The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSHX2016-00080 Trident Marine Runyan Site Aquaculture Biological Eval - SHX Permit / Conditions - 12/6/2016 MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 •�� r�" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 ' BUILDING o PLANNING o FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 - Mason County Bldg. 8, 615 W.Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 J854 www.co.mason.wa.us December 6, 2016 . Matt Smith `' """ Trident Marine Services Inc 2851 East South Island DR ►� 1 �=� Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Application for geoduck a uaculture on Case Inlet Mason Coun Project Name: Runyan Trust Site Parcel No. Tidelands of 12131-22-00030 Upland Address: 1630 E Yates RD, Shelton. Dear Mr. Smith: After review of your submitted Joint Aquatic Permit Application (JARPA) form and Biological Evaluation, Mason County concludes that the proposed geoduck operation, on marine tidelands in Case Inlet, does not constitute development under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and does not cause substantial interference with the normal public use of the water (AGO 2007 No. 1). Therefore, a Substantial Development Permit is not required nor a letter of Shoreline Exemption. Mason County has determined that the proposed geoduck farm is consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program Policies and Use Regulations for Aquaculture and the Shoreline Management Act. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely�41 L Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CC: Meg Amos, VISA ------------------jjAGENC _ 1 1 1 MDate received: (� ° ° US Army Corps i 0012j WASHINGTON STATE of Engineers 1 1 Seattle District 1 1 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference#:skw: Application (JARPA) Form'12 hel Tax Parcel#(s) (�G103 1 � �� 1 USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. 0 �.I 3 oUc�3D 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 L---------------BEGIN --- NOV 0 7 2016 Part 1—Project Identification 615 W. Alder Street 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [helpl Trident Marine Services Inc. Aquaculture Project- Runyan Trust Site Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [hel 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Smith, Matt 2b. Organization (If applicable) Trident Marine Services 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 2851 East South Island Drive 2d. City, State, Zip Shelton, WA 98584 2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail (360)701-4887 ( ) - ( } - undrh2ofish@aol.com Additional 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. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF)or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at hftp://www.nws.usace.army.miUMissions/CivilWorks.Regulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx. • 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 larpa form/9984/jarpa form.aspx. For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or helpo_oria.wa.gov. JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 1 of 16 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) Amos, Meg 3b. Organization (If applicable) Marine Surveys &Assessments 3c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 267 Hudson Street 3d. City, State, Zip Port Townsend, WA 98368 3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail (360)765-3027 (360)385-4073 ( ) - megamos.msa@gmail.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. h[ elpl ❑ 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) Runyan Trustee, Susan and Doug Runyan 4b. Organization (If applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) P.O. Box 73113 4d. City, State, Zip Puyallup, WA 98373 4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail (253)820-3831 JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 2 of 16 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. hel ❑ 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.) [hel ® 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.) hel 1630 East Yates Road 5C. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [hel Shelton, WA 98584 5d. County LheM Mason 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help] '/4 Section Section Township Range NW 31 21 N 02W 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. hel • Example: 47.03922 N lat. /-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees- NAD 83) 47.270512 N lat. /-122.863144 W long 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help] • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 12131-22-00030 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) EheM Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Steinman Et Al, 1034 NE Riddell Rd, Bremerton, WA 98310 12131-22-00040 Russell Yates 1600 E Yates Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 12131-22-00000 Russell Yates Et Al, Lisa Miller 1600 E Yates Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 12131-22-70010 JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 3 of 16 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. hei None mapped 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [hei�,� Case Inlet 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? Li ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. h[ e A Habitat Survey was conducted by MSA on June 6, 2016 between 0' MLLW and -4.5' MLLW within the lease area. Nine transects spaced 10 ft apart were thoroughly surveyed for macroalgae, eelgrass, invertebrates, and substrate characteristics. The substrate in the surveyed area was predominantly sand. No eelgrass or macroalgae was found. Several wild geoduck were found along six of the transects. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. hei ] Undeveloped tidelands. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. hei Undeveloped tidelands and single family residences. 50. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. h[ eIp] No structures exist in the proposed farming area. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. LheM From Shelton Take WA-3 N for 6.2 miles. Turn right onto East Pickering Rd. In 3.3 miles continue straight onto E Harstine Bridge Rd. In 0.6 miles turn left onto E North Island Dr. In 3.1 miles Turn right onto E Harstine Island Rd N. In 1.0 miles turn left onto E Yates Rd. From here, it is 1.5 miles to site. DARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 4 of 16 Part 6-Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. h[ eM The proposed project is to plant geoduck seed and farm 0.28 acres of tidelands for commercial use. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. heM The purpose of this proposal is to grow geoducks for a wholesale market. 6C. Indicate the project category. (check all that apply) hel ® Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (check all that apply) [help] ® Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam/ Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland) ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike/ Levee/Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock/ Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway ❑ Raft ❑ Other: JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 5 of 16 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. Lh� • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. Geoduck seed will be planted on the inside of 4" diameter PVC tubes which will be placed in substrate, or in flexible plastic mesh sleeves. These will all be on 0.28 acres of private tidelands from 0' MLLW to the extreme low water (approximately -4.6). Tubes will be covered with mesh caps and only three to four inches will be exposed above substrate. Planting will take place from spring to early fall. 12 to 24 months after planting caps will be removed. 24 months after planting all tubes and mesh sleeves will be removed from the beach. 5.5 years after planting, harvesting will begin (typically in late fall or early winter). Six months later (six years after planting) the harvest will be completed and the beach will be prepared for re-planting. Please refer to the Biological Evaluation (BE) for in depth detail on planting, maintenance and harvest methods and timing. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) Ehel • 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: Upon permit issuance End date: Continuous ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. h[ ell $50,000.00 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? hel • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 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.) het 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. h[ eM ❑ Not applicable JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 6 of 16 Move to Section 8 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help] ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7C. Will the project impact wetland buffers? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? hel • 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? hel • 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? h[ elp] • 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 ❑ Not applicable 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. [help] 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. hel Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or category2 Acres) acres) JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 7 of 16 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. z 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: 7L 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. h[�el ) 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. hel 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. Lei_j ❑ Not applicable JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 8 of 16 Throughout the planting period, all equipment will be transported to the site by water from a staging area. Fueling of vessel(s) will be done at gas stations and never on the water. During this period, workers may be brought to the site via water or access the site from the landowner's uplands. At a particular farm site, the vessel (and or barge) used to transport materials or people to the site will either be moored directly offshore of the site and/or grounded for a maximum of 4 hours during the low tide runs to accommodate the various husbandry tasks associated with farming the beach (installation, planting, removal, and monitoring). Prior to the removal of any caps, bands and/or netting a walk through survey will be conducted to determine if herring are using the area to spawn. If herring are observed, the equipment will be left alone until there is no presence. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [heAi ® Yes ® No JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 9 of 16 8C. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland waterbodies? h[ elpl • 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 ❑ Not applicable No mitigation plan has been prepared. If deemed necessary, once agencies review the project, a mitigation proposal will be discussed. 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. hel 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. Ehetd Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody removed from directly affected waterbody 0' to -4.5 On going .28 acres (12,197 MLLW sq. ft. 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. '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. Lheel JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 10 of 16 Does not apply. 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. hel Does not apply. 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. LheM Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact Mason County Kell McAboy (360)427-9670 11/1/2016 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this DARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? hL elpl • If Yes, list the parameter(s)below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pro.gramstwq/303d/. ® Yes ❑ No This area is listed as category 2 JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 11 of 16 9C. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help] • Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locatelindex.cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110019 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA#) is the project in? ljHelp • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#. 15 9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? heI • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/criteria.html 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? hei • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/Sma4aws rules/173-26/211 designations.html. ® Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [ieip] • 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? hei ] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ❑ Yes ❑ No Name of manual: Does not apply 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. [hel _] Undeveloped tidelands. JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 12 of 16 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? hel • If Yes, attach it to your JAR PA package. ❑ Yes ® No JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 13 of 16 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. Lam] See Biological Evaluation. 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and WiIdlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. h[ eM See Biological Evaluation. 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�a 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.) h[ elp] • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with ? (lead agency). The expected decision date is ? ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 1Ob.)[hem ❑ 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. JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 14 of 16 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [het LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Not considered "development' by Mason County 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 You must submit a check for$150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes: ❑$150 check enclosed. Check# Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ❑My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff. Agreement# ❑ Mineral prospecting and mining. ❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.) ❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. HPA# 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 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (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 permits: ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 15 of 16 10/27/2016 Trident Jarpa signatory page 001.jpg Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the DARPA package.The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans,photos, etc.[ ) 11 a.Applicant Signature(required) [ ) I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief,the information provided in this application is true,complete, and accurate. l also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities,and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. /US (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to gr access to the prc I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering t e property where the t is to led to i ec the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Applicant Printed Name Applica Date 11 b.Authorized Agent Signature [ ) I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief,the information provided in this application is true,complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out he prop ed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been is Meg Amos su C `Q Authorized Agent Printed Name A horize Beni Mignature Date 11c.Property Owner Signature(if not applicant) [ ) Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work.These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and,if practical,with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Ow r Signatu Date 18 U.S.0§1001 provides that:Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statement or entry,shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)at 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service.People with a speech disability can call(877)833-6341. ORIA publication number ENV-019-09 rev.09/2015 JARPA Revision 2015.1 Page 16 of 16 https://mail.googic.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/157d38ecc7O74dOd?projector-1 1/1 VICINITY MAP: Runyan Beach jtu Shellfish Aquaculture - 1 �ivsx Y . � q l I 56 }3'ie(CrrMs - � 1 I CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:Runyan Beach PROPOSED PROJECT: PARCEL 10:12131-22-00030 11 ev;sh ell fish a^u acu lture APPLIC.AN+,: Idatt Smth -I ddent Marine Services Inc. 2851 East South Island 0r,Shelton,INA HEST ADJACEtIT PP,OPER'YOb'�ttE RS: In:Case Inlet Sheet_of_ North adjacent ormer.Parcel 12131=?-000;0. Near.Harstine Island DATE: 08119i2013 Steinman Et.W, 102-4 rt E Riddell Rd,Brmertcn.,,,v 98-110. County:Mason South adjacentovnem:Parcel 1 21 31-2 2-00000, State:"NA =idat datum:3.1.1LL'.v Russell`sates, 1SCO E Yates Road.Shelton,INA98-84. Coordinate System: Parcel 12131-22=r0010,RusiellYates Et 4-1,Lisa Miller, Via shington StatePIane South (F et'' 1 e 0 0 E':atesRoad,Sheton.'ArAB8,9Fr:. Scale: 1:1E,000 and 1:200.000 RECEIVED NOV 0 7 2016 NOVq 9 70016 Site Plan and Habitat Survey Results y j S b J � y il 7 F d = m � O a Yi _ �1 E V ggn�u 2 26 C• 2 C N N N ji I � a a • � '��', R N A O Cl A A N R N ry � N C� C N v O O O O LL7 LL7 N o U oa N N U v � y { L co tp _' � LI 'u m - Mean de-13'hmLvf cri m to o *. cis d - ' -. . 40 >tEa act _ e CORPS REFERVICE: SITE NAME:Runyan Beads PROPOSED PROJECT_ PARCEL ID:121 31-22-0 0 0 8 0 N".shellfi=haquawGure APPLICANT M sit Smith-Trident M arina Services Inc 2851 E sat South Island Dr.,Sheton,WAI 96584 ADJACENT PROPERTY 01,WI E RS: In:Case Inlet Sheet_of_ North adjacent ov.ner.Parcel 12131-22-00040, Near HarstineIsland DATE:08119?2016 Steinman EtAJ,1034 N E Riddell Rd,Brmerton,INA983110. County Mason South adjacent o:•mer:Parcel 121 31 22-0 0 0 0 0, State:WA Tidal datum:t.MLL:V Russell Yates,1600 E Yates Road,Shelton,IVA98584. Coordinate System: Parcel12131 22-T0010,Russell Yates Et Al,Use Miller, Washington State Plane South(Feet) 11500 E Yates Road,Shelton,34AS8584. Scale:1:15,000 and 1:200000 -F M x 20 1 co 6o IVEE 7 2016 Trident Marine Services Inc. Aquaculture Project der StreE Runyan Trust Site Biological Evaluation Date: September 7, 2016 Prepared for: Trident Marine Services Inc. 2851 East South Island Drive Shelton, WA 98584 Site Address: 1630 East Yates Road Shelton, WA 98584 ss ass MARINE SURVEYS fx ASSESSMENTS 267 Hudson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 RECEIVED (360) 385-4073 marine.surveys.inc@gmaii.com NOV 0 3 2016 6"i 5 W. Alder Street Contents I. Project Information...................................................................................................................................................1 A. Project Location..................................................................................................................................................I B. Site Description...................................................................................................................................................1 C. Project Description..............................................................................................................................................1 D. Action Area.........................................................................................................................................................8 II. Species and Habitat Information.............................................................................................................................8 Federal Endangered Species Act-listed species of concern...................................................................................8 PugetSound Chinook...........................................................................................................................................8 PugetSound Steelhead.........................................................................................................................................9 BullTrout...........................................................................................................................................................10 Rockfish.............................................................................................................................................................10 MarbledMurrelet...............................................................................................................................................I I HumpbackWhale...............................................................................................................................................I I ForageFish.........................................................................................................................................................I I LeatherbackSea Turtle......................................................................................................................................12 SouthernResident Killer Whales.......................................................................................................................12 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species..........................................................12 II1. Effects of the Action............................................................................................................................................12 A. Direct Effects....................................................................................................................................................12 1. Turbidity Impacts...........................................................................................................................................13 2.Noise Impacts.................................................................................................................................................13 3. Impacts of aquaculture on benthic, epibenthic and sediment characteristics.................................................13 B. Indirect Effects..................................................................................................................................................13 1. Impacts of shellfish aquaculture presence on the benthic and epibenthic community...................................14 2. Impacts Changes in nutrient flow..................................................................................................................14 4. Impacts of shellfish aquaculture on water quality..........................................................................................15 5. Impacts of the tubes used to protect geoduck seeds.......................................................................................15 C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects...................................................................................................................15 D. Take Analysis....................................................................................................................................................15 E. Conservation Measures......................................................................................................................................15 F. Determination of Effect.....................................................................................................................................16 IV. References............................................................................................................................................................17 Attachment 1. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Jefferson County.............................................................................................................29 Attachment 2. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment.....................................................................................................31 Attachment 3.Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Sumer-run Chum..........................................................................................................................................................................33 Attachment 4.Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio .................................35 AppendixA:Habitat Survey Report..........................................................................................................................37 List of Figures Figure1.Vicinity Map.....................................................................................22 Figure 2. Site Plan and Habitat Survey Results..........................................................23 Figure 3.Elevation profile view .........................................................................24 Figure 4.WDFW Forage fish spawning habitat........................................................25 Figure 5.Looking South from the NW corner of survey area........................................26 Figure 6.Looking West towards survey area...........................................................26 Figure 7.Looking East towards survey area from upper shore zone................................27 Figure 8.Stinger Schematic-geoduck harvest...........................................................28 I. Project Information A. Project Location: Section 31,Township 21N,Range 02W 1630 East Yates Road Shelton,WA 98584 Parcel: 12131-22-0003 0 The project location is shown in the Vicinity Map(Figure 1). B. Site Description: The proposed project area is located in a 0.75 acre rectangular-shaped parcel on the west side of Harstine Island along Case Inlet.The proposed project area begins from approximately 0'MLLW and extends to-4.5' MLLW (Figures 2&3).This encompasses a 150'x80' area totaling 12,000 ft . A Habitat Survey was conducted by MSA biologists(Nam Siu,James Ialeggio)on June 6,2016 between 0' MLLW and-4.5' MLLW within the lease area(Figures 2&3).Nine transects spaced 10 ft apart were thoroughly surveyed for macroalgae,eelgrass,invertebrates,and substrate characteristics. The substrate in the surveyed area was predominantly sand.No eelgrass or macroalgae was found.Several wild geoduck were found along six of the transects. C. Project Description: 1. Staging Area The staging area will be the beach area above the 0.0'tidal elevation mark.No support structures such as storage sheds will be constructed or installed in this uplands area. Materials for the project will be transported to.the site using 22-24'aluminum skiff pushing a 14'by 32' aluminum barge. The aluminum skiff will be powered by a 200 HP Honda four-cycle engine.Although no noise measurement for the exact engine could be obtained,a conservative maximum sound level can be estimated from independent reviews of a 115 hp-225 hp Honda 4 stroke engines:maximum sound levels range from 92.5 dbA to 106 dbA(values from Popular Mechanics 2000 and independent online reviewers).Wyatt(2008)published a value of 147.2 dB rms re 1 microPa @ 1 m for a 250 Hp Johnson 2 cycle outboard. Throughout the planting period,all equipment will be transported to the site by water from staging area at Latimer's Landing in Mason County.Fueling of vessel(s)will be done at gas stations and never on the water. During this period,workers may be brought to the site via water or access the site from the land owner's uplands. At a particular farm site,the vessel(and or barge)used to transport materials or people to the site will either be moored directly offshore of the site and/or grounded for a maximum of 4 hours during the low tide runs to accommodate the various husbandry tasks associated with farming the beach(installation,planting,removal,and monitoring). 2.Planting Details a. Strategy: The goal of the planting process is to maximize seed survival so that a particular beach doesn't need to be re-planted,thus requiring more costs,such as seed, labor and supplies and presence on the beach. Beaches MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-1 that have sandy substrate can be dive-planted so that the seed dig in on their own.Beaches with gravelly substrate may require finger-poking because the seed often have trouble establishing themselves,especially if they are small. Desirable seed for dive planting from the hatchery is 6-12 mm shell length,so that the seed does not need nurserying and can be directly planted.This ensures that the seed can dig down deep enough to avoid harsh environmental conditions and for predator refuge. In the past geoduck seed large enough to plant directly was either cost prohibitive or not available at all.In response to geoduck farmers' needs,hatcheries have shifted their production to include nurserying seed so that they can supply the industry with larger seed that stands a better chance for survival. b.Methodology: 1)Site preparation. In order to prepare a site for planting,loose drift algae(mostly Nva)will be raked away from the immediate planting area.This ensures that no algae is trapped inside the PVC tubes,where it will decay and make the immediate substrate anoxic,killing anything within the tube.The algae that is raked to the side of the planting area will be redistributed across the beach with successive tidal flux.No native materials will be removed from any proposed farm site.There will be no pre-plant harvest of natural geoducks unless the density of geoducks on the proposed beach is considered"commercial"by tribal standards,in which case the entire biomass (or as close as possible)must be removed from the proposed farm area prior to planting,and divided correctly to the Squaxin Tribe.More specifically if an initial purge harvest of any potential beach yields a minimum density of 0.01 geoducks per square foot,then the Tribe and TMS Inc. negotiate a harvest plan for the future. 2) Seed Handling.TMS can obtain seed from the following sources: 1.Taylor United hatchery, Quilcene WA;2.Island Scallop hatchery,Nanaimo BC;3. Seaproducks hatchery,Lummi Isl;WA, and 4.Lummi Shellfish hatchery,Bellingham WA. In the event that large seed is not available from any of the above hatcheries,some nurserying may be necessary in order to attain the desired planting size with smaller seed.In that event,the seed will be placed in plastic trays (22x14x6 inches),filled with 4-5 inches of coarse,washed sand(0.55 to 0.65 mm).The trays are placed in an existing sink float.The float will be anchored seasonally at the TMS Inc.property in Spencer Cove on the eastern shore of Harstine Island.The existing float is temporarily anchored with boat anchors in approximately the same location(Lat 47.278735;Long-122.868404)at a tidal elevation of approximately-14.0 MLLW).At-4.0'tide, there will be approximately three feet of water under the float.At an extreme high tide,there will be approximately 23 feet under the float.There is no eelgrass or macroalgae present in the area where the sink float is anchored or any communities of benthic organisms. The bottom is unremarkable and composed of finer sand.In the event the above hatcheries fail to produce seed large enough to directly plant,seed will be nurseried for up to 3 months in the plastic trays, or until they reach the desirable planting size.TMS Inc. stocks these plastic trays at a density of no more than 1000 seed per tray. The sink float is 20x14x7 feet and is made from an aluminum frame with small mesh plastic sides(approximately 1.5 inch openings)to keep out fish,birds and mammals,but allow good circulation through the float with tidal exchanges. The top of the float is the only entrance in to it and it is closed with flush sealing bay doors when not being accessed for seed, so that no animals can get in to the float.There are securely fastened plastic shelves inside the float,giving it 4 different vertical levels of storage.The said float holds approximately 192 trays at full capacity, which is 192,000 seed at a density of 1000 seed/tray. It is checked on a weekly basis to ensure everything is functioning as designed.The float is sealed with plywood decking that encloses the sealed foam billets,as a best MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-2 management practice.The sink float is a very good concept,because seed can be stored until ready to use,off the bottom,where food and water flow is much better than on the beach.In addition,the plastic seed trays are stored in a 3-dimensional area vs. covering 3 times the surface area on a potential farm site and causing the sand beneath them to go anoxic. The impacts of the existing sink float on the listed species and critical habitat are minimal.There is approximately three feet of water under the sink float at a-4.0' tide.Therefore,there will be no impacts to the sand substrate. There is no eelgrass or macroalgae present,which could be shaded by the structure.In addition,the structure is only present during the summer.No fish species can be trapped inside the float. It is important to note using a sink float is a last resort only when large enough seed to plant directly cannot be obtained from a given hatchery.Eliminating the use of a sink float is optimal,and decreases overall costs and seed lost through the nursery process.With the shift in hatchery production of much larger and directly plantable geoduck seed, TMS Inc. is very optimistic that this change will make the use of a sink float or other nursery technique for geoduck aquaculture obsolete. 3)Tube Placement. To protect geoduck seed until they can burrow deep enough to avoid predators and escape environmental events like extreme heat,PVC tubes 4 inches in diameter and 10 inches long or flexible plastic mesh sleeves 2.5 inches in diameter and 13 inches long are placed in the substrate.PVC tubes are placed on 1 foot centers, or a density of 1 per square foot,whereas the mesh sleeves(because of smaller diameter and they only accommodate 2/3 of the seed a tube does)are placed on 10" centers.At the extreme lower end of the beach from a-2.5'to-3.0'MLLW and deeper,mesh sleeves are planted with seed. The planting area for the Runyan Trust parcel(0.28 acres)will begin at 0'MLLW(Figure 2)and will extend down the beach to the Extreme Low Water(approximately-4.5'). PVC tubes are seeded with 3 seed per tube,and mesh sleeves with 2 seed per sleeve so the density of geoducks planted on the beach is the same at 3 geoducks per square foot. With the PVC tubes,approximately 3-4 inches of the tubes are left exposed.The PVC tubes are negatively buoyant and do not float if they are dislodged from the substrate.This is more of a concern in areas where there is heavy current or extreme wind,which can dislodge tubes from the substrate prematurely. A routine of monitoring beaches for loose tubes is employed by TMS Inc. every time the beach is visited.The PVC tubes are individually labeled with TMS INC 360-701-4887 either printed on the tube when it is manufactured or with a cattle-type brand when it is recycled from the beach before it is put back into production(for existing inventory that was acquired before there was a regulation to identify tubes).The mesh sleeves are individually tagged with plastic ties,each bearing the same information as above. PVC tubes the mesh sleeves are removed from the substrate after 2 years,as the juvenile clams have had adequate time to burrow into the substrate for protection against predators or environmental threats. 4)Planting. The geoduck seed will be planted into the mesh sleeves or PVC tubes by hand.The PVC tubes are placed in the substrate at low tide and either a)planted with large seed that are hand-poked in to the substrate,and then covered with a large mesh cap and UV resistant rubber band at low tide or b)the PVC tubes are capped with a large mesh cover and UV resistant rubber band offsite,placed in the substrate at low tide,and subsequently dive-planted with smaller seed through the large mesh net when the tide comes in.Area nets (typically 40'x40')can be placed over the top of the PVC tubes if the farm site is exposed to extreme wind,waves MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-3 or current to ensure that any tubes dislodged remain on the farm site.Mesh sleeves do not need additional area nets to cover them,as they are lower in the intertidal zone where they very rarely come in contact with extreme weather and are in effect"locked in"to the substrate once they are inserted. TMS Inc.'s operation is of a smaller size and typically can install around 5000 PVC tubes per day. If the application demands mesh sleeves,it is a bit slower. In that case, 2,500 mesh sleeves per day can be installed and planted.Depending on the tidal height of the particular beach farming area, a particular beach may have a higher percentage of sleeves than another beach,given its limited accessibility during low tide events. The amount of time required to plant 1 acre of high to moderately low intertidal farm area with PVC tubes would be about 10 days. The total acreage to be planted at the Runyan Trust parcel is approximately 0.28 acres.Therefore,planting should take approximately 4-5 days.The amount of time required to plant 1 acre of lower intertidal or subtidal farm area would be about twice that or about 20 days of effort per acre.Installing and planting 1 acre of PVC tubes would take place over at least 2 different tide series. Installing and planting mesh sleeves doesn't have to coincide with tide series and can be done throughout the summer and into fall during times when there are no low tides. Most of the work associated with farming any particular beach will be initiated from the waterward side of the beach,but occasionally there will be crew walking to work on the beach or do routine inspections from the landward side of the beach.The vast majority of the work done on the beach will be done in the lower reaches of the intertidal area,no higher than a+0.0'(MLLW).At the end of each day's work,any leftover materials(i.e.PVC tubes,mesh caps,area nets)that are not installed on the beach,will be placed back on the storage barge and moored offshore of the farm area for a successive day's work.No equipment will be stored on the beach.Any vessels used in a day's work will be removed from the farm area as the tide comes in and taken back to the staging area.When needed,lighting on the beach will be limited to individual LED headlamps. Standard navigational lighting will be used on vessels. 3.Maintenance Activities a.Strategy: Maintenance involves the removal of all tubes,sleeves and netting(caps and/or area nets),returning the beach back to its natural state,except for the addition of geoduck and other species that recruited to the beach during the farming process.There are several goals involved in maintenance activities: 1)Survival of all the geoduck seed,2)Minimize the environmental impacts to the planted area. b.Methodology: 1) Site Inspection. Farm maintenance is a year-round process.Periodic walk through checks will be made at low tides to inspect for loose or removed tubes and/or sleeves,as well as caps,rubber bands or netting that have been removed by elements. Inspections will typically be made with 2-4 people and will include monitoring a particular farm area for build-up of drift macroalgae. Ulva can unexpectedly inundate a given farm, covering tubes entirely and choking out all sea- life below,including juvenile geoduck clams. Drift algae is typically heaviest in late spring to mid-summer months,when blooms occur.If a given farm area becomes heavily infested with the drift algae,it can be picked up, if necessary, and moved to the top of the farm area where it can be distributed on the upper beach area that is not used for farming.Typically,these algal mats move around with the tide,wave and current action,but can pile up in certain areas,requiring spot-maintenance of farm areas to ensure juvenile geoducks survive. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-4 2)Cap Removal. Sometimes mesh caps and rubber bands can be removed as early as 12 months from the time they are installed on the PVC tubes.This can only take place on farm sites where there is not a heavy influx of drift macro algae.On beaches with heavy drift macroalgae,TMS Inc.typically places area nets(1 inch stretch mesh)over the PVC tubes in addition to mesh caps to ensure the drift algae stays out of the tubes.In this situation, caps remain on the tubes for the entire 2 years before the tubes are removed from the substrate.On beaches with moderate drift macroalgae,large mesh caps that remain for the entire 2 years the tubes are in the substrate,are satisfactory at keeping the majority of drift macroalgae out of the tubes ensuring the survival of the juvenile geoducks.Other specific farm sites absolutely require that the mesh caps be taken off at 12 months in order to remove recruited cockles from the tubes.If this is not done,the abundance of cockles can be so great,they will compete with and choke out the juvenile geoducks in the tubes.Prior to removal of any caps,rubber bands and/or area netting,TMS Inc.will conduct a walkthrough inspection of the farm area to determine if herring are using any of the installed gear as spawning substrate.If so,the gear will be left alone until there is no indication of herring spawn,at which time the gear will be removed.Cap and band as well as area net removal take place over several tide cycles.The amount of time it takes to remove 1 acre of caps and bands is approximately 4-5 days.Therefore,it will require approximately 2 days to remove the caps and bands from the proposed 0.28 acres total planting area. 3)Tube,Mesh Sleeve and Net Removal. When the juvenile geoducks have grown sufficiently in size so that they can burrow 18-24 inches deep in the substrate,the protective PVC tubes or mesh sleeves can be removed from the substrate as well as protective caps/bands and/or area nets,depending on the specific application and whether the caps/bands and/or area nets have already been removed. The depth to which the geoducks can burrow is typically substrate driven,and the clams tend to burrow quicker in sandy substrates versus those substrates containing a mixture of shell or gravel. In sandier substrates the geoducks may burrow to the desired protective depth of 18-24 inches in 18 months,whereas in substrates with more gravel, it may take as much as 24 months to accomplish this. All gear installed on a particular beach must be removed during the lowest tides of late Spring and Summer.When a particular beach is ready for gear removal,workers will come to the beach by boat and,if necessary,remove all area nets to expose the tubes and caps for removal by hand.After the area nets have been unstaked and removed, they will be piled on an aluminum barge and allowed to dry somewhat before transport.At that point,workers remove and place the tubes,and caps(if they have not already been removed)in large bags that will be stored on an aluminum barge at the farm site until all the gear is removed.The gear will be transported back to Latimer's Landing in Mason County,where it will be off-loaded onto a trailer and transported back to the TMS Inc. land facility.The amount of time it takes to remove 1 acre of tubes is approximately 8 days.The amount of time it takes to remove 1 acre of area nets is approximately 1-2 days.Therefore,tube and net removal at this TMS Inc. site will take approximately 4 days.Tube and net removal can take several tide cycles to complete,and when necessary(if done in the fall or winter),night lighting will be reserved to individual LED headlamps.Boats will use standard navigational lighting. c. Summary: No vegetation will be removed from the site during maintenance activities.There will be no placement of fill,no earth moving and no release of any contaminants. As mentioned above,all gear used on the beach will be brought to the beach by water,and typically all workers will arrive to beach the same way.Occasionally they may access the site from the land owner's upland.The maximum time that a vessel may be grounded on the beach during a low tide is approximately 4 hours,at which time it is then removed. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•5 4. Harvesting Details a. Strategy: The grow-out period for marketable geoducks is generally 5-7 years,but can be very site-specific depending on many factors,including the amount of food(micro-algae)in the water,the rate of current(food delivery mechanism)at a particular beach,substrate type,and surviving seed density. Most of TMS Inc.'s beaches are harvested in the winter 5.5 years from the time they are planted.This is to accommodate market demand which is consistently better at this time of year. The majority of harvest is done during the winter at night during either low tides(dry harvest)or during the day by dive-harvest(wet harvest)if the beach has enough current to support it.Clean-up harvest is most effectively done with dry harvest in the late Spring on good low tide runs because the beach can be more systematically purged of all remaining geoduck in order that it has some time to sit before being planted again in the summer months.Although the harvest"window"may take up to six months to accomplish for any given beach,the bulk of the harvest activity is done from November through February.It is the goal of TMS Inc.to manage its beaches on a 6 year cycle;planting initially in the summer months,and harvesting 5.5 years later in the winter to spring for about 6 months total. b.Methodology: Given the unpredictable nature of the market for geoducks,it is crucial for TMS Inc.to be able to supply product to the buyer when the market is strong.This often occurs when there are no tides low enough for beach(dry)harvesting.In addition,it is advantageous to be able to spread harvest out,so that supply is not sporadic and extremely variable,but rather moderate and consistent.Therefore, it is advantageous to be able to harvest from the beach during low tides, and also by diving(wet harvest),using surface-supplied air(SSA). Regardless of harvest method,it is unlikely that forage fish spawning will be impacted(see"effects of the action" section below). 1)Extraction. The extraction techniques used for dry and wet harvest are very similar. See Figure 8 for a schematic illustrating the extraction process.Harvest of the geoducks will be powered with a small 4-cylinder diesel engine that is mounted either in a vessel or on a barge which is moored in deeper water just off the farm area,and enclosed in a sound-dampening box(wood/fiberglass and foam insulation).The exhaust of the engine is the loudest portion of the engine and this is piped through a water bubbler,making it a"wet exhaust"and expelled through the side of the vessel.The wet exhaust and the insulated engine box make this system very quiet and barely audible from shore. The diesel engine is used to turn a double pulley at low RPM's,which also keeps noise to a minimum.There are two belts attached to the pulley;one going to a water pump and one going to an air compressor. The water pump has an intake hose that is connected through the hull of the vessel and drapes down in to the water. This intake hose is screened in accordance with fish screening criteria established by the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS 1997),and brings water through a 3 inch intake line into the water pump where it is slightly pressurized and exits through a 1.5 inch hose,thus creating pressurized water for digging the geoducks. It is a low pressure(approximately 401bs per sq.inch)and higher volume system,producing approximately 20-30 gallons per minute to a manifold system which separates individual 1.5 inch fire-hose type water lines that extend up the beach to the harvest area.There the 1.5 inch flexible hose is reduced and connected to a 30-36"SCH 80 PVC pipe working end(nozzle),0.75 inches in diameter.This is the end used by both divers and beach diggers to loosen the geoducks from the substrate. Both beach diggers and divers place the nozzle into the sand next to an individual geoduck siphon,hold the siphon in one hand and then carefully probe the nozzle downward adjacent to the siphon to loosen the substrate around the MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•6 geoduck.When the substrate around the siphon and attached shell is sufficiently loosened,the geoduck can be gently pulled out of the substrate by its siphon and either laid on the sand for another worker to pick up(dry harvest),or be placed in a holding bag(wet harvest).The system described above gives the versatility to be used for beach digging, or for dive harvest. The second belt attached to the air compressor generates compressed air,which is taken in through a filter, compressed and pushed to the remote volume tank on the vessel where it is further run through a series of air filters (fabric and then carbon)and finally fed through an umbilical line down to a diver.The umbilical also supports communication lines so the diver can stay in contact with the surface at all times. 2)Approach.Dive harvests occur during daylight hours during periods of the year when low tides are unavailable for accessing the beach. While diving,the vessel providing SSA is moored above the farm area;the anchor used to secure the vessel in its location is typically within the confines of the farm area,or just to the side of it,and thus not moored in any eelgrass or kelp areas(eelgrass has never been seen near any TMS Inc. farm).Divers have a 150'water hose which limits their effective coverage area to a 150'circle around the boat.Divers work in depths of 5 to 20 feet depending on the tidal elevation at a particular time.Divers harvest geoducks one at a time by extracting them from the substrate,then place them in an expandable netted bag.Once the bag is full,it will be brought to the surface using a boat-mounted davit and unloaded on the boat.The geoducks are placed in a tote of seawater until the digging is complete at which time they will be tagged,caged and transported to Latimer's Landing in Mason County where a refrigerated truck will take them to market. During dry harvest operations,the vessel supporting the digging apparatus is moored just offshore of the farm area in deeper water,so that it does not go dry and beach diggers can continue to dig at low tides.Just as a diver has a support person(tender)on the boat above,a beach digger has a tender that follows him around the beach,making sure his hose is not kinked and positioned correctly,as well as picking up the harvested geoducks and banding them with rubber bands.A third person will come around and place the freshly harvested geoducks into crates where they are carried slightly up the beach to totes of seawater and held until harvest is complete.At that point, the geoducks will be tagged,caged and transported to Latimer's Landing in Mason County where a refrigerated truck will take them to market.When needed,night lighting on the beach will be limited to LED headlamps; vessels will use standard navigational lighting. 3)Duration/Intensity.Daily dive harvests commonly last two to four hours for each of two divers, depending on the density of available clams,turbidity,current flow,temperature,and market demand.Dive harvests typically yield 500 to 1000 lbs per day.Beach harvests may last up to a maximum of 4 hours and 3-4 workers during a single beach harvest period can produce 1000-2500 lbs. c. Summary: Harvest activities involve no vegetation removal.During the harvesting process,the small amounts of patchy Ova,Mastocarpus and S. latissima(mostly all drift)that may be present(0-5%)will be moved aside so the geoduck siphon can be seen.Both beach diggers and divers will then place the nozzle into the sand next to an individual geoduck siphon,hold the siphon in one hand and then carefully probe the nozzle downward adjacent to the siphon to loosen the substrate around the geoduck.When the substrate around the siphon and attached shell is sufficiently loosened,the geoduck can be gently pulled out of the substrate by its siphon and either laid on the sand for another worker to pick up(dry harvest),or be placed in a holding bag(wet harvest)as described above. There will be no placement of fill,no release of chemicals/environmental contaminants.No earth moving per se will occur,although some temporary sediment transport/turbidity will result.Light generation when working night tides,will be minimized and restricted to individual LED headlamps,and vessels will use standard navigational MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-7 lighting.All gear used on the beach will be brought to the beach by water,and usually all workers will arrive to beach the same way.The maximum time that a vessel may be grounded on the beach during a low tide is approximately 4 hours,at which time it is then removed. Primary Activity Time Frame/Milestone Planting Spring to early Fall,place and remove grow-out trays from sink-float as needed for planting IF large enough seed isn't available directly from hatchery; complete planting Maintenance 12 to 24 months from planting,remove caps and bands from tubes;remove mesh sleeves 24 months from planting,remove all tubes and area nets from beach Harvesting 5.5 years from planting,start harvest(typically in late fall or early winter) 6 months from start of harvest,complete harvest and prepare beach for re-planting Elapsed time,start to finish is 6 years D.Action Area: The action area includes the beach area within approximately'/Z mile around the of the proposed geoduck aquaculture sites. This action area includes any noise and/or turbidity impacts caused by the geoduck farming process. II. Species and Habitat Information The Mason County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report refers to this area of Harstine Island as Marine Reach 47. This area of Harstine Island is described in the Report as having hardshell clam beds and oyster beds present as well as being significant habitat for salmonids and other wildlife.Priority habitat includes 2.1 acres of wetlands;types include estuarine intertidal aquatic bed and unconsolidated shore(Mason 2012).There is little human impact to the shoreline associated with homes,shoreline armoring,and docks.There is existing aquaculture activity in this area. Federal Endangered Species Act- listed species of concern A range of fish,marine mammal,and bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act may occur,or may have critical habitat,within the proposed action area.The listing status,presence of species,critical habitat in the area,and relevant life history traits of each listed species are presented below. Puget Sound Chinook: MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-8 The Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)is listed under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Vol.70,No. 123 /Tuesday,June 28,2005 /Rules and Regulations). In addition,NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU(Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday, September 2,2005/Rules and Regulations).An"Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook"is provided in Attachment 4. The project site is located in WRIA 14.According to the Washington State Conservation Commission(2002): Since 1986,fall chinook have been observed spawning in about a dozen WRIA 14 streams.In most cases,the numbers have been single digit observations,with Goldsborough,Johns,Deer and Sherwood creeks demonstrating the highest utilization in the WRIA.Excepting Skookum Creek returns,the total observed return ranged from 3 to 121 fish between 1986 and 2001. It is also stated in the Commission's document that: (1) The independent tributaries in south Puget Sound are not typical chinook habitat because of small stream size and low flows during the late summer/early fall spawning season. (2)The current low escapements are likely the result of past hatchery plants or straying from either current production at south Puget Sound hatcheries or viable south Sound natural populations.(3)Neither WDFW nor the Squaxin Island Tribe want to be in the position of advocating production/protection of fish that likely were not historically self-sustaining populations and would have little chance of perpetuating themselves through natural production. Relevant life history:Puget Sound chinook;also called king salmon,are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 1998).They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm(Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans(gammarid amphipods,mysids,and cumaceans).As they grow and move into neritic habitats,they feed on decapod larvae,larval and juvenile fish,drift insects,and euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982).These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival. Puget Sound Steelhead: Washington State Conservation Commission(2002)states,"Winter steelhead in WRIA 14 typically enter freshwater from December through mid-March and spawn from early February to early April.Stock status throughout WRIA 14 was characterized as"unknown"by WDFW in 1992 because escapement was(and presently is)not monitored." In the larger South Sound area WDFW(Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine—SCoRE)has noted that: This population includes four former SaSI winter steelhead stocks:Eld Inlet,Totten Inlet,Hammersley Inlet,and Case/Carr Inlet—effectively all of the lowland tributaries entering into South Puget Sound. Numerous other smaller tributaries are included in this population,including Chambers Creek.There is little definitive information on their abundance,life history characteristics, or genetic variation. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-9 Relevant life history:steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again,unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean,where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. Bull Trout: Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)in 1999(Federal Register/Vol. 64,No.210/Monday,November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations). The project site is not located on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout(Federal Register/Vo1.75,No.200/Monday, October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations). Spawning populations are known to exist in the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers,but USFWS considers the Nisqually River and Puyallup subpopulations"depressed"based on fewer than 500 spawning adults(Federal Register,Vol.64,No.210, 1999).According to WDFW(1998),little is known about the Puyallup stock life histories,spawn timing and location,and stock status. It is possible that bull trout will forage in Hammersley Inlet. Relevant life history: coastal Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea.Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring.Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers(fluvial),lakes(adfluvial),or saltwater(anadromous)before returning to smaller streams to spawn.Others(resident bull trout)complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared.Habitat degradation,dams and diversions,and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population.The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States(Federal Register,Vol.64,No.210, 1999). Rockfish: NOAA has listed the distinct population segments(DPSs)of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 81,April 28,2010,Final Rule).The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound,including the area around the San Juan Islands,and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia.The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.The project site falls within the recently designated Nearshore Critical Habitat(CH)for Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio(Federal Register/Vol.79,No.219/Thursday,November 13,2014/Rules and Regulations). The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal,if they occur at all,because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the project site.The project is located in the shallow water critical habitat for juvenile bocaccio and canary rockfish(NOAA 2015). Shallow,intertidal,nearshore waters in rocky,cobble and sand substrates(with or without kelp)can provide suitable substrate for juvenile(3-6 month old)bocaccio and canary rockfish.However,the highest densities of juvenile rockfish are found in areas with floating or submerged kelp species.No kelp is present within the project area and the area is relatively free of boulders and cobble.An"Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio"is provided in Attachment 4. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-10 Relevant life history:bocaccio,canary,and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles.As juveniles they settle to benthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al.2002).As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters.Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats.Adult yelloweye,canary and bocaccio rockfish generally inhabit depths from approximately 90' to 1400' (Love et al.2002).All three species are opportunistic feeders,with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of the adults of these species include marine mammals,salmon,other rockfish,lingcod,and sharks. Marbled Murrelet: Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992. There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site(WDFW 2015a,NOAA 2015). Relevant life history:marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family.They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDF W 1993).Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,sea perch,Pacific herring,surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates. Humpback Whale: NMFS has listed the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this time. According to Osborne et al. (1988),there were only three sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988.However,more recently,a humpback whale was sighted near Dabob Bay in 2012(Orca Network Sighting Report—January 31,2012).Humpback whales have been identified in Puget Sound,but not within the area near the project site(Orca Network 2015). Relevant life history:Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound,even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring(Clupea pallasii),sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus), and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)as prey resources.These forage fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles. According to WDFW's Spawning Location Map there is documented surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)spawning activity at the site.There are no documented Pacific herring spawning areas near the project site(Stick,K.and A. Lindquist 2008). South Puget Sound herring stocks typically spawn on rocky,gravelly substrate in the absence of marine vegetation and the only TMS Inc.farm areas of gravelly nature are in higher current areas,which would not tend to"hold" spawn.As well,the majority of TMS Inc. farm sites are composed of finer grain sand,which is not a typical choice for herring spawning activity.Additionally,while herring spawn is deposited within the tidal range of the proposed TMS Inc.farm areas,the majority of spawning activity is thought to occur in subtidal waters. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-11 Leatherback Sea Turtle: NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. There is no designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Washington at this time. Relevant life history:There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994).They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.).Again,it is highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales: On November 15,2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale(Orcinus orca)as endangered under ESA (Federal Register,Vol.70,No.222,November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations).NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (Federal Register/Vol.71,No.229/November 29,2006/Final Rule). The proposed project is not within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat.According to the Whale Museum's database of sightings from 1990-2013 referenced by NMFS,there have been approximately 10 sightings of Southern Resident killer whales on the northeast side of Harstine Island. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,estuarine and marine wetlands,geoduck,and surf smelt spawning are documented at the site.Pacific geoduck are recognized by the State or Federal government to have concerned,threatened,or endangered status (WDFW 2015a). Sand lance and surf smelt breeding habitat is generally located at greater than+5' MLLW on substrates including sand and pea gravel.However,substrate at this elevation on the site is typically coarse gravel and cobble and would not be considered suitable habitat(Figure 7). Geoduck farming activity will occur lower than+5' MLLW. No herring spawning habitat is identified in the action area(WDFW 2015). These fish are an important food source for a variety of consumers such as migrating salmon and bald eagles. Sand lance and surf smelt do not have Federal or State concerned,threatened,or endangered status,while Pacific herring are a Federal Species of Concern and a State Candidate species. III. Effects of the Action The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided.The proposed project has been described and the action area defined.A habitat survey has been provided.When reviewing all the data,the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat are considered. A. Direct Effects: When considering the direct effects of the proposed project on the listed species and habitats one must determine if the proposed project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat.Even though harvesting takes place years after planting,harvesting impacts are included in"Direct Effects" due to their brief episodic nature.Possible direct impacts that may result from geoduck aquaculture include the following: MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-12 1.Turbidity Impacts:Water jet harvesting can cause increases in turbidity.However,these turbidity increases are expected to be localized and brief.There may be some short-term avoidance of the area by the listed fish species. 2.Noise Impacts:Noise above ambient levels might affect marbled murrelet foraging activities in the immediate area.Although there is no marbled murrelet critical habitat near the site,murrelets may forage in the nearshore area (1056'to 6,300'from shore).However,the applicant plans to locate the water pump used during harvesting in an insulated box,thereby decreasing pump noise.As noted above,there have been few sightings of Southern Resident killer whales in the area. 3.Impacts of aquaculture on benthic,epibenthic and sediment characteristics:There is debate about the impacts of habitat disturbance on the benthic environment and the time needed for recovery.A pilot study conducted by Pearce et al.(2007,unpublished)on the recolonization of benthic invertebrates caused by geoduck aquaculture resulted in the following conclusions: 1. There was a spike in species richness and density of benthic infauna seen in core samples take two months after seeding activities. 2. There was a higher invertebrate abundance and diversity six months after seeding as compared to a reference plot, even though there was a slight reduction in species diversity and density as compared to that found two months after seeding. 3. Six months after harvest,there was a return to the baseline conditions for species richness,even though the overall number of individuals per core sample was slightly less in the impact plot. However,other studies that investigated the impact of other types of habitat disturbances showed a range of results. Most of these studies reported an immediate reduction in species abundance due to the physical disruption caused by harvesting methods such as hand raking,dredging and suction(Hall and Harding 1977,Bandino et al.2004 and Hauton et al.2003). Other studies reported no impacts on infaunal species(Boese 2002 and Peterson et al. 1987). Spencer et al. (1998)reported an approximate 80%decrease in infaunal species and their abundance after suction dredging of Manila clams.They report that recovery of sediment structure and invertebrate infaunal communities had occurred 12 months after the harvest disturbance.In the Hall and Harding study mentioned above,the investigators report that, "the faunal structure in disturbed plots recovered(i.e.approached that of the un-disturbed controls)by 56 days."They also concluded that"mechanical harvesting methods impose high levels of mortality on nontarget benthic fauna,but that recovery of disturbed site is rapid and the overall effects on populations is probably low." In general,studies indicate that benthic prey resources will likely be impacted temporarily by shellfish harvesting (Hall&Harding 1997;Hauton,Atkinson,&Moore 2004;VanBlaricom et al.2013)and trampling but recovery of sediment structure and benthic invertebrate infaunal community is expected to occur rapidly(within 12 months) (Price 2011,Hall&Harding 1997, Spencer,Kaiser, &Edwards 1998). B. Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are considered effects of the project that occur later in time.Potential indirect effects of the proposed project are: MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-13 1.Impacts of shellfish aquaculture presence on the benthic and epibenthic community: There are numerous studies on the impacts of shellfish aquaculture but results differ.For example,Bendell Young (2006)examined three beaches with different intensities of Manila clam farming.In general,on the beach with the greatest intensity of farming,there was a decrease in species richness,altered species abundance and distribution, greater accumulation of surface sediment and organic matter.However, Crawford et al. (2003)found no significant differences between benthic infauna inside and outside three shellfish farms in Tasmania,Australia. 2.Impacts Changes in nutrient flow: Suspension feeding bivalves consume phytoplankton and excrete feces and pseudofeces,which can elevate nutrient levels in the substrate and may increase vegetation growth by increasing available nutrients.Most of the published literature examines the impacts of oyster and mussel aquaculture. Peterson and Heck(2001)conducted a mussel density manipulation experiment to examine the potential positive interactions between the mussels and the seagrass Thalassia testudinium. They reported that: The mussel density manipulations resulted in a doubling of the total nitrogen and total phosphorus levels of sediments, and a significant reduction in leaf tissue C:N,N:P and C:P ratios,demonstrating that the mussels increased the sediment nutrient content and that these increased nutrients were biologically available to the plant. T. testudinium responded to the presence of mussels by significantly increasing leaf widths and lengths.In addition,productivity significantly increased in the mussel-addition treatments. Reusch and Williams(1998)introduced the mussel,Musculista senhousia to transplanted and established eelgrass beds.The investigators reported: Although effects on leaf growth were not always significant, in August in both eelgrass transplantations and established meadows leaf growth was fertilized by mussels,and showed a saturation-type relationship to sediment ammonium concentrations.....We found only small,non-consistent effects of M. senhousia on shoot density of eelgrass over 6-month periods. However,they also reported: Consistent results were that mussel additions linearly inhibited eelgrass rhizome elongation rates. With 800g dry mass/m2 of M. senhousia,eelgrass rhizomes grew 40%less than controls in two eelgrass transplantations and in one established eelgrass bed.These results indicate that M. senhousia,could both impair the success of transplantations of eelgrass,which spread vegetatively by rhizomes, and the spread of established Z. marina beds to areas inhabited by M. senhousia. Ruesink and Hacker(2007)and their co-workers have been involved in an on-going study to investigate the effects of filter feedings on eelgrass.As noted in Attachment 1,there is no eelgrass at these two sites.However,the following studies are interesting. Investigators established three different 1 m2 plots within an existing 2,000 m2 eelgrass bed in south Puget Sound.One plot was+/-eelgrass,the second plot was+/-geoducks and the third plot was+/-fertilizer.In the+geoduck plot,the investigators found that, "Geoducks also competed for space with eelgrass,reducing shoot density by about 40%in summer(no effect in winter)."They also found that, "Overall eelgrass growth rates were not affected by geoduck or fertilizer treatments.After two years,the geoducks were harvested by commercial methods from the addition plots,which reduced eelgrass density by more than 70%. Recovery from this pulse perturbation required at least one year,but was difficult to gauge because the entire eelgrass bed declined in size and density,probably due to natural stressors(desiccation,waves)." MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquacutture Project Biological Evaluation-14 4.Impacts of shellfish aquaculture on water quality:There are many studies that indicate filter-feeding shellfish can decrease water turbidity by removing phytoplankton.In a study by Phelps(1994),it was reported that eelgrass reappeared in an area where it had not be growing for 50 years. The reduction of turbidity caused by the introduction of the Asiatic clam(Corbicula fluminea)in the area was cited as a possible cause for the eelgrass reappearance. Cloem(1982)suggested that suspension-feeding bivalves were responsible the control of phytoplankton in South San Francisco Bay. An alternate view of the impacts of filter-feeders on phytoplankton production was expressed by Nizzoli,et al (2005): These results demonstrate that it is essential to take into account the activity of the cultivated organisms and their epiphytic community when assessing the impacts of shellfish farming. Overall,whilst grazing by the mussel rope community could act as a top-down control on the phytoplankton,most of the ingested organic matter is rapidly recycled to the water column as inorganic nutrients,which would be expected to stimulate phytoplankton growth. Consequently,the net effect of the mussel farming on phytoplankton dynamics,may be to increase phytoplankton turnover and overall production,rather than to limit phytoplankton biomass. S.Impacts of the tubes used to protect geoduck seeds:An interesting study by Fleece et al(2004, unpublished)indicated that there was an increase in epibenthic fauna in geoduck beds with tubes as compared to control sites. When compared to adjacent eelgrass sites,the authors noted that the epibenthic fauna densities were similar to those found in the geoduck beds with tubes. C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects: Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur without its completion.Therefore,no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project. D.Take Analysis: The ESA(Section 3)defines"take"as to"harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,trap,capture,collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct."The USFWS further defines"harm"as"significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding,or sheltering."It is likely that no"take"will result from this project. E. Conservation Measures: In order to minimize potential impacts to listed species and habitat associated with this project,the following conservation measures are recommended for implementation by TMS Inc.: 1. All water craft used to transport materials or people to the site will be either moored directly offshore of the site, and/or grounded for a maximum of 4 hours during the low tides.Harvesters will access the beach by boat,which will either be moored offshore or beached during harvest.The boat's hull and anchor will not come into contact with native eelgrass at any time. 2. At the end of each day's work, any leftover materials(i.e.PVC tubes,mesh caps,area nets)that are not installed on the beach,will be placed back on the storage barge and moored offshore of the farm area for a successive day's work.No equipment will be stored on the beach. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-15 3. A routine of monitoring beaches for loose tubes will be employed by TMS Inc. on every visit the beach. The PVC tubes will be individually labeled with TMS INC 360-701-4887 either printed on the tube when it is manufactured or with a cattle-type brand when it is recycled from the beach before it is put back into production(for existing inventory that was acquired before there was a regulation to identify tubes).The mesh sleeves will individually tagged with plastic ties,each bearing the same information as above.Night- time light generation will be minimized. 4. The small 4-cylinder diesel will be enclosed in a sound-dampening box(wood/fiberglass and foam insulation).The exhaust of the engine is the loudest portion of the engine and this is piped through a water bubbler,making it a"wet exhaust"and expelled through the side of the vessel.The wet exhaust in addition to the insulated engine box will make this system very quiet and barely audible from shore. 5. Prior to removal of any caps,rubber bands and/or area netting,TMS Inc.will conduct a walkthrough inspection of the farm area to determine if herring are using any of the installed gear as spawning substrate. If so,the gear will be left alone until it there is no indication of herring spawn, at which time the gear will be removed. F.Determination of Effect: After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 2.Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish -"May effect,not likely to adversely affect" 3. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 4.Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" S.Marbled murrelet "May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 6.Humpback whale-"No effect" 7.Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" 8.Southern Resident killer whale-"No effect' MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-16 IV. References Angell,T. and K. C.Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press,Seattle,WA, 146 pp. Badino, G.,F. Bona,A.Maffiotti, O.Giovanardi and F.Pranovi. @004. Impacts of mechanical clam harvesting on a benthic habitat: evaluation by means of sediment profile imaging.Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:S59-S67. Bendell-Young,L. 1.2006. Contrasting the community structure and select geochemical characteristics of three intertidal region in relation to shellfish farming.Environmental Conservation: page 1 of 7.Foundation for Environmental Conservation.Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Avenue,Burnaby,British Columbia,Canada V5A 1 S6. Boese,B.L..2002.Effects of recreational clam harvesting on eelgrass(Zostera marina)and associated infaunal invertebrates:in situ manipulative experiments.Aquatic Botany 73: 63-74. Bowlby,D.E., G.A. Green and M.L.Bonnell. 1994.Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Cloern,J.E. 1982. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in South San Francisco Bay.Marine Ecology Progress Series 9:191-202. Crawford,C.M.,C.K.A.Macleod,and I.M.Mitchell.2003.Effects of shellfish farming on the benthic environment.Aquaculture 224:117-140. Dorcey,A.H.J.,T. G.Northcote and D.V. Ward. 1978.Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon? Westwater Research Center,Lecture 1,University of British Columbia,Vancouver,BC. Federal Register/Vol. 55,No.227/Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.64,No.210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.70,No. 123/Tuesday,June 28,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday, September 2,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register,Vol.70,No.222/November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 71,No.229/November 29,2006/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.72,No.91 /Friday,May 11,2007/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.75,No.200/Monday,October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 77,No.75/Wednesday,April 18,2012/Proposed Rules. Federal Register/Vol 78,No 9/Monday,Jan. 14,2013/Proposed Rules. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-17 Federal Register/Vol. 78 FR,p.66167/Wednesday,November 4,2013/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol.79,No.219/Thursday,November 13,2014/Rules and Regulations Fisher,J.P.,K.Patten, and T.Bradley.Invasion of Japanese eelgrass,Zostera japonica in the Pacific Northwest:A preliminary analysis of recognized impacts,ecological functions,and risks.Environ International Corporation, Seattle WA.28 pp. Fleece,C.,D.Waller,J.Fisher,J.Vanderpham, and G.Reub.2004.Programmatic biological evaluation of potential impacts of intertidal geoduck culture facilities to endangered species essential fish habitat.Draft biological evaluation prepared on October 27,2004 by Entrix,Inc.for Taylor Shellfish,Seattle Shellfish,and Chelsea Farms,Olympia,Washington. Griffin,F.J.E.H. Smith,C.A.Vines,and G.N.Cherr.2009.Impacts of suspended sediments on fertilization, embryonic development, and early larval life stages of the Pacific Herring, Clupea pallasi.Biological Bulletin 216:175-187. Hall, S.J.and M.J.C.Harding. 1997.Physical disturbances and marine benthic communities:the effects of mechanical harvesting of cockles on non-target benthic infauna.The Journal of Applied Ecology 34:497-517. Hauton, C.,R.J.A.Atkinson and P. G.Moore.2003.The impact of hydraulic blade dredging on a benthic megafaunal community in the Clyde Sea area,Scotland.Journal of Sea Research,Vol 50,Issue 1,pp.45-56. Healey,M.C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries:the life support system,pp.315 -341.In:V.S.Kennedy (ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Hiddink,J.G.,R.Hofstede,and W.J.Wolff.2002.Predation of intertidal infauna on juveniles of the bivalve Macoma balthica.Journal of Sea Research 47:141-159. Jeffries, Steven J.,Patrick J.Gearin,Harriet R.Huber,Don L. Saul and Darrell A.Pruett.2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Wildlife Science Division, Olympia,WA, 150 pp. Kaiser,M.J.,D.B.Edwards and B.E.Spencer. 1996.Infaunal community changes as a result of commercial clam cultivation and harvesting.Aquatic Living Resources 9:57-63. Kaiser,M.J. and K.R. Clarke,H.Hinz,M.C. V.Austen,P.J. Somerfield and I.Karakassis.2006.Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing.Marine Ecology,Vol 311,pp. 1-14. Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson.2002.The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.University of California Press,Berkeley,California. Mach,M.E., S.Wyllie-Echeverria,J.Rhode Ward.2010.Distribution and potential effects of a non-native seagrass in Washington State:Zostera japonica workshop.Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington Sea Grant. Olympia,WA.41 pp. Mason 2012.Mason County Final Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report—Revised October 2012. McDonald,P. Sean,Aaron W.E.Galloway,Kathleen C.McPeek,and Glenn R.VanBlaricom.2013.Effects of geoduck(Panopea generosa Gould, 1850)aquaculture gear on resident and transient macrofauna communities of Puget Sound,Washington,USA MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-18 Myers,J.M.,R. G.Kope,G.J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T. C. Wainwright,W. S.Grand,F.W. Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T.Lindley,and R. S.Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington,Idaho, Oregon, and California.U.S.Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo.NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp. Nizzoli,Daniele,David T.Welsh,Marco Bartoli and Pierluigi Viaroli.2005. Impacts of mussel(Mytilus gallprovincialis)farming on oxygen consumption and nutrient recoiling in a eutrophic coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia(2005)550:183-198. NOAA 2015. Environmental Response Management Application:Puget Sound.2015.Available: http://response.restoration noaa og_v/ma s-and-spatial-data/environmental response management application erma/pacific-northwest-erma html. NMFS 1997.National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region: Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids.January 1997. Nomme,K.M.,and P.G. Harrison. 1991a.A multivariate comparison of the seagrass Zostera marina and Zostera japonica in monospecific versus mixed populations.Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 1984-1990. Nomme,K.M.,and P.G.Harrison. 1991b.Evidence for interaction between the seagrasses Zostera marina and Zostera japonica on the Pacific coast of Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 69:2004-2010. Orca Network. 2015. Sightings Archive.Available:http://www.orcanetwork.org/Archives/ Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis and E.M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes, WA, 191 pp. Pearce,C.M., Y.X.An,J.M.Blackburn,L.J.Keddy,D.L.Paltzat,and S. W.Williams.2007. Geoduck aquaculture: an examination of predator protection methodology and potential environmental impacts.PowerPoint presentation at the October 19 meeting of the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association. Penttila,D.2007.Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound.:Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Technical Report 2007-03.Published by Seattle District,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle WA. Peterson,C.H.,H.C. Summerson,and S.R.Begley. 1987.Ecological consequences of mechanical harvesting of clams.Fishery Bulletin 85:281-298. Peterson,B.J., and K.L.Heck.2001.Positive interactions between suspension-feeding bivalves and seagrass-a facultative mutualism.Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 213:115-125. Phelps,H.L. 1994.The Asiatic clam(Corbicula fluminea)invasion and system-level ecological change in the Potomac River estuary near Washington,DC.Estuaries 17:614-621. Pleus,A.2012. 2012.Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Committee Report to the 2012 Legislature.Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia WA.34 pp. Price. (2011). Quantifying the Ecological Impacts of Geoduck(Panopea generosa)Aquaculture Harvest Practices on Benthic Infauna. Seattle,WA:Masters Thesis,University of Washington. Reusch,T.B.H.,and S.L.Williams. 1998. Variable responses of native eelgrass Zostera marina to a non- indigenous bivalve Musculista senhousia.Oecologia 113:428-441. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-19 Rieman,B.E.and J.D.McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S.Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station,Ogden,UT.38 pp. Ruesink,J. and S.Hacker.2007.Scale-dependent and indirect effects of filter feeders on eelgrass:Understanding c complex ecological Interactions to improve environmental impacts of aquaculture.Western Regional Aquaculture Center(WRAC)Annual Accomplishment Report for the Period September 1,2006 to August 31,2007. Ruesink,J.L.,J.S.Hong,L.Wisehart,S.D.Hacker,B.R.Dumbauld,M.Hessing-Lewis,and A.C.Trimble.2010. Congener comparison of native(Zostera marina)and introduced(Z.japonica)eelgrass at multiple scales within a Pacific Northwest estuary.Biological Invasions 12: 1773-1789. Ruesink,J. and Horwith,M.2012. Resilience of soft-sediment communities after geoduck harvest in Samish Bay, Washington. In: Geoduck aquaculture research program.Report to the Washington State.Legislature. Washington State Sea Grant, Seattle WA.21 pp. Shafer,D.J.2007.Physiological factors affecting the distribution of the non-indigenous seagrass Zostera japonica along the Pacific coast of North America.Ph.D Dissertation.University of South Alabama,Mobile,AL. Simenstad,C.A.,K.L.Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982.The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function.Pp.343-364.In: V. S.Kennedy,(ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad,Charles A.,(ed.). 1998.Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions.University of Washington, Seattle,WA. Short,K.S.and Walton,R. 1992.The transport and fate of suspended sediment plumes associated with commercial geoduck harvesting.Ebasco Environmental,Bellevue WA. 58 pp. Spencer.B.E.,M.J.Kaiser and D.B.Edwards. 1998.Intertidal clam harvesting,benthic community change and recovery.Aquaculture Research,Vol 29,Issue 6,pp.429437. Stick,K.C.,and A.Lindquist.2009.2008 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA. 111 pp. Tsai,C. S.Yang,A.C.Trimble,and J.L. Ruesink.2010. Interactions between two introduced species:Zostera japonica(dwarf eelgrass)facilitates itself and reduces condition of Ruditapes philippinarum(Manila clam)on intertidal flats.Marine Biology 157: 1929-1936. VanBlaricom, Glenn R.,Price,Jennifer L.,Olden,Julian D.McDonald,P. Sean.2013.Ecological effects of the harvest phase of geoduck clam(Panopea generosa Gould, 1850)aquaculture on infaunal communities in southern Puget Sound,Washington USA. Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl.Rep.Wash.Dept.Wildl.,Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory,Appendix One,Puget Sound Stocks,Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes.2005.2004 progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon. 15 pp.Olympia, WA. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•20 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2015a. Priority Habitats and Species report.Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia,Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).2015b.Salmonscape Interactive Mapping.Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).2015c. Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine(SCoRE). Available:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/.Olympia,WA. Washington State Conservation Commission 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips-Skokomish Basin-Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report. Ginna Correa.June 2003. Whale Museum Occurrence Map 1990-2013.Available: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected species/marine_mammals/killer whales/occurrenc emap.pdf Wyatt,R.2008.Joint Industry Programme on Sound and Marine Life;Review of Existing Data on Underwater Sounds Produced by the Oil and Gas Industry;Issue 1. Seiche Measurements Ltd.(ref. SI86),Thatton Farm, Petersmarland,Great Torrington,UK.August 2008. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•21 Figure 1. Vicinity Map. Froject Runyan Beach '" _ ,�:-,. _� .`'�� • Shellfish Aquacufture �` r ' �' 1 fir_B°d"'•`L_ . Location Lisi-s CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME: Runyan Beach PROPOSED PROJECT: PARCEL ID:12131-22r00030 Newshelfth aguacufture APPLICANT: Matt Smith TiidentMarine Services Inc 2851 East South Island Dr,Shelton,lNA98584 ADJACENT PROP ERTY OWNE RS: In:Case Inlet Sheet_of� North adjacent over:Parcel12131-22-00040, Near:Harstine Island DATE: 08119/2016 Steinman Et Ad, 1034 N E Riddell Rd, Brmerton,WA98310. County:Mason South adjacentovners:Parcel 1 21 31-2 2-00000, State:WA Tidal datum:t.1.1LUIV Russel Yates, 1600 E `fates Road,Shelton,WA98;84. Coordinate System: Paroel1 21 31-22-7001 0,Russell Yates Et AI,Lisa Miller, Washington State Plane South (Feet) 1600 E Yates Road,Shelton,WA98584. Scale: 1:15,000 and 1:200,000 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-22 Figure 2. Site Plan and Habitat Survey Results m • . J � J G � � O L J O O s v n t v c h a w T v' —" rn > 12., Go I p p 13 Q y "ai -�z v1 C N i � = p�v � a v 7 ap n OLL IWU p �7 U c N N p�ai7uc V C) ( Gi.� C o pQ o 0 n FO U -.. Y N v I CD C9 E� c O E M 0 'p¢ ch EcE N 0 ' .c�aci c u W °�.3 n a Em N c Ero M n 2 .cv� o.S n _ v ranr� c � t v p N C ri `1. J N T O v N 7 Z " uJ � � — U) (D Mean de+IY.RU LW "� ca �� rM a s..�.. ,; *� '�' y1�.+►.._. c a CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAM E:Runyan Beach PROPOSED PROJECT: APPLICANT. PARCEL ID:1 2 1 31-22-000 30 Newshellfish aquaculture 1.1aft Smith Trident Marine Services Inc 2851 East South Island Dr.,Shelton,WA98584 ADJACENT PROPERTYOWNERS: In:Case Inlet Sheet_of_ North adjacent owner:Parcel 12131-22-00040, Near:Harstine Island DATE:08/19/2016 Steinman Et Al,1034NE Riddell Rd,Brmerton,WA98310. County Mason South adjacent owners:Parcel 1 21 31-22-00000, State:WA Tideldatum:ft.IALLW Russell Yates, 1600 E Yates Road,Shelton,WA98584. Coordinate System: Parcel12131-22-70010,Russell Yates Et Al,Lisa Miller, Washington State Plane South(Feet) 1600E Yates Road,Shelton,VJA985,34. Scale:1:15,000and 1:200,000 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-23 Figure 3.Elevation profile view. Trident—Runyan Site Elevation Profile J cJ d J W r O G cc J f1'1 J J J c N 4J W N Ln 0 = X w � o i--------------------------------Geoducl<area----------------)w v v v c zs is I > 5 = s 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 w Distance from Shore(feet)- West to East CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:Runyan Beach PROPOSED PROJECT PARCEL ID:12131-22-00030 Newshelifth equaaitture APPLICANT: Matt Smith Trident Marine Services Inc 2851 East South Island Dr.,Shelton,WA98584 ADJACENT PROPERTYOWNERS: In:Case Inlet Sheet_of_ North adjacent owner.Parcel12131-22-00040, Near.Harstine Island DATE:08M92016 Steinman Et AI,1034 NE Riddell Rd,Brmerton,WA98310. County.Mason South adjacentovmm:Parcel 121 31-22-0 0000, State:WA Tideldatum:R.MLLW Russell Yates,1600E Yates Road,Shelton,WA98584. Coordinate System: Parcel 12131-22-70010,Russell Yates Et AI,Lisa Miller, Washington State Plane South(Feet) 1600 E Yates Road,Shelton,WA98584. Scale:1:15,000 and 1:200,000 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-24 Figure 4.WNW Forage fish spawning habitat in the vicinity of the project site. Forage Fish Spawning Data orage Fish Surveys rolect orage Fish Surveys -"-" �r K and Lance Spawning and Lance Spawning ttt� erring Spawning erring Spawning re-spawner Herring Hofding Areas 1rr. re-spawner Hearing Holding Areas ' melt Spawning melt Spawning 0 I. L , Location t v 'r 61 US DOC I NOAA I NOS I NOAA Office of Response&Resbration Coastal Response Research Center /,,/'r' Fnvironmend Response Management Application Email Comments.orr-ermaCnoaa.gov (c)2007-2015 University of New Hampshire E 1 R\.l►u AH 1 I Pacific Nordiwcst MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•25 Figure 5.Looking South from the Northwest corner of the survey area. Figure 6.Looking West towards survey area. _ K sY�in,,g5�i' MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•26 Figure 7.Looking East towards survey area from upper shore zone. Ulva,coarse gravel,and cobble were found above the survey area. Iwo io� 7; TZ n ro J• _ - i - t _ air.� "• _ .MIJ►�`�7'Ii:]�J.I�IS�:wMY•:��as� `LL.`_ _ 4. ~ .. ` "!` - < ��, MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•27 Figure 8. Stinger schematic—geoduck harvest Motor and Manifold assembly is mounted on the bow of the boat(seen in image below) or on a barge. - Sound Dampening Box Four-Cylinder Diesel Motor r ,} ZZ'et Exhaust/Muffler Hoses to Manifold • 1)QLii)ll i l.�L�} i Water PUMP Batter}' = Air Compressor Hoses from Bow Mounted Manifold Assembly MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•28 Attachment 1. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Mason County US Fish&Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resource Report NAME Trident Marine Services-Runyan Site Action Area LOCATION Mason County, Washington DESCRIPTION Shellfish aquaculture in tidelands. U.S.Fish&Wildlife Contact Information Species in this report are managed by: Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey,WA 98503-1263 Endangered Species Proposed, candidate,threatened,and endangered species that are managed by the Endangered Species Program and should be considered as part of an effect analysis for this project.This unofficial species list is for informational purposes only and does not fulfill the requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,which states that Federal agencies are required to"request of the Secretary of Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action."This requirement applies to projects which are conducted,permitted or licensed by any Federal agency.A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can be obtained by returning to this project on the IPaC website and requesting an official species list on the Regulatory Documents page. Birds Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species,but not around Harstine Island. httn://ecos.fws. ov/ecp0/ rofile/speciesProfile action9spcode=B08C#crithab Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species,but not around Harstine Island. ft://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/` action?sycode=BOB3#crithab Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus CRITICAL HABITAT There is proposed critical habitat designated for this species,but not around Harstine Island.http://ecos.fws. ov/ecp0/ rofile/speciesProfile action?sl2code=B06R#crithab Fishes Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species,but not around Harstine Island. http://ecos.fws. ov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile action?spcode=E065#crithab Critical Habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s)within the project area must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat Final designated httns://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile action?sMode=E06D#crithab MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•29 Killer Whale Critical Habitat Final designated http://ecos.fws. og v/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=AOIL#crithab Wetlands Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats from your project may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes.Project proponents should discuss the relationship of these requirements to their project with the Regulatory Program of the appropriate U.S.Army Corps of Engineers District. Estuarine And Marine Wetland E2USN http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. —Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation-30 Attachment 2. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. 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 NMFS on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)for the relevant species.According to the MSA,EFH means"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding,feeding, or growth to maturity."For the Pacific West Coast,the Pacific Fisheries Management Council(Council)has designated EFH for federally managed groundfish(PFMC 1998a),coastal pelagic(PFMC 1998b)and Pacific salmon fisheries(PFMC 1999). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid,minimize of otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH. B.Identification of EFH The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths,along the coasts of Washington,Oregon and California,seaward to the boundary of the U. S.exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)(PFMC 1998a, 1998b).The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone(370 .4 km) offshore of Washington,Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC, 1999). C.Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE.The project consists establishing new geoduck aquaculture on Harstine Island in Mason County,WA. D.Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects Analysis section of the attached BE.The project may have minor temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook,coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to turbidity impacts resulting from shellfish harvesting. E.EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures contained in the BE will be implemented to minimize any possible adverse effects to EFH. F. Conclusion The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish,coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•31 G.Additional References PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999.Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A:Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat,Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999). PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific CoastGroundfish Fishery Management Plan(October, 1998). PFMC, 1998b.The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan:Amendment 8(December, 1998). MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•32 Attachment 3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: New geoduck aquaculture on Harstine Island,Mason County WA. Applicant: Trident Marine Services Inc. COE reference: Unknown at this time NMFS reference: Unknown at this time The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon are: (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation,and larval development. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE: None (2)Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade,submerged and overhanging large wood,log jams and beaver dams,aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders,side channels,and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE:None (3)Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders,side channels,and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE: None (4)Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality,water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater;natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders,and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions:As noted in the Habitat Survey,there is no eelgrass present and the substrate was sand. There is documented surf smelt spawning habitat near the site.There are no large rocks,boulders or side channels at the site. Effects to PCE: the project may produce brief and localized increased turbidity,which may cause short-term avoidance of the area by the listed fish species.The project will have no impacts on water quantity,salinity conditions, or water temperature. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•33 5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage,including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,supporting growth and maturation;and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: As noted in the BE,harvesting activities can cause localized and temporal changes to the benthic environment.See Effects Analysis section of the attached BE. (6)Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage,including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the site is in a nearshore marine environment Effects to PCE: None Determination of Effect: "May affect,not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•34 Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Yelloweye, Canary, and Bocaccio Rockfish Project description: New shellfish aquaculture for geoduck on Harstine Island,Mason County WA. Applicant: Trident Marine Services Inc. COE reference: Unknown at this time NMFS reference: Unknown at this time Assessment of Impacts to Proposed Critical Habitat for Juvenile Canary and Bocaccio Rockfish The project is located on the northeast side of Harstine Island,which is within the Distinct Population Segment (DPS)and contains Nearshore Critical Habitat(CH)for juvenile Bocaccio and Canary Rockfish(NOAA,Fisheries Data:Critical Habitat,2014).The proposed aquaculture operations and expansion will be located in water that is less than 30 meters deep. Primary Constituent Elements The Primary Constituent Elements(PCEs)are as follows: 1. Quantity,quality and availability species to support growth,survival, reproduction,and feeding opportunities. Existing Conditions:The project area is sand with wild geoduck interspersed throughout. Shallow,intertidal, nearshore waters in rocky,cobble and sand substrates(with or without kelp)can provide suitable substrate for juvenile(3-6 month old)bocaccio and canary rockfish.However,the highest densities of juvenile rockfish are found in areas with floating or submerged kelp species.No kelp other than Ulva was identified near the project area. Effects to PCE:Kelp habitat that supports high numbers of these species of juvenile rockfish does not occur in the project area and therefore will not be impacted.Adults of all three listed rockfish species are found in deeper waters and do not occur in intertidal areas of the project site(NOAA, 2013).Little or no impact to the quantity, quality and availability of species to support growth,survival,reproduction,and feeding opportunities is anticipated from this project. 2. Water quality,quantity and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth,survival, reproduction and feeding opportunities. Existing Conditions: The Washington Department of Ecology 2012 Marine Water Quality Assessment Report indicated that the water around the site(Case Inlet and Dana Passage)was listed as a Category 2 for bacteria (Listing ID 39846). Effects to PCE: Harvesting operations could cause brief,minor increases in turbidity within 25' of the action area resulting in a temporary decrease in water quality.However,operations in the intertidal zone will primarily be conducted at low tides every six to seven years and turbidity is expected to be minimal.Water quality improvements due to shellfish in estuaries have been well documented and include: direct removal of suspended material and phytoplankton(Brumbaugh et al.,2006)(Newell,2004);improved water clarity from shellfish has MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•35 resulted in subsequent seagrass bed expansion(Newell&Koch,2004);suppression of harmful algal blooms (Peabody&Griffin,2008),and reduction of nitrogen in estuaries(Newell,Fisher,Holyoke,&Cornwell,2005). Determination of Effect "May affect,not likely to adversely affect" critical nearshore habitat for juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish. "No effect"habitat for yelloweye rockfish. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•36 Appendix A: Habitat Survey Report A habitat survey was conducted on June 6111, 2016, a sunny day, from approximately 1 O:OOAM to 1:00 PM at the project site. James Ialeggio and Nam Siu ran nine transects to identify flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the proposed aquaculture in this project.A low tide of- 3.4 (MLLW) allowed our biologists to survey the entire area from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)to approximately-4.5 (MLLW).The site had previously been delineated by a land surveyor and the boundaries planting area between 0 (MLLW)to-4.5 (MLLW)were marked by lines staked to the ground. These transects generally ran at 70'Magnetic North from west to east shoreline of Case Inlet on the east side of Harstine Island. Transects were 150 ft long, spaced 10 ft apart, and were oriented from north to south running perpendicular to the slope of the beach. Very little was observed during the survey. The site was a sandy tide flat that was devoid of any submerged aquatic vegetation. The only sessile organisms found within the planting area were wild geoducks (Panopea generosa) in low abundances. Macroalgae and Substrate T1 Macroa' W (estim ed tran±sect starting from 0 Substrate and Other percent of area l`eatures Noted covered/square meter) 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same _ Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Same 90-100 Same One wild geoduck 100-110 Same Barren 110-120 Same One wild geoduck 120-130 Same Barren 130-140 Same One wild geoduck 140-150 Same One wild geoduck MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•37 �1�er€r�t��ae (ecti.rnA tecl !, and 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Same 90-100 Same Same 100-110 Same Same 110-120 Same Same 120-130 Same Same 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same Same T3 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Same 90-100 Same Same 100-110 Same Same 110-120 Same One wild geoduck 120-130 Same One wild geoduck 130-140 Same Barren 140-150 Same Same MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•38 r-� Distance in feet along �-— - �Macroalgae (estimated transect starting from 0 Substrate and Other percent of area Features Noted covered/,square meter) 1 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Same 90-100 Same Same 100-110 Same Same 110-120 Same Same 120-130 Same Same 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same Same T5 - T acroalgae (estimated Substrate and Other percent of area eatures Noted covered/square meteF 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same One wild geoduck 90-100 Same Two wild geoduck 100-110 Same Barren 110-120 Same One wild geoduck 120-130 Same Same 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same Same MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•39 D .stance in feet along t€�tini itcd transect starting from 0 Substrate and Other � pereeut Of:wea I 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same One wild geoduck 90-100 Same Two wild geoduck 100-110 Same One wild geoduck 110-120 Same One wild geoduck 120-130 Same Barren 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same Same T7 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Two wild geoduck 90-100 Same Two wild geoduck 100-110 Same Barren 110-120 Same One wild geoduck 120-130 Same Barren 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same Same MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation 40 �-S b .11acroalgae (estimated Distance in feet along tr ansect starting from 0 Substrate and Other percent of area A4LLW Features Noted covered/square meter) - B. 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Same 90-100 Same Same l 00-110 Same Same 110-120 Same One wild geoduck 120-130 Same One wild geoduck 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same One wild geoduck T9 Nlaeroall-Oa'e :estimated j trans t starting from 0 Substrate and Other percent of area I T-ILLW Features Noted covered/square meter) Bolan. 0-10 Sand Barren 10-20 Same Same _ 20-30 Same Same 30-40 Same _ _ Same 40-50 Same Same 50-60 Same Same 60-70 Same Same 70-80 Same Same 80-90 Same Same 90-100 Same Same 100-110 Same Same 110-120 Same Same 120-130 Same Same 130-140 Same Same 140-150 Same Same MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.—Runyan Site Aquaculture Project Biological Evaluation•41 F, SURL '16- fi N (360) 385-4073 267 Hudson Street marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com Port Townsend WA 98368 S''SBssN&V, November 1, 2016 Mason County RCC 1VED Planning Department NOV 0 3 2016 615 W Alder Street Shelton,WA 98584 615 V V- Alger Street Hello, Please find enclosed a JARPA Application, Biological Evaluation and associated maps for a proposed geoduck farm on private tidelands. I was instructed by Kell McAboy to send these documents in order for a formal letter of exemption to be issued.A check for the review fee ($510.00) will be forthcoming. Kell also said that the project is exempt from SEPA review. In looking at WAC 197- 11-800 -Categorical Exemptions,it seems that an aquaculture project would require a SEPA review.I am currently trying to find out who might be responsible for that if the County is not. Please advise if you know who should take the Lead. JARPA question 9k asks if a cultural resource survey has been performed on the project area?The answer is no for this parcel, # 12131-22-00030,but there has been a survey done on adjacent parcels to the south with no discoveries,and the adjacent property to the north has been farmed by Seattle Shellfish for at least six years without record of finding any cultural artifacts. Please let me know if you need any additional information to process this application. Sincere reg ds, Mil Amos