HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeoduck Aquaculture Envionmental Survey - SHX Application - 2/6/2014 MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352
Mason County Bldg, III, 426 West Cedar Street
rss4 PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
®n.wa.was
PJsase
IIt F
February 6, 2014
Taylor Shellfish Farms
Att: Diani Taylor
130 SE Lynch RD t�ato''"`f'� �"i°' `?T`
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Application for geoduck aquaculture on Case Inlet, Mason County.
Project Name: Fudge Point North Geoduck Farm to include five parcels as
follow:
PN: 12007-75-90022 - Grabarek.
PN: 12007-75-90052 - Hitchcock.
PN: 12007-75-00012 - Berliner.
PN: 12007-75-90051 - Boots.
Dear Ms. Taylor:
After review of your submitted Joint Aquatic Permit Application (DARPA) forms
that we received on December 6, 2013, Mason County concludes that the proposed
geoduck operation, on marine tidelands in Case Inlet, does not constitute
development under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and does not
cause substantial interference with the normal public use of the water (AGO 2007
No. 1). Therefore, a Substantial Development Permit is not required nor a letter of
Shoreline Exemption.
Mason County has determined that the proposed geoduck farm is consistent with
the Mason County Shoreline Master Program Policies and Use Regulations for
Aquaculture and the Shoreline Management Act. Please let me know if you have
any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grace Miller, Planner
DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
---------------------------------------
AGENCY USE ONLY
M � Date received:
US Army Corps
of
of Engineers
WASHINGTON STATE
Seattle District i Agency reference#fU
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) Form1,2
Tax Parcel#(s):
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. '
i
]RIP-AM
11 d ---------
426 W. CEDAR ST.
Part 1—Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) h[ elpl
Fudge Point North Geoduck Farm -Trueman
Part 2—Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. h[ eM
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Taylor Shellfish Farms
2b. Organization (If applicable)
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
130 SE Lynch Road
2d. City, State, Zip
Shelton, WA 98584
2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
(360) 426-6178 (360) 432-3316 (360) 432-0327 DianiT@taylorshellfish.com
Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
• If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit(RGP),contact the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers for application information(206)764-3495.
• If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF)or
prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at
http://www.nws.usace.army.miI/Missions/CivirWorks/Reclulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx.
• Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit,contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with[help]screens,go to
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984/iarpa form.aspx.
For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or help(mora.wa.gov.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 16
Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this
application.) n[ eM
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Taylor, Diani, Nicole
3b. Organization (If applicable)
3c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box)
130 SE Lynch Road
3d. City, State, Zip
Shelton, WA 98584
3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
(360) 426-6178 (360) 432-3316 (360) 432-0327 DianiT@taylorshelifish.com
Part 4—Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. hf ftm
❑ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know,
contact,the=DNR at (34p) 90� 4100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E
to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Trueman, John & Karen
4b. Organization (If applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box)
611 N Carr Street
4d. City, State, Zip
Tacoma, WA 98403
4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
(253) 759-5641 (253) 732-5785 john@gpatruemanappraisal.com
IADDA Pc icin 9 ll Paae 2 of 16
Part 5—Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. hem
❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) hf elpl
® Private
❑ Federal
❑ Publicly owned (state,county, city,special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
❑ Tribal
❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR)—managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) hel
161 E Buffington Lane
5c. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) hel
Shelton, WA 98584
5d. County h[ eM
Mason
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. hel
'/4 Section Section Township Range
NW 7 20 North 1 West
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. h[ ems
• Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees-NAD 83)
47.1412, -122.5138
5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. hf eM
• The local county assessor's office can provide this information.
12007-75-90031
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (if you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) h[ em
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known)
David Berliner 111 E Buffington Lane 12007-75-00012
Shelton, WA 98584
Steve & Patra Boots PO Box 3638 12007-75-90051
Sequim, WA 98382
t
.DARPA Ravicinn 2012 2 Page 3 of 16
Si. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. LtjeM
None directly adjacent, but the upland has a marsh site.
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. hl e�Pl
Case Inlet
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? hf eM
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know NA
51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. h� eM
Marine tidelands located in Case Inlet, Mason County. There are marine mammals, birds, and
invertebrates that use this area.
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. hf eM
This site is not currently used for culture, but is used by property owners for passive precreation.
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. net
The adjacent properties are used by property owners for personal use. There is some passive recreation
used in these areas of Case Inlet.
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. hei
None directly adjacent to the project area.
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [LeM
The site is located on the east side of Harstine Island and is accessed by the main county road (Harsten
Island Road) and private drives.
moon D—A.;....'3nl')") Page 4 of 16
Part 6—Project Description
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. h[ gm
This site is for the commercial culture of geoduck clams. The site will be planted with geoduck seed in
culture tubes and carcover netting. Once the young clams can evade predation, the tubes and nets are
removed. Harvest occurs using a hydraulic wand during low tide or at high tide by divers. Harvested
clams are placed in containers and transported by boat to Taylor access and trucked to Taylor Shelton
plant. All work is conducted and accessed by boat.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. hf eM
This is a commercial shellfish proposal. Shellfish are produced for sale.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) hem
® Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational
❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
® Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall
❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland)
❑ Boat House ❑ Dike/ Levee/Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road
❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Scientific
Measurement Device
❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock/ Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs
❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining
❑ Stormwater facility
❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure
❑ Swimming Pool
❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line
❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway
❑ Raft
❑ Other:
Paae 5 of 16
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. h[ ell
• Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
• Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
See project descriptions and overview.
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) hel
• If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or
stage.
Start date: Spring 2014 End date: Ongoing ❑ See JARPA Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. hel
Not yet available.
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? hf M
• If yes, list each agency providing funds.
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know
Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) h[M
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hel
❑ Not applicable
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? h[ eM
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
inooe D—;�;—On,')0 Paae 6 of 16
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? h[ M
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? hf gM
• If Yes,submit the report, including data sheets,with the JARPA package.
❑ Yes ❑ No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System? hel
• If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? Lheid
• If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
• If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. heI
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. hf e
Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland
drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area
flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or
category2 Acres) acres)
'If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as"Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents,such
as a wetland delineation report.
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland
rating forms with the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter"permanent"if applicable.
`Creation(C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R),Enhancement(E), Preservation(P),Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
IAPPA Ravisinn gmq 9 Page 7 of 16
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic
yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. hf elpl
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. Leld
Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation
In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) h� elpl
® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
hel
❑ Not applicable
Shellfish aquaculture has been considered a beneficial use of the shoreline area by providing three-
dimensional structure, filtering water, and facilitating benthic-pelagic coupling of nutrients. Shellfish
culture requires a healthy marine ecosystem to be successful.
Several operational methods are used to minimize local, temporary effects and can be found in Taylor's
Environmental Codes of Practice.
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? hf eM
® Yes ❑ No
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? he(�l
• If Yes,submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
• If No, or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable
There will be no net negative impacts. Shellfish harvest may result in local and temporary effects, but
not long term effects.
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used
to design the plan.
• If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. hf elgl
NA
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. h[ e�]I Potential for both positive and minor temporary
negative impacts.
Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration of Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or
dredge, fill, pile name' location impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of
drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody
removed from directly affected
waterbody
Shellfish Case Inlet Intertidal Temporary NA The total area
Culture of planting will
be 1.58 acres.
Some of the
area will be
used for
staging and
monitoring as
needed.
If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided.
2Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent,provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and
indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain.
3Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. hel
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 9 of 16
NA
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. hf M
NA
Part 9—Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. Lbpipl
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
Army Corps of Pam Sanguinetti (206) 764-6904 November, 2013
Engineers
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? h( eM
• If Yes, list the parameter(s)below.
• If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at:
hftp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/Wq/303d/.
® Yes ❑ No
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 10 of 16
Fecal Coliform, others unknown.
9C. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? hel
• Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locaterndex.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110019
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA#) is the project in? hf gd
• Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#.
WRIA 14
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for
turbidity? [helpi
• Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programsAvq/swgs/criteria.htmi for the standards.
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline
environment designation? h[ eld
• If you don't know,contact the local planning department.
• For more information,go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations.html.
® Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? hem
• Go to http://www.dnr.wa.qov/BusinessPermits[Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/fp watertyping.aspx for the Forest
Practices Water Typing System.
® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater
manual? hel
• If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
Name of manual:
9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? hl eM
• If Yes, please describe below.
❑ Yes ® No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. hLp]
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 11 of 16
Potentially wild harvest of oysters and clams.
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? hf eM
• If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
❑ Yes ® No
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 12 of 16
91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project
area or might be affected by the proposed work. h( eM
See, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingindividual.jsp?state=WA&status=listed
See also, http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/Mason08l I11.pdf
See also, Species Information of the Biological Evaluation of Potential Effects from Aquaculture
Activities to ESA-listed Species, Marine Mammals, Essential Fish Habitat and Forage Fish on Harstine
Island, Case Inlet, Mason County, Washington. Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Farms, Shelton,
Washington. Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, Seattle, Washington. October, 2013.
Project Number 3028848C. (Attached)
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. h[ eM
See, http:/Iwdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/listl
Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
• Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa..qov/opas/.
• Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help0-)ora.wa.gov.
• For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (check all that apply.) Ltpm
• For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html.
❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
❑ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date is
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 13 of 16
❑ lam applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) hel
® This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
❑ Other:
❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 14 of 16
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) hel
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance
❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): A permit is not required by Mason County
Other City/County permits:
❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Shellfish is exempt.
❑ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption —Attach Exemption Form
Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash.
Check the appropriate boxes:
❑$150 check enclosed. Check#
Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
❑ Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. Agreement#
❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption)
❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff.
Agreement#
❑ Mineral prospecting and mining.
❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land.
(Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.)
❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012.
HPA#
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
❑ Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for$25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
® Section 401 Water Quality Certification
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
® Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ® Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard permits:
❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects)
JARPA Revkinn 2019 2 Paqe 15 of 16
Part 11—Authorizing Signatures
Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form,
project plans, photos, etc. hf eM
11 a. Applicant Signature (required) heel j
certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete,
and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work
only after I have received all necessary permits.
I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this
application. (initial)
By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the
permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work
related to the project. (initial)
Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date
11 b. Authorized Agent Signature k
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete,
and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work
only after all necessary permits have been issued.
Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature Date
11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) heel
Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements.
I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site
or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the
landowner.
Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date
18 U.S.0§1001 provides that:Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
entry, shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)at(800)
917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877)833-6341.
ORIA publication number: ENV-019-09 rev. 08/2013
JARPA Revision 9012.2 Page 16 of 16
� l
Biological Evaluation of Potential Effects from Aquaculture Activities to
ESA-listed Species, Marine Mammals, Essential Fish Habitat and Forage
Fish on Harstine Island, Case Inlet, Mason County, Washington
Prepared for:
Taylor Shellfish Farms
Shelton, Washington
Prepared by:
ENVIRON International Corporation
Seattle,Washington
Date:
November 2013
Project Number:
3028848C
RECEIVED
DEC 0 6 2013
426 W. CEDAR Sl_.
rcall'* E N V I R4 N
• ; 1
Contents
Page
1 General Information...............................................................................................................1
2 Description of Work ...............................................................................................................2
2.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................................2
2.2 Permit Duration...............................................................................................................2
3 Aquaculture Techniques........................................................................................................4
3.1 Site Preparation..............................................................................................................4
3.2 Planting and Grow-out....................................................................................................5
3.3 Harvest...........................................................................................................................5
3.4 Support...........................................................................................................................6
4 Project and Action Area.........................................................................................................7
5 Species Information.............................................................................................................10
5.1 Fish...............................................................................................................................10
5.1.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)........................................................................12
5.1.2 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).....................................................12
5.1.3 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)........................................................................13
5.1.4 Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary (S. pinniger), and Yelloweye Rockfish
(S. ruberrimus).....................................................................................................................13
5.1.5 Southern Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) .........................................................14
5.1.6 Forage Fish ...........................................................................................................14
5.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................16
5.2.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).................................................................17
5.2.2 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) ..................................................17
5.3 Marine Mammals..........................................................................................................18
5.3.1 Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca).....................................................18
5.3.2 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).......................................................18
5.3.3 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)......................................................................19
5.3.4 Seals and Sea Lions .............................................................................................19
6 Existing Environmental Conditions......................................................................................20
6.1 Shoreline Riparian Vegetation......................................................................................20
6.2 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation Characterization.....................................................20
6.2.1 Upper Intertidal Habitat .........................................................................................22
6.2.2 Lower Intertidal Habitat .........................................................................................23
Contents i ENVIRON
j l
6.2.3 Aquatic Vegetation................................................................................................23
6.3 Epibenthic Fauna, Benthic Infauna, and Other Organisms..........................................27
6.4 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development ..........................................28
6.5 Water Quality................................................................................................................30
6.6 Water Movement..........................................................................................................30
6.7 Distance to Species Habitat .........................................................................................30
6.8 Mitigation......................................................................................................................31
7 Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................................33
7.1 Aquatic Species............................................................................................................33
7.1.1 Direct Effects.........................................................................................................33
7.1.2 Indirect/Beneficial Effects......................................................................................45
7.1.3 Cumulative, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects............................................48
7.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................48
7.2.1 Direct Effects.........................................................................................................48
7.2.2 Indirect Effects.......................................................................................................49
7.2.3 Cumulative, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects............................................49
8 Avoidance, Conservation, and Minimization Measures.......................................................50
8.1 Maintenance, Repair and Work....................................................................................50
8.2 Species-specific Activities ............................................................................................51
8.3 Farm Plan Record Keeping Log ...................................................................................52
9 Determination of Effect........................................................................................................53
9.1 Fish and Marine Mammals...........................................................................................53
9.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................54
9.3 Critical Habitat for Federally-Listed Species.................................................................54
10 EFH Analysis....................................................................................................................56
10.1 Description of the Proposed Action..............................................................................56
10.2 EFH Included in this Analysis.......................................................................................56
10.3 Effects of the Proposed Action.....................................................................................57
10.3.1 Groundfish.............................................................................................................57
10.3.2 Pacific Coast Salmon ............................................................................................58
10.3.3 Coastal Pelagic Species........................................................................................58
10.3.4 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................59
10.4 Proposed Conservation Measures...............................................................................59
10.5 Conclusions by EFH.....................................................................................................59
Contents ii ENVIRON
r �
11 References.......................................................................................................................60
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site location for the proposed Fudge Point North project area (shown in red) and
existing geoduck farms planted in 2013 (shown in green, blue, and yellow)................3
Figure 2. Culture area associated with the proposed Fudge Point North project area. ................8
Figure 3. Documented herring spawning and pre-spawning holding locations for the Squaxin
Pass herring stock in relation to the proposed geoduck aquaculture growing area
(black dot)...................................................................................................................16
Figure 4. Plan view of the proposed Fudge Point North project area on Harstine Island (Case
Inlet) with an overview of the video and epifauna transect lines surveyed on
November 27-28, 2012 and June 22, 2013................................................................21
Figure 5. Aerial photographs of the proposed Fudge Point North project area shoreline...........22
Figure 6. Representative photograph of upper beach substrate above the "Sediment Transition
Boundary" line above the proposed Fudge Point North project area. ........................23
Figure 7. Drift macroalgae (primarily Ulva spp.) accumulations at the proposed Fudge Point
Northproject area.......................................................................................................25
Figure 8. Biological resources identified during the June 23, 2013 survey within the proposed
Fudge Point North project area. .................................................................................26
Figure 9. Examples of species observed during the site surveys at the proposed Fudge Point
Northproject area.......................................................................................................29
Figure 10. Development associated with single family residences above the proposed Fudge
PointNorth project area..............................................................................................29
Figure 11. Priority habitats and species (PHS) designated by Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife in relation to the proposed Fudge Point North project area. ...................32
Figure 12. Abundance of infaunal organisms at the Foss Farm (Case Inlet) and Chelsea Farm
(Eld Inlet) before, during, and after a harvest period. .................................................42
List of Tables
Table 1. Tax lot parcels associated with the proposed Fudge Point North project area...............2
Table 2. Summary of geoduck clam aquaculture techniques and timing proposed for the Fudge
PointNorth project area................................................................................................4
Table 3. Summary of publications reporting the sediment plume extent from subtidal and
intertidal geoduck clam (Panopea generosa) harvest locations in Washington State,
USA and British Columbia, Canada. ............................................................................7
Table 4. Federally-listed species and other species of concern considered within the Fudge
Point North action area in Case Inlet, Mason County, Washington............................11
Table 5. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential to the conservation of salmonids within
theaction area............................................................................................................12
Table 6. Spawning and incubation timing of forage fish species present within southern Puget
Sound. ........................................................................................................................15
Table 7. Average site characterization for the proposed Fudge Point North project area, as
surveyed on November 27-28, 2011 and June 22, 2013. ..........................................24
Table 8. Benthic and epibenthic invertebrate species and fish observed during the proposed
Fudge Point North site surveys and reported in Case Inlet through the SCALE
program. .....................................................................................................................27
Contents iii ENVIRON
Table 9. Distance (miles) to habitat requirements from the proposed Fudge Point North project
areaa...........................................................................................................................31
Table 10. Feeding rates for Pacific oysters and geoduck clams, as estimated by J. Davis........37
Table 11. Summary of potential direct effects from the proposed Fudge Point North geoduck
farmin Case Inlet. ......................................................................................................45
Table 12. Effects determinations from geoduck aquaculture for ESA-listed fish, forage fish, and
marine mammals potentially found in Case Inlet near the proposed Fudge Point North
projectarea.................................................................................................................53
Table 13. Effects determinations from geoduck aquaculture for sensitive bird species potentially
found in in Case Inlet near the proposed Fudge Point North project area. ................54
Table 14. Summary of the determination of effect for each critical habitat primary constituent
elements (PCE) relevant to Case Inlet near the proposed Fudge Point North project
area. ...........................................................................................................................55
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Field Methods Used in the Site Survey
Appendix B: Federal or State Endangered and Threatened Species Found in Mason
County, but not Likely Found in the Proposed Fudge Point North Action
Area
Appendix C: Biological and Physical Features in Relation to the Proposed Fudge Point
North Project Area
Contents iv ENVIRON
` 1
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BE: Biological Evaluation NH3: Ammonia
BMP: Best Management Practices NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
C: Candidate NSSP: National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Co: Species of Concern NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units
Corps: Army Corps of Engineers NWP: Nationwide Permit
DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane P: Phosphorus
DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans PCE: Primary Constituent Element
DNR: Washington State Department of PCSGA: Pacific Shellfish Growers Association
Natural Resources PHS: Priority Habitat and Species
DPS: Distinct Population Segment POM: Particulate Organic Matter
E: Endangered PS: Puget Sound
Ecology: Washington Department of Ecology PSP: Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone PVC: Polyvinylchloride
EFH: Essential Fish Habitat
S: Sensitive
EHW: Extreme High Water SASSI: Salmon and Steelhead Stock
ESA: Endangered Species Act Inventory
ESU: Evolutionary Significant Unit SAV: Submerged aquatic vegetation
FMP: Fishery Management Plan SCALE: Spatial Classification and Landscape
GB: Georgia Basin Extrapolation
HAB: Harmful Algal Blooms T: Threatened
HAPC: Habitat Areas of Particular Concern TMDL: total maximum daily load
JARPA: Joint Aquatic Resource Permit TSS: Total Suspended Sediment
Application USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MCA: Marine Conservation Area UV: Ultraviolet
MLLW: Mean Lower Low Water WAC: Washington Administrative Code
MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and
MPG: Major Population Group Wildlife
N: Nitrogen WDOH: Washington Department of Health
Nz: Nitrogen gas
NOX: Nitrogen oxides
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Acronyms and Abbreviations v ENVIRON
1 General Information
The information presented in this Biological Evaluation (BE) is based on requested information
for projects that have insignificant or discountable impacts on species. The format is based on
the Seattle District US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) instructions for an informal
Endangered Species Act(ESA) consultation.
Date: November 27, 2013
1. Applicant name: Taylor Shellfish Farms
Mailing address: 130 SE Lynch Rd., Shelton, WA 98584
Work phone: Work phone (2): Email: Fax:
360-426-6178 360-432-3340 DianeC@taylorshellfish.com 360-432-0327
2. Joint-use applicant name(if applicable): N/A
Mailing address:
Work phone: Home phone: Email: Fax:
3. Authorized agent name: Diane Cooper
Mailing address: 130 SE Lynch Rd., Shelton, WA 98584
Work phone: Work phone (2): Email: Fax:
360-426-6178 360-432-3340 1 DianeC@taylorshellfish.com 360-432-0327
4. Location where proposed work will occur
Address:
1. Grabarek: 71 E Buffington Ln, Shelton, WA 98584 (parcel# 12007-75-90022)
2. Berliner: 111 E Buffington Ln, Shelton, WA 98584 (parcel# 12007-75-00012)
3. Trueman: 161 E Buffington Ln, Shelton, WA 98584 (parcel# 12007-75-90031)
4. Boots: 231 E Buffington Ln, Shelton, WA 98584 (parcel # 12007-75-90051)
5. Hitchcock: no address (parcel # 12007-75-90052)
Waterbody: Case Inlet
'/4 Section: Section: Township: Range:
NW 7 T20N R01 W
Latitude: project corners Longitude: project corners
1. NE Corner: 470 14' 12" N 1. NE Corner: 1220 51' 38" W
2. SE Corner: 470 14' 9" N 2. SE Corner: 1220 51' 42" W
3. NW Corner: 470 14' 17" N 3. NW Corner: 1220 51' 49"W
4. SW Corner: 470 14' 16" N 4. SW Corner: 1220 51' 51"W
General Information 1 ENVIRON
2 Description of Work
This BE provides an analysis of the potential impacts of proposed geoduck clam (Panopea
generosa) aquaculture activities on threatened and endangered species and their critical
habitat. The proposed geoduck growing area includes tidelands on five tax lot parcels on
Harstine Island in Case Inlet, Mason County, Washington (Figure 1). Taylor Shellfish Farms
(Taylor Shellfish)would lease and operate about 4.2 acres of cultivatable area (Table 1), which
are located further north from three leases that were planted in 2013.
Table 1.Tax lot parcels associated with the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Tax Lot Parcel Lease Name` Intertidal Parcel Area Cultivable Area**(acre)
(acre)
12007-75-90022 Grabarek 0.55 0.29
12007-75-00012 Berliner 1.45 0.94
12007-75-90031 Trueman 2.03 1.58
12007-75-90051 Boots 0.85 0.56
12007-75-90052 Hitchcock 1.20 0.85
TOTAL 6.08 4.22
*There is a property between Grabarek and Berliner(Bartol,parcel 12007-75-90023)that is not included in the project area.
**The cultivatable area includes only sand/mud substrate that is seaward of a sediment transition boundary.
The new parcels will be identified as the "Fudge Point North" project area. However, each
location identified in Table 1 will correspond with an individual Joint Aquatic Resource Permit
Application (JARPA). This consultation assumes that work would be completed under the
Nationwide Permit (NWP 48; Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities).
2.1 Proposed Action
The proposed action includes the intertidal culture of geoduck clams. Geoduck clams would be
cultured from extreme low water(4.5) to +3 feet (ft) mean lower low water(MLLW) in
polyvinylchloride (PVC)tubes or a suitable alternative (e.g., flexible mesh tubes), which will be
referred to as "culture tubes." Planting would occur within five plots over a one-year period,
depending on site conditions. Grow-out typically occurs over a period of 5 to 7 years in most
areas, but can range up to 8 to 9 years based on specific site and seasonal growing conditions.
Aquaculture gear is necessary in order to exclude predators while juvenile geoducks are of a
size and depth in the sediment that would be vulnerable to predation. Culture tubes would be
present for the first two years of grow-out, and canopy nets would potentially be used for the
first one to two years and six months after tubes are removed. Following grow-out, geoducks
would be harvested both on land (dry harvest) by beach crews or in-water (wet harvest) by dive
crews. Aquaculture methods are further described below in Section 3.
2.2 Permit Duration
If it is determined that there are no adverse effects on listed species or their critical habitat, the
Corps is expected to authorize the proposed activities under NWP 48 and attendant relevant
regional and general conditions. All work authorized under the permit would be completed within
the specified duration period, with some exceptions for harvest. In the case of geoduck harvest,
the maximum authorization under 2012 NWP 48 expires in 2017 (P. Sanguinetti, pers. comm.,
2012). It is anticipated that activities that extend beyond the length of the permit will be
authorized under the 2017 NWP 48.
Description of Work 2 ENVIRON
Data Sources:
ESRI Gray Canvas
WDFW PHS Data
?lt�-hBfi
Coordinate System: �e CcVe P U G E T
Washington State Plane South, 3
NAD 83,US Survey Foot P a 5`' S O U N D
a. � •..�'f"f '�
Scale:1:100,000 P i c k e ring ``' Project Area
,Jarrellcove 0
n sh ,r • Olympia
iS l r�ArJ
rl A rr? 3 l 1111 — rl=idi{JI`I '� a t�
Shellfish Growing Areas �a`n,y� P = ill I )V J! A
Proposed Fudge Point
North Project Area
Hitchcock Lease J I rl N J I l ,r
_ Taylor Shellfish Farms
Scott Lease Proposed Fudge Point
North Project Area
(Some shellfish growing areas 1
may not be shown)
Project Area Inset
8uffingtons
�a Lagoon
8ay
Scale:1:20,000 N
0 250500 1,000 Feet o 0.5 1 2 J a
Dfiles
Figure 1.Site location for the proposed Fudge Point North project area(shown in red)and existing geoduck farms planted in 2013(shown in green,blue,and yellow).
Note:Hitchcock Lease(Corps Reference#NWS-2010-1238),Taylor Shellfish Farms(Corps Reference#NWS-2001-44),and Scott Lease(Corps Reference#NWS-2011-131).
Description of Work 3 ENVIRON
3 Aquaculture Techniques
This section identifies site preparation, planting and grow-out, harvest, and support techniques
to be employed for geoduck clams in the Fudge Point North project area. The activities and
timing are summarized in Table 2. A more detailed explanation of these techniques is described
below. No permanent construction will be implemented and stormwater is not generated in an
aquaculture operation. In addition, there will be no disturbance to soils, revegetation, fill or spoil
disposal as part of the project. Therefore, there will be no further mention of these activities.
Table 2.Summary of geoduck clam aquaculture techniques and timing proposed for the Fudge Point North project area.
Timing by Property(Tax Lot Parcel No.)
Aquaculture Technique Grabarek Berliner Trueman Boots Hitchcock Total
(12007-75- (12007-75- (12007-75- (12007-75- (12007-75-
90022) 00012) 90031) 90051) 90052)
Area of planted land(acres) 0.29 0.94 1.58 0.56 0.85 4.22
Tidal Range ft MLL M -4.5 to+3 -4.5 to+3 -4.5 to+3 -4.5 to+3 -4.5 to+3 -4.5 to+3
Sequencing and timing:
Site Preparation(days over 1 y�' 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1
Planting(days over 1 y62 4.6 15.0 25.3 9.0 13.6 68
Grow-out(boat trips over7yrs)3 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 84
Harvest(days over 1 y64 7.3 23.5 39.5 14.0 21.3 106
Support boat trips over 7 rs 5 28.8 55.6 82.0 39.9 51.9 258
Equipment tubes,predator netting,rebar,boat,barge
Work corridor access will be via boat,no onshore work corridor necessary
Staging and Stockpiling areas
short-term storage) adjacent to plot,barge/boat
MLLW=Mean Lower Low Water
Assumptions 10.25 days/acre,216 days/acre,31 trip/month for 7 years(divided by 5 plots),425 days/acre,5sum of days/trips above
Note:these assumptions assume activity at the higher end of the spectrum in order to provide a conservative estimate.
3.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation refers to activities that allow for installation of culture tubes. Site preparation
would be accomplished by beach crews during tides low enough to expose the culture bed or by
divers during high tide. Monthly low tides occur for a period of several consecutive days each
lunar month. Work during high tide would occur during daylight hours.
Locations for geoduck clam aquaculture do not typically require much site preparation because
they are sited in sandflats or mudflats that by definition do not have large substrate materials,
which was confirmed during the site surveys (Section 6). However, it is possible that such
features could be deposited prior to planting geoduck seed. In the event that driftwood or large
woody debris is deposited in the culture area, such features would simply be moved by hand to
a new location within the same parcel and tidal elevation prior to planting activities.
Site preparation would be accomplished by 5-to 8-person teams during a low tide by beach
crews or during a high tide by divers. Site preparation would potentially occur during Year 1 of
Aquaculture Techniques 4 ENVIRON
the cultivation cycle (Table 2), depending on site and seasonal conditions. Site preparation
would take a total of about 1 day for the entire proposed Fudge Point North project area. It is
anticipated that site preparation could occur at the same time as culture tube installation
(described below).
3.2 Planting and Grow-out
Geoduck aquaculture at this site would involve the initial placement of culture tubes and
geoduck"seeding" (planting) into the tubes. Culture tubes (4-to 6-inch diam., 10 to 12 inches in
length)would be pushed into the substrate by hand or foot to protect the out-planted geoduck
seed from potential predators. Each tube would extend about 3 to 4 inches above the substrate.
According to the operators, the tubes would be positioned about 12.2 inches on center between
tubes. Three to four seed clams would be placed inside each tube.
Planting of seed would occur within the intertidal zone between -4.5 to +3 ft MLLW, and would
occur in any season with suitable growing conditions. Tube placement and seeding would occur
during a low tide by beach crews or during a high tide by divers. Planting would be
accomplished by 5-to 8-person teams over 4 to 8 hours. For the entire proposed Fudge Point
North project area, planting activities would take a total of about 68 days.
There would be no active predator removal. Predator control is through exclusion from the
cultured area. Canopy netting would potentially be placed over the entire tube field, and staked
with U-shaped rebar about every 3 ft around the perimeter of the netting to ensure that nets stay
anchored and prevent culture tubes from being dislodged. Within one to two growing seasons
(years), the juvenile geoduck clams reach a size (-14 inches) and depth in the sediment at
which time refuge within culture tubes is no longer needed. The tubes would then be removed
by hand and taken off-site. Following tube removal, a canopy net may be placed over the bed
for up to about 6 months so that the geoduck clams can adjust to the lack of predator protection
provided by the tubes without experiencing excessive predation.
Tubes and canopy netting removed after use would be stockpiled upland at an off-site location
for future re-use or disposal. Disposal would occur if integrity of equipment has deteriorated
such that re-use is no longer reasonable. The proposed geoduck aquaculture site would be
monitored once a month and directly following storm events. Debris that could snag the predator
exclusion netting (e.g., drift logs), would be moved off the bed and placed within the same
parcel and at the same tidal elevation. Unnatural debris, such as garbage that may wash up
from adjacent lands, would be collected and discarded.
3.3 Harvest
Geoduck clams would be harvested using either dry or wet harvest methods. Both methods
employ low pressure water that is pumped from offshore through a 1.0-to 2.0-inch diameter
hand-operated hose and infused through a 0.5-to 0.6-inch diameter PVC probe. The probe is
inserted into the sediment directly adjacent to the visible geoduck siphons of the clams to be
harvested. The pressure at the nozzle is about 40 pounds per square inch and the volume is
about 20 gallons per minute. This method allows for the extraction of geoducks without the
removal of large quantities of overlying sediments. Pumps for the hoses would be run by small
internal combustion engines located in a small boat just offshore of the harvest site. Water
Aquaculture Techniques 5 ENVIRON
intake lines on the pumps would be fitted with screens that meet National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) screening criteria to prevent fish entrainment.
Dry or wet harvest would be accomplished by 2-to 4-person teams. Dry harvesting would occur
during a minus tide series (typically lasting 3 to 4 hours), and wet harvesting would occur during
a high tide series. Harvest would occur in the same basic pattern in which planting occurred,
although because only about 0.1 acres could be harvested in a day, the length of time allotted
for harvest exceeds that of planting activities. The duration of harvest may exceed 3 to 4 hours
a day if extended high tide periods during the winter are coupled with the appropriate low tidal
cycle to allow dive harvest during daylight hours and beach harvest during the evening. Under
most conditions, dive and beach harvest would not occur in the same day. Harvest could be
done within one year at the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
3.4 Support
Support activities include vessel operations and maintenance activities. Work would be
conducted on the beach or in the water adjacent to the beach by crews in the project area.
Aquaculture supplies (i.e., tubes, rebar and predator netting) would be stored at an off-site
location and transported to and from the Fudge Point North project area by boat when needed.
The beach would be accessed by crews only by water. Directly following harvest, shellfish
would be transported to an off-site processing facility by boat.
Maintenance activities include monitoring shellfish weight and health, picking up unnatural
debris, if any, and any other general maintenance activity required. Crews must walk over the
culture beds and immediately adjacent areas to perform almost all activities that occur on the
beds. These include bed preparation, inspection and maintenance during grow-out, and harvest.
It is expected that maintenance would occur once a month and directly following storm events
using 2-person teams, for a minimum of 84 days (does not include storm events).
Taylor Shellfish expects to use 22-ft custom aluminum skiffs equipped with 300 horsepower(hp)
2-stroke `E-tech' outboards to service the farm. Typically only one boat is used, but some
actions may require two, depending on site conditions and available personnel. The 22-ft skiffs
would be used to transport crews to and from the site and would also be used to tow barges to
the site. The barge used for transporting equipment to the site for harvest activities is 14-ft wide
by 48-ft long. It will be moored offshore and not grounded. There would be an average 38 boat
trips per year assuming a 7-yr culture cycle, or a total of about 265 boat trips over the entire
culture cycle.
Section 8 (Avoidance, Conservation, and Minimization Measures) discusses boat operation best
management practices (BMPs)that avoid or reduce potential impacts to sensitive habitat in, or
adjacent to, the action area.
Aquaculture Techniques 6 ENVIRON
4 Project and Action Area
The Fudge Point North project area is located on Harstine Island, Case Inlet, Mason County,
Washington (Figure 1). The proposed project area is about 0.5 miles directly south of McMicken
Island State Park. The tidelands proposed for cultivation are owned by private land owners
(Table 1), and would be operated by Taylor Shellfish.
The project area is located within aquatic parcels, which covers an area of about 6.1 acres
ranging from about-4.5 to +10 ft MLLW. The area of proposed geoduck cultivation is a smaller
portion of the available aquatic land (Figure 2). The total proposed cultivation area is about 4.2
acres, and represents intertidal elevations ranging from about-4.5 to +3.0 ft MLLW. The area
where geoduck would be planted excludes habitat above a sediment transition boundary
because the substrate is too large for geoduck aquaculture (see Section 6, Existing
Environmental Conditions). This area was not always at a consistent tidal elevation, and ranged
between +1.5 and +4.9 ft MLLW. There would be a buffer distance between the end of the
larger substrate material and the start of the culture area to ensure the juvenile geoducks would
not have physical obstructions when digging into the sediment. Although it would not be
cultivated if larger materials are present, the area up to a +3.0 ft MLLW elevation could be used
for either culture or short-term staging and foot traffic, depending on the sediment transition
boundary, and so is included in the project area.
Direct effects from the proposed action, which determine the extent of the action area, include
turbidity generated during harvest activities and underwater noise generated from boat use.
Turbidity generated during a dry harvest typically extends farther than a wet harvest. In terms of
the potential extent, information from past studies in South Puget Sound (Fleece et al. 2004,
Fisher et al. 2008a) and harvest studies within Puget Sound and along the West Coast(Short
- and Walton 1992, Pearce, pers. comm., 2013) provides a reasonable estimate of the action
area (Table 3).
Table 3.Summary of publications reporting the sediment plume extent from subtidal and intertidal geoduck clam
(Panopeagenerosa)harvest locations in Washington State,USA and British Columbia,Canada.
Harvest Total Number of Distance of Travel
Duration Harvest Downdrift(ft)
Plot Size of Harvest Holes(per Above Aquatic Above Reference
(acre)
(days) ftz) Life Criteria Background
Subtidal
0.2 1 30 16 67 Short and Walton 1992
1.5 2 2.8 16 33 Pearce,pers.comm.,2013
Intertidal
0.1 1 NR* 75 100 Fleece et al.2004
0.1 1 97 107 122 Fisher et al.2008a
0.1 1 97 16** 33 Pearce,pers.comm.,2013
NR=not reported
*the number of holes should be similar to the 9 holes m-2,as identified in Fisher et al.2008a
**harvest was at high tide by dive harvesters
Project and Action Area 7 ENVIRON
r t
-4.5'MLLW(Extreme —-- Road
Low Tide) 0 Tax Parcels
Mean High Water(11.5') Q Project Area
---Sediment Tansition Boundary Culture Area
----10-Foot Contours
c°
4
° \ �1 �&
GRABAREK
Parcel No! BARTOL
120077590022 ParcWNo- 1
120077590023 ,
BERLINER
Parcel No.
120077500012
HARSTIN'E '
TRUEMAN
Parcel No. a JJJ -
120077590031 BOOTS
C; \ Parcel 00
, U 12007759051
/S
HITCH No'Parcell No�
Data Sources: ✓ 120077590052
Mason Co 2012 tax parcels a C
WA DNR MHW line
Environ 2013 survey data D 0,
PSLC 2002 Bare Earth ASCII a
? files vertically transformed
from MSL to MLLW using ,� +
NOAAs VDatum program.
Coordinate System:
Washinon State Plane South,
r NAD 830 USs
Survey Foot O c
Seale:1.2000
Figure 2.Culture area associated with the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Project and Action Area 8 ENVIRON
From these studies, maximum turbidity generated during dry harvest was measured to be within
the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) aquatic life criteria' within a maximum of
107 ft downdrift of the harvest activity. Turbidity achieved background conditions within 122 ft
downdrift. Updrift from the harvest site, turbidity levels were within background conditions in
about 25 ft. Turbidity levels above background conditions were not evident 4 to 8 hours post-
harvest. This area will be identified as the "action area."
Underwater sound attenuation (as suggested in previous reviews by the Corps) below the
120 dB RMS re 1 pPa for marine mammal behavioral concerns was estimated based on the
practical spreading loss model. To estimate underwater noise, we reviewed Table 3.73 of Wyatt
(2008) in order to find a close approximation of the noise generated from boats used by Taylor
Shellfish. In order to estimate the worst case scenario for underwater noise, the parameters
used for this analysis were the 21-ft Boston Whaler vessel with a 250 Hp Johnson 2 cycle
outboard motor operating at full speed and producing sound measured at 147.2 dB RMS re
1 pPa at 1 meter(Equation 1). The 65 m distance estimated by this equation will be identified
below as the"noise action area."
Equation 1 R, (in meters) = R2(in meters)*10((V-120)/15)
R, = 1 m*10((147.2 dB-120 dB)/15)
R, = 65 m (213 ft)
Where:
R1 = range in meters of the sound pressure level; R2 = distance from the
sources of the initial measurement; V = transmission loss; and dB = decibels
It should be noted that the estimation of underwater noise is not consistent with site conditions,
and is extremely conservative. The shallow basin morphometry present in Case Inlet will rapidly
attenuate sound propagation. According to the interim sound threshold guidance (NMFS 2012),
the 120 dB threshold may be slightly adjusted if background noise levels are at or above this
level, which would include recreational boating in the area. Although we do not have a
measurement of background noise for Case Inlet, there are a number of public boat launches
and recreational areas accessible by boat (WDFW 2012a). Therefore, even though the boat
motors used are estimated to be above the disturbance threshold for cetaceans for continuous
noise within a distance of 213 ft, the use of boats are likely not above background noise levels,
and the potential effect from the use of boats for the proposed action would be insignificant.
The sediment plume will be used as the primary extent of the action area for determination of
effects (Effects Analysis, Section 7). When the term "Fudge Point North action area" is used it is
referring to the turbidity action area. The effects of underwater noise to marine mammals and
fish will be discussed, but will not be the main action area discussed in this BE.
' Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Life Criteria for Extraordinary and Excellent Quality
(WAC 173-201A-210):
• 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background when background is 50 NTU or less; or
• A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTUs.
Project and Action Area 9 ENVIRON
5 Species Information
Species listed under the ESA are subject to regulatory oversight and protection by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Species that are currently listed with the aforementioned agencies, and are considered
in this BE, are summarized in Table 4. Appendix B presents the listed species that occur in
Mason County, but for which habitat does not exist in the action area or the organisms are not
known to occur in South Puget Sound. A few species that are highly unlikely to occur in the
action area (e.g., southern resident killer whale, humpback whale, gray whale) are still included
in this section because of recent sightings in the vicinity.
Special-status species were identified using the following sources of information on the known
distribution and occurrences of listed species:
• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) species of concern website
(http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Mason County listed and proposed
endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species; and species
of concern website (http://www.fws.gov/endancieredn
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Regional Office list of Pacific
salmon, marine mammals, marine turtles, and other marine species
website(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/)
• Mason County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
(http://www.co.mason.wa.us/code/Community Dev/ROfinalf&w.pdfl
All websites were originally accessed on December 17, 2012, and reviewed again on October
19, 2013 to ensure the information is up-to-date. A priority habitat and species program
database search (WDFW 2013) was completed on October 1, 2013.
5.1 Fish
There are six federally-listed threatened or endangered fish species identified in Mason County
that potentially occur in the action area (Table 4), although only two (Chinook salmon and
steelhead) are likely to occur. Pacific eulachon was also included in the list, although (as
described below) these fish would not likely occur in the action area. Finally, three forage fish
species are potentially present in the action area, which may influence the presence of other
listed species. Therefore, a description of the distribution and ecology of these species were
included in this section.
The following information provides a brief description of the ecology, potential use of the action
area, and critical habitat(if designated or proposed)of each fish species listed in Table 4.
Species Information 10 ENVIRON
Table 4.Federally-listed species and other species of concern considered within the Fudge Point North action area in Case Inlet,Mason County,Washington.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Critical potential Utilization within the Action Area
Status Status Habitat
ESA-listed Fish
Bull trout(PS/Coastal DPS) Salvelinus confluentus T C Yes* Potential migration and foraging,but unlikely
Chinook salmon(PS DPS) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha T C Yes Migration,juvenile rearing,foraging
Steelhead(PS DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss T None Proposed Migration,juvenile rearing,foraging
Pacific eulachon(Southern DPS) Thaleichthys pacificus T C Yes* Highly unlikely
Bocaccio rockfish(PS/GB DPS) Sebastes paucispinis E C Proposed Passive migration(juvenile),foraging
Canary rockfish(PS/GB DPS) Sebastes pinniger T C Proposed Passive migration(juvenile),foraging
Yellowe e rockfish PS/GB DPS Sebastes ruberrimus T C Proposed Potential migration and foraging,but unlike)
Forage Fish
Pacific herring(GB DPS) Clupea harengus pallasii None** C No Potential spawning(unlikely),foraging
Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus None None No Potential spawning(unlikely),foraging
Surf smelt Hypomesus pretlosus None None No Potentialspawning,foraging
Birds
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Co S No Foraging
Marbled murrelet(Washington/Oregon/ Brachyramphus marmoratus T T Yes* Foraging
California DPS
Marine Mammals
Southern resident killer whale Orcinus orca E E Yes Highly unlikely
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E E No Highly unlikely
Gray whale(Eastern North Pacific stock) Eschrichtius robustus None** S No Highly unlikely
California sea lion Zalophus californianus None None No Foraging
Harbor seal Phoca vitulina None None No Foraging
DPS—Distinct population segment;E—Endangered;T—Threatened;C—Candidate,Co—Species of Concern,S—Sensitive,PS—Puget Sound,GB—Georgia Basin
*Critical habitat has been identified,but does not occur within the proposed action area
—Although this species occurs in the area,the ESA-listed stock does not(e.g.,Western North Pacific population of gray whale)
Species Information 11 ENVIRON
5.1.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
The southernmost population of bull trout in the Puget Sound is found in the Puyallup River;
although there is high likelihood that recovered populations from the Puget Sound Management
Unit core area will use the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek estuary as foraging, migration,
and overwintering habitat (USFWS 2004). Little to no information exists for bull trout south of the
Nisqually River or near the Kitsap Peninsula (USFWS 2009a). Because bull trout are not known
near the Kitsap Peninsula, it is unlikely that either juveniles or adults use the nearshore habitat
of Case Inlet. Additionally, no critical habitat is located west of the Nisqually River, which means
that no critical habitat exists in the action area.
Puget Sound is generally used as a migration corridor or foraging area, and anadromous bull
trout occupy territories ranging from about 33 ft to 2 miles and within 328 to 1,312 ft of the
shoreline. Migration provides access to more abundant or larger prey and possible
overwintering options (Brenkman and Corbett 2005). Therefore, there is potential for bull trout to
be distributed into South Puget Sound for foraging. The majority of bull trout tend to migrate into
marine waters in the spring and return to the rivers in the summer and fall (USFWS 2004), with
a few fish overwintering in marine waters (Goetz et al. 2003).
5.1.2 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Chinook salmon require substantial cover, high water quality, and cool water temperatures.
These fish can be found along shorelines, especially juveniles and fry(Myers et al. 1998).
Therefore, listed Chinook salmon could be present in the action area on a limited basis during
the ocean phase and juvenile outmigration phase of their life-history. Critical habitat for Chinook
salmon includes all areas identified by NMFS as having primary constituent elements (PCEs)
essential to the conservation of the listed species (Table 5).
Table 5.Primary constituent elements(PCEs)essential to the conservation of salmonids within the action area.
Primary Constituent Elements
Site T e Site Attribute Species Life History Event
Nearshore marine areas Forage Adult sexual maturation
Free of obstruction Smolt/adult transition
Natural cover
Water quantity&quality
Estuarine areas Forage Adult sexual maturation
Free of obstruction Adult"reverse smoltification"
Natural cover Adult upstream migration,holding
Salinity Fry/parr/smolt seaward migration
Water quantity&quality Fry/parr smoltification
Smolt growth and development
Source:70 FR 52630-52858
NOTE:These PCEs correspond to all salmonids in the Puget Sound basin,not just Chinook salmon.
Chinook salmon populations that potentially overlap with the Fudge Point North action area
include fish that migrate to Rocky, Sherwood, and Coulter creeks to the north, and spawning
populations in the Nisqually River, Deschutes River, McAllister Creek, and Woodland Creek to
the south (SalmonScape 2013). According to the most recent harvest management plan (PSIT
and WDFW 2010), the Deschutes River and McAllister Creek spawning populations are most
likely hatchery origin, and would not be included in the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)
Species Information 12 ENVIRON
because they represent Category 3 populations which operate in systems where there is no
evidence of historical native Chinook production. The 2009 Nisqually River basin fall Chinook
natural escapement was estimated at 872 adults (PSIT and WDFW 2010).
5.1.3 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
There are a total of 13 winter or`ocean-maturing" steelhead stocks in South Puget Sound
(WDFW 1993). A recent review (PSSTRT 2013) of steelhead within Puget Sound identified
Central and South Puget Sound as a major population group (MPG), where a total of eight
winter-run distinct population segments (DPS) were historically present. Critical habitat for this
species was proposed on January 14, 2013, and includes the same PCEs listed for Chinook
salmon in Table 4.
Steelhead do not typically frequent nearshore areas, although they may come into shallower
locations for foraging (Shreffler and Moursund 1999). The DPSs that potentially overlap with the
proposed action area include fish from the Nisqually River, Deschutes River, and South Sound
tributaries (PSSTRT 2013, SalmonScape 2013). South Sound tributaries near the action area
that contain either rearing, spawning, or migrating individuals include Coulter, Sherwood, Rocky,
and Woodard creeks. The run size for"wild" Nisqually River steelhead averaged 402 steelhead
from 2007-2011 (PSSTRT 2013). No run size estimates were provided for the Deschutes River
or South Sound tributaries.
Adult winter-run steelhead enter freshwater for spawning from December through May for the
Nisqually River, October through March for the Deschutes River, and November through March
for the South Sound tributaries (PSSTRT 2013). The majority of juveniles will migrate back to
Puget Sound as two-year-olds from April to mid-May (WDF et al. 1973 as cited in PSSTRT
2013). This would indicate that there could be both spawning migrations and outmigrating
juveniles within the action area from October through May.
5.1.4 Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary (S. pinniger), and Yelloweye
Rockfish (S. ruberrimus)
Rockfish are typically a long-lived species that are slow to mature and reproduce, which makes
them vulnerable to overfshing. Adult habitat for the three ESA-listed species primarily includes
deepwater (>151 ft) rocky substrates and/or shallower eelgrass and kelp beds (BRT 2009). All
three species have been observed within shallower depths and non-rocky substrates such as
sand, mud, and other unconsolidated sediments (Miller and Borton 1980), although juvenile
bocaccio and canary rockfish are recognized as utilizing nearshore habitat (Love et al. 1991).
Even then, use of the nearshore is primarily in areas with rock or cobble composition and/or
kelp species (Love et al. 1991). Overall, it is notable that adult or juvenile rockfish do not prefer
the sand and mudflat habitat where geoduck clams are cultured.
Bocaccio, canary, and yelloweye rockfish occur in Puget Sound, but there is little indication that
they occur very frequently south of Tacoma Narrows. Overfishing is one of the dominant factors
in the decline of these species. For example, bocaccio represented up to 70.5 percent of the
commercial fisheries composition in South Sound until 2003 (Palsson et al. 2009). Based on
WDFW(2012b) surveys between 2003 to 2009 within Marine Conservation Area (MCA) 13,
which covered South Puget Sound, the following observations were made: (1) no bocaccio or
Species Information 13 ENVIRON
yelloweye rockfish were encountered by anglers, and (2) canary rockfish were encountered an
average of 49 times. WDFW also surveyed for all three rockfish species throughout Puget
Sound using a combination of trawl, video, and scuba surveys from 1986 to 2006 (Palsson et al.
2009). Yelloweye rockfish was the only one of these three species found, and that occurrence
was 46 miles north of the project area near White Center(south of Seattle). Although it is
unlikely that ESA-listed rockfish would occur in the project or action area, all three species were
included in the effects analysis.
Critical habitat for the three ESA-listed rockfish was proposed on August 6, 2013 (78 FR
47635). The proposed listing included 73.72 square miles of nearshore habitat in South Puget
Sound. Juvenile settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock
and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp (families Chordaceae, Alariaceae,
Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) are essential for conservation because these
features enable forage opportunities and refuge from predators and enable behavioral and
physiological changes needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. The attributes that
are included in the nearshore critical habitat include: (1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey
species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and
(2)water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities. Proposed juvenile nearshore critical habitat overlaps
the proposed Fudge Point North project area (ERMA 2013).
5.1.5 Southern Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus)
Southern eulachon were excluded from this analysis because populations south of the
Canadian border primarily originate in the lower Columbia River Basin. The closest populations
to Puget Sound are in the Elwha River(Shaffer et al. 2007), a tributary to Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Since eulachon are not expected to make long spawning migrations, it is unlikely that they
would be present within southern Puget Sound. In a response to comments for the final
determination to list the southern DPS of Pacific eulachon as a threatened species (75 FR
13012), NMFS stated that they found no record of eulachon spawning stocks in rivers draining
into Puget Sound, and information on the spatial distribution of the species provided by WDFW
revealed no evidence of eulachon spawning in Puget Sound now or in the past. Thus, no effects
on eulachon from the proposed action in Case Inlet are anticipated.
5.1.6 Forage Fish
The main forage fish species found in Puget Sound include surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus),
Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallash).
Due to the fluctuating nature of forage fish populations, management emphasizes the role of the
ecosystem, rather than catch statistics (Bargmann 1998). Specifically, documented spawning
habitat and potential spawning habitat is mapped on an annual basis and classified as "Marine
Habitat of Special Concern" under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Hydraulic Code
Rules (Lemberg et al. 1997). In addition, known spawning grounds are assumed to represent a
unique stock. Within Puget Sound, each species of forage fish uses about 10 percent of the
shoreline as spawning habitat, and the adjacent nearshore habitats as nursery grounds (Penttila
2007). Spawn timing for the three main forage fish species is presented in Table 6.
Species Information 14 ENVIRON
Table 6.Spawning and incubation timing of forage fish species present within southern Puget Sound.
Month
Species Jan I Feb I Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pacific herring(Clupea harenguspallasii)
Spawning
Incubation
Surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)
Spawning
Incubation
Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)
Spawning
Incubation
Source.Lemberg et al.1997,Penttila 2007,Stick and Lindquist 2009
5.1.6.1 Pacific sand lance and surf smelt
Pacific sand lance and surf smelt are both year-round residents in the nearshore areas of Puget
Sound (USFWS 2009b). They are generally found in mixed schools in waters 59 to 98 ft deep.
The preferred grain size for spawning substrate of the Pacific sand lance ranges from 0.002 to
1.2 inches and surf smelt typically spawn in substrate ranging from 0.04 to 0.3 inches (Lemberg
et al. 1997). According to a comparison of documented spawning habitat of these two forage
fish and the proposed project area, both sand lance and surf smelt have documented spawning
in the vicinity (SalmonScape 2013, WDFW 2013). These spawning sites are about 0.2 miles to
the south and 0.8 miles to the southwest(around the apex of Fudge Point), respectively. There
is potential spawning habitat along the upper beach habitat about 60 ft (horizontal distance
based on a 5 percent slope) from the lowest elevation of the growing area. These locations are
not within the action area for the proposed activities because they are related to upper beach
habitat. Additionally, the substrate materials observed during the site surveys (Section 6) did not
appear to be suitable for sand lance or surf smelt spawning. In general, substrate was too large
and covered in barnacles, indicating low wave energy that is not typically suitable for forage fish
spawning (Tonkin et al. 2007).
Pacific sand lance also spends part of its diurnal cycle buried in bottom sediments (Penttila
2007). During the spring and summer months, the fish typically occur in the pelagic zone during
the day, and forage and burrow in the benthic substrate at night (Hobson 1986). During the
winter months, Pacific sand lance may remain buried in the sediment in a state of dormancy
(Robards and Piatt 1999).
5.1.6.2 Pacific herring
There are 19 stocks of Pacific herring in Puget Sound, of which only the spawning habitat of the
Squaxin Pass Stock would potentially overlap with the Fudge Point North action area. The
Squaxin Pass Stock spawns from mid-January to mid-March (Stick and Lindquist 2009), and
has maintained a "healthy" population trend since 1994 (Stick 2005, Penttila 2007). According to
Stick and Lindquist(2009), the mean biomass estimate of the Squaxin Pass Stock ranged from
720 fish (5 year mean) to 802 fish (25 year mean).
Species Information 15 ENVIRON
Pacific herring typically broadcast spawn in eelgrass, marine algae, hard substrates, and
occasionally polychaete tubes between a tidal elevation of 0 and -10 feet MLLW(Stick 2005,
Penttila 2007, Stick and Lindquist 2009). Documented spawning habitat near the Fudge Point
North project area is located about 7.3 miles to the southwest along the southern tip of Squaxin
Island (Figure 3). According to the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database (WDFW 2013),
pre-spawning holding areas are located along the southern edge of Harstine Island, about 0.4
miles away from the proposed project area.
m
°"' �P anbrsnn
Island
¢ 4
O
r ,•r'ti 2
2.
p S
� e
V-
R1lF�ti •sty G V l R
f C
Legend
illll�Documented Spawning Grounds
®Prespawning Homing At"s
SPAWNING TIMING
Jan Feb March Apr,! May June
Figure 3.Documented herring spawning and pre-spawning holding locations for the Squaxin Pass herring stock in
relation to the proposed geoduck aquaculture growing area(black dot).
Source:Stick and Lindquist 2009
5.2 Birds
There is one federally-listed bird species and one state sensitive bird species present in Mason
County (Table 4). The following information provides a brief description of their ecology, how
each species is likely to use the action area, and associated critical habitat, if applicable.
Species Information 16 ENVIRON
5.2.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Western Washington has one of the largest concentrations of bald eagles in the contiguous
United States. Eagles are common in the San Juan Islands and northern Puget Sound
(BirdWeb 2013). Although there was a large decline in the early and middle 20th Century, they
have made a dramatic comeback since dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was banned in
1972. In 2005, there were 840 occupied nests recorded in Washington and an estimated total of
1,939 nests (Stinson et al. 2007). According to long-term trend data, 1968 to 2010, the Breeding
Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2012) reported a significant increase of 10.46 birds/year(adjusted
trend) in the bald eagle population of Washington. As part of the conservation strategy for bald
eagles, buffers are placed around active nest locations (WAC 232-12-292, RCW 77.12.655).
In addition to year-round residents, there is a substantial population of seasonal or transient
resident bald eagles that winter around Puget Sound. Wintering concentrations are generally
found around rivers and creeks with salmon runs (Watson and Rodrick 2001). According to
Watson and Rodrick (2001), winter residents are present from about late October to March.
These authors note that this state sensitive species is vulnerable to loss of nesting and winter
roost habitat. Foraging from resident and wintering bald eagles in the proposed action area is
considered likely.
5.2.2 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Marbled murrelets are year-round residents in coastal marine waters and embayments.
Murrelets feed near the surface or dive in pursuit of small fish and invertebrates in relatively
shallow marine waters (generally less than 98 ft deep) typically within 5 miles from the shore
(Huff et al. 2006, Raphael et al. 2007). Murrelets forage both during the day and at night, and
may exhibit bi-modal foraging behavior, which means that they follow the daily vertical
migrations of prey, which are at shallower depths at night and deeper during the day. According
to the USFWS (1997), the diet of the marbled murrelet varies based on prey availability, but
typically includes the three main forage fish species found in the Puget Sound, as well as,
northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific sardine (Sardinops
sagax), and juvenile rockfishes (Sebastes spp.). The main invertebrate prey includes squid
(Loligo spp.), euphausids, mysid shrimp, and large pelagic amphipods. Becker et al. (2007)
reported that reproductive success in California populations was strongly correlated with the
abundance of mid-trophic level prey (e.g., sand lance, juvenile rockfish) during the breeding and
post-breeding seasons.
Critical habitat for marbled murrelet only includes nesting locations. Home range size (i.e.,
foraging and nesting habitat) during the breeding season in Washington was an average of
518,427 acres in 2005 (Bloxton and Raphael 2008 as cited in USFWS 2009b). In terms of
marine foraging habitat, all waters of Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the nearshore
waters (within 1.2 miles of the shore) along the Pacific Coast from Cape Flattery to Willapa Bay
are considered potential foraging habitat (USFWS 1997). Although foraging habitat is not
specifically critical habitat, it is a main component of the breeding success for marbled
murrelets. As such, the proposed Fudge Point North action area is within the range of habitat
that would provide essential marine foraging opportunities to nesting birds.
Species Information 17 ENVIRON
5.3 Marine Mammals
Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA), and so are
included in the BE regardless of their federal or state status. There are five marine mammals
identified in Mason County (Table 4). The following information provides a brief description of
their ecology, if they are likely to use the action area, and critical habitat(if applicable).
5.3.1 Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
Killer whales that migrate into Puget Sound make it as far south as the Nisqually River, but don't
typically migrate up to Case Inlet (Wiles 2004). Palo (1972 as cited in NMFS 2008a) commented
that orcas (southern residents) traveled to southern Puget Sound most often during the fall and
winter, following the salmon and herring runs, but only noted McNeil Island and Carr Inlet as the
farthest southwest destination. It was further commented by Osborne (1999 as cited in Wiles
2004) that in recent years, early autumn is the only time of year that K and L pods regularly
occur in the Sound. In contrast, transient orcas are more unpredictable in their movements than
residents. According to Wiles (2004), most sightings of transients in Washington occur in the
summer and early fall, with a smaller number of sightings continuing throughout the year.
Designated critical habitat for the southern resident killer whale includes habitat in Case Inlet;
however, critical habitat does not include locations less than 20 ft deep (relative to extreme high
water[EHWJ) (NMFS 2009a). The lower end of the farm would be about 20.5 ft deep based on
EHW, which is right at the boundary for critical habitat. Harvest activities that potentially occur
near critical habitat (i.e., dive harvest)would not be done in the presence of killer whales.
A petition to request delisting was made on August 2, 2012, and in their 12-month finding,
NOAA decided that delisting was not warranted (78 FR 47277). The primary constituent
elements essential for conservation of the southern resident killer whale include:
1. Water quality to support growth and development;
2. Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth,
reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth; and
3. Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging.
5.3.2 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
During migration, humpbacks stay near the surface of the ocean (NOAA 2013). While feeding
and calving, they prefer shallow waters. During calving, humpbacks are usually found in the
warmest waters available at that latitude. Calving grounds are commonly near offshore reef
systems, islands, or continental shores. Humpback feeding grounds are in cold, productive
coastal waters. Southern Puget Sound is not recognized as a feeding, calving or migration area.
According to Cascadia Research, about one humpback whale is spotted in Puget Sound
annually (The Seattle Times 2008). On May 7, 2009, a humpback whale was spotted via
helicopter near Anderson Island by a television reporter from King-5 TV(Kitsap Sun 2009).
Reports provided by the Orca Network(2013) noted a humpback whale near the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge on August 28, 2012. Based on the infrequency of observations in the 1970s and
1980s (Calambokidis and Steiger 1990), it appears that use of Puget Sound environs may be
increasing slightly. This could be a reflection of an overall rebound in population status of the
Species Information 18 ENVIRON
species in the eastern Pacific, as documented in a recent extensive census of North Pacific
populations (Calambokidis et al. 2008). However, their presence in South Puget Sound is still
considered highly unlikely based on typical migration distribution.
A petition to request delisting was made on April 17, 2013 and NOAA's 90-day finding found the
petitioned action may be warranted (78 FR 53391). A 12-month status review and finding on the
petition has not been released.
5.3.3 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
Gray whales are an open ocean species most commonly found off Baja California to the Bering
and Chukchi Seas. Aggregations occur off the Washington coast during winter and spring
migrations but are uncommon in Puget Sound (Calambokidis et al. 2002). A small group of gray
whales was observed in waters around Whidbey Island in the spring of 2013 to feed, and this is
the typical southern extent of gray whale sightings in Puget Sound (Orca Network 2013). When
spotted within South Puget Sound, gray whales are often already sick or injured. For example,
on June 21, 2013 a gray whale was found in Burley Lagoon at the north end of Carr Inlet
(Cascadia Research 2013). This particular whale appeared emaciated and infected with whale
lice, and was spotted at South Sound locations over the course of a week before it was believed
to have migrated back to open ocean (Cascadia Research 2013).
5.3.4 Seals and Sea Lions
Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are present in Puget Sound year-round, and California sea lions
(Zalophus californianus) are present in Puget Sound between late summer and late spring
(NMFS 1997, Gustafson et al. 2000). Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) are more typical of
the Columbia River estuary and the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia,
- and Southeast Alaska (NMFS 2008b). Steller sea lions were proposed for delisting on April 18,
2012, and will likely be delisted in 2013. Other marine mammals, such as the harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and northern elephant seal
(Mirounga angustirostris) are typical of northern Puget Sound in the western Strait of Juan de
Fuca or San Juan Island area (Palazzi and Bloch 2006, Gustafson et al. 2000).
Pinniped populations have increased seven to ten-fold in Washington with the passage of the
MMPA (Jeffries et al. 2003), and may have significant population effects on their prey base.
Seals and sea lions are likely to use the action area for foraging, especially given an increase in
biota typical of geoduck farms when structure is present (see Section 7.1.1, Direct Effects). A
recent analysis completed by Lance and Jeffries (2009) on harbor seal diets in South Puget
Sound indicated that 99 percent of samples collected contained gadids, including Pacific
tomcod (43%) and Pacific hake (34%). Other dominant prey species included clupeids (69%),
plainfin midshipman (47%), and flatfish (33%). There were no large seasonal differences in the
primary diet preferences, although there was some variability for minor diet preferences
(species composing 5% of samples). These patterns included fluctuations of species that were
more common during the following seasons: (1) cephalopods in the fall and spring, (2) shiner
surfperch in the spring, (3)juvenile salmonids in the spring and summer, and (4) rockfish in the
summer. These data are based on analysis of scat collected at long-term monitoring locations at
Gertrude and Eagle islands.
Species Information 19 ENVIRON
6 Existing Environmental Conditions
Field surveys were conducted at the proposed Fudge Point North project area on November 27
to 28, 2011 between 22:15 and 02:00, with low slack(-2.90 ft MLLW2) at 01:04. Another survey
was conducted on June 22, 2013 between 09:00 and 13:15, with low slack (-2.9 ft MLLW2) at
11:24. The goal of these surveys was to record the presence/absence of shoreline hardening,
stormwater inputs, beach slope, aquatic macrophytes (macroalgae and eelgrass), and
epibenthos.
Eleven "epifauna transect" lines were sampled within representative intertidal areas in or
adjacent to the proposed Fudge Point North project area (Figure 4). The epifauna transect lines
were used to collect data on substrate characteristics, percent cover of macrophytes, and
density of epibenthic fauna. Five "video transect" lines were sampled with a digital camera
equipped with GPS and video capabilities (Figure 4). Video transects were used to record broad
habitat features, such as substrate transition areas and tidal elevations throughout the course of
the survey. Collectively, these transect lines ranged within a tidal elevation of-4.5 to +4.9 ft
MLLW(Figure 4). The entire project area was also visually surveyed during the site visits, which
included in-water and upper beach areas. This was in order to verify the absence of eelgrass
within the action area, presence of species not observed along the transect lines, and quality of
forage fish spawning habitat. A full description of field methods is provided in Appendix A.
6.1 Shoreline Riparian Vegetation
The shoreline riparian vegetation above the Fudge Point North project area was mixed
evergreen and deciduous forest. The vegetation community was grossly observed to be
composed of typical Puget Sound area riparian habitat(Brennan 2007), which is dominated by
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh), and grand fir
(Abies grandis), interspersed with native lowland deciduous trees such as red alder(Alnus
rubra), big leaf(Acermacrophyllum), and vine maple(Acercircinatum). According to the Mason
County Assessor(2010), much of the adjacent riparian area was zoned as "general commercial'
land and was designated as forest land. There were small segments of undercut banks and
cleared vegetation associated with upland developments, but for the most part the riparian
habitat was determined to be stable (Figure 5).
6.2 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation Characterization
According to the National Wetlands Inventory Mapper(USFWS 2013) and WDFW(2013) PHS
data, habitat within the proposed Fudge Point North project area is classified as estuarine
intertidal aquatic bed unconsolidated shore (E2AB/USN). Unconsolidated shore includes
substrates with less than 75 percent areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock, and less than
30 percent areal cover of vegetation. Therefore, the proposed Fudge Point North project area
can be classified as a sandflat. Habitat characterization at the proposed project area was
consistent in terms of the associated substrate and vegetation for South Puget Sound sandflat
habitat(Dethier 1990, Dethier and Schoch 2000).
2 This value is based on a tidal prediction for McMicken Island, WA and corrected for the difference
between predicted and observed tides at Tacoma, WA(NOAA 2013).
Existing Environmental Conditions 20 ENVIRON
Q ---Video Transects
Eplfauna Transects
Mean Higher High
Water(M HHW)
10-Foot Contours
HA R S TI Nit Tax Parcels
t\ . \` Project Area
/,SLANG \` \.`\\.
GRABAREK \\\ \\
Parcel Nod BARTOL \\ \T4 �♦\♦ N.,120077590022 \
120077590023
BERLINER \\` ♦♦\ �� ,�
Parcel No. �� ♦ Q>
120077500012 3 ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ T
\ t
a TS��
Q � i
4 a TRUEMAN \` n
,Parcel No. \
120077590031 -
v Q BOOTS 0
„� • p o Parcel No.
Data Sources: 120077590051
Mason Cc 2012 tax parcels
Environ 2013 survey data
PSLC 2002 Bare Earth ASCII HITCHC_OCK
files vertically�transformed b
from MSL to MLLW using Parcel No'J
NOAAs VDatum program. 120077590052/ 5
Coordinate System:
State
4 '
Washington Plane South, o
NAD 83 US Survey Foot o 30 W xa 400
Scale:?:2000 FeN i@
Figure 4.Plan view of the proposed Fudge Point North project area on Harstine Island(Case Inlet)with an overview of the video and epifauna transect lines surveyed
on November 27-28,2012 and June 22,2013.
Note,.The entire project area was reviewed during a site reconnaissance survey(see Appendix A).
Existing Environmental Conditions 21 ENVIRON
Freshwater Pond
�_____.a____.--~--- •sec; l�C;
Figure 5.Aerial photographs of the proposed Fudge Point North project area shoreline.
Note:The red lines indicate the boundaries of the project area.Although the entire project area is outlined,the aerial photograph
did not extend far enough into the intertidal zone.
Source:modified from Ecology 2000
6.2.1 Upper Intertidal Habitat
The upper beach declined from the toe of the bluff(a maximum height of about 50 ft) to a tidal
elevation of about+3.0 ft MLLW at about a 7 to 9 percent gradient. The upper beach habitat
was primarily composed of gravel and small cobble. Shells were also a major component of the
upper beach substrate. Below a tidal elevation that ranged from about+1.5 to 4.9 ft MLLW, the
substrate transitioned from gravel/cobble substrate to sand and shell material (Figure 6). This
change in substrate material is termed the "Sediment Transition Boundary." Very little
macrophyte cover was observed within the larger substrate material.
A number of small drainages were observed from upland habitat, including an unnamed stream
that drained from the freshwater pond habitat directly above the proposed Fudge Point North
project area (Figure 5). USFWS (2013) classified this area as a palustrine unconsolidated
bottom that is permanently flooded due to a dike or impoundment (PUBHh). It is likely that this
area was modified in 1940 when the first building was constructed on the upland portion of the
tax lot parcel.
There is also a large estuarine emergent wetland and salt marsh landward of the Fudge Point
apex, which drains into Buffington's Lagoon (a 4.56-acre pocket estuary). This wetland was
classified by USFWS (2013) as E2EMN (estuarine, intertidal, emergent, regularly flooded). The
wetland has a total area of 3.05 acres. WDFW(2013) classified this area as a saltwater wetland
under PHS. It is essentially the same area as recognized by USFWS, although WDFW included
an additional 0.34 acres along the southern end of the USFWS identification. A 2.96-acre
unconsolidated shoreline separated the wetland from intertidal habitat.
Existing Environmental Conditions 22 ENVIRON
6
a4Y
f
;..; -b '") fir, + w +„ }�',- �` � 4` '�tC�, ti �", �'y• y� ". '!.- 4._.7
'R"Fii� i AA
y
s� aS -++5 < < a `,•si w:y, y' ar-� 'XS ': ,ylL t t,
41
7-1
LOW
•.'� til-.. .�`.,,t�. .'"+4'1 .x�.sy •4� " Z:` .{. v2 Y� M7 i'c" p -, bii ""`.. 1"�
.u: -ti{ yY1f �� e •; T,E, - .^�,ask y _}e,�`t.. ,,L: - .
'�sa,` t �yy�' . IM.J•. r:, .a� .f'L1• ,nS- i �: V. .I..L ~'``�
14
Figure 6.Representative photograph of upper beach substrate above the"Sediment Transition Boundary"line above
the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
6.2.2 Lower Intertidal Habitat
Substrate in the intertidal zone was dominated by sand with some shell and gravel material,
depending on the tidal elevation (Table 7). There was a similar gradient break with the amount
of shell material observed, as with the Sediment Transition Boundary mentioned above,
between an elevation of-1.5 to -2.3 ft MLLW where the transect lines contained between 3 and
20% shell material. Below this elevation, little to no shell material was noted.
6.2.3 Aquatic Vegetation
Aquatic macrophytes were present within the intertidal habitat, although what was present was
a product of drift. The majority of aquatic vegetation noted in the epifauna transect lines
included Ulva spp. with some trace Sarcodiotheca spp and Gracilariopsis spp. The majority of
the project area had 50 to 100% coverage of macroalgae (Figure 7). In areas where this was
not the case, the coverage ranged from 5 to 20%. Figure 8 provides an overview of the different
areas of macroalgae accumulation observed on June 22, 2013. There were also patchy
accumulations of drift Saccharina spp. between a tidal elevation of-3.2 and -4.5 ft MLLW.
These were found within areas of higher macroalgae accumulation.
Existing Environmental Conditions 23 ENVIRON
Table 7.Average site characterization for the proposed Fuc
Intertidal Characterization T-1 T-10 T-11
-2.2 ft MLLW LW -2.3 ft MLLW -2.0 ft MLLW
Substrate Characterization(%) n=5 n=5 n=5
Shells 3±2.8 1 20.0±14.1 1.8±1.8
Fine Sand(0.05-2 mm) 0 .0 92±13 99.0±2.2
Sand(2-8 mm) 96.8±4.3 .1 0 0
Gravel(6-64 mm) 10±0 .9 0 0
Small Cobble(64-128 mm) 0 0 0
Aquatic Macrophyte Cover(%) n=5 n=5 n=5
No Cover 92.4±2.3 7 90.2±12.4 95.4±3.6
Green Algae(Ulvaspp.) 7.2±2.6 11.5±12.9 2±1.7
Red Algae(Gracilariopsisspp.) 1±0 I 0 3.3±2.1
Red Algae(Sarcodiothecaspp.) 0 1±0 0
Eelgrass 0 0 0
E ibenthos(#Iftz) n=5 n=5 n=5
Polychaeta(polychaetes) 4.6±3.2 11.3±3.3 6.8±2.9
Crustacean
Amphipoda(amphipods) 0 2.5±1.7 2.5±1.7
Brachyura(crabs) 0 0 1.5±0
Anomura(hermit crabs) 0.4±0 3±0 3.5±0.9
Caridea(shrimp) 0 0 1.5±0
Cirripedia(barnacles) 1.1±0 4±3.1 7.9±0.9
Gastropoda(snails and sea slugs) 2.4±2 ) 3.9±1.7 3.9±1.7
Bivalvia(includes siphon holes) 1±0 0 1.5±0
Echinodermata
Echinoidea sand dollar 0 1 0 0
Notes:indicates standard deviation from average observation;locatioidal height at McMicken Island,WA(NOAA 2012 and 2013),
corrected for predicted vs.actual at Tacoma,WA,and time of survey
Existing Environmental Conditions ENVIRON
w - 5-20%accumulation '
sk..a
50100%accumulation'
� 4y
Figure 7.Drift macroalgae(primarily Ulmspp.)accumulations at the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
No attached macrophytes or eelgrass were observed within or near the proposed project area.
The closest eelgrass present is a small (0.02 acres or 823 ft2) patch of non-native eelgrass (Z.
japonica) in the Scott Lease associated with the permitted Fudge Point growing area (ENVIRON
2011). This area is more than 2,700 ft from the proposed Fudge Point North project area. Non-
native eelgrass is currently recognized as an invasive species by WDFW(2011) and
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR; Mach et al. 2010).
In order to confirm the lack of native eelgrass within either the project or action area, a review of
data from aerial photography (Ecology 2013a) and underwater video reconnaissance (DNR
2013) was completed. The closest native eelgrass habitat reported was 4.0 miles to the north at
the tip of Harstine Island (Ecology 2013a), and the closest long-term monitoring site was 7.7
miles to the northeast in Vaughn Bay across Case Inlet. According to Gaeckle et al. (2009), the
eelgrass in Vaughn Bay was showing a declining trend between 2004 and 2008 at a rate of
about 0.5 ha/yr. Although this area was not surveyed beyond 2008, assuming the same rate of
decline, it would be totally gone by 2015. In either case, there is no eelgrass in the project or
action areas of the proposed Fudge Point North site.
Existing Environmental Conditions 25 ENVIRON
1` -2.86 ft Mean Lower Low Water(MLLVVl
h
Mean Higher High Water(MHHW)
-4.5 ft MLLW(Extreme Low Tide)
Mean High Water(11.5')
• ` ,,� ......... Drainages
HA R$ rI — Sediment Tansition Boundary
• �.-� 10-Foot Contours
ISLAND � �Project Area
Tax Parcels
p •-' ° Patchy Saccharina
GRABAREKl �p • . Sand Dollar Bed
s Parcel No.' ' 1 50-100% Macrophyte Cover
12007759002210
•
�BARTOL
Parcel No. 1 �'
120077590023
BERUNER �° )
- Parcel No.
120077500012 Y •
• t a
N eTRUEMAN
n Parcel No. `=
'1`C1 120077590031
BOOTS
rParcel No.,,o
Data Sources: * lJ a 920077590051 L
Mason Co 2012tax parcels
Environ 2013 survey data Z
WA DNR MHW line N,
PSLC 2002 Bare Earth ASCII
files vertically transformed b 0 HITCHCOCK
from MSL to MLLW using f Parcel No.
NOAAs VDatum program. 120077590052 G
Coordinate System: 1 0 � o
Washington State Plane South,? e / d
NAD 83,US Survey Foot so too 20o aoo 100 o
Scale:1:2000 a«r
Figure 8.Biological resources identified during the June 23,2013 survey within the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Existing Environmental Conditions 26 ENVIRON
6.3 Epibenthic Fauna, Benthic Infauna, and Other Organisms
Species in Puget Sound are typically distributed based on temperature, salinity, and wave
energy along a north to south axis, with South Puget Sound containing species that are more
tolerant of lowered salinities and higher concentrations of fines (Dethier and Schoch 2005). The
families that were identified during field reconnaissance surveys are presented in Table 8,
including the overlap with species identified in the Spatial Classification and Landscape
Extrapolation (SCALE) of intertidal biotic communities in Central and South Puget Sound,
through which Dethier and Schoch (2005) developed general trends of species distribution.
Additional species were noted within the benthic community in the more southern Fudge Point
locations; for that information please refer to ENVIRON (2011).
Table 8.Benthic and epibenthic invertebrate species and fish observed during the proposed Fudge Point North site
surveys and reported in Case Inlet through the SCALE program.
Phylum Family S ecies Observed B
Scientific Name Common Name SCALE ENVIRON
Cnidaria Metridiidae Metridium spp. Sea anemone X X
anemones
Annelida Chaeto teridae S i6chaetopterus costarum Polychaete worm X X
(polychaetes) Orbiniidae Scoloolosarmi er Bristle worm__ X _ X_
Onu hidae D/o atra ornate ? Pol chaete with shell case X X
Balanidae Ba/anusspp__ _ barnacle X X
Coro hiidae Americorophium spp. _Amphipod X_ X_
Hi of idae Heptacarpuspaludicola Broken back shrimp _ _ X_
Arthropoda,Crustacea Callianassidae Neotrypaea californiensis ? Ghost shrimp mounds X
(barnacles, Cancridae Cancer raci/is _ _ Graceful crab _ X
amphipods,shrimp, Cancridae Cancer roductus Rock crab_ _ _ X
and crabs) E ialtidae Pu ettia producta Northern kelp crab ' X
_ Pa uridae PagurusgLanosimanus Grainy ermit crab— X X -
Pinnotheridae Pinnixa spp. Pea crab _ X X
Ma'idae Ore onia raci/is Graceful decorator crab X
Columbellidae Alia spp. __ Dovesnail X X
Mollusca Nassariidae Hima mendica Mud snail X X
Gastropoda(snails) Nassariidae _Caesia fossatus__ Mud snail X X _
Naticidae Eus ira lewis// Moon snail X X
Mollusca Hiatellidae Panpea Qenerosa Geoduck clam tshow� X
Bivalvia(clams, Cardiidae Clinocardium nuttallii Heart cockle _ X X
oysters,and mussels) Tellinidae Macoma spp. Macoma clam X X
Dendrasteridae Dendraster excentricus Sand dollar X X
-- -- ------ ------- -_... _..._
Echinodermata Asteriidae Pisasterbrevispinus Giant pink sea star X
- - - - - -- —
(sea stars and sand Asteriidae Evasterias troschel// _ Mottled sea star_ X _
dollars) Asteriidae P cno odia helianthoides Sunflower sea star X
Astero seidae Dermasterias imbricata Leather sea star X
Chordata Cottidae Leptocottus armatus Staghorn sculpin X
Actinopterygii(ray- - - - -- -- -----._.._...._..... --- — - - --- ..-_
finned fishes) Zoarcidae Lycodes pacificus Blackbelly eelpout X X
?=not a positive identification
Source:Spatial Classification and Landscape Extrapolation(SCALE)=the data reported in Dethier and Schoch(2005);
ENVIRON=observations from the November 27-28,2011 and July 22,2013 site surveys
Existing Environmental Conditions 27 ENVIRON
Species that made up the epibenthic fauna at the proposed Fudge Point North project area
were segregated by substrate material size. In the upper beach habitat, more sessile organisms
were noted (i.e., barnacles) and small burrowing crabs (Pinnixa spp.). The middle and lower
intertidal areas (sandflat habitat) were dominated by sand dollars, most of which were partially
or completely buried in sand. Polychaete tubes (primarily Spiochaetopterus costarum)
dominated the lower intertidal where sand dollars were not present. Other species present in
this area included clams (Macoma spp.) and cockles(Clinocardium nuttallii). Within higher
densities of sand dollars, more mobile organisms were present (i.e., crabs), but no tube-dwelling
or burrowing organisms were observed. A few native geoducks were observed, although they
were located at the low tide line (-2.9 ft MLLW). It is likely that they represent a small proportion
of the intertidal benthic faunal community.
The highest density of sand dollars (74.4 animals/ft2)was located in the Trueman Lease
(sampled from Epifauna Transect 7). There is anecdotal evidence that the sand dollar
populations near the Hitchcock Lease make seasonal migrations up to 1,000 ft(D. Cooper,
pers. comm., 2012). The only documented extent of sand dollar migrations in the literature was
up to 328 ft in a subtidal population (Morin et al. 1985). In addition to the sand dollar beds,
scattered dead sand dollars were observed throughout the intertidal habitat, possibly indicative
of an aging population or environmental stress. According to Birkeland and Chia (1971),
senescence is the major source of mortality in intertidal sand dollar populations. Natural
mortality (senescence) tends to be greatest for the 8-and 9-year age groups, although
predation appears to occur at a steady rate until the fifth year.
There were a number of species that represented a very small portion of the organisms
observed, but are noted here for their unique behaviors. For example, there was a blackbelly
eelpout (Lycodes pacificus) observed during the November 2011 survey but not during the June
2013 survey (Figure 9). This species moves into shallower waters at night to feed (Lamb and
Edgell 1986), which may explain its presence during the November night survey. There was
also a Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus)found in the intertidal habitat (Figure 9),
which is an opportunistic feeder commonly found in intertidal areas (Lamb and Edgell 1986).
Other examples of species observed during the site surveys are shown in Figure 9.
6.4 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development
According to the most recent shoreline inventory (Mason County 2012), land use along the 6.9-
mile length of shoreline from Briscoe Point (southern tip of Harstine Island) past Fudge Point
includes residential (46%), forestry (31%), and vacant (23%). There are six existing aquaculture
permits. Shoreline modifications include 9 small docks, 6 buildings, and 1 upland bridge,
resulting in 17 percent shoreline armoring. Two bulkheads, a staircase, and a road/boat launch
were also observed along the toe of the bluff above the proposed project area during the site
visits (Figure 10).
Existing Environmental Conditions 28 ENVIRON
X�fy
• ,° !Z
*Y 0
Panel A ;.
1,Y
Panel B i Panel C
�� `�� \,<�.y g Sd_.}�` Ala, VF.:) y �Y•�''!+`' 1
Panel DiL-
Figure 9.Examples of species observed during the site surveys at the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Panel A:Blackbelly eelpout(Lycodes pacificus); Panel B:Graceful decorator crab(Oregonia gracilis);Panel C:Staghorn sculpin
(Leptocottus armatus);Panel D:Giant plumose anemone(Metridium spp.)contracted;Panel E:Sunflower sea star(Pycnopodia
helianthoides)
c` !
Wooden Concrete Road/Boat
Staircase Bulkhead Launch
Figure 10.Development associated with single family residences above the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Existing Environmental Conditions 29 ENVIRON
6.5 Water Quality
The proposed Fudge Point North project area is located within an "Approved" growing area,
according to recent bi-monthly surveys completed by Washington Department of Health
(WDOH) for Harstine East (Curtis 2012). All fecal coliform samples taken from the closest
monitoring sites to the farm (0.1 miles north and 0.8 miles south of the farm) by WDOH were
well below the standards for fecal coliform pollution for the period of record (2007-2012), which
means that they meet the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)water quality standards
for an Approved classification.
No waters within the action area are listed on the 2008 Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list (Ecology 2013b). The closest areas listed to the proposed Fudge Point North project area
include Category 23 waters for low dissolved oxygen about 1.0 mile to the north on the north
side of McMicken Island, and Category 2 waters for low dissolved oxygen about 0.5 miles to the
northeast on the Pierce County side of Case Inlet. Due to the distance, these listings are
unlikely to influence water quality conditions near the harvest site, and the farm may improve
low dissolved oxygen conditions in the surrounding area (as discussed in the Effects Analysis,
Section 7).
6.6 Water Movement
According to the review by Albertson et al. (2007), tidal currents are superimposed on a net
estuarine (residual) circulation caused by the outflow of buoyant freshwater at the surface and
inflow of dense (salty) main basin water at depth. Because of restricted flow through the
Tacoma Narrows, South Puget Sound is more sluggish and stratified, and therefore, more
susceptible to nitrogen addition (eutrophication) and low near-bottom dissolved oxygen levels.
Circulation around Harstine Island is a combination of complex geography of the South Puget
Sound basin, wind forcing, freshwater inputs, and tidal exchange. Residual flow around Harstine
Island alternates between a dominant"H" pattern with flow moving out(eastward) into both
Dana Passage and Pickering Passage, and an "O" pattern with clockwise flow in the surface, a
compensatory counterclockwise flow at depth, and negligible flow in Dana Passage—with all
depths moving in unison during ebb and flood tides. Albertson et al. (2007) commented that
shifts in residual flow direction coincided with distinctive wind events.
6.7 Distance to Species Habitat
Table 9 provides a summary of the potential use of the area or distance to habitat requirements
from the proposed Fudge Point North project area for the species described above in Species
Information (Section 5). Figure 11 provides a visualization of these distances from the project
area for species identified in the PHS database from WDFW(2013). Potential direct and indirect
effects for each of these species are summarized below. A more detailed analysis for ESA-listed
species and their critical habitat is presented within the Effects Analysis(Section 7).
3 Washington Department of Ecology Water Impairment Categories:
Category 5=Polluted waters that require a total maximum daily load(TMDL or water quality improvement project);
Category 4=Polluted waters that do not require a TMDL;
Category 413=has a pollution control program;
Category 2=Waters of concern;
Category 1 = Meets tested standards for clean waters
Existing Environmental Conditions 30 ENVIRON
1
Table 9.Distance(miles)to habitat requirements from the proposed Fudge Point North project areas.
Species Foraging Nesting/ Spawning Overwintering/ Migration Critical
Haulout Holding Area Route Habitat
ESA-listed Fish
Bull trout'.2 >20 N/A >20 >20 >20 10.9
Chinook salmonl.2 X N/A 12.4 10.0 X X
Steelhead2 X NIA 11.1 10.0 X Xb
Rockfish:bocaccio, >20 N/A >20 >20 >20 Xb
canary,and yelloweye3.4
Forage Fish
Pacific sand lances X N/A 0.2 NR N/A N/A
Surf smelts X N/A 0.6 NR NIA N/A
Pacific herrings X N/A 7.3 0.4 N/A NIA
Birds
Marbled murrelet7 >20 >20 N/A 11.8 N/A >20
Bald eagles X 0.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Marine Mammals
Southern resident killer >20 N/A N/A N/A 5.3c(closest X
whale8,9 sighting)
Humpback whale8 >20 N/A N/A N/A 7.9(closest N/A
sighting)
Gray whale'O >20 N/A N/A N/A 4.9(closest N/A
sighting)
Seals and sea IionS5 X 0.6 N/A 0.6 N/A N/A(Oregon)
N/A=does not apply,NR=not reported
'SalmonScape 2013,2StreamNet 2013,3Palsson et al.2009,4ERMA 2013,5WDFW 2013,6Lindquist,pers.comm.,2013,7USFWS 2008,
80rca Network 2013,9Meadows 2007,1OKitsap Sun 2009
aAn W indicates that this habitat requirement is within the action area;bProposed critical habitat;cSightings reported on OrcaNetwork for killer
whales are also for transients
6.8 Mitigation
Mitigation for harvest activities includes avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures
(Section 8), which are consistent with the conditions established by the Corps and Ecology for
NWP 48. In addition, mitigation will consist of removing all gear associated with the aquaculture
activity, and leaving the beach in a clean condition.
Existing Environmental Conditions 31 ENVIRON
O Harbor Seal Haulout �;�•,t� .'1�,� .�,:
O Seabird Colony
e Bald Eagle Nest
1 '�y
Documented Smelt
Spawning .�
Documented Salmonid �}
Occurrence/Migration •�•
e: . Sand Lance Spawning - • �4 ;:
Rocksole Spawning
Skellfish Growing Area 1y ,
,•
Bald Eagle Nest Buffer
Herring Holding Area
Harbor Seal Haulout Area y�y�i it
Geoduck A.' �=�•f� �
Project Area
it •t' �
t
J • .
J
• a
,s
d.
NARTSITNF - ` e, -
ISIANp
It
r
N
A 0.a
.b q
_ [Lr:Ay pi
Data$OI1rGB5: C
WDFW 2012 and 2013 PHS data
Coordinate$yys m:
Washington.Sta Plane South, L'
NAD 83 US% _ y Foot S. U t,WU 2,000 4,000 E
Scale:Y:36,00 Feet
F'r
Figure 11.Priority habitats and species(PHS)designated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in relation to
the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Existing Environmental Conditions 32 ENVIRON
7 Effects Analysis
Geoduck aquaculture methods, including harvest, planting, grow-out, and maintenance
operations, were examined to determine if ESA- or MMPA-listed species or critical habitat within
the action area could potentially be affected. The area considered for potential adverse, benign,
or beneficial effects from the proposed action includes the defined action area. The following
sections represent the best available science, and most current research on potential geoduck
aquaculture effects, much of which has been completed recently (2009-2013).
7.1 Aquatic Species
The following information discusses the potential direct and indirect effects to fish, invertebrates,
marine mammals, and critical habitat from the proposed cultivation of geoduck clams in the
Fudge Point North project and action areas.
7.1.1 Direct Effects
Geoduck aquaculture activities include potential direct effects to: (1) sediment transport and
dynamics, (2) sediment plume, (3) sediment nutrients, (4) prey base, (5) benthic faunal
community and fish use, (6) vegetation community, and (7) macro/microplastics and toxicity.
There is a summary of potential direct effects presented at the end of this section.
Concerns related to genetic effects of hatchery geoduck on wild geoduck populations and the
potential for a harvest event to resuspend cysts associated with the causative agent of paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP)were shown to be unfounded. If more information is desired for these
topics, please refer to Fisher et al. (2008a, 2008b). If these documents are not easily available,
they can be provided upon request.
7.1.1.1 Sediment Transport and Dynamics
The use of tubes and canopy nets may result in some minor sediment accumulation within this
area when gear is present(2 years out of a 7 year cycle). Osborne (2011) estimated the
potential accumulation of sediment under the netted area of an existing geoduck aquaculture
operation in Puget Sound. Based on a visual inspection of tubes and nets, Osborne (2011)
reported a conservative estimate of 2.5±0.5 inches of accumulation. This equates to a volume of
approximately 31.4±6.3 cubic inches, or a depth of 0.22 inches of sediment within a one square
foot area. Osborne (2011)then calculated net accumulation over a 1-acre area to be
approximately 29.3 cubic yards of sand. This amount of net accumulation would be expected to
rapidly re-distribute through wave and current action after one or two tidal cycles (or a few days
with typical wave conditions) following the removal of nets and tubes.
A maximum of 4.2 acres would contain nets at any one time, and would be at least one year
behind cultivation efforts in the southern Fudge Point sites that were planted in 2013. Assuming
a similar pattern of accumulation that was reported in Osborne (2011), there would potentially
be an additional 123 cubic yards accumulating over 2 years. To put this into perspective, the
amount of sediment that is accumulated annually in the Minter Creek Hatchery settling ponds
ranges up to 650 cubic yards (Haring 2000). This is five times higher than what would be
potentially discharged following gear removal. Therefore, even at this higher volume of
Effects Analysis 33 ENVIRON
accumulation, this would be a short-term impact that has a short recovery period, which is within
the natural variability of sediment accumulation within the area.
Harvesting does result in a redistribution of sediment, and the creation of holes to retrieve the
geoduck clams. Both elevation and sediment grain size changes appear to quickly return to
baseline conditions post-harvest. At Samish Bay, Micah Horwith (2009) reported that post-
harvest loss of elevation was not evident within one month of a harvest event, indicating a quick
recovery. These data are consistent with information reported by Short and Walton (1992) for
wild stock geoduck harvesting. Short and Walton (1992) noted laboratory studies that showed
fine-grained sediments regaining sheer stress (i.e., harvest holes stabilize and elevation return
to baseline) at a rate that doubled every 12 hours (Southard et al. 1971 as cited in Short and
Walton 1992). Sediment size structure also returned to baseline conditions within four months of
an intertidal harvest event (DFO 2012, Sauchyn et al. 2013) and subtidal harvest event(Pearce,
pers. comm., 2013). It should be noted that were no sampling events between October 7 and
February 9, so recovery may have been shorter(Pearce, pers. comm., 2013). Overall, harvest
does not represent significant impacts to changes in elevation or sediment grain size and the
effects persist for one to four months post-harvest.
7.1.1.2 Sediment Plume
Disturbance of the substrate during geoduck harvest causes sediments to be suspended within
the water column, and has raised concerns regarding the potential impacts of this disturbance
on water quality and fish presence in the action area. The following information includes data
from both a dive (wet) harvest and low tide (dry) harvest event in Puget Sound.
Plume Characteristics
Short and Walton (1992) measured maximum total suspended sediment (TSS) downdrift during
a geoduck dive harvest event in the western portion of the Nisqually Reach Tract near Sandy
Point (i.e., subtidal wild stock geoduck harvest). The authors then modeled different turbidity
plume scenarios under a variety of flow conditions. In that study, the major results included:
• The maximum TSS concentration sampled was adjacent to the harvest site, and was
measured at 17 mg/L above background conditions.
• The turbidity plume was shown to drop back to background conditions within 66 ft down-
current from the harvest site, and completely advected within 656 ft.
• The highest concentrations (>100 mg/L) were confined to a small area surrounding the
last hole dug by the diver.
• Even under cumulative conditions, the amount of sediment that was deposited was
calculated as having an average thickness of about 0.2 inches, which was considered to
be inconsequentially small.
• Deposition of fine sediment in the intertidal zone will virtually never occur if any wave
energy is present.
To address the extent of the sediment plume within intertidal habitat at existing geoduck
aquaculture sites, ENVIRON researchers measured TSS (in mg/L) and turbidity (in NTUs)
generated during geoduck harvests in Eld Inlet and Case Inlet (Fleece et al. 2004, Fisher et al.
2008a). The values presented below represent a harvest area of about 0.10 acres, which is
Effects Analysis 34 ENVIRON
based on a maximum sized crew of six harvesters. The major results of these studies were
similar to the Short and Walton (1992) study, and included:
• Areas not Affected: Updrift (:525 ft) of the harvest site and offshore (s50 ft), TSS levels
were similar to background TSS levels.
• Plume Signature: TSS/turbidity levels were the highest at the harvest site (320 mg/L
[240 NTU] at Eld Inlet and 240 mg/L [150 NTU] at Case Inlet) and quickly dissipated
downdrift. turbidity reached Ecology aquatic life criteria within a maximum of 107 ft and
background conditions within 122 ft downdrift of the harvest location4.
• Plume Characteristics: Maximum TSS dropped to about 30 percent of the peak value
within 50 ft of the harvest location at Eld Inlet and to about 26 percent of the peak value
within 98 ft at Case Inlet.
• Plume Duration: The generated plume was short-lived (lasting one or two minus tide
series, or about 5 to 8 days per series).
New research from Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Pacific Biological
Station in British Columbia, Canada has shown similar or lower effects from wet harvest events,
as reported above by Short and Walton (1992), Fleece et al. (2004), and Fisher et al. (2008a). A
two-year research program in both intertidal and subtidal habitats showed that the sediment
plume was generally limited to about 16 ft of the harvest plot, and the levels were not greater
than those reported during storm conditions (Pearce, pers. comm., 2013). In addition, a harvest
event did not result in significant overall material changes down-current above natural
background sedimentation levels. According to Pearce (pers. comm., 2013), the farther extent
of the sediment plume noted in the Fleece et al. (2004) and Fisher et al. (2008a) reports were
likely due to overland flow generated during a dry harvest event, which likely transported
sediments farther than observed by DFO or Short and Walton (1992).
Effects to Fish from Suspended Sediment
Exposure to high levels of suspended sediment can cause behavioral stress in fish (e.g., gill
flaring), sublethal effects (e.g., gill damage, increased susceptibility to disease), or reduced
survival and growth. Newcombe and MacDonald (1991) suggested that a good indicator of
suspended sediment effects is the product of sediment concentration (mg/L) and duration of
exposure (h). Fisher et al. (2008a) addressed whether the TSS generated during a harvest
event resulted in significant effects using the suspended sediment risk assessment model by
Newcombe and Jensen (1996). The results of the model suggested that even samples collected
immediately adjacent to the harvesters generated TSS values that would lead to, at worst, an
avoidance response if fish were confined within a plume. As there is no confinement created
during harvest activities, the model results can be considered reasonably conservative.
Published literature that addresses suspended sediment effects to juvenile and larval estuarine
fishes also report limited effects at the concentrations generated during a geoduck harvest
event. Juvenile Chinook salmon have been observed to increase their rates of foraging in
relation to increased turbidity (18-150 NTUs), which was attributed to the increase in cover
provided by turbid waters (Gregory and Northcote 1993, Gregory 1994). The maximum
4 Fleece et al. (2004) noted that the turbidity plume did not extend past 100 ft downdrift of the harvest
location.
Effects Analysis 35 ENVIRON
concentration of turbidity that juvenile Chinook salmon experienced before reduced foraging
was observed was 150 NTUs for individuals that were 2 to 3 inches in fork length (Gregory
1994). Studies have also reported increased feeding incidence and intensity for larval Pacific
herring at TSS concentrations ranging from 500 to 1,000 mg/L (Boehlert and Morgan 1985).
Boehlert and Morgan (1985) attributed the enhanced feeding to improved "visual contrast of
prey items on the small perceptive scale used by the larvae." Finally, Griffin et al. (2012) noted
that TSS levels of 400 mg/L did not result in adverse effects for Pacific herring larvae for
exposure times of 16 hours.
In contrast to larval stages, earlier life stages of Pacific herring (e.g., eggs) exposed to elevated
levels of suspended sediment can result in decreased survival and growth (Griffin et al. 2008,
2009). Griffin et al. (2008, 2009) reported that herring eggs exposed to 250 mg/L of suspended
sediment during the first two hours after eggs contacted water resulted in negative impacts to
embryo development. This is because the first two hours is the adhesion development period
when the embryos are "tacky or sticky" and sediment particles can irreversibly adhere to them.
Reported effects of sediment adherence included precocious larval hatch, smaller size at hatch,
reduced larval survival, and increased abnormalities. Therefore, 250 mg/L represents a lower
threshold of suspended sediment exposure before potential effects may occur compared to the
foraging rate of larvae.
The only location where suspended sediments was measured in excess of 250 mg/L was during
a dry harvest directly adjacent to the harvest hole, and was below 250 mg/L within 50 ft
downdrift. This potential impact would be avoided during a wet harvest because suspended
sediment generated was reported as a maximum of 100 mg/L (Short and Walton 1992). Either
way, potential impacts would be avoided because documented herring spawning areas in Case
Inlet are located more than seven miles away. Additionally, this potential impact is only relevant
during the first two hours after eggs are deposited. According to avoidance, conservation, and
minimization measures (Section 8), areas with herring spawn present would be avoided. Even
the most sensitive life stage (if present)would not likely be affected by increased suspended
sediment generated during harvest activities.
Summary of Potential Sediment Plume Effects
During both dry and wet harvest events, the turbidity levels were confined to a small area and
dissipated quickly (one to two tidal cycles). Fish would be expected to either avoid the sediment
plume generated during a dry or wet geoduck harvest or use the plume as a foraging
opportunity. Suspended sediment and turbidity levels measured during geoduck harvest events
were within or lower than the range in which juvenile Chinook salmon and Pacific herring larvae
were observed to forage (Boehlert and Morgan 1985, Gregory 1994). Although no research has
been done on turbidity effects to juvenile rockfish, it is assumed that the effects would be
similar. The majority of research associated with estuarine fish reports that higher turbidities
typically result in higher abundance of juvenile fishes because of the potential benefits of
reduced predation pressure (literature as cited in Boehlert and Morgan 1985). Even the short
window of time when suspended sediment levels could result in impacts to growth and survival
of herring embryos (Griffin et al. 2008, 2009) would be avoided through conservation measures
and physical separation of spawning areas from the proposed geoduck plots. Therefore, no
Effects Analysis 36 ENVIRON
i
significant impacts to ESA-listed fish or forage fish would be expected from increased
suspended sediment beyond temporary displacement.
7.1.1.3 Sediment Nutrients
Bivalves exert "bottom-up" nutrient control on phytoplankton production by changing nutrient
regeneration processes within the sediment (Reusch et al. 1994, Peterson and Heck 2001).
Bivalve filter-feeding serves an important role in improving water quality conditions through
benthic-pelagic coupling, which is the consumption of nutrients and creation of biodeposits
(feces and pseudofeces). Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) that are not digested and
incorporated into tissue are processed through the bivalves and excreted as soluble ammonia
and biodeposits. When these biodeposits become incorporated into aerobic surficial sediments,
microbially-mediated processes facilitate nitrification-denitrification coupling to permanently
remove sediment-associated N as nitrogen gas (N2) (Newell 2004). According to Newell et al.
(2005), "the species of bivalves that can exert the greatest influence on benthic-pelagic coupling
are those, such as oysters and mussels, which maintain high clearance rates and reject
relatively large amounts of particulate organic matter(POM) as pseudofeces."
To consider how the associated biodeposition by cultured stocks compares with individual
bivalves, Fisher et al. (2008a) examined feeding rates between medium Pacific oysters and
geoduck clams. The biodeposition of individual harvest size geoducks exceeds that of individual
oysters, owing to their size differences. However, the biodeposition of oysters planted at
commercial densities would exceed that of commercial densities of geoduck by more than 2-fold
(Table 10).
Table 10.Feeding rates for Pacific oysters and geoduck clams,as estimated by J.Davis.
Species Individual Culture
Feeding Rate Biodeposition Feeding Rate Biodeposition
(Uindividuallday) (mg/individual/day) (Uacre/day) (kg/acre/day)
Medium Pacific Oyster 70 187 100 million(cluster) 215(cluster)
20 million(single) 43(single)
Geoduck Clam 100 500 4.6 million 17.5
Source:Fisher et al.2008a
Note:cluster=multiple layers of oysters,single=one layer of oysters
Water circulation plays an important role in maintaining the oxygen content in the sediment. If
the accumulation of shellfish feces and pseudofeces exceeds the rate of microbial degradation
of those products, the aerobic zone in the sediments may be greatly thinned, which could lead
to an accumulation of nitrogenous wastes and build-up of toxic hydrogen sulfide (Newell 2006).
A study conducted in the River Exe estuary in England, where the effects of rack-and-bag
oyster aquaculture were compared to conditions in adjacent open mudflats, found that the
aerobic zone thinned from 4 inches on the open mudflats to 1.6 inches beneath the oyster racks
(Nugues et al. 1996). However, Nugues et al. (1996) indicated that the reduction in the
oxygenated layer was likely a result of decreased water velocity due to the presence of trestles,
which would not be present at the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Another study that looked at potential impacts of biodeposition from eastern oyster culture in
New Brunswick, Canada found no indication of organic enrichment in the sediment because of
Effects Analysis 37 ENVIRON
the frequent re-suspension by wave activity and physical erosion by winter ice (Mallet et al.
2006). Bottom culture was shown to stimulate the transfer of both organic matter and oxygen to
the sediment due to bioturbation by the animals, whereas suspended culture results in only the
transfer of organic matter to sediment, which reduces oxygen (Nizzoli et al. 2005). In most
shellfish culture areas, water circulation maintains a thick aerobic sediment stratum that
supports a large and diverse benthic community, which is supported in part by biodeposits
(Peterson and Heck 2001, Newell et al. 2002, Dumbauld et al. 2009).
Tidal action, wave energy, currents, and circulation patterns can be expected to maintain the
oxygenated layer at suitable levels in the sediment at the proposed Fudge Point North project
area. Even though there is no drift(or a divergence zone) on the leeward shore of Buffington's
Lagoon (Mason County 2012), the daily turbid fringe would provide flushing action in this area.
In conclusion, there should be sufficient circulation in the project area to ensure that sediment
oxygen levels will be maintained.
7.1.1.4 Prey Base (Forage Fish)
Forage fish are an important dietary resource for fish and marine mammals. The three forage
fish species that were used in this analysis as indicators for potential project effects include surf
smelt, Pacific sand lance, and Pacific herring. These three species make up the majority of the
forage fish prey base in Puget Sound (WDFW 1997, Bargmann 1998, Penttila 2007).
There is no documented spawning habitat for surf smelt or Pacific sand lance within the
proposed Fudge Point North project or action areas. Potential spawning habitat identified by
WDFW(2013) is located directly above the proposed project area, although no suitable
spawning habitat was observed during the site reconnaissance surveys. Based on the lowest
tidal height where potential spawning occurs (above+5 ft MLLW) compared to the highest
elevation for geoduck culture (+3 ft MLLW), there is unlikely to be any spatial overlap. This 2-ft
vertical separation results in a 40-ft horizontal separation, based on a five percent slope.
Therefore, direct physical impacts would likely be avoided.
In contrast to sand lance or surf smelt, Pacific herring will spawn within the intertidal range
where geoduck aquaculture occurs, but only when either natural or man-made structured
habitats are available, such as eelgrass, macroalgae or, aquaculture gear or similar inert
materials are available (Stick 2005, Robertson, per. comm., 2008). The closest documented
herring spawning habitat is about 7.3 miles to the southwest of the proposed Fudge Point North
project area (Figure 3), which is well outside of the anticipated action area.
If forage fish do spawn in or near the project area, there is a low potential for adversely
impacting spawning beds with sediment mobilized during harvest. Fines make up a small
percentage of the farm substrate, and sands (because they are heavier) drop out of the
sediment plume within a few meters (Short and Walton 1992, Osborne 2013). Also, the daily
"turbid fringe" that is generated from tidal action prevents the accumulation of fine sediments
(Osborne 2013). This same factor was a consideration in the Short and Walton (1992) modeling
study, which reported that"for typical wave conditions in Puget Sound, deposition of fine
sediment(less than 0.002-inch grain size) will virtually never occur if any wave energy is
present."
Effects Analysis 38 ENVIRON
Avoidance, conservation, and minimization measures (Section 8) are in place to avoid or reduce
the risk to forage fish spawning areas from geoduck aquaculture operations. For example,
growers are trained by a WDFW-certified biologist to recognize herring spawn. If herring spawn
is observed on aquaculture gear, then those areas are avoided until the eggs have hatched,
which is a conservation measure adopted by the Corps as part of the ESA consultation process
with NMFS (2009b, 2011) and USFWS (2009b) on NWP 48. In order to avoid potential surf
smelt or sand lance spawning areas, access to the site is by boat and no gear storage or
walking would occur in the upper intertidal habitat. Finally, if harvest occurs before the
prominent mid-January to May spawning and incubation period of the Squaxin Pass Stock
(Stick and Lindquist 2009), then direct impacts to herring would be avoided.
The final issue that has been raised regarding forage fish is the potential for geoduck to ingest
forage fish larvae when they feed. Aside from the distance between the proposed farm and
potential spawning areas, there are two pieces of information that make this potential impact
unlikely (Davis 2013). First, forage fish in southern Puget Sound spawn in the winter, and
geoduck are relatively dormant during this time. Gribben et al. (2004) commented that active
gametogenesis during the winter months for the New Zealand geoduck clam (P. zelandica)
indicated that they may not be as dormant as previously thought. The authors used the data
from New Zealand to make inferences on the geoduck populations in Washington and British
Columbia. However, the author did not report seasonal differences in water temperature for
New Zealand compared to the Pacific Northwest, which would likely influence the rate of feeding
for the colder water species. Based on observations of low show-factors5 for geoduck clams in
Washington during winter months (Goodwin 1977), and studies that document lower filtration
rates of bivalves when phytoplankton populations are reduced (Lehane and Davenport 2002),
the first condition reported by Davis (2013) appears to be valid.
The second condition is that geoducks target small particles in the range of 0.00004 to 0.0006
inches, also known as phytoplankton. Although bivalves have been shown to ingest up to a 0.2-
inch amphipod (Lehane and Davenport 2006), the upper size limits of bivalve ingestion
represented a minor fraction of the diet composition (Lehane and Davenport 2006, Wong and
Levinton 2006, Troost et al. 2008). To put this into perspective, at hatch, sand lance and surf
smelt larvae are about 0.2 inches and herring larvae are about 0.3 inches (Griffin et al. 2012,
Penttila 2013). Wong and Levinton (2006) also indicated that there is a certain amount of
discrimination between microalgae and larger particles, and larger prey items would likely be
more mobile, which would make them less likely to be consumed.
According to Dr. Joth Davis (2013) during a recent Shoreline Hearing Board presentation (SHB
#13-006c), evidence that cultured geoducks do not ingest organisms in the size range of forage
fish larvae include the fact that culture tubes are often encrusted with barnacles and other
organisms that would not be there if geoducks actively predated upon zooplankton. Overall,
geoducks are not expected to ingest forage fish larvae. If this does occur, it would likely be so
limited as to be an insignificant impact to the forage fish population.
5 The show-factor is the proportion of geoduck that is visible or can be felt below the sediment surface
versus the total number present in control plots (Gribben et al. 2004).
Effects Analysis 39 ENVIRON
In light of the conservation measures, lack of documented spawning habitat in the action area,
and lack of science that supports potential significant impacts, it is likely that the overall effects
of geoduck aquaculture at the proposed Fudge Point North project area on forage fish are at
worst benign. The addition of aquaculture gear may be considered a benefit since it provides
potential spawning habitat for Pacific herring, which can sometimes provide additional protection
of eggs from predators when nets are in place (Dewey, pers. comm., 2013).
7.1.1.5 Benthic Faunal Community and Fish Use
There are three main effects from geoduck aquaculture to the benthic faunal community,
including community changes during: (1) tube placement, (2) canopy nets, and (3) harvesting.
The effects of each action, the relative recovery period, and potential effects to fish use are
discussed below.
Tube Placement Effects
The addition of structured habitat, artificial or otherwise, to homogenous marine habitats like
sand and mud has long been recognized to increase the types and numbers of colonizing fish,
invertebrates, and aquatic plants in a given area (Iversen and Bannerot 1984, Buckley and
Hueckel 1985, Hueckel and Buckley 1987, Gregg 1995, Sargent et al. 2006, Powers et al. 2007,
Brown and Thuesen 2011). For example, Buckley and Hueckel (1985) examined the sustained
aggregation of recreationally important fishes in an artificial reef placed on a sandy bottom off
Gedney Island, Washington, and examined the rate of development towards a natural
temperate reef. In addition to a sustained aggregation of non-game prey fishes, primarily shiner
and striped perch (Embiotocidae), they found that anglers fishing over the reef structure
retained more than twice the number of fish per hour than anglers fishing nearby natural waters
without the structured habitat. They surmised that the increase in recreationally important fishes
was the result of successional biota (e.g., algae and sessile invertebrates) colonization and
development on the reef structure that provided an alternative prey source when other normal
forage fish were in cyclic low abundance.
Like artificial reefs composed of concrete blocks, metal lattices, sunken vessels, etc., several
studies have shown that the gear associated with shellfish aquaculture provides the basis for
similar `biogenic' habitat services and ecological benefits. For example, Laffargue et al. (2006)
demonstrated that the common sole (So/ea solea) displayed a strong affinity for oyster-rearing
structures when resting or seeking refuge during the day. Tallman and Forrester(2007) showed
that oyster grow-out cages provided valuable habitat for economically valuable finfishes in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and suggested that these structures be considered as part of
future habitat restoration programs for the exploited species. Very preliminary data has been
reported on the response of fish and mobile benthic macrofauna to geoduck aquaculture gear
(Sea Grant 2012, Brown and Thuesen 2011, VanBlaricom et al. 2013), which indicates that
certain species are attracted by the increased foraging opportunities, such as bay pipefish and
crabs, while there was no indication of difference in use by juvenile salmonids.
One example from the Sea Grant data associated with geoduck tubes is from a growth rate
study of staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus). Staghorn sculpin are opportunistic benthic
predators, and their diets may reflect the composition of the local benthic invertebrate
community (VanBlaricom et al. 2013). According to sampling at three existing geoduck farms in
Effects Analysis 40 ENVIRON
South Puget Sound with tubes present, the sculpin were shown to gain weight faster in
treatment plots compared to control plots (although this result was considered to be marginally
significant). The researchers also completed a stable isotope analysis, which is a way to track
the source of food and trophic status of the predator. The results indicated that there were no
significant differences between the treatment and control plots. Dr. VanBlaricom (2013), during
a presentation in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board for three proposed geoduck farms (SHB
# 13-006c) indicated that even though structure is added, the food is the same. It was
concluded that the addition of gear is not changing the trophic status of staghorn sculpins.
Canopy Net Effects
Some species can be displaced, or replaced, when predator exclusion nets are in place.
Predator exclusion netting was researched in a 5-year study of Manila clam culture (Spencer et
al. 1996, 1997, 1998) in relation to potential effects to the benthic infaunal community. This
study indicated that increased sedimentation resulted in increased benthic productivity, although
the infauna shifted from an assemblage dominated by predatory polychaetes (before netting) to
deposit feeders (after netting) that could exploit the increased sedimentation and organic
content. In the case of Manila clam culture, which maintains nets on a constant basis rather
than for two out of a five to seven year cycle, the increased sedimentation and organic content
has little opportunity to revert to baseline conditions. Changes associated with geoduck clam
aquaculture are likely less pronounced than Manila clam culture due to the amount of time that
nets are and are not present.
There may also be a difference in the community that forms on the nets themselves. Houghton
(2011) indicated that increased macroalgae on the nets will "increase local primary productivity
(e.g., Powers et al. 2007), provide a source of carbon for the local food web (e.g., Buckley and
Hueckel 1985), and support growth of epibenthic crustaceans (e.g., amphipods and copepods)
that comprise important prey for juvenile salmon during their early life history (Simenstad et al.
1982)." Data from the Pacific Shellfish Institute (Cheney 2009) documented up to a 30 percent
increase of harpacticoid copepods (e.g., typical salmonid prey items) on mesh tubes and netted
tubes at an existing geoduck aquaculture plot in Spencer Cove. Washington Sea Grant data
also showed a potential increase in certain salmonid prey items (e.g., Americorophium
amphipods) on canopy nets, although Dr. VanBlaricom (2013) indicated that the differences
were not significant between the treatment and control plots. Overall, the canopy nets used in
geoduck aquaculture are thought to result in a neutral or slightly positive change for the infaunal
community.
Harvesting Effects
Harvesting effects to the benthic community were studied through Sea Grant and the results
were finalized in Jennifer Price's master's thesis (Price 2011 a) and an in press publication in the
Journal of Shellfish Research (VanBlaricom et al. in press). The authors reported that potential
impacts to benthic invertebrates from a harvest event are within the natural disturbance regime.
Figure 12 was taken from Jennifer Price's (2011 b) thesis defense presentation, and is
associated with the Foss geoduck operation in Case Inlet and Chelsea geoduck operation in Eld
Inlet. This work compared the benthic community within harvested and non-harvested plots (0.6
to 1.1 acres). In at least one sample location (i.e., the Foss geoduck operation), the treatment
plot was located within a larger farm (12 total acres).
Effects Analysis 41 ENVIRON
Reference
—a-Cultured Harvest Period
140
120 FOSS
100
so
60 —
a 40
s:
20
0 —�— -
a AJ�01b pc�Q�6 4S$ .�c'°09 rJq -q
70
HELSEA
'in 60 —— -
A
50
40
30
20
10
0
rae4N0
Figure 12.Abundance of infaunal organisms at the Foss Farm(Case Inlet)and Chelsea Farm(Eld Inlet)before,during,
and after a harvest period.
Source:Price 2011 b
Detectable disturbances (not necessarily statistically significant differences) may continue for
several months post-harvest, but then become indistinguishable from control plots (VanBlaricom
2011, VanBlaricom et al. in press). Compared to sediment removal, sterilization, and
defaunation, recovery of the benthic infauna is relatively rapid after a geoduck harvest event
because they are still preserved in roughly the same area, which allows for faster recolonization
(Price 2011 a). In addition, because a harvest cycle occurs every five to seven years, there
would unlikely be compounded effects due to repeated harvesting of the same area (Pearce,
pers. comm., 2013). The main conclusion from VanBlaricom et al. (in press) was that
communities in southern Puget Sound are well adapted to accommodate various types of
disturbance, and the frequency of these disturbances occurs at a much lower rate than storm
events. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that there were no long-term measureable
effects to resident populations of invertebrates from geoduck harvest, and the intensity of
potential impacts was equivalent to natural disturbances.
Effects Analysis 42 ENVIRON
The results from VanBlaricom et al. (in press) were corroborated by work done in British
Columbia, Canada by Dr. Chris Pearce (pers. comm., 2013) in relation to intertidal and subtidal
geoduck harvest events. His research found very limited impacts on the benthic community, and
a similar short recovery period to baseline conditions in community structure and abundance.
Overall, the research indicates that the benthic infaunal community is not impacted or returns to
baseline, or near baseline conditions, once the gear is removed or post-harvest(Simenstad and
Fresh 1995, Brown and Thuesen 2011, VanBlaricom et al. 2013, Price 2011 a, Pearce, pers.
comm., 2013, VanBlaricom et al. in press). Compound effects are unlikely, as evidenced by
results reported for the Foss farm treatment plot, which was located within an existing 12-acre
farm that has been through at least two complete culture cycles.
7.1.1.6 Vegetation Community
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), especially eelgrass, is associated with a diverse array of
invertebrates, which include harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods, and cumaceans that
are important components in the diets of juvenile Pacific salmonids, herring, smelts and
flatfishes (D'Amours 1987, Blackmon et al. 2006). SAV is also important critical habitat for
juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish. The closest native eelgrass (Z. marina) is more than 7.7
miles to the northeast in Vaughn Bay, and this eelgrass was estimated by Gaeckle et al. (2009)
to be declining at a rate that would result in a total loss by 2015.
The only vegetation present in the proposed Fudge Point North project area was macroalgae
from drift, primarily including green algae (Ulva spp.), patches of red algae (Sacrodiotheca spp.
and Gracilaria spp.), and random occurrences of unanchored Saccharina spp. These
macrophytes can also provide cover and habitat for invertebrates and fish. Although there may
be some changes to vegetation in the project area, these changes are not likely to negatively
impact the structure of organisms that utilize these areas for forage or refugia, or change the
dynamics associated with nutrient assimilation that SAV provides. Powers et al. (2007)
documented that the macroalgal growth on protective netting placed over hard clam aquaculture
sites supported elevated densities of mobile invertebrates and juvenile fishes similar to natural
seagrass (Z. marina and Halodule wrightii) habitats. Similar observations that there is not a
significant change in the invertebrate community associated with macrophytes and netting on
existing geoduck plots in South Puget Sound was reported by Dr. VanBlaricom (2013) during a
recent presentation in front of the Shoreline Hearing Board.
7.1.1.7 Plastics and Metals
Concerns were raised during the Longbranch Hearing (SHB 11-019) regarding the potential to
release plastics and metals into the environment through the use of PVC tubes during the first
two years of grow-out. According to Baker(2011), the release of macroplastics (or PVC tubes)
into the environment was considered unlikely due to tide and wave action that would transport
tubes up the beach, which would then be collected during regular site visits. Additionally, the
canopy nets and beach patrols further reduced the risk of tube escapement. During the more
recent hearing (SHB 13-006c), Dr. VanBlaricom (2013) observed that tubes that did escape
from the canopy nets also filled in quickly with sediment and were maintained in close proximity
to the farm until they were collected during beach patrols.
Effects Analysis 43 ENVIRON
Observations of tube escapement was collected by WDFW during their 2005 bottom trawl
surveys in South Puget Sound (Palsson 2007). The survey conducted 42 bottom trawls which
randomly sampled within four stratified depth ranges. A total of 12 PVC tubes were found at two
of the 42 sample location at the shallowest survey depths (30 to 120 ft), and both were within a
miles of a large geoduck culture site.
The potential to create microplastics was thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Joel Baker during the
Longbranch Hearing. According to his testimony (Baker 2011), PVC tubes are unlikely to
degrade based on the low ultraviolet (UV) exposure(related to the small portion of time that the
tubes are exposed to daylight), low wave energy in Puget Sound, and debris management
efforts. To confirm that microplastics were not created within a tube field, bulk sediment samples
(a total of three pounds of sediment) were taken from existing tube fields, similar to the methods
described by Hidalgo-Ruz et al. (2012), and tested in an EPA-approved lab. Dr. Schenk (2011)
reported that there was no evidence of microplastics in the sediment samples. Further
confirmation that microplastics are not created was based on a review of stomach samples from
fish collected in geoduck tube fields. Dr. VanBlaricom (2013) testified that out of 235 fish
collected there was no evidence of microplastics in their stomachs.
In a review of potential impacts of microplastics in the marine environment, Andrady (2011)
commented that microplastics were most likely generated on beaches, which would have
extended exposure to light and weathering if not collected. The author mentioned that beach
cleanups are an effective mitigation strategy to avoid or limit the creation of microplastics. He
concluded his comments on beach cleanup by stating, "Beach cleanup therefore can have an
ecological benefit far beyond the aesthetic improvements of the beaches, and by reducing
microplastics, contributes towards the health of the marine food web."
The final concern is with the potential for PVC to leach metals and bioaccumulate in the
surrounding biota. PVC is a very stable material. It is unlikely to release metals or chemicals
naturally and leach into the surrounding environment, which is why it's used in drinking water
infrastructure. The potential for PVC tubes to leach into the surrounding sediment was also
verified during the sediment sampling completed for the Longbranch Hearing. Dr. Rosalind
Schoof(2011), an expert in human toxicology, looked at the data collected and compared it with
sediment testing throughout Puget Sound. She reported that exposure to metals originating
from PVC tubes is extremely unlikely, and there is no reason to think that these metals would
accumulate in biota and ultimately reach the human food chain.
In summary, with proper farm management, it is unlikely that the proposed geoduck farm would
result in the creation of macro or microplastics. There is no evidence that existing farms in
South Puget Sound are creating plastics debris or resulting in metals leaching into the sediment
from the use of PVC tubes.
7.1.1.8 Summary of Potential Direct Effects
Although shellfish aquaculture can result in short-term, localized impacts, on the whole there is
a potential net gain, or at worst benign effect, as demonstrated by the parameters discussed
above. Table 11 is a summary of potential direct effects for each parameter.
Effects Analysis 44 ENVIRON
Table 11.Summary of potential direct effects from the proposed Fudge Point North geoduck farm in Case Inlet.
Parameter Potential Direct Effect Duration Significance
Sediment • Tubes and canopy nets:minor accretion • Tubes and canopy nets: • Tubes and canopy nets:
Transport and of sediments within the tube area grow-out;baseline conditions insignificant
Dynamics within 1-2 tidal cycles
• Harvesting:changes to elevation and a Harvesting:one to four • Harvesting:insignificant
grain size months
Suspended . Fish behavior:avoidance or increased 0 Fish behavior:harvest • Fish behavior:
Sediments foraging insignificant
and Turbidity . Herring eqqs:impacts to growth and 0 Herrinq eggs:none if harvest • Herring eggs:
survival of embryos after first 2 hours following insignificant(with BMPs)
egg deposition
• Sediment plume:turbidity levels above • Sediment plume:one to two • Sediment plume:
back round conditions tidal cycles insi nificant
Sediment . Aerobic zone:increased density of • Aerobic zone:grow-out(5-7 • Aerobic zone:
Nutrients geoducks can result in thinning of zone, years) insignificant
but not likely with enough circulation
• Anaerobic sediments:may improve • Anaerobic sediments:grow- • Anaerobic sediments:
aerobic layer by disturbing accumulation out(5-7 years) insignificant or beneficial
of macroal ae in one area
Prey Base 0 Spawning:potential overlap between • Spawning:planting, • Spawning:insignificant
aquaculture and forage fish spawning maintenance,and harvest
habitat;largely avoided based on spatial
separation and conservation measures
• Sediment mobilization:forage fish • Sediment mobilization: • Sediment mobilization:
spawning beds would be covered by harvest insignificant
sediment mobilized during a harvest
event
• Larvae ingestion:forage fish larvae • Larvae ingestion:grow-out(5- • Larvae ingestion:
ingested by geoduck filter feeding 7 ears) insignificant
Benthic . Benthic fauna:potential increase of • Benthic fauna: 1-2 years with • Benthic fauna:
Faunal prey,but also change of community nets and harvest;baseline insignificant
Community structure conditions within several
and Fish Use months
• Fish use:potential increase in refugia • Fish use: 1-2 years when • Fish use:insignificant
and/or displacement gear is present
Vegetation 0 Macroalgae:drift macroalgae would be a Macroalgae:planting, • Macroalgae:insignificant
Community disturbed,but not taken out of the maintenance,and harvest
system activities
Plastics and . Macroplastics:release of culture tubes • Macroplastics: 1-2 years a Macroplastics:minor
Metals into Case Inlet when tubes are in place; with BMPs
BMPs avoid/minimize risk
• Microplastics:break down of plastic • Microplastics: 1-2 years when • Microplastics:
materials into Microplastics tubes are in place;beach discountable to
cleanup mitigation beneficial
Metals:leaching of metals from culture • Metals: 1-2 years when tubes • Metals:discountable
tubes are in lace
7.1.2 Indirect/Beneficial Effects
There are potential long-term indirect effects from the presence of shellfish at the proposed
Fudge Point North project area. Many of these indirect effects can be considered beneficial or
Effects Analysis 45 ENVIRON
neutral. According to a recent publication by Forrest et al. (2009), "the acceptability of
aquaculture operations or new developments should recognize the full range of effects, since
adverse impacts may be compensated to some extent by the nominally 'positive' effects of
cultivation." Indirect effects discussed here include: (1) water quality and clarity,
(2) bioextraction/bioharvesting, and (3) water column nutrients.
7.1.2.1 Water Quality and Clarity
Excessive N is considered a pollutant. Whereas natural sources of N are derived from oceanic
input, excessive levels of N are contributed by human input from upland sources (i.e.,
anthropogenic). On a global scale, the most significant anthropogenic inputs to N loading
remain fertilizers, wastewater discharges, urban/suburban runoff, and nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
ammonia (NH3) loading to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and agriculture
(Steinberg et al. 2011). It was noted by Albertson et al. (2002) that rapid population growth was
outpacing South Puget Sound's capacity to assimilate nutrients. South Puget Sound was also
noted as being especially affected by excessive nutrient loads because land-derived nutrients
were not diluted or transported out of the basin as fast as more tidally-mixed areas of central
and northern Puget Sound (Albertson et al. 2002).
Current data (1999-2011) from Ecology indicates that there is a general increasing trend of
nitrate and phosphate concentrations in Puget Sound (Maloy et al. 2013). Because oceanic
boundary conditions are fairly stable, the increasing trends in nutrients may be caused by
anthropogenic inputs and may indicate an increasing eutrophication trend in Puget Sound.
There have also been numerous Noctiluca blooms reported, which is a dinoflagellate micro-
grazer(phytoplankton) that exhibits top-down control on water column nutrients. The data from
Ecology indicates that the food web may be shifting from a linear diatom-based food web
(representing a strong benthic-pelagic coupling) to a microbial food web (representing a weaker
benthic-pelagic coupling) (Krembs, pers. comm., 2013). This type of food web shift results in
decreased water clarity, which would impact light penetration required for eelgrass growth.
According to Thom et al. (2008), Pacific Northwest estuaries are light limited, which reduces the
depth at which eelgrass can be distributed. Although the extent to which bivalves provide a
benefit in terms of light and nutrients may be weak for West Coast estuaries overall (Dumbauld
et al. 2009, Ruesink and Rowell 2012), there can be measureable effects on water quality
properties in areas with lower residence times, excessive contributions of nutrients from upland
habitats, and evidence of eutrophication (Prins et al. 1998, Dumbauld et al. 2009). All of these
conditions exist within South Puget Sound, which indicates that the proposed geoduck farm may
provide direct water quality benefits to the local ecosystem surrounding the proposed project
area.
Late summer months coincide with peak shellfish filtration activity, which would indicate that
there may be direct positive benefits from shellfish presence in the months where anthropogenic
sources of N are at their peak. Through feeding, shellfish reduce the amplitude of blooms and
slowly recycle nutrients back into the system at moderate levels throughout much of the spring
and summer months. Shellfish control the boom and bust cycle of phytoplankton blooms and
provide a moderate cycle of nutrients to help maintain a healthy balance in the ecosystem
(Brooks 2000).
Effects Analysis 46 ENVIRON
By consuming phytoplankton and particulate organic matter, shellfish increase the amount of
light reaching the sediment surface that is available for photosynthesis (Koch and Beer 1996). It
is notable that multiple researchers identify water clarity as the most important limiting factor to
eelgrass habitat(Fonseca and Bell 1998, Cho and Poirrier 2005, Fonseca and Malhotra 2006).
Therefore, the appropriate balance resulting in the greatest extent of eelgrass may in fact
include areas with shellfish (as opposed to only eelgrass) in order to create the optimal light
conditions, which allow eelgrass to colonize additional areas at greater depth.
7.1.2.2 Bioextraction/Bioharvesting
Shellfish can remove excessive nutrients from the water column during feeding (Cloern 1982,
Dame et al. 1991, Newell 2004, Lindahl et al. 2005, Zhou et al. 2006, Cerco and Noel 2007).
Nitrogen is permanently removed from coastal marine waters through harvest of shellfish and
the denitrification process. The rate of N removal from harvest is dependent on species-specific
filtration rates, which may be influenced by local water quality conditions that affect physiological
parameters of the shellfish (e.g.,water temperature, phytoplankton abundance, etc.). This
concept is known as nutrient bioextraction (or bioharvesting) and is currently being used in pilot
studies to mitigate for poor water quality conditions. In fact, Newell (2004) commented that
bioextraction is one of the only method available that removes N after it has entered a system,
which can then make that system more resilient to nutrient loading.
7.1.2.3 Water Column Nutrients
Nutrients (biodeposits) are released when the sediment is disturbed during harvest. Work
performed through Sea Grant funding indicated that"nutrient releases to Puget Sound are low
from a typical commercial geoduck operation" (Cornwell and Newell 2010). The preliminary data
presented by Cornwell and Newell (2009, 2010) showed that: (1) geoduck harvest has a low
biogeochemical impact, and (2) based on the acreage of geoduck harvested at one time (about
0.1 acre per day), the moderate pore water and effluent N and P concentrations, and the high
dilution rates, changes in water quality are unlikely to be of environmental significance. The
researchers concluded that although the effluent nutrient concentrations exceed ambient Puget
Sound concentrations, they would likely have minimal impact to local nutrient concentrations.
Even though the size of the Fudge Point North proposed farm is larger than the one acre study
plots in Cornwell and Newell (2009, 2010), the amount of area that can be harvested at one
time is limited by tidal conditions and available personnel. Therefore, harvest amount would be
similar to that reported in the studies.
Cornwell and Newell (2009, 2010) also reported that it appears wave action and tidal exchange
rapidly dilute P- and N-based nutrients to background levels from a geoduck bed during harvest.
While harvest will likely mobilize nutrient-rich feces and pseudofeces deposited by shellfish, the
magnitude of nutrient release is unlikely to be large enough to affect the trophic status of the
water column at the proposed Fudge Point North project area, and is outweighed by the positive
benefits to water column nutrients (i.e., nutrient reduction) through filtration.
7.1.2.4 Summary of Potential Indirect Effects
On the whole, there is a potential net gain from indirect effects associated with the presence of
geoducks. The main net benefit that shellfish can provide is through water filtration and ejection
of biodeposits. This biodeposition can be extremely important in regulating water column
Effects Analysis 47 ENVIRON
processes where bivalves are abundant and in seasons when water temperatures are warm
enough to promote active feeding. Bivalves under these conditions can exert"top-down" grazer
control on phytoplankton, which can reduce harmful algal bloom (HAB) events and mitigate for
poor water quality conditions.
7.1.3 Cumulative, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
Interdependent actions are those from actions with no independent utility apart from the
proposed action. Interrelated actions include those that are part of a larger action and depend
on the larger action for justification. No interdependent or interrelated actions have been
identified associated with the proposed Fudge Point North action area.
Cumulative effects are those from state or private activities, not involving activities of other
federal agencies that are reasonably certain to occur within the area of the federal action
subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02 Definitions). Federal actions unrelated to the proposed
action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to
Section 7 of the ESA.
7.2 Birds
The following analysis includes potential effects to sensitive bird species from geoduck
aquaculture at the proposed Fudge Point North project area. It should be noted that, in terms of
marbled murrelet presence, the likelihood of occurring in South Puget Sound is very low.
7.2.1 Direct Effects
Direct effects to birds include potential effects from noise, suspended sediment and turbidity
generated during harvest activities, and potential changes to the prey base. All other effects
(i.e., sediment transport and dynamics, sediment nutrients, benthic faunal community, and
vegetation community) are in-water or beach conditions that relate to fish habitat and would not
directly influence habitat conditions for birds.
7.2.1.1 Noise
Noise associated with human presence and boat motors during planting, maintenance, and
harvesting activities could result in temporary displacement of birds from the immediate area.
Strachan et al. (1995 as cited in USFWS 2009b) commented that murrelets that are found
around heavy boat traffic do not appear to be adversely affected by the ambient noise of an
urban area. Other species have reported behavioral changes in response to noise, but not to
the extent that would cause population-level impacts as long as distances of about 164 to 328 ft
are maintained from nesting habitats (Carney and Sydeman 1999, Borgmann 2010).
Considering the distances from nesting sites from the proposed project area (Table 9), negative
effects associated with human presence are not anticipated at this site. Even if some short-term
avoidance behavior is observed, there is nothing to indicate that this reaction impacts the overall
foraging ability of the sensitive bird species found in Case Inlet. Therefore, it is unlikely that such
temporary displacement from foraging activities would result in reduced foraging success,
nesting success, or fitness of overwintering birds.
Effects Analysis 48 ENVIRON
7.2.1.2 Suspended Sediment and Turbidity
Suspended sediment and turbidity would have little influence over bird behavior. As mentioned
previously, sediment plumes created during harvest are localized, short lived (typically one tidal
cycle), and do not typically extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the shoreline (Fleece et al.
2004, Fisher et al. 2008a). In comparison, the sensitive bird species found in Case Inlet would
primarily feed much farther from the proposed farm. For example, the closest sightings of at-sea
marbled murrelets in South Puget Sound were near Anderson Island (Falxa et al. 2008), which
is more than 8 miles to the southeast from the proposed project area.
In general, there is a lack of information associated with adverse effects of turbidity on bird
feeding success, and no studies that indicate that this is a strong influence on behavior. There
are two main reasons that the turbidity generated during a geoduck harvest are unlikely to
impact bird foraging behavior: (1)the zone of impact from the turbidity plume generated by
harvest is not within the open waters typically used by seabirds to forage, and (2) the two
species listed in Table 4 are well documented within locations like Willapa Bay, which is an
inherently turbid system. Therefore, no impacts are expected from turbidity generated during
geoduck harvest at the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
7.2.1.3 Prey Base
Researchers have reported that some species of marine shorebirds feed directly on the shellfish
products themselves (e.g., Dankers and Zuidema 1995), while others feed on the macrofauna
and flora that colonize shellfish aquaculture gear (e.g., Hilgerloh et al. 2001). Taylor Shellfish
has documented many bird species foraging on their shellfish beds, including dunlins, killdeer,
godwits, sand pipers, eagles, great blue herons, and gulls. 2ydelis et al. (2006) commented that
the densities of wintering surf scoters and white-winged scoters in Baynes Sound were not
attributable to the presence of shellfish aquaculture, and shellfish aquaculture and scoter
densities could be mutually sustainable. According to Houghton (2011), "tubes and netting on
the beach may reduce the use of the immediate farm area by certain shorebirds (e.g., dunlin,
western sandpiper)while making the area more attractive for other species (e.g., willet; see
Kelly et al. 1996)." There will likely be no significant change in bird use of the proposed Fudge
Point North project area because the proposed actions will not result in changes to potential
foraging opportunities.
7.2.2 Indirect Effects
The same discussion for indirect effects associated with fish, invertebrates, and marine
mammals is applicable for birds.
7.2.3 Cumulative, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
The same discussion for cumulative, interrelated and interdependent effects associated with
fish, invertebrates, and marine mammals is applicable for birds.
Effects Analysis 49 ENVIRON
8 Avoidance, Conservation, and Minimization Measures
Avoidance, conservation, and minimization measures that would be adopted at the proposed
Fudge Point North project area will be consistent with those outlined in the Taylor Shellfish
(2013) Environmental Code of Practice, and additional relevant shellfish culture conservation
measures adopted by the Corps from its consultation with the NMFS (2009b, 2011) and
USFWS (2009b) on NWP 48. Avoidance of potential impacts, where possible, is the first priority.
The avoidance, conservation, and minimization measures at the proposed Fudge Point North
project area include:
8.1 Maintenance, Repair and Work
1. Product shall be removed from the site by water only.
2. Damage to aquatic vegetation and substrates from boats or barges must be minimized/
avoided through the following practices (Note that aquatic vegetation includes SAV not
macroalgae, which can dominate the intertidal habitat in South Puget Sound.):
o Vessels used for shellfish culturing at the project area shall not ground in
eelgrass beds.
o Prevent the grounding of anchored boats and barges.
o Implement measures to prevent anchors, chains and ropes from dragging on the
bottom. Measures include the use of embedded anchors and midline floats as
practical, Avoid anchoring over known eelgrass beds.
o Moor and operate boats and barges in deeper water and away from aquatic
vegetation to prevent potential impacts from propeller scour or anchors.
o Intertidal areas must not be used to store materials such as tools, bags, marker
stakes, rebar or nets. Materials that are not in use or immediately needed must
be removed to an off-site storage area and the site kept clean of litter.
o All excess or unsecured materials and trash must be removed from the beach
prior to the next incoming tide.
o Avoid moving large substrate materials (e.g., logs, rocks) during aquaculture
operations. Where the relocation of such features is unavoidable, they are to be
relocated as minimally as possible and no farther than to another section of the
beach, within the same parcel and at the same tidal elevation.
o There shall be no modification of substrate in an effort to improve conditions for
geoduck clam aquaculture.
3. Operators of vehicles or machinery must reduce contamination from vehicles and
equipment through the following practices:
o All pump intakes (e.g., for geoduck harvest, washing down gear) that use
seawater shall be screened in accordance with National Marine Fisheries Service
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria.
Note: This does not apply to work boat motor intakes (jet pumps) or through-hull
intakes.
Avoidance, Conservation, and Minimization Measures 50 ENVIRON
o Remove broken down vehicles promptly from beaches and intertidal areas.
o Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, or tires) shall not be
discharged or used as fill (e.g., used to secure nets, create berms, or provide
nurseries).
o Land vehicles (e.g., all-terrain, trucks) and equipment shall not be washed within
150 ft of any stream, waterbody, or wetland. All wash water shall be treated
before discharged to any stream, waterbody, or wetland.
o Land vehicles shall be stored, fueled, and maintained in a vehicle staging area
placed 150 ft or more from any stream, waterbody, or wetland. Where this is not
possible, documentation must be provided to the Corps as to why compliance is
not possible, written approval from the Corps must be obtained, and the
operators shall have a spill prevention plan and maintain a readily-available spill
prevention and clean-up kit.
o Inspect all vehicles operated within 150 ft of any stream, waterbody, or wetland
daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Repair any leaks
detected in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes operation.
4. At least once a month and directly following storm events, beaches in the project vicinity
shall be patrolled by crews who will retrieve aquaculture debris (e.g., canopy nets, tubes)
that escapes from the project area. Within the project vicinity, locations shall be identified
where debris tends to accumulate due to wave, current, or wind action, and after
weather events these locations shall be patrolled by crews who will remove and dispose
of aquaculture debris appropriately. The grower shall maintain a record with the following
information and the record shall be made available upon request to the Corps, NMFS,
and USFWS: date of patrol, location of areas patrolled, description of the type and
amount of retrieved debris, and other pertinent information.
5. The grower shall not use tidelands waterward from the line of mean higher high water for
the storage of aquaculture gear. All aquaculture gear will be stored and sorted at the
processing facility and transported to the project area by boat at the time of deployment.
6. The grower shall ensure that area nets are tightly secured to prevent them from
escaping from the project area.
7. The grower will participate in beach cleanups held twice a year through the Pacific
Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA).
8. Train employees in meeting environmental objectives.
8.2 Species-specific Activities
1. A Pacific herring spawn survey shall be conducted prior to undertaking the activities
listed below if any of these activities will occur outside the approved work window for the
project area's Tidal Reference Area 3, which is April 15 through January 14 (WAC 220-
110-271). The activities requiring a spawn survey applicable to geoduck aquaculture
include: (1) bed preparation activities; and (2) geoduck harvesting, net removal, or tube
removal. Vegetation, substrate, and aquaculture materials (e.g., nets, tubes) shall be
inspected for Pacific herring spawn. If pacific herring spawn is present, these activities
Avoidance, Conservation, and Minimization Measures 51 ENVIRON
are prohibited in the areas where spawning has occurred until such time as the eggs
have hatched and Pacific herring spawn is no longer present (typically 2 weeks).
Records shall be maintained of Pacific herring spawn surveys, including the date and
time of surveys; the area, materials, and equipment surveyed; results from the survey;
etc. The record of Pacific herring spawn surveys shall be made available upon request
to the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS.
2. Newly positioned shellfish culturing shall not be placed above the tidal elevation of+7 ft
MLLW if the area is documented as surf smelt spawning habitat by WDFW.
3. Newly positioned shellfish culturing shall not be placed above the tidal elevation of+5 ft
MLLW if the area is documented as Pacific sand lance spawning habitat by WDFW.
4. Newly positioned shellfish culturing (e.g., culturing by rack and bag, raft, long-line,
ground methods) shall not be placed within 10 horizontal feet of eelgrass or anchored
kelp species.
5. Adaptive management measures will be applied wherein operations will be modified
using best available science, where appropriate, and scientifically supported resource
management objectives. This includes, but is not limited to:
o Planting through a sand dollar bed, or relocation of sand dollars during planting
activities if densities exceed 24 animals/ft2.
o Avoidance of bald eagle nests by maintaining a buffer distance of 600 feet from
existing nests.
o Avoidance of Southern Resident orcas, in the unlikely event that they travel to
southern Puget Sound. This would involve maintaining a safe distance during
vessel operations and reducing noise when orcas are sighted.
o Reducing surface noise to 50 decibels at a distance of 60 feet from each vessel.
8.3 Farm Plan Record Keeping Log
1. Harvest records (weight and species) of any non-farmed geoduck clams, if that amount
is greater than a recreational harvest limit.
2. Survivorship and growth data by location and year-class from farm inspections during
grow-out.
3. Pacific herring spawn surveys.
4. Spills or cleanups conducted on the beach.
Avoidance, Conservation, and Minimization Measures 52 ENVIRON
9 Determination of Effect
The following information is a determination of effect for each species presented in Table 4 and
their critical habitat, if applicable. The determination is based on the information presented in the
effects analysis.
9.1 Fish and Marine Mammals
The proposed action will not influence the viability, persistence, or distribution of fish and marine
mammals. The effects of the proposed action are unlikely to injure or kill individual listed fish or
marine mammals, and are therefore unlikely to impact the continuing status of the populations.
There may be temporary avoidance during harvest operations, but there are no anticipated
reductions in numbers, reproduction, or distribution of the species. Therefore, the proposed
action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species,
and will not adversely affect all other fish and marine mammals (Table 12).
Table 12.Effects determinations from geoduck aquaculture for ESA-listed fish,forage fish,and marine mammals
potentially found in Case Inlet near the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Species Determination of Basis of Determination
Effect
ESA-listed Fish
Bull trout May affect,not likely • They are no likely to be distributed into Case Inlet.
to adversely affect • If they are,salmonids do not appear to be affected by any of the proposed actions.
• Migration,foraging,or rearing habitat would not be impacted by the proposed
Chinook May affect,not likely actions,and foraging opportunities may be provided during harvest activities.
salmon to adversely affect • There may be some short-term displacement during harvest activities if above
turbidity levels where foraging occurs.
Steelhead May affect,not likely , Same as for Chinook salmon.
to adversely affect
• More typical of deepwater assemblage or nearshore habitat with eelgrass/kelp.
rockfish to adversely affect
Bocaccio May affect,not likely � Rarely occur in Case Inlet.
• Juveniles are not likely to use the habitat associated with the action area.
Canary rockfish May affect,not likely Same as for bocaccio rockfish.
to adversely affect
Yelloweye May affect,not likely More typical of deepwater assemblage.
rockfish to adversely affect . Rarely occur in Case Inlet.
Forage Fish
• Spawning habitat is not documented in the proposed project area.
• Potential spawning habitat may be present,but does not appear to be suitable
Pacific sand Will not adversely based on recent site surveys.
lance affect If spawning does occur,there would be no siltation of spawning beds from harvest
activities.
• Geoducks are not known to ingest forage fish larvae.
• May be some short-term displacement during harvest events,if present.
Surf smelt Will not adversely Same as for Pacific sand lance.
affect
• Spawning habitat occurs about 7.3 miles to the southwest.
• The addition of tubes may provide new substrates for spawning.
Pacific herring Will not adversely affect Geoducks are not known to ingest forage fish larvae.
• May be some short-term displacement during harvest events,but could also result
in increased foraging opportunities for larvae.
Determination of Effect 53 ENVIRON
Species Determination of Basis of Determination
Effect
Marine Mammals
Southern May affect,not likely ' Rarely occur in Case Inlet.
residentwhale killer to adversely affect Boats would avoid approaching,if present.
In-water work would be delayed if present in Case Inlet near the project area.
Humpback May affect,not likely Same as for southern resident killer whale.
whale to adversely affect
Grey whale May affect,not likely Same as for southern resident killer whale.
to adversely affect
• If present,may be some short-term avoidance when people are present,but would
Seals and sea Will not adversely not be significant above baseline recreation conditions.
lions affect Structured habitat would likely provide additional foraging opportunities,when
resent.
9.2 Birds
The proposed action will not reduce the foraging success, nesting success, or fitness of marbled
murrelets or eagles that may be found in Case Inlet. There may be temporary avoidance of the
action area, but these events are unlikely to overlap or negatively impact foraging behavior.
Based on the short- and long-term effects of the action, and direct and indirect effects, the
proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets and will
not adversely affect bald eagles (Table 13).
Table 13.Effects determinations from geoduck aquaculture for sensitive bird species potentially found in in Case Inlet
near the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Species Determination of Basis of Determination
Effect
• Rarely occur in Case Inlet.
Marbled May affect,not likely • Will not alter the effectiveness of foraging opportunities or potential forage
murrelet to adversely affect available.
• May be some short-term displacement when people are present.
Will not adversely Will not alter the effectiveness of foraging opportunities or potential forage
Bald eagle affect available.
• May be some short-term displacement when people are present.
9.3 Critical Habitat for Federally-Listed Species
The action area includes designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and southern
resident killer whale. Proposed critical habitat exists for Puget Sound steelhead, and
incorporates the same PCEs as Chinook salmon critical habitat. Proposed critical habitat exists
for juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish. No critical habitat exists in the action area for Puget
Sound bull trout. Table 14 summarizes the determination of effect on critical habitat associated
with the proposed project for Chinook salmon, steelhead, juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish,
and southern resident killer whale.
Determination of Effect 54 ENVIRON
Table 14.Summary of the determination of effect for each critical habitat primary constituent elements(PCE)relevant to
Case Inlet near the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Species PCE Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Fishes
Nearshore marine& Only short-term changes in prey species(i.e.,
estuarine areas: invertebrates)would occur,and these changes would not
• Forage affect the ability of Chinook or steelhead to find an
Chinook • Free of adequate supply of prey species.
salmon and obstruction May affect,but l not No obstructions to migration would be present.
steelhead* . Natural cover likely to adversely affect . There may be short-term increase in available cover/
• Salinity refugia provided by tubes.
• Water quantity a No changes to salinity would occur.
and quality • Only short-term changes in water quality would occur.
Juvenile canary ' Quantity/
quality habitat, Same as the determination for critical habitat for
and bocaccio and availabilit May affect,but is not salmonids.
rockfish likely to adversely affect There is no attached kelp or other SAV in the proposed
of prey species(proposed) • Water uali project area that would likely be used by juvenile rockfish.
Mammals
Southern 0 Water quality
• Only short-term changes in water quality would occur.
resident killer . Prey May affect,but is not 0 No changes in prey species(i.e.,forage fish)would
whale . Passage likely to adversely affect occur.
• No obstructions to migration would be present.
'critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead is proposed,but has the same PCEs as for Chinook salmon.
Determination of Effect 55 ENVIRON
10 EFH Analysis
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult
with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat(EFH) for any fish that
are covered under a Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Essential Fish Habitat is any habitat
(including both water and substrate) that is required by fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity. To adversely affect implies that the proposed action will reduce the quality
and/or quantity of EFH. The objective of this EFH assessment is to describe potential adverse
effects to designated EFH for federally-managed fisheries species within the proposed Fudge
Point North action area.
10.1 Description of the Proposed Action
Please refer to the description of the proposed action in the ESA discussion above (Description
of Work, Section 2) and detailed information associated with aquaculture practices (Aquaculture
Techniques, Section 3).
10.2 EFH Included in this Analysis
The Pacific West Coast (excluding Alaska) has three FMPs. These are focused on: (1) Pacific
salmon, (2) coastal pelagic species, and (3) groundfish. The EFH associated with these three
FMPs were described in the NMFS (2009b) Biological Opinion for NWP 48:
• Groundfish: The aquatic habitat necessary to allow for groundfish production to support
long-term sustainable fisheries and for groundfish contributions to a healthy ecosystem.
Descriptions of groundfish EFH for each of the 83 species and their life stages result in
more than 400 EFH identifications. Taken together, the groundfish EFH includes all
waters from the mean higher high water line, and the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion
in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California seaward to the
boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
• Pacific salmon: Chinook, Coho, and Pink salmon: Those waters and substrate
necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon
fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. To achieve that level of
production, EFH includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable
water bodies and most of the habitat historically accessible to salmon in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California. In the estuarine and marine areas,.in which this action
occurs, salmon EFH extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments
within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the EEZ (200 miles) offshore of
Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception.
• Coastal pelagic species: Amendment 8 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery
Management Plan describes the habitat requirements of five pelagic species: northern
anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific (chub) mackerel,jack mackerel and market squid.
These four finfish and market squid are treated as a single species complex because of
similarities in their life histories and habitat requirements. The east-west geographic
boundary of EFH for coastal pelagic species is defined to be all marine and estuarine
EFH Analysis 56 ENVIRON
waters from the shoreline along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington
offshore to the limits of the EEZ and above the thermocline where sea surface
temperatures range between 100 and 26°C. The southern boundary is the US-Mexico
maritime boundary. The northern boundary is more dynamic, and is defined as the
position of the 10°C isotherm, which varies seasonally and annually.
10.3 Effects of the Proposed Action
The only Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) relevant to the proposed Fudge Point
North project area is estuaries, which is the focus of potential effects from the action described
below. The majority of information relevant to ESA-listed fish is also relevant to EFH. Therefore,
what follows is a truncated version of the information that was previously presented in the
Effects Analysis, Section 7.
10.3.1 Groundfish
Groundfish species most likely to occur in the action area include rockfish and flatfish. Rockfish
are considered to have a "vulnerable" status in Puget Sound (Bargmann et al. 2011). Although
the three ESA-listed species discussed above are considered to be part of the deepwater
assemblage, there are species of rockfish in the nearshore sedentary assemblage that live in
close association with rocky habitats at depths less than 120 ft, including copper, brown, and
quillback rockfish (Bargmann et al. 2011). These three species are also the ones most
frequently observed in South Sound, based on historical records and recent sampling, although
copper and quillback rockfish recruitment substantially declined south of Tacoma Narrows
between 1987 and 2007 (Palsson et al. 2009). In contrast, brown rockfish is a common species
in South Sound, and even increased during dive surveys between 1987 and 2003. The closest
observations to the project area for brown rockfish are along McNeil, Fox, and Anderson islands
(Palsson et al. 2009), about 12 miles southeast from the proposed project area. Since the
1980s, other species of rockfish (yelloweye, redstriped, greenstriped, splitnose, shortspine, and
vermilion) occurred as single observation events in South Sound and are not expected to occur
in the project area.
In terms of flatfish potentially present in the proposed action area, there is documented rock
sole spawning about 0.4 miles southwest of the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Although rock sole spawning is unlikely in the action area, there is potential habitat for species
that typically spawn and rear in sand and mudflat habitat (e.g., English sole, starry flounder).
According to the Puget Sound Partnership (2008), populations of English sole, starry flounder,
sand sole, and Pacific halibut have increased in Puget Sound in recent years.
Lance and Jeffries (2009) reported high proportions of midshipman and flatfish (primarily starry
flounder and English sole) in harbor seal diets within South Puget Sound. Diet data collected in
at the Nisqually River in 1988 and Gertrude Island in 1979, 1994, and 1995 were similar in
composition and proportion to the 2008 values, which led to the tentative conclusion that
groundfish populations within South Puget Sound have not seen significant shifts in abundance.
However, no firm conclusion can be made since diet composition is not as accurate as
abundance surveys.
EFH Analysis 57 ENVIRON
There are two main potential impacts to groundfish species due to the presence of geoduck
aquaculture that were not discussed above. These are related to: (1) presence of nets and
tubes, and (2) increased turbidity and suspended sediments. According the most recent
presentation of Washington Sea Grant research results (VanBlaricom et al. 2013), flatfish are
reduced (but not excluded) from areas that use canopy nets. Dr. VanBlaricom indicated that
flatfish are reduced by about 50 percent in culture plots when gear is present compared to
control plots. Flatfish were shown to increase after gear was removed, but there was a
persistent reduction of about 25 percent relative abundance between the two areas for at least a
year(extent of observations). Although there may be a reduction of flatfish when canopy nets
are in place, this area is a small fraction of the total available habitat. The proposed culture area
represents about three percent(out of 160 acres along the Harstine Island shoreline from
Briscoe Point to just north of Fudge Point, as identified in Mason County [2012]) of the available
habitat along the Harstine Island eastern shoreline. Additionally, the existing cultivation in the
Fudge Point area will be phased to avoid overlap in terms of presence of nets and tubes.
Increased turbidity and suspended sediment is another potential direct effect that could result in
short-term negative impacts to groundfish. Flounder may show reduced feeding ability with
increased turbidity (Moore and Moore 1976 as cited in Boehlert and Morgan 1985). However,
harvest activities are limited in space (<O.1 acres for one day) and duration (4 to 6 hours).
Therefore, it is unlikely that harvest activities would influence spawning or rearing habitat of
these groundfish species.
10.3.2 Pacific Coast Salmon
Fall Chinook are found in Rocky, Sherwood, and Coulter creeks to the north, and the Nisqually
River, Deschutes River, McAllister Creek, and Woodland Creek to the south (SalmonScape
2013). The closest population of pink salmon to the proposed Fudge Point North project area is
the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek (both about 12 miles to the southeast). Similar to the
discussion of ESA-listed salmonids above, there are unlikely to be impacts to Chinook, coho or
pink salmon found in the action area. Shellfish aquaculture has a positive influence on water
quality. Salmonids may avoid the action area from the turbidity generated during harvest
activities, although it is more likely that salmonids will benefit from increased foraging in the area
when the plume is present(see discussion in Section 7.1.1.2). Overall, the proposed action is
expected to have a neutral impact on Pacific Coast salmon in the Fudge Point North action
area.
10.3.3 Coastal Pelagic Species
The only coastal pelagic species potentially found near the action area is northern anchovy.
Habitat does not exist near the Fudge Point North project area for market squid (WDFW 2009).
Northern anchovy are a pelagic schooling fish that utilize open water for broadcast spawning
during late spring and summer months (Penttila 2007). Penttila (2007) noted that northern
anchovy do not use intertidal areas for spawning, but do use nearshore habitats during other
parts of their life histories. For example, young-of-the-year anchovies occur in the nearshore
zone in the summer, presumably to feed on plankton. Surveys from 2003 and 2004 indicated
that northern anchovy were mostly observed near Harstine Island, Squaxin Island, and Totten
Inlet (Fagergren 2005). It is notable that northern anchovy were important components of harbor
seal diets in Hood Canal and San Juan Islands but not in South Puget Sound (Lance and
EFH Analysis 58 ENVIRON
Jeffries 2009). If these species are present off-shore during harvest activities, they would likely
avoid the area during the short (4-to 6-hour) harvest cycle.
10.3.4 Cumulative Effects
The same discussion for cumulative, interrelated and interdependent effects associated with
Federally-listed fish and marine mammals (Section 7.1.3) is applicable for EFH as well. Please
refer to that section.
10.4 Proposed Conservation Measures
Please refer to Section 8, Conservation Measures. Although these are presented for ESA-listed
species, they are relevant for EFH as well.
10.5 Conclusions by EFH
The proposed action will not influence the viability, persistence, or distribution of Pacific
groundfishes, Pacific salmon, or coastal pelagic species. There may be temporary avoidance of
the proposed Fudge Point North action area during harvest operations and a reduction in
abundance of flatfish when nets are present. However, there are no anticipated long-term
reductions in numbers, reproduction, or distribution of the species within the proposed Fudge
Point North action area. Therefore, the proposed action will not adversely affect Pacific
groundfishes, Pacific salmon, or coastal pelagic species.
EFH Analysis 59 ENVIRON
11 References
Albertson, S.L., J. Bos, G. Pelletier, and M. Roberts. 2007. Estuarine flow in the South Basin of
Puget Sound and its effects on near-bottom dissolved oxygen. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program, Publication No. 07-03-
033. Olympia, Washington.
Albertson, S.L., K. Erickson, J.A. Newton, G. Pelletier, R.A. Reynolds, and M.L. Roberts. 2002.
South Puget Sound area water quality study.Washington State Department of Ecology
Publication No. 02-03-020. Website: www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0203021.html
Andrady, A.L. 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 62:
1596-1605.
Baker, J.E.. 2011. Transcript of expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB
# 13-006c). March 1, 2012.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan-A plan for managing the forage fish
resources and fisheries of Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Olympia, Washington.
Bargmann, G., W. Palsson, C. Burley, D. Friedel, and T. Tsou. 2011. Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Puget Sound rockfish conservation plan: Including preferred
range of actions. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Olympia,
Washington. March 2011.
Becker, B. H., M. Peery, and S. R. Beissinger. 2007. Ocean climate and prey availability affect
the trophic level and reproductive success of the Marbled Murrelet, an endangered
seabird. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 329: 267-279.
Biological Review Team (BRT). 2009. Preliminary scientific conclusions of the review of the
status of 5 species of rockfish: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish
(Sebastes pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish
(Sebastes elongates) and redstripe rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound,
Washington. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Seattle, Washington. 278 pages.
BirdWeb. 2013. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Accessed on October 7, 2013. Website:
http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/bird details.asox?id=98
Birkeland, C., and F.S. Chia. 1971. Recruitment risk, growth, age and predation in two
populations of sand dollars Dendraster excentricus(Eschscholtz). J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 6: 265-278
Blackmon, D., T. Wyllie-Echeverria, and D.J. Shafer. 2006. The role of seagrasses and kelps in
marine fish support. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program (WRAP). ERCD TN-
WRAP-06-1. February 2006.
Bloxton, T.D. and M.G. Raphael. 2008. Breeding ecology of the marbled murrelet in Washington
state: Project update 2004-2007. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Forest Service, 32 pp. (as cited in USFWS 2009b)
Boehlert, G.W. and J.B. Morgan. 1985. Turbidity enhances feeding abilities of larval Pacific
herring, Clupea harengus pallasi. Hydrobiologia. 123: 161-170.
References 60 ENVIRON
Borgmann, K.L. 2010. A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds. Audubon
California, Tiburon, California. Website:
http://www.yourwetlands.orq/pdf/A°/o20Review%20of%20Human%20Disturbance%20lm
pacts%20on%20Waterbirds.pdf
Brenkman, S.J., and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in bull trout and implications for
conservation of a threatened species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
25: 1073-1081.
Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine riparian vegetation communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-02. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA.
Brooks, K. 2000. Declaration of Kenneth Brooks. United State District Court Western District of
Washington at Tacoma. Association to Protect Hammersly, Eld, and Totten Inlets, a
Washington non-profit corporation v. Taylor Resources, Inc.
Brown, R.A. and E.V. Thuesen. 2011. Biodiversity of mobile benthic fauna in geoduck (Panopea
generosa) aquaculture beds in southern Puget Sound, Washington. Journal of Shellfish
Research. 30(3): 771-776.
Buckley, R.M. and G.J. Hueckel. 1985. Biological processes and ecological development on an
artificial reef in Puget Sound, Washington. Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1): 50-69.
Calambokidis, J. and G.H. Steiger. 1990. Northwestern Naturalist. 71:45-49.
Calambokidis, J. E. Falcone. T. Quinn, A. Burdin, P. Clapham. J. Ford, C. Gabriele, R. LeDuc,
D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J. Straley, B. Taylore, J. Urban, D. Weller, B. Witteveen, M.
Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J. Huggins, and N. Maloney.
2008. SPLASH: Structure of populations, levels of abundance and status of humpback
whales in the North Pacific. Cascadia Research Final Report for Contract AB133F-03-
RP-00078.
Calambokidis, J., J.D. Darling, V. Deecke, P. Gearin, M. Gosho, W. Megill, C.M. Tombach, D.
Goley, C. Toropova, and B. Gisborne. 2002. Abundance, range and movements of a
feeding aggregation of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) from California to
southeastern Alaska in 1998. Journal of Cetacean Research 4(3):267-276.
Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A Review of Human Disturbance Effects on Nesting
Colonial Waterbirds. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology. 22(1):
68-79.
Cascadia Research Collective (Cascadia Research). 2013. Update on young gray whale in
southern Puget Sound. Accessed on August 12, 2013. Website:
http://www.cascadiaresearch.orq/Young%20SPS%20gray%20whale%2022%20June%2
02013.htm
Cerco, C.F. and M.R. Noel. 2007. Can oyster restoration reverse cultural eutrophication in
Chesapeake Bay? Estuaries and Coasts. 30(2): 331-343.
Cheney, D. 2009. Notes on data collected for National Marine Aquaculture Initiative. Provided
by Plauch6 & Carr on September 12, 2013.
Cho, H.J. and M.A. Poirrier. 2005. A model to estimate potential submersed aquatic vegetation
habitat based on studies in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Restoration Ecology. 13: 623-
629.
References 61 ENVIRON
Cloern J.E. 1982. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in south San Francisco Bay
(USA)? Marine Ecology Progress Series. 9: 191-202
Cooper, D. 2012. Personal communication. Taylor Shellfish Farms. Regarding densities of sand
dollars that allow for planting through during bed preparation. September 28, 2012.
DianeC(a)taylorshellfish.com
Cornwell, J. and R. Newell. 2009. Assessing ecosystem effects of harvesting geoducks.
Washington SeaGrant (R/GD— 1 b) Annual Report 2009. Reporting period September
30th, 2008 through September 30th, 2009.
Cornwell, J. and R. Newell. 2010. Assessing ecosystem effects of harvesting geoducks.
Washington SeaGrant (R/GD— 1 b) Annual Report 2010. Reporting period September
30th, 2009 through September 30th, 2010.
Curtis, K. 2012. Annual Growing Area Review: Harstine East. Washington State Department of
Health, Office of Shellfish and Water Protection.
D'Amours, D. 1987. Trophic phasing of juvenile chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta Walbaum,
and harpacticoid copepods in the Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dame, R.F., N. Dankers, T. Prins, H. Jongsma and A. Smaal. 1991. The influence of mussel
beds on nutrients in the Western Wadden Sea and Eastern Scheldt estuaries. Estuaries
14: 130-138.
Dankers, N., and D. R. Zuidema. 1995. The role of the mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) and mussel
culture in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Estuaries 18 (1 A): 71-80.
Davis, J. 2013. Expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB# 13-006c).
August 16, 2013.
Dethier, M. 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State.
Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources. 56 pages.
Olympia, Washington.
Dethier, M. and G. Schoch. 2000. The shoreline biota of Puget Sound: Extending spatial and
temporal comparisons. Produced for the Nearshore Habitat Program, a component of
the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, Washington.
Dethier, M. and G. Schoch. 2005. The consequences of scale: Assessing the distribution of
benthic populations in a complex estuarine fjord. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.
62: 253-270.
Dewey, B. 2013. Personal communication. Taylor Shellfish Farms. Regarding eelgrass
recruitment into shellfish farm. March 28, 2013. BiIID(cDtaylorshellfish.com
Dumbauld, B.R., J.L. Ruesink, and S.S. Rumrill. 2009. The ecological role of bivalve shellfish
aquaculture in the estuarine environment: a review with application to oyster and clam
culture in West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture. 290(3-4): 196-223.
ENVIRON International Corp (ENVIRON). 2011. Revised biological evaluation of potential
impacts to ESA-listed species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat, from a proposed
geoduck aquaculture farm on three adjacent Harstine Island parcels, Case Inlet, Mason
County, Washington. Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Farms. May 23, 2011.
References 62 ENVIRON
Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA). 2013. Pacific Northwest: Proposed
rockfish critical habitat. Accessed on October 17, 2013. Website:
https://www.erma.unh.edu/northwest/erma.html
Falxa, G., M. Huff, J. Baldwin, S. Miller, C.J. Ralph, M.G. Raphael, T. Bloxton, C. Strong, S.
Pearson, M. Lance, D. Lynch, B. Galleher, K. Nelson, and R. Young. 2008. Marbled
murrelet effectiveness monitoring Northwest Forest Plan: 2004-2007 Summary Report.
Website: httr)://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/murrelet/MAMU EM 08 Report.pdf
Fisher, J.P., K. Mueller, S. Luchessa, J. Davis. 2008a. An analysis of the environmental
concerns associated with intertidal geoduck clam aquaculture. Technical memorandum
prepared on February 28, 2008 by ENVIRON International Corp. for Taylor Shellfish,
Seattle Shellfish, and Chelsea Farms, Olympia, Washington. ENVIRON International
Corporation. Seattle, Washington.
Fisher, J.P., M. Meaders, S. Luchessa, and K. Mueller. 2008b. A supplemental analysis of the
environmental concerns associated with intertidal geoduck clam aquaculture: Effects of
wild geoduck genetics, potential for toxin resuspension, and effects on soft-sediment
associated communities. ENVIRON International Corporation. Seattle, Washington.
October 23, 2008.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Assessing potential benthic habitat impacts of
small-scale, intertidal aquaculture of the geoduck clam (Panopea generosa). Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat, Science Advisory Report 2011/083.
Fleece, C., D. Waller, J. Fisher, J. Vanderpham, and G. Reub. 2004. Programmatic biological
evaluation of potential impacts of intertidal geoduck culture facilities to endangered
species and essential fish habitat. Draft biological evaluation prepared on October 27,
2004 by Entrix, Inc. for Taylor Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and Chelsea Farms, Olympia,
Washington.
Fonseca, M.S. and A. Malhotra. 2006. WEMO (Wave Exposure Model)for use in Ecological
Forecasting version 3.0. AGENCY. Beaufort, NC.
Fonseca, M.S., and S.S. Bell. 1998. Influence of Physical Setting on Seagrass Landscapes near
Beaufort, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 171:109-121.
Forrest, B.M., N.B. Keeley, G.A. Hopkins, S.C. Webb, and D.M. Clement. 2009. Bivalve
aquaculture in estuaries: Review and synthesis of oyster cultivation effects. Aquaculture.
298: 1-15.
Fagergren, D. 2005. Northern Anchovy—The Other Forage Fish. Puget Sound Action Team.
Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference. Website:
http://dei)ts.washington.edu/uwconf/2005r)sgb/2005i3roceedings/papers/P1 FAGER.pdf
Gaeckle, J., P. Dowty, H. Berry, and L. Ferrier. 2009. Puget Sound submerged vegetation
monitoring report: 2008 monitoring report. Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Nearshore Habitat Program, Aquatic Resources Division. October 2009.
Goetz, F. A., E. Jeanes, G. Hart, C. Ebel, J. Starkes, and E. Conner. 2003. Behavior of
Anadromous Bull Trout in the Puget Sound and Pacific Coast of Washington.
PowerPoint presentation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
Goodwin. C.L. 1977. The effects of season on visual and photographic assessment of subtidal
geoduck clam (Panope generosa Gould) populations. Veliger. 20: 155-158.
References 63 ENVIRON
Gregg, K.L. 1995. Comparisons of three manufactured artificial reef units in Onslow, Bay, North
Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 316-324.
Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk of predation, and visual ability on
the foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284. In: Stouder, D.J., K.L.
Fresh, and R.J. Feller(eds.). Theory and application in fish feeding ecology.
Proceedings of GUTSHOP '92, The Belle W. Burach Library in Marine Science, no. 18.
Gregory, R.S. and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 50: 233-240.
Gribben, P.E., J. Helson, and R. Millar. 2004. Population abundance estimates of the New
Zealand geoduck clam, Panopea zelandica, using North American methodology: Is the
technology transferable? Journal of Shellfish Research. 23(3): 683-691.
Griffin, F.J, E.H. Smith, C.A. Vines and G.N. Cherr. 2009. Impacts of suspended sediments on
fertilization, embryonic development, and early larval life stages of the Pacific herring,
Clupea pallasi. Biol. Bull. 216: 175-187.
Griffin, F.J, E.H. Smith, C.A. Vines, and G.N. Cherr. 2008. Impacts of suspended sediments on
fertilization, embryonic development, and early larval life stages of the Pacific herring,
Clupea pallasi. report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco. 47 pp.
Griffin, F.J., T. DiMarco, K.L. Menard, J.A. Newman, E.H. Smith, C.A. Vines, and G.N. Cherr.
2012. Larval Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) survival in suspended sediment. Estuaries
and Coasts. 35(5): 1229-1236.
Gustafson, R.G., W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, C.C. Schmitt, W.S. Grant, T.L. Builder, and R.D.
Methot. 2000. Status review of Pacific hake, Pacific cod, and walleye Pollock from Puget
Sound, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NWFSC-44. Website:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm44/contents.htm
Haring, D. 2000. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East),
Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., L. Gutow, R.C. Thompson, and M. Thiel. 2012. Microplastics in the marine
environment: A review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 46(6): 3060-3075.
Hilgerloh, G., J. O' Halloran, T. C. Kelly, and G. M. Burnell. 2001. A preliminary study on the
effects of oyster culturing structures on birds in a sheltered Irish estuary. Hydrobiologia
465: 175-180.
Hobson, E.S. 1986. Predation on the pacific sand lance during the transition between day and
night in southeastern Alaska. Copeia. 1:223-226.
Horwith, M. 2009. Resilience of soft-sediment communities after geoduck harvest in Samish
Bay, Washington. University of Washington, Department of Biology. Presentation to the
Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee(SARC).
Houghton, J.P. 2011. Expert report of Jonathan P. Houghton, Ph.D. Pentec Environmental
submitted to Pierce County Hearing Examiner re Longbranch Shellfish Farm. February
15, 2011.
References 64 ENVIRON
Hueckel, G.J. and R.M. Buckley. 1987. The influence of prey communities on fish species
assemblages on artificial reefs in Puget Sound, Washington. Env. Biol. Fishes. 19(3):
195-214.
Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson, and J. Baldwin. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan
-the first 10 years (1994-2003): Status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for
the marbled murrelet. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest
Research Station. PNW-GTR-650. 160 pp.
Iversen, E.S. and S.P. Bannerot. 1984. Artificial reefs under marina docks in southern Florida.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 294-299.
Jeffries, S.J., H.R. Huber, J. Calambokidis, J. Laake. 2003. Trends and status of harbor seals in
Washington State: 1978-1999. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(1): 207-218.
Kelly J., J. Evens, R. Stallcup, and D.Wimpfheimer. 1996. Effects of aquaculture on habitat use
by wintering shorebirds in Tomales Bay, California. Cal. Fish and Game 82(4): 160-174.
Kitsap Sun. 2009. Humpback whale spotted in Central Puget Sound. Published on May 5, 2009.
Website: http://Pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/05/05/humpback-whale-spotted-
in-central-puget-sound/
Koch, E.W., and S. Beer. 1996. Tides, light and the distribution of Zostera marina in Long Island
Sound, USA. Aquatic Botany. 53(1-2): 97-107.
Krembs, C. 2013. Personal Communication. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Regarding recent data from Ecology on potential eutrophication of Puget Sound.
February 25, 2013. ckre461(&ECY.WA.GOV
Laffargue, P., M.L. Begout, and F. Lagardere. 2006. Testing the potential effects of shellfish
farming on swimming activity and spatial distribution of sole (Solea solea) in a
mesocosm. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 63: 1014-1028.
Lamb, A. and P. Edgell, 1986. Coastal fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Harbour Publishing Co.
Ltd., B.C., Canada. 224 p.
Lance, M.M. and S.J. Jeffries. 2009. Harbor seal diet in Hood Canal, South Puget Sound and
the San Juan Island archipelago. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife
Program, Science Division. Lakewood, WA. PSMFC Job Cod 497, NOAA Award No.
NA05NMF4391151.
Lehane, C. and J. Davenport. 2002. Ingestion of mesozooplankton by three species of bivalve;
Mytilus edulis, Cerastoderma edule and Aequipecten opercularis. Journal of Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 82: 615-619.
Lehane, C. and J. Davenport. 2006. A 15-month study of zooplankton ingestion by farmed
mussels (Mytilus edulis) in Bantry Bay, Southwest Ireland. Est. Coast. Shelf. Sci., 67:
645-652. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecss.2005.12.015
Lemberg, N.A., M.F. O'Toole, D.E. Penttila, and K.C. Stick. 1997. 1996 Forage fish stock status
report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Management Program.
December 1997. Stock Status Report No. 98-1.
Lindahl, O., R. Hart, B. Hernroth, S. Kollberg, L. Loo, L. Olrog, A. Rehnstam-Holm, J. Svensson,
S. Svensson, and U. Syversen. 2005. Improving marine water quality by mussel farming:
A profitable solution for Swedish society. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment.
34(2): 131-138.
References 65 E NVI RON
Lindquist, A. 2013. Personal Communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Regarding spawning periodicity for Pacific herring in Henderson Bay. March 22, 2013.
Adam.Lindguist(a)dfw.wa.gov
Love, M.S., M.H. Carr, and L.J. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles
of the genus Sebastes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 30: 225-243.
Mach, M.E., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and J.R. Ward. 2010. Distribution and potential effects of a
non-native seagrass in Washington State: Zostera japonica workshop. Report for
Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington Sea Grant. Friday
Harbor Laboratories. San Juan Island, Washington. September 23-24, 2010.
Mallet, A.L., C.E. Carver, and T. Landry. 2006. Impact of suspended and off-bottom Eastern
oyster culture on the benthic environment in eastern Canada. Aquaculture. 255: 362-
373.
Maloy, C., C. Krembs, J. Bos, S. Albertson, B. Sackmann, M. Keyzers, L. Friedenberg, and J.
Ruffner. 2013. Increasing nutrients, a repositioning of algal biomass and large Noctiluca
blooms in Puget Sound: Is eutrophication fueling the microbial food web? Washington
Department of Ecology. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
(ASLO). Aquatic Science Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana. February 17-22, 2013.
Mason County. 2010. Mason County Parcel Data Online. Assessed on June 11, 2010. Website:
hftp://www.co.mason.wa.us/astr/index.php
Mason County. 2012. Shoreline Master Program proposed Shoreline Environmental
Designations 2010-2013 Update. GIS Department. Map created on September 13, 2012.
Map accessed on June 4, 2013. Website:
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community dev/shoreline master program/SMP Proposed
SED Map.pdf
Meadows, D. 2007. Southern resident killer whale critical habitat map. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Office of Protected Resources. December 2007. Website:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Newsroom/images/SRKW-CH-Map.opg
Miller, B.S. and S.F. Borton. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: Maps and
data source sheets. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, 3 vols.
Moore, J.W. and I.A. Moore. 1976. The basis of food selection in flounders, Platichthys f/esus
(L.) in the Severn estuary. Journal of Fisheries Biology 9: 139-156. (as cited in Boehlert
and Morgan 1985)
Morin, J.G., J.E. Kastendiek, A. Harrington, and N. Davis. 1985. Organization and patterns of
interactions in a subtidal sand community on an exposed coast. Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 27: 163-185.
Moulton, L.L. and D.E. Penttila. 2001. Field manual for sampling forage fish spawn in intertidal
shore regions, first edition. San Juan County Forage Fish Assessment Project. March
2001.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. J. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S.
Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. Lindley, R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of
Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pp.
References 66 ENVIRON
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Impacts of California sea lions and Pacific
harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and
California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-28. Seattle, Washington.
Website: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm28/tm28.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Recovery plan for southern resident killer
whales (Orcinus orca). United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Seattle, Washington.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008b. Recovery plan for the Stellar sea lion:
Eastern and Western Distinct Population Segments (Eumetopias jubatus), Revision.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS. Website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/stellersealion.Pd
National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). 2009a. Killer whale (Orcinus orca). Accessed on
December 11, 2009. Website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/kilierwhale.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009b. Endangered Species Act—Section 7
Programmatic Consultation Biological and Conference Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation,
Nationwide Permit 48 Washington. NMFS Tracking Number 2008/04151. Prepared for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by NMFS Northwest Region. April 28, 2009. 111 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). 2011. Re-initiation of Endangered Species Act
Section 7 programmatic consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 activities
in Washington State. April 26, 2011. NMFS Tracking No. 2010/04010.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Interim sound threshold guidance. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest
Regional Office. Accessed July 27, 2012. Website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-
Mammals/MM-sound-thrshld.cfm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013. Historic tide data: Tacoma
and McMicken Island, Washington. Accessed August 12, 2013. Website:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11(1):72-82.
Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A
synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. In North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 16:693-727, 1996
Newell, R. 2006. Oyster reef restoration and oyster aquaculture. pp. 53-60. In: Best
Management Practices for Sediment Control and Water Clarity Enhancement. Report
CBP/TRS-282-06. Chesapeake Bay Program. Accessed on September 17, 2009.
Website: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/sedwo.htm
Newell, R.I.E, T.R. Fisher, R.R. Holyoke and J.C. Cornwell. 2005. Pages 93 - 120. In: The
Comparative Roles of Suspension Feeders in Ecosystems. R. Dame and S. Olenin, eds.
Vol. 47, NATO Science Series: IV- Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer,
Netherlands.
References 67 ENVIRON
Newell, R.I.E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension-
feeding bivalve molluscs: A review. Journal of Shellfish Research. 23(1): 51-61.
Newell, R.I.E., J.C. Cornwell, and M.S. Owens. 2002. Influence of simulated bivalve
biodeposition and microphytobenthos on sediment nitrogen dynamics: A laboratory
study. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47(5): 1367-1379.
Nizzoli, D., D.T. Welsh, M. Bartoli, and P. Viaroli. 2005. Impacts of mussel (Mytilus
galloprovincialis) farming on oxygen consumption and nutrient recycling in a eutrophic
coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia. 550: 183-198.
Nugues, M.M., M.J. Kaiser, B.E. Spencer, and D.B. Edwards. 1996. Benthic community
changes associated with intertidal oyster cultivation. Aquaculture Research. 27: 913-
924.
Orca Network 2011. Gray Whale Tutorial. Accessed on August 27, 2013. Website:
http://www.orcanetwork.org/nathisygraywhales.html
Orca Network. 2013. Recent whale sightings in the Salish Sea. Accessed on August 28, 2013.
Website: http://www.orcanetwork.org/sightings/map.htmi
Osborne, P. 2011. Assessment of coastal sediments and shoreline morphology impacts-
proposed Longbranch shellfish farm: Shoreline Substantial Development permit-
Longbranch Shellfish Farm. Submitted by Golder Associates Inc. Submitted to Plauch6
& Stock. LLP (now Plauch6 & Carr, LLP). February 15, 2011.
Osborne, P. 2013. Expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB# 13-006c).
August 15, 2013.
Osborne, R.W. 1999. A historical ecology of Salish Sea "resident" killer whales (Orcinus orca):
with implications for management. Ph.D. thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, British
Columbia. (as cited in Wiles 2004)
Palazzi, D. and P. Bloch. 2006. Priority marine sites for conservation in the Puget Sound.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Aquatic Resources Division and
Aquatic Reserves Program. Pp 53.
Palo, G.J. 1972. Notes on the natural history of the killer whale Orcinus orca in Washington
State. Murrelet: 53: 22-24. (as cited in NMFS 2008a)
Palsson, W.A. 2007. Letter to J. Gibbons, Seattle Shellfish. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Marine Fish Science Unit, Fish Program. Mill Creek, Washington. January 29,
2007.
Palsson, W.A., T.S. Tsou, G. G. Barbman, R. M. Buckley, J. E. West, M. L. Mills, Y. W. Cheng,
and R. E. Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA.
Pearce, C. 2013. Personal Communication. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Regarding a
recent two-year geoduck harvest study in intertidal and subtidal habitat (Note: upon
request from the author, the report was not provided for the record, but will be published
by December 2013). March 18, 2013. Chris.Pearce(a7dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Penttila, D. 2013. Expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB# 13-006c).
August 14, 2013.
References 68 ENVIRON
Penttila, D.E. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Prepared in support of the Puget
Sound Nearshore Partnership. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical
Report 2007-03.
Peterson, B.J., and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2001. Positive Interactions between suspension-feeding
bivalves and seagrass—a facultative mutualism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213:
143-155.
Powers, M.J., C.H. Peterson, H.C. Summerson, and S.P. Powers. 2007. Macroalgal growth on
bivalve aquaculture netting enhances nursery habitat for mobile invertebrates and
juvenile fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 339: 109-122.
Price, J. 2011 a. Quantifying the ecological impacts of geoduck (Panopea generosa) aquaculture
harvest practices on benthic infauna. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
Price, J. 2011 b. Quantifying the ecological impact of geoduck (Panopea generosa) aquaculture
harvest practices on benthic infauna. Masters Defense. August 8th, 2011.
Prins, T.C., A.C. Smaal, and R.F. Dame. 1998. A review of the feedbacks between bivalve
grazing and ecosystem processes. Aquatic Ecology. 31: 349-359.
Puget Sound Indian Tribes (PSIT) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
2010. Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest
management component.April 12, 2010. Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00854/wdfw00854.pdf
Puget Sound Partnership. 2008. Groundfish and rockfish. Resource Center. Accessed on July
13, 2010. Website: http://www.psparchives.com/our work/species/groundfish.htm
Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team (PSSTRT). 2013. Viability criteria for Puget
Sound steelhead. Final Review Draft. 373 pp.
Raphael, M.G., J. Baldwin, G.A. Falxa, M.H. Huff, M. Lance, S.L. Miller, S.F. Pearson, C.J.
Ralph, C. Strong, and C. Thompson. 2007. Regional population monitoring of the
marbled murrelet: field and analytical methods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-716.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 70 p. Available online at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw gtr716.pdf
Reusch, T.B.H., A.R.O. Chapman, and J.P. Groger. 1994. Blue mussels Mytilus edulis do not
interfere with eelgrass Zostera marina but fertilize shoot growth through biodeposition.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 108: 265282.
Robards, M.D., J.F. Piatt. 1999. Biology of the genus Ammodytes—the sand lances. Pages 1-
16. I: Robards M.D., M.F.Willson, R. H. Armstrong, and J.F. Piatt (eds.). Sand lance: a
review of biology and predator relations and annotated bibliography. Portland, OR:
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Robertson, D. 2008. Personal Communication. Taylor Shellfish. RE: incidence of herring eggs
attached to geoduck protective tubes post planting. DaveR .taylorshellfish.com
Ruesink, J.L. and K. Rowell. 2012. Seasonal effects of clam (Panopea generosa) on eelgrass
(Zostera marina) density but not recovery dynamics at an intertidal site. Aquatic
Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 22: 712-720.
References 69 ENVIRON
SalmonScape. 2013. SalmonScape Interactive Mapping Application. Accessed on October 7,
2013. Website: http://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/gisr)ublic/apes/salmonscape/default.htm
Sanguinetti, P. 2012. Personal communication. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Branch.
Regarding how to submit geoduck clam harvest, which is about 5-7 years post planting,
under a 5-yr NWP 48 permit. July 26, 2012. Pamela.Sanguinetti(a)-usace.army.mil
Sargent, P.S., R.S. Gregory, and D.C. Schneider. 2006. Density responses of subarctic coastal
marine fish and crabs to artificial reefs. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
135: 348-360.
Sauchyn, L., C.M. Pearce, J. Blackburn, L. Keddy, and S. Williams. 2013. Assessing potential
benthic habitat impacts of small-scale, intertidal aquaculture of the geoduck clam
(Panopea generosa). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/001. vi + 40 p.
Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2012.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2011. Version
12.13.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Schenk, R. 2011. Report of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Longbranch
geoduck culturing facility. Expert report submitted to Pierce County Hearing Examiner re
Longbranch Shellfish Farm. Institute for Environmental Research and Education (IERE).
February 15, 2011.
Schoof, R.A. 2011. Expert opinion of Rosalind A. Schoof, Ph.D., DABT, Fellow ATS. Expert
report submitted to Pierce County Hearing Examiner re Longbranch Shellfish Farm.
ENVIRON International Corporation. February 15, 2011.
Shaffer, J.A., D. Penttila, M. McHenry, and D. Vilella. 2007. Observations of eulachon,
Thaleichthys pacificus, in the Elwha River, Olympic Peninsula Washington. Northwest
Science. 81(1): 76-81.
Short, K.S. and R. Walton. 1992. The transport and fate of suspended sediment plumes
associated with commercial geoduck harvesting, Final Report. Prepared for the State of
Washington Department of Natural Resources. Prepared by Ebasco Environmental,
Bellevue, Washington.
Shreffler, D.K. and R. Moursund. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on migrating juvenile salmon
along Puget Sound shorelines: Phase II field studies at Port Townsend Ferry Terminal,
Contract GCA-1723. Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle,
Washington.
Simenstad, C.A. and K.L. Fresh. 1995. Influence of intertidal aquaculture on benthic
communities in Pacific Northwest estuaries: Scales of disturbance. Estuaries and
Coasts. 18(1):43-70.
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. The Role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: An unappreciated function. In: V.S.
Kennedy, editor. Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York. (as cited in
Houghton 2011)
Southard, J.B., R.A. Young, and C.D. Hollister. 1971. Experimental erosion of calcareous ooze.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 76(24), 5903-5909. (as cited in Short and Walton
1992)
References 70 ENVIRON
Spencer, B.E., M.J. Kaiser, and D.B. Edwards. 1996. The effect of Manila clam cultivation on an
intertidal benthic community: The early cultivation phase. Aquaculture Research. 27:
261-276.
Spencer, B.E., M.J. Kaiser, and D.B. Edwards. 1997. Ecological effects of intertidal Manila clam
cultivation: Observations at the end of the cultivation phase. J. Appl. Ecol. 34(2): 444-
452.
Spencer, B.E., M.J. Kaiser, and D.B. Edwards. 1998. Intertidal clam harvesting: Benthic
community change and recovery. Aquaculture Research. 29(6):429-437.
Steinberg, P.D., M.T. Brett, J.S. Bechtold, J.E. Richey, L.M. Porensky, and S.N. Smith. 2011.
The influence of watershed characteristics on nitrogen export to and marine fate in Hood
Canal, Washington, USA. Biogeochemistry. 106: 415-433.
Stick, K.C. 2005. 2004 Washington State herring stock status report. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Fish Management Division. May 2005. Stock Status Report No. 05-01.
Stick, K.C. and A. Lindquist. 2009. 2008 Washington State herring stock status report.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program. Seattle, Washington. FPA
09-05.
Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2007. Status report for the bald eagle.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program. Olympia, Washington.
Strachan, G., M. McAllister, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at-sea and foraging
behavior. Pages 247-53. In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds).
Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. PSW-GTR-152. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Albany, CA. 420 pp. (as cited in USFWS 2009b)
StreamNet. 2013. Maps& GIS Data: Critical Habitat Mapper. Accessed on October 7, 2013.
Website: http://map.streamnet.org/website/biuecriticalhabitat/viewer.htm
Tallman, J.C., and G.E. Forrester. 2007. Oyster grow-out cages function as artificial reefs for
temperate fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 790-799.
Taylor Shellfish Farms (Taylor Shellfish). 2013. Environmental Codes of Practice. Shelton, WA.
Updated periodically by the Environmental Code Task Force (ECTF) and Taylor
Shellfish Farms management.
The Seattle Times. 2008. Humpback whale visiting Puget Sound. Article published by the
Associated Press on May 29, 2008. Website:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004445798 webwhale29m.html
Thom, R.M., S.L. Southard, A.B. Borde, and P. Stoltz. 2008. Light requirements for growth and
survival of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Pacific Northwest (USA) estuaries. Estuaries
and Coasts. 31: 969-980.
Tonkin, S.P., T. Abbe, J. Carrasquero, and S. Morrison. 2007. Field measurements of shore
conditions to assess bulkhead effects in Thurston County, South Puget Sound. ASCE
Conf. Proc. Coastal Sediments.
Troost, K., P. Kamermans, and W.J. Wolff. 2008. Larviphagy in native bivalves and an
introduced oyster. Journal of Sea Research. 60: 157-163.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled
murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland,
Oregon. 203 pp.
References 71 ENVI RO N
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Draft recovery plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound
Distinct Population Segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Volumes I and If.
USFWS Region 1. Portland, OR. 410 p and 297 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Distribution of proposed critical habitat for the
marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)from the 1996 and 2008 designations.
USFWS, Pacific Region, WWFWO GIS. Accessed on November 22, 2011. Website:
hftp://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/pdf/murrelet/MAMU rpCH Map8x14 20080728.
pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) 5-year
review: summary and evaluation. USFWS Region 1. Portland, OR. 55 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. Biological Opinion: Nationwide Permit#48 for
Shellfish Aquaculture, State of Washington. Endangered Species Act—Section 7
Consultation. USFWS reference 13410-2008-F-0461. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers by USFWS, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.
March 2009. 198 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. National wetlands inventory, wetlands mapper.
USFWS, Habitat and Resource Conservation, Branch of Resource and Mapping
Support. Arlington, Virginia. Accessed on October 19, 2013. Website:
hftp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mar)per.htmi
VanBlaricom, G.R., Ph.D. 2011. Geoduck Aquaculture Harvest Impacts. Presentation made at
Shorelines Hearings Board Hearing for Longbranch Shellfish Farm.
VanBlaricom, G.R. 2013. Expert testimony in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB# 13-
006c). August 13 and 15, 2013.
VanBlaricom, G.R., A. J.L. Price, P.S. McDonald, J.R. Cordell, T.E. Essington, A.W.E.
Galloway, M.N. Dethier, and D.A. Armstrong. 2013. Evaluations of the ecological effects
of geoduck (Panopea generosa) aquaculture harvest practices on benthic organisms in
southern Puget Sound, 2008-2012. Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office,
Tumwater, Washington.
VanBlaricom, G.R., J.L. Price, J.D. Olden, and P.S. McDonald. In press. Ecological effects of
the harvest phase of geoduck clam (Panopea generosa Gould, 1850) aquaculture on
infaunal communities in southern Puget Sound, Washington USA. Journal of Shellfish
Research.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2000. Coastal atlas photo reference 01626-
155448 and 010626-155444. Accessed on October 13, 2013. Website:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastaIatlasphoto/PhotoDisPlay.asox?vintaqe=2006&id=0608
11 11383
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2013a. Washington Coastal Atlas. Accessed on
October 13, 2013. Website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/atlas home.html
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2013b. Water quality assessment for
Washington (WQA). Assessed on October 7, 2013, Website:
hftp://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wgawa2008/viewer.htm
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon
and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fisheries,
References 72 ENVIRON
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian
Tribes. Olympia, Washington. 215 pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1997. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife Forge Fish, Sand Lance Biology. Website:
hftp://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/forage/lance.htm
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Squid fishing in Washington.
WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Accessed December 22, 2009. Website:
hftp://wdfw.wa.nov/fishing/squid/index.htm
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011 a. Aquatic invasive species.
Accessed on March 4, 2011. Website: htti3:/twdfw.wa.gov/ais/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012a. WDFW Lands: Water Access
Sites. Accessed on October 8, 2012. Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/water access/county/Pierce/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012b. 2011 Annual Report. WDFW,
Wildlife Program, Endangered Species Section. Olympia, Washington. Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01385/wdfw01385.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. Priority habitats and species
polygon cross reference report. Provided by WDFW on September 30, 2013
Phsproducts(a)dfw.wa.gov
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
Washington Department of Game (WDG). 1973. Joint statement regarding the biology,
status, management, and harvest of salmon and steelhead resources, of the Puget
Sound and Olympic Peninsular drainage areas of Western Washington. (as cited in
PSSTRT 2013)
Washington Sea Grant (Sea Grant). 2012. Geoduck aquaculture research program: Interim
progress report, October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011. University of
Washington. February 2012.
Watson, J. W. and E. A. Rodrick. 2001. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority
Habitat and Species Management Recommendations Volume IV: Birds-Bald Eagle.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 20 pp. [Online]. Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/gbheron.htm
Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 106 pages.
Wong, W.H. and J.S. Levinton. 2006. The trophic linkage between zooplankton and benthic
suspension feeders: Direct evidence from analyses of bivalve faecal pellets. Marine
Biology. 148: 799-805.
Wyatt, R. 2008. Review of existing data on underwater sounds produced by the oil and gas
industry. Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) Joint Industry Programme report on Sound and
Marine Life.
Zhou, Y., H. S. Yang, T. Zhang, S. L. Liu, S. M. Zhang, Q. Liu, J. H. Xiang, and F. S. Zhang.
2006. Influence of filtering and biodeposition by the cultured scallop Chlamys farreri on
benthic-pelagic coupling in a eutrophic bay in China. Marine Ecology-Progress Series.
317: 127-141.
References 73 ENVIRON
2ydelis, R., D. Esler, W.S. Boyd, D.L. Lacroix, and M. Kirk. 2006. Habitat use by wintering surf
and white-winged scoters: effects of environmental attributes and shellfish aquaculture.
The Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1754-1762.
References 74 ENVIRON
Appendix A
Field Methods Used in the Site Surveys
Appendix A ENVIRON
Field Reconnaissance Methods
The following is a description of methods used for field reconnaissance at the proposed Fudge
Point North project area.
General Reconnaissance Survey
ENVIRON personnel arrived at the project area about two hours before low slack tide, and
remained two hours after. A general field reconnaissance was completed to characterize site
conditions. For this aspect of the survey, we walked the entire proposed farm footprint and an
additional 100 ft updrift and downdrift from the project area. General shoreline characterization
was documented using methods developed by the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). This included a general depiction of the intertidal zone, backshore zone,
bluff/bank, and shoreline structures.
ENVIRON personnel also documented presence of macroflora and macrofauna, areas of
accumulated water, and drainage of the site. Plants and animals observed were noted to the
lowest taxonomic level possible. The reconnaissance surveys during low tide were used to
confirm presence or absence of native eelgrass (Zostera marina) or non-native and invasive
Japanese eelgrass (Z.japonica) in order to determine if a formal eelgrass delineation using
WDFW's protocol might be required.
Substrate, Macrophyte, and Organism Characterization
A beach survey was completed to characterize site conditions using georeferenced video
transect lines. Four main areas were walked using video documentation: (1) low tideline (i.e.,
-2.9 ft MLLW), (2) lower intertidal habitat, (3) ordinary high water, and (4) sediment transition
boundary or upper intertidal habitat. The video was reviewed to determine major habitat
features, substrate characterization, macrophyte presence, and species identification.
Additional transect lines were established in intertidal habitat to characterize changes in
substrate composition. Using the size classifications listed in Table A-1, surface sediments were
visually classified and the percent composition was recorded within a 0.25 m2 quadrat area. In
addition, potential forage fish spawning substrate was identified using modified Moulton and
Penttila (2001) forage fish spawning habitat survey protocols. Bulk sediments were not
collected, but the beach and uplands were characterized.
Table A-1.Size classifications for substrate characterization.
Substrate Size(alonq the Ion est axis)
Mm inches
Sand <2 <0.1
Small Gravel 2—12.9 0.1—0.5
Large Gravel 12.9—63.9 0.5—2.5
Cobble 64—127.9 2.5—5.0
Shells N/A N/A
Appendix A A-1 ENVIRON
Appendix B
Federal or State Endangered and Threatened Species Found in Mason County,
but not Likely Found in the Proposed Fudge Point North Action Area
Appendix B ENVIRON
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Critical PHS Reason for Exclusion from Analysis
Status Status Habitat
Amphibians
Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens E No No Freshwater species
Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa C E No No Freshwater species
Birds
American white pelican Pelecanus er throrh nchos E No No Terrestrial species
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Co E No No Off W Washington coast only
Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse T mpanuchus phasianellus T No No Terrestrial species
Ferruginous hawk Buteo re alis T No No Terrestrial species
Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus T No No Terrestrial species
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis T E Yes* Yes Terrestrial species
Sandhill crane Grus canadensis E No No Terrestrial species
Short-tailed albatross Diomedea albatrus E C No No Open ocean species
Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T E Yes* No Off W Washington coast only
Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris stri ata PT E No Yes Terrestrial species
Upland sandpiper Bartramia lon icauda E No No Terrestrial species
Fishes
Green sturgeon(Southern DPS) Acipensermedirostris T Yes* No Closest documented spawning in OR
Marine Mammals
Blue whale Baleonoptera musculus E E No No Offshore species
Fin whale Baleonoptera ph salus E E No No Offshore deepwater species
North Pacific Right Whale Eubalaena a onica E E Yes* No Offshore coastal species
Sea otter Enh dra lutris ken oni Co E Yes* No Strait of Juan de Fuca,Pacific coast
Sei whale Baleonoptera borealis E E No No Rarely appear off the U.S.west coast
Sperm whale Ph setermacrocephalus E E No No Offshore deepwater species
Steller sea lion(Eastern DPS) Eumeto ias 'ubatus T T Yes* Yes Oregon and Alaska coast
Reptiles
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das T T Yes* No North Puget Sound
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coriacea E E Yes* No Pelagic species
Loggerhead sea turtle(NP DPS) Caretta caretta E T No No Uncommon off W Washington coast
Olive Ridley sea turtle Le idochel s olivadea T No No Tropical species
Western pond turtle Actinem s marmorata E I No I Yes Freshwater species
Appendix B B-1 ENVIRON
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Critical PHS Reason for Exclusion from Analysis
Status Status Habitat
Terrestrial Arthropods
Mardon skipper Polites mardon Co E No No Terrestrial species
Oregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta T E Yes* No Terrestrial species
Taylor's checkerspot Eu h dr as editha to loci PE E No Yes Terrestrial species
Terrestrial Mammals
Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus vir inianus leucurus E E No No Terrestrial species
Fisher(West Coast DPS) Martespennanti C E No Yes Terrestrial species
Gray wolf Canis lupus E S No No Terrestrial species
Grizzly bear Ursus arctos T E Proposed No Terrestrial species
Lynx L nx canadensis T T Yes* No Terrestrial species
Mazama(Western)pocket gopher Thomom s mazama T No No Terrestrial species
Olympia pocket gopher Thomom s mazama pu etensis PT No No Terrestrial species
Pygmy rabbit(Columbia Basin DPS) Brach la us idahoensis E E No No Terrestrial species
Roy Prairie pocket gopher Thomom s mazama glacialis PT No No Terrestrial species
Tacoma pocket gopher Thomom s mazama tacomensis T No No Terrestrial species
Tenino pocket gopher Thomom s mazama tumuli PT No No Terrestrial species
Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus Co T No No Terrestrial species
Wolverine Gulo gulo PT C No No Terrestrial species
Woodland caribou Rangifertarandus E No No Terrestrial species
Yelm pocket gopher Thomom s mazama elmensis PT No No Terrestrial species
PHS—Priority Habitats and Species,DPS—Distinct population segment,NP—North Pacific;E—Endangered,T—Threatened,C—Candidate,Co—Species of Concern,PE—Proposed Endangered,
PT—Proposed Threatened
*Critical habitat has been identified,but does not occur within the proposed action area
Appendix B B-2 ENVIRON
Appendix C
Biological and Physical Features in Relation to the
Proposed Fudge Point North Project Area
Appendix C ENVIRON
s_
r
r
0 e�enena+w.fgm�ne�
1
� �•'tpa� {%s' 'AIL.,".
i
m
.—E Cemetery Rd-., �„ Hartste�Island ,
r
r..tJ
I
J dw
�t
Fringe(continuous)
Fringe(patchy)
Bed[continuous)
Bed Cmtchy)
Add rnaip daft
C-1. Fringe kelp and salt marsh habitat in the vicinity of proposed .. Point North project
-•
Drift cells o x J
\/ Dweroenw Zone
✓ Left to nght - (f
v No appreciable drift -
..r Right to left
v Undefined
slope stability 0
Stable \!
Intermediate
hlodified _
IV Unstable
Unstable(old slide) _
Unstable(recent slide)
i LJ�AN map Me
Change bansoarei ct
C-2. Drift cell orientation and slope stability associated with the proposed Fudge Point North project area.
Appendix C C-2 ENVIRO'IN
Taylor Shellfish Intertidal Geoduck Culture
Project Overview—Fudge Point North (Trueman) Property
Taylor Shellfish, in cooperation with other geoduck growers in the State of Washington,
developed Environmental Codes of Practice (ECOP). We believe this will help us and
other growers develop practices that avoid,minimize or mitigate potential environmental
impacts. See attached ECOP. .
This application is for the activities associated with the intertidal culture of geoduck on
privately leased tidelands located in Case Inlet in parts of Section 7, Township 20 North,
Range 1 West, W.M., all in Mason County.
Geoduck seed produced in a hatchery is used for planting on private tidelands. The seed
are approximately 5-15 mm in size when transported from the hatchery or nursery for
planting.
Currently, geoduck seed is planted in 6"PVC pipe cut in approximately 9" lengths, as
well as other kinds of culture tubes.
A length of pipe is worked into the substrate in the intertidal zone from approximately the
-4.5 to+3 tidal elevation(MLLW). The pipes are spaced about 12"apart.
Approximately 34 of the PVC pipe is left above the substrate. Generally 3-4 geoduck
seed are planted in each culture tube.
Juvenile geoduck must grow and dig to a depth adequate to evade predation(depth
refuge). To help the young clams evade predators,nets are placed over the tops of the
PVC pipe, either as one large, single net or individual net caps. After young geoduck
have dug to an adequate depth to evade predation, usually within 12-15 months,the tubes
are removed. A large cover net is placed over the farm for one to several months until
the young geoduck have adapted to having no predator protection.
Because of the low tidal elevations that geoducks are planted, visibility of the culture
tubes will only occur approximately 5%of the daylight hours over a 6-year crop cycle.
Access will be from the water by boat. No upland access to farm site is planned.
Harvest occurs when the geoduck reach a marketable size which in most areas occurs
within 5-7 years. Harvest is conducted using a hydraulic wand that uses water to loosen
the substrate around the individual geoduck. The individual geoduck is then gently
pulled up out of the hole by hand and packed for transport by barge to an upland
processing facility. Most of the harvest will occur at low tide(85%)with the remaining
harvest occurring at high tide by divers.
t N
12289't'; 122.88 122 8T:S 122.86 :`d 122.85'W 122.84`
Project Area Boundaries
ai.zs'N y _ (See Key Below)
ti- 1 apojectsfite
z
u fft'ngt 010
Project Area Corner Mlcken i
�,. % Island r
Boundaries (LatJLong):
1:47.2380 N/122.864°W
2:47.2370 N/122.861°W 3:47.236o N/122. :Sand
8620 W I p
4:47.238 N/122.864 \
W 4! _ —
'
/1 Cj .( • , Project Area
ufj�ngtons!
( oon _ PPvdg�Point \
I 12 12 1
4T2`N
(N E !
\ 1
�--' !-� -- ---I--- ---- - -�-
Q
I
Data Sources:
2013 ESRI Topo Map !
( USGS 7.5'Quads:Vaughn, /
1I Mason Lake,Longbranch,
r and Squaxin Island
Scale:1 24,000 f' - ) I t
j ++ 14iile
REFERENCE: LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT:
APPLICANT: Taylor Shellfish Buffingtons Lagoon, Fudge Point NWP 48 Compliance
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Southeast of Ballow IN: Buffingtons Lagoon
Please refer to Table of Property Owners LATILONG: 47.237'/-122.862° COUNTNEAR/A Ballow
:
COUNTY: Mason
PAGE 1 of 4 Date: 11/22/2013 STATE:WA
-4.5' MLLW (Extreme Road
Low Tide) Tax Parcels
Mean High Water(115) Project Area
--- Sediment Tansition Boundary Culture Area
10-Foot Contours
C,
�H
\ '�
GRABAREK \
Parcel No? BARTOL \
120077590022 Parcel No. t
120077590023 ,
BERUNER
Parcel No.
120077500012
HARSTINE
LS LAW
TRUEMAN (} 61 d l
Parcel No_
120077590031 BOOTS
4 D
rcel No.y
120077590051
' HITCHCOCK
Parcel No
120077590052
v v)
0
t
J/
Y � �
10
t4 o a
a
Data Sources: Reference Number:
ENVIRON survey data N Applicant Name: Taylor Shellfish
WA DNR MHW line A
Proposed Project: Fudge Point NWP 48 Compliance
Mason County tax parcels
PSLC 2002 LiDAR data Location: Fudge Point,Southeast of Ballow, WA
500
Feet Date: 11/25/2013 Sheet 2 of 2
t
. AGENCY USE ONLY
ON;2
WASHINGTON STATE of Army Corps ;
of Engineers.c 1 Date received: '
Seattle District '
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
t
Application (JARPA) bgjpj
t ,
t ,
t
t
Agency reference#: ;
Tax Parcel#(s):
Attachment C:
t
Contact information for adjoining ------"
t TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT hel) t
t
t
property owners. hel Project Name: Fudge Point North
Geoduck Farm - Trueman ;
Use this attachment only if you have more than four adjoining Location Name(if applicable):
property owners. -------------------------------------
Use black or blue ink to enter answers in whites aces below.
1. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. hf eM
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel #(if known)
Sherrill Bartol 91 E Buffington Lane 12007-75-90023
Shelton, WA 98584
Paul & Lisa Grabarek 519 NW Lamonde Terrace 12007-75-90022
Portland, OR 97229
David Berliner 111 E Buffington Lane 12007-75-00012
Shelton, WA 98584
John Hitchcock 9620 Samish Island Road 12007-75-90052
Bow, WA 98232
Steve & Patra Boots PO Box 3638 12007-75-90051
Sequim, WA 98382
Larry Hitchcock 2332 S Pittsburg Street 12007-32-00010
................. ........................................................--�^.—.._--.__........
Spokane, WA 99203
If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)at
(800)917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877)
833-6341. ORIA publication number: ENV-022-09 rev. 08/2013
JARPA Attachment C Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 1
,12/3113 TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington
0 MASON COUNTY
"I,NASHINGTON `IAXSIFIER
SIMFLESEAPCH Sl-AL.EJSc<siCH i :, = GGGwTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER
Melody Peterson
Mason County Assessor 411 N 5TH 5T Shelton,WA 98584
Assessor Treasurer Appraisal Maps*f1
Parcel
Parcel#: 12007-75-90022 owner Name:. GRABAREK, PAUL L&LISA A
DO Code: 11 - Residential - Single Family Addressi: 519 NW LAMONDE TERRACE
71 E BUFFINGTON LN, SHELTON Address2:
h; ,;.u,;:L,. City,State: PORTLAND OR
Status: Zip: 97229
Description: TR 2-B OF SURVEY 8/159 &T.L. TR 2 OF SP #1140-R
Comment:
2013 Market Value 2013 Taxable Value 2013 Assessment Data
Land: $137,500 Land: $137,500 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $25,000 Improvements: $25,000 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $162,500 Total $162,500 Total Acres: 1,67000
Ownership
Owner's Narne -
GRABAREK, PAUL L&LISA A 100 %
Sales History
}-*Ie Date isaIes Document # Parcels ''Excise#
02/10/11 1970004 1 11-10332 HARRIS ET UX, LEE R GRABAREK, PAUL L&LISA A $160,000
03/13/06 1862577 1 200600000 THERESA MAUREEN HARRIS THERESA MAUREEN CULVER $0
Historical Valuation Info
ife r , 'I°:AC>_:-,.= T-np PerrnCropAla!+iB
2013 GRABAREK, PAUL L&LISA A $137,500 $25,000 $0 $162,500 $0 $162,500
2012 GRABAREK, PAUL L&LISA A $137,500 $25,000 $0 $162,500 $0 $162,500
2011 GRABAREK, PAUL L&LISA A $216,000 $4,500 $0 $220,500 $0 $220,500
2010 HARRIS ET UX, LEE R $216,000 $4,500 $0 $220,500- $0 $220,500
2009 HARRIS ET UX, LEE R $216,000 $4,500 $0 $220,500 $0 $220,500
View Taxes
Parcel Comments
No Comments Available
Property Images
,1213/13 TerraScan TaXSifter-Mason County Washington
No images found.
1.0.5009.14502 TX_RollYear_Search:2013
12rN13 TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington
-� MASON COUN"ll (
WASHINGTON TAXSi:
SIMPLESEARCH SALESSEARCH REETSIFTER COUNTY HOME PAsB _uPLA.;i CiSG�=i?,iER
Melody Peterson
Mason County Assessor 411 N 5TH ST Shelton,WA 98S84
Assessor Tr =lsurer Appraisal MapSifter
Parcel
e i?: 12007-75-90023 Owner Name: BARTOL, SHERRILL
DOR Code: 18 - Residential - All other Addressi: 91 E BUFFINGTON LN
Situs: Address2:
Map Number: City,State: SHELTON WA
Status: Zip: 985848467
Description: TR 2-C OF SURVEY 8/159 &T.L. TR 3 OF SP #1140-R
Comment:
2013 Market Value: 2013 Taxable Value 2013 Assessment Dat=
Land: $143,750 Land: $143,750 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $157,595 Improvements: $157,595 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $301,345 Total $301,345 Total Acres: 1.68000
Ownership
Owner's Name
BARTOL, SHERRILL 100
Sales History
s.les Ddcrament 'Parcels Excise
12/08/99 1702263 1 199900000 HARRY F BARTOL JR SHERRILL BARTOL (SURV SPOUSE) $0
12/08/99 1703185 1 199900000 HARRY F BARTOL SHERRILL K BARTOL(SURV SPOUSE) $0
11/22/99 1702263 1 199900000 HARRY F BARTOL I SHERRILL BARTOL(SURV SPOUSE) $0
11/22/99 1703185 1 199900000 HARRY F BARTOL SHERRILL K BARTOL(SURV SPOUSE) $0
10/05/89 499720 1 198903430 DONALD J MENDRIN HARRY F BARTOL ET UX (SHERRILL K) $47,000
07/11/86 454791 1 198695311 ESTATE OF ROBERT L SMITH $0
Historical Valuation Info
Year Billed Owr:=_
2013 BARTOL, SHERRILL $143,750 $157,595 $0 $301,345 $143,000 $95,330
2012 BARTOL, SHERRILL $143,750 $161,005 $0 $304,755 $143,000 $95,330
2011 BARTOL, SHERRILL $234,000 $222,150 $0 $456,150 $0 $456,150
2010 BARTOL, SHERRILL $234,000 $222,150 $0 $456,150 $0 $238,330
2009 BARTOL, SHERRILL $234,000 $222,150 $0 $456,150 $0 $238,330
ViewTaxe
Parcel Comments
.____-- -------
1213/13 TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington
No Comments Available
Property Images
No images found.
1.0.5009.14502 TX_RollYear_Search:2013
12l3h3 TerraScan Ta)Sifter-Mason County Wash!ngton
MASON COUNTY
WASHINGTON YAXSIFIER
SIMPLE SEARCH SALES SEARCH REETSIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER
Melody Peterson
Mason County Assessor 411 N STH ST Shelton,WA 98584
Assessor Treasvr-r Appraisal MZn47iff
Parcel
Parcel#. 12007-75-00012 Owner Name: BERLINER, DAVID L
DOR Code: 18 - Residential - All other Addressl: 111 E BUFFINGTON LN
Situs: 111 E BUFFINGTON LN SHELTON Address2:
Map NumLer. City,State: SHELTON WA
statusi Zip: 985847018
Description: PCL 2 OF BLA #91-17 AF #523577
Comment:
2013 Market Value 2013 Taxable Value 2013 Assessment Data
Land: $206,250 Land: $206,250 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $231,765 Improvements: $231,765 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $438,015 Total $438,015 Total Acres: 2.17000
Ownership
Owner's Name
BERLINER, DAVID L 100 %
Sales History
_ Sale sales Ex
Date Document Parcels
02/12/08 1914456 1 200801584 KAREN B BERLINER DAVID L BERLINER $0
06/21/91 528175 1 199112637 3 PETERSON-G&M DAVID L&KAREN B BERLINER $146,000
PICKERING
09/07/90 514889 1 199008698 DONALD 3 MENDRIN, TR 30HN J PETERSON ET AL(G&M $0
PICKERING)
07/11/86 454791 1 198695311 ESTATE OF ROBERT L $0
SMITH
Historical Valuation Info
Yea f�t•rdrr n 11?!, _
2013 BERLINER, DAVID L $206,250 $231,765 $0 $438,015 $0 $438,015
2012 BERLINER, DAVID L $206,250 $231,760 $0 $438,010 $0 $438,010
2011 BERLINER, DAVID L $257,830 $253,095 $0 $510,925 $0 $510,925
2010 BERLINER, DAVID L $257,830 $253,095 $0 $510,925 $0 $510,925
2009 BERLINER, DAVID L $257,830 $253,095 $0 $510,925 $0 $510,925
Taxes
Parcel Comments
------ ------
1213113 TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington
No Comments Available
Property Images
No images found.
1.0.5009.14502 TX_Ro11Year_Search:2013
... .____-- -------
12/3/4 TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington
-- MASON COUNTY
WASHINGTON `AXSIFf
SIMPLESEARCH SALESSEARCH REEfSIFTER COUNTYHOMEPAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER
Melody Peterson
Mason County Assessor 411 N STH 5T Shelton,WA 98584
Assessor Treasvr-z:r Appraisal_ MapSifter
Parcel
Parcel#: 12007-75-90051 owner Name: BOOTS, PATRA RAE&STEVEN E
DO Cody 18 - Residential - All other Addressly 231 E BUFFINGTON LN
situs: 231 E BUFFINGTON LN SHELTON Address2:
Map Number: City,State: SHELTON WA
Status: Zip.; 985849471
Descripti*..r TR 5-A OF SURVEY 8/159 &T.L. TR 1 OF SP 1139 S 38/113
Comment:
2013 t 2013 Taxable Value -sessment Dat
Land: $125,000 Land: $125,000 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $139,550 Improvements: $139,550 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $264,550 Total $264,550 Total Acres: 3.20000
Ownership
Ownership %
BOOTS, PATRA RAE&STEVEN E 100%
Sales History
!r c Det':rn aj t �t Parcels )Excise
03/02/98 662523 1 199844047 PATRA RAE BOOTS PATRA RAE&STEVEN E BOOTS $0
04/03/97 644379 1 199740378 STEVEN E BOOTS PATRA RAE BOOTS $0
05/26/92 544902 1 199217317 PATRA RAE BOOTS (WOODS) PATRA RAE &STEVEN E BOOTS $0
12/08/88 489180 1 198800000 CHARLES SHEARER ET UX LONGBRANCH LANDS CO $0
09/30/87 472749 1 1987100122 DONALD J MENDRIN, TRUSTEE TO PATRA RAE WOODS $55,000
09/30/87 472748 1 198700000 CHARLES F SHEARER ET UX TO LONGBRANCH LANDS COMPANY $0
07/11/86 454791 1 198695311 ESTATE OF ROBERT L SMITH $0
12/06/78 514891 1 197860769 JANICE K SHEARER ET VIR LONGBRANCH LANDS COMPANY $0
Historical Valuation Info
_ P --Crop Valv-
e
2013 BOOTS, PATRA RAE&STEVEN E $125,000 $139,550 $0 $264,550 $0 $264,550
2012 BOOTS, PATRA RAE &STEVEN E $125,000 $139,550 $0 $264,550 $0 $264,550
2011 BOOTS, PATRA RAE &STEVEN E $180,000 $148,020 $0 $328,020 $0 $328,020
2010 BOOTS, PATRA RAE &STEVEN E $180,000 $148,020 $0 $328,020 $0 $328,020
2009 BOOTS, PATRA RAE &STEVEN E $180,000 $148,020 $0 $328,020 $0 $328,020
View Taxes
•1213/13 TerraScan TaXSifter-Mason County Washington
Parcel Comments
No Comments Available
Property Images
No images found.
1.0.50 09.145 02 TX_Ro11Year_Search:2013
12/3113 TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington
'\AASON COUNTY
TAXSI FTER
`^�ASHINGTON _
SIMPLESEARCH SALESSEARCH REEfSIFTER COUNTYHOMEPAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER
Melody Peterson
Mason County Assessor 411 N STH ST Shelton,WA 98584
Assessor Treasurer Appraisal Map5ifter
- Parcel
Parcel#: 12007-75-90052 - Owner rare: HITCHCOCK, JOHN B
DO Cody 18 - Residential - All other Addressl: 9620 SAMISH ISLAND RD
situs: Address2:
Map Number. City,State: BOW WA
Status: Zip: 982329349
Description: TR 5B OF SURVEY 8/159 &T.L. TR 2 OF SP #1139 S 38/113
Comment:
2013 Market Valu 2013 Taxable Value 2013 Assessment Data
Land: $145,000 Land: $145,000 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $62,595 Improvements: $62,595 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $207,595 Total $207,595 Total Acres: 1.32000
Ownership
Owner's Nar-.
HITCHCOCK, JOHN B 100 %
Sales History
O- - S-0es i?osurr+ . := P=:r : Excise
12/01/09 1949866 1 200900000 REBECCA A HITCHCOCK JOHN B HITCHOCK(SURVIVING SPOUSE) $0
12/01/09 1949867 1 200900000 JOHN B&REBECCA A HITCHCOCK H/W $0
12/01/09 1949866 1 200900000 A REBECCA A HITCHCOCK JOHN B HITCHOCK(SURVIVING SPOUSE) $0
12/01/09 1949867 1 200900000 A JOHN B&REBECCA A HITCHCOCK H/W $0
Historical Valuation Info
PermCrop Value wxempt Taxable
2013 HITCHCOCK, JOHN B $145,000 $62,595 $0 $207,595 $0 $207,595
2012 HITCHCOCK, JOHN B $145,000 $62,595 $0 $207,595 $0 $207,595
2011 HITCHCOCK, JOHN B $237,600 $60,000 $0 $297,600 $0 $297,600
2010 HITCHCOCK, JOHN B $237,600 $60,000 $0 $297,600 $0 $297,600
2009 HITCHCOCK, JOHN B $237,600 $60,000 $0 $297,600 $0 $297,600
View Taxes
Parcel Comments
No Comments Available
1213/13 TerraScan TaXSifter-Mason County Washington
Property Images
No images found.
1.0.5009.14502 TX_Rol]Year_Search:2013
12/3113 TerraScanTa)Sifter-Mason County Washington
MASON COUNTY
WASHINGTON TAXSIFTER
.SIMPLES- -.CH,SALES SEARCH REETSIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER
Melody Paterson
Mason County Assessor 411 N STH ST Shelton,WA 98584
Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter
Parcel
Parcel#: 12007-32-00010 G-;r:. i; re _; HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM
DOR Code: 18 - Residential - All other Addressi: 2332 S PITTSBURG ST
Situs: Address2°
Map Number: City,State: SPOKANE WA
Status: Zip: 992033838
Description: TR 1 GOVT LOT 1 &TAX 1333-A EX S 38/113
Comment:
2013 (Market Valus- 2013 Taxable Value 2013 Assessment Data
Land: $181,250 Land: $181,250 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $93,590 Improvements: $93,590 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $274,840 Total $274,840 Total Acres: 5.10000
Ownership
Owner's Name Ownersh:;.
HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM 100
HITCHCOCK LF EST, WALTER-HELEN 0
Sales History
�I= Datr; sales D,c.urrJent I '": ;els (Excise a'
01/05/87 462016 1 198797299 WALTER A HITCHCOCK ET UX $0
12/22/86 476601 1 1986101249 WALTER&HELEN HITCHCOCK LARRY WILLIAM HITCHCOCK $0
12/22/86 461369 1 198697059 WALTER A HITCHCOCK ET UX $0
Historical Valuation Info
-,ear !Billed Owner Impr. PermCrop Value
2013 HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM $181,250 $93,590 $0 $274,840 $0 $274,840
2012 HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM $181,250 $93,585 $0 $274,835 $0 $274,835
2011 HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM $342,000 $90,660 $0 $432,660 $0 $432,660
2010 HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM $342,000 $90,660 $0 $432,660 $0 $432,660
2009 HITCHCOCK, LARRY WILLIAM $342,000 $90,660 $0 $432,660 $0 $432,660
Parcel Comments
No Comments Available
12/3113 TerraScan Takifter-Mason County Washi ng ton
Property Images
No images found.
TX_RollYear_search:2013
1.0.5009.14502
INTRODUCTIOI`
Overview of Washington State's Subtidal Geoduck Fishery. In the early
1960's numerous subtidal geoduck beds were identified. Washington State
Department of Fisheries conducted extensive surveys and presented a resource
assessment to the State Legislature. In 1970, the Legislature authorized the
commercial harvesting of the subtidal geoduck and directed the management of the
fishery to the Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources. Soon after that
time,Department of Fish and Wildlife developed enhancement programs that would
allow the reseeding of state beds. While some of the experiments proved to be
successful,the overall program was not and subsequently lost funding support.
Divers using hand-held water jets harvest the subtidal geoduck fishery. Each animal is
individually taken by liquefying the substrate adjacent to it. Much of the geoduck
resource is not harvestable because of depth limitations,below commercial densities,
and water quality decertifications1.
Species Overview. The Northwest geoduck,Panopea
abrupta(formerly P. generosa) is the largest burrowing
_ clam in the world. The average shell length is
- -` approximately 5.3 inches with a live weight of
approximately 2 pounds. In buried adults,the long
contractile siphon may extend 39 inches to the surface.
The natural habitat range is from the lower intertidal
zone to the subtidal zone of bays and estuaries as deep as
Figure 1.Adult geoduck, Panopea abrupta 360 feet in Puget Sound. The preferred substrate is
normally sand and/or mud. See Figure 1.
Intertidal Culture of Geoduck on Private Tidelands. Geoduck culture on private
tidelands began in the early 1990's. As a relatively new species for culture,techniques are
rapidly evolving and changing. A USDA Small Business Innovative Research(SBIR) grant
was obtained by Taylor Resources, Inc. (a participant grower)in1997 to assist with
development of optimal culture techniques. As the culture techniques are developed, geoduck
growers are striving to ensure potential adverse environmental impacts are minimized. The
purpose of this Environmental Code of Practice(ECOP)is to provide guidance to geoduck
farmers on potential environmental impacts resulting from their operations and demonstrate to
Commercial Geoduck Fishery Management Plan and EIS,Departments of Fisheries and Natural
Resources,1985
interested parties, including resource and regulatory agencies,the growers' commitment to
protection of the marine environment.
Participating Growers. This is a voluntary undertaking by the geoduck growers in
Washington State. Through their participation in the development of this document,
growers agree to meet the objectives of this ECOP, disclose environmental
performance evaluations,and assume responsibility for their actions as well as the
actions of other growers and the industry as a whole. A list of participating growers,
addresses, and contacts can be requested. Individual companies will maintain planting
and harvest records,.maps of growing areas, and employee training records.
As the industry continues to grow,new growers will have the opportunity to
participate in achieving the objectives of this ECOP by completing an Environmental
Performance Checklist and incorporating the operational strategies into their
company activities.
a
♦ � � 1 t
Y:{
Figure 2. Intertidal geoduck bed planted at+2 to—3.S foot tidal elevation.
2 Geoduck ECOP
Washington State Geoduck Growers have collaborated on the development of
this document in order to accomplish the following:
Identify strategies to avoid or minimize impacts from
geoduck culture activities to the other marine life.
Identify strategies to avoid or minimize impacts to the
genetic diversity of Puget Sound and Hood Canal geoduck
populations.
Identify strategies to avoid or minimize visual and noise
impacts to surrounding properties.
Guide growers in meeting, exceeding or participating in the
development of regulatory requirements.
Identify research needs and support research opportunities
that provide a better understanding of the geoduck fishery and its
potential impacts.
Provide an outlet for disseminating information and
practices of geoduck farming.
3 Geoduck ECOP
1. Hatchery and Broodstock Management
1.1. Introduction. The purpose of the hatchery facility is to produce geoduck seed for culture
purposes for private shellfish companies as well as for enhancement purposes by the State of
Washington.
The Taylor Shellfish hatchery located on the west shore of Dabob Bay, serves as an example. The
facility consists of a 12,000 square foot metal building,4000 square feet of greenhouse space,and
various outdoor tanks of which a designated area is used for geoducks. Seawater is pumped from the
bay via 800-foot intake pipes and from there through filters and heat exchangers into the building.
There it is used for a variety of purposes relating to all aspects of the operation and returned to the
bay. Operations can be divided into several areas: algal production, larval rearing,nursery seed
culture and broodstock maintenance.
Algal production consists of growing a variety of single .
cell algae species for consumption by the larvae, seed, and
broodstock animals. Treated seawater is used to fill algal ``' +�■
tanks of various sizes and nutrients are added to provide '
nutrition for microalgae. This is accomplished by filtering
and heating or cooling seawater followed by sterilization
by any of three methods: pasteurization,UV treatment or
by the addition of chlorine to kill microflora followed by
neutralization with sodium thiosulphate. A variety of
species of microalgae are grown and each is used as an Figure 3.Several species of algae are
inoculate to start larger cultures to be used as food. Algal cultured in order to supply adequate
cultures are grown under artificial light in several green nutrition for the different life stages of
houses associated with the hatchery facility, in addition to the bivalves.
the main hatchery building. See Figure 5. The maximum volume of algae growing at any one time at
this facility is currently 240,000 liters. The vast majority of this volume is used for food for
broodstock bivalves,larvae and seed or juvenile shellfish.
Larval culture consists of rearing bivalve larvae in static tanks between the time that gametes are
spawned by adult shellfish until the larvae"set"or settle out"and loose their ability to swim.
Nursery seed production is the phase of rearing larvae that are nearing settlement. Mature larvae are
placed in smaller tanks where they can"settle out"onto screens. Water and microalgae are pumped
to these newly set animals. When the seed reaches an approximate size of 5 min it is transported from
the facility to the bay for planting or sold.
Broodstock maintenance consists of feeding and care for adult bivalves used for the State of
Washington and from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife approved areas outside of the
State including California,Oregon and Hawaii.
4 Geoduck ECOP
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified five genetic geographic
regions in Puget Sound. Currently,the progeny of any hatchery spawning is expected to
planted in the region from which broodstock was harvested. Genetic research by both
industry and State is on-going to determine if this protocol will be required in the future.
Figure 4. Taylor Shellfish bivalve hatchery located on Dabob Bay, Hood Canal.
5 Geoduck ECOP
Hatchery and Broodstock Management
Environmental Objectives
Minimize potential impacts to water quality
f Minimize the use of and properly dispose of any production related or experimental chemicals
through the use of hazardous waste collection facilities.
f Use"environmentally friendly"cleaning agents for tank and pipe cleaning.
f Utilize heat exchanger to recover heat energy from discharge water to preheat new intake water.
Minimize the use of antibiotics for use in treating bacterial contamination larval and algal
culture.
Minimizepotential
J Equip intake lines with fish-friendly screens to avoid pumping in larger fish and invertebrates.
Complete genetic stock research and incorporate results into this ECOP.
f Culture only well documented or locally-isolated algae species,or obtain algae starts from well-
established laboratories.
Minimizepotential and disease transfers.
f Ensure compliance with Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife transfer
regulations?
f Ensure broodstock sources are disease and pest-
free.
f Conduct regular pathological exams. i
Figure 5. Hatchery-raised geoduck seed.
2 WAC 220-72,Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations
6 Geoduck ECOP
Figure 6.Nursery systems vary.At left top, a floating
nursery holds trays of sand with seed At left bottom,
trays in the floating nursery. Below,post-set geoduck
are nursed in trays and fed cultured algae.
IN i
c r
L
lift
ti{1{ ti
Performance Measures for Hatchery and Broodstock Management
Record of complaints from adjacent property owners on environmental elements
such as light, noise, aesthetics, etc.
Measures taken to address complaints
Record of broodstock origins, outplanting sites, and algae sources
Pathology records for broodstock and source areas
Record of chemicals used in production and cleaning agents
Annual environmental performance review
2. Planting and Management of Geoduck Beds
7 Geoduck ECOP
2.1 Introduction. Areas for potential plantings are assessed using the following criteria:
substrate condition and type,access,water quality,exposure,existing biota,and upland development
trends. Because areas for successful culture are limited,planting densities are increased at suitable
sites.
Geoduck seed is used for outplanting on private tidelands primarily in the South Puget Sound Region.
The seed are approximately 5 mm is size when transported from the hatchery for planting. Geoduck
seed is planted in 4-6"PVC pipe cut in approximately 9"lengths. Although polyethylene tubes are
less expensive per foot than PVC piping,PVC pipe is less buoyant and does not float free from the
substrate thereby exposing the young geoduck to predators and potentially littering beaches and
adjacent properties.A length of pipe is pushed into the substrate in the intertidal zone from
approximately the—2 tidal elevation to+3 tidal elevation(MLLW)about 12"apart. Approximately 3-
4 inches of the PVC pipe is left above the substrate. Geoduck seed is placed in each pipe at a density
of four seed per pipe. A plastic mesh net is
secured over the exposed end of the pipe to
exclude predators. See Figure 8. Normally
the young geoducks will dig down into the
substrate almost immediately.
Clams must grow and dig to a depth
adequate to evade predators(depth refuge).
For most sites in South Sound,this ranges
from 12-14"in depth at which time the
pipes are removed from the substrate. y�
Farms are periodically checked to ensure - xf'
adequate growth of geoducks and that
predators are adequately excluded.
Additionally,all unnatural debris,nets,
bands,etc.,are maintained and prevented
from littering the waters or the beaches. Figure 7. Cover nets are placed over the PVC tubes to
The State of Washington Department of exclude predators.
Fish and Wildlife conducted an
environmental review of the intertidal
planting of geoduck on public beaches. The purpose was to increase recreational opportunities for the
public. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the activity on May 14, 1998.
Planting and Management of Geoduck Beds
s SEPA Determination of Non-Significance,Log Number 98031.dns,Department of Fish and Wildlife Lead
Agency,May 14, 1998.
8 Geoduck ECOP
Environmental Objectives
Pest/PredatorIntegrated n.g
1-9
f Most of the tidelands cultivated for geoduck are at a low tidal elevation where predation is
intense. Crabs(red rock,Dungeness,shore crab)are the dominant predators. Moonsnails can
also be a significant predator as well as scoters that bite siphons off resulting in mortality.
Exclusion is the primary and preferred strategy to minimize damage by predators. PVC tubes
with nets are one example of how this is effectively accomplished.
Minimize impact to surrounding properties.
f Maintain farm in an orderly fashion. Install pipe or other predator exclusion devices in straight
rows or blocks that are appealing to upland observers. Remove un-natural materials(pipe,nets)
as soon as practical when young geoducks are no longer vulnerable to predators. Remove mark
stakes and buoys when they are no longer necessary. Where possible,use pipe colored to blend
into the surrounding environment.
f No un-natural materials should escape from the farm. Pipe,nets,rubber bands occasionally wash
out of the beach. Every effort should be made to assure this does not happen. Area beaches
should be patrolled on a regular basis to retrieve debris that does escape the farm as well as other
non-natural debris.Areas shall be identified where because of wave,current or wind action,
debris tends to accumulate and crews shall patrol these areas after weather events to pick up
debris. Sometimes the areas are in deepwater and it may be necessary to wade in or dive for
debris and litter.
f Employee training. Participant companies shall train employees in meeting environmental
objectives through a standardized training program. Companies shall be responsible for the their
employees' environmental performance.
Minimize and/or
f No seeding or culture is done in eelgrass beds,or other biologically sensitive areas such as
herring or smelt spawning grounds.
f Equipment shall be kept in good repair to prevent leaking and/or inefficient operations.
9 Geoduck ECOP
Performance Measures for Planting and Management of Geoduck Beds
Record of correspondence from adjacent property owners
Measures taken as a result of complaints from adjacent property owners
Record of results of biological surveys and assessments
Recreational users' complaints
Annual environmental performance review
r
Figure 8. Top, Seattle Shellfish crew Figure 9. Geoduck seed digging in to
methodically plant geoduck seed in each tube. substrate within the tube.
Figure 10. Other marine organisms settle in tubes.
10 Geoduck ECOP
3. Harvesting the Geoduck Crop
3.1.1 ntrod uction. Intertidal geoduck farming is a new endeavor and the harvest method or
methods that will be used to remove the clam from the beaches are still evolving. However three
basic methods are likely to be tried and one or two of these will probably be the standard in the future.
Geoducks at harvest size are large clams and will probably average about two pounds each. At this
size they live buried in the beach substrates(sand and mud)up to three feet or more.During the
harvest process the clams must be carefully extracted from the substrate to prevent broken shells,
which may be more fragile for these younger clams than the older clams in the subtidal fishery,or cut
siphons(necks)and other damage which would reduce the quality and value of the crop. The three
basic harvest methods being considered are as follows:
arvest with water jets at high tide with divers.
This harvest style is the same method that has been used in the Puget Sound commercial subtidal
fishery for the past 28 years. The only difference is the water depth of the harvest. At high tide the
intertidal cultured geoducks could be covered by water from a few feet to 18 feet depending on
elevation. The non-tribal subtidal harvest occurs in water deeper than the minus 18-foot level
(NI LLW).
In the subtidal fishery,geoducks are harvested by divers using water jets to emulsify the substrate
material immediately around the clam that allows removal by hand.The water jet is a nozzle about 18
inches long with an inside diameter of 5/8" or less. Water pressures are 100 psi or less(measured at
the pump). The nozzle is inserted next to the geoduck siphon or the hole left when the siphon is
retracted. A short burst of water loosens the sediment allowing the clam to be pulled from the
substrate. Water is supplied to the diver from a pump mounted on a boat anchored next to the divers.
The diver places the harvested geoducks in a mesh bag and proceeds to the next geoduck to repeat the
process. When the bag is filled it is hauled to the surface and the clams stored in crates. A diver can
take several hundred geoducks in one day using this method. Similar nozzle sizes and water pressures
will likely be used if this method is employed in the harvest of cultured intertidal geoducks.
Water jet harvest results in some environmental effects that are documented in the geoduck
environmental impact statement(EIS)4. The water jet creates a hole in the substrate by the removal of
the clams,by displacement of sediments,and by the suspension of fine particles in the water. The
average size hole produced is about 1/3 cubic feet. A temporary silty plume is produced by the action
of the water jet. Normally one hole is produced for each clam harvested however in areas of high
geoduck density several geoducks may be taken from a small area,thus reducing the number of holes
produced. Some reduction in the numbers and types of associated plants and animals occur with the
geoduck harvest.
4 Commercial Geoduck Fishery Management Plan and EIS,Departments of Fisheries and Natural
Resources,1985
11 Geoduck ECOP
The effects of harvest are minimal,short-lived and not considered significant. (EIS, See footnote 4)
Some minor differences may be experienced when harvesting intertidally compared to subtidally.
Sediments are generally coarser intertidally so displacement of sediments and siltation are expected to
be less. Species of plants and animals are likely to different between the two tidal levels.
arvest with water jets at low tide after the beaches are de-watered.
This method involves taking geoducks with water jets at low tide by workers on the tidelands. Small
powered water pumps mounted in outboard boats will be used. The boats will be positioned next to
the harvest site but will remain floating in the water. The harvester will loosen the substrate around
each geoduck: The geoduck will float to the surface and will be gently picked up and packed in crates
ready for transport to the plant. After the harvest the area will be slightly softer than the unharvested
beach but will be able to be walked on the few minutes after the harvest. The level and firmness of
the harvest area will normally be restored naturally by wave action and sediment settlement during the
following few tidal cycles. The action of the water jet in the substrate will be similar to the diver
harvest but very little silt is produced around and above the site. Turbid water will trickle down the
beach to the existing water level and produce small plumes where the water flow enters the bay.
. ...tea.
F
Figure 11. Above left,geoduck harvested intertidally, Above right, divers harvesting subtidally.
The harvest of geoducks,aside from producing human food,jobs,and reducing the trade deficit with
Asian countries,has some positive side effects. Oxygenation by any of the harvest methods can
benefit beach sediments that are devoid of or low in oxygen. Oxygenating or sweetening the beach
can make it more suitable for shellfish and other marine invertebrates.
The harvest of cultured geoducks can be beneficial by removing nutrients from super rich bays. Some
portions of Puget Sound due to the effects of increased human populations have more plant nutrients
than needed to maintain balanced and healthy phytoplankton populations. Phytoplankton take up
these nutrients which are then transferred to geoducks and other filter feeding organisms. When a
crop of geoducks are taken out of a bay during harvest there is a net loss of nutrients in that bay. In
super rich areas of Puget Sound such as the shellfish growing areas of South Sound this net loss of
nutrients by the harvest of geoducks can be a positive effect in the overall health of the South Sound
region.
12 Geoduck ECOP
Harvesting the Geoduck Crop
Environmental Objectives
Minimize impacts to water quality during harvest operations.
205
J Conduct harvest activities during tides where the least amount of turbidity will occur as
practicable.
f Maintain equipment in good working order to prevent inefficient operations.
J Ensure operations continue to be conducted and modified using Best Available Science.A list of
relevant scientific publications will be maintained. This listing will be updated as needed to
ensure Best Available Science is appropriately applied.
Minimizeother
f Keep area of impact to a minimum by using properly trained employees and well-maintained
equipment.Where possible,avoid direct harm to other aquatic species.Keep heavy equipment
well maintained to prevent leaking of lubricating or hydraulic fluids on to the beach. Strictly
adhere to regulatory-restricted time periods to protect migrating marine species.
Minimize i i surrounding
J Keep noise down to a minimum as is only necessary for safe and efficient operations.Use
"whisper"models of pumps, generators or other mechanical devices when available.Keep lights
down to a minimum as is only necessary for safe and efficient night operations.Remove all tools
and products of harvest activities from harvest site upon completion. Inform,when possible,
adjoining neighbors of potential harvest activities.
13 Geoduck ECOP
Performance Measures for Harvesting the Geoduck Crop
Harvest records
Equipment maintenance records
Record of correspondence from adjacent property owners and recreational users
Measures taken as a result of complaints from adjacent property owners
Record of results of biological surveys
Record of results of vertical profiles of the water column
Annual environmental performance review
b
=rt
� i �-:a ,�=• ;� ,,,� :v .�a....
s
6W
ON
A
Figure 12. Geoduck bed after tube removal.
14 Geoduck ECOP
3. Processing
4A .1 ntrod uction. Because geoduck are sold live,there is very limited processing involved in
preparing the animals for market. Geoduck are trucked in baskets to our processing plant immediately
following harvest.In order to keep the animals alive and as healthy as possible the geoduck are placed
in a live tank system,or wetstorage,upon arrival at the processing plant.As orders are filled,
individual geoduck are rubber-banded to prevent separation of the shell from the body and wrapped in
bubble-wrap to prevent shell damage during shipping.
Animals damaged during harvest and transport are processed by cleaning and sectioning the body and
neck meats. The meats are then packaged and frozen.
All harvest lots are tagged at the time of harvest. The tags stay with the animals through processing to
the final consumer.
Figure 13.Adult geoduck.
15 Geoduck ECOP
Processing
Environmental Objectives
Minimize wastewater discharge impacts from processing acti%ities
l nsurc compliance with wastewater discharge permits through Discharge Monitoring Reports.
Minimize potential for disease and pest transfer.
f Keep animals separated and tagged.Adhere to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
regulations regarding off-loading,processing and transferring of product.
Sanitationig
f Submit required samples to certified lab to ensure geoducks are below maximum allowable toxin
levels.
f Harvest geoducks only from certified growing waters in the open status.
Performance Measures for Processing Geoduck
Plant records of inspections
Annual environmental performance review
16 Geoduck ECOP
5. Endangered Species and Unique Marine Areas
5.1. S a I m o n. Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, several species of salmonids in
Washington State were listed as"threatened." These species of concern include: Puget Sound
Chinook,Bull Trout,Hood Canal Summer Chum,Coastal Bull Trout and Coho(proposed). In
response to these federal listings, Washington State embarked upon a comprehensive strategy for
salmon recovery.
Shellfish and salmon share a common marine environment,and as such,require us as shellfish
farmers to interact with salmon and their habitat during the course of our operations. Potential habitat
impacts from shellfish farming operations can be positive as well as negative.To understand the
nature of these impacts,shellfish growers have promoted and supported scientific research through a
variety of organizations and funding sources. Representatives from academia, industry and resource
agencies join us in this effort. One of the guiding principles in Washington's Statewide Salmon
Recovery Strategy is the use of best available science for developing recovery options. It is our goal
to identify and prevent potential negative impacts to salmonids while ensuring the future of a viable
aquaculture industry.
The shellfish industry continues to be a leader in promoting water quality protection initiatives at both
the local watershed and State levels. Water quality impacts have been identified in the State's salmon
plan as one of the impediments to a successful recovery. Our common goal and combined efforts in
this area will benefit both fish and shellfish.
17 Geoduck ECOP
Endangered Species Act-Salmon
Environmental Objectives
Ensure our operations support the State's salmon recovery efforts.
J Adhere to federal and state guidelines for protection measures for endangered species.
f Promote water quality protection through participation at local and State forums.
J Minimize habitat alteration.
J Continue to promote scientific endeavors that help identify areas of impacts and viable
mitigation options.
J Identify and expand on those activities that enhance essential salmon habitat.
Performance Measures for Endangered Species Protection
Record of salmon returns in applicable farm areas
Record of water quality participation efforts
Record of scientific studies supported by geoduck companies that address salmon
issues
18 Geoduck ECOP
5.2. Eelgrass and other unique marine areas. Several estuaries in Washington State
support eelgrass beds. These beds are considered to be a critical component of the marine ecosystem
in the intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. Two species of eelgrass predominate in Washington
waters:Zostera japonica and Zostera marina,the former being an introduced species. Eelgrass beds
are nurseries,foraging areas,refuge areas for a variety of fish, including salmon, and their prey.
A variety of forage fish species,including sand lance, smelt,and herring,use the intertidal zone for
spawning. These areas are often associated with other critical marine habitats. It is the goal of the
geoduck growers to identify those areas through the use of Department of Fish and Wildlife
inventories and minimize impacts. Additionally,geoduck planting and harvest operations avoid these
areas. But there are areas where eelgrass recruits into planted geoduck beds. Additionally,for the
most part, sand lance and surf smelt use areas at higher tidal elevations for spawning than where
geoduck operations would occur anyway. (Below, various photos of eelgrass beds).
I /
Alibi
r
a•,,
-e
Y.
q�
19 Geoduck ECOP
Eelgrass and Other Unique Environments
Environmental Objective
Avoid impacts to existing celgrass beds
Promote scientific research of eelgrass beds and their functions and values.
Identify eelgrass beds in geoduck growing areas.
impacts 1 forage fish
Minimize impacts to the intertidal zone in areas of forage fish use.
Avoid conducting planting and harvesting activities during spawning periods.
5.4. Performance Measures for Eelgrass and other Unique Marine Areas
Protections
Record of eelgrass beds in farm areas
Record of research proposals on eelgrass issues
Record of participation on eelgrass studies
Environmental performance reviews
This is a living document and will continue to evolve as new approaches,priorities, and
objectives are identified.
20 Geoduck ECOP
i
LEASE AGREEMENT"GEODUCK"
THIS LEASE, made and entered into this 1st day of May, 2013, by and between John
and Karen Trueman, hereinafter, Lessor, and TAYLOR SHELLFISH COMPANY, INC., a
Washington corporation, hereinafter,Lessee.
VVITNESSETH:
That Lessor, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions as hereinafter provided,
agrees to lease to Lessee the real property described on Exhibit "A" (tideland map) attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated upon the following terms and conditions.
1. This lease shall commence on or before the ist of May, 2014, or once permitting has been
completed, whichever occurs earlier, and will terminate on 30a' of April, 2028. (2 harvest
cycles) Lessee will notify Lessor once permitting has been completed. The lease will sooner
terminate at the discretion of the Lessee if the tidelands are decertified by operation of federal,
state or local law or if the Lessee is disposed of harvest rights. Also, if in the final year of the
lease harvest is delayed by a PSP closure or any other health closures the Lessee has up to one
additional year to complete the harvest.
2. Lessee shall pay base rent of $ 1,000 for each acre under geoduck cultivation per year.
Fractional acreage shall have rent prorated at the $1,000 per acre. Lessee shall also pay as
additional rent an amount based upon the production of shellfish harvested from the leased
premises in intervals of one month commencing one month after the beginning of harvesting
and calculated by multiplying the total harvest produced monthly of geoduck clams (in
pounds) times 10% of the lessee's F.O.B. 'Shelton plant landed price per pound. The F.O.B.
plant landed price is $2.50 per pound less than our F.O.B. sales price.
3. Lessor warrants that it has title to said property and Lessee will apply for Washington State
Department of Health certification. If part or all of the property itself is condemned by a
public agency, Lessor and Lessee shall have the right to proceed against the public agency for
their respective damages.
4. The Lessee will use the property described on Exhibit "A" only for the care, cultivation, and
removal of shellfish and agrees to abide by all governmental laws and regulations pertaining to
such business.
1
5. The Lessee agrees that it will indemnify and hold and save Lessor whole and harmless of,
from and against all suits, loss, cost, liability, claims, demand, actions and judgments of every
kind and character by reason of any breach, violation, or non-performance of any term,
provision, covenant, agreement or condition on the part of Lessee hereunder. All claims,
demands, actions, damages, loss, cost, liabilities, expenses and judgments suffered by,
recovered from or asserted against Lessor on account of injury or damage to person or
property, to the extent that any such damage or injury may be incident to, arise out of, or be
caused, either proximately or remotely, wholly or in part, by an act, omission, negligence or
misconduct on the part of Lessee or any of its agents, servants, employees, contractors,
patrons, guests, licensees, or invites or of any other person entering upon the leased property
under or with the express or implied invitation or permission of Lessee, or when any such
injury or damage is the result, proximate or remote, of the violation by Lessee or any of its
agents, servants, employees, contractors, patrons, guests, licensees, or invitees of any law,
ordinance or governmental order, or when any such injury or damage may in any other way
arise from or out of the occupancy of use by Lessee, its agents, servants, employees,
contractors, patrons, guests, licenses, or invitees of the leased property. Such indemnification
of Lessor by Lessee shall be effective without regard to whether such damage or injury may
result in whole or in part from the negligence of Lessee or any of its agents, servants,
employees, contractors, patrons, guests, licensees, or invitees. Lessee shall procure general
liability insurance of not less than Five Hundred thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) combined
single limit. The insurance shall name the Lessor as additional insured and shall provide thirty
(30) days notice of cancellation or nonrenewal. Lessee shall furnish certificate of said
insurance to Lessor.
6. Lessor shall pay the real estate taxes.
7._ The Lessmeshal_Lno-t allow__or cause_waste_o__occur upon the property_or_in._anX way_damage—
the ground except as is required in the course of conducting its business as described in
paragraph 4 above.
8. Should the nonpayment of rent remain in default after written notice from the Lessor to the
Lessee at the Lessee's address, Taylor Shellfish Company, Inc., SE 130 Lynch Road, Shelton,
Washington 98584, for a period of thirty(30) days, it shall be lawful for the Lessor to re-enter
2
t
the property, and to remove all persons and property belonging to the persons other than
Lessor therefrom, being understood that in the event the Lessor exercises its right under this
paragraph it will not waive or lose its right of action against the Lessee for all rentals due at
the time of said removal. In the event either party engages an attorney to enforce any
covenant of this Lease or breach thereof Lessee agrees to pay reasonable sums for attorney's
fees and costs. Venue for any such action or breach of the Lease shall be in Mason County
Superior Court.
9. At the expiration of the term of this Lease the Lessee will quit and surrender up the premises
and all property leased hereunder in its present condition, ordinary wear and tear or ordinary
damage by the elements excepted.
10. This Lease shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, executors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WIEREOF, the parties hereto have signed their names the day and year first
above written.
LESSOR:
Maims ddress:
LESSEE:
TAYLOR SHELLFISH COMPANY,INC.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
:ss.
COUNTY O f,
On this day personally appeared before me �f1L a Z�-y ' ''��� to me
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument,
3
and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the
uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2013.
fit
aQ o.� Ek NO
= TAR Y P IC IN AND FOR THE
2 STATE of Washington, residing at_mow
's0 • "
My commission expires:
y i/k pLAB�'�hfi�
s
STATE OF WASIT NGTON )
:ss.
COUNTY OF MASON ) ii
On this day personally appeared before me t T to me
known to be the TI t( Y of TAYLOR SHELLFISH C MPANY, INC., the
corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to exec to said instrument.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this C,�— _day of 12013.
r////t/1Z'0:'
`111�414
Sg10N�c+Ay��y
)TAR), �y:. ; NOTARY PUBLIC IN FOR
�,... \ STATE of Washington, residdjng a
PUBOC' ;�o My commission expires:
9 . . .........
•\
o WA5�'11
4
THE DIRECTION OF THE I-ATER,4l- L.INtS OI- I Ht
SECOND CLASS TIDELANDS WERE CALCULATED BASED
UPON A PROPORTION OF THE ANGULAR DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PREVIOUS SURVEY BOOK 38 , PAGE'S 9ID TO 92
<N37'27'17"E> AND A 81SECTIN6 ANGLE <N51'13'33" E>
AT THE ANGLE POINT ON THE BALANCED GOVERNMENT
MEANDER LINE IN RELATION TO THE DISTANCE ALONG
THE BALANCED GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE. THE
MEANDER LINE IN THIS AREA IS IN A COVE TYPE.
SITUATION AND THIS METHOD WILL YIELD A PROP-
ORTIONATE AMOUNT OF FOOTAGE AT THE LINE OF
;NN
EXTREME LOUT TIDE IN RELATION TO THE FOOTAGE ALONG THE BALANCED GOVERNMENT MEANDER L1NE.
i;
s
3
6Nx
t6
A/
FQ p1x .�. IZ 0J
�O ".
E h��-- FOUND PANTIER
6l•p2'6p BAR $ CAP
iJ 1
120.5sR�• SEE DETAIL •o�`'� 6�
5x
F9 Nx
� F
FOUND PANTIER
G� BAR d CAP �� ro ��,. �,�•ti �,
'o o.
s8283 ��. joo �o � �
SEE P
(� ell �34>>sh h� A F o0o FOUND 314 BOOK
�J� �q �' �h� IRON PIPE
r
ON L INE
Ogg FOUND 3/4" /
�0 IRON PIPE
t
12/3113 TerraScan TaxSlfter-Mason County Washington
�•� MASON COUNTY
y WASHINGTOP�I i`�:'��i��'E.k
SIMPLE Sc ,•„i SALESSEARCH REETSiFfER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER
Melody Peterson -
Mason County Assessor 411 N 5TH 5T Shelton,WA 98584
Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter
Parcel
Parcel#: 12007-75-90031 Owner Narr.�: TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L
DO Code: 18 - Residential - All other Addressl: 611 N CARR ST
Situs; 161 E BUFFINGTON LN SHELTON Address2:
Map Number; City,Stets; TACOMA WA
Status: Zip: 984033010
Description: PCL 1 OF BLA #91-17 AF #523577 S 31/218
Comment:
2013 i ivy�:tr 2:-.13 1a b'i'_VE.i.
Land: $189,800 Land: $189,800 District: 0182 - Tax District 0182
Improvements: $194,750 Improvements: $194,750 Current Use/DFL: No
Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0
Total $384,550 Total $384,550 Total Acres: 5.87000
Ownership
TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L 100 %
Sales History
Grantee
10/01/93 573569 1 199324522 GERLD&M PICKERING;K JOHN R&KAREN L TRUEMAN $180,000
SHAY
10/03/91 533355 1 199114178 JOHN J PETERSON GERALD PICKERING ET AL $0
06/21/91 528175 1 199112637 J PETERSON-G&M DAVID L&KAREN B BERLINER $0
PICKERING
09/07/90 514889 1 199008698 DONALD J MENDRIN, TR JOHN J PETERSON ET AL(G&M $192,900
PICKERING)
Historical Valuation Info
Year Billed Owns PermCrop Value
2013 TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L $189,800 $194,750 $0 $384,550 $0 $384,550
2012 TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L $189,800 $194,750 $0 $384,550 $0 $384,550
2011 TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L $277,000 $204,645 $0 $481,645 $0 $481,645
2010 TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L $277,000 $204,645 $0 $481,645 $0 $481,645
2009 TRUEMAN, JOHN R&KAREN L $277,000 $204,645 $0 $481,645 $0 $481,645
View Taxes
Parcel Comments
___...............................rr.....:a,..in....,.,...,.........n�,..u-�runnnay.,.,.,.,,ini ..,ti,,.-�ornz��rnna�r.fi..ein-� 1/9
t
L
126113 TerraScan Ta)Sifter-Mason County Washington
No Comments Available
Property Images
No images found.
1.0.5009.14502 TX_RollYear_Search:2013
-- - - ------- ... .------ -------