Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SHX2014-00015 - SHX Permit / Conditions - 4/24/2014
c MASON COUNTY (360) 427-9670 Shelton ext.352 _ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL 360) 482-5269 Elma ext. 352 - Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Stre e 1854 PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us AL c: 1� 2 April 24, 2014 �� Matt Smith liko��w3tttFaa: .2 � Trident Marine Services 2721 South Island DR Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Application for geoduck aquaculture on Pickering Passage, Mason County. Project Name: Trident (Yates/Miller) Geoduck Farm Parcel Nos. 12131-22-00020 (Yates) 12131-22-70010 (Miller) 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. This letter does not authorize the use of sandbags as part of the farm. 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, 4AA '&K Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CC: Marine Surveys & Assessments 5/5/2014 Case Activity Listing 12:48:00PM Case#: SHX2014-00015 IP;0 - . Assigned Done Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By SHXA010 Application Received 4/24/2014 4/24/2014 None DONE TW 4/24/2014 TW SHXAl00 Staff Review 4/24/2014 4/24/2014 None DONE GBM GBM 4/24/2014 GBM SHXA555 Application Approved 4/24/2014 None DONE GBM GBM 4/24/2014 GBM Authorization Letter issued for geoduck farm because it does not require--a-shoreline permit or a shoreline exemption.Project Name:Trident(Yates/Miller)Geoduck Farm.Parcel Numbers: 12131-22-00020 (Yates)and 12131-22-70010(Miller).Letter sent 4/24/14.Copies sent to both parcel 01eW Page 1 of 1 CaseActivity..rpt ----------------------------- AGENCY USE ONLY I I I I I Date received: WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference#: �ixi -���� �2 Tax Parcel Application (DARPA) Form' i ,� I USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. � Part 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples:Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) Lhel Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. heel ] 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Smith, Matt 2b. Organization (If applicable) Trident Marine Services, Inc. 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 2721 E South Island Dr. 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 htt�://www.nws.usace,army.miI/Missions/Civi]Works/Re uq latory/PennitGuidebook/ EndanoeredSoecies.asox. • 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 htto://www.er)ermittina.wa.aov/site/alias resourcecenter/jaroaJaroa form/9984/ iaroa form.asox. For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or helola�ora.wa.gov. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 15 --------------------------------------- AGENCY USE ONLY t WASHINGTON STATE Army of Corps ; of Engineers, , Date received: Seattle Distract � Joint Aquatic Resources Permit , Application (DARPA) � Agency reference#: J1tX a-01 yao/S , Tax Parcel#(s): /2131—�2—br✓OaU Attachment A: For additional property owner(s) c , TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT( - t t Project Name: 12 Ail!1 ----------------------------------- -- Use this attachment only if you have more than one property owner. Complete one attachment for each additional property owner impacted by the project. Signatures of property owners are not needed for repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in whites aces below. 1. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Yates-Gregory, Lisa 2. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 1570 E Yates Road 3. City, State, Zip Shelton, WA 98584 4. Phone(1) 5. Phone(2) 6. Fax 7. E-mail 360426-8853 Address or tax parcel number of property you own: 12131-22-00020 Signature of Property Owner 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. Printed Name Signature FK4- & ) ,SA i4 ) LtI--- If you require this document in another format,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)at (800)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-020-09 rev.08/2013 JARPA Attachment A Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 1 s 9 t 1 Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project - Yates/Miller Sites Army Corps of Engineers Reference # Biological Evaluation March 12, 2014 }S +td ,4 ,r• For: Trident Marine Services Inc. 2721 E. South Island Drive Shelton, WA 98584 a Prepared by: Marine Surveys 6t Assessments 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360)385-4073 Email: marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com -----------------------------, ' AGENCY USE ONLY Date received: WASHINGTON STATE126 114 � Agency reference#: � Joint Aquatic Resources Permit SNX�14_000t� Application (DARPA) Form' 2 i Tax Parcel#(s): USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. i 121 -3 ( --2�_.-000 2DI `/ &fe6) Part 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples:Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) hf elol Trident (Yates/Miller) Geoduck Farm Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. heel ] 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Smith, Matt 2b. Organization (If applicable) Trident Marine Services, Inc. 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 2721 E South Island Dr. 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 http://www.nws.usace,army.mii/Missions/CivilWorks/ReauIatory/PermitGuidebook/ EndanaeredSoecies.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.epermittina.wa.aov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984/ iarpa form.asox. For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or hellpeora.wa.gov. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 15 Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) [bald 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Leitman, Amy 3b. Organization (If applicable) Marine Surveys &Assessments 3c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 521 Snagstead Way 3d. City, State, Zip Port Townsend, WA 98376 3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail 360-385-4073 marine.surveys.inc@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.) X 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) Yates, Russell 4b. Organization (If applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 1600 E Yates Rd 4d. City, State, Zip Shelton, WA 98584 4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail 360-259-5852 JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 2 of 15 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. hem ❑ 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.) h[ elw X 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 1570 E 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.) hf e Shelton, WA 98584 5d. County tftid Mason 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. h[ elpl 1/4 Section Section Township Range NW 31 T21N R01W 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. I" • Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long.(Use decimal degrees-NAD 83) Planting area coordinates: Inshore northerly corner: N 47.270450 lat/W-122.863185 long; Offshore northerly corner: N 47.270481 lat/W-122.862367 long; Offshore southerly corner: N 47.267318 lat/W-122.863998 long; Inshore southerly corner: N 47.267436 lat/W-122.864345 long. 5g. List the tax parcel number(s)for the project location. h� gm • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 12131-22-70010 and 12131-22-00020 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) hel Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Rose McManus 1480 East Yates Road 12131-23-00070 Shelton, WA 98584 Marvin & Carol Bengelsdorf et al, 12409 61h Ave. East 12131-22-00030 J Bengelsdort/S Runyan Tacoma, WA 98445 JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 3 of 15 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help] Does not apply 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. hf e_,,Ia1 Case Inlet 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [heel X Yes ❑ No Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. hf eM A habitat survey was conducted on 8/19/2013. Noted substrate, macroalgae and other features are as follows: sand, cobble, shell, barnacle, pea gravel, sand dollar, sunflower seastar, flat fish, Mastocarpus, Ulva and Latissima. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. hf eip� Single family residences and undeveloped land. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. hf 1d Single family residences and undeveloped land. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground)on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. hL gM Parcel # 12131-22-70010 is undeveloped, forested land with tidelands. Parcel # 12131-22-00020 is a single family residence with a 1,140 sq. ft. house that was built in 1976. This property also includes tidelands. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. h[ ld From Shelton take WA-3 North 6.2 miles and turn right onto E Pickering Road. In 3.3 miles continue onto E Harstine Bridge Rd. In 0.6 miles turn left onto E North Island Drive. In 3.1 miles turn right onto E Harstine Island Rd. N. In 1.0 miles take the first left onto E Yates Rd. The destination will be on the rights in 1.3 miles. Part 6-Project Description JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 4 of 15 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help] The proposed project is the establishment of an aquatic geoduck farm. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. hel The purpose of this proposal is to grow geoducks for a wholesale market. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) hf elol X Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] X Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir (upland) ❑ Floating Home ❑ 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 2012.2 Page 5 of 15 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. LtLeU • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. PVC tubes (4" in diameter and 10" long)or flexible plastic mesh sleeves (2.5" in diameter and 13" long)will be placed in the substrate. PVC is placed on one foot centers and mesh sleeves on eight inch centers. Geoduck seed will be planted into tubes or sleeves by hand. Tubes are capped with a mesh cover and UV resistant rubber band. Only three to four inches of tube will be visible 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 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) hel • 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 6 yr. cycles ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. hel[D] $653,588.68 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? Lbpjpj . If yes,list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes X 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.)[Lg 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. h[�ei ❑ Not applicable There are no wetlands or wetland buffers. Please see Part 8. 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? hel JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 6 of 15 ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help] ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? Le-IR] • If Yes,submit the report, including data sheets,with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? [help] • If Yes,submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? hel • 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. hf elp] 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. [heel ] Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation flood, etc.) rating ft. or type4 area (sq. ft. or category2 Acres) acres) If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as"Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents,such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System.Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity.Enter"permanent"if applicable. ^Creation(C),Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R),Enhancement(E),Preservation(P),Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B) JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 7 of 15 Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: _ 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. (help) 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. [heipl 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.) hei i X 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. hel ❑ Not applicable 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 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. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? he-IQ] JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 8 of 15 X Yes ❑ No 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland waterbodies? hel • 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 X No ❑ Not applicable The project will be low impact and there will be no permanent structures placed on the beach or in surrounding water(See B.E.) 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help] Does not apply. 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. tpjpj Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. dredge, fill, pile name' location2 of impact3 (cubic yards) to or linear ft.) drive, etc.) be placed in or of waterbody removed from directly affected waterbody Farming Case Inlet Between 6 year Does not apply Approx. 3.7 +0.5' cycles acres or MLLW & 161,172 sq. ft. extreme low (approx. -5.0' MLLW If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent,provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 3 Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent' if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. hf elpl JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 9 of 15 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. [helm Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact USACE Pam Sanguinetti 206-764-3495 Mason County DCD Grace Miller 360-427-9670 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? hel • 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.aov/ programs/wo/303d/. ❑ Yes X No JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 10 of 15 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? hf elpa • Go to http://cfpub.ei)a.aov/surf/locate/index,cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110019 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA#) is the project in? Lhel • Go to htto://www.ecy.wa.aov/services/ois/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? hel • Go to http_://www.ecy.wa.g-ov/r)roarams/wq/swgs/criteria.html for the standards. X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? h[Lel ] • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to:http://www.ecy.wa.aov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations.html. X Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help] • Go to httr)://www dnr wa g-ov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesAoplications/Panes/fp watertvoing_aspx for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. X Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? help] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ❑ Yes ❑ No X Does not apply Name of manual: 91. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? h[ m • If Yes, please describe below. ❑ Yes X No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [hel JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 11 of 15 Undeveloped land and single family residences. 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? rhelp] • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No X Unknown 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. hf ell See Biological Evaluation 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. hf pjw See Biological Evaluation JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 12 of 15 Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at httl2://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or helpco)-ora.wa.aov. • 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.) hel • For more information about SEPA,go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.htmi. ❑ 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 1 ob.)[help] ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). El Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? _ X Other: The lead for SEPA review will be determined once Mason County has categorized the project. SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) Lhel LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): To be determined by County upon review of JARPA. Other City/County permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 13 of 15 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ❑ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption —Attach Exemption Form http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Menu.cfm? si tename=REG&pagename=I lome_Page Effective July 10, 2012, 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. ❑ Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. Agreement# ❑ 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: X Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): X Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) X Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 14 of 15 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. hel 11 a. Applicant Signature (required) hel 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 the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [help] 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 the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Amy Leitman Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature Date 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) [hellp) 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 Owner Signature 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(800) 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.08/2013 JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 15 of 15 --------------------------------------- i AGENCY USE ONLY ' F WASHINGTON STATE US Army Corps of Engineersers Date received: Seattle Distntl ' Joint Aquatic Resources Permit ; Agency reference#: S4X, 901 N-t:�U01.5 Application (JARPA) t , Tax Parcel#(s): t , t , t , Attachment A: JJt TO BE COMPLETED BY For additional property owner(s) I , --------------TEDBY--APPLICANT -------------- r ( ] t t i t , t Project Name:_fod"& (Make 5F,1l111w) t '------------------------------------- Use this attachment only if you have more than one property owner. Complete one attachment for each additional property owner impacted by the project. Signatures of property owners are not needed for repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in whites aces below. 1. Name(Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Yates-Gregory, Lisa 2. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 1570 E Yates Road 3. City, State, Zip Shelton, WA 98584 4. Phone(1) 5. Phone(2) 6. Fax 7. E-mail 360-426-8853 Address or tax parcel number of property you own: 12131-22-00020 Signature of Property Owner 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. Printed Name Signature FX,4 L t S A m ) L4 If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)at (800)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-020-09 rev.08/2013 JARPA Attachment A Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 1 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [ I 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. I 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 author -the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) By initialing here, I state that-.I have the authority to an the property. I also give my consent to the ' th permitting agencies ente l � property where th pr ject is locate to i ect the project site or any work related to the project. 4� (initial) o AM Applicant Printed Name Applicant Sign Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [ I 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 the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Amy Leitman Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Ag nt Signature ;ate t 11 c. 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. -usS Property Owner Printed Name Pr perty O ner gignature ate 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(800) 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. 08/2013 JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 15 of 15 MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS 5 2 1 SNAGSTEAD WAY PORT T O W N S E N D WA 9 8 3 6 8 3 6 0 . 3 8 5 - 4 0 7 3 MARINE . SURVEYS . I N C@ G M A I L . C O M March 18, 2014 Mason County RECEIVED ATTN: Grace Miller P.O. Box 279 MAR 2 0 2014 Shelton, WA 98584 426 W: CEDAR STI To whom it may concern, Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a Biological Evaluation as well as a copy of the relevant JARPA, drawing of the sites, and signatures. This is in reference to the Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project: Yates/Miller sites in Shelton, OVA. Thank you, Kimberly McClurg Administrative Assistant Figure 1. Project Location VICINITY MAP: I '� TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE l�u •+?� }q OM ♦7 'yam - J ' f !Q e. Battle � 3 V . I b/ ton j,L ,► Tacoma _. l y Y r Z t4� •1_ O'O 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Parcel:121312270010- Shelton,WA 98584 Russell G Yates ETAL, LisaAMiller 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of_ (see Site Map-Plan View) DATE:01/08/2014 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Coordinate System: N In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) County:Mason State:WA Scale: 1:45,000 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 19 Figure 2. Yates/Miller site plan PLAN VIEW: 121312200030 I TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE 205': : ...p 47.270481 l! 122.862367 47.270450 47 I .270331 E '4FiScj 122.863881 -122.863185 co :Planting area IJ • '�` 9 90 acres. 121312270010 — a y _ r o .50 CL 47.269271 iw zri . fix_ -122.863851 47.269214 >� �+ f -122.863270 +'47.269120 j2.14 �cC 122.862684 n . Planting area: - �.�# 1.80 ac res 121312200020 Legend m Transects MHHW Est.(13.96'MLLW) Q o- : : ;: y Mean High Tide 13.01'(Holman 2013) 0'MLLW(Holman 2013) . y co0�a I }. %:. — — -4.5'(Holman 2013) Extreme Low Tide(Approx-5'MLLW) Upland parcels(County data) 47.267694 _ 7 122.864894 R j l Unplanted .. 47.267436 1312,3010122.864345 /0"0 Planting Area(Holman 2013) . 47.267318 f 122.863998 500 0 62.5 125 250 375 eet CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: Parcel:121312200020-Miller, Lisa A New GeoduckAquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Parcel:121312270010- Shelton,WA 98584 Russell G Yates ET AL, Lisa A Miller 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of Parcel:121312300070-McManus,Rose M DATE:03/10_/2014 1480 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N Parcel:121312200030 Coordinate System: Marvin&Carol Bengelsdorf et al, In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) J Bengelsdorf/S Runyan County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:2,000 12409 6th Ave E.,Tacoma,WA 98445 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 20 Figure 3. Miller (Southern) parcel view PLAN VIEW: TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE � MILLER PARCEL ' '��5 121312270010 47,269271 122.863851 -122.863270 49, — � � ,ti t �^` _ 1,� i 47269120 * '. ,c i ` -122.862684 44 ,� itij s I �k J `F ' -% _. a V' r,'f.� ,.•� a ram_ .is l i • f • t 121312200020 * SIC �Q ; Planting area: = 1 80 acres Legend 'nti 1*° yF I Jc F� Transects N '1,,.-. , •.�' �, �rrb,�n.• _ r. ;. • - 7' MHHW Est.(1 3.96'MLLW) Mean High Tide 13.01'(Holman 2013) 0'MLLW(Holman 2013) -4.5'(Holman 2013) •, x _ ? :: �`. Extreme Low Tide(Approx-5'MLLW) `1273123p00 {' `7 . !. j0 ' Upland parcels(County data) - - Unplanted ' 47.267694 122.864894 Planting Area(Holman 2013) 47.267436 122.864345 47.267318 • '!/ -122.863998 0 37.5 75 150 225 300eet CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of_ DATE:03/10/2014 Parcel:121312270010- 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N Russell G Yates ET AL,Lisa A Miller Coordinate System: 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312300070-McManus,Rose M County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:1,500 1480 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 21 Figure 4. Yates (Northern) parcel view IPLAN VIEW: ** - 'I TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE YATES PARCEL 47.270331 47.270450 47.270481 121312200030 i 122.810331 -122.863185 -122.862367 ----125' +, r 0.0 Planting area a rn i., . . . . a:•� :1.90:acres 121312270010QL U I 'W o CL Legend Transects 748' /. MHHW Est.(13.96'MLLW) 269271 47. - ` • _..-. .._ _ . . . qr� r ---- Mean High Tide 13.01'(Holman 2013) a 122,863851 _ '. / - - 0'MLLW(Holman 2013) ?� 47.269214 — — 4.5'(Holman 2013) 121312200020 -122.863270 Extreme Low Tide(Approx-5'MLLW) 47.269120 l Upland parcels(County data Vs 122.862684 Unplanted 4 .1`r• Planting Area(Holman 2013) 0 0 37.5 75 150 225 30 Feet CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312270010- on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Russell G Yates ET AL,Lisa A Miller Shelton,WA 98584 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of Parcel:121312200030 DATE:03/10/2014 Marvin&Carol Bengelsdorf et al, 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N J Bengelsdorf/S Runyan Coordinate System: 12409 6th Ave E.,Tacoma,WA 98445 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A County: Mason State:WA Scale:1:1,300 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 22 Figure 5. Miller parcel elevation view MILLER PARCEL Southern Parcel Distance from MHHW to 0.0' (MLLW) MHHW- 13.9' Northern Property Line = 133' Southern Property Line = 147' MHW=13.1' Distance from MHHW to Distance from MHHW to the beginning of the planting area: the end of the planting area: Northern Property Line =148' Northern Property Line = 304' TE =-2.5' Southern Property Line = 260' Southern Property Line=185' TE = -5.0' TE =-3.5' NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITEADDRESS: Sheet of f DATE:01/14/2014 Parcel:121312270010- 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N Russell G Yates ETAL, Lisa A Miller Coordinate System: 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcei:121312300070-McManus,Rose M County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:1500 1480 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc, Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 23 Figure 6. Yates parcel elevation view YATES PARCEL Northern Parcel Distance from MHHW to 0.0' (MLLW) MHHW- 13.9' Northern Property Line = 125' Southern Property Line = 133' MHW=13.1' Distance from MHHW to Distance from MHHW to the beginning of the planting area: the end of the planting area: Northern Property Line = 125' Northern Property Line = 330' TE = 0.0' Southern Property Line = 304' Southern Property Line =148' TE = -5.0' TE = -2.5' NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312270010- on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Russell G Yates ETAL, Lisa Miller Shelton,WA 98584 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of_ Parcel:121312200030 DATE:01/30/2014 a Marvin&Carol Bengelsdorf et al, 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N J Bengelsdorf/S Runyan Coordinate System: 12409 6th Ave E.,Tacoma,WA 98445 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:1300 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 24 Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project - Yates/Miller Sites Army Corps of Engineers Reference # Biological Evaluation March 12, 2014 I For: Trident Marine Services Inc. 2721 E. South Island Drive Shelton, WA 98584 Prepared by: Marine Surveys It Assessments 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360)385-4073 Email: marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com List of Figures and Attachments Figure Number Page 1. Project location..............................................................................19 2. Yates/Miller site plan ......................................................................20 3. Miller (Southern) parcel view.........................................................21 4. Yates (Northern) parcel view ........................................................22 5. Miller parcel elevation view ..........................................................23 6. Yates parcel elevation view..........................................................24 7. Stinger schematic -geoduck harvest.........................................25 Attachment Number Page 1. Habitat survey........................................................................... 26-39 2. Photographs of the site............................................................ 40-41 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list .......................................42 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment....... .............................43 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook..................................................................................... 44-45 6. Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish........................... 46-48 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc, Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 2 Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project Yates/Miller Sites I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Location: Section 31, Township 20N,Range 01 W 1570 and 1600 E.fates Rd., Shelton,WA 98584 Parcels: 121312200020 and 121312200010 The project locations are seen in Figure 1. B. Project Description: 1. Pre-Planting Preparation.The applicant has leased two parcels on Harstine along Case Inlet in order to establish a geoduck aquaculture farm(Figures 1-6). A Habitat Survey was conducted at the two parcels on August 19,2013 (Attachment 1).Neither of the two parcels covered by this Biological Evaluation contain eelgrass(Attachment 1) 2. Staging Area. The staging area will be the beach area just above the cobble/sand interface(approximately 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). 3. 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 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 doesn't 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.TMS Inc. has engaged in a relationship with Lopez Island Shellfish Hatchery, which has a hatchery that produces nurseried seed of large enough size to plant directly. 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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 3 b. Methodology; 1) Site preparation. In order to prepare a site for planting, loose drift algae(mostly Ulva, Mastocarpus and some S. latissima)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 sq. foot,then the Tribe and TMS Inc.negotiate a harvest plan for the future. 2) Seed Handling.TMS Inc.has engaged in a relationship with Lopez Island Shellfish Hatchery,who produces geoduck seed large enough to directly plant. In addition, if needed,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. Consequently,the historic use of a nursery method, such as a sink float is not anticipated. However, 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 (22xl4x6 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 into 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 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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •4 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 southern Miller parcel(1.8 acres)will begin at the cobble/sand interface,which varies from-2.5'to-3.5'MLLW(Figure 3)and will extend down the beach to the Extreme Low Water(approximately -5.0'). The planting area for the northern Yates parcel(1.9 acres)will also begin at the cobble/sand interface, which varies from approximately+0.5'to-2.5'MLLW(Figure 4)and will extend down the beach to the Extreme Low Water (approximately-5.0'). 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 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"Iocked 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 it's limited accessibility during low tide events. The amount of time required to plant 1 acre of high to moderately low intertidal farm area(as is the case for the proposed project)with PVC tubes would be about 10 days.The total acreage to be planted at the Miller and Yates parcels is approximately 3.7 acres. Therefore,planting should take approximately 38 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 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Acluaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 5 the intertidal area,no higher than a+3.0'(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. 4. 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. 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 17 days to remove the caps and bands from the proposed two(3.7 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 capsibands 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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 6 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 haven't 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 the TMS Inc. sites will take approximately 34-38 days. Tube and net removal will 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. 5. 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 7 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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 7 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 40 lbs 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 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 inMason 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 b7va, Mastocarpus and S. latissima(mostly all drift)that are 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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc, Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 8 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 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 C. Action Area: The action area includes the beach area within approximately'h 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 In the project area,Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), is listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Federal Register,Vol. 64,Nos. 56). On May 11,2007.NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol. 72,No. 91 /Friday, May 11, 2007/Rules and Regulations). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in October of 1999. On April, 23,2009,NOAA listed the distinct population segments (DPSs)of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and proposed that the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio be listed as endangered.According to NOAA(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81,April 28, 2010,Rules and Regulations),the area for the proposed listed rockfish includes all of Puget Sound south of Admiralty Inlet. 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.. Critical habitat has also been proposed for these three DPSs(Federal Resister/Vol 78,No 151 /Tuesday,August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules). The site shoreline is in the proposed critical habitat shoreline area for juvenile canary, MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 9 yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish. However,there is very little kelp at the site, which are essential conservation features. On September 2, 2005,NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in the designated area for the Puget Sound Chinook(Federal Register, Vol 70,No.170,Friday, September 2,2005 Rules and Regulations). Critical habitat has been proposed for Pacific steelhead(Federal Resister/Vol 78,No 9/Monday, Jan. 14,2013/Proposed Rules). 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(Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 229/November 29, 2006/Final Rule). "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water."Therefore,the project sites are not in areas designated as critical habitat for the Southern Resident killer whales. The project site is not on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout(Federal Register,Vol. 75,No. 200/October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations). NMFS also listed both the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)and the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992. There is no murrelet critical habitat near the site(Federal Register,Vol. 61,No. 102/ 1996). Critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles has been designated in the outer coastal waters of Washington(Federal Register/Vol. 77,No. 17/Thursday,January 26,2012/Rules and Regulations). The project site is not located in the designated critical habitat area. A. Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the 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. '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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 10 B. Bull Trout: 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). 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. C. 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. D. Rockfish:Bocaccio rockfish are found more often in South Puget Sound,whereas yelloweye are more prevalent in North Puget Sound.All three species of rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles and are found near kelp beds,high relief zones and crevices.Yelloweye juveniles are also found in sponge gardens.As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters.Adults are found around rocky reefs-and coarse habitats.Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found from 300'to 590'. Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160'to 820' and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160' and 820' (Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81,April 28, 2010,Rules and Regulations).All three species are opportunistic feeders,with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators for these the adults of these species include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod and sharks. The direct and indirect effects of this project on juvenile rockfish are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters.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. E. Marbled Murrelets: 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(WDW 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. There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 11 F. Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi), 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 SahnonScape,there is"potential"forage fish spawning substrate at the site,but there is no "documented" forage fish spawning substrate or actual"documented"spawning activity at the site. There are no documented Pacific herring spawning areas near the project site. (Stick,K. and A. Lindquist 2008). G. Humpback Whales: 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).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 juvenile humpback whale was sighted near Johnson Point(NE of Olympia),with several fresh injuries (Orca Network Sighting Report-July 10, 2006). On August 14, 2013,a pair of humpbacks were seen off of Boston Harbor,which is north of Olympia(OrcaNetwork Sighting Report). H. Leatherback Sea Turtle: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 It seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. I. Southern Resident Killer Whales:The Southern Resident population consists of three pods:J, K and L. According to Wiles(2004),"While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait,Boundary Passage,the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait."During early autumn,these pods, especially J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep(Baird 2001). According to information provided by NMFS,the following Southern Resident killer whale sightings were recorded between 1990 and 2008,when data was analyzed in the project area.All of these sightings were made north of the site in the Dougall Point area of Harstine Island(httt)-//www nwr.noaa.gov/Marine- Mammals/upload/MM-KW-map.pdfs:July—2;August—3;November— 1; December—3. 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.Ahabitat 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 should be 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: 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.Even though 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.. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 12 3. Impacts of harvesting on benthic, epibenthic and sediment characteristics: As seen below,there is debate about the impacts of habitat disturbance on the benthic environment and the time need for recovery. Apilot study conducted by Pearce et al. (2007,unpublished) on the recolonization of benthic invertebrates cause 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 same 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). Several other studies reported no impacts on infaunal species (Boese 2002 and Peterson et al. 1987). Spencer et al. (2008)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." Bottom trawling may produce more complete disturbances than geoduck harvesting. However,the outcomes in terms of recovery may be similar. Kaiser et al. (2006)and Hiddink et al. (2006)examined the impacts of bottom trawling and found decreased biomass,production and species. Both groups reported that the magnitude of impacts depended on conditions such as the levels of natural disturbances in the study area,types of bottom- fishing gear used,habitats and the life spans of organisms that were initially impacted. Kaiser's group reported that, "large-biomass biota such as sponges and soft corals took much longer to recover(up to 8 yr)than biota with shorter life spans such as polychaetes(< 1 yr)." B. Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. Potential indirect effects of the proposed project are: 1. Impacts of geoduck aquaculture sites 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 of geoduck aquaculture on substrate characteristics; Suspension feeding bivalves, such as geoducks, consume phytoplankton and excrete feces and pseudofeces,which can elevate nutrient levels in the substrate and may increase vegetation growth by increasing available nutrients.Again,there are few studies that examine geoduck impacts on substrate characteristics. Most of the published literature examines the impacts of other bi-valve(oyster and mussel)aquaculture. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 13 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 drily 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 masshn2 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 e 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)." 3. Impacts of geoduck 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. Cloern(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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 14 4. 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. 5. Impacts of geoduck harvesting on forage fish: According to WDFW SalmonScape,there is"potential" forage fish spawning substrate at the site, but there is no "documented"forage fish spawning substrate or actual "documented" 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 (including these two particular sites—see Attachment 1) 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. 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 effects on the listed species caused by this project, the following conservation measures will be implemented: 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. 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 fora successive day's work.No equipment will be stored on the beach. 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. 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. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 15 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" 5. 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" Literature 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, Q, 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. Baird,R.W.2001. Status of killer whales,Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-701 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 ©2006 Foundation for Environmental Conservation. Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Avenue, Burnaby,British Columbia, Canada V5A 156. 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 Bostick,W E. 1955. Duwamish River seining studies.In:Puget Sound stream studies,pp. 5-6.Wash. Dep. Fish. Olympia,WA. 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. Federal Register/Vol. 61,No. 102/May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 16 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 Resister/Vol 78,No 9/Monday,Jan. 14,2013/Proposed Rules. Federal Resister/Vol 78,No 151 /Tuesday,August 6,2013 /Proposed Rules. 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 Draft biological evaluation prepared on October 27, 2004 by Entrix, Inc. Frame, Sara.2007. Eelgrass dynamics:natural and anthropogenic disturbances in the South Puget Sound. MSBT Masters Research.University of Washington. Seattle WA. 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. 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. Myers,J. M.,R.Cz Kope, Q 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. 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. Peterson, C.H.,H. C. Summer son, and S. R.Begley. 1987. Ecological consequences of mechanical harvesting of clams.Fishery Bulletin 85:281-298. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquauulture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 17 Peterson, B. J., and K. L. Heck. 2001.Positive interaction ns 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. Ruesink, J. and S. Hacker. 2008. 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 Septemberl, 2006 to August 31, 2007. 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. 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. 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. 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. Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington.Unpubl. Rep.Wash.Dept. Wildl., Olympia,WA. Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors.Water Resources Inventory Area 14,Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin(2002). Wiles,Q J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale.Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp. Wyatt, R. 2008. Joint Industry Programme on Sound and Marine Lite;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 I nc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 18 Figure 1. Project Location VICINITY MAP: TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE d f � 1 f% 7 r\ / 1 1 4Y eattle' 144 01 V, l ( � }L � :3 I I -e' its / l� �! I'l.� r ••� •: _. ton I � i i . ��� Tacoma 01 1 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: Parcel:121312200020-Miller, Lisa A New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Parcel:121312270010- Shelton,WA 98584 Russell G Yates ET AL, Lisa A Miller 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_10_ h (see Site Map-Plan View) DATE:018/2014 —A 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Coordinate System: N In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Scale:1:45,000 County:Mason State:WA MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 19 Figure 2. Yates/Miller site plan i `= PLAN VIEW: , ''_° 121312200030 I TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE 125 ' -205. ... . 47.270481 y' 'r t `f:a r . . • . . -122.862367 ' - 47.270331 , 47.270450 I• y� r -122.863881 122.863185 =�F' ao Y 1 Planting area acres l+� t► S ".. 121312270010 a ti �� rye rtu >416 s CL / ra 'tipi4.: %r .• " �.�«. - 47.269271 -122 863851 14 -122.8632 0 r 47 269120 -122.862684 7 r,i fir'- {_ .. y'}'-ti:•�C� Planting area 1.80 acres m 121312200020 ^ "� Legend �I y � — Transects � ,�� MHHW Est.(13.96'MLLW) 4*} I Mean High Tide 13.01'(Holman 2013) ----- 0'MLLW(Holman 2013) -4.5'(Holman 2013) Extreme Low Tide(Approx-5 MLLW) Upland parcels(County data) 47,267694 % - -� - -122.864894 ;L Unplanted 47.267436 u ! 121,3 =��• -122.864345 ,23 ?0 Planting Area(Holman 2013) :µ .y 47.267318 s 122.863998 62.5 125 250 375 500 Feet CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT., Pa rcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A New GeoduckAquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Pa rcel:121312270010- Shelton,WA 98584 Russell G Yates ETAL, LisaA Miller 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITEADDRESS: Sheet of Parcel:121312300070-McManus,Rose M DATE:03/10_/2014 1480 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N Parcel:121312200030 Coordinate System: Marvin&Carol Bengelsdorf et al, In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) J Bengelsdorf/S Runyan County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:2,000 12409 6th Ave E.,Tacoma,WA 98445 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 20 Figure 3. Miller (Southern) parcel view PLAN VIEW: d�f TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE MILLER PARCEL 121312270010 47.269271 -122.863851 47.269214 q�t • �` �- 1 ; -122.863270 r a ,ot ���!?' 47.269120 -122.862684 ALI ♦' � y �. ,•., ,,, 121312200020 '-.1• co 'y rQ Rlantrrlg area 11 f0 �m F m� : ' !: Legend Transects AL 7 � MHHW Est.(13.96'MLLW) Mean High Tide 13.01'(Holman 2013) ir 0'MLLW(Holman 2013) irrA;` l: += �: • . . . —-- -4.5'(Holman 2013) Extreme Low Tide(Approx-5'MLLW) '2731 2300 � ` :: : :; : : %: ' l—.._ Upland parcels(County data) D7p 78 �:. 47.267694 : : �: Unplanted El 1 'fY�• -122.864894 Planting Area(Holman 2013) 47,267436 t`- -122.864345 47,267318 -122.863998 0 37.5 75 150 225 30Feet CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITEADDRESS: Sheet_of DATE:03/10/2014 Parcel:121312270010- 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N Russell G Yates ET AL,Lisa A Miller Coordinate System: 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312300070-McManus,Rose M County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:1,500 1480 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 21 Figure 4. Yates (Northern) parcel view PLAN VIEW: TRIDENT MARINE -YATES/MILLER SITE .� YATES PARCEL 47.270331 47.270 47.270481 450 121312200030 I -122.863881 -122.863185 -122.862367 . . : .Planting area -•1.90 acres 121312270010 0 +� 10 pp — a_ it Co Legend j' Transects . .. . . . .. ... . . . . :/ MHHW Est.(13.96'MLLW) " 47.269271 r 1q8. _ -` - Mean High Tide 13.01'(Holman 2013) .122863851 0'MLLW(Holman 2013) 47.269214 — -4.5'(Holman 2013) 121312200020 -122.863270 Extreme Low Tide(Approx-5'MLLW) 47.269120 Upland parcels(County data • r� -122.862684 �.•1I'` b,,; a Unplanted Planting Area(Holman 2013) 0 37.5 75 150 225 300 #. 7 Feet CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312270010 on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Russell G Yates ET AL,Lisa A Miller Shelton,WA 98584 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of Parcel:121312200030 DATE:03/10/2014 Marvin&Carol Bengelsdorf et al, 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N J Bengelsdorf/S Runyan Coordinate System: 12409 6th Ave E.,Tacoma,WA 98445 In: Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312200020-Miller, Lisa A County:Mason State:WA Scale: 1:1,300 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites 9 22 Figure 5. Miller parcel elevation view MILLER PARCEL Southern Parcel Distance from MHHW to 0.0' (MLLW) MHHW- 13.9' Northern Property Line = 133' Southern Property Line= 147' MHW=13.1' Distance from MHHW to Distance from MHHW to the beginning of the planting area: the end of the planting area: Northern Property Line =148' Northern Property Line = 304' TE =-2.5' Southern Property Line =260' Southern Property Line=185' TE = -5.0' TE =-3.5' NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of_ DATE:01/14/2014 Parce1:121312270010- 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N Russell G Yates ETAL, LisaA Miller Coordinate System: 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312300070-McManus,Rose M County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:1500 1480 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 23 Figure 6. Yates parcel elevation view YATES PARCEL Northern Parcel Distance from MHHW to 0.0' (MLL" MHHW- 13.9' Northern Property Line = 125' Southern Property Line = 133' MHW=13.1' Distance from MHHW to Distance from MHHW to the beginning of the planting area: the end of the planting area: Northern Property Line = 125' Northern Property Line = 330' TE = 0.0' Southern Property Line = 304' Southern Property Line=148' TE = -5.0' TE = -2.5' NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE CORPS REFERENCE: SITE NAME:YATES/MILLER PROPOSED PROJECT: New Geoduck Aquaculture APPLICANT: Trident Marine Services Parcel:121312270010- on private tidelands. 2721 E.South Island Road Russell G Yates ETAL, LisaAMiller Shelton,WA 98584 1600 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of_ Parcel:121312200030 DATE:01/30/2014 Marvin&Carol Bengelsdorf et al, 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 Tidal datum:MLLW(ft) N J Bengelsdorf/S Runyan Coordinate System: 12409 6th Ave E.,Tacoma,WA 98445 In:Case Inlet Near:Shelton Washington State Plane South(Feet) Parcel:121312200020-Miller,Lisa A County:Mason State:WA Scale:1:1300 1570 E Yates Rd.,Shelton,WA 98584 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 24 Figure 7. 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 ar Wet Exhaust/Muffler i Hoses to Manifold. - Double Pulley ater Pump _ Battery Air compressor f _ � a Hoses from Boni-Mounted Manifold Assembly MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •25 Attachment 1. Habitat Survey Two habitat survey walks were conducted on 08/19/2013 from approximately 9:00 am to 2:30 pm at the project site. The northern habitat survey, encompassing the proposed northern planting area, was conducted from a 400'baseline set at approximately 13.3 ft. above mean lower low water mark(MLLW).A low tide of-1.8 ft below MLLW allowed Amy Leitman and Mike Levine to survey the area extending from approximately 13.3 ft. above MLLW to- 5.8 below MLLW at this plot. 17 transects were run(one every 25')from this baseline and ran at 65'magnetic N towards the water's edge. To best utilize the low tide, these transects occurred in two stages:one to the cobblelsand interface and second from the interface to a water depth of 4'when the tide had dropped further.Above the transect baseline,the beach was showed a uniform composition of substrate(pea gravel, shell, and sand),vegetation (dunegrass,gumplant,tobacco plant), and debris (both large and small woody debris present). The southern habitat survey, encompassing the proposed southern planting area,was conducted from a 650'baseline set at the water's edge. Due to the homogenous composition of the area and a quickly rising tide,transects were spaced at 50'. Transects ran at 65'magnetic N.The area extending from approximately above 2.1'above MLLW to -5.6'below MLLW was surveyed at this plot.Above the water's edge,the beach has overhanging vegetation along its entire length, including alder, cedar,maple, and fir trees as well as blackberry bushes.This overhanging cover was found even above an existing bulkhead. Large woody debris were common above the wrack line. Substrate was ,large cobble down to an interface of sand,pea gravel, and shell bits. Yates Northern Site: Tl 0' Distance(ft.) along transect from Macroalgae(estimated beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other percent of area 13.3 ft.) covered/square meter or Features Noted general Bearing 65' characterization) Increased 9 Barren cobble/sand/shell 31 Bamacle/cobble/sand/pea Barren Gravel 51 Increased barnacle, larger Barren cobble 87-105 Shell/hash/cobble/sand 5%Mastocarpus, 5%Ulva Sand interface-beginning Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 105 of proposed planting area S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift Patchy Nva(2%),patchy 122-178 Sand, sand dollar S. latissima(0-5%, mostly all drift MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •26 Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy Sand S. latissima(0-5%, 288 mostly all drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 307-341 Same S. latissima(0-5%, mostly all drift) T2 (25') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 651 characterization) 9 Pea Gravel/Sand/Shell Barren 34 Cobble/peagravel/sand Barren 6 Sand/cobble/pea gravel, Barren barnacles 63-108 Sand/Cobble,barnacles 5%Mastocarpus, 5% Ulva Sand, sand dollars; Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 108 beginning of proposed S. latissima(0-5%, planting area mostly all drift Sand,Pycnopodia sp. Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 220 (sunflower seastar) S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 263-336 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly all drift T3 (50') No Data MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 27 T4(75') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 65' characterization) Cobblelpea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-112 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand, sand dollars; Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 112 beginning of proposed S. latissima(0-5%, planting area mostly all drift Sand,Pycnopodia sp. Patchy Ma(2%),patchy 214-333 S. latissima(0-5/o, (sunflower seastar) mostly all drift) T5 (100)' Distance(ft.) along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter 13.3 ft.) and/or general Bearing 651 characterization) Cobble/pea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-119 gravel/shell/sand, viva barnacles 119 Sand;beginning of Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy proposed planting area S. latissima(0-5% 221-338 Sand,Pycnopodia sp. Patchy Wva(2%),patchy (sunflower seastar) S. latissima(0-5%) MS&A Trident MarineSenrices Inc. GeoduckAquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •28 T6(125)' Distance(ft.) along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65' characterization) Cobble/pea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-124 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles 124 Sand;beginning of Barren proposed planting area, Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 239 Sand, sand dollars S. latissima(0-5%, mostly all drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 301-338 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly all drift) T7(150)' Distance(ft.) along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65' characterization) Cobble/pea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-126 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand;beginning of Patchy Ma(2%),patchy 126 proposed planting area S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 242-341 Sand, flatfish S. latissima(0-5%, mostly all drift MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.Geoduck Aquacuiture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •29 T8 175 ' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 651 characterization) Cobble/pea patchy Mastocarpus and 0-123 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand;proposed planting Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 123-332 S. latissima(0-5/o, area mostly all drift T9 (200)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 65" characterization) Cobble/pea patchy Mastocarpus and 0-125 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand;proposed planting Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 125-334 area S. latissima(0-5/b, mostly all drift T10(225)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(NMLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 650 characterization) Cobble/pea patchy Mastocarpus and 0-127 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •30 Sand;proposed planting Patchy Wva(2%),patchy 127-337 area S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift T11 (250)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 651 characterization) Cobble/pea patchy Mastocarpus and 0-128 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand, flatfish;proposed Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 128-336 /o S. latissima(0-5 , planting area mostly all drift T12 (275)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65' characterization) Cobble/pea patchy Mastocarpus and 0-130 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand;proposed planting Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 130-346 area S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift T13 300 ' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from Substrate and Other percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 31 Bearing 65' Cobblelpea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-130 gravel/shell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand;proposed planting Patchy Ulva(2°/a),patchy 130-307 S. /o latissima(0-5 , area mostly all drift) T14 (325)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 651 characterization) Cobble/pea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-126 graveVshell/sand, Ulva barnacles Sand;proposed planting Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 126-324 area S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift T15 (350)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter oj- 13.3 ft.) general ' Bearing 651 characterization) Cobblelpea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-129 gravel/shell/sand, ova barnacles Sand;proposed planting Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 129-321 area S. latissima(0-5/o, mostly all drift) MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Acluaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 32 T16(375)' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 651 characterization) Cobble/pea patchy Mastocarpus and 0-1?9 gravel/shell/sand, Ova barnacles Cobble/sand; cobble Patchy Ova(2%),patchy 129-307 extends further down S. latissima(0-5%, beach at this point mostly all drift) T17 400 ' Distance(ft.) along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 651 characterization) Cobble/pea Patchy Mastocarpus and 0-139 gravel/shell/sand, Wva barnacles Cobble/sand; cobble Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 139-313 extends further down S. latissima(0-5%, beach at this point mostly all drift) MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Acivaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •33 Southern site: Tl 0') Distance(ft.)along transect from Macroalgae(estimated beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other percent of area covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 650 characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-13 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 13-172 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift T2 50') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Searing 650 characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-11 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 11-190 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift T3 (100') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning LW+ Substrate and Other � g� covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65' characterization) MS&A Tddent Marine Services Inc. GeoduckAquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 34 Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-15 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 15-180 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift T4 150' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features.Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 65' characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-24 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 24-143 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) 143-146 Scattered cobble/sand S. latissima(10°%) Patchy Wva(2%),patchy 146-187 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T5 (200') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning Substrate and Other g g(MLLW+ covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general . Bearing 65' characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-27 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 27-39 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 35 Patchy Wva(2%),patchy 39 Cobble S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 40-181 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T6 250' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 651 characterization) Patchy Wva(2%),patchy 0-43 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 45-158 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 158-161 10%Cobble/90%sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 161-178 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift T7(300' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(NMLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearin 65° characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-150, Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 36 T8 (350') Distance(ft.) along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65° characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-98 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T9 (400' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning Substrate and Other � g(MLLW+ covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Searing 65' characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-50 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 50-98 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T10 (450' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning Substrate and Other g(MLLW+ covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65' characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-54 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-56/o, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 54-72 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •37 T11 500') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 65° characterization) Patchy Ova(2%),patchy 0-63 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 63-78 70%Sand/30%cobble S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T12 550' Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65° characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-60 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 60-70 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T13 (600') Distance(ft.)along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) Features Noted general Bearing 65° characterization) Patchy Wva(2%),patchy 0-52 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •38 Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 52-62 50%Cobble/50%sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 73 30%Cobble/70% sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) T14 (650') Distance(ft.) along Macroalgae(estimated transect from percent of area beginning(MLLW+ Substrate and Other Features Noted covered/square meter or 13.3 ft.) general Bearing 65° characterization) Patchy Ulva(2%),patchy 0-45 Cobble/sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) Patchy Ulva(2%), patchy 45 Sand S. latissima(0-5%, mostly drift) MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquacuiture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 39 Attachment 2. Photographs of the Site Looking south along the project site J _ Looking north along the project site Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 40 I , w.� a 81 47 •� `- _ ti k-+l l w. ��� } tom,, �' Looking east from the project site zsr k sr yti -,ate' l..!,=���� _ ♦t\ Y. 1 Typical substrate in the upper intertidal area of the project site MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •41 Attachment 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES;AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN MASON COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised April 24,2013) LISTED Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3.Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access,loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED Streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) Critical habitat for streaked horned lark CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennanti)-West Coast DPS SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS] Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans) (Shelton)Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama ssp. couchi) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vand)kei) Western toad(Bufo boreas) Botrychium ascendens(triangular-lobed moonwort) MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •42 Attachment 4. 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 a geoduck aquaculture farm on Harstine Island in Mason Co. 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 geoduck 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. 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 Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(October, 1.998). PFMC, 1998b.The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan:Amendment 8 (December, 1998). MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc.Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •43 Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Establishment of a geoduck aquaculture farm on Harstine Island,Mason County. 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 and steelhead 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 in the BE,there is a paucity of macroalgae at the two sites.No eelgrass was present at all. There is an abundance of shoreline vegetation and large woody debris. There are no"documented"forage fish spawning areas near the site,but there is"potential"spawning substrate at 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. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •44 (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.As noted by Pearce et al. (2007)and Spencer et al. (2008),recovery may take place within 12 months. (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. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •45 Attachment 6. Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Bocaccio Rockfish: Bocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja California.They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface,occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and are occasionally associated with floating kelp beds (Love et al. 2002).Most bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones. They prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms. Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed: In 2003,using a manned research submersible, we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat.From these surveys,we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures.We determined this number to be about 20%of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. Another interesting observation made by the researchers was that: By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys,was low in the same year. This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species. According to Palsson et al. (2009),bocaccio rockfish: ......were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not appeared in recent research or recreational catches. Bocaccio were always infrequent in the recreational fishery,with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent, low occurrences in South Sound. Bocaccio has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,video, or dive surveys in Puget Sound. In a personal communication(Email, October 7,2010)Palsson(WDFW)stated, "Young of the year(YOY) bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound." Palsson et al. (2009)also observed that: Overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia,Basin. The evidence is clear that historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. Yelloweye Rockfish: Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast,with individuals recorded from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands.The major portion of the abundance is found central California to Alaska and they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002).Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily in shallow,high relief zones, crevices and sponge gardens(Love et al. 1991). There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound.The frequency of yelloweye occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen in the 1960s,which increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009). In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound, Palsson noted, (Email,July 26, 2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known,but we have only detected them as shallow as 60'." MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites • 46 Canary Rockfish: Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California,and the Western Gulf of Alaska. Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon. The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column(Love et al. 2002). Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al. 2002).Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp beds, low rock and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). During this settlement they consume on crustaceans (e.g.,harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids, and euphasiid eggs and larvae.According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds (Laminaria,flat Dermasterias and Costaria)along the project site shoreline. According to the Federal Register(2009): In Puget Sound Proper, canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent. Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008)of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper, a 0.76—percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. Impacts of the proposed project on the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of juvenile bocaccio,canary and yelloweye rockfish: (1)Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival,reproduction, and feeding opportunities. Impacts: According to the Federal Resister(Federal Resister/Vol 78,No 151 /Tuesday,August 6,2013/Proposed Rules): Juvenile settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp(families Chordaceae,Alariaceae, Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea)are essential for conservation because these features enable forage opportunities and refuge from predators and enable behavioral and physiological changes needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. As noted in the Habitat Report,there is a paucity of macroalgae at this site, which would be impacted by the proposed project.Therefore, it is unlikely that juvenile rockfish would be present in the area. (2)water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival,reproduction, and feeding opportunities. Impacts: Planting and dive harvesting activities may have temporary turbidity impacts on water quality. However, these impact occur only every six to seven years. It is likely that the juveniles would avoid the area during these temporary increased turbidity conditions. Effects Determination for: Juvenile bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish: "May effect,not likely to adversely affect" References: Federal Register/Vol. 74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23,2009/Proposed Rules. Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28, 2010/Rules and Regulations. Love, M. S.,M.Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Env. Bio. Fish. 30:225-243 MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. Geoduck Aquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •47 Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich, and L.Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press,Berkeley, California: Love,M. S.,D.M Schroeder,W. Lenarz,A MacCall,A. S. Bull and L. Thorsteinson. (2006).Potential use of offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species.bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis). Fish. Bull. 104:383-390. Palsson, W.A.,Tien-Shui Tsou, Greg G.Bargmann, Raymond M. Buckley, Jim E. West, Mary Lou Mills,Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E.Pacunsk. September 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound Fish Management Division,Fish Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. MS&A Trident Marine Services Inc. GeoduckAquaculture Project-Yates/Miller Sites •48