The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-366 Page 1 of2 Jeanie Orr C(J M~ ~!, L{yrt~ LIIlfll From: Shellfish Farm, LLC [shellfish@mfadams.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 20094:59 PM To: #Long-Range Planning; Michelle McConnell Subject: Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program (PDSMP) Comments Importance: High Dear Michelle McConnell: I am writing to express my concerns with regard to the Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program as presented to the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Below, I have tried to give an impartial view of the issues as I serve in multiple capacities within Jefferson County. The views provided are those of my own and do not reflect those of any other organization or jurisdiction. I have tried in good faith to base the analysis in fact and have given references to additional materials for your consideration when appropriate. For the record, it must be stated that I serve as Jefferson County's Marine Resource Committee Chair (MRC letter submitted separately) and am a member of the Shoreline Master Program - Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee. In addition, I am an owner of properties on Hood Head and operate a commercial shellfish farm in conjunction with my wife on the tombolo immediately adjacent to Wolfe Property State Park WA-1514-SS. I am also a Shore Steward and prescribe to their guidelines for protecting fish and wildlife habitat and previously, in conjunction with my wife and others, have sponsored land owner workshops for the residents of the Bywater Bay / Hood Head area. My primary concerns with the current draft follow: 1. As stated numerous times during my participation with the STAC, I am deeply concerned with unfunded mandates for the County and the County taking on responsibilities / activities that are better regulated by existing State and / or Federal agencies. Currently, Jefferson County DCD lacks resources and it is unlikely that they'll be able to acquire subject matter expertise without changing their current revenue structure. Unenforceable regulations do not ensure "no net loss" or meet the intent of the SMA; therefore, I suggest a simple, easy to manage approach may serve all interests best. 2. I encourage Jefferson County to consider their position with regard to shellfish aquaculture. As written, Article 8.2 - Aquaculture is clumsy and may not provide the intended outcomes nor protections. For all new aquaculture activity, I recommend applicants complete a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) utilizing the Washington Environmental Permitting Information site located at http://epermitting.org/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa/9983/jarpa.aspx for local review. This tool may be used successfully to determine whether a permit is necessary and ensure "no net loss" of critical habitat while not being too burdensome for either Jefferson County or the applicant. 2/2/2009 Page 2 of2 3. Our farm specializes in manila clams and pacific oysters; however, I understand the complex issues surrounding the intertidal geoduck industry and recommend that Jefferson County consider the recommendations presented in the Department of Ecology Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Guidelines for Geoduck Aquatic Operations, developed under the Authority of Section 4 of Second Substitute House Bill 2200 Chapter 216, Laws of 2007, January 2009, Publication no. 09-06-001 (attached). The document is a consensus document and is fair. This industry is a rapidly moving target and fraught with emotion (on all sides). If the County were to use Ecology's guidelines incorporated by reference within the SMP, it would allow the County to tailor the SMP to utilize the best management of aquaculture practices. As science improves and the guidelines mature these guidelines could undergo revision without requiring a formal SMP update. 4. I also suggest that the County consider that some shellfish species (geoduck) require five to seven years from planting to harvest depending upon site variables; therefore, a five year permit, as currently written, may be construed as too limiting to growers. 5. I also recommend that rather than reinvent the wheel, Jefferson County use DNR's and WDFWs expertise with regard to aquaculture, specifically geoduck intertidal shellfish aquaculture, and consult DNR's Best Management Practices (attached). The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) also has developed BMPs for their members and it is in their best interest to protect shoreline resources. 6. If permits are necessary for new activities, I recommend that the County utilize the Substantial Development Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit as it allows local control. 7. Finally, I encourage the County to consider strengthening shoreline buffers as they provide the greatest protection to nearshore habitat and waters of the state. Scientific studies differ on this issue; however, if we are to consider "no net loss" it is not unreasonable to expect 300' buffers in priority aquatic areas, and Category 1 estuarine wetlands with high habitat scores. I would also propose 200' buffers in areas designated as Natural. I sincerely hope that Jefferson County proceeds with the SMP in a timely manner and considers simplifying the documentation of the program. During the process, I had concerns that we were largely taking Whatcom County's documents and simply doing a search and replace. Whatcom County is very different from Jefferson County. Please ensure that our county is able to enforce what it codifies and be careful to not take on too much. I wholly support strong protections and encourage you to provide a program that yields the desired results. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Michael F. Adams PO Box 65223 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 2/2/2009 Michael F. Adams PO Box 65223 Port Ludlow, W A 98365 January 30, 2009 Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Attn: Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner Via email: olanning@co.iefferson.wa.us mmcconnell@co.iefferson.wa.us RE: Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program (PDSMP) Comments Dear Michelle McConnell: I am writing to express my concerns with regard to the Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program as presented to the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Below, I have tried to give an impartial view of the issues as I serve in multiple capacities within Jefferson County. The views provided are those of my own and do not reflect those of any other organization or jurisdiction. I have tried in good faith to base the analysis in fact and have given references to additional materials for your consideration when appropriate. For the record, it must be stated that I serve as Jefferson County's Marine Resource Committee Chair (MRC letter submitted separately) and am a member of the Shoreline Master Program - Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee. In addition, I am an owner of properties on Hood Head and operate a commercial shellfish farm in conjunction with my wife on the tombolo immediately adjacent to Wolfe Property State Park W A-1514-SS. I am also a Shore Steward and prescribe to their guidelines for protecting fish and wildlife habitat and previously, in conjunction with my wife and others, have sponsored land owner workshops for the residents of the Bywater Bay / Hood Head area. My primary concerns with the current draft follow: 1. As stated numerous times during my participation with the STAC, I am deeply concerned with unfunded mandates for the County and the County taking on responsibilities / activities that are better regulated by existing State and / or Federal agencies. Currently, Jefferson County DCD lacks resources and it is unlikely that they'll be able to acquire subject matter expertise without changing their current revenue structure. Unenforceable regulations do not ensure "no net loss" or meet the intent of the SMA; therefore, I suggest a simple, easy to manage approach may serve all interests best. 2. I encourage Jefferson County to consider their position with regard to shellfish aquaculture. As written, Article 8.2 - Aquaculture is clumsy and may not provide the intended outcomes nor protections. For all new aquaculture activity, I recommend applicants complete a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) utilizing the Washington Environmental Permitting Information site located at http://epermitting.org/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa/9983/iarpa.aspx for local review. This tool may be used successfully to determine whether a permit is necessary and ensure "no net loss" of critical habitat while not being too burdensome for either Jefferson County or the applicant. 3. Our farm specializes in manila clams and pacific oysters; however, I understand the complex issues surrounding the intertidal geoduck industry and recommend that Jefferson County consider the recommendations presented in the Department of &ology Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Guidelines for Geoduck Aquatic Operations, developed under the Authority of Section 4 of Second Substitute House Bill 2200 Chapter 216, Laws of2007,January 2009, Publication no. 09- 06-001 (attached). The document is a consensus document and is fair. This industry is a rapidly moving target and fraught with emotion (on all sides). If the County were to use Ecology's guidelines incorporated by reference within the SMP, it would allow the County to tailor the SMP to utilize the best management of aquaculture practices. As science improves and the guidelines mature these guidelines could undergo revision without requiring a formal SMP update. 4. I also suggest that the County consider that some shellfish species (geoduck) require five to seven years from planting to harvest depending upon site variables; therefore, a five year permit, as currently written, may be construed as too limiting to growers. 5. I also recommend that rather than reinvent the wheel, Jefferson County use DNR's and WDFW's expertise with regard to aquaculture, specifically geoduck intertidal shellfish aquaculture, and consult DNR's Best Management Practices (attached). The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) also has developed BMPs for their members and it is in their best interest to protect shoreline resources. 6. If permits are necessary for new activities, I recommend that the County utilize the Substantial Development Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit as it allows local control. 7. Finally, I encourage the County to consider strengthening shoreline buffers as they provide the greatest protection to nearshore habitat and waters of the state. Scientific studies differ on this issue; however, if we are to consider "no net loss" it is not unreasonable to expect 300' buffers in priority aquatic areas, and Category 1 estuarine wetlands with high habitat scores. I would also propose 200' buffers in areas designated as Natural. I sincerely hope that Jefferson County proceeds with the SMP in a timely manner and considers simplifying the documentation of the program. During the process, I had concerns that we were largely taking Whatcom County's documents and simply doing a search and replace. Whatcom County is very different from Jefferson County. Please ensure that our county is able to enforce what it codifies and be careful to not take on too much. I wholly support strong protections and encourage you to provide a program that yields the desired results. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, ~~ Michael F. Adams DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee . Guidelines for Geoduck Aquatic Operations Developed under the Authority of Section 4 of Second Substitute House Bill 2220 Chapter 216, Laws of2007 January 2009 Publication no. 09-06-001 Publlcatlon and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at www.ecy.wa.gov /biblio/0906001.html For more information contact Publications Coordinator Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, W A 98504-7600 E-mail: tisc461@ecy.wa.gov Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov/ o Headquarters, Olympia (360) 407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue (425) 649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia (360) 407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima (509) 575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane (509) 329-3400 If you need this publication in an alternate format, call Ecology's Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at (360) 407-6096. Persons 'With hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations On Guidelines for Geoduck Aquaculture Operations Developed under the Authority of Section 4 of Second Substitute House Bill 2220 Chapter 216, Laws of2007 This report, as well as agendas, presentations, meeting notes and background documents related to the work of the Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee, are available at http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/sea/shellfishcommittee Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504-7710 This page is purposely left blank Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations On Guidelines For Geoduck Aquaculture Operations January 2, 2009 SUMMARY In 2007 the Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee was established to provide advice on shellfish aquaculture. The legislation, Second Substitute House Bill 2220 (Chapter 216, Laws of 2007), directs the Committee to develop recommendations as to appropriate guidelines for geoduck aquaculture operations to be included in shoreline master programs. The membership of the Committee is diverse, including representatives oflocal government, the shellfish aquaculture industry, the environmental community, shoreline property owners, state agencies and tribal governments. The Committee reviewed background documents, met with a wide range of experts on aquaculture and marine sciences, visited a geoduck aquaculture operation and discussed how geoduck aquaculture should be addressed by local shoreline master programs. The Committee developed consensus recommendations on a number of issues. For issues where the Committee did not reach consensus, the Committee agreed to present the range of recommendations by Committee members in the report. Committee members continue to disagree on many issues and these disagreements lead to opposing recommendations. Only the consensus recommendations of the Committee are listed in this summary. Consensus Recommendations Overall Principles The Committee recommends that guidelines for geoduck aquaculture be designed to meet the shoreline goal of achieving no net loss of ecological functions provided by shorelines and to minimize conflicts with other land uses. Shoreline Use Designations The Committee recommends that local jurisdictions identify where geoduck aquaculture would or would not be allowed, subject to site-specific reviews, when establishing shoreline designations. Requirements for Siting and Operation The Committee recommends: · Local jurisdictions consider the extent and sensitivity of ecological features like eelgrass beds when considering whether a specific site is appropriate for geoduck aquaculture. · Basing consideration of the sensitivity of habitat features on the site location. · Restricting geoduck aquaculture at sites requiring major physical alterations before use. · Local jurisdictions consider possible conflicts with surrounding land uses before approving new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations. · Local jurisdictions defer to the Department of Fish and Wildlife on minimizing the risk of introducing parasites and disease with geoduck seed. 1 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 . Requiring buffers between sensitive habitats and planted geoducks. · Restricting geoduck aquaculture to sites that are fundamentally suitable for geoduck harvesting without the need for grading or rock removal. . Guidelines address the ecological effects of tubes, nets and other predator exclusion devices. · The guidelines not require public access to private tidelands used for geoduck aquaculture. · Growers make every effort to prevent the loss of tubes, nets and other items and should recover litter and debris to the extent feasible. Approval Process The Committee recommends: . The local jurisdiction provide public notice of a proposal for a new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operation regardless ofthe type of approval process being followed. . As part of any local approval process, two types of information be provided by the applicant: a baseline survey of the proposed site to allow consideration of the ecological effects and a narrative description ofthe proposed aquaculture activities. . New or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations receive prior approval through a shoreline ~ubstantial development permit, a conditional use permit or a written exemption determination. An approach allowing new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations without any prior approval is inadequate to meet the general principles of achieving no net loss of ecological function and minimizing land use conflicts. INTRODUCTION Background on Geoduck Aquaculture The Pacific geoduck, Panopea abrupta, is an exceptionally large clam native to the marine waters of Washington. Geoducks normally live over a wide range of water depths, from the lower intertidal down to more than 200 feet. Geoducks can live longer than 100 years. In recent years domestic and international demand for geoducks has increased dramatically. Wild geoducks are commercially harvested by divers. Over the last decade shellfish growers have developed aquaculture techniques to grow geoduck clams in the intertidal zone. The most common method involves inserting plastic tubes into the beach at low tide, planting cultured geoduck seed in the tubes, and covering the tubes with netting. The tubes and nets protect the baby clams from predators. After the geoducks grow for one to one and a half years, the tubes and nets are removed. When the geoduck clams reach market size, usually after four to six years, they are harvested by workers using water jets to loosen the sediment surrounding the clams so they can be removed. Planting, maintenance of the tubes and nets and harvest usually occur during low tides when the area where the clams are planted is exposed. In certain times of the year the low tides occur at night. Currently geoduck aquaculture occurs only on privately-owned intertidal lands. In the mid-1990s Washington State Parks planted geoducks in plastic tubes on intertidal lands in front of six state parks to create a recreational intertidal harvest. The Department of Natural Resources, which administers state-owned aquatic lands, has been developing a pilot geoduck aquaculture program 2 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 on state owned tidelands but so far no geoduck aquaculture on state owned tidelands has been authorized!. Natural Resources has received lease applications for several sites and may have one or more leases approved by the summer of2009. The conversion of intertidal beaches to geoduck aquaculture has resulted in conflicts with some existing shoreline residents who feel geoduck aquaculture alters the nature of their shorelines. Some private owners of tidelands see geoduck aquaculture as an appropriate water-dependent use that allows them to receive an income from their properties. The Shoreline Management Act is the key state law addressing shoreline land uses and providing for the designation and protection of critical areas located with shoreline areas. Because geoduck aquaculture is a relatively new activity, local shoreline master programs lack specific provisions to address it. Background on the Shoreline Management Act Many federal, state and local laws and regulations address the types of issues raised by geoduck aquaculture. Perhaps the most important law that applies to uses along shorelines in Washington is the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). All land uses and development in the defined shoreline area must comply with the Act. Most developments that occur on or near the shorelines are required to obtain and comply with shoreline permits, although single family residences are exempt from the need to obtain a perm if . Permitting for most development is administered at the city or county level, with standards and requirements outlined in the local jurisdiction's shoreline master program. Each city or county with shorelines within its jurisdiction adopts its own master program, which is a comprehensive use plan for the area. Once a master program is approved by the Department of Ecology, the city or county is the entity responsible for reviewing projects and issuing permits for activities in the shoreline zone. Depending on the type of permit issued (Le., Substantial Development, Conditional Use, or Variance) the Department of Ecology may have a review and approval role. The shoreline zone is a very limited resource and there are many competing uses. The Shoreline Management Act recognizes this competition and establishes priorities for uses (WAC 173-26- 201 (2)(d)). Local governments use this list when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines within their jurisdiction, in this order: 1. Protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health. 2. Water-dependent and associated water-related uses3. 1 Natural Resources determined during 2008 that geoduck clams had been planted on state-owned lands in Totten Inlet without authorization and, in December, 2008, proposed leasing the affected lands to allow the clams to be harvested. 2 A number of activities are exempt from substantial development permits, including single family residences, bulkheads for single family residences, docks designed for pleasure craft (subject to a cost limit), farming, irrigation systems, and watershed and habitat restoration projects 3 Geoduck aquaculture is a water dependent use. 3 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 3. Other water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives. 4. Single-family residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses. 5. Nonwater-oriented uses, limited to those locations where the above described uses are inappropriate or where nonwater-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act. On shorelines of statewide significance, local governments give preference to uses in the following order of preference: Uses which: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Result in long term over short term benefit; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. While each local jurisdiction develops its own shoreline master program, the Department of Ecology adopts, by rule, guidelines for local master programs (Chapter 173-26 WAC). The Committee recommendations contained in this document will be used by the Department in developing new guidelines for how local master programs should address geoduck aquaculture. The existing guidelines address aquaculture generally but do not have specific provisions related to geoduck aquaculture. "Aquaculture is the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals. This activity is of statewide interest. Properly managed, it can result in long-term over short-term benefit and can protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Aquaculture is dependent on the use of the water area and, when consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the environment, is a preferred use of the water area. Local government should consider local ecological conditions and provide limits and conditions to assure appropriate compatible types of aquaculture for the local conditions as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions. Potential locations for aquaculture are relatively restricted due to specific requirements for water quality, temperature, flows, oxygen content, adjacent land uses, wind protection, commercial navigation, and, in marine waters, salinity. The technology associated with some forms of present-day aquaculture is still in its formative stages and experimental. Local shoreline master programs 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. Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions, adversely impact eelgrass and macroalgae, or significantly conflict with navigation and other water-dependent uses. Aquacultural facilities 4 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Impacts to ecological functions shall be mitigated according to the mitigation sequence described in WAC 173-26-020." WAC 173-26-241 (3)(b) In addition to the guidelines for shoreline master programs, which are adopted as a rule, the Department of Ecology can provide technical guidance for local shoreline master programs that is more detailed than the rule. Technical guidance can also be quickly changed as new information becomes available. The ShellfIsh Aquaculture Regulatory Committee In 2007 the Washington State Legislature passed Second Substitute House Bill 2220 (Chapter 216, Laws of2007) relating to shellfish aquaculture. Among other provisions, the bill establishes the Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee to serve as the state advisory committee on geoduck aquaculture. The director of the Department of Ecology appoints the members of the Shellfish Committee. The membership consists of: · Two representatives of county government, one from a county located on the Puget Sound, and one from a county located on the Pacific Ocean; · Two individuals who are professionally engaged in the commercial aquaculture of shellfish, one who owns or operates an aquatic farm in Puget Sound, and one who owns or operates an aquatic farm in state waters other than the Puget Sound; · Two representatives of organizations representing the environmental community; · Two individuals who own shoreline property, one of which does not have a commercial geoduck operation on his or her property and one of which who does have a commercial geoduck operation on his or her property; and · One representative each from the following state agencies: The department of ecology, the department of fish and wildlife, the department of agriculture, and the department of natural resources. In addition, the Governor invited the full participation of two tribal governments. A list of Committee members is included as Appendix A. Assignments to the ShellfIsh Aquaculture Regulatory Committee The Committee is assigned three tasks under this legislation: Task 1: Develop recommendations for an integrated regulatory process for all current and new shellfish aquaculture projects. Task 2: Oversee the intertidal geoduck scientific research program authorized by the bill. 5 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 Task 3: Develop recommendations as to appropriate guidelines for geoduck aquaculture operations to be included in shoreline master programs under section 5 of the legislation4. When developing the recommendations for guidelines, the committee must examine the following: i. Methods for quantifying and reducing marine litter; and ii. Possible landowner notification policies and requirements for establishing new geoduck aquaculture farms. The Committee's recommendations to Ecology on guidelines for geoduck aquaculture are presented below. Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Process The Committee is a diverse group representing a wide range of perspectives on shellfish aquaculture. The Committee began meeting in July 2007 and generally met monthly through November 2008. The Committee heard presentations by a wide range of experts on aquaculture and marine sciences and visited a geoduck aquaculture operation on Totten Inlet in Thurston County. Through these presentations and extensive discussions among the Committee members, the members have reached general agreement on the need to manage geoduck aquaculture to achieve the goal of no net loss of ecological functions and to minimize conflicts with surrounding land uses. The Committee recommendations that follow reflect this general agreement while respecting the range of opinions held by the members. The phrase "The Committee recommends" indicates a consensus among Committee members. Where the Committee did not reach consensus, the Committee agreed to present the recommendations of the members of the Committee. Remaining Disagreements While the Committee members were able to reach agreement on a number of general recommendations, they remain far apart on many details. Some private tideland owners, including shellfish companies, want to raise geoducks for market. Some shoreline residents dislike having what they see as an industrial activity occurring near them. Many people are concerned that geoduck aquaculture will harm the ecological functions of the shorelines. Shoreline residents point out that residential use is one of the preferred uses of the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act. Shellfish growers point out that water-dependent uses like aquaculture are also priority uses of the shoreline. Protecting and restoring ecological functions, a key priority, has been emphasized by environmental group representatives on the Committee. The differing positions among Committee members results in conflicting recommendations. Some members recommend setbacks along property boundaries, some oppose setbacks. Some recommend a prohibition on mooring over submerged vegetation, others oppose a prohibition. In the end, these disagreements will need to be addressed by local jurisdictions-in many cases on a site-by-site basis. 4 Section 5 directs the Department of Ecology to develop, by rule, guidelines for the appropriate siting and operation of geoduck aquaculture operations to be included in any local shoreline master program. 6 Shellfish Aquacu.lture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GUIDELINES FOR GEODUCK AQUACULTURE Overall Principles The Committee recommends that guidelines for geoduck aquaculture be designed to meet the shoreline goal of achieving no net loss of ecological functions provided by shorelines .and to minimize conflicts with other land uses. In making its recommendations, the Committee recognizes that while requirements included in the Ecology guidelines and local master programs are enforceable, the guidelines and local master programs will not be revised very often. Many Committee members recommend the management of geoduck aquaculture have the flexibility to respond to new aquaculture techniques or new scientific information about the ecological effects of geoduck aquaculture and recommend putting detailed requirements, when appropriate, in a technical guidance document developed and periodically updated by the Department of Ecology. The technical guidance document should contain detailed recommendations and best management practices that can be used by local jurisdictions in administering the local master programs. One Committee member opposes giving the geoduck aquaculture industry the flexibility to introduce new aquaculture techniques. Specific Recommendations The Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee organized recommendations into five sections: I. Shoreline use designations, II. Requirements for siting, III. Requirements for operation, IV. Approval processes, and V. Other recommendations. I. Shoreline Use Designations When a local shoreline master program is adopted, the local jurisdiction divides the shoreline zone into a number of separate shoreline environments. Specific shoreline uses are only allowed in certain environments. In addition to dividing the shoreline zone into these classifications, the local government may designate critical areas and can establish other overlays that allow or prohibit specific uses or impose more requirements. The Committee recommends local jurisdictions identify where geoduck aquaculture would or would not be allowed, subject to site-specific reviews, when establishing shoreline designations. When designating the shoreline, local jurisdictions should compile and analyze information on existing intertidal habitats and function as well as current land uses. Jurisdictions can then decide to allow, or not allow, geoduck aquaculture along sections of the shoreline both to ensure meeting the overall principle of no net loss of ecological functions and to reduce the likelihood of land use conflicts. Several Committee members recommend protecting habitats of sensitive species. 7 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 Some Committee members also mentioned that upland uses can cause pollution that prevents shellfish harvest. One Committee member considers the topic of upland pollution irrelevant to the work of the Shellfish Committee. Several Committee members recommend local jurisdictions consider cumulative effects when designating areas for geoduck aquaculture by reviewing the current extent of geoduck aquaculture and possible expansions. Many Committee members recommend Ecology provide more specific information on habitat issues to local jurisdictions as well as sources of data. Some Committee members are concerned that prohibiting geoduck aquaculture based on shoreline designations would likely eliminate some of the most appropriate areas for geoduck farming, where neighbors might embrace the activity. One Committee member recommends against prohibiting geoduck aquaculture through shoreline designations because it may raise concerns with tribal governments. Designation Tools The Committee discussed several tools available to local governments to designate areas where geoduck aquaculture is or is not allowed. One approach is to define sub-categories of the "aquatic" environment, with geoduck aquaculture only allowed in one (or some) of the sub- categories. Another approach is to define at least two critical saltwater habitat designations in the local shoreline master program with geoduck aquaculture only allowed in one. Finally, local jurisdictions can do a special area plan for geoduck aquaculture that would be a separate overlay to the land use map. The Committee has no recommendation on which approach each local jurisdiction should take but offers this list of pros and cons. Use Shoreline Critical Area designations to better identify where geoduck aquaculture may be allowed. Pros: 1. Recreational and commercial shellfish beds are critical areas under SMA. Other critical areas (e.g., salmon, forage fish, eelgrass, bird nesting or rearing) may be located on shorelines where shellfish beds occur. 2. Critical Area designations provide opportunities for broad citizen participation. Cons: I. Spatial mapping of eelgrass beds, forage fish, salmon rearing and migration, and other critical areas, as well as land use inventories, would likely be needed prior to drawing specific geoduck aquaculture sites or districts on the map. Many jurisdictions have not mapped all their critical areas, making this difficult. 2. The purpose of Critical Area designations is to designate and protect critical area functions and values. Critical Area designations are good for protecting critical areas from water quality and habitat impacts. However, they are not set up to address siting or conflicts between geoduck aquaculture and adjacent land uses or navigation or public access issues. 8 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 Use Shoreline Master Program (SMP) aquatic environment designation to identify areas where geoduck aquaculture would be allowed. Pros: 1. SMP updates need extensive inventory and characterization of natural resources and land use patterns within shoreline jurisdictions that would provide a framework for creating a specialized aquatic designation for geoduck aquaculture. 2. Aquaculture is a preferred water-dependent use under the Shoreline Management Act when properly managed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 3. SMP guidelines provide guidance for regulating uses such as aquaculture. The guidelines also provide guidance for shoreline modifications associated with aquaculture (piers, fill, groins, etc.). 4. SMP adoption is a good opportunity to inventory shoreline uses and prevent uses that are incompatible with preferred water-dependent uses or other uses or with navigation or public access. 5. SMP environmental designations provide a framework for adopting shoreline policies and regulatory measures specific to local shoreline conditions. 6. SMP updates include broad citizen input and participation. 7. Several jurisdictions have already defmed areas suitable for aquaculture in their SMPs (Island County, Pierce County). Cons: 1. There is disagreement within the Shellfish Committee as to the level of detail that should be included for geoduck aquaculture in the guidelines rule adopted by Ecology or in technical guidance that may be updated more frequently. Less rule detail provides less certainty for property owners concerned about conflicts and fewer crIteria for Ecology to assess consistency of the SMP with the Shoreline Management Act. Having less detail in rule may provide jurisdictions more flexibility in developing their SMPs and shellfish farmers more flexibility in improving technologies. Create a special overlay (special area planning) to identify those areas where geoduck aquaculture may be allowed. Pros: 1. This regulatory tool may be used to implement shoreline critical area designations or SMPs in shorelin~s. Cons: 1. Unless undertaken as part of Critical Area Ordinance or Shoreline Master Program analyses, there may be additional costs associated with the inventory and analyses needed to provide technical rationale. 9 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 II. Requirements for Siting of Geoduck Aquaculture Projects The Committee discussed issues related to whether geoduck aquaculture should be allowed on a specific site. An important consideration is whether the site has ecological characteristics that would be harmed by geoduck aquaculture to such a degree the goal of achieving no net loss could not be met. The Committee recommends that local jurisdictions consider the extent and sensitivity of ecological features like eelgrass beds when considering whether a specific site is appropriate for geoduck aquaculture. If only part of a site has sensitive features, the local jurisdiction may consider buffers to protect those features. Many Committee members recommend the applicant prepare a baseline habitat survey to determine what ecological features are present at a proposed site. The Committee recommends basing the consideration ofthe sensitivity of habitat features on the site location. For example, a habitat feature common in Willapa Bay may be considered sensitive in a portion of Puget Sound. One Committee member recommends that the guidelines prohibit geoduck farming in designated forage fish spawning areas. The Committee recommends restricting geoduck aquaculture at sites requiring major physical alteration before use. One Committee member recommends the guidelines address the risk of sediment contamination from past industrial activities being released by geoduck aquaculture activities. To minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses, the Committee recommends local jurisdictions consider possible conflicts with surrounding land uses before approving new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations. Public beaches, boat launches and upland residential developments might conflict with geoduck operations. One Committee member states that geoduck farming impinges on rural as well as high-density housing and recommends upland owners be afforded protections from aquaculture changing the nature of the shorelines they purchased. III. Requirements for Operation of Geoduck Aquaculture projects Stock selection and health Growers obtain geoduck seed from hatcheries. Since the geoducks planted by aquaculture operations may reproduce before harvest, there is a potential for the cultured clams to interact with the genetics of the wild populations. Research is currently being done on the genetics of wild and cultured geoducks. Many members of the Committee recommend the genetics issue be included as a general issue in the guidelines and specific recommendations be included in technical guidance when they become available. Many Committee members recommend deferring to the Department ofFish and Wildlife on this issue. Hatchery seed may also carry diseases and parasites. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has a shellfish transfer permitting system designed to minimize the risk of transferring 10 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 or introducing parasites and disease into areas where they currently do not exist. The Committee recommends deferring to the Department ofFish and Wildlife on this issue. Growing and Holding Pools The Committee discussed using plastic pools in the intertidal zone to hold geoduck seed before planting. Representatives of geoduck growers told the Committee holding pools are not part of each geoduck aquaculture site but are located at only a few locations. The Committee also considered the possibility of holding pools placed in the uplands or floating on barges. Committee members recommend local jurisdictions address upland holding pools like other upland aquaculture facilities. Many Committee members recommend that intertidal holding pools, those placed directly on the intertidal substrate, should be limited in the total area covered and number of sites where they are permitted. Several Committee members recommend that intertidal holding pools not be included in the Ecology guidelines for geoduck aquaculture operations. Buffers Between Planted Geoducks and Sensitive Habitats The Committee recommends requiring buffers between sensitive habitats and planted geoducks. Many Committee members recommend a general statement about buffers be included in the guidelines and recommended distances be included in technical guidance documents as recommended best management practices. Several Committee members recommend buffers of at least 25 feet from sensitive habitat elements. Setbacks Along Property Boundaries Many Committee members recommend against requiring setbacks between planted geoducks and property lines. Several Committee members recommend the guidelines have a general statement that setbacks may be appropriate along property boundaries to avoid the need to cross property lines to plant and harvest the geoducks. One Committee member recommends setbacks between planted geoducks and adjacent intertidal properties to prevent silt from harvesting from harming adjacent properties and to allow workers and equipment to reach the geoducks without crossing property lines. Alterations to the Site Before Planting The Committee discussed how physical alterations to a site which is not ''ready to go" may result in damage to ecological functions. The Committee recommends restricting geoduck aquaculture to sites that are fundamentally suitable for geoduck culture without the need for grading or rock removal. Many Committee members recommend including a statement that alterations should be restricted. Several Committee members recommend the guidelines include standards that prohibit grading that changes shoreline profiles or removes natural epibenthic organisms and vegetation. They recommend that the guidelines minimize removal of rocks. One Committee member recommends not allowing tideland modifications that alter the natural substrate, vegetation, organisms, natural gravel/rocks essential for forage fish, or fish habitat. This Committee member also recommends not allowing tractors and dragging barges. Harvest of Wild Clams Before Planting Many Committee members recommend the guidelines include a general statement about the need to respect Tribal shellfish rights when harvesting wild clams. Some Committee members 11 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 recommend not including this issue in the guidelines because court rulings establish Tribal shellfish rights and are not subject to a local Shoreline Master Program. Planting Density Many Committee members recommend against establishing a limit for the number of tubes or clams per square foot or square meter. Many Committee members recommend local consideration of the overall carrying capacity of the affected water body and the overall scale of geoduck aquaculture operations in each region. Many Committee members recommend dropping the issue of planting density from the guidelines. Timing of Planting or Harvest to Minimize Fish and Wildlife Effects Many Committee members recommend a general statement in the guidelines that local jurisdictions may restrict intensive aquaculture activities like inserting tubes or harvesting clams during times when sensitive fish or wildlife may be present. The need for such restrictions should be identified in the baseline identification of sensitive habitat features for the site. Several Committee members recommended that guidelines developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for in-water construction be considered. One Committee member recommends avoiding operations that would disturb sensitive marine bird congregating and nesting areas during any sensitive period. Materials Used for Predator Exclusion Devices (Tubes and Nets) The visual impact of the tubes and nets used to protect geoducks from predators has been identified as an issue that should be addressed. Many Committee members recommend a general statement in the guidelines that materials should be selected to minimize their visual impact. Several of these Committee members recommend that best management practices be included in technical guidance. One Committee member recommends prohibiting plastics in intertidal or subtidal areas. Several Committee members recommend not including this issue in the guidelines. One Committee member recommends the aesthetics of geoduck aquaculture operations be considered as a whole because aesthetics cannot be quantified in terms of the color ofthe tubes or whether they are in straight rows, but rather is a pervasive value related to the entire industrial operation on the shoreline and how it alters the beach habitat. Ecological Effects of Predator Exclusion Devices The Committee recommends the guidelines address the ecological effects of tubes, nets and other predator exclusion devices. Several Committee members recommend including a general statement about reducing ecological effects in the guidelines. Several Committee members recommend designing predator exclusion devices to minimize ecological effects, including effects on birds and mammals. Several Committee members recommend that growers remove tubes and nets as soon as they are no longer needed for predator exclusion. Several recommend there be limits on the portion of a site that is covered by tubes and nets at anyone time. One Committee member recommends establishing standards for net sizes to minimize harm to birds and other species. One Committee member recommends establishing standards for net sizes, the percentage of tidelands that can be covered by nets, the length of time nets are left in place and the timing of placing nets. 12 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 Effects of Harvest Many Committee members recommend the guidelines include a general statement on the need to manage the effects of water jets or other methods used to harvest geoduck clams. They recommend including best management practices in the technical guidance. Several Committee members recommend against harvesting during periods of spawning and incubation in identified forage fish spawning areas. Several Committee members recommend limits on noise from water pumps if there are not general limits on noise. One Committee member recommends a process for people to make complaints and have them resolved. Many Committee members recommend that local jurisdictions consider performance-based standards tailored to the locations where geoduck aquaculture is allowed. Notifying Property Owners and Tribes of Operations The Committee considered whether notice should be sent to nearby properties owners or tribes prior to geoduck planting or harvesting operations. Many Committee members recommend local jurisdictions follow their normal notification procedures to inform nearby property owners and Tribes of the types of activities that will occur at a geoduck aquaculture operation. They recommend providing this notice once when the operation is first established. Some Committee members recommend that local jurisdictions have specific notice procedures for geoduck aquaculture, which may differ by site depending on the surrounding uses. Several Committee members suggest that growers should notify neighbors when they are harvesting or replanting as a courtesy and to avoid potential conflicts but recommend the guidelines allow local governments to decide whether to require additional notification. Many Committee members recommend the notice include information on how to make a complaint. Site Boundary Marking or Identification Many Committee members recommend surveying and marking geoduck aquaculture sites when they are established. Because most work at a geoduck aquaculture site occurs during low tides, several Committee members recommend surface markers rather than buoys. Some Committee members recommend marking the waterway side. Some Committee members recommend marking sensitive habitat features on the site to prevent harm. Some Committee members recommend against having special marking requirements for properties used for geoduck aquaculture. Public Access The Committee recommends the guidelines not require public access to private tidelands used for geoduck aquaculture. Two Committee members recommend allowing public access on public shorelines that are leased for geoduck aquaculture. Access for Workers and Equipment Many Committee members recommend the guidelines include a statement that growers must have legal access to a site and the means and location of access must not result in impacts to critical areas. Several Committee members recommend restricting vessel operations and worker access to protect eelgrass beds or known forage fish spawning areas. They recommend including best management practices in the technical guidance. To protect the vegetation from disturbance by workers and equipment, one Committee member recommends buffers of at least 25 feet around eelgrass or other attached vegetation for Puget Sound farms. One Committee member 13 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 recommends that regulations insure that growers cannot cross private land without an easement recorded with the county. Locations of Parking and Staging Areas Many Committee members recommend that local Shoreline Master Programs address parking and staging areas to minimize conflicts and effects on ecological functions. Several Committee members recommend growers describe planned parking and staging areas during the approval process. Several Committee members recommend against addressing this issue other than through best management practices. Limits on Barge and Vessel Mooring Many Committee members recommend a general statement that local jurisdictions consider restricting barge and vessel mooring. They recommend including best management practices for barge and vessel mooring in the technical guidance. Some Committee members support and other Committee members oppose recommending a prohibition on mooring over submerged vegetation. One Committee member recommends limiting beaching of vessels on the shoreline. One Committee member recommends anchoring vessels only at the grower's site or state land lease and not for more than 3 days in any consecutive 30-day period. This Committee member also recommends marking all vessels with navigation lights. One Committee member recommends against addressing this issue in the guidelines. Restrictions on Lights Many Committee members recommend a general statement about keeping lights near residential areas to a minimum and not directing bright lights towards shore. They recommend that any best management practices be included in technical guidance. Several Committee members recommend that local shoreline programs have standards for lights for all shoreline activities, to minimize impacts to adjacent uses and sensitive species. One Committee member recommends not allowing harvesting at night in residential neighborhoods. Restrictions on Noise Many Committee members recommend that local jurisdictions address noise in shoreline areas from all sources, including geoduck aquaculture, using State noise standards as a starting point. Several Committee members recommend that noise controls also protect birds. One Committee member recommends not allowing harvesting activity at night in residential neighborhoods. One Committee member recommends against addressing this issue in the guidelines. Limits on Timing of On-Site Work Several Committee members recommend the guidelines contain a general statement that this issue should be addressed based on local conditions and adjacent land uses. One Committee member recommends not allowing harvesting activity at night in residential neighborhoods and recommends limiting daytime harvesting to weekdays. Several Committee members recommend avoiding on-site operations during periods of spawning and incubation in identified forage fish spawning areas. Several Committee members recommend that restrictions on hours of operation should not apply only to geoduck aquaculture. One Committee member recommends against addressing this issue in the guidelines. 14 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 Debris and Litter Management The Committee was specifically directed in SSHB 2220 to examine methods for quantifying and reducing marine litter. The Committee recommends that growers make every effort to prevent the loss of tubes, nets and other items and should recover litter and debris to the extent feasible. Committee members recommend considering best management practices including selecting equipment and methods to prevent loss of tubes and nets and marking tubes and nets to identify the source of litter. Several Committee members recommend that local governments be a clearinghouse for litter reports. Other Committee members recommend against this approach. One Committee member recommends requiring each grower to post a bond to pay for litter cleanup. Requirements for Site Maintenance and Worker Training Many Committee members recommend the guidelines include a general statement on the importance of site maintenance, sanitation and worker training with best management practices included in a technical guidance document. One Committee member recommends specific restrictions on storing materials on-site and requirements for adequate sanitation and garbage facilities. One Committee member recommends growers have copies of other permits or approvals on site when workers are present. Spill Prevention and Response Many Committee members recommend preparing a spill prevention and response plan for each geoduck aquaculture operation. One Committee member recommends a reference to Coast Guard and Ecology requirements; One Committee member recommends including best management practices in a technical guidance document. One Committee member recommends against addressing this issue in the guidelines. Prevention of Air, Water and Sediment Pollution Several Committee members recommend a general statement on the need to prevent pollution. One Committee member recommends against including this issue in the guidelines. Some Committee members recommend prohibiting the use of pesticides and herbicides while other members oppose addressing pesticides and herbicides through local shoreline master programs as they are already subject to state and federal regulations. One Committee member recommends including best management practices to prevent pollution in a technical guidance document. Equipment Maintenance Many Committee members recommend a general statement in the guidelines on the importance of equipment maintenance to preventing pollution and limiting noise. Several Committee members recommend including best management practices in a technical guidance document. One Committee member recommends requiring annual maintenance records. One Committee member recommends against including this issue in the guidelines. Recordkeeping and Reporting Many committee members recommend a general statement in the guidelines that growers should keep records of planting and harvest activities. Some Committee members recommend requiring detailed planting and harvesting records and counts of tubes and nets installed and removed to 15 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 measure losses. Several Committee members recommend against requiring recordkeeping through local shoreline programs. Monitoring, Performance Measures and Adaptive Management. The Committee recommends developing an adaptive management framework for geoduck aquaculture. Many Committee members recommend requiring a baseline survey of the habitat features of a proposed site as part of the approval process. Several Committee members recommend integrating monitoring and adaptive management into the local permitting process. Some Committee members recommend that geoduck proposals or farm plans include a monitoring and adaptive management program that provides a method for incorporating results of ongoing scientific studies into farm management practices. Some Committee members recommend applying adaptive management to the overall activity rather than to individual sites, others favor adaptive management of individual operations. One committee member recommends using adaptive management terminology only if funding is available for the required monitoring, enforcement and action components. IV. Approval Processes Under the Shoreline Management Act, all uses in the shoreline zone must be consistent with the local Shoreline Master Program. Only some activities are considered developments and only developments that exceed a certain dollar amount need permits. Many developments are exempt from the permit requirement. The Washington Attorney General has issued an opinions that geoduck aquaculture does not, in all cases, qualify as development. Many members of the Committee recommend a local approval process that provides for notice to the public and adjacent land owners, documents the local jurisdiction's determination that the operation is allowed by the local shoreline master program, allows for enforcement of the provisions of the local master program and allows for adaptive management. Several Committee members recommend the approval process ensures compliance with the Shoreline Management Act regarding no net loss of eelgrass and kelp beds and fish and wildlife habitat areas. They recommend a special emphasis on maintaining Puget Sound health. Some Committee members recommend having provisions for experimental aquaculture methods. Some Committee members favor an approval process that includes compliance with other required approvals and requires posting a bond. One Committee member recommended that the approval process include agreement on how complaints should be made and addressed. Public Notice The Committee discussed notification ofthe public and adjacent landowners when a geoduck aquaculture operation is established. This is one ofthe specific assignments to the Committee. The Committee recommends the local jurisdiction provide public notice of a proposed new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operation regardless of the type of approval process being 5 AGO 2007 No.1. 16 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 followed. When possible, the jurisdiction should follow the normal notice procedures for a shoreline permit. Committee members differed on which landowners should receive a specific notice, some recommending all properties within 1000 feet, others recommending 300 feet or three shoreline parcels, whichever is greater. Application Information As part of any local approval process, the Committee recommends two types of information be provided by the applicant: a baseline survey of the proposed site to allow consideration ofthe ecological effects and a narrative description of the proposed aquaculture activities. Some Committee members favor an extensive baseline survey of all fish and wildlife critical areas, including the presence of kelp and eelgrass and use of the site by salmon, forage fish and marine birds. They recommend the application include proposed actions to minimize impacts to habitats and wild species and mitigation to ensure achieving no net loss. Many Committee members recommend the description of the proposed aquaculture activities include information on the source of seed, predator exclusion devices, timing and areas of planting and harvest and access to the site. Committee members differed in the level of detail desired and the need to allow flexibility. Approval Options The Committee discussed the following list of approval options: 1. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2. Conditional Use Permit 3. Exemption statement 4. Enforcement on a complaint basis 5. Document other approvals 6. Posting a Bond 1. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Many of the Committee members recommend requiring a Substantial Development Permit only when it is triggered by project;.specific characteristics, for example, when operations substantially interfere with normal public use of the surface of state waters. One Committee member recommends requiring a Substantial Development Permit for all geoduck operations and involving Ecology in assuring no net loss of ecological functions. Several Committee members recommend that all new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations in Puget Sound obtain either a Substantial Development Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, to support the State goal to recover Puget Sound by 2020. 2. Conditional Use Permit As mentioned before, several Committee members recommend that all new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations in Puget Sound obtain either a Substantial Development Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, to support the State goal to recover Puget Sound by 2020. One Committee member recommends involving Ecology in assuring no net loss of ecological functions. A Conditional Use Permit requires review by Ecology. 17 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 Many Committee members recommend against requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Exemption Statement A local jurisdiction can issue a written determination that a proposed activity is consistent with the local Shoreline Master Program but exempt from obtaining a Substantial Development Permit. Many Committee members recommend local governments follow this procedure when a Substantial Development Permit is not otherwise required. Several Committee members recommend always requiring a permit. 4. Enforcement on a Complaint Basis Shoreline uses exempt from a Substantial Development Permit are sometimes undertaken without any prior approval by the local jurisdiction. The jurisdiction only becomes involved and seeks compliance with provisions ofthe local Shoreline Master Program when the jurisdiction receives a complaint. The Committee recommends that new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations receive prior approval through a shoreline substantial development permit, a conditional use permit or a written exemption determination. An approach allowing new or expanded geoduck aquaculture operations without any prior approval is inadequate to meet the general principles of achieving no net loss of ecological function and minimizing land use conflicts. 5. Document Other Approvals Many Committee members recommend local Shoreline Master Programs require geoduck aquaculture operations to show they have obtained other necessary approvals. Examples include certification that the growing area meets shellfish sanitation requirements or a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Some Committee members recommend that local jurisdictions only require documentation of other approvals for geoduck aquaculture if they require it for other shoreline uses. Some Committee members recommend against this approach. 6. Posting a Bond Many Committee members recommend against any special requirement that geoduck aquaculture operations. post a bond. One Committee member recommends requiring a bond that can be used for debris collf?ction and to repair environmental damage assessed from the baseline study information. Several Committee members recommend that local jurisdictions follow their general practice for deciding when a bond should be required. V. Other Recommendations Many Committee members recommend that Ecology work with the other state agencies to provide information to local jurisdictions on the locations and sizes of existing geoduck aquaculture operations. One Committee member recommends the Legislature give the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife the authority to use its expertise in developing regulations for the aquaculture industry. 18 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 Several Committee members recommend Ecology provide a definition and guidance on how to achieve the Shoreline Management Act policy of no net loss of ecological functions. Many Committee members recommend against requiring local jurisdictions to collect and compile information on geoduck aquaculture activities and debris, with one member recommending the State compile information Several Committee members recommend including predator exclusion devices and growing pools to the section ofthe guidelines addressing Shoreline Modifications. Background Materials Agendas, presentations, meeting notes and background documents related to the work of the Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee are available on the Committee's web pages at: http://www.ecy. wa.gov /programs/sea/shellfishcommittee/index.html. 19 Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2,2009 Appendix A: List of ShellfIsh Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Members County located on the Puget Sound Pat Prendergast Pierce County County located on the Pacific Ocean Owner or operator of an aquatic farm in Puget Sound Owner or operator of an aquatic farm in state waters other than the Puget Sound Organization representing the environmental community Organization representing the environmental community Shoreline property owner who does not have a commercial geoduck operation on his or her property Shoreline property owner with a commercial geoduck operation on his or her property 20 Dave Risvold Mike Erkkinen Pierce County Pierce County Planning and Land Planning and Land Services Services Bryan Harrison None Pacific County Administrative Officer Diane Cooper Peter Downey Taylor Shellfish Discovery Bay Farms, Inc. Shellfish Nick Jambor David Ekone Oyster Co. Hollingsworth Markham Oyster Inc. Krystal Kyer Miranda Wecker Tahoma Audubon Willapa Hills Audubon Bruce Wishart Cyrilla Cook People for Puget People for Puget Sound Sound Patrick Townsend Laura Hendricks Olympia Gig Harbor Ward Willits Olympia None Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Recommendations January 2, 2009 Department of Ecology Dick Wallace Sally Toteff Jeannie Department of Department of Summerhays Ecology Ecology Department of Southwest Regional Ecology, Northwest SW Regional Office Regional Office Office Department ofFish and Morris Barker Rich Childers Bob Sizemore Wildlife Lisa Veneroso Department ofFish Department ofFish & Wildlife & Wildlife Department of Agriculture Linda Crerar Eric Hurlburt Lee Faulconer Department o~ Department of Agriculture Agriculture Department of Natural Sarah Dzinbal Blain Reeves None Resources Department of Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Tribal government within the Andy Whitener Jeff Dickison Puget Sound drainage Squaxin Island Squaxin Island Tribe Tribe Tribal government Russ Svec Y ongwen Gao Fisheries Manager Makah Tribe Makah Tribe Other Interested Agencies Department of Health . Jessie DeLoach and Cathy Barker Department of Health Maryanne Guichard Division of Environmental Health Department of Health Stuart Glasoe Puget Sound Partnership Puget Sound Partnership Ron Schultz Puget Sound Partnership Casey Ehom Corps of Engineers - Seattle District None Corps of Engineers 21 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 2007 Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Geoduck Aquaculture on State Owned Aquatic Lands in Washington State The following are Best Management Practices (BMP's) for intertidal geoduck aquaculture on public lands leased and managed by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The shellfish industry continues to be a leader in promoting water quality protection initiatives at both the local watershed and State levels. Water quality impacts have been identified in the State's salmon plan as one of the impediments to a successful recovery. Our common goal and combined efforts in this area will benefit both fish and shellfish. These BMP's are related to farm and crop management, and harvest. They reflect the present understanding of existing geoduck aquaculture operations. These BMPs will be adaptively managed by DNR, based on best available science-they may be modified over time as new scientific data pertaining to management practices become available. Site selection BMP's are directed at avoiding and minimizing potential impacts to eelgrass and kelp, and existing shellfish populations in Puget Sound. The appearance ofthe farm is very important, as is the use-and clean up-of tube, netting and other farm debris from onsite and offsite locations. These are BMP's that apply to all 2007 geoduck aquaculture leases on State Owned Aquatic Lands. 1. Baseline Survey Work The baseline survey will accomplish two things: a biological determination of shellfish species and their densities, and a baseline evaluation of the site with regard to aquatic vegetation, sediment characteristics, and water quality parameters. 1.1 Document the abundance and distribution of existing naturally recruited shellfish stocks on the lease area. 1.2 Conduct a survey of the leasehold for all attached or rooted aquatic vegetation. 1.3 Work must be conducted according to current Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) survey protocols. This section may be updated. 1.3.1 Determination of naturally occurring geoduck may use an alternate method if agreed upon by all parties. 1.4 The biological baseline survey will reference GPS leasehold corner points, as defined in the land survey. 2. Brood Stock and Seed Selection The numbers of brood stock, pair matings, and annual spawns necessary to maximize genetic diversity in the hatchery have not been adequately evaluated. Even though genetic divergence among Puget Sound geoduck aggregations appears to be low and the populations have similar genetic profiles, fine-scale genetic adaptations of geoducks to localized selective processes have Geoduck Ar:t,uaculture BMPs for State OWned Aquatic Lands October 1St 2007 Page 1 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 not yet been investigated. DNR will continue to evaluate this issue and reserves the right to modify BMPs, to ensure environmental protection, as new data become available. As methods are known and become available to acquaculturists, hatchery and farm practices should be employed that minimize cultured and wild stock interactions including disease control and maintenance of wild stock genetic diversity. The following are required by DNR for geoduck seed planted on state owned aquatic lands: 2.1 Provide records that seed comply with WDFW transfer regulations according to WAC 220-72. 2.2 Provide records that brood stock sources are disease and pest free and that the seed supplier conducts regular pathological exams. 3. Site Preparation and Seed Planting Bed preparation/planting is, next to harvest, the most intensive activity that will occur on the farm site. Planting is generally preceded by the installation of a predator protection system. Currently, tubes and/or netting are typically installed, and seed is distributed over several low tides. There are a limited number of extreme low tide events and bed preparation and planting is, by necessity, a labor-intensive activity. 3.1 Boundary Markers. Leasehold boundary corners will be assigned GPS coordinates during the land survey. Corner markers should be in place during site preparation and planting, and during the period when predator exclusion devices are in place. They may be removed during the grow out period, but the comer marker positions must be replaced at the GPS coordinates recorded by the land survey prior to any harvest activities. They must remain in place during harvest activities. Helically anchored mooring buoys will be used for the deep water comer markers. Shallow water corners can consist of untreated piling monuments, helically anchored buoys, or other markers of a semi permanent type, but they must be visible above the water at high tide. Rebar will not be used for markers. 3.2 Restrict initial tube siting and placement to those locations where eelgrass (Zostera marina) is either absent, greater than ten feet away, or present at densities not exceeding 4 turions or shoots per square meter. 3.3 A ten-foot buffer zone is required around established eelgrass beds (Zostera marina), or where eelgrass is present at densities greater than 4 turions per square meter. No geoduck planting or operational activities will be undertaken within this buffer zone. DNR reserves the right to increase or decrease this buffer as new data become available on environmental effects. 3.4 Ensure tube placement, netting installation, tube removal, harvest and other geoduck farm maintenance practices prevent damage to existing eelgrass mapped during baseline farm site survey. Staging areas must be strategically placed to prevent foot traffic through sensitive areas for all farm activities. Geoduck Aquaculture BMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15th 2007 Page 2 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 3.5 If eelgrass (Zostera marina) grows into and encroaches on the planting area during grow out, harvest and replanting of geoduck will be allowed within those areas of new eelgrass growth previously determined during the baseline survey to be free of vegetation or containing scattered shoot densities (not exceeding 4 turions per square meter). 3.6 There is no authorization of net loss of eelgrass (Zostera marina) from baseline conditions. If a net loss of eelgrass on the leasehold is determined to be the result offarm activity, then at the time of replanting, BMP's and/or planting area may be adjusted. 3.7 Install pipe or other predator exclusion devices in straight rows or blocks that are appealing to upland observers. 3.8 Whenever and wherever possible, use pipe colored to blend into the surrounding environment. 3.9 Predator exclusion nets should be designed so they do not break free and cause beach littering onsite or offsite. If individual tube netting is employed, secure the netting with UV-resistant fasteners (such as rubber bands). If large-cover nets are used, rebar should be avoided if possible and other anchoring systems utilized. 3.10 Remove all excess and/or non-secured tubing, netting and other materials from the beach prior to the next incoming tide so that all unnatural debris, nets, bands, etc., are maintained and prevented from littering the waters or the beaches. 3.11 No seeding, culture or other operations are done in biologically sensitive areas of the beach such as herring or smelt spawning grounds. 4. Bed Maintenance and Tube Removal This phase of the operation is largely a period of low-intensity farm observation and growth/mortality monitoring. Tubes and predator netting are usually removed during the first twelve to eighteen months of grow out, however, if predation pressure is extreme they may be left in place for a longer period. The process of tube and net removal is a labor intensive activity and will be subject to the same BMP's as initial tube installation. No materials should escape from the farm. Every effort must be made that tubes, nets, and fasteners should not wash off the farm area. 4.1 Set up maintenance operations (foot traffic, equipment, vehicles, vessels) so that they prevent impacts to eelgrass. A void impacts to other submerged aquatic vegetation. 4.2 Maintain farm in an orderly fashion. Remove unnatural materials (pipe, nets) as soon as practical when young geoducks are no longer vulnerable to predators. Remove marker stakes and buoys when they are no longer necessary. Geoduck Aquaculture BMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15th 2007 Page 3 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 4.3 When tubes and netting are removed, secure this material and remove it from the beach prior to the next incoming tide. 4.4 Patrol area beaches on a regular basis to retrieve debris that does escape the farm as well as other non-natural debris. Due to wave, current or wind action, debris tends to accumulate in certain areas. These areas should be identified early in the growing cycle and crews shall patrol these areas after weather events to pick up debris. Sometimes these areas are in deeper water and it may be necessary to dive for debris and litter. Keep a log of this activity for the annual environmental performance review. 5. Harvesting The impacts of subtidal geoduck harvest are disturbance of the substrate, disturbance of other organisms, and short-term increases in water turbidity. Similar effects have been observed on intertidal harvest tracts. Typically, when intertidal geoduck are harvested by hand using hydraulic methods, sediments driven by wind waves and water currents tend to obscure visible harvest effects within one to two weeks. The hand-dug trench harvest method may produce the least turbid water and possible siltation, but will produce the greatest disturbance of substrate materials and should be avoided as a harvest method. 5.1 Geoducks planted within 50 feet of eelgrass may only be harvested when exposed at low tide (i.e. dry harvest only). If eelgrass is not present within 50 feet of planted geoducks, then wet harvest (at flooded tidal stages) can occur. 5.2 Farm operations should be conducted so that propeller wash from vessels approaching the site does not affect eelgrass, neither should vessel-anchoring systems. Vessels should be moored in water greater than -18 feet (MLL W) in depth, or deeper than the photic zone to minimize impacts from shading. 5.3 DNR's preference is that water pumps used for harvest be placed on floating rafts, which are anchored temporarily in water greater than -18 feet (MLL W) in depth. If no submerged vegetation is present and the seabed is shallow for a long distance from the beach, the anchoring of rafts in shallower water will be allowed. If the raft is likely to drift over eelgrass beds, care should be taken in the design ofthe raft to prevent it from affecting eelgrass if grounded at low tide. 5.4 Pump intake screens should minimize potential entrainment of aquatic organisms. 5.5 Harvest can only be undertaken using low-pressure water-jets with a nozzle inside tip diameter of 5/8-inch (WAC 220-52-019(2a)) or less. The nozzles will be hand held and controlled by the operator; the nozzle pressure is limited to about 100 psi measured at the pump. 5.6 Conduct harvest activities during tides where the least amount of turbidity will occur as practicable. On moderately sloping beaches with fme-grained sediments, consider controlling down-beach movement of sediments at each harvest point with a sand-filled cloth tube or similar sediment containment method. Geoduck Aquaculture BMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15th 2007 Page 4 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 5.7 Minimize noise from pumps, generators, and other mechanical devices, radios, etc. The State noise standard for residential areas is 55 dBA (WAC 173-60-040). DNR's standard for geoduck harvest has been 50dBA at 200 yards from the source. Harvesters must be aware of and consider the potential for harvest noise to affect nearby residences and eagle nesting sites. 5.8 Maintain nighttime lighting to the minimum necessary for safe and efficient operations. 5.9 Remove all tools and products of harvest activities from the site when each day's harvest is completed. 5.10 Inform adjoining neighbors of upcoming harvest activities, at least five days in advance if possible. 5.11 Time harvest to avoid spawning and incubation periods for sand lance, surf smelt, and herring if they are documented by WDFW to occur in the farm area. 6. General 6.1 Companies participating in farming on leased beaches shall train employees in meeting environmental objectives through a standardized training program. These companies shall be responsible for the employees' environmental performance. 6.2 Ensure that pumps, boat motors, and harvesting equipment are routinely serviced in order to avoid/minimize the loss of fluids. 6.3 Where petroleum products are used, participating growers will have in their possession, at harvesting sites, equipment necessary to address spills of hydraulic fluids and fuels including absorbent materials. 6.4 Prepare a contingency plan for addressing vehicle breakdowns in the intertidal area. 6.5 Avoid or minimize the use of vehicles and other heavy equipment on intertidal areas and beaches. 6.6 Where driving on the beach is unavoidable, routes will lead through intertidal areas to hard surfaces along the upper intertidal zone, minimizing intertidal interference to the maximum extent feasible. Shore crossings will be designated at single locations, choosing the shortest route possible, so disturbance to the foreshore is minimized. 6.7 Adequate sanitation (toilet and washing) facilities will be available at all times for employees working on the beach. Employees will not use the beach, adjacent uplands or waters for personal sanitation. Geoduck Ar,.uaculture SMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15 2007 Page 5 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 6.8 Lessees will not moor support vessels on the leasehold, or offshore from the leasehold for extended periods. If lessee wishes to moor a vessel for an extended period, they should apply to DNR for a commercial mooring buoy lease. 7. Record Keeping An accurate accounting of farm operations is vital. .This process must be transparent to both parties; however, because the activities will be occurring on state lands. Note that certain elements may also be open to public disclosure. Key records to be provided to DNR by the lessee include: Farm Plan Record Keeping Log 7.1 The results of all surveys conducted, as part of the lease, must be provided to DNR within ten business days of receipt of results. 7.2 Records on routine operations during the life of the farm. This will include at a minimum: 7.2.1 the mapped location(s) and aerial extent(s) offarm site(s); 7.2.2 harvest records (weight and species) of any non-farmed valuable product, if that amount is greater than a recreational harvest limit; 7.2.3 the timing, location, number, type, and description of predator protection installations; 7.2.4 geoduck seed planting numbers, locations, dates, and sizes; 7.2.5 survivorship and growth data by location and year-class from farm inspections during grow out; 7.2.6 harvest numbers, total, and average weights, dollar value, date, year-class, and location of harvest tract; 7.2.7 other data determined during the initial lease negotiations to be of mutual benefit to DNR and the lessee. The format and schedule for providing this information to DNR will be set out in the lease agreement. 7.2.7.1 to determine source of potential impacts, keep records of all activities on the leasehold, such as time of activity, numbers of people, anchoring locations of vessels, trucks on the beach, etc. Geoduck A~uaculture BMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15 2007 Page 6 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 Events and Issues Log 7.3 Information on specific farm events or issues that may have a material effect on farm operations or the DNR-lessee agreement. The following information will be provided to DNR staff as the events or issues occur: 7.3.1 correspondence between the lessee and other government or tribal entities; 7.3.2 complaints and resolution ofthose complaints; 7.3.3 Record of correspondence from adjacent property owners and recreational users; 7.3.4 Measures taken as a result of complaints from adjacent property owners or recreational users; 7.3.5 Spills or cleanups conducted on the beach. Environmental Monitoring 7.4 Environmental monitoring data (if applicable for this lease) shall be collected as per DNR protocols in the lease. Annual Environmental Review 7.5 Performance Measures for Annual Environmental Review. 7.5.1 Hatchery certification of the origin of brood stock and number of brood stock used in the production of seed planted on the farm site(s); 7.5.2 Equipment Maintenance records; 7.5.3 If driving on the beach is necessary, a map defming best route to avoid impact; 7.5.4 Record of employee training records for meeting environmental objectives; 7.5.5 Review of petroleum product spill contingency plans and vehicle breakdown plans; 7.5.6 Review of measures taken to reduce turbidity of adjacent waters; Geoduck Aquaculture BMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15th 2007 Page 7 of 8 Washington State Department of Natural Resources October 15th 2007 7.5.7 Review of farming methods and discussion with farm manager of any possible related impacts; 7.5.8 Review of nighttime lighting operations and measures to reduce impact to nearby upland residences; 7.5.9 Record of beach cleanup activities; 7.5.10 Record of salmon returns in applicable farm areas; 7.5.11 Record of water quality participation efforts; 7.5.12 Record of scientific studies supported by geoduck companies that address salmon issues; 7.5.13 Record of eelgrass beds in farm areas; 7.5.14 Record of research proposals on eelgrass issues; 7.5.15 Record of participation on eelgrass studies; 7.5 .16 Record and results of proactive outreach activities done by lessee to local residents; 7.5.17 Records of upland owner notification of harvest; 7.5.18 Harvest operation downwind noise readings at 200 yards, once per configuration if possible; 7.5.19 Other short-term events (pSP and other water related quality closures, unusual predation, poaching, or other bed disturbances, etc.). Geoduck Aquaculture BMPs for State Owned Aquatic Lands October 15th 2007 Page 8 of 8