington
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS (West to East): 701091001/ Rock Point Oyster Company 701091003/ Rock Point Oyster Company 701163002/ Rock Point Oyster Company
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY
FLUPSY
18’ x 33’
Power cable
Log Item 2
Page 112 of 112