1.0 Direct Impacts to Treaty Protected Fishing...Quinault Indian Nation Comments Regarding BHP Project SEPA Documents 1 | Page 1.0 Direct Impacts to Treaty Protected Fishing 1.1 Impacts

Quinault Indian Nation Comments Regarding BHP Project SEPA Documents

1 | P a g e

1.0 Direct Impacts to Treaty Protected Fishing 1.1 Impacts of Increased Vessel Traffic:

1. Timing of activities for potash transport should be identified, particularly relative to interference with Tribal fishing.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist Section 11, Pg. 7

• As part of the description of the potash facility and activities, information on the timing of the activities should be included. For example, if there is a season during which potash transport is likely to be more intense than others (e.g. to provide fertilizer for specific growing seasons overseas) this should be identified.

• Average rates of vessel use of the navigation channel and berth are reported in other documents (e.g. JARPA) but these visits could be concentrated in time if there is a specific season during which the demand for potash is higher and this could overlap with the timing of Tribal fishing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. More information should be provided about the number of vessels and the timing of vessels due to the potential for significant interference with recreational, commercial and Tribal fishing.

Document Reference: Executive Summary for SEPA Checklist, Cumulative Impacts, Pg. 27

• Recreation and fishing occur in the navigation channel, primarily in the fall. Since shipping vessels have the right of way, there may be specific impacts to recreational, Tribal, and commercial fishing opportunities if fishers are constantly being disrupted by cargo vessel traffic.

• The summary states that alternative areas are available, but the protection of access for Tribal fishing rights extends to all Usual and Accustomed areas, regardless of if alternative areas are available.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Impacts on Tribal fishing vessels may occur as a result of the same limitations on fishing timing and modification to available fishing areas as acknowledged in the SEPA checklist relative to recreational boating.

Vessel traffic to the terminal is described as relatively infrequent, and the impact described as ‘temporary’. With the berth likely to be occupied up to 75% of the time, that does not seem like a temporary impact to Tribal fishing activity, which occurs in the area of the Project.

Document Reference: Executive Summary for SEPA Checklist, Pg. 27-29

• The permanent structures of the proposed marine terminal and vessels moored there while loading will occupy marine areas 55 to 75 percent of the time, including during active fishing seasons. This will infringe on the ability of Quinault Indian Nation (hereafter “Quinault” or “QIN”) Tribal fishers to exercise their Treaty protected fishing rights, regardless of the availability of other areas of the estuary for fishing.


2 | P a g e

• Moored vessels and structures will prevent fishing in those areas and traffic of shipping vessels in and out of the area is likely to disrupt fishing due to the requirement of fishing vessels to cede the right of way to shipping vessels.

• Increase in vessel traffic is expected to average 4 vessel calls per week. These would likely be concentrated in a time frame when a large delivery of potash was made (up to three trains per day.) The Contanda Project will expect 1 vessel call per week. This traffic is likely to affect the ability of Tribal fishers to access their Usual and Accustomed fishing areas.

• Delayed access to the 28th Street boat ramp during train passing times of 17 to 18 minutes, 3 times a day (51 to 54 minutes of each day) similarly infringes on the ability of Tribal fishers to exercise their Treaty protected fishing rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Maintenance dredging is incorrectly identified as having only temporary effects on recreational or Tribal fishing based on the location of the dock and vessel berth. The analysis does not consider the annual nature of the maintenance dredging nor the interference caused by the transport of dredged materials to the open-water disposal sites.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Cumulative Impacts, Pg. 116

• The analysis does not consider the permanent, long-term effects of 10 years of annual maintenance dredging on Tribal and recreational fishers from the physical disruption caused by the dredging and the transport of dredged materials to the disposal site, as well as the impacts to Treaty-protected resources from the repeated disturbance of the subtidal habitat and its benthic community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additional analysis of the impacts of a one-hour lead time with respect to significant disruption of Tribal fishing efforts needs to be included.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Cumulative Impacts, Pg. 128-129

• A one-hour notice of arriving and departing vessels may not provide adequate time for Tribal fishers to move pots, nets etc. or change their fishing locations to avoid conflicts with vessel traffic. Included in the analysis should be the average amount of time it takes for Tribal fishers to set up gear and remove gear from the navigation channel.

• This addition of this Project increases the vessel traffic by 75% over the current level of traffic. That is a major change in operations. With Contanda’s additional 48 vessels per year, that will increase the vessel traffic by 92%, nearly doubling the number of shipping vessels per year.

• The potential effect on fishing due to this level of increase could be significant. More information should be provided about the amount of time per year that there would be a vessel in the navigation channel within the Harbor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3 | P a g e

6. The proposed mitigation for impacts to Tribal fishers from vessel traffic is insufficient. There are no enforceable aspects of the proposed vessel traffic mitigation measure of BHP coordinating with the Port to manage vessel waiting times.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Cumulative Impacts, Pg. 128-129

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.2 Insufficient Analysis of Potential Impacts of Increased Rail Traffic

7. Tribal fisher vessel access to treaty areas on Wishkah River will be impacted due to increase in frequency and duration of delays in opening rail-car “swing bridges” as a result of the increase in rail traffic transporting material to the facility (in addition to rail traffic associated with the Contanda facility).

These delays will have a significant effect on access to treaty fishery areas. BHP must mitigate for the traffic impacts to QIN vessels (and others) on the Wishkah River that will be impacted by increased bridge closures.

Document Reference: Rail Consideration Memo, July 2019

• The Summary of Cumulative Impacts of Contanda and BHP from trains to the Aberdeen/Hoquiam area (page 14) notes an increase of 2 BHP and 1 Contanda trains per day during initial operations building to a foreseeable maximum of 3 BHP and 2 Contanda trains per day during full operation of both facilities. The memo predicts an increase of 3-5 trains per day transiting the single PSAP line in and out of the Aberdeen/Hoquiam corridor and notes that PSAP will logistically be unable to accommodate an increase of more than 5 additional train trips per day on the corridor.

• Quinault is concerned about delays in access to treaty fishery areas and is particularly concerned about delays at the existing “swing bridge” on the Wishkah River. Page 5 of the Rail Consideration Memo (2019) notes bridge crossings by trains are required to travel 5 mph on the Wishkah River swing bridge. The memo further estimates that closure times will be approximately 17-20 minutes at road crossings along the corridor and we will assume same for the swing bridges.

• The proposed project will exacerbate delays at the Wishkah River bridge and could force Tribal fishers to miss fishing opportunities or attempt to navigate under the bridge (when the tide allows).

• The Rail Consideration Memo (2019) does not consider potential vessel blockages on the Wishkah River, concentrating instead solely on roadway crossings for their Summary of Mitigation Recommendations on Page 18. The Rail Consideration Memo, notes the safety concerns of areas isolated by train crossings especially at Olympic Gateway Center and in Hoquiam west of the river crossing. It does not however speak to similar blockages that will impact vessel traffic. These blockages may have direct impacts on QIN Tribal fishers and the protection of the habitats that support treaty fisheries.

• The primary mooring and fish offloading facility for the QIN Chehalis River fishing fleet is located at the Quinault Pride Seafoods (QPS) site on the Wishkah River. The facility is upstream from the PSAP railroad bridge located near the mouth of the Wishkah as it enters the Chehalis River.


4 | P a g e

Accessing the Chehalis River, both to prosecute the treaty fishery and to offload treaty catches, requires QIN vessels to travel through the PSAP swing-bridge.

o That route is safely unpassable unless the bridge is swung “open” to allow vessel traffic through. QIN Tribal fishers currently and historically have encountered difficulty getting PSAP to open this bridge often leading to fishers having to wait long periods of time until a bridge operator can be reached.

o Bridge closures can 1) cause safety concerns should a vessel need to return to moorage quickly effectively trapping it in the Chehalis River until opened, 2) interfere with accessing treaty fisheries on tidal windows that optimize catch, 3) delay prompt delivery of catch impacting the quality and price of the fish and 4) lead to potentially unsafe activities by fishers and other boaters that may attempt to cross under a closed bridge with little clearance.

o Thus, BHP must mitigate for the traffic impacts to QIN vessels (and others) on the Wishkah River that will be impacted by bridge closures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. These same issues will impact the Hoquiam River swing bridge when the trains are waiting to enter and exit the potash facility. That bridge will block traffic to the boat repair operations and importantly access to the Harbor for the WDOE Spill Response vessel, the Shoalhunter, based on the river for oil or other spills.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. A safety plan that clearly details how to prevent emergency vessels (e.g. emergency tug or spill response vessel) moored on the Hoquiam River from being delayed in the event of their need in the Grays Harbor area must be established.

The QIN requires a full accounting of how PSAP and BHP will ensure these critical emergency response resources are available with no delay from BHP potash trains crossing the Hoquiam River swing bridge.


• Important assets are moored upstream of the Hoquiam train swing bridge which include 2-3 large capacity Brusco Tugs, the only official Spill Response vessel located on Grays Harbor (NRC Environmental Services vessel Shoalhunter) and the Hoquiam shipyard used by Quinault and others for large fishing vessel maintenance.

o Closures of the Hoquiam River swing bridge by BHP trains will result in blockage of access to the Chehalis River for tugs and the spill response vessel, both of which will need to be immediately activated should a serious vessel incident occur anywhere in the Harbor or upstream on the Chehalis River.

o This oversight in the analysis of train crossing impacts by BHP trains at the Hoquiam River must be addressed with a safety plan that clearly details how emergency vessels will not be delayed in the event of their need in the Grays Harbor area.


5 | P a g e

o Clearly, adrift, capsized or otherwise incapacitated large cargo or other vessels on the Chehalis River or the Harbor area have potential to seriously impact the treaty resources of the QIN especially if tug and spill response is delayed in any way.

o The QIN requires a full accounting of how PSAP and BHP will ensure these critical resources are available with no delay from BHP potash trains crossing the Hoquiam River swing bridge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. The predicted increase in rail traffic from both Contanda and BHP projects may impact public safety at road crossings due to ongoing, frequent and increased vehicular delays at railroad crossings and the potential effect on emergency vehicles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


6 | P a g e

2.0 Impacts on Treated-Protected Fish and Shellfish and Their Habitats 2.1 Direct Impacts on Treaty-Protected Fish and Shellfish and their Habitats

11. The SEPA analysis inaccurately minimizes the potential for significant impacts to Treaty-protected fish and shellfish and their habitats.

Document Reference: Executive Summary, Pg. 21

• The Executive Summary states: “Minimal or no impacts are expected from an increase in vessel traffic, e.g. bank erosion from propeller wash, noise and visual disturbance, introduction of exotic species, vessel spills, increased potential for vessel strikes, underwater noise, and increased potential for entrainment or impingement in vessel intakes”. This statement is counter to the statements of impacts presented throughout the SEPA checklist (see related comments in this section).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. The description of in-water site conditions is incomplete and forms an insufficient basis from which to determine the potential for impacts to Treaty-protected fish and shellfish and their habitats.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist Project Site- Existing Conditions, Pg. 8

• Additional description of the extent of the in-water sections of the site is needed in this section before the descriptions of the proposed marine structures in order to determine potential for impacts to the aquatic environment. There is a description of the upland portion of the project site, but no description of the in-water portion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Subsurface soil at Terminal 3 has been identified as having contaminated soils. Creosote piles are to be removed at Terminal 4 as part of the Project’s mitigation. Soil disturbance may result in contaminants being released when the piles are removed. The approach for removal of contaminated soils in any areas where piles will be driven or removed should be described.

Document Reference: JARPA, Pg. 40-41; SEPA Checklist Pg. 15. Creosote pile removal at Terminal 4; Mitigation Plan: Mitigation for Pilings and Aquatic Habitat Impacts (Page 12 of 119 – n. Compensatory Mitigation section)

• Additional information should be provided on the potential for contaminants in the sediment near the pilings to be released into the water column when the pilings are removed.

• Disturbance of subsurface soils via pile driving or removal can release toxins into the water column which can have immediate and longer term/bio-accumulative effects on aquatic species.

o The removal of toxic creosote pilings must be done with exceptional care to contain release of subsoil toxins that have accumulated around the base of the old pilings. Pulling these types of pilings can release large amounts of previously trapped toxic materials into the waterway. The large number of pilings proposed to be removed by this mitigation (1,368) will require meticulous procedures and oversight to remove and dispose of them properly.


7 | P a g e

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. The proposed tidal channels (even when combined with overwater structure removal and piling removals) offer insufficient mitigation for impacts to nearshore, subtidal and intertidal habitats which support Treaty-protected fish and shellfish.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. 90-93 and JARPA, Pg. 36

• The sustainability of the tidal channels identified as mitigation for the loss of intertidal habitat has not been substantiated by the design documents for the tidal channels.

• Additional analysis is needed to document the flow and flushing velocities needed to keep the channels accessible to fish and aquatic species.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. The intake of water from ocean going vessels has the potential to entrain fish and other aquatic species. A comparison of intakes for cooling systems and drinking water to the volume needed for ballast for large ocean-going vessels does not negate the potential impacts of the intake occurring for each cargo vessel.

The statement that the “potential for entrainment/impingement to occur would be….similar to that associated with the existing baseline level of vessel traffic” is false due to the fact that the number of vessels entering the Harbor would be basically doubled (92% increase) with the combined estimated increases of the Project and the Contanda Project.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 77 and Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 55. Section 11.4.6

• Additional information is needed on the water volume expected per vessel for these types of intakes and their potential to impact Treaty-protected resources including juvenile fish and crab larvae.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. The potential for scour from cargo vessel and tugboat propellers and thrusters to impact shallow intertidal and shoreline habitats is not addressed.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 76-78

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. No mitigation is proposed for impacts to larval, juvenile, and harvestable Dungeness crab (or other benthic community animals) as a result of the ship berth construction, annual maintenance dredging of the berth, and placement of the dredged material at the DNR-managed in-water disposal sites.


• In describing the dredging impacts model, the analysis references data from 1981 for the number of Dungeness crab in the project portion of Grays Harbor, which calls into question the accuracy of the analysis of impacts to this Treaty-protected resource.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


8 | P a g e

18. The creosote present on the pilings at Terminal 4 would be considered toxic, and should be included in the discussion on toxics identified as part of the Phase 1 investigation.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 87

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Additional information should be provided on the potential for forage fish to use the shoreline along the Project site and should be based on the results of field surveys for forage fish use conducted within the Project area.

The potential for project effects on forage fish in the project area was not included in the indirect effects section of the Biological Evaluation. This potential indirect effect should have been included in the analysis.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 66-67; 104 and Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 51. Section 11.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. The statement on SEPA page 17-18 that deeper water habitats are of less critical importance to sensitive species than shallower waters is unsubstantiated. The ‘sensitive species’ to which this statement refers is also unclear.

Document Reference: JARPA, Pg. 17-18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. The comparison of the proposed impacts of the overwater structure (JARPA page 18) to the impact of the overwater structures in place at Terminal 3 does not negate the need for analysis of potential impacts of the BHP proposed structures in terms of shading, and potential to provide habitat for predators of sensitive species, including juvenile salmonids.


• The JARPA provides no quantitative data that supports a conclusion that overwater grating structures, which can vary in light penetration, will have no impacts to aquatic habitat.

• Overwater structures may have a variety of effects on aquatic species, including salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), but this is not well studied. It would be incorrect to state there will be no impacts to any aquatic habitat when you are specifically altering that habitat.

• Toft et al. (2007) observations indicate juvenile salmonids avoided swimming beneath overwater structures. This is a potential negative impact via behavior modification in juvenile salmonids. Cumulative impacts of overwater structures in Grays Harbor was not studied nor quantified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. The presence of a functional shoreline buffer along the shoreline of Grays Harbor at the southeastern corner of the project site is not presented (Section 4f, page 20), nor is the potential for impacts to this buffer characterized. Overhanging shoreline vegetation is a critical component of forage fish spawning habitat.


9 | P a g e

Document Reference: JARPA, Pg. 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. Insufficient mitigation is proposed for the impacts to intertidal habitats which support sensitive species, including juvenile salmonids. There is no basis from which to conclude the limited scope of the mitigation will offset direct and indirect habitat impacts.

Document Reference: JARPA, Pg. 25; Biological Evaluation 59-61

• JARPA Table 2, Aquatic Impacts and JARPA page 25 indicate 18,770 square feet of permanent impacts to intertidal habitats would occur to construct the ship berth. However, only 1,464 square feet of benthic habitat would be restored via pile removal and only 2,147 square feet of nearshore habitat would be restored via structure removal.

• While the IDD#1 site could ultimately result in rehabilitated intertidal habitat, it is also proposed as mitigation for direct and indirect palustrine wetland impacts (and its design has significant issues, see comments on the Mitigation Plan). The excavation of the ship berth thus has a high potential to result in a loss of intertidal area and function, which could impact Treaty-protected resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. Loss or changes to mesohaline estuarine environment due to dredging and overwater shade will impact Treaty resources unless quantified and properly mitigated.

Document Reference: JARPA Pg. 24 Benthic Habitat Loss from Piling

• A total of 199 permanent and up to 48 temporary pilings will be installed eliminating over 2,500 sq. ft. of intertidal and subtidal habitat. These existing benthic habitats and associated vegetation support QIN Treaty resources; in particular Dungeness crab (adult and juvenile) and juvenile salmonids that use this mesohaline estuarine environment.

• Aquatic vegetation is evident throughout the existing intertidal area, most is likely Zostera japonica with some native eelgrass Zostera marina according to a summer 2019 survey contracted by BHP. This aquatic vegetation, native or nor, serves as habitat and food for many species including juvenile Dungeness crab and salmonids.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. Insufficient mitigation is proposed for the loss of benthic habitats which are important to Treaty-protected resources such as Dungeness crab.


• Pile removal will return 1,464 square feet into benthic production (JARPA page 25). This is less than the 2,502 square feet that will be occupied by the new piles.

• No mitigation is proposed for this loss of benthic habitat (See related comments regarding insufficient mitigation for intertidal impacts from dredging for the ship berth and regarding insufficiency of the mitigation for wetland impacts as characterized in JARPA Table 4, page 27).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


10 | P a g e

26. The sustainability of the tidal channels identified as mitigation for the loss of intertidal habitat has not been substantiated by the design documents for the tidal channels.


• Additional analysis is needed to document the flow and flushing velocities needed to keep the channels accessible to fish and aquatic species.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. Alterations to the properly functioning habitat conditions in the Project Area for green sturgeon are likely to reduce the level of function for the Southern DPS of green sturgeon resulting in impacts to this important Treaty-protected resource.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 24-25 Section 9.4

• Green Sturgeon are listed as threatened in the Southern DPS and a Species of Concern in the Northern DPS. Critical habitat has been designated and includes estuary habitats along the western coast including Grays Harbor. The Project Area has been identified as suitable habitat for green sturgeon within Grays Harbor and alteration of the habitat would have negative impacts on green sturgeon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Current efforts to restore salmonid habitat in several of the tributary basins to Grays Harbor as part of the Chehalis Basin Aquatic Species Restoration Plan (ASRP) may increase the potential for resumed spawning in the project area and should be included as part of the analysis of impacts to Treaty-protected resources.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 38.

• The BA states that “habitat suitability for salmonids, bull trout, sturgeon and eulachon is limited within this portion (within 600 feet) of the Project Area and fish would be expected to be moving rapidly through the action area.” The potential for restoration accomplished through the ASRP projects to alter the occurrence and density of these species seeking habitat in Grays Harbor should be addressed.

• Historically, eulachon were known to spawn in several tributaries to Grays Harbor, and although not commonly observed, they may still use the area. Historic spawning areas in the Humptulips, Chehalis, Aberdeen, and Wynoochee Rivers points to the capacity for significant habitat to again occur in the basin and thus to affect the occurrence and density of eulachon in the project area.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. Descriptions of the effects on green sturgeon and bull trout critical habitat as “short-term” and temporary ignore the chronic impacts to turbidity from repeated annual dredging in the project area.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 38

• These impacts to critical habitat, if occurring every year for 10 years, would not be considered short-term over the life span of bull trout or green sturgeon. Additional discussion of the


11 | P a g e

potential for longer-term impacts should be included in the discussion of direct effects to these species in the BA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. The risk to benthic and epibenthic fauna is identified for actions such as dredging within the Project Area, however the analysis of potential for long-term impacts associated with the entrainment of prey species is based on outdated data that conclude that recolonization of benthic communities typically occurs rapidly after disturbance (McCauley et al. 1977).

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 38 Section 11.1.2

• More recent research should be included in this assessment, and the effects of repeated annual disturbance on the rates and success of recolonization by the full suite of benthic species, should be discussed in detail as compared to the time required for benthic species to establish successful colonies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. While some individuals may be able to avoid the project area for short periods without effect, the extended (200-day) expected duration of the construction disturbance would likely have a substantial impact on the reproductive success of sensitive species in the action area.

This type of disturbance over a 200-day period could substantially impact the success of specific life stages of ESA listed species (as well as Treaty-protected resources) that may be in the area during construction.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 40-42 Section 11.1.3

• Noise estimates for project activities are expected to peak at 205 DBL (peak), 195 DBL (RMS), and 185 DBL (SEL). This level of noise could occur on over 200 days at the site due to the potential need to finish the pile driving with an impact hammer, and the need to proof piles with an impact hammer. The thresholds for injury to fish are 206 dB (Peak) and sound exposure levels of 187 dB(SEL) for fish greater than or equal to 2 grams, and sound exposure levels of 183 dB(SEL) for fish less than 2 grams. Sound levels greater than 150 dB (RMS) are known to cause disturbance to fish.

• The noise levels acknowledged in the BA are likely to cause injury for smaller fish and far exceed the level of disturbance for fish in general.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. The statement that species that are in areas that experience erosion are “adapted’ to that input of sediment is false.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 40-42 and Section 11.4.1 Bank Erosion, Pg. 52

• The negative effects of fine sediment input on spawning habitat for aquatic species and associated forage fish are well documented.

• The potential increase in erosion from a doubling of the number of cargo vessels entering areas that already experience erosion is not analyzed.


12 | P a g e

• The subsequent potential impacts on spawning and rearing species that depend on specific substrate characteristics is not analyzed (Island Trust Conservancy, 2019).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.2 Impacts of a Spill or Accident During Storage, Vessel, or Rail Transport

33. Given the focus on maintaining potash in a clean and dry condition, an explanation and rationale for the proposed tensioned fabric cover (and walls?) should be provided.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Section 11 Project Description, Pg. 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. While the SEPA analysis acknowledges that there is a risk that a potash spill could occur with a loaded train or vessel, the potential impacts of a spill to Treaty-protected resources within the QIN’s Usual and Accustomed areas are not analyzed, despite scoping comments regarding this topic provided by QIN.

The lack of detail pertaining to the impacts of a small- or large-scale spill from both vessels and along the rail line is a major shortfall. Impacts to treaty fishing, hunting, and gathering rights as they pertain to a spill are not adequately addressed. A spill could delay or close the QIN fishery with in Grays Harbor creating significant impacts to the Tribe and Treaty-protected resources. Gathering rights could be impacted as well for culturally significant plant species such as sweet grass.


• SEPA checklist page 48 notes that “There is risk that should an incident could occur with a loaded train or a vessel in transit that potash could be spilled and enter ground or surface waters if the spill occurs directly into a waterbody or during rainfall.”

• Page 22 of the SEPA handbook states, “The severity of the impact must be weighed as well as its

likelihood of occurring. An impact may be significant if its magnitude would be severe, even if its likelihood is not great. In determining if a proposal will have a significant impact, the responsible official may consider that a number of marginal impacts may together result in a significant impact. Even one significant impact is sufficient to require an environmental impact statement”. The lack of information provided makes it impossible to determine what the impacts would be of a spill, if a spill would significantly impact Treaty-protected resources, and what the appropriate mitigation should be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35. No analysis is provided of the potential impact of a potash spill on macro-invertebrates, including mollusks, or other animals/wildlife within Grays Harbor or along the rail line.


• Potassium chloride is more directly toxic to macroinvertebrates, including zooplankton such as Daphnids, which constitute the base of the food chain, than to upper trophic level organisms such as salmonids.


13 | P a g e

• Potash is used as an effective molluscicide in the control of zebra mussels, and thus could potentially affect native mollusks (including clams and mussels).

• No analysis is provided of the potential concentrations if potash is spilled and how those concentrations relate to documented Lethal Concentrations (LC), for example:

o Daphnid (macro invertebrate) LC 50 is 196 mg/L (Densmore et al., 2018) o Rainbow trout LC 50 mortality is 1,191-1,610 mg/L (US Environmental Protection

Agency, 2019)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. The effect of a potash spill could be devastating for an entire generation of salmon (a QIN Treaty-protected resource) if a spill occurred during rail transport into one of the many waterways crossed by the rail line, particularly if it occurred after spawning, while the eggs are in the gravel.


• The SEPA analysis attempts to minimize the potential impact to streams and aquatic species by stating that “In a flowing freshwater system, the effect would be reduced somewhat by mixing as the higher saline concentrated water moves downstream.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37. A study by Grasso et. al. (1994) is cited in the SEPA checklist which determined that a spill of 10,400 lbs. of Potash into the marine environment would not exceed the toxicity threshold. There are 2 issues with that conclusion.


• First is that the area where the proposed terminal is located is not a marine environment, it is an estuary. Not all estuary species are as well adapted to dealing with sudden increases in salinity. Large increases in salinity have been shown to have adverse effects on stenohaline species (species able to tolerate only a narrow range of salinity) (Smyth and Elliott 2016).

• Second, the vessels anticipated for transport of the potash have a capacity of 20,000 to 82,000 dead-weight tonnage. Even if not fully loaded, that is considerably more than the 10,400 lbs. cited in the study referenced to support the evaluation of potential impacts of a spill. No analysis of the potential impact of a spill of the magnitude possible from a cargo vessel is presented.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. The risk to water bodies of a potash spill from a rail car during transport has a low probability, but is still possible and potential impacts should still be analyzed as there is a potential for impacts to Treaty-protected resources.


• Statements such as “Trains crossing waterbodies would not likely result in cars entering the waterbody as the bridge structure would contain the car and prevent it from entering the


14 | P a g e

waterbody” do not take into account that at times, infrastructure fails (e.g. Skagit River Bridge failure over I-5).

• The analysis should include additional steps taken to prevent potash spills with respect to additional containment measures within the transport cars (i.e. sub-containers), or re-enforcement of the cars themselves to prevent rupture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. Potash may not be directly toxic to aquatic species in low concentrations, however, what is not address is that in a large quantity the potash can change freshwater enough to be lethal to aquatic species at all life stages. Similarly, the anti-caking chemicals that are added to the potash are neither identified or analyzed for potential impacts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40. The analysis of impacts to the natural environment from a potential potash spill is cursory and insufficient to determine the potential significance of impacts to Treaty-protected resources and their habitats.


• The premise that the risk of environmental impacts from a spill of potash into ‘small bodies of water’ is lower than the impacts from a spill near or over a larger body of water is unfounded. A spill over/into a smaller body of water would result in the spilled potash dissolving into a small water body and thus a potentially higher concentration of salts within that water body.

• The premise that “Trains crossing bridges would not likely result in cars entering the waterbody as the bridge structure would contain the car and prevent it from entering the waterbody” does not necessarily equate to a lower risk of potash entering the environment. A bridge structure may contain a rail car, but nothing about a bridge structure would necessarily prevent rupturing of the rail car nor prevent the potash from spilling out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41. The analysis of fuel spill potential and impacts to the natural environment from a fuel spill is cursory and insufficient to determine the potential significance of impacts to Treaty-protected resources and their habitats.


• The premise that the limited number of incidents in 10 years of Ecology data on the undefined category of ‘large marine vessels’ means a fuels spill from a marine vessel is unlikely to occur is unfounded. The potential for impacts from a fuel spill is related to the number of vessels and to the nature and volume of fuel, not to the number of incidents that has occurred in the past.

• The premise that because “the frequency and magnitude of spills from the trains cannot be predicted”, it “is not reasonably likely to occur with the project” is unfounded. The likelihood of something occurring is not necessarily related to whether or not its occurrence can be exactly predicted.


15 | P a g e

• The risk and impacts of a fuel spill from the cumulative increase in vessels from the proposed project and the Contanda project (268 additional cargo vessels per year, a near doubling of vessel traffic over the 290 annual cargo vessels under existing conditions) is not analyzed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. Environmental impacts of a potential spill are not sufficiently assessed in the Biological Evaluation. The study cited in the Biological Evaluation is a poor example and does not reflect the size of a potential spill in Grays Harbor.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation -Sec 11.4.4 Pg. 54

• The analysis cites "A study completed by the US Department of the Interior modelled a spill of KCL (potash) as part of an evaluation of the risk of chemical produced used in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas industry operations. The study modelled a spill of 4, 717 kg (app 10,400 lbs.) to the marine environment. The model results showed that a spill of that size would not exceed the toxicity threshold (Boehm et. al 2001)."

• However, the Boehm study modeled a spill of only 5 tons, whereas the BHP facility would service 8-10 trains per week, with each train shipment holding 20,000 tons of potash (from 160,000 to 200,000 tons of potash PER WEEK; section 5.2, page 5), and an average ship loading rate of 4,000 tons per hour (section 5.2.10, page 7).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43. The potential toxicity of potash is understated and dependent on concentration. At low concentrations potash may be considered non-toxic, however at the industrial concentrations/amounts proposed for storage and transport, this is not necessarily the case. Spills can affect the toxicity of other chemicals, can lead to the growth of harmful algal blooms and eutrophication of surrounding waters and can affect shorebirds (including those utilizing the GHNWR).

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation - Pg. 53-55

• It has been observed that when in ionic form, potassium compounds raise the toxicity of other chemicals, such as nitrate. (Simplício et al. 2016) "Comparative analysis between ecotoxicity of nitrogen-, phosphorus-, and potassium-based fertilizers and their active ingredients." Toxics 5.1 (2016): 2). Some sources list potassium as a marine toxin because it can have an additive effect with relation to heavy metals such as copper, cadmium, and zinc. It has been hypothesized that potassium ions increase the heavy metal binding capacity and distribution on the gills and in the liver cytosol of many aquatic species. (Grasso et al. 1994).

• Increases in potassium ions can increase the growth rate of algae, leading to harmful algal blooms and eutrophication of the surrounding areas. It is speculated that potassium increases growth rates because it is considered the major cation of the cytoplasm with electrochemical and some catalytic functions. (Grasso et al. 1994).

• Potassium is involved in the salinization of water. Due to its effect on salinity, potassium acts indirectly in toxicity, even when present in small concentrations. (Simplício et al. 2016).

o Salinization may affect shorebirds in a number of ways. First, salinization interferes with their ability to regulate water balance through excretion of excess salt. Although some birds have well developed salt glands that enable them to excrete excess salt, it is not clear that all shorebirds possess this ability. An inability to maintain water balance leads


16 | P a g e

to dehydration and possibly death. In addition, salinization can affect shorebird behavior. Shorebirds are known to seek out freshwater sources in highly saline areas. This can increase the energetic demand on the birds. As migrating birds are already under an enormous energetic strain, this added energetic expenditure can potentially be detrimental. (Larsen et al. 2004).

• In intertidal mudflats, the presence of macroalgal mats forces invertebrates closer to the surface

to evade anoxic conditions. Over time, eutrophication can radically change benthic invertebrate communities (as well as aquatic plant communities, another important food source for some bird species). If the mats persist, invertebrate biomass can drop severely.

o The indirect effects of eutrophication can be complex and highly localized in aquatic systems. Increased nutrient loading may be beneficial to birds up to a certain point, after which radical changes to habitat and ecosystems can occur (the consequences of which can be detrimental). Most of the negative effects of eutrophication on birds occur when there is a major shift in habitat, particularly towards the dominance of phytoplankton. (MacDonald, 2006).

o As invertebrates constitute an important food source for many bird species, any changes in invertebrate communities can potentially be detrimental. This is especially true for migrating birds, as migratory stop-over sites serve as critical refueling areas along their migration routes. For some bird species annual migrations can cover thousands of miles, over the course of which a bird can lose almost half of its body weight. It is for this reason that having an adequate and reliable food source available at key staging/stop over areas is critical.

• Harmful algal blooms can manifest in as little as 2-5 days. A review of the water characteristics of Grays Harbor conducted by the Department of Oceanography at the University of Washington evaluated the flushing characteristics of the Grays Harbor estuary (residence time). This study found various estimates created over the years for the residence time of the entire estuary. An average flushing time of 0.6-5 days was established (depending on the month).

o Given this, it would be inadvisable to simply allow a potash spill to naturally disperse as harmful algal blooms could form in the time it takes for the water in the estuary to flush. (Loehr and Collias, 1981).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44. Dissipation rate from potential potash spill from both vessel and rail transport, in the full range of critical habitat areas should be analyzed. No evidence is provided that explains how the increased salinity would dissipate rapidly.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation - Pg. 54

• The document states; "The primary risk is that a potash spill could cause a localized increase in salinity in the aquatic environment… Localized increases in salinity resulting from potential potash spills would dissipate rapidly based on these conditions."

• How "localized" it is would largely depend on the size of the spill, as each vessel will likely be carrying anywhere from 20,000 to 82,000 tons of potash (see section 5.2.10, page 7).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


17 | P a g e

45. Should a potash spill occur at the shipping facility, or a tsunami or other large storm inundate the facility, the potential effect of this dissolved volume of potash on the GHNWR is not evaluated.

Document Reference: Critical Areas Assessment - Pg. 32

• Section 6.4.3 states that “connectivity and accessibility is limited” between the proposed project site and the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (GHNWR).

• The proposed facility is directly adjacent to the GHNWR, they are separated by mere feet. Any leaching of potash from the facility would runoff directly into the GHNWR, as would any contaminants that were introduced into the environment due to an accidental derailment of one of the transportation railcars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46. There is no indication of how BHP would monitor groundwater or stormwater runoff to verify their claim that runoff from the site “would not result in any impacts that would measurably or significantly affect the quantity or quality of water that would be entering the GHNWR”. Periodic water quality testing should be included as a mitigation measure.

Document Reference: Critical Areas Assessment - Pg. 43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.3 Impacts of Construction and Maintenance Dredging

47. Additional analysis should be provided regarding the timing on the proposed maintenance dredging and direct effects to aquatic species of annual dredging for maintenance to maintain berth depth.

Document Reference: Executive Summary for SEPA Checklist, Pg. 14

• How does the timing of the proposed annual 70,000 cubic yard maintenance dredging compare with fishing seasons and critical life stages for native aquatic species?

• How do you prevent direct effects to aquatic species during maintenance dredging? Other ports have been required to sample dredge material for aquatic species (e.g. ESA listed bull trout) to determine if maintenance dredging has the potential to affect at-risk aquatic species.

• More information should be provided regarding biological monitoring during dredging.

• There is literature to suggest a lack of information about the actual effects of dredging (and the associated increase in suspended sediments) on aquatic organisms, their health, productivity and behavior (Wilber & Clarke, 2001).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48. The 10 years of annual maintenance dredging of 70,000 cubic yards of sediment from the new berth basin is inappropriately characterized as a temporary impact, including a statement that benthic organisms will quickly recolonize the area.


18 | P a g e

This is an inadequate characterization of the potential effects of the project and its associated maintenance and operations.

No compensatory mitigation is proposed for these recurrent impacts to subtidal habitat (see JARPA Table 5).

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Table 6, Aquatic Impacts by Tidal Zone; Executive Summary for SEPA Checklist, Pg. 34-40; JARPA Pg. 23 and Pg. 33 Table 5; Biological Evaluation Pg. 37 and 51

• SEPA: “Dredging and material placement activities in subtidal habitats have the potential to result in short-term, temporary impacts to benthic organisms and their habitat, but these temporary impacts are not expected to result in permanent effects to aquatic habitat function that would require compensatory mitigation. The potential for and extent of any temporary effects to aquatic habitat function will be offset by the implementation of operational best management practices (BMPs) during construction. While subtidal benthic substrates will be disturbed during construction, they are expected to recolonize rapidly, and the temporary disturbance to subtidal habitats will result in no net loss of aquatic habitat function.”

o This is an inadequate characterization of the potential effects of the project and its associated maintenance and operations.

• Habitat suitability will be impacted in the long-term, for the duration of the life of this project since dredging will occur periodically.

o A study of maintenance dredging shows significant differences in the benthic habitat quality between natural sites and sites that are dredged periodically. Dredged sites in this study had poorer environmental conditions and differences in feeding guilds of microbenthic fauna (Rehitha et al. 2017).

• Annual maintenance dredging will limit the development of naturally diverse, healthy populations. The obfuscation of the effects of repeated annual maintenance dredging inaccurately presents the true nature of the project effects on the aquatic environment.

• Annual dredging of the entire new berth repeatedly over 10 years should rather be characterized as a long-term, if not permanent impact with appropriate mitigation to prevent a loss of benthic habitat function.

• Table 8e (page 38) presents the maintenance and construction dredging impacts more appropriately as permanent impacts.

• No compensatory mitigation is proposed for these recurrent impacts to subtidal habitat (see JARPA Table 5).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49. Annual maintenance dredging of the berth would prevent the establishment of longer-lived aquatic species in that area and will reduce biological productivity.

Document Reference: Executive Summary for SEPA Checklist, Pg. 40

• Turbidity from dredging will still have an effect on habitats deeper than 30 feet, even if dredging in such deeper water limits impacts on more diverse shallow habitats.


19 | P a g e

• The new berth would convert 18,770 square feet (0.43 acres) of intertidal habitat to subtidal, which would reduce the biological productivity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50. The SEPA description of the release of waste products to surface waters is incomplete.


• The section describing Construction effects identified the impact of dredging to in-water habitats, but the section on Operation completely omits the maintenance dredging impacts that will occur annually over 10 years at the site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51. Visual monitoring of water quality effects from dredging is inadequate to guard against significant impacts.


• Standardized regular (specific time periods daily) measurement of water quality should be conducted during dredging activities and immediately (1-4 days) after dredging activities (including maintenance dredging) to assess potential turbidity impacts and provide opportunities for adaptive management.

• Visual monitoring is too subjective to provide a reliable reference point. Further, “turbidity or suspended sediment concentrations vary throughout the water column with larger plumes typically occurring at the bottom, closer to the actual dredging action…” (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001, p. 54).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52. Permanent impacts to shallow sub and intertidal habitat due to dredging have not been accounted for in the impact estimates and mitigation plan for the project.

Document Reference: JARPA pg. 17. Section 7a.

• Ship loading and berthing structures are sited in deep-water created by extensive regular dredging which maximizes impacts to shallow sub and intertidal habitat, causing irreversible damage to aquatic habitats during construction.

• Even if a clamshell dredge is used exclusively, so as to avoid adult crab entrainment, impacts to juvenile Dungeness crab and associated habitat will occur during initial dredging and continuing operations in that area.

• Though habitats in the project area, including the marine aquatic area to be dredged for ship loading and mooring, have been modified in the past, impacts or potential impacts to treaty resources are the primary concern of the QIN. Existing habitat, whether previously modified or not, now supports Dungeness crab (especially juveniles) and juvenile salmonids. Modifications or loss of that habitat impacts Treaty resources unless properly quantified and mitigated for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


20 | P a g e

53. Dredging should be acknowledged, and mitigated, as a long-term, permanent impact to Treaty-protected resources.

No mitigation is proposed for impacts to larval, juvenile, and harvestable Dungeness crab (or other benthic community animals) as a result of the ship berth construction, annual maintenance dredging of the berth, and placement of the dredged material at the DNR-managed in-water disposal sites.

Document Reference: JARPA Pg. 24. Benthic Habitat Loss from Dredging; SEPA Checklist, Pg. 78-80

• Dredging existing shallow water estuarine habitat will result in a loss of this habitat and increase in deeper water that will be regularly disturbed and dredged. Rules and regulations regarding shoreline disturbance and modification should be applied.

• This area of the lower Chehalis River and Grays Harbor is important habitat and refuge for out-migrating and juvenile treaty fish. The scope of this removal is larger than any recent river-shore modifications in recent decades.

• The extent of shoreline disturbance and modification should be quantified because loss of this habitat will affect Quinault Treaty fishery resources, including salmonids, sturgeon, Dungeness crab and marine mammals. Unless properly quantified the QIN cannot estimate those impacts and therefore cannot determine the proper level of mitigation needed to account for loss of any treaty resources or habitats that support them.

• The QIN has supported the use of the Dredge Impact Model (DIM) in previous Army Corps of Engineers dredging activities. We note however that the data used by the DIM and reiterated above is now very dated (1981, approximately 38 years old) and should be updated before being used to make a de minimis impact determination.

• BHP has since contracted for a survey of juvenile Dungeness crab within and adjacent to the proposed dredged area. QIN anticipates a significant number of juvenile crab will be found at the site and this will need to be accounted before making “the conclusion that the commitment to restrict dredging to clamshell methods will reduce the extent of impact to a de minimis level that does not require further compensatory mitigation to achieve no net loss of aquatic habitat function.” as quoted from the JARPA, page 24.

• Without the results of the Dungeness crab assessment at the site the QIN is unable to support any of the de minimis conclusions of dredging impacts on treaty resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54. This project must be evaluated for fish and predator aggregation over time.

Document Reference: JARPA Pg. 24. Benthic Habitat Loss from Dredging

• This large “pit” adjacent to Terminal 3 will be deeper than the rest of the shoreline and sheltered from main flow of the river. This creates a potential attractant for all fish species including sturgeon, salmonids and piscivores (fish predators) including diving birds and other fish species.

• Lighting from the overhead loading gangways and conveyors will add to the attractants for the berthing area.


21 | P a g e

• It is possible that treaty crab will enter the area as well, especially juveniles that are attracted to light sources at night. This may facilitate predation of juvenile Dungeness crab. Grays Harbor is well known as a nursery area and producer of this valuable treaty and non-treaty resource.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55. The invasive species monitoring plan that BHP commits to developing with WDFW is not described and thus is not a sufficient mitigation measure relative to impacts from increased vessels and potential to discharge invasive species into Grays Harbor.


• Provide more information on the types, methods, protocols and frequency of monitoring, as well as planned monitoring locations, and the parties responsible for funding and implementing the monitoring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56. The BA states that “any temporary increase in turbidity as a result of the proposed action is not anticipated to measurably exceed levels caused by normal periodic increases.” There is no data presented to support this claim of no affect above background levels. Additional data are needed to support this claim.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 37.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.4 Impacts on Streams and Wetlands

57. The analysis of the nature of “ditches” found on the site needs more work. There are fish-bearing, tidal streams that are miscategorized as ditches on or near the site.


• The tidal streams along Highway 109 and Polson road are known fish-bearing streams that provide juvenile coho, cutthroat, and sculpin habitat. These ditches have connectivity with Grays Harbor so it is reasonable to assume there are additional “ditches” within the project site that provide salmonid habitat that were not accounted for in the analysis.

• The “ditches” found on and near the project site need to be looked at more closely and fish habitat surveys need to be conducted in consultation with the QIN to characterize the fish habitat that will be impacted accurately.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58. The SEPA checklist states that “Ditches are exempt from regulation as wetlands under the Shoreline Master Program and as such they do not have a regulatory buffer”. The ditches could, however, be categorized as Waters of the State under Shorelines and Critical Area Ordinances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


22 | P a g e

59. The size and design of the storage building warrants additional justification.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Section 11 Project Description, Pg. 10

• Multiple smaller storage buildings at lower heights could be used to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands by utilizing the already disturbed uplands in the center of the site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60. Wetland A is incorrectly categorized due to errors in the Wetland Rating Form.

Document Reference: Wetland Delineation Report, Pg. 113 of Wetland Rating form for Wetland A

• There is at least a seasonally flowing (if not permanently flowing) stream in and adjacent to the northwestern corner of wetland A. Thus, Question H1.2 Hydroperiods is inaccurate. If accurately answered, the result would be a Category II rating for Wetland A, requiring higher mitigation ratios.

• Janice Martin (QIN), Linda Storm (EPA), and Greg Eide (QIN) observed this during site visit with BHP and their environmental contractors. They identify this as permanently flowing in figure 2 of the rating form (Pg. 199 of the PDF document) “Hydroperiods and outfalls”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61. SEPA Table 7, Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Summary, illustrates that the area of wetland mitigation proposed for permanent direct impacts is less than the mitigation ratios recommended by Ecology.


• The overall acres of mitigation proposed (73.35 acres) results in an overall wetland mitigation ratio of 3.4 acres of mitigation for each acre of impact (21.56 acres are proposed), which is not consistent with a mitigation package based primarily on wetland rehabilitation (which typically utilizes a ratio of at least 4:1).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62. The mention of the culvert under Paulsen Road which connects the tidal channel of the GHNWR to Wetland C does not indicate whether or not the culvert is adequately sized for hydraulic and fish passage, which is important in understanding the functions of Wetland C and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63. Efforts to minimize the effects of overwater structures are identified (JARPA page 21), but there is no mitigation for the loss of valuable nearshore habitat that is suitable for juvenile salmonids.


• Additional losses are detrimental to continued production of juvenile salmon in the area.


23 | P a g e

• Significant efforts to increase the survival and production of coho, Chinook, and other important Treaty-protected species are occurring in the Chehalis Basin and the juveniles from those watersheds could be negatively affected by the installation of additional overwater structures in terms of loss of habitat, vegetation and benthic production.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64. Historic loss of shoreline, tidal wetland, and benthic habitat in the Grays Harbor Basin increases, rather than decreases, the relative impact of the placement of piles in the intertidal and subtidal.


• If more of the habitat in the basin were functional, there would be a higher probability that salmonids and benthic species could use alternative habitat areas.

• With the historic loss of function in other areas of the Harbor, additional loss due to the proposed project becomes even more critical. This concept should be part of the cumulative impacts discussion, but is currently missing from the analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65. Wetland preservation is proposed to address impacts to the freshwater wetlands, rather than wetland creation or enhancement. Preservation results in a net loss of wetland acres and may not sufficiently mitigate for lost freshwater wetland functions.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. 46-47

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


24 | P a g e

66. Limited analysis is provided of the specific water quality, hydrologic, or habitat functions of the palustrine forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands which would be impacted and how those specific functions will be mitigated for via the proposed mitigation actions to achieve the requirement for no net loss of function.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 32-33; Mitigation Plan Pg. 18-19

• The conclusion of no cumulative impacts is partially predicated on the success of the proposed mitigation achieving no net loss of ecological function. The IDD#1 mitigation site design does not support that conclusion. See related comments regarding the Mitigation Plan.


25 | P a g e

3.0 Impacts on Other Plants and Animals

67. When describing excavation during the project site construction, the SEPA checklist does not address how and where the excavated will be disposed. Deposition of excavated materials is of interest to the QIN because of the potential for spreading invasive plant species.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 19; Biological Evaluation Pg. 32

• The Biological Evaluation notes that many invasive plant species are present at the project site: "Riparian habitats associated with the wetlands at the site have significant populations of several invasive species. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) dominates most of the emergent habitats, while dense stands of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Himalayan blackberry dominate in shrub-dominated areas. Japanese knotweed grows in several dense stands along ditches. English ivy (Hedera helix) is also densely established in several of the small stands of red alder." (Biol. Eval., section 10.2.1, page 32).

• Invasive plant species have a major impact on both terrestrial and aquatic treaty resources. However, there are no mitigation measures described to minimize spread of these invasive species to adjacent properties or to the GHNWR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68. The SEPA checklist lists nine species of State listed noxious weeds currently present on the site, but does not assess the potential for site development to increase the density and/or number of State listed Noxious Weeds within the site and the related potential to then affect plant communities in the adjacent undisturbed habitats of the GHNWR.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69. The SEPA checklist analysis does not consider of the potential impacts of a potash spill on remaining native vegetation in the event of a spill into wet or moist areas where the potash would dissolve and could increase soil salinity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70. More information is needed about the type, kind, and duration of monitoring efforts referenced on page 41 of the Executive Summary, as well as who will implement them and how they will be funded. Adaptive management triggers should also be identified to determine if the effects of operations and maintenance of the facility over time are having adverse effects on the aquatic systems.


• The SEPA Checklist analysis for Animals does not specify the type or nature of the monitoring programs referenced in the Executive Summary


26 | P a g e

o “No kelp beds or forage fish spawning or holding areas are in the Project area and not native eelgrass beds will be impacted. Monitoring programs will be implemented.” (Executive Summary, Pg. 41)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71. No enforceable assurance of compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is provided.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist Section A.6 Timing/Schedule, Pg. 2

• Relative to the timing of construction and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the statement that “tree and vegetation removal to be conducted outside the active nesting season to the extent practicable” is not an enforceable assurance of compliance with the MBTA.

o The MBTA prohibits take of species protected by the Act, regardless of how ‘practicable’ avoidance may or may not be.

o The habitats present on site are documented as supporting multiple species protected by the MBTA.

• The statement that “If any tree or vegetation removal is required within the time when nests could potentially be active (generally January to August), pre-disturbance nest surveys would be conducted to document whether any trees or vegetation to be removed contain active nests” is similarly not an enforceable assurance of compliance with the MBTA.

o This statement assures only that there is documentation of any trees or vegetation to be removed that contain active nests.

o The MBTA prohibits take of species protected by the act, thus pre-disturbance nest surveys should be used to inform modifications to the timing and extent of vegetation clearing to only occur before or after nesting and fledging periods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72. The potential for impacts on birds, particularly passerines and raptors who may be nesting within the forested and scrub-shrub wetland habitats (Wetlands A and B) within the project site is understated and/or inadequate.


• The statements in the SEPA checklist regarding the timing of vegetation clearing offers no enforceable provisions to assure MBTA protections are implemented (See comment under Section A.6 Timing/Schedule).

• Relocation of the osprey nest is proposed, but no detail is provided regarding the method, timing, or location of where the nest would be relocated and what mitigation, if any, would be provided in the event that the nest relocation is unsuccessful.

• Construction BMPs related to the noise are relevant to in-water work and aquatic species, but do not address construction disturbance and noise impacts to terrestrial species, particularly those using the wetlands and forested habitats.


27 | P a g e

• Surveys for streaked horned lark were not conducted at the project site, despite their preference for nesting in flat, open areas and their documented presence at Damon Point and the Oyhut Wildlife Area Unit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73. Construction impacts on migrating birds, including impacts on physiology and behavior, from noise, is not considered and no efforts to avoid or minimize impacts through modifications of a construction schedule are included, despite previous QIN comments on this topic.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 73-75; Biological Evaluation Pg. 38-43

• The construction schedule allows for impact pile driving during the peak of the fall migration for many species of waterfowl and shorebirds, despite the claim of avoiding noise related wildlife disturbance by using alternative construction methods such as using a vibratory hammer for pile driving. There are 2 potential issues with this.

o Even though vibratory hammers produce less noise than impact hammers, a study by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has shown that they can still generate a considerable amount of noise. This study recorded a Lmax at 50ft of 101 dBA which, according to the same study, is the equivalent to the sound generated by a firecracker. Second is that piles installed with a vibratory hammer must often be proofed, which involves striking the pile with an impact hammer to determine its load-bearing capacity, possibly with multiple impacts. Impact drivers produce even more noise, around 110 Dba, which is roughly the equivalent of the noise generated at a rock concert. (Construction Noise Impact Assessment, Biological Assessment Preparation Advanced Training Manual Version 02-2012, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, http://nrc.gov/docs/ML1225/ML12250A723.pdf).

• Plie driving activity is expected to occur during the fall migration, a time in which migrating birds are already under enormous physiological stress.

• Given the close proximity of the proposed project area to the GHNWR, it is very likely that the noise generated by construction will an impact on the birds residing in the area.

• The Biological Evaluation notes that “During impact pile driving and/or proofing, the cumulative underwater noise thresholds for barotrauma (208 dBSEL) and auditory injury (202 dBSEL) could be exceeded to distances of approximately 282 feet (86 meters) and 705 feet (215 meters), respectively. Elevated terrestrial sound can also have masking effects for marbled murrelet, in which communication between birds is compromised. The distance in which masking effects could potentially occur, with impact installation of 48-inch steel piles is approximately 551 feet (168 meters).”

• These noise levels will also impact other bird species occurring within the project area and the adjacent GHNWR. Anthropogenic noise pollution causes detrimental effects to birds including stress and fright-flight response, avoidance behavior, changes in foraging behavior, disruption to vocal communication, etc.


28 | P a g e

o Chronic stress causes numerous physiological responses, including elevated heart rate, changes in hormone levels, and weight loss. Chronic stress also impairs the ability of birds to resist diseases and reduces their reproductive success (Ortega 2012).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74. The SEPA Checklist incorrectly states that there are only two Snowy plover breeding sites in the State of Washington when there are in fact four, all in the vicinity of the project.


• As of 2011, the USFWS has designated 6 sites in Washington as critical habitat (including breeding habitat) for Snowy Plover: Copalis Spit, Damon Point, Midway Beach, Shoalwater/Graveyard, Ledbetter Spit, and Gunpowder Sands Island.

• Of these 6 sites, 4 have documented occurrences of recent Snowy Plover breeding activity (Damon Point, Midway Beach, Graveyard Spit, and Leadbetter Point) (USFWS 2012).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75. The checklist incorrectly states that there have been no Peregrine falcon sightings in the proposed project area and thus does not assess the potential for impacts to this species; falcons feed on shorebirds (among other species) and thus could be impacted by activities that could affect shorebirds.


• A quick search on ebird shows that there have been at least 119 documented observations of Peregrine Falcons at the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, as well as at least 210 documented observations at the Hoquiam storm water treatments ponds, which are directly connected to the project area.

• https://ebird.org/hotspots?env.minX=-124.354523&env.minY=46.79201&env.maxX=-123.158859&env.maxY=47.53419&yr=all&m=

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76. The potential effect of large spill event on critical habitat of snowy plover is not acknowledged.


• Snowy Plover critical habitat is adjacent to the shipping route, and includes foraging areas for snowy plovers (e.g., mudflats). In the event of a large spill event, where a large amount of potash is released into the estuary, the snowy plover critical habitat would likely be negatively impacted through increased salination of foraging habitat and a decline in forage. While is large spill event is not likely to occur, the resulting potentially significant impact of such an event should be acknowledged.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77. The conclusion of ‘minor’ potential operational impacts of vessel noise, vessel spills, and increased potential for vessel strikes on marine mammals due to the vessels being

https://ebird.org/hotspots?env.minX=-124.354523&env.minY=46.79201&env.maxX=-123.158859&env.maxY=47.53419&yr=all&m=



29 | P a g e

“transitory” and exposure being “limited to the period when the vessel is nearby” is not substantiated by rigorous analysis.


• The cursory analysis presented in the SEPA checklist does not consider the cumulative impact of the project’s increase in cargo vessel traffic, noise, spill potential, or vessel strikes on the declining population of Southern Resident Killer Whales, or other whales and marine mammals after the vessels transit inner Grays Harbor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78. Impacts from noise due to vessel traffic increases and vessel strikes are not adequately discussed under traffic impacts to animals.


• Several marine mammals including whale and porpoises use Grays Harbor for feeding and migration and are negatively affected by noise and boat traffic. These impacts will not be limited in time to just construction, and so cannot be considered temporary effects or transient effects.

• The idea that vessel strikes are unpredictable and rare events, while true, does not relieve the applicant from taking measure to reduce or remove their occurrence. The near doubling of the vessel traffic (this project combined with estimated increases from the Contanda Project) in Grays Harbor is likely to have substantial effects on the marine mammals and fish using the waterbody.

• Using a comparison of the number of vessels in the entire North Pacific is hardly a relevant point of reference for localized effects. Further, the comparison of habitat availability in Grays Harbor to that of the entire North Pacific, or total habitat available for marine species in general is not relevant with respect to localized effects to local populations (ESUs and DPSs) and potential degradation to the limited habitat available in the harbor itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79. The combination of the vessel traffic from this project and that from other future actions in the area could create a much higher risk of vessel strikes and associated cetacean mortalities. This should be acknowledged as a potential cumulative effect, especially in light of the significant mortality even currently occurring in gray whales along the west coast.


• The SEPA Checklist states: "The likelihood of a vessel strike is low given that ship strikes remain relatively rare, unpredictable events, the vessels calling on the project would represent only a very small portion of overall vessel trips in northern pacific and the total area affected by increased vessel traffic represents only a small portion of the overall available habitat for species at risk of potential strike."

• However, since the start of 2019, in Washington State alone there have been over 36 gray whale strandings (annual average is typically around 6 whales). While the exact cause of this significant mortality event is still unknown, increased disturbance from underwater noise or any increase in


30 | P a g e

mortality from vessel strikes could have deleterious effects on this population at this time. In addition, blue whales were recently observed off the Washington coast.

• The proposed shipping route would pass through blue whale congregating grounds and could affect foraging behavior, as well as increase the risk of strike-associated mortality. These possible impacts should be addressed in light of the other proposed developments that would increase vessel traffic in and outside the harbor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80. The analysis of impacts from operational noise on wildlife at the GHNWR is cursory and insufficient to determine potential for significant impacts. Baseline noise levels and noise levels during facility operations have not been established, thus impacts to nearby wildlife have not been analyzed.


• The SEPA checklist states that the noise increase due to facility operations is expected to have no impact to shorebirds on the Refuge. This claim is not supported, as no SLM measurement was actually taken at the Refuge to determine baseline levels.

• The SEPA document states, "no specific noise-response levels have been established for shorebirds". The lack of established noise-response levels does not mean there would be no impact.

• Increased noise levels have the potential to also impact other avian species, such as songbirds using both the GHNWR and the remaining undeveloped areas of the project site and shoreline (see Gough et al. 2014, Dorado-Correa et al. 2016, Moseley et al. 2018).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81. The analysis of impacts of construction and operational noise on terrestrial wildlife is limited to the GHNWR and does not adequately consider impacts to the natural habitats and wildlife adjacent to the northern and eastern portions of the facility, despite the acknowledgement that noise levels could be elevated above background levels within 3,200 feet (0.6 mile) during construction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82. The effect of night time lighting of the operational facility on wildlife at the GHNWR is not specifically analyzed.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 110-111 and Executive Summary Pg. 26

• The SEPA checklist acknowledges that “Nighttime lighting at the facility could result in elevated light levels in the adjacent GHNWR and/or in the vicinity of the shiploader. Increased nighttime lighting can affect the behavior of both aquatic and terrestrial species, including potentially altering the behavior of bird resting and foraging behavior”, but no analysis of that potential effect or its significance, nor the efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce light impacts on wildlife is presented.


31 | P a g e

• The impact of night time lights on bird species is not debated, but the extent of the impact and whether it reaches the level of significance is not specifically analyzed. Even if light and glare will be minimized, there is still the potential for negative impacts to migrating birds (see Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2018 and McLaren et al. 2018)

• Given that the GHNWR is of critical importance to the birds transiting the Pacific Flyway, analysis of the potential to alter use of the refuge is warranted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83. The impact of construction activities and nighttime lighting on migrating birds and the adjacent GHNWR and in Grays Harbor (for nighttime dredging) should have be addressed and mitigated for. The SEPA checklist states that nighttime construction is not currently anticipated, but that a Construction Noise Plan would be developed before construction occurs at night to ensure compliance with local noise requirements. No mention is made of the impact of nighttime construction lighting on migrating birds.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 73 and 110

• The construction period is estimated to be 2020 through 2024 or 2025 (a period of almost 5 years). Nighttime lighting adjacent to the refuge, which is a critical stopover site along the Pacific Flyway corridor, would have negative effects on migrating bird species.

• Potential impacts to migratory birds include, but are not limited to, altered migration patterns due to light (Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2018, McLaren et al. 2018) and altered vocalization of songbirds due to light (Da Silva et al. 2014).

• The impacts from lighting during nighttime dredging should also have been analyzed for potential significance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84. The documented occurrence of Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) in the intertidal zone was not included in the intertidal habitat description presented in the JARPA.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85. While most observations of humpback whales have occurred on the outer margins of the Grays Harbor area, there is potential that they could feed in areas farther within the harbor.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 25-26 Section 9.6 and Pg. 40-42 Section 11.1.3

• The increase in vessel traffic (a 92% cumulative increase across multiple projects) includes effects out to 40 miles off the coast (see definition of the BE action area). This level of change in the number of vessels entering the harbor could have a substantially increased effect on the activity and behavior of any humpback whales within the vicinity based on the potential for additional noise, vessel strikes and proximal disturbance.

• The analysis in the BA establishes that injury potential and disturbance potential exist for humpback whales for more than 3 miles from the impact site for impact hammering noise levels. The statement in made in the BA that the “potential for a humpback whale to be exposed


32 | P a g e

to underwater sounds above NOAA fisheries established injury and/or disturbance thresholds is discountable.” Further explanation is needed to reconcile that statement with the commitment by BHP to acquire an incidental harassment permit, or to implement a marine mammal monitoring program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86. In this time of severe depletion of the Southern Resident Killer Whale DPS, additional analysis of effects on potential food resources is warranted.

Document Reference: Biological Evaluation (Rev. 2) Pg. 26. Section 9.7

• The Southern Resident Killer Whale is a severely limited DPS with fewer than 75 animals. Although there is not distinct critical habitat within the Grays Harbor, actions that can affect Chinook salmon and other salmon species that provide food resources for killer whales are considered critical to the species recovery. Areas like Grays Harbor, where Chinook stocks are not currently ESA listed, provide important food resources for migrating animals. Since the populations in Puget Sound are currently listed under ESA, and may be less available for consumption by apex predators, healthy populations like those in Grays Harbor become all the more critical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87. Little analysis is provided of the specific wildlife habitat functions of the palustrine forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands which would be impacted and how those specific functions will be mitigated for via the proposed mitigation actions to achieve the requirement for no net loss of wildlife habitat function.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 64-79; Mitigation Plan Pg. 86-90

• While intertidal habitats proposed at the IDD#1 mitigation site are valuable to some species of wildlife (e.g. shorebirds), they do not support the suite of terrestrial and palustrine wetland species utilizing the existing forested and scrub-shrub habitats which would be lost to site development.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88. A comprehensive analysis of the impacts of this project on the complete suite of avian Federal Species of Concern, State Species of Concern, State Sensitive Species, State Endangered Species, Federally Threatened Species, IUCN Red-listed Species, and Species listed on the 2016 State of the Birds Watchlist has not been completed.

The scientific names of several waterfowl species are also incorrect.

Document Reference: Critical Areas Assessment, Pg. 24-28; SEPA Checklist Pg. 64-66

• The Critical Areas Assessment acknowledges that “portions of Grays Harbor provide habitat for a variety of avian species that are identified as either State Species of Concern, listed by the IUCN, or are on the 2016 NABCI watch list”, the analysis fails to assess the potential impacts of the project on any of these species in the manner that ESA listed species were analyzed.


33 | P a g e

• QIN staff had provided a comprehensive a list documenting individual species that were listed as Federal Species of Concern, State Species of Concern, State Sensitive Species, State Endangered Species, Federally Threatened Species, IUCN Redlisted Species, and Species listed on the 2016 State of the Birds Watchlist that have been documented in the area in and around the proposed project site, but this valuable resource was not utilized.

• The following species are known to occur within Grays Harbor (species occurrence acquired via ebird: https://ebird.org/hotspots?env.minX=-124.354523&env.minY=46.79201&env.maxX=-123.158859&env.maxY=47.53419&yr=all&m= ) and are either State listed, Federally listed, listed by the IUCN, or on the 2016 State of the Birds watchlist (See, https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/listed, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=WA&status=listed, http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2016/resources/species-assessments/, https://www.iucnredlist.org/ ):

• Brandt’s Cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus)- State species of concern.

• Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)- Federal species of concern.

• Common Loon (Gavia immer)- State sensitive species.

• Common Murre (Uria aalge)- State species of concern.

• Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis)- State endangered species.

• Purple Martin (Progne subis)- State species of concern.

• Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis)- State species of concern.

• Red Knot (Calidris canutus)- IUCN redlist: near threatened.

• Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi)- State species of concern.

• Band-tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Black Scoter (Melanitta americana)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Elegant Tern (Thalasseus elegans)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Heerman’s Gull (Larus heermanni)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Semipalmated Sandpiper (Charadrius semipalmatus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Streaked-horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)- State endangered species, Federally threatened species.


34 | P a g e

• Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca/deglandi)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Willet (Tringa semipalmata)- 2016 state of the birds watchlist.

• Ancient Murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkia)- State species of concern.

• McKay’s Bunting (Plectrophenax hyperboreus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Tufted Puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) - State endangered species.

• Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus)- 2016 state of the birds watch list.

• Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes)- IUCN redlist: near threatened.

• The American wigeon is Mareca americana not Anas Americana as stated in the Checklist. • The Blue-winged teal is Spatula discors not Anas discors as stated in the Checklist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


35 | P a g e

4.0 Impacts on Cultural Resources and Treaty Gathering Rights:

89. The SEPA Checklist inaccurately describes Tribal gathering resources, including misstating a key plant species important to the QIN. This calls into question the related analysis of the potential impacts to culturally important resources within the project area.

The impacts to Quinault tribal members gathering materials for basketry have not been adequately assessed.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 12 and Pg. 118

• The SEPA checklist states: “In the vicinity of the Project Site, tribal members also access other natural resources such as sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata). Within the project footprint there are no anticipated impacts to such vegetation. Further, the project is not anticipated to have any impacts to such vegetation outside of the project footprint. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to the Quinault’s ability to access these resources. Vegetation impacts are discussed in Section 4 (Plants).”

• The correct species to reference is Schoenoplectus pungens var. badius, also called common threesquare. Synonyms include: Scirpus americanus Pers. var. monophyllus (J. Presl & C. Presl) T. Koyama; Scirpus monophyllus J. Presl & C. Presl; Scirpus pungens Vahl ssp. monophyllus (J. Presl & C. Presl) Roy L. Taylor & MacBryde (https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=SCPUB)

• There is no question as to the cultural significance of sweetgrass to the Quinault people. If there is sweetgrass that will be negatively affected, it will be important to protect or possibly mitigate for the potential loss.

o There are QIN tribal members that regularly harvest basketry materials in the Bowerman Basin, including sweetgrass.

o The location and extent of sweetgrass presence on or near the BHP site has not been assessed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90. Impacts to archeological resources could occur.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 12 and Pg. 119

• There is a rail line that borders the northern boundary of the Potash Terminal location. This alignment would likely be considered potentially eligible as part of a larger rail resource based on age and it has not undergone substantial modifications since construction. It is not apparent that this will be affected by the project. However, if the rail line is going to be upgraded because of this project, it should be officially evaluated for the NRHP.

• Another report from the same Potash Terminal area, but a different, earlier proposed project (Chambers et al. 2014) also did not identify any cultural resources and did identify the extent of the modern fill from the 1970s. Based on background research and a vague predictive model, this report also indicated a remote possibility to encounter precontact burials or short term habitation sites below the fill in the extreme northern edge of the APE for that project.

• All of the locations have a considerable amount of modern fill materials that are 12–20 feet deep. If the testing methods, or any of the project construction will go into native soils there

https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=SCPUB


36 | P a g e

would be concerns about the potential for intact intertidal precontact sites, particularly fish weir sites, like those found at Newskah Creek (Schalk and Burtchard 2001) on the south side of Grays Harbor and the deeply buried trap discovered at the A & M alternate site that is nearby (Figure 1). Any areas that are not previously dredged or are deeply buried in intertidal sediments have the potential to have these old sites. If projects are going impact native soils, there is the possibility of affecting these sites.

• Deeply buried structures that are a result of precontact fishing would give both traditional ecological knowledge of fisheries technologies and real dates from carbon dating the wood stakes or basketry, etc.

• Concern for historic or archaeological properties in these locations with deep modern fill will be prompted by any construction going below the fill and reaching native soils. Some remedies for this can include stopping construction if they reach native soils and requiring an archaeological monitor.

• Modifications to the design of the Mitigation Site (see comments regarding issues with target elevation of the tidal channel) could result in excavation to depths that may encounter the archaeological resources noted at the IDD#1 site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


37 | P a g e

5.0 Impacts Related to Earthquake, Tsunami, Liquefaction, Sea-Level Rise, and Flooding

91. Impacts related to soil liquefaction, damage from earthquakes and tsunami, sea-level rise and flooding are understated or not evaluated sufficiently to determine potential for significant impacts.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Section B.1.d, Pg. 17 - 18

• The description on the relative risks of soil liquefaction and risks due to seismic activity is inconsistent.

o The initial statement that “there is minimal risk that soil liquefaction and ground shaking during earthquakes will cause injury/death and structural damage” seems to conflict with the statement “According to the DNR Natural Hazards online mapper, the Project Site and IDD #1 have a moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility and are a National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) site Class D to Class E (DNR 2017). Layer information for NEHRP seismic site class states “Site classes C, D, and E represent increasingly softer soil conditions which result in a progressively increasing amplification of ground shaking.” The sites are therefore considered to be a seismic hazard area.”

o The description of the response and mitigating measures to address this risk (one example of pile foundations beneath the project storage building) is inadequate to address the potential risks identified in the analysis.

o Building design measures to address liquefaction and seismic hazards are not presented; Operational Mitigation is stated as including developing more detailed design measures to address liquefaction and seismic hazards during building design and permitting of the project.

• The potential for soil liquefaction and damage from earthquakes and tsunami’s is understated in the SEPA checklist.

o Part D, page 17 and 18, inconsistently states that “there is a minimal risk that soil liquefaction and ground shaking during earthquakes will cause injury/death and structural damage” yet also states that “The Project Site and IDD#1 have a moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility” and Class D to Class E soils, which represent increasingly softer soil conditions which result in progressively increasing amplification of ground shaking” in the event of an earthquake, and are therefore considered to be a seismic hazard area.

o Building design measures and operational measures to address liquefaction and seismic hazards are deferred to the design phase and permitting of the project.

o The analysis of risk to the facility from a tsunami is predicated on a 5-foot-high wall around the potash storage facility, “allowing the building to be sealed within the boundary wall in the event of a flood. This method of construction will likely also be protective against tsunami”. Analysis of the suitability of this protection is deferred to design and permitting phase.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


38 | P a g e

92. The description of the proposed storage building, dumper pit facility, and rail loop in the Geotechnical Report is incomplete and lacks sufficient detail to understand the potential geotechnical effects of construction, operation, and potash spill potential.

The Geotechnical Report clearly acknowledges the serious risks of a subduction earthquake, but presents no analysis of the geotechnical implications, such as scour or impact forces, that facilities will be subjected to in the event of a tsunami related to a subduction earthquake, despite well-established science of the potential for a tsunami accompanying a subduction quake.

Document Reference: Geotechnical Report, Chapter 4.0 and Pg. 19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93. Is there a potential that more than one storage building will be built?

Document Reference: Geotechnical Report, Pg. 3

• Second bullet on p.3 relative to components of the facility and related infrastructure lists “Product storage building (onshore structure) with provision for an adjacent storage building.” This implies a second storage building may be part of the project, which is inconsistent with the project description presented in the SEPA checklist and JARPA. Another storage building, particularly if of similar size, could be a significant impact to the site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94. No grading plan is provided, nor is site topography clearly represented. A detailed grading plan, including information regarding the proposed fill material is essential to evaluate critical geotechnical issues and site susceptibility to flooding, subsidence and tsunamis.

Document Reference: Geotechnical Report

• Based on topographic map provided, ground elevations vary from 10 to 21 ft NAVD88, with average ground surface around 17 ft. Major grading will be required for the proposed facilities including but not limited to the loop railroad and the potash storage facility

• Sheet 14 (p. 33 in Berger ABAM 2018) illustrates the direct wetland impacts at the storage building site via placement of fill to level the site. No information is provided regarding the elevation of the final ground surface or details of the fill material that will be used to fill the wetlands to ensure stability of the storage building and rail tracks.

• Similarly, the pages 14 and 18 of the JARPA note that “Grading will be required for track bed construction” and “BHP will complete a detailed analysis of site grading to offset fill in flood areas in the next phase of design.” Geotechnical implications of site grading and fill cannot be understood without the grading plan.

• Serious consideration should be given to filling site to elevations that will still provide some level of flood and tsunami protection after a co-seismic subsidence of 5 feet. Based on presented plan, all of the facilities drop below flood levels under a scenario of 5 feet of subsidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


39 | P a g e

95. Insufficient information is provided regarding the fill material, grading, final grade, and details of the proposed foundation and walls of the storage building and the foundation/bed of the loop rail tracks to assess stability of these project elements as proposed.

Document Reference: Geotechnical Report, Chapter 4

• Page 11 of the Geotechnical report states “the storage building is underlain by units of soft plastic silt/clay and loose to medium dense sand. The silt and clay soil are relatively recent deposits that are highly compressible.”

• The same paragraph states that the proposed storage building foundation tolerance for vertical settlement is only 2.5 cm.

• The report goes on to state “the storage building foundations should be founded on deep foundations” that extend into the dense glacial outwash gravels over 40 feet below, noting this will require 60 cm diameter steel pipe piles about 52 m (171 ft) long placed at 6 m (18 ft) intervals.

• For the 336 m by 71 m foundation, this would be about 663 piles. • Geotech report section 4.2.2 (p.12) – states “an initial target potash slab settlement criteria

of 15 cm”. This conflicts with 2.5 cm tolerance reported previously on page 11. • Given serious risk of flooding, co-seismic subsidence (~5 ft), and tsunami inundation it is

critical to know what elevation is proposed for the floor of the storage building. • No analysis is presented regarding the extent of a potash spill should the storage building

fail. The large size of the building and volume of potash stored should be assessment relative to the potential of a spill to reach the protected habitats within the GHNWR.

• No geotechnical analysis is presented relative to the ground conditions, extent of settlement, and implications of seismic events for the loop railway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96. The geotechnical basis for a “concrete slab supported by a timber and steel pile foundation”, per JARPA Section 6e, is not clear. The Geotechnical report does not include a “dual” pile option, only timber (option 3) or steel pile (option 4).

Document Reference: Geotechnical Report, Pg. 12-14

• The Geotech report presents 4 options for the foundation (page 12), 3 of which show significant settlement.

• Option 3 (timber piles with reinforced soil mat) has 15 cm of settlement in first year and 66 cm of settlement by 75 years, well above the stated settlement threshold.

• The fourth option (steel piles with reinforced concrete mat) meets the stated threshold for settlement, but on page 14 the report states that “We understand BHP may pursue option 3 or 4 given its balance between cost and performance.”

• The report provides recommendations for Option 3 and Option 4 foundations, but is not clear if these recommendations represent the same conditions that were modeled and presented in the Table on page 13 (Potash Stockpile Settlement Estimation During Operation). If the recommendations for Option 3 are different than modeled, they should be modeled to directly compare to results presented in the table on page 13.

• If recommendations for an Option 3 foundation are same as the modeled conditions, then Option 3 should not be acceptable based on the settlement threshold.


40 | P a g e

• Basic engineering design concept cross-sections are not provided for the storage building foundation, but were provided for the pilings supporting the marine structures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97. The extent of seismic analysis completed for each facility is unclear.


• A table clearly stating what specific seismic, settlement and flood evaluations were done for each facility, including railway, storage facility, dumper pit facility, etc, is needed. The report indicates that evaluations “of effects of dynamic pore pressure generation were performed to evaluate the soil liquefaction and lateral spreading effects on the offshore structures induced by MCE ground motions.” But the extent of similar evaluation for the onshore structures is not clear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98. The potential effects/consequences of soil liquefaction on the proposed site structures is not sufficiently analyzed to determine the potential for impacts.


• The entire project site is at “High” hazard of liquefaction (Slaughter et al. 2013). This is confirmed in the Geotechnical report, but nothing is provided on the implications to the overall site and railway loop.

• The Geotechnical report (4.1.5.4, p.11) states “... all the sand units liquefied in the model within the beginning third of the time histories.” Yet there is no description of how the overall site will be impacted, including storage building, dumper pit, railway, fuel storage, etc. The report simply states the site will experience extreme conditions and indicates how to stabilize a few structures. The potential consequences of structural failures are not addressed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99. The extent to which the subsurface and seismic explorations were conducted consistent with the locations of the currently proposed facilities (per the SEPA and JARPA) is not clearly presented.


• Section 3.1, p.3, Four seismic cone penetration tests (SCPTs) were done “at onshore and nearshore locations” – two “within a previously planned footprint of the storage facility.” The report states that the “latest plans provided by Ausenco show that the storage building location has been moved, thus no CPTs or existing deep explorations exist within the footprint of the storage building.”

• Figure 1 Site and Exploration Plan illustrates only CPT-02 within the footprint of the storage building; CPT-04 is illustrated within the footprint of the Railcar Unloading Facility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


41 | P a g e

100. The Geotechnical Report lacks sufficient analysis of impacts to the proposed structures of flooding, ground settlement, and co-seismic subsidence.


• No details are provided regarding the “wall” surrounding the facility –i.e. elevations, structural details (e.g. will the wall be directly attached to foundation, how will it survive severe ground shaking, subsidence and impact forces of tsunami?)

• On page 28 it states “Buildings within the 100-year floodplain will be elevated 3 ft above the flood elevation or flood proofed.” The “flood” elevation” is not stated.

• There is a 0.35 ft difference in 100-year flood elevation reporting in the project documents – 13.1 ft by WSE (2017) and 13.45 ft by AMEC (2018).

• For context, using the 100-year flood elevation of 13.45 ft NAVD88 (per AMEC 2018), the proposed buildings would be sitting on ground 16.45 ft NAVD88 based on the ‘3 ft above flood elevation’ statement. Based on site topography on Sheet 15 of 16 JARPA July 2019 (in the absence of a grading plan), ground surface elevations vary from 13 to 21 feet NAVD88. The ground surface of the site appears to average about 16-18 feet NAVD88.

• The specifications above don’t account for impacts of any settlement, either co-seismic or ground compaction (such as resulting from heavily loaded railcars).

• Wave run-up and setup is estimated to be about 2 ft above the 100-year flood water elevation (WSE 2017), which should be accounted for. This would require buildings to be at approximately 18.45 ft NAVD 88.

• The project area is a severe risk of co-seismic subsidence estimated to be about 5 ft (Wang et al. 2013). Thus, if buildings were built at 16.45 ft, subsidence would drop them to 11.45 ft, well below 100-year flood elevations. If buildings were built to 18.45 ft to account for wave runup and setup, with subsidence they would drop to 13.45 ft, approximately the current estimated elevation of the 100-year flood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101. The geotechnical analysis does not address the risk and effects of tsunamis.


• State hazard mapping in 2000 estimates tsunami heights associated with a co-seismic earthquake about 3.5 ft above the at the project site (Walsh et al. 2000, Westway Expansion Project Final EIS [ICF 2016]). The Westway Expansion Project Final EIS (ICF 2016) indicates that larger seismic events could trigger tsunamis with wave heights of 23-33 feet NAVD88 near the project site. “This means that in the event of a large-scale CSZ earthquake there is a potential for tsunami waves (water and debris) reaching the proposed [Westway] facilities at the project site 21 to 26 ft above the ground surface, after co-seismic subsidence occurs.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102. The geotechnical analysis does not address the risk and effects of sea-level rise over the projected lifespan of the proposed facility.


• Sea level rise estimates will increase 100-year flood elevations 0.65 to 2.10 ft (14.1 to 15.55 ft NAVD 88) depending on a low or high carbon emission scenario (AMEC 2018). Given that


42 | P a g e

high emission scenarios are proving more accurate and at very least are more conservative, the higher end of estimates would be appropriate for use in developing final site elevations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103. Flooding due to tsunami is not assessed in the Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis report. See for example https://washingtonstategeology.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/newly-published-southwest-washington-tsunami-inundation-hazard-maps/

Document Reference: Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis Report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104. The sea level rise estimate used in the future conditions mapping (Figure 8) of +1.1 foot is similar to other studies, but is not worst-case projection.

Document Reference: Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis Report, Figure 8

• Sea level rise projections are taken at 2100 and include a range of mean predicted rises of 0.65 ft to 1.1 feet and maximum predicted sea level rise of 1.52 and 2.10 feet for lower and higher carbon emission scenarios.

• The range is similar to, but smaller than, the range of values (0.4 feet to 4.7 feet by 2110) reported in Thorne et al (2015) the reference used as part of the basis for the salt marsh mitigation design. Thorne et al. used National Research Council 2012 estimates.

• After the proponent’s flood memo was completed, Washington Sea Grant released probabilistic estimates of sea level rise along Washington’s coast that incorporate estimates of vertical land motion. The Sea Grant estimates for Hoquiam at the year 2100 include a 50% probability of 1.2 to 1.7 feet based in different emissions scenarios.

• Therefore, the sea level rise (SLR) estimate used in the future conditions mapping (Figure 8) of +1.1 foot is similar to other studies, but is not worst-case projection. From the flood memo, it is not clear what level of SLR is used in planning for the project.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105. Mitigation measures related to flooding are not presented in the documents or how the project will be designed to address the identified flood hazards.

Document Reference: Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis Report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106. The floodplain assessment only reports total water levels – they do not distinguish between still water level, wave heights, and wave runup in how they used the SLR projections to assess total water level. We recommend utilizing the analysis presented for the mitigation site to inform potential wave influence at the proposed facility.

Document Reference: Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis Report, Pg. 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://washingtonstategeology.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/newly-published-southwest-washington-tsunami-inundation-hazard-maps/

https://washingtonstategeology.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/newly-published-southwest-washington-tsunami-inundation-hazard-maps/


43 | P a g e

107. 100-year wave heights in Attachment D in the Mitigation Plan are estimated at approximately 5 feet at MHHW (Table 5 in Attachment D) – it is unclear how these estimates are integrated into the flood assessment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108. There is a proposed ring levee/North Shore Levee on the north end of the mitigation site as part of the City of Hoquiam’s future flood defenses. The potential influence of the ring levee on the mitigation site is not discussed.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109. The effects of sea level rise on contaminant release was not analyzed.

Document Reference: Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Analyses Report, Pg. 78-79

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110. The effects of the proposed Hoquiam West Levee and the Aberdeen North Shore Levee on flooding with sea level rise have not been analyzed.

Document Reference: Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Analyses Report, Pg. 78-79

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


44 | P a g e

6.0 Insufficient Analysis of Potential for Significant Cumulative Impacts

111. Cumulative impacts of concurrent North Shore Levee, Hoquiam West Levee, Renewable Energy Group (REG) expansion of Terminal 1, Contanda project, and BHP potash shipping facility have not been adequately assessed. The West Levee project is not included in the SEPA assessment.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist Section 9. Applications Pending for Governmental Approvals, Pg. 5

• Basing the cumulative effects analysis on the idea that future projects will be required to mitigate their impacts negates the point of a cumulative impacts analysis. The cumulative impacts analysis in the SEPA Checklist lacks adequate detail on the actual cumulative impacts to aquatic habitats and species from the Project and the Contanda project. (Executive Summary, Pg. 21)

• The proposed Hoquiam West Levee proposed by the Chehalis Basin Flood Authority intended to protect the area west of the Hoquiam River is not included in the cumulative impacts analysis.

o The Chehalis Basin Flood Authority has provided a $250,000 grant to advance a preliminary design of the Hoquiam West Levee by July 2019, making this a reasonably foreseeable project which would directly affect the properties covered by the proposal.

o The Preliminary Concept for the West Levee indicates it would be located along the northern edge of both the project site and the IDD#1 mitigation site.

• The anticipated REG expansion facility at the Port’s Terminal 1 is not included in the cumulative impacts analysis, despite the anticipated expansion of exports from Terminal 1 in the reasonably foreseeable future.

o It does not appear that any attempt was made to determine if a REG expansion project is a reasonably foreseeable project.

o Although REG is no longer proposing to export crude oil from Terminal 1, Ecology’s website indicates that REG is “revising its expansion proposal” to expand exports from its facilities. Increases in import and export from the REG facility would influence the same rail lines as the Contanda and BHP facility and further vessel traffic in the navigation channel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

112. The Cumulative Impacts analysis relative to Earth resources does not consider the potential for an earthquake, tsunami, or strong storm to simultaneously damage both the Contanda and the BHP facility and the consequent effect of materials release on the environment or on the need for and ability of emergency services to respond at both facilities.

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Section B.1.d, Pg. 17 - 18 and 22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

113. No evidence or analysis is presented to justify the conclusion that there are no significant cumulative impacts to water resources resulting from the Project and the Contanda Project.


45 | P a g e

Document Reference: SEPA Checklist, Pg. 40 - 54

• The discussion on cumulative impacts to water makes no mention of the combined increase in vessel traffic of 92% over current levels when the Project and Contanda estimated increases are combined.

• There is no mention of the watershed-wide efforts in the Chehalis Basin to improve habitat for salmon and other aquatic species that will pass through Grays Harbor. The Aquatic Species Restoration Plan (ASRP) is currently funded at over $200 million and is intended to increase habitat and populations of salmon and other species in the Chehalis Basin. ASRP activities will be affected by changes in the harbor habitat, specifically nearshore and intertidal areas that are used by salmonids for growth and feeding. The potential impact of this Project on those concentrated efforts to increase salmon populations and use by salmonids and other aquatic species in Grays Harbor should be included as part of the cumulative impacts analysis.

• The cumulative impacts assessment includes only the anticipation of short-term water quality impacts to water resources during construction of the North Shore Levee project, rather than also considering long-term impacts on flooding, sediment transport, etc.

• No analysis is provided of the cumulative impacts of the construction of the North Shore Levee project to wetlands. The Levee project could affect the same type and category of wetlands as the BHP project and thus affect the same suite of plant and animal species.

• The discussion on Cumulative Impacts with respect to dredging relies on project-specific mitigation, stating that with the minimization and mitigation of the project effects, the Project will achieve “no net loss of aquatic habitat.” The mitigation proposed will create tidal channels at the IDD#1 location that are designed to offset the loss of shoreline and intertidal habitat at the Project site.

o The mitigation as currently proposed may not result in habitat that provides for the same level and type of function as that habitat that is lost (see comments regarding mitigation design).

o The value and use of shoreline, nearshore, and intertidal habitats differs, both for Forage fish and other organisms that provide important food resources to salmonids (Ehinger et al. 2015), as well as to species such as green sturgeon, bull trout, and salmon.

i. The habitats required by forage fish (e.g. sand lance, surf smelt, herring) are specific and based on substrate size, intertidal vegetation and other characteristics. Removal of areas of intertidal habitat, which may provide the specific sediments needed for sand lance or surf smelt spawning, would not be compensated for by the installation of tidal channels, which may not provide those same conditions for forage fish.

o More detailed analysis is needed about the specific habitats and functions of the current habitat and proposed mitigation before a conclusion of “not net loss of aquatic habitat” can be reached.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


46 | P a g e

114. The conclusion of no cumulative impacts on wildlife does not address the potential for cumulative impacts to fish and aquatic/marine wildlife from the dramatic increase in rail and vessel traffic effects, and concurrent increased risk of entrainment, vessel strikes, spills or derailment resulting from the combination of the proposed project and the Contanda project.


• 290 cargo vessels and 13 tankers transit Grays Harbor per year under existing conditions. That number will increase by 268 additional cargo vessels per year with the Contanda and BHP projects dramatically increasing the number and frequency of cargo vessels in the navigation channel.

• The conclusion of no cumulative impacts on wildlife is partially predicated on the success of the proposed mitigation achieving no net loss of ecological function. The IDD#1 mitigation site does not replace or mitigate for the loss of terrestrial wildlife habitats at the project site and the design of the tidal channels does not support a conclusion that the mitigation site will function as intended.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

115. The SEPA checklist identifies that the cumulative impacts for the project, the Contanda Project, and the North Shore Levee Project have the potential for “effects of greater extent than each project taken alone.” However, the argument for no net effect of the Project is based on matching compensatory mitigation at the individual project scale, rather than at a larger cumulative effect scale. Documentation is needed on where and how the effects greater that the individual project effects (i.e. the cumulative impacts) are accounted for to provide “no net loss of function.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

116. The combined cumulative effects from dredging of the proposed project and the Contanda project are acknowledged as having the potential to result in negative environmental impacts, but that potential in inappropriately dismissed and adequate mitigation is not presented.


• From the SEPA Checklist: “Current and future dredging activities result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic habitats, and have the potential to directly affect fish and aquatic species through impingement. The combined cumulative effect of these projects has the potential to result in effects of a greater extent than the individual projects taken alone”

• The mitigation for the cumulative impacts is presented as individual mitigation, consistent with ‘securing permits’ and does not address the acknowledged ‘greater extent than the individual projects taken alone’ nature of the impacts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

117. The analysis of cumulative impacts from operational vessel noise is cursory and insufficient to determine potential for significant impacts.


47 | P a g e


• The increase in noise is characterized as ‘temporary’ and “limited, given the number of vessels produced by the two projects (5 vessels per week, combined) in comparison to existing vessel traffic (7 vessels)”. But is also characterized as having the potential to cause behavioral modifications to fish and other ESA-listed species while vessels (from the proposed project) are present.

o The cumulative impact characterization does not reflect that vessel noise would occur every day and that the Contanda project combined with the proposed facility would nearly double the number of cargo vessels transiting Grays Harbor each year (268 additional cargo vessels per year, a near doubling of vessel traffic over the 290 annual cargo vessels under existing conditions).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

118. The risk of a material spill along the rail tracks from the cumulative increase in train traffic from the proposed project and the Contanda project (an increase of up to 5 train trips per day) is not analyzed and the proposed mitigation is insufficient.


• There are no enforceable aspects to the proposed rail transportation mitigation of BHP coordinating with emergency services providers to establish access and plan for possible access impacts for emergency services providers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

119. There is no analysis of cumulative impacts to public services, particularly the potential need for increased oil-spill response vessels, training, equipment etc. which could result from the increase in vessel and rail traffic due to the combined vessel and rail traffic created by the Contanda and the proposed project.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

120. Cumulative air quality impacts of concurrent operations from the BHP, Contanda, and possible REG projects were not analyzed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses report.

Document Reference: Updated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses

• The updated air quality analysis took into account mobile source emissions, increased the geographic scope to include supply chain emissions, as well as facility operational emissions and air quality impacts, but did not address cumulative impacts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

121. The potential for interactions between the groundwater at the site and surface waters surrounding the Project site were not assessed.


48 | P a g e

• This may be particularly relevant given the proposed ‘dumper pit’ which will be below ground and potentially in contact with groundwater (Geotechnical Report and JARPA Pg.12).

• According to the Hydrogeologic Framework and Groundwater/Surface-Water Interactions of the Chehalis River Basin, Southwestern Washington (Gendaszek 2011), “Groundwater levels measured in wells in unconsolidated sediments fluctuated with changes in stream stage, often within several hours. These fluctuations were set by precipitation events in the upper Chehalis River basin and tides of the Pacific Ocean in the lower Chehalis River basin.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

122. The cumulative impacts discussion fails to recognize that with historic loss of function in other areas of the Harbor, additional loss due to the proposed project and the Contanda project becomes even more critical.


• Historic loss of shoreline and benthic habitat in the Grays Harbor Basin increases, rather than decreases, the relative impact of the placement of piles in the intertidal and subtidal. If more of the habitat in the basin were functional, there would be a higher probability that salmonids and benthic species could use alternative habitat areas. This concept should be part of the cumulative impacts discussion, but is missing from the analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


49 | P a g e

7.0 Insufficient Mitigation Proposed

123. Mitigation effectiveness is not supported by current analyses and mitigation plan.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan: Mitigation for Pilings and Aquatic Habitat Impacts (Page 12 of 119 – n. Compensatory Mitigation section)

• The statements of mitigation effectiveness cannot be supported until analyzed and agreed to by the QIN since these are habitat, fish and shellfish resources protected by treaty and net losses are not acceptable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

124. The Terminal 4 mitigation site will not provide the same habitat function as the impacted habitat areas.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan: Mitigation for Pilings and Aquatic Habitat Impacts (Page 12– Compensatory Mitigation section)

• Mitigation proposed by BHP includes a piling removal project upstream from the mouth of the Hoquiam River near Terminal 4 meant to mitigate for piling impacts to intertidal and subtidal habitat at the project site. The habitat areas are quite different and it is likely that there will be much less use of the mitigation area by juvenile Dungeness crab than at the project site. The shoreline mudflats in the mitigation area are not comparable to the project area and will likely not fully restore the habitat used by juvenile crab.

• The Terminal 4 piling areas are in a narrower channel area of the Chehalis River and will have much more current from river and tidal flows than the Terminal 3 area. The accumulated sediments around the larger of the piling structures proposed for removal will diminish with the loss of the pilings that hold them in-place. This will create a new subtidal river-bank area not suitable for foraging juvenile Dungeness crab or the eelgrass habitats that are now present at the Terminal 3 site.

• It is also likely that salinity regimes will be markedly different at the project and mitigation sites. The mitigation site is confined to the Chehalis River channel and the project site is associate with an upper area of the estuary. The Terminal 4 mitigation site will have much more riverine influence as compared to the project site and likely not suitable to the salinity tolerance of juvenile Dungeness crab and eelgrass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

125. Without a documented geomorphic and hydraulic basis of design analysis, the IDD#1 Site wetland and aquatic mitigation design is significantly flawed. The appropriate analysis needs to be conducted and the geomorphic and hydraulic basis of design presented.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Part VI

• The authors state that the IDD#1 Site salt marsh habitats are “modeled after a reference marsh system in Bowerman Basin on the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge.” In the Mitigation Plan a hydraulic model is used to design the upper and lower tidal marsh plant community elevations, based off of reference tidal marsh plant community elevations. However, critically,


50 | P a g e

there is no geomorphic analysis of the tidal channel network pattern (marsh slough layout) or tidal channel hydraulic geometry relationships. Williams (1986) and Williams et al. (2002) present what are currently industry standard protocols for geomorphic and hydraulic designs of west coast North American tidal marsh slough networks and tidal channel hydraulic geometry.

• Hydraulic modeling is used to base the mitigation site tidal marsh plant community elevations off of the reference wetland relationships, however, this does not address the critical issue of how the mitigation site will evolve over time. Coastal tidal marsh systems within the Grays Harbor estuary are dynamic, geomorphically changing over time. The current IDD#1 wetland design appears to be static given that the inlet and outlet inverts to the tidal marsh are hardened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

126. The design and mitigation performance effectiveness monitoring of the proposed IDD#1 site tidal wetland complex are not adequately documented.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. Part VII

• The mitigation performance effectiveness monitoring does not adequately address the geomorphic evolution of the tidal marsh sloughs, marsh plains and inlet and outlets. The evolution of the restored tidal marsh over the ten-year monitoring period should be documented based upon the predictions of the geomorphic and hydraulic basis of design to document if the tidal marsh system is self-sustaining (Zedler 2001).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

127. The vast majority of impacted wetlands are not estuarine or tidal; most are palustrine forested and scrub-shrub. The 2008 Mitigation Rule specifies the use of a watershed approach in determining appropriate mitigation type and location, and should have been applied to determine appropriate mitigation for the specific functions of these palustrine wetlands, even if the final proposed mitigation is out of kind (i.e. tidal restoration).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

128. The proposed tidal channel design, particularly in terms of plan view alignment, channel density, channel cross-section, is not supported in the documentation and is not consistent with tidal channels in the vicinity.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Part VI

• Tidal channel morphology is typically a function of tidal prism, or at least the area of the contributing basin in the marsh, neither of which are discussed in the mitigation plan or Appendix D.

• The JARPA states that the channels will be excavated to a ‘final elevation’ such that they are ‘inundated throughout the typical range of flows and tidal conditions’ and won’t create fish stranding. Constant inundation is inconsistent with the natural formation and function of tidal channels.


51 | P a g e

• The interconnected channel (i.e., the primary tidal channel connects all the way through the site), is not a typical tidal channel morphology. It is unlikely that this alignment will persist – aggradation is likely at some point resulting in two blind channel systems.

• No reference data are provided on channel morphology from adjacent tidal channels.

• The tidal channel design includes armor at the channel mouths to prevent scour. The need for scour protection is not supported, and is not consistent with allowing channel adjustments over time and will ultimately limit habitat provided with in the site.

• No cross-sectional view of the proposed channels is included in the mitigation design.

• The bottom elevation of the tidal channels at 4.0 feet NAVD88 appears to be much higher than reference channels in the region.

• Historical photos suggest that previous (but not undisturbed) tidal channel configurations here were blind channels that drained generally southward in the mudflats (see Figure 1 inserted below).

Figure 1. From Wetland Report - IR view from 1974

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

129. The description of the tidal channel function does not provide confidence that the design will provide comparable habitat to intertidal habitat that is being converted to subtidal.


• The constant inundation of the channels under all tidal cycles would prevent the flushing flows needed to bring additional oxygen into the system. Areas in Hood Canal, that are not adequately flushed during high summer temperatures, become undersaturated with dissolved oxygen and create potential areas where aquatic species mortality can increase (University of Washington, 2004). See related comment regarding the Mitigation Plan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


52 | P a g e

130. The site hydrology used for design in incomplete.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. Part VI

• The freshwater drainage input immediately west of the site has not been incorporated into the site design. While this may represent untreated stormwater, there may be a benefit to incorporating this drainage into the tidal channel network.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

131. The placement of wood on-site and the accumulation of wood on-site over time needs further thought.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. 73

• The mitigation design does not explicitly discuss the function of accumulated wood over time. Reviewing recent aerials indicates that the prevailing winds (discussed in the mitigation plan) drives accumulations of wood in south facing shores, so we would anticipate this process occurring here.

• The reference for inclusions of large wood structures in a tidal marsh is not provided. The description of placement with limited ballast suggests that these structures will be dynamic over time and will not be inundated with much frequency.

• The installation of wood in the tidal channels, although a potential source of cover for aquatic species, should be presented within the context of the current levels of wood wracking along the local shorelines, as well as the potential for negative effects on the tidal channel design from a stationary, anchored element in an inherently evolving tidal environment (SEPA P. 79).

• Anchoring large woody material within an inherently shifting landscape of a tidal mudflat/channel/marsh is not supported by reference conditions.

• Wood structures appear to be on the edge of the tidal channels in Figure 5 on p. 7. Wood placement design needs to be reconsidered for consistency with geomorphic setting and to provide more complex cover for fish and aquatic species at the mouth of the river.

• The current level of use of tidal channels by fish species in the area is not sufficiently documented. Specific information on the depths, velocities and periods of inundation in tidal channels is needed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

132. The planting design is not appropriate for a tidal marsh restoration project.


• The Mitigation Plan inaccurately anticipates successful plant establishment within areas currently occupied by reed canarygrass in Wetlands A and B on the IDD#1 mitigation site.

• The Mitigation Plan specifies removal of only the upper 6 inches of the reed canarygrass rootmat from Wetlands A and B at the IDD#1 mitigation site, and replacement with a 6-inch layer of hogfuel mulch. The rootmat of reed canarygrass routinely extends 12 to 16 inches below ground.


53 | P a g e

• The construction sequence on Page 71 suggests that grading will not be complete until after seeds have germinated – it is unlikely that salt marsh germination will occur quickly – how long could the site be held for? How can grading be accomplished after germination without compromising seedling establishment?

• The mitigation plan calls for using seeds and plugs to jumpstart vegetation development. Seeding salt water tidal marshes is very complex and is not typically included in restoration projects in Puget Sound or Grays Harbor. For example, at the WSDOT Grass Creek wetland mitigation project, native recruitment of salt marsh species was used as the primary revegetation approach.

• Installing plugs at 4 foot on center in the low salt marsh will be challenging after the site is open to tidal inundation.

• It is not clear if hydroseeding with tackifier is proposed within the tide range.

• The plan (Page 73) calls for hogfuel to be used as mulch in the higher planting areas. Hogfuel is not well controlled in terms of material and can include a wide range of particle sizes, sources, and mineral soil, so may not be the best material for this application.

• The mitigation Plan (Table 6 on Page 74) suggests that the tidal channels will be seeded, which is not appropriate as tidal channels are typically unvegetated or only sparsely vegetated with macroalgae.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

133. A portion of the outboard (southern) berm is proposed to be left that will separate the salt marsh from the harbor. An outer berm is not evident in the adjacent reference marshes so this feature will not resemble natural marshes in terms of the transition from salt marsh to mudflat.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Attachment A, Sheet 11 of 29

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

134. Geomorphic performance standards should be implicit in the basis of design and verification that the tidal network pattern and hydraulic geometry are developing as envisioned should be included in the required monitoring plan.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Part VII

• Although tidal hydrology and salinity monitoring is proposed in support of documenting tidal marsh vegetation physical conditions, the tidal marsh slough network and channel hydraulic geometry is not proposed for monitoring. The sustainability of the mitigation site is dependent upon the underlying geomorphic physical template. Standard industry protocols are that the geomorphology of the restored system be monitored to document that that the mitigation is meeting geomorphic performance targets set in the basis of design (Zedler 2001).

• See for example Williams et al. (2002): “These empirical hydraulic geometry relationships can be used for a variety of purposes, including sizing tidal channel excavations in restored marshes, predicting channel sedimentation or erosion responses to changes in upstream tidal prism, and estimating the minimum tidal prism and corresponding marsh size necessary to provide


54 | P a g e

sustainable subtidal channel habitat for resident fish. The equilibrium hydraulic geometry relationships for mature or several thousand-year-old “ancient” marshes described here represent the dynamic equilibrium endpoint, or asymptote, of channel morphologic characteristics of a fully mature tidal marsh system. They can be used to assess the degree of disequilibrium of perturbed marsh channels and their evolutionary trajectory. Perturbations may include, for example, tidal prism reduction by diking, tidal prism increase due to upstream dike breaching for tidal wetland restoration, or artificial tidal channel deepening by dredging.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

135. The TUFLOW model needs further refinement.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Attachment D

• Attachment D indicates that the TUFLOW model was set up with a 0.05 roughness values for both the marsh plain and tidal channels, with the exception of higher roughness at the riprap areas. The 0.05 roughness value likely overestimates roughness within the tidal channel which would influence the velocity values.

• Attachment D shows the western boundary of the Coarse TUFLOW model being located within about 1,000 feet of the western tidal outlet which may be close enough to require closer review to ensure that the boundary condition isn’t having undue influence on the model results.

• Additional hydraulic modeling is needed to identify the potential for flushing flows to ensure that the tidal channels remain open and that placed wood does not become a sediment storage problem that would create barriers to access in the channel, or result in channel filling and loss of mitigation effect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

136. There is no discussion of longshore sediment transport in the mitigation plan. Local sediment transport is altered with the maintenance of the navigational channel, so should be addressed.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

137. The presence of contaminants above MTCA clean up levels is discussed in the mitigation plan, and indicates that 2 feet of over excavation will occur if contaminants are encountered at finish grade. It is not discussed how testing will occur. Further, 2 feet of over excavation and fill at elevations within the tide range will be challenging, and with the groundwater elevations noted in Appendix D.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

138. Flood protection elevation values are slightly inconsistent and the proposed ring levee on the north end of the mitigation site should be included in analyses.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Attachment D


55 | P a g e

• The level of flood protection referenced in the mitigation plan (13 ft NAVD 88) is subtly different than the 13.3 ft NAVD 88 for Transect 73 reported as the 100-year level in the AMEC Foster Wheeler report (AMEC 2018) and in Attachment D.

• There is a proposed ring levee on the north end of the mitigation site as part of the City of Hoquiam’s future flood defenses. The potential influence of the ring levee on the mitigation site is not discussed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

139. The specific hydrologic, water quality, and wildlife habitat functions of the forested and scrub-shrub wetlands (Wetlands A and B) were not analyzed relative to the proposed creation and rehabilitation at the IDD#1 site, which is focused on the functions of estuarine wetlands.


• No mitigation is presented for the loss of passerine bird, reptile, or amphibian habitat functions provided by the forested and scrub-shrub wetlands which would be impacted.

• No analysis is presented which considers the limited extent of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands nearshore in the lower estuary, and particularly the supportive function of such habitats adjacent to the predominately mudflat/tidal marsh habitat of the GHNWR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

140. The proposed tidal channels (even when combined with overwater structure removal and piling removals) offer insufficient mitigation for impacts to intertidal zone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

141. How do we know this mitigation package is a net increase in water quality? Is there an analysis or is this an assumption based on number of acres of wetland created vs destroyed?

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. 4

• “The net result is a robust compensatory mitigation package that will result in a net increase in water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat function, and that will result in no net loss of wetland or aquatic habitat functions or values”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

142. The Mitigation Plan lacks provisions for Long-Term Management and Maintenance of the mitigation sites. What about financial assurances beyond the 10-year establishment period? Does BHP intend to maintain the Hoquiam Preservation Site and IDD#1 in perpetuity?

Why has BHP chosen a "Conservation Covenant" as the means of long-term protection for IDD#1 and Hoquiam River Preservation Site? Between what parties will the covenant exist? Will the covenant details be publicly available? Why choose a covenant over a conservation easement?


56 | P a g e

143. Knowing the answers to these questions is essential to understanding the degree of long-term protection for the proposed mitigation sites.

Document Reference: Mitigation Plan, Pg. 113 Part X. Site Protection and Financial Assurances. 1.Conservation Covenant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


57 | P a g e

References AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC). 2018. Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis.

Prepared for BHP Billiton Canada, Inc. February 27, 2018. 31 pages.

Berger ABAM. 2018. Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility (NWS-2017-715) – Aquatic Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation Summary. Technical Memorandum prepared for Brian Shay, City of Hoquiam. 35 pages.

Boehm, P.D., Brown, J., Camp, H., Cook, L., Trefry, J., Trocine, R.P, Rember, R.D., and Shepard, G. 2001. ANIMIDA Phase I: Arctic Nearshore Characterization and Monitoring of the Physical Environment in the Northstar and Liberty Development Areas. OCS Study MMS-2001-104. Minerals Management Service, Alaska OC Region, Anchorage, AK.

Cabrera-Cruz, S.A., Smolinsky, J.A., and Buler, J.J. Light pollution is greatest within migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds around the world. Nature (Scientific Reports) 8:3261.

Da Silva, A., et al. 2014. Artificial night lighting rather than traffic noise affects the daily timing of dawn and dusk singing in common European songbirds. Behavioral Ecology 25:1037-1047

Densmore, C.L., Iwanowicz, L.R., Henderson, A.P., Blazer, V.S., Reed-Grimmett, B.M., Sanders, L.R., 2018. An evaluation of the toxicity of potassium chloride, active compound in the molluscicide potash, on salmonid fish and their forage base (USGS Numbered Series No. 2018–1080), Open-File Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Dorado-Correa, A.M., Rodriguez-Rocha, M., Brumm, H. 2016. Anthropogenic noise, but not artificial light levels predicts song behaviour in an equatorial bird. Royal Society of Open Science 3(7).

Ehinger, S.I., Fisher, J.P., McIntosh, R., Molenaar, D., and Walters, J. 2015. Working Draft, April 2015: Use of The Puget Sound Nearshore Habitat Values Model with Habitat Equivalency Analysis for Characterizing Impacts and Avoidance Measures for Projects that Adversely Affect Critical Habitat of ESA-Listed Chinook and Chum Salmon.

Gendaszek, A.S., 2011. Hydrogeologic framework and groundwater/surface-water interactions of the Chehalis River basin, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5160, 42 p.

Grasso, D., Strevett, K, and Pesari, H. (1994). "Impact of Sodium and Potassium on Environmental Systems."

Gough, D.C., Mennill, D.J., and Nol, E. 2014. Singing seaside: Pacific Wrens (Troglodytes pacificus) change their songs in the presence of natural and anthropogenic noise. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology Jun 2014 : Vol. 126, Issue 2, pg(s) 269- 278https://doi.org/10.1676/13-088.1

ICF International. 2016. Westway Expansion Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Main Report. September 2016. Accessed: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/separ/Main/SEPA/Record.aspx?SEPANumber=201605334

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Accessed September 2019. https://www.iucnredlist.org/

https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/separ/Main/SEPA/Record.aspx?SEPANumber=201605334

https://www.iucnredlist.org/


58 | P a g e

Island Trust Conservancy, 2019. Forage Fish Habitat Assessments. http://www.islandstrustconservancy.ca/initiatives/marineconservation/foragefish.aspx. Accessed August 30, 2019.

Larsen, E, J., Azerrad, M., Nordstrom, N., editors. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA

Loehr, L.C., and Collias, E.E. 1981. A Review of Water Characteristics of Grays Harbor 1938-1979 and an Evaluation of Possible Effects of the Widening and Deepening Project upon Present Water Characteristics. No. REF-M80-22. WASHINGTON UNIV SEATTLE DEPT OF OCEANOGRAPHY

MacDonald, M.A. 2006. The indirect effects of increased nutrient inputs on birds in the UK: a review. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

McCauley, J.E., Parr, R.A. and Hancock, D.R. (1977). Benthic infauna and maintenance dredging: A case study. Water Research, 11: 233-242.

McLaren, J.D., Buler, J.J., Schreckengost, T., Smolinsky, J.A., Boone, M., Emiel van Loon, E., Dawson, D. K. and Walters, E. L. (2018), Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat use by migrating birds. Ecol Lett, 21: 356-364. doi:10.1111/ele.12902

Moseley, D.L., et al. 2018. Acoustic adaptation to city noise through vocal learning by a songbird. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Volume: 285 Issue: 1888 Article Number: 20181356 Published: OCT 10 2018

Nightingale, B. and Simenstad, C. 2001. Dredging Activities: Marine Issues. White Paper submitted to Washington State Transportation Commission. Report No. WA-RD 507.1, 182 p.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). 2016. State of North America’s Birds 2016. Cornell University. Accessed September 2019. http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2016/resources/species-assessments/

Ortega, C.P. (2012). "Chapter 2: Effects of noise pollution on birds: A brief review of our knowledge." Ornithological Monographs 74.1: 6-22.

Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (PMEP) West Coast Estuary Viewer. 2019. Accessed: September 6, 2019. https://psmfc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f25b8d649f2a46cbafc5c66fe21c99de

Rehitha, T., Ullas, N., Vineetha, G., Benny, P., Madhu, N., Revichandran. (2017). Impact of maintenance dredging on microbenthic community structure of a tropical estuary. Ocean and Coastal Management 144:71-82.

Simplício, N.C.S., et al. 2016) "Comparative analysis between ecotoxicity of nitrogen-, phosphorus-, and potassium-based fertilizers and their active ingredients." Toxics 5.1 (2016): 2

Smyth, K. and Elliott, M. 2016. Effects of changing salinity on the ecology of the marine environment. DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718826.003.0009). In: Stressors in the Marine Environment, Chapter: 9, Publisher: Open University Press, Editors: Martin Solan, Nia Whiteley.

http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2016/resources/species-assessments/

http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2016/resources/species-assessments/

https://psmfc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f25b8d649f2a46cbafc5c66fe21c99de

https://psmfc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f25b8d649f2a46cbafc5c66fe21c99de


59 | P a g e

Suttle, K.B., Power, M.E., Levine, J.M., and Mcneely, C. "How Fine Sediment In Riverbeds Impairs Growth And Survival Of Juvenile Salmonids." Ecological Applications 14.4 (2004): 969-74.

Tabor, R.A., Bell, A.T.C, Lantz, D.W., Gregersen, C.N., Berge, H.B., and Hawkins, D.K. (2017). “Phototaxic Behavior of Subyearling Salmonids in the Nearshore Area of Two Urban Lakes in Western Washington State,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 146, no. 4, 2017, pp. 753–761., doi:10.1080/00028487.2017.1305988.

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2019. Ebird: Explore Hotspots. Cornell University. Accessed September 2019. https://ebird.org/hotspots?env.minX=-124.354523&env.minY=46.79201&env.maxX=-123.158859&env.maxY=47.53419&yr=all&m=

Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Simenstad, C.A. & Stamatiou, L.A. (2007) “Fish Distribution, Abundance, and Behavior along City Shoreline Types in Puget Sound,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 27:2, 465-480.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. ECOTOX Knowledgebase [WWW Document]. URL https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/search.cfm (accessed 8.30.19).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover, 06/19/2012, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-19/pdf/2012-13886.pdf

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Listed species believed to or known to occur in Washington. Accessed September 2019. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=WA&status=listed

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2012) Construction Noise Impact Assessment, Biological Assessment Preparation Advanced Training Manual Version 02-2012, http://nrc.gov/docs/ML1225/ML12250A723.pdf

University of Washington, 2004. Sea Grant Program Report. https://wsg.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Low-Dissolved-Oxygen-in-Hood-Canal.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2019.

Walsh, T. J., Curuthers, C.G., Heinitz, A.C., Meyers, E.P., Baptista, A.M., Erdakos, G.B. and Kamphaus, R.A. 2000. Tsunami hazard map of the southern Washington coast – modeled tsunami inundation from a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-49, 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000, with 12p. text.

Wang, P.L., Engelhart, S.E., Wang, K., Hawkes A.D., Horton, B.P., Nelson, A.R., and Witter, R.C. 2013. Heterogeneous Rupture in the Great Cascadia Earthquake of 1700 Inferred from Coastal Subsidence Estimates. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 118: 1-14.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. State Listed Species. Accessed September 2019. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/threatened%20and%20endangered%20species%20list.pdf

Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE). 2017. North Shore Levee, Aberdeen and Hoquiam, WA – Hydraulic Analysis and Floodplain Mapping. Memo to KPFF Consulting Engineers. May 9, 2017. 42 pages.



https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/search.cfm

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-19/pdf/2012-13886.pdf

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=WA&status=listed

http://nrc.gov/docs/ML1225/ML12250A723.pdf

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/threatened%20and%20endangered%20species%20list.pdf

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/threatened%20and%20endangered%20species%20list.pdf


60 | P a g e

Wilber, D.H. & Clarke, D.G. (2001) “Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A Review of Suspended Sediment Impacts on Fish and Shellfish with Relation to Dredging Activities in Estuaries,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21:4, 855-875.

Williams, P.B. 1986. Hydrology in coastal wetland restoration design. Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium-Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, Association of State Wetland Managers, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 8–10, 1986.

Williams, P.B., Orr, M.K., and Garrity, N.J. 2002. Hydraulic geometry: a geomorphic design tool for tidal marsh channel evolution in wetland restoration projects. Restoration Ecology Vol.10, No.3, pp 577-590.

Zedler, J.B. 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press.