Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SHX2016-00040 Mazanti North Bay Shellfish Biologic Eval - PLN General - 5/31/2016
CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY FINAL MAZANTI NORTH BAY SHELLFISH FARM BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION • FISH HABITAT ANALYSIS - •• -• • Taylor Shellfish Farms 146 N Canal St, Suite iii Seattle, WA 98103 www.confenv.com This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing FINAL MAZANTI NORTH BAY SHELLFISH FARM BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ANALYSIS Prepared for: Taylor Shellfish 1.30 SE Lynch Road Shelton, WA 98584 Attn: Diane Cooper and Audrey Lamb Authored by: Marlene D. Meaders, Lauren Odle, and Ruth Park Confluence Environmental Company Maps prepared by: Erica McCormick Cascade GIS & Consulting May zo16 3-46 N Canal St, Suite iii • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION......................................................................................................4 2.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................5 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................5 3.1 Geoduck Clams.............................................................................................................................6 3.1.1 Planting and Grow-out........................................................................................................6 3.1.2 Harvesting..............................................................................................................................8 3.2 Manila Clams and Pacific Oysters Planting and Harvesting..................................................8 3.2.1 Manila Clams.........................................................................................................................9 3.2.2 Pacific Oysters.......................................................................................................................9 3.3 Support...........................................................................................................................................9 4.0 PROJECT AND ACTION AREAS...........................................................................................10 4.1 Project Area..................................................................................................................................10 4.2 Action Area..................................................................................................................................10 5.0 AVOIDANCE, CONSERVATION,AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES.....................12 5.1 Maintenance,Repair,and Work...............................................................................................12 5.2 Species-Specific Activities..........................................................................................................14 5.3 Farm Plan Record Keeping Log................................................................................................15 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................15 6.1 Noise.............................................................................................................................................15 6.1.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................15 6.1.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................16 6.2 Water Quality..............................................................................................................................19 6.2.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................19 6.2.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................20 6.3 Sediment Quality........................................................................................................................23 6.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................23 6.3.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................24 6.4 Sediment Transport and Bathymetry.......................................................................................25 6.4.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................25 6.4.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................25 6.5 Migration,Access,and Refugia ................................................................................................28 May zoi6 Page i Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 6.5.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................28 6.5.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................29 6.6 Forage Fish...................................................................................................................................30 6.6.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................30 6.6.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................31 6.7 Benthic Infauna and Epifauna...................................................................................................32 6.7.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................32 6.7.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................32 6.8 Aquatic Vegetation.....................................................................................................................35 6.8.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................36 6.8.2 Effects of the Action............................................................................................................36 6.9 Summary of Potential Effects....................................................................................................36 7.0 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS......................................................................................................................................37 8.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT..............................................................................................38 8.1 Federally Listed Species.............................................................................................................38 8.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species...........................................................................39 9.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................40 TABLES Table 1 Federally Listed Species Considered within the Action Area........................................4 Table 2 Shellfish Farming Summary................................................................................................5 Table 3 Underwater Noise Thresholds by Functional Hearing Group.....................................18 Table 4 Clearance Rate Calculations for Pacific oyster, Manila Clam, and Geoduck.............20 Table 5 Summary of Potential Effects from Geoduck Aquaculture..........................................36 Table 6 Effects Determinations to ESA-Listed Species................................................................38 Table 7 Summary of the Determination of Effect to Critical Habitat........................................39 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location for the Mazanti North Bay Project Area....................................................3 Figure 2 Example of Flexible Mesh Tubes........................................................................................7 Figure 3 Proposed Culture Areas for the Mazanti North Bay Project Area...............................11 Figure 4 PVC Tubes and Predator Exclusion Netting...................................................................24 Figure 5 Upper Beach Substrate in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area...................................26 Figure 6 Lower Intertidal Habitat in the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Area..............26 May 2oi6 Page ii LA� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY APPENDICES Appendix A Endangered Species Act Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Appendix B Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey Appendix C Essential Fish Habitat Assessment May 2oi6 Page M This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing i Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY MAZANTI NORTH BAY SHELLFISH FARM BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ANALYSIS The information presented in this Biological Evaluation(BE)is based on requested information for projects that are "not likely to adversely affect" and have insignificant or discountable effects on Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species and designated critical habitat. The format is a modified version of the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) template for an informal ESA consultation. s.o GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant Name:Taylor Shellfish Farms Mailing Address: 130 SE Lynch Road,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 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 DianeC@taylorshellfish.com 360-432-0327 4. Location where proposed work will occur: Parcel: 122282180292 Address: 4484 E State Route 302 Belfair,WA 98528 Waterbody: North Bay at the northern end of Case Inlet, Puget Sound Section: Section: Township: Range: NW 28 T22 N R01 W Latitude: project corners Longitude: project corners 1. NW Corner:47°22'27.448"N 5. NW Corner:-122°49'2.521"W 2. SW Corner:47°22'26.464"N 6. SW Corner:-122°49'3.048"W 3. NE Corner:47°22'27.451"N 7. NE Corner:-122°48'56.247"W 4. SE Corner:47°22'26.453"N 8. SE Corner:-122°48'55.986"W May 2oi6 Page i Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 2.0 INTRODUCTION Taylor Shellfish Farms(Taylor Shellfish)is proposing to create a commercial shellfish aquaculture operation within the intertidal habitat of North Bay at the northern end of Case Inlet, Mason County,Washington(Figure 1). The proposed project is to grow geoduck clams (Panopea generosa),Manila clams(Venerupis philippinarum), and Pacific oysters(Crassostrea gigas) at commercial densities.The project area includes one tax lot parcel(122282180292)owned by Kyle and Cheryl Mazanti. The habitat available for culture would be approximately 1.27 acres, ranging from a tidal elevation of-4.5 feet(ft)to+5 ft mean lower low water(MLLW).This project area will be identified in the BE as"Mazanti North Bay." This consultation assumes that work would be approved under Nationwide Permit 48(NWP 48;Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities).Activities authorized by a Nationwide permit must be similar in nature, and cause only minimal adverse environmental effects on the aquatic environment when performed separately or cumulatively(33 CFR§322.2[f]). Provision of a NWP 48 verification constitutes a Federal Action and,as such, requires compliance with Section 7 of the ESA.Section 7 of the ESA requires that actions of federal agencies should be"not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any[listed] species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species." Under ESA Section 7(c),the Corps is required to evaluate the potential influence of its action(issuance of a permit) on listed species or their critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)—hereafter known as the"Services." The goal of this BE is to determine potential environmental effects from a commercial shellfish aquaculture operation.Confluence Environmental Company(Confluence)has prepared this BE on behalf of Taylor Shellfish to help the Corps evaluate the potential effects of the proposed project on ESA species listed as threatened or endangered. To determine if ESA listed species or their critical habitats are potentially present in,or adjacent to,the Mazanti North Bay project area,on February 10,2016,Confluence consulted the species lists prepared by the Services(USFWS 2016, NMFS 2016).Based on the compiled information from the Services(Appendix A),the ESA listed species that may occur in the area are provided in Table 1 and are addressed in this BE. Critical habitat that has been designated or proposed for the ESA listed species, and effects to critical habitat primary constituent elements(PCEs) are also analyzed in this document. May 2oi6 Page 2 Data Sources: ESRI Gray Canvas Coordinate System: P U G E T Washington State Plane South, NAD 83,US Survey Foot S O U N D Scale:1:100,000 Project • Area ?airl? • Olympia H o o d C a n a t Tdorth Bay Mazanti North Ba Project Area Rocky Bay G � Se Project Area Inset North I » 1 ! � C a r r say N � .►IIe t Scale:1:10,000 AN 0 500 1,000 Feet 0 0.5 1 2 (\ Miles ,V Figure i Site Location for the Mazanti North Bay Project Area May 2o3.6 Page 3 C f Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Table i Federally Listed Species Considered within the Action Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Critical Potential Habitat Use Status Habitat ESA-Listed Fish Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus T Yes* Potential migration and foraging,but (PS/Coastal DPS) unlikely Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshowytscha T Yes Migration,juvenile rearing,foraging (PS ESU) Steelhead (PS ESU) 0. mykiss T Yes Migration,smolt rearing,foraging Boccaccio rockfish Sebastes paucispinis E Yes Juvenile foraging and migration,but (PS/GB DPS) adult use unlikely(deepwater) Canary rockfish S.pinniger T Yes Juvenile foraging and migration,but (PS/GB DPS) adult use unlikely(deepwater) Yelloweye rockfish (PS/GB DPS) S. ruberrimus T Yes Foraging,but unlikely(deepwater) Birds Marbled murrelet (CA/OR/WA DPS) Brachyramphus marmoratus T Yes* Foraging Marine Mammals Southern resident killer whale(SRKW) Orcinus orca E Yes Foraging, but unlikely DPS-Distinct population segment;ESU-Evolutionarily Significant Unit;E-Endangered;T-Threatened;CA-California;GB-Georgia Basin;OR-Oregon;PS-Puget Sound;WA-Washington *Critical habitat has been identified,but does not occur within the proposed project area A number of West Coast ESA listed species are not known to occur in North Bay or use the shallow water habitat of the project area (-4.5 ft to+5 ft MLLW),and so were not included in this analysis:Oregon spotted frog(Rana pretiosa),yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus), Northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis cuarina),streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata),fisher(Martes pennant),leatherback sea turtle(Dermochelys coriacea), North Pacific DPS of loggerhead sea turtle(Caretta caretta),olive ridley sea turtle(Lepidochelys olivacea),green turtle (Chelonia mydas),black abalone(Haliotis cracherodii),white abalone(Haliotis sorenseni),eulachon (naleichthys pacificus), green sturgeon(Acipenser medirostris),blue whales(Balaenoptera musculus), fin whales(Balaenoptera physalus),Guadalupe fur seals(Arctocephalus townsendi), Humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae),Northern Pacific right whales(Eubalaena japonica), sei whales(Balaenoptera borealis borealis),and sperm whales(Physeter macrocephalus).Due to the lack of documented occurrence in the project and action area,the lack of suitable habitat in the action area,and/or the lack of potential effect,the proposed action will have no effect on these species,and they will not be discussed further. May 2o3.6 Page 4 Wmft� V6 i Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action includes adding geoduck clams, Manila clams, and Pacific oysters to the intertidal habitat on approximately 1.27 acres in North Bay, Case Inlet. The proposed action includes the following main activities within the lease area: (1) planting and grow-out, (2) harvesting, and (3) support. No permanent construction would be implemented and stormwater is not generated in an aquaculture operation. In addition, there would 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. The following text describes the methods used for culturing geoduck clams, Manila clams, and Pacific oysters. The methods, equipment used, and number of days working below mean higher high water (MHHW) for each proposed culture species is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Shellfish Farming Summary Activity Method Equipment Used Duration(days below Geoduck Clams ■ Site access-boat Boat/barge ■ Planting-tubes pushed into substrate, ■ Geoduck seed 16 days per acre in Planting seeds placed in tubes by hand or foot, ■ Culture tubes* 4-8 day increments netting placed over tube fields(if 0 Nets (2-3 events every 5-7 yrs) applicable)and secured with stakes ■ U-shaped stakes ■ Site access-boat ■ Boat Grow-out Grow-out-remove tubes and netting and ■ Barge(when tubes/ 1 day per acre (1 event every S 7 yrs) transport to upland facility for later use nets removed) ■ Site access-boat Boat ■ Walk beach on foot ■ Garbage bags 1 day per month Maintenance ■ Repair or secure nets,as needed ■ If needed: (12 events every year) ■ Collect unnatural debris and remove to o Cable ties upland facility o U-shaped stakes ■ Boat/barge ■ Site access-boat N Low-pressure hose 12-25 days per acre in ■■ Harvesting-use low-pressure hose,collect Harvesting Trays/Baskets 4-to 8-day increments geoduck by hand,place in trays,transport (3 6 events every 5 7 yrs) trays to upland site Manila Clams ■ Site access-boat ■ Boat/barge Planting ■ Planting-spread clam seed by hand,then ■ Clam seed 7 days per acre secure net over seed using stakes ■ Nets (1 event every 2-3 yrs) ■ U-shaped stakes Grow-out ■ Site access-boat or upland 0 Boat 7 days per acre ■ Check survival and growth rates ■ Barge (1 event every 2-3 yrs) ■ Site access-boat ■ Boat Walk beach on foot ■ Garbage bags 2-4 days per month Maintenance ■ If needed: ■ Collect debris and remove to upland facility (12 events over 2-3 yrs) ■ Repair,clean or secure nets,as needed o Cable ties o U-shaped stakes May 2oi6 Pages AMN Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Duration(days MethodActivity Equipment Used ■ Site access-boat ■ Boat/barge Harvesting-pull nets in harvest area,use Hand rakes 10 days per acre Harvesting ■ Trays/buckets, hand rake to remove clams,place clams in bags/baskets (3 events every 2-3 yrs) trays,and transport off site Pacific Oysters ■ Site access-boat Planting Planting—Bags:use stakes,clips and line to a Boat 10 days per acre g s to bottom.On-bottom:secure oyster bags Oyster bags y g ■ Clips/line/stakes (1 event every 2 yrs) spread oyster seed in planting area Grow-out Boat ■ Site access-boat or upland 10 days per acre Grow-out—thin oysters in bags as needed (1-2 event(s)every 2 yrs) ■ Site access-boat or upland • Boat Maintenance ■ Walk beach on foot ■ Garbage bags 2-4 days per month ■ Collect debris and remove to upland facility ■ If needed: (12 events every year) o Bags/clips/line ■ Boat ■ Site access-boat ■ Barge 10 days per acre Harvesting ■ Harvesting-manual harvest to tubs or ■ Tubs/bags/oyster (3 events every 2 yrs) barge fork/buckets/baske is *Culture Tubes=either polyvinyl chloride(PVC)tubes or flexible mesh tubes MHHW=Mean Higher High Water 3.3. Geoduck Clams The project area would be planted with geoduck clams at a tidal elevation ranging from-4.5 ft to+3 ft MLLW.The total acreage depends on site and market conditions.Taylor would select planting locations based on appropriate sediment and site conditions.Geoduck clams need sandy substrate free of obstructions.Based on the site survey(Appendix B),there is approximately 1.07 acres of sand substrate within the project area.The following is a description of the planting and grow-out,maintenance,and harvesting methods that would be used for geoduck aquaculture in the Mazanti North Bay project area. 3.1.1 Planting and Grow-out Locations for geoduck clam aquaculture do not require much site preparation prior to planting because they are in sandflats that,by definition, do not have large substrate materials. Substrate composition in the proposed culture area is primarily sand,based on site surveys(Appendix B). It is possible that driftwood or large woody debris could be deposited prior to planting geoduck seed. In the event that large materials are deposited in the culture area,such features would simply be moved by hand to a new location within the same parcel and at the same(or similar) tidal elevation prior to planting activities,or left in place and planted around.All other material (e.g.,macroalgae)would simply be pushed aside by hand in order to install the culture tube. Given the lack of structure at this site,it is anticipated that site preparation would occur at the same time as culture tube installation, if at all. May 2o26 Page 6 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Geoduck seed are highly vulnerable to predation because they are not of a size or at a depth in the sediment that would provide adequate protection. Predator control would be achieved through exclusion by planting geoduck seed into culture tubes',except for hand removal of non-native invasive species.The ability to have a variety of predator exclusion options(e.g., different culture tube designs)available allows the grower to adapt to site-specific conditions. Taylor Shellfish currently uses two types of culture tubes depending on site conditions: polyvinyl chloride(PVC)tubes and flexible mesh tubes(made of high density polyethylene or HDPE). Culture tubes range from 4 to 6 inches in diameter, and from 8 to 10 inches in length. Culture tubes would be pushed into the substrate by hand or foot.PVC tubes are gray tubes that extend approximately 3 to 4 inches above the substrate, and are maintained for approximately 2 years.A predator exclusion net would be used if PVC tubes are present. Flexible mesh tubes are shaped like a diamond (Figure 2),which allows the grower to install the tubes into the prevailing direction of sediment transport. Predator exclusion nets are not used when flexible mesh tubes are present. Flexible mesh tubes extend approximately 4 to 5 inches. Flexible mesh tubes are maintained for three years.Both types of tubes would be positioned approximately 12.2 inches apart on center. A [13 Figure z Example of Flexible Mesh Tubes Panel A:flexible mesh tubes without closure.Panel B:flexible mesh tube closed with zip tie. After the culture tubes are removed,predator exclusion netting may be placed over the bed for up to 6 months so that the geoduck clams can adjust to the lack of predator protection provided by the culture tubes without experiencing excessive predation. Predator exclusion nets used during this time are placed directly on the sediment surface(i.e.,no vertical relief)and secured every 8 to 10 ft along the perimeter with a J-shaped rebar. Culture tubes and predator exclusion netting removed after use would be stockpiled upland at an off-site location for future reuse or recycled if the integrity of equipment has deteriorated I Culture tubes=either polyvinyl chloride(PVC)tubes or flexible mesh tubes(HDPE). May 2oi6 Page 7 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY such that reuse is no longer reasonable. Tubes would be recycled at a facility in Molalla,Oregon (Northwest Polymers)that can recycle a variety of PVC and other plastic materials(e.g.,HDPE). Planting of geoduck seed would occur within the intertidal zone between-4.5 ft to+3 ft MLLW in up to 1.07 acres,and would occur in any season with suitable growing conditions and within suitable substrate.The project area would have protective gear present for 2 to 3 years of a 5-to 7-year cycle for geoduck aquaculture, depending on the type of culture tubes used.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. .3.1.2 Harvesting 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 approximately 40 pounds per square inch and the volume is approximately 20 gallons per minute,which is about equivalent to a garden hose. 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 boat just offshore of the harvest site.Water intake lines on the pumps would be fitted with screens that meet 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. 3.2 Manila Clams and Pacific Oysters Planting and Harvesting The project area would be planted with Manila clams and Pacific oysters at tidal elevations ranging from-4.5 ft to+5.0 ft MLLW.The total acreage depends on appropriate site and market conditions,and the location of other shellfish planted at commercial densities.Manila clams are generally planted in areas with small or pea-sized gravel.Manila clam seed would be spread directly onto the tidelands.Comparatively,Pacific oysters can be planted in any substrate type using a variety of different methods.Larger gravels would typically have on-ground culture while smaller substrate types(e.g., sand or small gravel)would have bags. May 2oi6 Page 8 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 3.2.1 Manila Clams Based on substrate type(Appendix B),there is approximately 0.2 acres of habitat that could be planted with Manila clams. Manila clam beds would be covered by securely staked predator exclusion nets. Routine maintenance would involve checking nets for rips,ensuring nets are secure,and/or cleaning nets as needed.Rips would be repaired using cable ties and unsecure sections of nets would be re-staked. Once the Manila clams are mature (after about 2 to 3 years),they would be harvested by hand using clam rakes during low tides. Manila clams would be placed in trays,buckets,or bags and then removed from the site by boat.When harvesting occurs,the predator nets and stakes would also be removed but replaced directly following harvest. Harvesting is proposed to provide a regular supply of shellfish throughout the year.Therefore, harvesting would occur over a small area,approximately 3 events every 2 to 3 years. 3.2.2 Pacific Oysters Oyster seed would be placed in two-to eight-millimeter(mm)mesh bags or on-bottom without bags.When bags are used,they are strung together and staked to the ground.Routine maintenance would involve checking bags for rips and making sure the bags are securely staked.Ripped bags would be repaired or replaced and unsecure sections of bag would be re- staked. The oysters would remain in the bags during the nursery phase(usually 1 year)until they reach about three inches in size.Depending on growth rate,oysters may be removed from the bags and spread directly onto the tidelands and allowed to mature and harden.Oysters may also remain in grow-out bags until ready to harvest.Removing the oysters from the bags and placing them on the ground would occur weekly until all of the oysters are placed on the ground or in grow-out bags.Oysters would be planted in areas that do not contain geoduck or Manila clams, which could be up to 1.27 acres if conditions were determined to be unsuitable for either species or market conditions were more favorable for oysters. Once the oysters are mature(typically a 2 year grow out cycle),they would be handpicked during low tide either by forking oysters into tubs or pulling bags and removing from the site by boat.Harvesting is proposed to provide a regular supply of shellfish throughout the year. Therefore,harvesting would occur over a small area,approximately 3 events every 2 years. 3.3 Support Support activities include vessel operations and maintenance activities.Work would be conducted by crews on the beach or in the water adjacent to the beach.Aquaculture supplies (e.g., tubes,stakes,tubs,and predator netting)would be stored at an off-site location and transported to and from the project area by boat when needed.Access would primarily be via water and occasionally from the upland habitat for site inspections.Directly following harvest, shellfish would be transported to an off-site processing facility by boat. Maintenance activities May 2oi6 Page 9 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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.Activities 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. Taylor Shellfish expects to use 22-ft custom aluminum skiffs equipped with a 250 to 300 horsepower(hp)4-stroke motor to service the farm.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 when PVC tubes are used for planting or hauled away. The barge used for transporting equipment to the site for harvest activities would be 14 ft wide by 48 ft long. Section 5.0(Avoidance, Conservation,and Minimization Measures)discusses boat operation and site access best management practices(BMPs)that avoid or reduce potential effects to sensitive habitat in, or adjacent to,the action area. 4.0 PROJECT AND ACTION AREAS The"project area"is defined as the tidelands associated with cultivation of shellfish.The "action area" is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the immediate(project)area involved in the action(50 CFR§402.02). 4.1 Project Area The proposed project area is located in North Bay at the northern end of Case Inlet(Figure 1)on tidelands owned by private land owners(122282180292).The project would be operated by Taylor Shellfish.The project area covers approximately 1.30 acres,which is essentially the same amount of area available for culture(Figure 3). 4.2 Action Area Based on data collected by Ecology,the point of compliance for geoduck harvest activities(the farthest extent of effects from the different shellfish species potentially harvested in the project area)was identified as a distance of 150 ft down-current from the harvest location that represents a temporary turbidity mixing area (e.g., Ecology 2012).This point of compliance represents sediment transported beyond the farm footprint that could potentially be biologically or physically significant.Data discussing this distance in relation to fish and wildlife is provided in the Effects Analysis(Section 6.0). Underwater noise can be generated from the use of boat motors. Noise from boat use of current shellfish operations throughout Washington State was determined to be insignificant compared to background conditions(NMFS 2011).The effects of underwater noise to marine mammals and fish will be discussed,but do not define the extent of the action area for this project. May 20i6 Page zo ----------- KER Ordinary High Water Mark 1H�i0344-.00141 - - - Mean Lower Low Water(MLLW)0.0' ` 1 --- 3.0'MLLW — — - ASER +6.0'MLLW H43-0 ,222,-03-00,50 10-Foot Contour Bulkhead ti , , Boat Ramp 1 1 �1 0 Tax Parcels JUROR REV TRUST Shellfish Culture Area 12228-21-00010 0 Project Area 1 GILKINSON 12228-21-00020 1 1 O 1 1�tA21-80 1 PINCKNEY TRS 7 2 226-21-8029 2 f 12225-21-00030 ' 1 I ZT1 1 PINCKNEY TRS J... 12228-21-00041 Old Ramp, L 1 \ I11e�12 mp SCHULTZ ` 1222&21•txg43 1 Notes: , }� 1.Tidal elevations referenced to Allyn,WA , 1 (NOAA Station ID 9446281).Datum was SCHULTZ ' transformed from NAVD88 to MLLW. 12228-21-00040 1 PINCKNEY ET VIR 2.The project area(Parcel 12228-21-80292) ` ` ' 12228-21-20042 was surveyed by Agate Land Surveying in 2015.The configuration differs slightly from I 7 the Mason County tax parcels.It will be re- surveyed in June to confirm boundaries. N 3.Mean Higher High Water(14.2')occurs at the bulkhead. 1 Souroes: Apr Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation Coordinate System Agate Land Surveying 2015 1 Culture Area W �. WA State Plane South, Confluence 2014 Field Data TAYIUR NAD 83,NAVD 88, Mason County Tax Parcels SNI II l ISN CON F L U E N C E US Survey Foot INYIRJVMINI�I.� -11 ••V' Univ of Washington Elev Data ��^b 0 50 100 200Feet IiR Scale:1:1900 Prepared By:E McCormick,Cascade GIs&Con✓✓✓sulting Approved By:M Meaders,Confluence Environmental Prepared For:D Taylor,Taylor Shellfish Date:5/3/2016 Figure 3 Proposed Culture Areas for the Mazanti North Bay Project Area Note:The project area boundaries will be confirmed by a certified land surveyor in June 2o16. May 2oi6 Page ii Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Airborne noise during a geoduck harvest is not expected to exceed about 60 dBA at 50 ft based on noise measurements for boat motors and water pumps(Berger et al.2010,Cooper,pers. comm.,2015).Based on an ambient noise range between 52 dBA and 63 dBA, airborne noise levels are expected to attenuate to ambient conditions within 200 ft.This is likely a conservative estimate based on a rural level of ambient noise. In summary,airborne noise is the most conservative estimate of the action area.Although other effects will be discussed within this distance,200 ft will be used as the primary extent of the action area for determination of effects(Effects Analysis,Section 6.0). 5.o AVOIDANCE, CONSERVATION, AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES Avoidance,conservation, and minimization measures that would be adopted at the proposed Mazanti North Bay project area are consistent with those outlined in the Taylor Shellfish(2016) Environmental Code of Practice,and additional relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the Corps from its consultation with the NMFS(2009,2011)and USFWS (2009)on NWP 48 for the State of Washington.Avoidance of potential effects,where possible, is the first priority. The avoidance,conservation,and minimization measures at the proposed Mazanti North Bay project area include the following, described in more detail in Sections 5.1, 5.2,and 5.3: ■ Maintenance,Repair, and Work ■ Species-Specific Activities ■ Farm Plan Record-Keeping Log 5.1 Maintenance, Repair, and Work 1. Personnel, gear,and product shall be transported to and from the site primarily by water.Upland access would only occur for infrequent(at most once a month and after major storm events)monitoring events of the planted area. 2. Unnatural materials (pipe,nets)shall be removed as soon as practical when shellfish are no longer vulnerable to predators. Marker stakes and buoys also will be removed when they are no longer necessary. 3. Damage to aquatic vegetation and substrates from boats or barges must be minimized/ avoided through the following practices: ■ Measures shall be implemented to prevent anchors,chains,and ropes from dragging on the bottom.These measures include the use of embedded anchors and midline floats,as practical.Anchoring over known native eelgrass beds shall be avoided (none present in the action area). ■ Boats and barges shall be moored and operated in deeper water and away from aquatic vegetation to prevent potential impacts from propeller scour or anchors. May 2o16 Page 12 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY If boats need to come into the project area for personnel or gear access,then vessels shall not ground in native eelgrass or attached kelp beds. ■ 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. ■ Predator exclusion nets are designed so they do not break free and cause beach littering on site or off site.The grower shall ensure that predator exclusion nets are tightly secured to prevent them from escaping from the project area. ■ All excess or unsecured materials and trash shall be removed from the beach prior to the next incoming tide so that all unnatural debris are maintained and prevented from littering the waters or beaches. ■ Moving large substrate materials (e.g.,logs, rocks)during aquaculture operations shall be avoided.Where the relocation of such features is unavoidable,they shall be relocated as minimally as possible,and no farther than, another section of the beach within the same parcel and at the same (or similar)tidal elevation. ■ There shall be no modification of substrate in an effort to improve conditions for shellfish aquaculture. 4. Operators of vehicles or machinery must reduce contamination from vehicles and equipment through the following practices: ■ All pump intakes(e.g.,for geoduck harvest)that use seawater shall be screened in accordance with NMFS fish screening criteria. Note:This does not apply to work boat motor intakes(jet pumps) or through- hull intakes. ■ Unsuitable material(e.g., trash, debris,asphalt,or tires)shall not be discharged or used as fill(e.g.,used to secure nets, create berms, or provide nurseries). ■ All vessels operated within 150 ft of any stream,waterbody,or wetland shall be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the staging area.Any detected leaks shall be repaired in the staging area before resuming operation. ■ Land vehicles and equipment shall not be washed,stored,fueled, or maintained within 150 ft of any stream,waterbody, or wetland.All vehicles shall be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the staging area. 5. At least once a month and directly following storm events,beaches in the project vicinity shall be patrolled by crews who will retrieve unnatural debris(e.g.,predator exclusion nets,tubes)or unnatural debris(e.g.,bottles,cans)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 debris appropriately.The grower shall maintain a record with the following information and May 2o16 Page3.3 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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. 6. The grower shall not use tidelands waterward from the line of mean higher high water for the storage of aquaculture gear.All aquaculture gear shall be stored and sorted at an upland facility and transported to the project area by boat at the time of deployment. 7. Employees shall be trained to meet environmental objectives. 5.2 Species-Specific Activities 1. A Pacific herring spawn survey shall be conducted prior to undertaking the activities listed below if any of these activities occur outside the approved work window for Tidal Reference Area 2,which is April 1 through January 15(WAC 220-660-330).The activities requiring a spawn survey applicable to geoduck aquaculture include: (1)culture tube, net, or bag placement, (2) shellfish harvesting, (3)predator exclusion net placement or removal,and (4)culture tube or bag removal.Vegetation,substrate,and aquaculture materials(e.g.,nets,tubes,bags)shall be inspected for Pacific herring spawn. If herring spawn is present,these activities are prohibited in the areas where spawning has occurred until such time as the eggs have hatched and 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 to the Corps,NMFS, and USFWS, upon request. 2. Newly positioned shellfish culturing shall not be placed above the tidal elevation of+7 ft MLLWz 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 MLLWz if the area is documented as Pacific sand lance spawning habitat by WDFW. 4. Adaptive management measures shall be applied wherein operations will be modified using best available science,where appropriate,and scientifically supported resource management objectives.These measures include,but are not limited to: ■ Avoidance of bald eagle nests by maintaining a buffer distance of 600 ft from existing nests. ■ Avoidance of Southern Resident Killer Whales(SRKW)when they are sighted. Boats shall increase their distance while reducing the boat's noise and speed. Boats shall maintain at least 100 yards when parallel to SRKW and more than 400 2 Note that the predominant surf smelt spawning habitat of+7 ft MLLW and sand lance spawning habitat of+5 ft MLLW is relative to the Seattle datum(Dionne,pers.comm.,2016).Correcting this for south Puget Sound results in a higher elevation(e.g.,above+8.9 ft MLLW and+6.4 ft MLLW,respectively). Therefore,restricting culture to+5 ft MLLW for the proposed culture area is a conservative approach for protecting spawning habitat for these forage fish species. May 2oi6 Page 14 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY yards away when boats are in front or behind them.Boats shall not"park in the path" of the whales. Boats shall also not exceed a speed of 7 knots when the whales are within 400 yards. ■ Reducing surface noise to 50 decibels at a distance of 60 ft from each vessel. 5.3 Farm Plan Record Keeping Log 1. Pacific herring spawn surveys. 2. Spills or cleanups conducted on the beach. 6.o EFFECTS ANALYSIS This section addresses environmental attributes and habitat qualities important to listed species (i.e.,PCEs)that may be present in the action area and affected by the project.The Effects Analysis includes a brief discussion of existing conditions prior to potential effects.Much of the information presented in this brief discussion was developed through a site survey conducted on August 9,2014.The information from the site surveys is presented in Appendix B. Designated Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)for federally managed commercial fish species present in the action area,potential project effects to EFH,and proposed conservation measures is presented in Appendix C. Factors subject to potential effects that are discussed below include: ■ Noise ■ Water quality ■ Sediment quality ■ Sediment transport and bathymetry ■ Migration,access,and refugia ■ Forage fish ■ Benthic infauna and epifauna ■ Aquatic vegetation 6.1 Noise This section describes existing noise conditions and expected effects of the proposed action. 6.1.1 Existing Conditions According to Mason County(Mason County 2016),the land use surrounding the Mazanti North Bay project area is residential.The area surrounding the project area is characterized by single family houses lining the shoreline.These houses are close to the water and each have a protective bulkhead seaward of their home.Behind each house runs Washington State Route May 2o3.6 Page 15 "'ft Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 302 and the eastern side of the road is mostly forested.Approximately 0.25 miles away from the project area,there is a large Christmas tree farm called Bay View Farm, which spans roughly 0.25 miles east to west(Appendix B). Existing noise in the action area would include that typically found associated with water-dependent activities(e.g.,boat use)and residential uses (e.g.,vehicle use,boat use, lawn mowers,beach walking/combing).Ambient noise measured in Pierce County in an area dominated by agriculture and rural residential ranged between 52 dBA to 63 dBA(Parsons Brinckerhoff 2002),which would be similar to ambient noise in the Mazanti North Bay project area. No direct measurements of ambient underwater noise were collected.The closest site for which underwater sound was measured (of which we are aware)was in Admiralty Inlet,where mean total sound pressure levels were measured between 98 dB re 1 µPa to 117 dB re 1 µPa (Bassett 2010).Admiralty Inlet is characterized by commercial shipping and ferry vessel traffic. Although recreational boating is part of the ambient noise associated with the project area,it would be much lower compared to areas with ferry traffic. 6.1.2 Effects of the Action Both airborne and underwater noise would be generated from the proposed actions.The potential to affect ESA listed species in relation to noise is described below. Airborne Noise The proposed project does not include the use of heavy equipment.Access to the site would occur about once a month,and more frequently for activities such as planting or harvesting. Access would be by boat with a 250 to 300 hp engine.These types of boats typically have a noise level of about 60 dBA at 50 ft(Berger et al.2010,RCW 79A.60.130). However,once at the site, the engine would be turned off until employees are ready to leave.Small diesel-or gas-powered water pumps with hoses would be used to harvest the geoducks. Based on the type of equipment used, airborne noise during harvesting is not expected to exceed about 60 dBA at 50 ft(Cooper,pers.comm.,2015). To calculate the extent of noise impacts from project operations,Confluence used the Washington State Department of Transportation(2013)noise equation.This equation determines the distance that point source project noise travels before it attenuates to ambient conditions. Equation 1 D=DO*10((Construction Noise-Ambient Sound in dBA)/a) D=50*10((60-52)/20) D=200ft Where: D=the distance from the noise source;DO=the reference measurement distance;a=25 for soft ground or 20 for hard ground May 2o3.6 Page 16 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY In this case,the reference distance is 50 ft,and the a is 20 ft since the surface is water(which is considered hard). The loudest noise would be 60 dBA from the boats and pumps,and the low end of ambient sound is 52 dBA,according to Parsons Brinckerhoff(2002).Therefore, an increase in terrestrial noise associated with the proposed project is expected to attenuate to ambient conditions within approximately 200 ft when the pumps or boats are running.This is likely a conservative estimate based on a rural level of ambient noise. The ESA species that could be affected by terrestrial noise present in the action area is the marbled murrelet.Noise associated with aquaculture operations during planting,maintenance, and harvesting activities could result in temporary displacement of murrelets from the immediate area and masking essential communication among foraging birds.Strachan et al. (1995)commented that marbled murrelets that are found around heavy boat traffic do not appear to be adversely affected by the ambient noise of an urban area.The closest marbled murrelet nest is possibly 19.7 miles to the northwest.Therefore,nesting locations are farther than the distance that would result in impacts to birds from airborne noise generated during shellfish aquaculture operations. The threshold for masking marbled murrelet communication is an in-air noise level of 29 dB sensation level(SL)or 29 dB above ambient noise level (Teachout 2013).The new threshold was informed by two critical hearing demands: (1)communication between conspecifics (at-sea or in terrestrial habitat),and(2)detection of the presence of corvid predators in terrestrial habitat. The scientific panel on marbled murrelets estimated that social foraging requires acoustic communication up to 98 ft.It is unlikely that the noise generated by the proposed geoduck aquaculture operation would result in masking marbled murrelet communication because the use of air compressors during a wet harvest(the loudest noise source proposed for the project) would not exceed ambient noise by 29 dB.In addition,murrelets occur in south Puget Sound at low densities.Miller et al. (2012)reported average densities of 1 to 3 birds per square kilometer for the Nisqually River delta and less than 1 bird per square kilometer for Carr Inlet. Considering the distances from nesting sites from the proposed project area,negative effects to marbled murrelets associated with increased 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 would impact the overall foraging ability of marbled murrelets present in the project area.Therefore,it is unlikely that such temporary displacement from foraging activities would result in reduced foraging success,nesting success,or fitness.This was the same conclusion reached by USFWS(2009)during consultation of all shellfish activities in Washington State. Underwater Noise Underwater noise would also be generated from the boat motors that transport gear and personnel to the project area and the small engines used for the water pumps during a geoduck harvest.Underwater noise thresholds for fish, cetaceans,pinnipeds,and marbled murrelets are presented in Table 3. Underwater sound attenuation below the 120 dB RMS re 1 µPa for cetacean (e.g., SRKW)behavioral concerns was estimated based on the practical spreading loss model. May 20i6 Page 17 �' Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY (Note that this is the lowest threshold,and therefore most conservative, presented in Table 3.) Even though the closest marine mammal habitat to the project area is a harbor seal haulout located 5.6 miles northwest(WDFW 2016a),underwater noise thresholds are not exceeded for pinnipeds.The most conservative threshold (120 dB RMS re 1PPa for cetaceans)will be discussed below. Table 3 Underwater Noise Thresholds by Functional Hearing Group ThresholdsFunctional Hearing Group Underwater Noise Behavioral Disruption Threshold Injury Threshold Fish>2 grams 187 dB Cumulative SEL Fish<2 grams 150 dB RMS 183 dB Cumulative SEL Fish all sizes Peak 206 dB Marbled Murrelet 150 d6 RMS* 208 dB SEL(barotrauma) 202 d6 SEL(injury) Cetaceans 160 dB RMS(impulsive) 180 dB RMS 120 dB RMS(non-pulse) 190 dB RMS Pinnipeds ISame as for cetaceans 1190 dB RMS 1 dB re 1 µPaz-sec=sound exposure level(SEL) RMS=root-mean-square;this is the square root of the mean square of a single pile driving impulse pressure event *USFWS considers this to be a guideline,not a threshold Source:NMFS 2012,Teachout 2013,WSDOT 2014 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 µPa at 1 meter(Equation 2). Equation 2 R1 (in meters)=R2(in meters)*10((V-120)/15) R1 =lm*10((147.2 dB-120 dB)/15) R1 =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 NMFS(2012)suggested that 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.As stated above,background underwater noise includes recreational and other commercial shellfish boat use.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 underwater noise generated for the proposed geoduck aquaculture operation would not likely be above background noise levels.According to NMFS(2009), "A very low level of vessel operations will be associated with May 2oi6 Page A %e� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY the aquaculture activities(small and larger work boats and barges).Vessels would remain relatively immobile until work is complete, with minimal sound and insignificant potential for disturbance."Therefore,boating use for the harvest operations does not significantly increase the level of noise present for recreational boating that is considered part of the environmental baseline. Summary There is no evidence that increases in either airborne or underwater noise from the use of boat motors,water pump motors, or air compressors would result in effects to fish and wildlife species.Noise was reviewed for aquaculture operations throughout Washington State in relation to potential effects to ESA listed fish, marine mammals, and marbled murrelets (NMFS 2009,USFWS 2009,NMFS 2011).These reviews found that noise levels did not exceed disturbance thresholds that would affect foraging,migration, reproduction,or fitness for any of the ESA listed species in Puget Sound.The proposed shellfish aquaculture operation in the project area in North Bay would not significantly alter noise above existing background conditions.Therefore,this effect is considered to be insignificant. 6.2 Water Quality This section describes existing water quality conditions and the expected effects of the proposed action. 6.2.1 Existing Conditions Water quality is primarily dependent on water circulation(or flushing rate and transportation) and inputs into the system.The average flushing rate for Case Inlet was calculated as 3.9 days, compared to 6.4 days for Carr Inlet or 1.2 days for Totten Inlet(University of Washington 1971 as cited in URS and Evans Hamilton 1986).No waters within the action area are listed on the 2008 Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d)list(Ecology 2015), indicating that both upland sources of pollution are low and circulation maintains good water quality parameters.The project area is located within an"Approved"growing area,according to recent bi-monthly surveys completed by DOH for North Bay(Schlorff 2015). A parameter not monitored by DOH is nutrient concentrations, such as nitrogen(N).Excessive N is considered a pollutant,and contributes to degradation in water quality conditions. 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).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).Developed areas tend to contribute more concentrated loads on a per-area basis, and the project area is relatively undeveloped. May 2oi6 Page ig Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Data from Ecology(1999-2011)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. 6.2.2 Effects of the Action Potential effects to water quality and ESA listed species or habitat are different for the various phases and types of potential aquaculture activities.The following discussion is broken down into(1)filtration effects, (2)harvest effects,and (3)effects to fish from suspended sediment. In terms of harvest and effects to fish,the discussion focuses on geoduck aquaculture, which represents the farthest extent of a potential effect from the proposed actions. Filtration Effects Bivalves feed by filtering suspended particulate matter from the water column.Bivalve filtration may be correlated with bivalve size(Winter 1978, Powell et al. 1992), although geoducks do not follow that general pattern.The appendix within a recent modeling effort by Banas and Cheng (2015)compiled clearance rates for Pacific oyster, Manila clam, and geoduck clam that the authors used in their model of filtering capacity for south Puget Sound(Table 4). One of the conclusions of the south Puget Sound model effort was, "one might also hypothesize that these inlets [Henderson,Eld,Totten, Hammersley,and upper Case inlets] are at noticeably lower risk of eutrophication than they would be in the absence of shellfish aquaculture." Table 4 Clearance Rate Calculations for Pacific oyster, Manila Clam, and Geoduck Pacific 100 MITI, Kobayashi et al. 1997, 11.52 2.4 3 0.260 1.250 oyster 2.4 gd Ruesink et al.2006 Manila 50 mm, 18.19 3.9 1 0.060 0.260 Ruesink et al.2006, clam 3.9 gwet Solidoro et al.2003 Geoduck 980&et 220.3 3 0.003 0.014 Davis 2010 Source:Banas and Cheng 2015;Appendix by Ferriss 2015 As shellfish filter organic matter from the water column,they assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus into their shells and tissue(Newell et al.2005).When shellfish are harvested,the sequestered nutrients are permanently removed from the system, also known as bioextraction. According to Newell (2004),bioextraction is one of the only methods available that removes May 2oi6 Page 20 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY nutrients after they have entered a system, which can then make that system more resilient to nutrient loading and ultimately decreases in DO.Similarly,bivalve filter-feeding also serves an important role in improving water quality conditions through benthic-pelagic coupling,which is when biodeposits become incorporated into aerobic surficial sediments,and microbially- mediated processes facilitate nitrification-denitrification coupling to permanently remove sediment-associated nitrogen as nitrogen gas. The amount of benefit that filtration provides depends on the physical mixing of nutrient sources(e.g., oceanic vs.riverine), residence time in the estuary,and grazing pressure of farmed shellfish(Dumbauld et al.2009).Although not currently recognized as a direct benefit on the West Coast,bivalve filtration may become more valuable as nutrient input increases within coastal communities(Shumway et al.2003,Burkholder and Shumway 2011,Kellogg et al.2013). One of the conclusions by Kellogg et al. (2013)was that oyster reef restoration could be considered a "safety net" to reduce additional downstream impacts to water quality due to upland inputs of nutrients.Additionally,work by Bricker et al. (2015) is also calculating benefits from shellfish aquaculture in nitrogen mitigation in Long Island Sound, New York.Shellfish aquaculture is being considered as one of the tools to achieve a reduction in nitrogen loading targets that may be more cost effective than other methods(e.g.,water treatment). Overall,there may be a net positive benefit to water quality through shellfish filtration and total removal of nutrients at harvest(i.e.,nutrients sequestered in the shell and tissue).Both the filtration rate of geoduck clams and circulation in Case Inlet may limit this potential benefit beyond the local environment,but there is still a removal of nutrients from the system through filtration.While there may be more benefit provided by Manila clams and oysters,this effect is likely limited to the project area. Harvest Effects A geoduck harvest event is limited in space(about 0.1 acres for one day), duration(4 to 6 hours),and occurs infrequently compared to the entire culture cycle(i.e.,there is a 5-to 7-year grow-out period prior to harvest).A harvest event also covers a small fraction of the proposed project area(8%or 0.1 acres out of 1.3 acres).Within the local environment,suspended sediments are increased for a short period of time.The intensity and duration of turbid conditions are related to the concentration of suspended sediment, suspended sediment grain size, water temperature,currents,and tidal flow conditions at the site(NMFS 2009).Golder (2015)modeled sediments primarily in the sand size class disturbed during a harvest event in Case Inlet(close to the project area).The sediment particles were shown to settle back to the bed rapidly and only a minor fraction was transported a distance of about 300 ft. This result is consistent with total suspended solids (TSS)samples collected by Short and Walton(1992)during a dive harvest in the Nisqually Reach where it was noted that the majority of sediment is deposited within 3 ft of the harvest hole,and only"small quantities of material" were shown to be transported beyond 150 ft from the harvest zone.Based on a harvest zone of 0.2 acres,TSS measured at the harvesting starting location ranged from 4 to 21 mg/L.The May 2o3.6 Page 21 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY harvest plume lasted for approximately 30 minutes and extended out to approximately 330 ft, although almost all of the sampling locations and times were shown to be below background (or within 1 mg/L)within 131 ft.While the empirical data and model runs indicated that a minor fraction could be transported further, it does not represent material that would be either biologically or physically significant beyond the 150-ft point of compliance for geoduck aquaculture operations. Research from Fisheries and Oceans Canada,Pacific Biological Station in British Columbia, Canada has shown similar or lower effects from wet harvest events.A two-year research program in both intertidal and subtidal habitats reported that the sediment plume generated during a geoduck harvest event was generally limited to within approximately 16 ft of the harvest plot,and the levels were not greater than those reported during storm conditions(Liu et al.2015). In addition, a harvest event did not result in significant overall material changes down-current above natural background sedimentation levels. Finally,a recent study evaluated the nutrients released from a typical commercial geoduck operation using low-pressure water hoses(Cornwell et al. in review). The study found that: (1)the amount of nutrients released into the water column during harvesting is low, (2)the moderate concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus found in sediments and released during harvest make a relatively small contribution to overall nutrient discharges into Puget Sound, and(3)localized effects are likely to be negligible. 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. (2008)evaluated whether the TSS generated during a harvest event could result in significant effects to fish using the suspended sediment risk assessment model developed by Newcombe and Jensen(1996).The results indicated that fish were likely to exhibit avoidance responses to the TSS levels generated during a harvest event.Additionally,because there is no confinement of fish in the area (i.e.,the site is located along an open shoreline)there is no mechanism for fish to be exposed to suspended sediments from a harvest for a significant amount of time. 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 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 May 2oi6 Page 22 ewJ Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY herring at TSS concentrations ranging from 500 mg/L 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. All of the TSS and turbidity levels noted from the literature above are either within or significantly higher than that measured from a geoduck harvest event. For example,Short and Walton(1992)measured TSS between 4 mg/L to 21 mg/L at the starting point of the harvest activity from a 0.2-acre harvest area.Further,the duration of exposure noted during the Griffin et al. (2012)study was four times longer than a typical harvest event(16 hours vs.4 hours). Therefore,suspended sediment was considered to be insignificant for salmonids and forage fish species.Although no research has been done on suspended sediment effects to juvenile rockfish,it is assumed that the effects would be similar because their behaviors are comparable to other estuarine fish that have been studied. Summary Bivalves can improve water quality and mitigate anthropogenic sources of nitrogen in coastal systems through filter feeding.This improved water quality and clarity can also contribute to improving habitat for the establishment or growth of macrophytes,which in turn, provides rearing, foraging,and cover habitat for a variety of aquatic organisms including juvenile salmonids.A harvest event increases suspended sediment for short periods of time(one to two tidal cycles);is typically confined to a small area (about 0.1 acres per day);and occurs infrequently(every 5 to 7 years). Fish would be expected to either avoid the sediment plume generated during a dry or wet geoduck harvest or use the plume or disturbed sediment 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 successfully forage, and are expected to be the same for juvenile rockfish.Overall,effects from suspended sediments are considered insignificant and habitat may potentially be improved in local areas if shellfish improve water quality conditions. 6.3 Sediment Quality This section describes existing sediment quality conditions and the expected effects of the proposed action. 6.3.1 Existing Conditions No sediment quality studies were completed for the project area specifically. Ecology and NOAA evaluated the sediment quality in south Puget Sound as part of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program(PSAMP)and NOAA Bioeffects Survey (Long et al.2002). According to the results of the PSAMP study, samples collected from Case Inlet contained no May 2o16 Page 23 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY toxicity or chemical contamination,and supported abundant and diverse infaunal assemblages. Based on these results,Long et al. (2002)classified the sediments in Case Inlet as high quality.In 2011, Ecology surveyed sediment conditions throughout south Puget Sound and compared them to conditions reported in 2002.Partridge et al. (2014)indicated that Case Inlet remained "unimpacted." 6.3.2 Effects of the Action Nitrogen and phosphorous that are not digested and incorporated into tissue are processed through the bivalves and excreted as soluble ammonia and biodeposits(feces and pseudofeces). When these biodeposits become incorporated into aerobic surficial sediments,microbially- mediated processes facilitate nitrification-denitrification coupling to permanently remove sediment-associated nitrogen as nitrogen gas (Newell 2004, Kellogg et al.2013).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 POM [particulate organic matter] as pseudofeces." Alternatively,a few studies have identified changes in geochemical characteristics associated with the sediment under predator exclusion netting when used in Manila clam aquaculture operations.Predator protection is an essential component of commercial-scale shellfish aquaculture operations(Munroe et al.2015 and references cited therein).PVC tubes with predator exclusion nets is currently the predominant gear type used in geoduck aquaculture operations(Figure 4). Predator exclusion nets are the same that are used in Manila clam culture, although without tubes present and used higher in the intertidal. �. PVC Tubes with Nets without Tubes 7. Figure 4 PVC Tubes and Predator Exclusion Netting May 2oi6 Page 1y A�� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY The data provided in these studies indicates that,although there may be statistically significant changes in the organic content of sediments under Manila clam netting(e.g.,Bendell-Young 2006,Bendell et al.2010),the changes do not appear to be significant in terms of overall impacts to sediment quality(Spencer et al. 1997,Munroe and McKinley 2007). Further,many authors indicate that effects from the use of predator exclusion nets are short-term and do not persist following net removal (Simenstad and Fresh 1995,Spencer et al. 1998).Spencer et al. (1998) indicated that these changes appear to be relatively benign compared with organic enrichment associated with other forms of shellfish aquaculture,such as suspended mussel culture. Changes to sediment quality would likely persist in areas with Manila clam aquaculture while nets are present.The maximum potential growing area for Manila clams would be approximately 0.2 acres,and this area could be rotated between clam culture and Pacific oyster culture, depending on market conditions. Predator exclusion netting associated with geoduck clam aquaculture would not be present long enough(2.5 years out of a 7-year culture cycle if PVC tubes are used and only 6 months if flexible mesh tubes are used)to result in significant changes to sediment quality or the benthic community.Similarly, oyster bags are allowed to move with tides and waves, and would not result in an accumulation of biodeposits within the sediment. Overall,effects to sediment quality were considered insignificant. 6.4 Sediment Transport and Bathymetry This section describes existing sediment, substrate,and bathymetry conditions and the expected effects of the proposed action. 6.4.1 Existing Conditions The Mazanti North Bay project area is characterized as primarily sandy substrate with larger substrate materials present in a small band within the upper intertidal habitat(Appendix B).At the top of the beach there was a bulkhead made of large rocks. From there the upper beach declined at varying gradients between 1%and 17%percent.Assuming a slope of 1%within the culture area,the upper intertidal and lower intertidal transition was located at approximately a tidal elevation range of-0.5 ft to-0.1 ft MLLW where the sediment changed from gravel and cobble substrate to sand and shell material (Figure 5).Substrate within the lower intertidal habitat was sand and shell substrate material(Figure 6). 6.4.2 Effects of the Action No dredging or placement of fill within the project area is proposed.The two types of disturbance associated with shellfish aquaculture that could affect sediment transport and bathymetry include: (1)addition of gear, and (2)pulse disturbances for harvest activities (Dumbauld et al.2009). May 2o16 Page 25 i Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY MW Figure 5 Upper Beach Substrate in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area Note:The red line photograph depicts the sediment transition boundary. 3 Y _r 'a Figure 6 Lower Intertidal Habitat in the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Area Note:The red line in photograph depicts the sediment transition boundary beginning. May 2o16 Page 26 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Addition of Gear Predator exclusion netting used in Manila clam culture can reduce the local circulation where nets occur and result in an accumulation of sediment under the nets. Predator netting was researched in a 5-year study of Manila clam culture in the River Exe estuary,Devon,UK (Spencer et al. 1996, 1997, 1998).This research indicated an accumulation rate up to four times higher in netted plots compared to control plots(Spencer et al. 1996).Throughout the 2-year grow-out period,there was an elevated profile of approximately 3.9 inches in a 32.8 ft x 4.9 ft plot(or 1.8 cubic yards [cy]).The effect was localized,and did not change sediment accumulation volumes in adjacent areas. In another study(Simenstad and Fresh 1995),predator exclusion netting used in Manila clam culture in Willapa Bay indicated that mean grain size was consistently finer in netted plots compared to the natural beach,but only significantly so during one of three months.The authors gave no indication of why there were differences between months,but only that netted plots decreased near-bed resuspension and trapped more materials transported alongshore,which implies that the difference was due to the amount of sediment in suspension for the months studied.Simenstad and Fresh(1995)reported an increase of less than 0.04 to 0.08 inch in treatment plots,which persisted as long as nets were in place. Finally,a study in British Columbia compared paired netted and non-netted Manila clam plots and found no significant differences in sedimentation or gravel accumulation(Munroe and McKinley 2007).Overall,when predator exclusion netting is present there is a potential to result in minor increases in sediment deposition. There is also the potential to accumulate sediment within the culture tubes for geoduck aquaculture.Golder(2011)estimated the potential accumulation of sediment within the tubes from an existing geoduck aquaculture operation in south Puget Sound. Based on a visual inspection,an average height of 2.5±0.5 inches of sediment accumulation was reported within the 4 inches of tube that was exposed above the sediment bed.This equates to a volume of approximately 31.4±6.3 cubic inches per tube.Golder(2011)then calculated net accumulation over a 1.0-acre area to be approximately 29.3 cy of sediment.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. If the value for sediment accumulation is expanded over the maximum amount of acreage proposed for geoduck and Manila clam aquaculture in the Mazanti North Bay project area (1.27 acres),then there could be about 37.2 cy of sediment accumulation in a two-or three-year period.To put this into perspective, there was about 9,407 cy of sediment transported during the December 15,2006 storm event(ENVIRON 2013),which is more than 100 times greater than the amount that could potentially accumulate during the planting phase and then be redistributed along the beach.Further, if a variety of culture tubes(e.g., flexible mesh tubes and PVC tubes)or culture methods (e.g., Pacific oyster bags)are used,then this amount of accumulation would be unlikely.Therefore,the potential for changes to sediment distribution from the placement of shellfish aquaculture gear was considered well below the natural sediment budget and considered insignificant. May 2oi6 Page 27 AwJ Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Harvest Activities During a geoduck harvest(the proposed activity that has the potential to disturb the most amount of sediment),the overlying sediments are loosened around the clam by adding water through a 0.5-to 0.6-inch diameter hose.Although this activity results in changes in elevation and sediment grain size,both 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.Reconsolidation of sediments occurs as water content decreases, and shear strength and resistance to erosion increases. In laboratory experiments with fine-grained marine sediment,resistance to resuspension was shown to double approximately every 12 hours(Southard et al. 1971 as cited in Short and Walton 1992). Therefore,the sediment redeposited during a harvest event will tend to regain its original shear strength within one or two days without further disturbance. Summary In summary,geoduck harvest or the presence of culture tubes and/or predator exclusion nets does not represent significant effects to sediment transport or bathymetry.Harvest effects may persist for one to four months,but these effects are considered to be short-term with no lasting changes to the surrounding sediment structure.The changes associated with the proposed shellfish aquaculture operations in the project area were considered minor to insignificant compared to the dynamic nature of sediment distribution potential in North Bay or Case Inlet. 6.5 Migration, Access, and Refugia This section describes existing migration,access,predation, and refugia conditions and the expected effects of the proposed action. 6.5.1 Existing Conditions All species of Puget Sound salmon,listed or non-listed,are well documented utilizing estuarine and nearshore habitat in their migrations from their natal freshwater watersheds to the ocean and back(Duffy et al.2010). Puget Sound beach seine research in recent years has documented many species of salmon present in nearshore habitat for longer periods than previously thought (Brennan et al.2004,Dorn and Namtvedt-Best 2005).Chinook salmon, chum salmon,and coastal cutthroat trout are the species typically found along shorelines, especially juveniles and fry(Myers et al. 1998, Haring 2000, Kuttel 2003, Haque 2008). Current returns of Chinook in south Puget Sound are attributed to releases from hatcheries. 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)because they represent Category 3 populations,which operate in systems where there is no evidence of historical native Chinook production. May 2o3.6 Page 28 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Anadromous fish that potentially occur near the Mazanti North Bay project area likely spawn and rear in Rocky,Coulter,and Sherwood creeks as well as a number of small unnamed streams and their tributaries(WDFW 2016b).Salmonids will feed in habitats similar to the project area,ingesting amphipods,copepods, larval fish, and terrestrial insects(Fresh et al. 2006).The project area is a sandy,gravely beach with minimal structure.Juvenile salmonids and other fish may use the intertidal area,when inundated,for migration,access, and refugia. The ESA listed fish species listed in Table 1 that are unlikely to utilize the project area include steelhead,bull trout,and rockfish.Steelhead do not typically frequent nearshore areas(Shreffler and Moursund 1999),although there could be both spawning migrations and out-migrating juveniles within the action area from October through May(PSSTRT 2013).The southernmost population of bull trout in Puget Sound is found in the Puyallup River,but there is little to no information for bull trout south of the Nisqually River or near the Kitsap Peninsula(USFWS 2009).Because bull trout are not known near the Kitsap Peninsula,it is unlikely that either juveniles or adults use the nearshore habitat of North Bay or Case Inlet(farther south and west of the Nisqually River and Kitsap Peninsula). Adult habitat for the three ESA listed rockfish 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 only 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.Tidal elevations in the proposed culture area would extend down to extreme low(typically-4.5 ft MLLW),which means that a maximum water depth would be approximately 17.1 ft deep based on EHW3. In addition,there are only rare occurrences of kelp species(Saccharina sp.)and little structure would be present that is not associated with aquaculture gear.Overall, adult use of the project area is unlikely,but bocaccio and canary rockfish juvenile use is possible. 6.5.2 Effects of the Action Culture tubes are present for 2 to 3 years, depending on the type of culture tube used. Predator exclusion netting would be present for up to 2.5 years(if PVC tubes are used)for geoduck aquaculture and for the entire culture cycle for Manila clam aquaculture.Bags would be present for 1 year out of a 2-year cycle for oyster aquaculture.Based on the proposed planted area,a maximum of 1.27 acres of aquaculture gear would be present at any one time,although geoduck culture tubes and oyster flip bags are the gear with the most vertical relief because Manila clam nets lay flat on the sediment surface.The vertical relief created above the sediment surface from the culture tubes is approximately 4 to 5 inches,which is similar to a flip bag when the area is inundated. Based on radiotelemetry studies conducted by the USFWS(Brenkman et al.2007),juvenile salmonids will orient to their perception of the bottom depth—whether that be relatively 3Calculated based on the MHHW at Olympia in Budd Inlet,which is+14.6 ft MLLW(NOAA 2005). May 2oi6 Page 29 %O� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY featureless sand,the top of culture tubes colonized with invertebrates, or the top of a predator exclusion net that is colonized with macroalgae. In other words,minor changes created by a tube field will not be recognized in the same manner compared to an overwater structure or a structure that extends through the water column(Ward et al. 1994).Depending on the tidal cycle, fish can easily swim over, around,or through these structures,if necessary.Many researchers have reported that aquaculture gear is equivalent to adjacent eelgrass habitat in terms of the diversity and abundance of benthic fauna and fish (Meyer and Townsend 2000, DeAlteris et al.2004,Pinnix et al.2005, Powers et al.2007, Ferraro and Cole 2007,2011,2012). While nets can pose a risk to entanglement,the majority of cases for which this has occurred involves derelict commercial fishing gear(e.g., gill nets)that occur vertically in the water rather than horizontally on the sediment surface(e.g., Rueggeberg and Booth 1989,Laist 1997,Moore et al.2007,Gregory 2009). Nets need to be properly maintained and secured on a regular basis in order to avoid negative interactions with fish or other macroinvertebrates. As long as the gear is properly maintained, culture tubes,oyster flip bags, and predator exclusion nets in the intertidal area are not expected to affect migration, access,or refugia pathways for juvenile fish that utilize shallow water.When gear is present,the total area covered with culture tubes or nets would be a minor portion of the intertidal habitat of the surrounding shoreline.The presence of aquaculture gear may even serve as additional foraging habitat or cover from predators. 6.6 Forage Fish This section describes existing forage fish conditions and the expected effects of the proposed action. 6.6.1 Existing Conditions 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(Hypomesus pretiosus),Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes personatus), and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi).These species make up the majority of the forage fish prey base in Puget Sound (Bargmann 1998, Penttila 2007). Surf smelt and sand lance spawn in sand to pea-gravel sized sediments,at elevations typically ranging from+5 ft MLLW to mean higher high water.Surf smelt and sand lance typically spawn during winter months in south Puget Sound and Pacific herring spawn from January through March(based on Squaxin Stock).There is no documented spawning habitat for surf smelt or sand lance within the project or action areas(WDFW 2016c).The closest documented surf smelt spawning habitat is approximately 150 ft to the north.The closest documented sand lance spawning habitat is approximately 2.9 miles to the southwest(WDFW 2016c).There is no documented spawning habitat for Pacific herring within the project or action areas.The closest documented holding area is approximately 12.5 miles to the south and the closest documented spawning area is 13 miles to the southwest(Stick et al.2014). May 2oi6 Page 30 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Based on the 1993,1994,and 1995 surveys, a total of approximately 1.6 miles of shoreline was considered suitable(e.g.,right size structure, overhanging vegetation present,lack of organic material [wrack] covering the substrate)in the vicinity of the project area (WDFW 2016c). However,at the time of the surveys,WDFW did not indicate suitable sites for forage fish spawning in the project area.The lack of suitable habitat may have been due to embedded gravel,materials too large for spawning,or other obstructions.The forage fish spawning and holding area maps are provided in Appendix B. 6.6.2 Effects of the Action There are two potential effects to forage fish from the proposed shellfish aquaculture operation, including: (1)spawning habitat potentially could overlap,and (2)forage fish spawning areas could receive suspended sediments during a harvest event.Effects from suspended sediments are primarily associated with geoduck harvest activities as that is the most conservative action related to potential effects.The potential for these effects to be significant to forage fish in the project area are discussed below. Spawning Habitat There is no documented sand lance and surf smelt spawning in the upper intertidal areas of the project area and no potential spawning habitat above the culture area.The habitat is bulkheaded with substrate conditions that are not suitable for sand lance or surf smelt (Appendix B).Therefore,the proposed project is not expected to impact spawning habitat of these forage fish species.In addition,access to the property is by boat,and boats would not be beached above+5 ft MLLW.Boats would be moored in areas waterward of+5 ft MLLW.Foot traffic for routine maintenance and beach surveys for debris will use consistent paths from the existing residence,which do not occur where potential forage fish spawning habitat may exist. Although herring spawn is unlikely to occur in or adjacent to the project area,given the distance from documented spawning habitat and lack of spawning substrates in the project area,conservation measures are in place to avoid or reduce the risk to herring spawning areas from geoduck aquaculture operations(see Section 5.0).Namely,growers are trained by a WDFW-certified biologist to recognize herring spawn. If herring spawn is observed,then those areas are avoided until the eggs have hatched.This is a conservation measure adopted by the Corps as part of the ESA consultation process with the Services on NWP 48(NMFS 2009, USFWS 2009, NMFS 2011). In some cases,aquaculture gear can both provide a new substrate for herring spawn attachment in an otherwise unstructured environment(Robertson,pers. comm.,2008) or provide additional protection from predators such as scoter ducks(Dewey, pers.comm.,2015).Therefore,the proposed project is not expected to affect forage fish spawning or spawning habitat. Sediment Mobilization 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 a geoduck harvest event.Fines May 2oi6 Page 31 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY typically make up a small percentage of the farm substrate of a sandy beach,and sands(because they are heavier) drop out of the sediment plume within a few meters(Short and Walton 1992, Golder 2011).Also,the daily"turbid fringe"that is generated from tidal action prevents the accumulation of fine sediments(Golder 2011).This is why sand lance and surf smelt spawn in these locations,because the energy at these higher elevations that constantly bring in oxygen to the eggs(Dionne,pers. comm.,2016).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." Summary In light of the conservation measures and lack of science that supports potential significant impacts, it is likely that the overall effects of shellfish aquaculture in the project area on forage fish are insignificant.The addition of aquaculture gear may be considered beneficial since it provides potential spawning habitat for Pacific herring,which can sometimes provide additional protection of eggs from predators when nets are in place. 6.7 Benthic Infauna and Epifauna This section describes existing benthic infauna and epifauna conditions and the expected effects of the proposed action. 6.7.1 Existing Conditions Although direct benthic invertebrate sampling was not conducted,incidental observations of benthic infauna extending to the sediment surface and epifauna in the proposed project area were consistent with Puget Sound sandflat habitats(Dethier 1990,Dethier and Schoch 2005). For example,more sessile organisms such as acorn barnacles were found in the upper beach habitat whereas the middle and lower intertidal areas had burrowing shrimp, clams,snails,and crabs. Species in Puget Sound are typically distributed based on temperature,salinity, and wave energy along a north to south axis,with central Puget Sound containing a higher diversity of species compared to south Puget Sound that typically live higher in the intertidal due to the increased wave action of more northerly sites(Dethier and Schoch 2005).Additionally,species diversity in the project area may be further affected by the presence of burrowing shrimp. 6.7.2 Effects of the Action There are three main actions of the proposed shellfish aquaculture that potentially affect the benthic faunal community in the project area,including community changes during: (1)gear placement, (2)use of predator exclusion nets,and (3)harvesting. The effects of each action,the relative recovery period,and potential effects to benthic fauna are discussed below. May 2oi6 Page 32 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Gear Placement Effects Placement of gear(both geoduck culture tubes and oyster bags)is not expected to significantly affect benthic epifauna.Once the gear is placed,it is rapidly encrusted with epibiota that creates a reef-type structure and a biogenic source for associated food organisms of juvenile salmonids. For example,work by Hosack(2003)reported that important fish prey organisms,such as harpacticoid copepods,exhibited higher densities in oyster habitats.These observations parallel those of Ferraro and Cole(2007,2011, 2012)who studied oyster culture in Yaquina Bay (Oregon),Willapa Bay(Washington),and Grays Harbor(Washington).The authors reported higher abundance and richness in benthic macrofaunal communities in oyster habitat compared to mudflat habitat in the three areas studied. Potential effects to the benthic community from the introduction of PVC tubes with predator exclusion nets was studied by McDonald et al. (2015).The sampling design followed the before- after-control-impact(or BACI)design with a"treatment"and "reference"plot within 75 meters (m)or 246 ft of each other.Each plot was about 2,500 m2(or about 0.6 acres).The spatial scale was intended to approximate commercial operations,to the extent practicable.The goal of the McDonald et al. (2015)study was to understand planting effects before and after the introduction of geoduck aquaculture gear.The major conclusions of this work included: ■ Typical patterns for transient macroinvertebrates(e.g.,crabs,sea stars)significantly favored structure-associated species when geoduck aquaculture gear is present,but patterns of abundance were similar to reference plots after gear was removed. ■ The authors suggested that the provision of foraging and refuge habitat is the primary reason for attraction to areas with aquaculture gear present,especially for crabs. ■ The authors also hypothesized that the increased foraging pressure by transient fish and macroinvertebrates(e.g.,crabs, sea stars,bay pipefish,sculpin)may explain the slightly depressed densities of resident macrofauna (e.g., amphipods,polychaetes, shrimp). ■ There were no consistent differences in the benthic infaunal or epifaunal communities between reference plots and culture plots. ■ While the community composition differed between the culture and reference plots when geoduck aquaculture gear was present,these differences did not persist after gear was removed. Effects on the benthic community from the presence of geoduck aquaculture gear were considered by McDonald et al.(2015)to be short-term with a short recovery period. Similarly, as discussed above,the presence of shellfish aquaculture gear and/or oyster habitat may increase benthic invertebrate prey resources compared to what may be present without shellfish culture.Therefore,presence of gear was considered to be an insignificant and potentially beneficial effect to benthic infauna and epifauna. May 2oi6 Page 33 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Predator Exclusion Netting Effects Studies have shown that 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.Manila clam culture maintains nets on a constant basis and the increased sedimentation and organic content has little opportunity to revert to baseline conditions.While the changes associated with the use of netting for Manila clam aquaculture would likely persist in the areas proposed to continue culture operations,there would likely be changes in the benthic community for areas where nets are removed. Changes associated with geoduck clam aquaculture are likely less pronounced than Manila clam culture due to the amount of time that nets are present versus 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)." This was documented by Powers et al. (2007)that noted that the protective netting placed over hard clam aquaculture sites supported elevated densities of mobile invertebrates and juvenile fishes similar to natural seagrass(Z. marina and H. wrightii)habitats.Washington Sea Grant data also showed a potential decrease in certain salmonid prey items(e.g.,Americorophium amphipods) on canopy nets,but the authors also indicated that this result may have been a product of increased forage opportunities and not a reduction of the species because of the gear (McDonald et al.2015).Overall,the predator exclusion nets used in geoduck aquaculture are thought to result in a neutral or minor change for the infaunal community, depending on the amount of time that nets are in-place. Harvest Effects Shellfish harvest disrupts the sediment.Manila clam and Pacific oyster harvesting is a shallow disruption,but occurs more frequently(every 1-2 years for one location). Geoduck harvesting is deeper,but occurs once every 5 to 7 years within a plot area.All types of harvesting would potentially affect benthic infauna and epifauna. Commercial harvest of shellfish in the intertidal zone results in the loss of some benthic fauna (Hall and Harding 1997,Ferns et al.2000), although that does not mean that the loss is a significant impact to that resource.The recovery rate varies in response to the timing and magnitude of the disturbance as well as the location of the site to populations of organisms and the mobility of organisms affected (Dernie et al.2003).Intertidal habitats are exposed to a wide range of natural disturbance regimes that are dominated by physical processes(Hall et al. 1994), such as tides,storm-generated waves, inter-annual variation in climate,and nearshore sediment May 2o16 Page 3y 4b Ilk Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY transport. It is generally assumed that benthos found in more dynamic sand and gravel habitats will recover more quickly following physical disturbance than those found in less energetic muddy habitats based on the adaptive strategies of the respective assemblages found in these environments (Kaiser et al. 1998,Fems et al.2000). Microcosm studies appear to support this hypothesis (Dernie et al.2003). In general,benthic infauna recovered very quickly(weeks to months) in terms of both diversity and abundance from small-scale disturbances,especially within clean sand communities. Geoduck harvesting effects to the benthic community were studied through Washington Sea Grant and the results were finalized in Jennifer Price's masters thesis(Price 2011)and a recent publication in the Journal of Shellfish Research(VanBlaricom et al.2015).The authors reported that potential effects to benthic invertebrates from a harvest event are within the natural disturbance regime.This work compared the benthic community within harvested and non- harvested plots(0.6 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). According to VanBlaricom et al. (2015),detectable disturbances(not necessarily statistically significant differences)may continue for several months post-harvest,but then become indistinguishable from control plots.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). 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(Liu et al.2015).The main conclusion from VanBlaricom et al. (2015)was that communities in 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 effects was equivalent to natural disturbances. Summary Overall,the research indicates that the benthic infaunal and epifaunal community is not affected or returns to baseline,or near baseline conditions,once the gear is removed or post- harvest.Small benthic invertebrates produce more than one generation per year and thus have rapid recolonization rates. Intertidal species have adapted to habitat changes.Therefore,chronic low-intensity or sporadic medium-intensity intertidal substrate disturbances are within the range of"behavioral or ecological adaptability" (Jamieson et al.2001). Therefore,this potential effect was considered to be insignificant. 6.8 Aquatic Vegetation This section describes existing aquatic vegetation conditions in the project area and the expected effects of the proposed action. May 2oi6 Page 35 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 6.8.1 Existing Conditions Submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV)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. No eelgrass(native or non-native)occurred within the project area,but there were sporadic occurrences of Laminaria sp., Gracilaria sp., Sarcodiotheca sp.,and Fucus sp. (Appendix B).The Laminaria sp. was noted along the lower boundary of the project area and was likely drift, although may have been loosely attached to sand particles.There was no hard substrate for attachment in the lower intertidal habitat.The majority of macrophytes in the Mazanti North Bay project area were ulvoids(e.g., Ulva and Ulvaria sp.). 6.8.2 Effects of the Action There may be some short-term changes to other macroalgae in the project area.However,these changes are not likely to negatively affect the composition of organisms that utilize these areas for forage or refugia or change the dynamics associated with nutrient assimilation that macroalgae provides. In fact,there may be positive benefits to aquatic vegetation from the presence of shellfish gear in energetic habitats,which may encourage deposition and maintenance of macroalgae species(Powers et al.2007). 6.9 Summary of Potential Effects Although shellfish aquaculture can result in short-term, localized impacts,on the whole there is a potential net gain,or at worst insignificant effect,as demonstrated by the parameters discussed above.Table 5 is a summary of potential direct effects for each parameter discussed above. Table 5 Summary of Potential Effects from Geoduck Aquaculture Parameter Potential Effect Duration Significance ■ Airborne Noise:minor increase ■ Airborne Noise:during transit ■ Airborne Noise: above background when boats or (boat motor)and during insignificant air compressors are in use geoduck harvest(air Noise compressors) ■ Underwater Noise:minor ■ Underwater Noise:during ■ Underwater Noise: increase above background transit insignificant when boats motors are in use May 2oi6 Page 36 i Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Parameter Potential Effect Duration Significance ■ Filtration:increase water clarity ■ Filtration:during grow-out ■ Filtration:beneficial locally by reducing plankton (albeit small) blooms and nutrients ■ Harvest:increase suspended ■ Harvest:during harvest(esp. ■ Harvest:insignificant Water Quality sediments and nutrients geoduck);max. persistence is about 1-2 tidal cycles ■ Fish Behavior:avoidance or ■ Fish Behavior: harvest ■ Fish Behavior: increased foraging insignificant to beneficial Sediment ' Sediment quality:may increase ■ Sediment quality:grow-out ■ Sediment quality: nutrients under nets or where insignificant Quality shellfish is cultured ■ Tubes and nets:minor accretion ■ Tubes and nets:2-3 years of ■ Tubes and nets: of sediments within the tube geoduck grow-out cycle; minor to insignificant Sediment area or under nets continuous for Manila clams, Transport and but in more active energy Bathymetry environment(effects mixed) ■ Harvesting:changes to elevation ■ Harvesting:one to four months ■ Harvesting:insignificant and grain size Migration, ■ Culture gear:the vertical relief ■ Culture gear:when gear is ■ Culture gear: Access,and (up to 4-5 inches)is different present insignificant Refugia than sandflat habitat ■ Spawning:potential overlap with ■ Spawning: planting, ■ Spawning:insignificant forage fish spawning habitat; maintenance,and harvest (if avoidance BMPs largely avoided with spatial used) Forage Fish separation and conservation measures ■ Sediment mobilization:sediment ■ Sediment mobilization:harvest ■ Sediment mobilization: migrates to spawning beds; insignificant unlikely with wave energy ■ Benthic infauna and epifauna: ■ Benthic infauna and epifauna: ■ Benthic infauna and Benthic Infauna potential increase of prey,but when gear is present and epifauna:minor to and Epifauna also change of community during harvest insignificant structure ■ Eelgrass or attached kelp:none ■ Eelgrass or attached kelp:N/A ■ Eelgrass or attached Aquatic kelp:discountable Vegetation ' Macroalgae:would be disturbed, ■ Macroalgae:planting, ■ Macroalgae: but not taken out of the system potentially maintenance,and insignificant harvest activities 7.0 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Interrelated actions include those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for justification. Interdependent actions are those with no independent utility apart from the proposed action. No interrelated or interdependent effects were identified. Cumulative effects are those from state or private activities,not involving activities of other federal agencies that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action May 2oi6 Page 37 � �� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY subject to consultation(50 CFR 402.02 Definitions). Cumulative effects do not involve activities of other federal agencies occurring in the action area.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. For this project,the action area is a portion of North Bay at the northern end of Case Inlet (Figure 1).Based on the current surrounding land and water use in the action area,there are no private or state(non-federal)activities reasonably certain to occur in the future.Thus,this proposed action is not expected to have cumulative effects, as defined by 50 CFR 402.02. Further,this proposed action does not require a formal consultation, and so does not require a cumulative impacts assessment. 8.o DETERMINATION OF EFFECT The following is a determination of effect for each species presented in Table 1 and their critical habitat,if applicable. The determination is based on the information presented in the Effects Analysis(Section 6.0). 8.1 Federally Listed Species The proposed action will not influence the viability,persistence,or distribution of ESA listed species.The effects of the proposed action are unlikely to injure or kill individual listed species, and are,therefore,unlikely to impact the continuing status of the populations.There may be temporary avoidance of the action area during harvest operations,but there are no anticipated reductions in numbers, reproduction, foraging potential, or distribution of the species. Therefore,the proposed action may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species,potentially found in the action area(Table 6). Table 6 Effects Determinations to ESA-Listed Species Species Determination of Basis of Determination Effect ESA Listed Fish May affect,not likely a They are not likely to be distributed into North Bay. Bull trout to adversely affect If they are,salmonids do not appear to be adversely affected by the proposed actions except short-term displacement. Chinook May affect,not likely M Migration,foraging,or rearing habitat would not be impacted by the salmon to adversely affect proposed actions. ■ There may be some short-term displacement during harvest activities. Steelhead May affect,not likely , Same as for Chinook salmon. to adversely affect ■ Adults are more typical of deepwater assemblage and juveniles are more Boccaccio May affect,not likely typical of nearshore habitat with eelgrass/kelp. rockfish to adversely affect 0 Rarely occur in North Bay. ■ If they do occur in North Bay,there may be some short-term displacement during harvest activities. Canary May affect,not likely Same as for Bocaccio rockfish. rockfish to adversely affect May 2o16 Page 38 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Species Determination of Basis of Determination Effect Yelloweye May affect,not likely More typical of deepwater assemblage. rockfish to adversely affect Not known to use nearshore habitat. ■ Rarely occur in North Bay. Birds ■ Rarely occur in North Bay. Marbled May affect,not likely ■ Project activities will not alter the effectiveness of foraging opportunities or murrelet to adversely affect potential forage available. ■ May be some short-term displacement when people are present,but would not be a significant change from existing conditions. Marine Mammals Southern Rarely occur in North Bay. resident killer May affect,not likely Boats would avoid approaching,if present. whale(SRKW) to adversely affect In-water work would be stalled if present in North Bay. 8.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species The action area includes designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook,Puget Sound steelhead,juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish,and SRKW.No critical habitat exists in the action area for Puget Sound bull trout,yelloweye rockfish, or marbled murrelets.Table 7 summarizes the determination of effect on critical habitat associated with the proposed project for Chinook salmon,steelhead,juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish,and SRKW. Table 7 Summary of the Determination of Effect to Critical Habitat DeterminationSpecies PCE of Effect Basis • Determination Fishes ■ Only short-term changes in prey species(i.e., ■ Nearshore invertebrates).Tube and net presence may result marine& in a minor increase or decrease prey species abundance.These changes would not significantly estuarine areas: affect the ability of Chinook or steelhead to find an Chinook ' Forage■ Free of May affect,but adequate supply of prey species. salmon and obstruction is not likely to 0 No obstructions to migration would be present. steelhead ■ Natural cover adversely affect ■ There may be short-term increase in available ■ Salinity cover/refugia provided by culture tubes. ■ Water quantity No changes to salinity would occur. and quality Only short-term changes in water quality would occur. juvenile ' Quantity/ ■ Same as the determination for critical habitat for quality habitat, May affect,but salmonids. canary and and availability is not likely to ■ There is no attached kelp or other SAV in the bocaccio of prey species adversely affect proposed project area that would likely be used by rockfish Water quality juvenile rockfish. May aoi6 Page 39 en� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Species of Effect Mammals Southern ■ Only short-term changes in water quality would resident ■ Water quality May affect,but occur. killer whale ■ Prey is not likely to ■ No changes in prey species(i.e.,forage fish)would (SRKW) ■ Passage adversely affect occur. ■ No obstructions to migration would be present. 9.o REFERENCES 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.htm1 Banas,N.S.and W. Cheng.2015.An oceanographic circulation model for south Puget Sound.In: WSG(Washington Sea Grant),Shellfish Aquaculture in Washington State, Final Report to the Washington State Legislature.December 2015.92 pp. 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. Bassett,C.2010. Underwater ambient noise at a proposed tidal energy site in Puget Sound. Master's Thesis. Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering. University of Washington. Bendell,L.I.,C.Duckham,T.L'Esperance,and J.A. Whiteley.2010.Changes in geochemical foreshore attributes as a consequence of intertidal shellfish aquaculture:A case study. Marine Ecology Progress Series.404:91-108. Bendell-Young L.I.2006.Contrasting the community structure and select geochemical characteristics of three intertidal regions in relations to shellfish farming.Environ Conserv. 33:21-27. Berger, E.H.,R. Neitzel,and C.A. Madden.2010.Noise Navigator Sound Level Database v 1.5. 3M Occupational Health and Environmental Safety Division, Indianapolis IN. htW://www.trpa.orgldocuments/rseis/3.6%2ONoise/3.6 Berger%202006 Noise%20Navigator %20Sound.12df(accessed on May 15,2015). 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. Boehlert,G.W. and J.B.Morgan. 1985.Turbidity enhances feeding abilities of larval Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasii. Hydrobiologia.123: 161-170. May 2o16 Page 40 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Brenkman,S.M., S.C.Corbett,and E.C.Volk.2007. Use of otolith chemistry and radiotelemtry to determine age-specific migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the Hoh River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136(1): 1-11. Brennan,J.S., K.F.Higgens,J.R.Cordell,and V.A.Stamatiou.2004.Juvenile salmon composition,timing distribution,and diet in marine nearshore waters of central Puget Sound in 2001-2002.King County,Department of Natural Resources and Parks,Seattle, Washington. 164 pp. BRT(Biological Review Team).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 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. Burkholder,J.M. and S.E.Shumway.2011.Bivalve shellfish aquaculture and eutrophication. In: S.E.Shumway(ed).Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment.Wiley-Blackwell,West Sussex,UK. Cooper,D.2015. Personal communication regarding noise generated during a geoduck harvest event based on current measurements from existing farms.Taylor Shellfish Farms. DianeC@taylorshellfish.com Cornwell,J.C.,M.S.Owens,and R.I.E.Newell.in review.The influence of culture and harvest of geoduck clams(Panopea generosa)on sediment nutrient regeneration.Aquaculture. 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. Davis,J.P.2010.Washington State Department of Natural Resources Molluscan Study DRAFT Report:Clearance rate estimates in geoduck clams.Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,Washington. (as cited in WSG 2015) DeAlteris J.T.,B.D. Kilpatrick,and R.B.Rheault.2004.A comparative evaluation of the habitat value of shellfish aquaculture gear,submerged aquatic vegetation and a non-vegetated seabed.Journal of Shellfish Research(2004)23:867-874. Dernie,K.M.,M.J. Kaiser, and R.M.Warwick.2003. Recovery rates of benthic communities following physical disturbance.Journal of Animal Ecology.72: 1043-1056. May 2o16 Page 41 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Dethier,M. 1990.A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program,Department of Natural Resources,Olympia, Washington.56 pages. 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.2015.Personal communication.Taylor Shellfish Farms. Regarding forage fish interactions associated with shellfish aquaculture gear.January 28,2015. Bi11D@taylorshellfish.com Dionne, P.2016. Personal communication.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Regarding forage fish behaviors and identification course.April 27,2016. Phillip.Dionne@dfw.wa.gov Dorn,P.D. and P.Namtvedt-Best.2005. Integration of Joint City of Bainbridge Island/Suquamish Tribal beach seining results into shoreline management and salmon recovery efforts in Kitsap County,Washington. Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference.Puget Sound Action Team.Seattle,Washington. Duffy, E.J.,D.A.Beauchamp, R.M.Sweeting, R.J.Beamish,and J.S.Brennan.2010.Ontogenetic diet shifts of juvenile Chinook salmon in nearshore and offshore habitats of Puget Sound. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 139(3):803-823. 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. Ecology(Washington State Department of Ecology).2012.Water Quality Certification Order No. 8977 for Corps Public Notice No. NWS-2010-1238,Hitchcock Lease,for the planting, maintenance,and harvest of a geoduck aquaculture farm within Case Inlet of Puget Sound, Harstine Island,Mason County,Washington.Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,Washington. February 29,2012. Ecology.2015.Washington State's Water Quality Assessment and 303(d)list 2012 data. Washington State Department of Ecology,Water Quality Program,Olympia,Washington hUs://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wq.amal2viewer/default.asl2x?res=1366x768(accessed May 1, 2015). ENVIRON(ENVIRON International Corporation).2013. Habitat assessment related to changes in eelgrass distribution at the Stratford project area,Pierce County,Washington.Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Farms. Project Number 3033473C. Ferns, P.N.,D.M. Rostron,and H.Y.Syman.2000.Effects of mechanical cockle harvesting on intertidal communities.Journal of Applied Ecology 37:464-474. May 2o3.6 Page 42 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Ferraro,S.P.and F.A.Cole.2007.Benthic macrofauna-habitat associations in Willapa Bay, Washington,USA. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science 71:491-507. Ferraro,S.P.and F.A. Cole.2011.Ecological periodic tables for benthic macrofaunal usage of estuarine habitats in the US Pacific Northwest. Estuarine,Coast and Shelf Science 94:36-47. Ferraro,S.P.and F.A. Cole.2012.Ecological period tables for benthic macrofaunal usage of estuarine habitats: Insights from a case study in Tillamook Bay,Oregon,USA. Estuarine, Coast and Shelf Science 102-103:70-83. Ferriss,B.2015.Appendix:Filtering capacity calculations.In:WSG(Washington Sea Grant), Shellfish Aquaculture in Washington State,Final Report to the Washington State Legislature.December 2015. Fisher,J.P., K.Mueller,S. Luchessa,J.Davis.2008.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. Fresh,K.L.,D.J.Small, H. Kim, C.Waldbillig,M. Mizell,M. Carr, and L.Stamatiou. 2006. Juvenile salmon use of Sinclair Inlet,Washington,in 2001 and 2002.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Technical Report No. FPT 05-08.Olympia,Washington. Golder(Golder Associates Inc.).2011.Assessment of coastal sediments and shoreline morphology impacts-proposed Longbranch shellfish farm:Shoreline Substantial Development permit-Longbranch Shellfish Farm. Submitted by Golder.Submitted to Plauche&Stock. LLP(now Plauche&Carr, LLP).February 15,2011. Golder.2015.Haley Beach:Coastal processes assessment.Phillip D.Osborne,Ph.D., P.Geo., (BC). Presentation in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board.March 4,2015. Gregory,M.R.2009.Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings— entanglement,ingestion, smothering,hangers-on,hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 364(1526),2013-2025. 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 tshazuytscha)in Turbid Laboratory Conditions.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.50:233-240. May 2oi6 Page 43 enlik Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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. Hall,S.J.,and M.J.C. Harding. 1997. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities:the effects of mechanical harvesting of cockles on non-target benthic infauna.Journal of Applied Ecology 34:497-517. Hall,S.J.,D.Raffaelli, and S.F. Thrush. 1994.Patchiness and disturbance in shallow water benthic assemblages. In:Giller, P.S.,A.G.Hildrew,D.G. Rafaelli(eds.),Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern,and Process.Blackwell Scientific Publications,London,pp.333-375. Haque,S.R.2008.Movement patterns of coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)in south Puget Sound,Washington 2006-2007.Master's Thesis,The Evergreen State College. June 2008. Haring,D.2000.Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors.Water Resource Inventory Area 15(East), Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. 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). Hosack,G.R.2003. Effects of Zostera marina and Crassostrea gigas culture on the intertidal communities of Willapa Bay,Washington.Master's Thesis, University of Washington.2003. 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. Jamieson, G,R.O'Boyle,J.Arbour,D. Cobb,S.Courtenay,R.Gregory,C. Levings,J.Munro, I. Perry,and H.Vandermeulen.2001. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Objectives and Indicators for Ecosystem-based Management.Sidney,British Columbia,27 February-2 March 2001.CSAS Proc.Ser.2001/09: 140 pp. Kaiser,M.J., I.Laing,S.D.Utting,and G.Burnell. 1998. Environmental impacts of bivalve mariculture.J.Shellfish Research 17(1):59-66. Kellogg,M.L.,J.C. Cornwell,M.S.Owens,and K.T. Paynter.2013.Denitrification and nutrient assimilation on a restored oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 480:1-19. Kobayashi M, Hofmann EE,Powell EN, Klinck JM, Kusaka K. 1997.A population dynamics model for the Japanese oyster, Crassostrea gigas.Aquaculture 149:285-321. (as cited in WSG 2015) May 2oi6 Page 44 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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 Kuttel Jr.,M.2003.Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 15(west), Kitsap Basin and 14 (north),Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin.Washington State Conservation Commission.Olympia,Washington.June 2003. Laist,D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records.In: Marine debris,sources,impacts,and solutions(eds J.M. Coe&D.B.Rogers),pp.99-139. New York,NY:Springer-Verlag. Liu,W.,C.M. Pearce,and G.Dovey.2015.Assessing Potential Benthic Impacts of Harvesting the Pacific Geoduck Clam Panopea generosa in Intertidal and Subtidal Sites in British Columbia,Canada.Journal of Shellfish Research 34.3:757-775. Long,E.,M.Dutch,S.Aasen, K.Welch,J.Hameedi,S.Mogoon,S.Carr,T.Johnson,J. Biedenbach,K.Scott,C.Mueller,and J.Anderson.2002.Sediment Quality in Puget Sound, Year 3-Southern Puget Sound. Washington State Department of Ecology,Olympia. Publication No. 02-03-033.hU://viww.egy.wa.gov/12ubs/0203033.pdf(accessed November 2, 2015). 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. 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.2016.Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update:Draft Shoreline Environmental Designations. http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community dev/shoreline master program/SMP SED Ma p Feb%202016.12df(accessed on May 3,2016). McDonald,P.S.,A.W.E. Galloway,K.C.McPeek, and G.R.VanBlaricom.2015. Effects of geoduck(Panopea generosa Gould, 1850)aquaculture gear on resident and transient macrofauna communities of Puget Sound,Washington USA.Journal of Shellfish Research 34(1):137-145. Meyer D.L.,and E.C.Townsend.2000. Faunal utilization of created intertidal eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)reefs in the southeastern United States. Estuaries 23:3445 May 2oi6 Page 45 �VJ Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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. Miller,S.L.,M.G.Raphael,G.A. Falxa, C. Strong,J. Baldwin,T. Bloxton,B.M.Galleher, M. Lance,D. Lynch,S.F. Pearson,C.J.Ralph, and R.D.Young. 2012. Recent population decline of the marbled murrelet in the Pacific Northwest.The Condor. 114(4): 771-781. Moore, E.,S.Lyday,J. Roletto, K. Little,J.K. Parrish,H.Nevis,J.T. Harvey,and J. de Marignac. 2007.Bird entanglements observed during beach monitoring surveys. Poster at the 34th Annual Pacific Seabird Group Meeting,Asilomar, CA. hU://www.farallones.org/volunteer/documents/PSGPoster.12df Munroe,D., and R.S.McKinley. 2007.Commercial Manila clam(Tapes philippinarum)culture in British Columbia, Canada:The effects of predator netting on intertidal sediment characteristics.Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science 72:319-328. Munroe,D.,J. Kraeuter,B.Beal, K. Chew, M.Luckenbach,and C.P.Peterson.2015.Clam predator protection is effective and necessary for food production.Marine Pollution Bulletin. hiW://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articlelpii/SO025326X15300552 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. 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. Newell, R.I. E.2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension- feeding bivalve molluscs: a review.Journal of Shellfish Research 23:51-61. 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. NMFS(National Marine Fisheries Service).2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington State.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,NMFS,Seattle,WA. NMFS.2011.Re-initiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat May 2oi6 Page 46 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington State. NOAA,National Marine Fisheries Service,Seattle,WA. NMFS.2012.Interim sound threshold guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,Northwest Regional Office,Seattle, Washington.Website:http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/MM-sound-thrshld.cfm NMFS.2016.Endangered and Threatened Marine Species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service,Northwest Regional Office,Seattle, hW2://www.rumfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm (accessed on February 10,2016). NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).2005.NOAA Chart 18448,Puget Sound,Southern Part.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Washington,DC. htt2://www.charts.noaa.gov/PDFs/18448.12df(accessed February 16,2016). Parsons Brinckerhoff.2002.State Route 167:State Route 509 to Puyallup noise technical report. Tier II Final Environmental Impact Statement. Partridge,V.,S.Weakland,M.Dutch, E. Long,and K.Welch.2014.Sediment quality in south Puget Sound, changes from 1999 to 2011.Washington Department of Ecology,Olympia, Washington hUs:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecv//publications/documents/1403006, df 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. Pinnix W.D.,T.A. Shaw,K.C.Acker and N.J. Hetrick.2005. Fish communities in eelgrass,oyster culture,and mudflat habitats of North Humboldt Bay,California.Final Report.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office,Arcata Fisheries Technical Report Number TR2005-02,Arcata, California. Powell,N. E.,E. E. Hofmann,J.M.Klinck,and S.M.Ray. 1992. Modeling oyster populations I. A commentary on filtration rate. Is faster always better?Journal of Shellfish Research 11:387- 398. 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.Quantifying the ecological impacts of geoduck(Panopea generosa)aquaculture harvest practices on benthic infauna.M.S.Thesis. University of Washington,Seattle,WA. PSIT and WDFW(Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).2010.Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest management component.April 12,2010. May 2o16 Page 47 eaJ Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team (PSSTRT).2013.Viability criteria for Puget Sound steelhead. Final Review Draft.373 pp. Robertson,D.2008. Personal Communication.Taylor Shellfish.RE:incidence of herring eggs attached to geoduck protective tubes post planting.DaveR@taylorshellfish.com Rueggeberg, H. and J.Booth. 1989. Interactions between wildlife and salmon farms in British Columbia: Results of a survey.Technical Report Series 67.Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia, 74 pp. Ruesink,J.L.,B.E.Feist,C.J. Harvey,J.S. Hong,A.C.Trimble,and L.M.Wisehart.2006. Changes in productivity associated with four introduced species:ecosystem transformation of a 'pristine'estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311:203-215. Schlorff,E.2015.Annual Growing Area Review:North Bay.Washington State Department of Health,Office of Shellfish and Water Protection.December 31,2015. hUp://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4400/northbay.12df 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. Shumway,S.E.,C.Davis,R.Downey,R. Karney,J.Kraeuter,J. Parsons,R.Rheault, and G. Wikfors.2003. Shellfish aquaculture-In praise of sustainable economies and environments. World Aquaculture 34(4):15-18. 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) Solidoro C,Canu DM,Rossi R.2003. Ecological and economic considerations on fishing and rearing of Tapes phillipinarum in the lagoon of Venice.Ecological Modelling 170:303-318. (as cited in WSG 2015) 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) May 2oi6 Page 48 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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. 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. Taylor Shellfish Farms(Taylor Shellfish).2016. Environmental Codes of Practice. Shelton,WA. Updated periodically by the Environmental Code Task Force(ECTF)and Taylor Shellfish Farms management. Teachout,E.2013.Conducting masking analysis for marbled murrelets&pile driving projects. Presentation for WSDOT biologists and consultants. November 19,2013. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3506DAAA-4B13-4E1B-855D- 36E047E07090/0/MAMU MaskAnalysis.pdf(accessed on August 25,2014). University of Washington. 1971.Puget Sound and approaches seasonal variations of oceanographic parameters in its near surface waters.Department of Oceanography. Washington Sea Grant Report Contract NO.RD-NE4(as cited in URS and Evans Hamilton 1986) URS and Evans Hamilton. 1986.Southern Puget Sound water quality assessment study: Circulation and flushing in south Puget Sound. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. 86-e36. USFWS(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).2009.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,Olympia,Washington.March 2009. 198 pp. USFWS.2016. Pacific Region Listed Species.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Pacific Region, Portland,Oregon.http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/reports/species-by-current-range- county?fi12s=53045(accessed February 10,2016). VanBlaricom,G.R.,J.L.Price,J.D.Olden,and P.S. McDonald.2015. Ecological effects of the harvest phase of geoduck clam(Panopea generosa Gould, 1850)aquaculture on infaunal May 2oi6 Page 49 Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY communities in southern Puget Sound,Washington USA.Journal of Shellfish Research 34(1):171-187. Ward,D.L.,A.A. Nigro,R.A.Farr, and C.J. Knutson.1994.Influence of waterway development on migrational characteristics of juvenile salmonids in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14:362-371. WDFW(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).2016a.Priority habitats and species on the Web.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,Washington htW://wdfw.wa.goy/conservation/phs/(accessed February 10,2016). WDFW.2016b.SalmonScape Digital Mapper:Documented and Potential Forage Fish Spawning. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington http://wdfw.wa.gov/mal2ping/salmonscape/index.html(accessed February 10,2016). WDFW.2016c. Forage Fish Spawning Map.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,Washington htW://wdfw.mal2s.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=1968f74e2d41470cbd80 blaf8dedd6b3&extent=126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781#! (accessed on February 11,2016) Winter,J. E. 1978.A review of the knowledge of suspension-feeding in lamellibranchiate bivalves,with special reference to artificial aquaculture systems.Aquaculture 13:1-33. WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation).2014.Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects,Advanced Training Manual.Washington State Department of Transportation,Environmental Services, Olympia,Washington htW://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/BioloWDABA&midance.htm#manual(accessed March 11,2014). 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. May 2oi6 Page 50 Appendix A Endangered Species Act Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction :: NOAA Fisheries Page 1 of 7 NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTING SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERS I Search NMFS Site... MAGNUSON NOAA FISHERIES STE.ENS ACT 6NATIONAI 114IC AND ATN aMSA40—LEARN MORE Fisheries Home OPR Home Species Health&Stranding Permits Laws&Policies Conservation&Recovery Publications About OPR About Us Fisheries Home a)Protected Resources.Species Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS'Jurisdiction Programs Approximately 2,245 species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA.Of these species, Regions about 650 are foreign species,found only in areas outside of the U.S.and our waters. Science Centers We have jurisdiction over 130 endangered and threatened marine species,including 43 foreign species.We work with U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)to manage ESA-listed species.Generally,we manage Partners marine species,while USFWS manages land and freshwater species. r.S. Marine MammalsNews&Multimedia Sea Turtles&Other Marine Reptiles Fish(Marine and Anadromous)Fisheries Resources Marine Invertebrates and Plants Congress Marine Mammals(27 listed"species") Fact Sheet Educators and Students Manatees and sea otters are also listed under the ESA,but fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Fish and .How does the ESA define Wildlife Service. "species"? Get Involved (E="endangered".T="threatened",F="foreign",n/a=not applicable) Forms Year Critical Recovery Species Listed Status Habitat' Plan' FOLLOW US: Cetaceans dolphin,Chinese River/baiji 1989 E(F) n/a n/a (Lipotes vexilliter) Stay connected with us dolphin,Indus River 1991 E(F) We n/a around the nation. (Platanista minor) porpoise,Gulf of California harbor I vaquita 1985 E(F) We n/a (Phocoena sinus) Sign up for FishNews whale,beluga(1 listed DPS) GO (Delphinapterus leucas) Cook Inlet 2008 E final draft whale,blue 1970 E n/a final (Ba/aenoptera musculus) whale,bowhead 1970 E n/a n/a (Balaena mysticetus) whale,false killer(1 listed DPS) (Pseudorca crassidens) Main Hawaiian Islands Insular 2012 E no no whale,fin 1970 E n/a final (Balaenoptera physalus) whale,gray(1 listed DPS) (Eschrichtius robustus) Western North Paafic 1970 E(F) nla n/a whale,humpback 1970 E n/a final (Megaptera novaeangliae) whale,killer(1 listed DPS) (Orcinus orca) Southern Resident 2005 E final final whale,North Atlantic right 2008 E final final (Euba/aena glacialis) original listing as"northern right whale"- 1970 E whale,North Pacific right 2008 E final final (Euba/aena japonica) original listing as"northern right whale"- 1970 E whale,sei 1970 E n/a final (Ba/aenoptera borealis) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS'Jurisdiction :: NOAA Fisheries Page 2 of 7 whale,Southern right 1970 E(F) n/a We (Eubalaena australis) whale,sperm 1970 E n/a final (Physeter macmcephalus) Pinnipeds sea lion,Steller(1 listed DPS) (Eumetopias jubatus) Western 1997 E final final original listing- 1990 T seal,bearded(1 listed DPS) (Erignathus barbatus) 2012 T(F) n/a no Okhotsk seal,Guadalupe fur 1985 T n/a n/a (Arctocephalus townsendt) seal,Hawaiian monk 1976 E final final (Neomonachus schauinslandi) seal,ringed(5listed subspecies) (Phoca hispida) 2012 T no no Arctic (Phoca hispida hispida) 2012 T(F) n/a no Baltic (Phoca hispida botnica) 2012 T(F) n/a no Okhotsk (Phoca hispida ochotensts) 2012 E(F) n/a no Ladoga (Phoca hispida ladogensis) 1993 E(F) n/a n/a Saimaa (Phoca hispida saimensis) seal,Mediterranean monk 1970 E(F) n/a n/a (Monachus monachus) seal,spotted(1 listed DPS) (Phoca largha) Southern 2010 T(F) n/a n/a Sea Turtles&Other Marine Reptiles(17 listed"species") (E="endangered";T="threatened",F="foreign"n/a=not applicable) Year Critical Recovery Species Listed Status Habitat` Plan' Sea Turtles turtle,green(2 listed populations") (Chelonia mydas) Florida&Mexico's Pacific coast breeding colonies 1978 E final final all other areas 1978 T final final turtle,hawksbill 1970 E final final (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtle,Kemp's ridley 1970 E n/a final (Lepldochelys Kemp;,) turtle,leatherback 1970 E final final (Dermochelys conacea) turtle,loggerhead(9listed DPSs) no final (Caretta caretta) u original listing-1978 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction ::NOAA Fisheries Page 3 of 7 Mediterranean Sea 2011 E(F) n/a n/a North Indian Ocean 2011 E(F) n/a n/a North Pacific Ocean 2011 E no final Northeast Atlantic Ocean 2011 E(F) n/a n/a Northwest Atlantic Ocean 2011 T final final South Atlantic Ocean 2011 T(F) n/a n/a South Pacific Ocean 2011 E(F) n/a n/a Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean 2011 T( ) n/a n/a Southwest Indian Ocean 2011 T(F) n/a n/a turtle,olive ridley(2listed populationsA) (Lepidoche/ys olivacea) Mexico's Pacific coast breeding colonies 1978 E n/a final all other areas 1978 T n/a final Other Marine Reptiles sea snake,dusky 7--` 15 E(F) n/a no (Aipysurus fuscus) "These populations were listed before the 1978 ESA amendments that restricted population listings to"distinct population segments of vertebrate species." Fish(Marine&Anadromous)(58 listed"species") (E="endangered".T="threatened F="foreign",XN="nonessential experimental population".We=not applicable) Year Critical Recovery Species Listed Status Habkar Plan* bocaccio(1 listed CPS) (Sebastes paucispinis) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010 E final no cardinalflsh,Banggai 2016 T(F) n/a no (Pteropogon kaudemi) eulachon,Pacific/smelt(1 listed DPS) (Thaleichthys pacificus) Southern DPS 2010 T final no rockfish,canary(1 listed DPS) (Sebastes pinniger) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010 T final no rockfish,yelloweye(1 listed DPS) (Sebastes ruberrimus) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010 T final no salmon,Atlantic(1 listed DPS) (Salmo salary Gulf of Maine 2009 E final final (expanded) original tiding- 2000 salmon,Chinook(9listed ESUs&1 XN) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) California coastal 1999** T final draft Central Valley spring-run 1999** T final final Central Valley spring-run in the San Joaquin River, 2013 XN n/a - CA Lower Columbia River 1999** T final final Upper Columbia River spring-run 1999** E final final Puget Sound 1999** T final final Sacramento River winter-run 1994** E final final Snake River fall-run 1992** T final draft http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS'Jurisdiction :: NOAA Fisheries Page 4 of 7 Snake River spring/summer-run 1992" T final in process Upper Willamefte River 1999" T final final salmon,chum(2 listed ESUs) (Oncorhynchus keta) Columbia River 1999" T final final Hood Canal summer-run 1999" T final final salmon,coho(4listed ESUs) (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Central California coast 2005'• E final final original listing- 1996" T Lower Columbia River 2005" T proposed final Oregon coast 2006 T final draft Southern Oregon&Northern California coasts 1997— T final final (SONCC) salmon,sockeye(2listed ESUs) (Oncorhynchus nerka) Ozette Lake 19W* T final final Snake River 1991•' E final final sawfish,dwarf 2014 E(F) We no (Pristis clavata) sawfish,green 2014 E(F) n/a no (Pristis zi)sron) sawfish,largetooth 2014 E no no (Pnstis pristis)(fonnedy P.perotteti,P.pristis,and P. microdon) sawfish,narrow 2014 E(F) n/a no (Anoxypnshs cuspidata) sawfish,smalltooth(2listed DPSs) (Pristis pectinata) U.S.portion of range 2003 E final final Non-U.S.portion of range 2014 E(F) We no shark,scalloped hammerhead(4listed DPSs) (Sphyma lewini) Central&Southwest Atlantic 2014 T no no Eastern Atlantic 2014 E(F) n/a no Eastern Pacific 2014 E no no Indo-West Pacific 2014 T no no sturgeon,Adriatic (Acipenser naccarii) 2014 E(F) n/a no sturgeon,Atlantic(5listed DPSs) (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) Gulf of Maine 2012 T no no New York Bight 2012 E no no Chesapeake Bay 2012 E no no Carolina 2012 E no no South Atlantic 2012 E no no sturgeon,Chinese 2014 E(F) n/a no (Acipenser sinensis) sturgeon,European 2014 E(F) n/a no (Acipenser sturic) sturgeon,green(1 listed DPS) (Acipenser medirostris) Southern DPS 2006 T final in process sturgeon,Gulf 1991 T final final (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 2014 E(F) n/a no http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction :: NOAA Fisheries Page 5 of 7 sturgeon,Kaluga (Huso dauncus) sturgeon,Sakhalin 2014 E(F) n/a no (Acipenser mikadoi) sturgeon,shortnose 1967 E n/a final (Acipenser brevirostrum) totoaba 1979 E(F) n/a n/a (Totoaba macdonaldl) trout,steelhead(11 listed DPSs&1 XN) (Oncorhynchus mykss) Puget Sound 2007 T proposed no Central California coast 1997" T final draft Snake River Basin 1997" T final in process Upper Columbia River 2009+ T final final original listing- 1997" E change in status- 2006" T court reinstated status- 2007+ E +reinstated to endangered status per U.S.District Court decision in June 2007,mclassified to threatened[pdf]per U.S.District Court order in June 2009 Southern California 1997•' E final final Middle Columbia River 1999" T final final Middle Columbia River 2013 XN n/a Lower Columbia River 1998" T final final Upper Willamette River 1999" T final final Northern California 2000" T final draft South-Central California coast 1997" T final final California Central Valley 1998'• T final final All Pacific salmonid listings were revisited in 2005 and 2006.Only the salmonids whose status changed as a result of the review will show the revised date,for all others,only the original listing date is shown.For more information on the listing history,please dick on the link for each ESU/DPS. Marine Invertebrates(27 listed"species") (E="endangered",T="threatened",F="foreign n/a=not applicable) Year Critical Recovery Species Listed Status Habitat* Plan* Abalone abalone,black 2009 E final no (Haliotis cracherodii) abalone,white 2001 E not final (Haliotis sorenseni) prudent[pdf] Corals coral,[no common name] 2014 T no no (Acropora g/obiceps) coral,[no common name] 2014 T no no (Acropora jacquelineae) coral,[no common name] 2014 T(F) n/a no (Acropora lokani) coral,[no common name] 2014 T(F) n/a no (Acropora pharaonts) coral,[no common name] 2014 T no no (Acropora retusa) coral,[no common name] 2014 T(F) n/a no (Acropora rudis) coral,[no common name] 2014 T no no (Acropora speciosa) 2014 T(F) n/a no http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction :: NOAA Fisheries Page 6 of 7 coral,[no common name] (Acropora tenella) coral,[no common name] 2014 T(F) n/a no (Acropora spinosa) coral,[no common name] (Cantharellus noumeae) 2015 E(F) Na no coral,[no common name] 2014 T no no (Euphyllia paradivisa) coral,[no common name] 2014 T no no (Isopora crateritormis) coral,[no common name] 2014 T(F) n/a no (Montipora australiensis) coral,[no common name] 2014 T(F) no no (Pavona diRluens) coral,[no common name] 2 (Pontes napopora) 014 T(F) n/a no coral,[no common name] (Seriatopora aculeata) 2014 T no no coral,[no common name] (Siderastrea glynni) 2015 E(F) Na no coral,[no common name] 2015 E(F) Na no (Tubastraea floreana) coral,boulder star (Orbicella franks) 2014 T no no coral,elkhom 2006 T final final (Acropora palmata) coral,lobed star 2014 T no no (Orbicella annulads) coral,mountainous star 2014 T no no (Orbicella faveolata) coral,pillar 2014 T no no (Dendrogyra cylindrus) coral,rough cactus (Mycetophyllia ferox) 2014 T no no coral,staghom 2006 T final final (Acropora cervicomis) Marine Plants(1 listed"species") (E="endangered",T="threatened",F="foreign"nla=not applicable) Year Critical Recovery Species Listed Status Habitar Plan' Johnson's seagrass 1999 T final final (Halophda johnsonir) NOTE:Critical habitat cannot be designated in foreign waters,cribcal habitat is also not required for species listed prior to the 1978 ESA amendments that added critical habitat provisions.Recovery plans for sea turtles are developed and implemented by NMFS and USFWS.the plans have been written separately for turtles in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans(and East Pacific for the green turtle)rather than for each listed species.Bowhead whales are exempt from recovery planning. Endangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS'Jurisdiction: • All Endangered and Threatened Species under NMFS Jurisdiction s Marine Mammals .Sea Turtles&Other Marine Reptiles »Fish(Marine R Anadromous) a Marine Invertebrates R Plants Additional Species: • Species Petitioned for Listing under the ESA(awaiting 90-day findings) • Candidates for ESA Listing • Species Proposed for ESA Listing • Species with"Not Warranted"12-month findings(we reviewed the status,but determined that listing was not warranted) • Delisted Species and Species Under Review or Proposed for Delisting http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS'Jurisdiction ::NOAA Fisheries Page 7 of 7 Updated:January 19,2016 Fisheries Service Inside NOAA Fisheries Home Linking Policy USA.gov Our Mission Work for NOAA Fisheries Y Information Quality Privacy Policy FOIA Frequently Asked Questions EEO&Diversity Exit Disclaimer Copyright Policy Search Contact Us Feedback http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm 2/10/2016 This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Species By County Report Page I of 2 U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service Search ECOS 4 ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System Conserving the Nature of America ECOS / Species Reports / Species By County Report Species By County Report The following report contains Species that are known to or are believed to occur in this county. Species with range unrefined past the state level are now excluded from this report. If you are looking for the Section 7 range(for Section 7 Consultations), please visit the IPaC application. County: Mason, WA Recovery Lead Recovery Plan Plan Action Group Name Population Status Office Name Status Amphibians Oregon spotted Threatened Washington frog(Rana Fish and retiosa) Wildlife Office Birds Yellow-billed Western U.S. Threatened Sacramento Cuckoo DPS Fish and (Coccyzus Wildlife americanus) Office ' Northern Entire Threatened Oregon Revised Implementation spotted owl Fish and Recovery Plan Progress Strix Wildlife for the Northern occidentalis Office Spotted Owl caurina Marbled CA,OR,WA Threatened Washington Recovery Plan Implementation murrelet Fish and for the Progress (Brachyramphus Wildlife Threatened marmoratus) Office Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)in Washington, Oregon,and California Streaked Threatened Oregon - - Horned lark Fish and (Eremophila Wildlife alpestris Office stri ata http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=53045 2/10/2016 Species By County Report Page 2 of 2 Recovery Lead Recovery Plan Plan Action Group Name Population Status Office Name Status Fishes Bull Trout U.S.A.. Threatened Idaho Fish Recovery Plan Implementation (Salvelinus conterminous, and Wildlife forthe Progress confluentus) lower 48 Office Coterminous states United States Population of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Dolly Varden Proposed Office of the - (Salvelinus Similarity of Regional malma) Appearance Director (Threatened) Mammals Fisher(Martes West coast Proposed Yreka Fish ennanti) DPS Threatened and Wildlife Office Snails Burrington Under Washington - - lumping-slug Review Fish and (Hemohillia Wildlife buffingtorn) Office Export options:CSV EXCEL I XML I PDF http://ecos.fWs.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=53045 2/10/2016 Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon & Steelhead PUGET SOUND DOMAIN •Puget Sound Chinook(T) [FCH 92/05] •. •Hood Canal Summer Chum(T) _ [FCH 92/05] INTERIOR COLUMBIA DOMAIN • FCH Lake Sockeye(T) •Snake River Sockeye E)[FCH 12/28/931 [FCH 9 Sound - re - •Snake River Fall Chinook(T) [FCH 12/28/93 •Puget Steelhead(T) - ]. [CH under dev.;ANPR 1/10/11] •Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook(T) [FCH 12/28/93;10/25/99] Bn8tCf1B9 Spokar: Snake River Steelhead(T) [FCH 92/05] WILLAMETTEILOWER COLUMBIA •Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook(E) [FCH 912/05] •Upper Columbia River Steelhead(T)[FCH 9/2105] DOMAIN ;f. - _ •Middle Columbia River Steelhead(T)[FCH 92/05] •Columbia River Chum(T) [FCH 9/2/05] Yak!1 •Lower Columbia River Coho(T) • [CH Under dev.;ANPR 1110111] •Lower Columbia River Chinook(T) }"' •Walla Wall - [FCH 9005] _ !! •Lower Columbia River Steelhead(T) _ ry tPoriiand --,�, ..,.- �� "'�•. [FCH 9/2/05] •Upper Willamette River Chinook(T) --' [FCH 92/05] ) Upper Willamette River Steelhead(T) Salem [FCH 92/05] 1 i OREGON COAST DOMAIN iEUgen nd • •Oregon Coast Coho(T) [FCH2/11/08] coos OBOiSB Pocatello SOUTHERN - - OREGON/NORTHERN • - CALIFORNIA COAST DOMAIN r •Southern Oregon/Northern. - California Coast Coho(T) , [FCH 5/5/99] .} CRITICAL HABITAT RULES CITED '�^`_ •6/16/93(58 FR 33212)Final CHO for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook CENTRAL VALLEY DOMAIN •12/28/93(58 FR 68543)Final CHO for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye Ing Sacramento River Winter Chinook(E) 5/5/99(64 FR 24049)Final CHO for Central CA Coast [FCH 6/16/93) and SONCC Coho �` _ •Central Valley Spring Chinook(T) .1025199(64FR57399)Revised CHO for Snake River �• - [FCH 92/051 Spring/Summer Chinook �-~ •Central Valley Steelhead(T) •912/05(70 FR 52630)Final CHO for 12 ESUs of [FCH 92/05] - Salmon and Steelhead •2/11/08(73 FR 7816)Final CHO for Oregon Coast Coho m Lake Ta •1/10/11(76 FR 1392)Advance Notice of Proposed 4 Rulemaking;CHDs for Lower Columbia Coho and 10 Puget Sound Steelhead NORTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST "'� DOMAIN Fra •Central California Coast Coho(E) -[FCH 5/5/991 LEGEND •California Coastal Chinook(T) - •Northern California Steelhead(T) (E)Endangered [FCH 92/05] Santa Cruz \ (T)Threatened •Central California Coast Steelhead(T) [FCH 92/05] r O (FCH)Final Critical Habitat Designated ® Domain Overlap SOUTH-CENTRAL/SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - COAST DOMAIN •South-Central California Coast Steelhead(T). [FCH 92/05] •Southern California Coast Steelhead(E) [FCH 92 Los gel•/05] �•� i o 0 100 2r70 MN•6 - L r t 1 an Diego Updated 10-31-12 63986 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 200/Monday, October 18, 2010/Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Unit: 2, Puget Sound 123"OW 1220'W 121'OW Canada Puget o j 5 �V� Sound Hwy �r;Marine °Oksa� Ross Lake Co � 9 5 .elin ham Baker O� i Lake SKpgit River 20 am U1 05 Washington Z 101 3. o r- 2 CD Seattle Q 1y Chester If Morse"Lake 87 r r�i rf'I on Rive( ` Wenatchee (1 Tacoma White River {t Olympia4;�.:; a - !J B 123'0'W 122"OW 121"OW -N.— CH Streams WA ner S CH Lakes 0 15 30 Miles CH Marine ID OR 0 20 40 Kilometers City For excluded lands in this CHU refer to the Road CA NV LIT section on exclusions in the rule BILLING CODE 4310-55-C (10) Unit 3:Lower Columbia River (ii)Individual waterbodies in the unit Basins are bounded by the following (i)This unit consists of 119.3 km (74.2 coordinates: mi) of streams.The unit is located in southwestern Washington. Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 170/Friday, September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations 52705 Final Critical Habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU Nearshore Marine Areas 124.0.0"W �s� 1 •aaw 122•aO'W CANADA CANADA 1 o Q O 4* Aellingham l c 16 N r� 48.0'0"N Port Angeles � Sequim t A Everett 46'70"N ,i ems% � WASHINGTON Brinnon Seattle Bremertoi , E Hoodsport 0 60 120 240 !' T5 iawrtleters F / "I- 0 10 20 40 Tacoma Miles 4ro•a � �> � r-124VO 7 123'90W Olympia 122.0.OW r " Area of Detail Legend L Cities/Towns Shoreline a:' WASHINGTON State Boundary KNearshore Marine Areas OREGON BILLING CODE 3510-22-C 2796 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2013/Proposed Rules Proposed Critical Habitat for the Puget Sound Subbasin Puget Sound Steelhead DPS 17110019 124 a0M' 123 30'0Vv 123 a01 - �" 122 OM48'30'PN i v P + 1 f �1 s r 7 ae ao u &Edmonds / 1 Af JA ( ! 0 5 10 20 30 40 Kilometers �. r/` 0 3.5 7 14 21 28 1 5r 1 f �„ Seatft 3aely � W - ,..., Vj ethe WASHINGTON r So 01 ho) 7 J 47'3a0•N 00Joh- ) Shelton ` V / S c;1Steil o L`� r )' ~1 06 � tXYmr�L� rf 123 30'M 123'00•W r 122 30'0w 122 a 0'W 47''ao-N Area of Detail Legend - Cities/Towns Ri WASHINGTON Critical Habitat State Boundary Subbasin Boundary / OREGGr1 IMAM 4 ] Watershed Boundaries —-----This map does not show U.S.Department of Defense sites 00-08=Watershed code-last 2 digits of 17110019xx determined to be ineligible for designation nor excluded areas associated with Indian lands and Habitat Conservation Plans: see the regulatory text for a description of these excluded areas. [FIR Doc.2013-00241 Filed 1-11-13;8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 195/Friday, October 9, 2009/Rules and Regulations 52351 Final Critical Habitat for the Department of Defense Sites Southern DPS of Green Sturgeon Not Designated 126'CM 12a o•ow 12200'W Strait of Juan de Fuca and _ �`�• i ` Whidbey Islcntl Naval Restricted; so(raw Areas t and z , " •i ' r i ^�j , Navy 3 OPAREA .' Strait of Juan de Fuca / 4so'or1 dj5, An9eiee. — •�; q /� '.•:.>:`�._.'. Naval Weapon Range / 1 /i Admiralty Inlet 46'VO N Naval Restricted Area "•J Salem ewport J f t 44.0'0"N ^; a Bay I i Id Beach I 42'IIO"N y eureka Mare Island ie� Salt/, Redding / i�/• fort Bragg �� -hNapa. f' x(WN Sa` X. 0 25 50 100 Miles ; 1 t t I I I r I Mare Island US Army Reserve Cente fT77TT-M a6boN 0 45 90 180 Kilometers 1261010'W 124'OVW 122V(YJ N Legend Cities/Towns — State Boundaries Designated Coastal Marine Areas(Offshore to 60 Fathoms Depth) -Excluded DOD Areas �LL Designated Riverine,Estuarine and Marsh Areas [FR Doc.E9-24067 Filed 10-8-09;8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22—C 68072 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 219/Thursday, November 13, 2014/Rules and Regulations Final Critical Habitat(CH)for the Bocaccio,Canary,and yyY��e""lloweye Rockfish DPSs Central and South Puget Sound Area 122.OW 40'0'N Whidbey fff Island �f=Ev 48°0'N erett N a Location Map H a 1 — Q OAMBLE J PORT S WA tOR L Seattle 47'30N �� g,Fc�a"llet e1 47'sox 4Q i SKOKOt� � Q / C (f SCUAMN ISLAND 'Tacoma fv1UCKCESH00T -: ceNpts 0 4 75 9.5 19 Mo.Wers '4I m 0 '.75 3.Ci 11 M9es 123. :'Olympia 122"3D'W 122°OW Shoreline This map does not show U.S.Department of Defense American Indian Reservation (DOD)sites determined to be ineligible for designation nor excluded areas associated with Indian lands and Final Deep%ater CH(Bocaccio,Canary,and Yelloweye Rockfish) certain additional DOD sites:see the regulatory text for Final Nearshore CH(Bocacclo and Canary Rockfish) a description of these final excluded areas. Figure 3. Critical Habitat for ESA-listed rockfishes in the southern portion of the Puget Sound area. BILLING CODE 3510-22—C Southern Resident killer whales(71 FR require special management Other co-occurring ESA-listed species 69054;November 29,2006),and bull considerations or protection.No with designated critical habitat that, trout(75 FR 63898;October 18,2010). unoccupied areas were identified that collectively,almost completely overlap The areas designated are all within the are considered essential for the with rockfish critical habitat include geographical area occupied by the conservation of the species.All of the Pacific salmon(70 FR 52630;September species and contain physical and areas designated have high conservation 2,2005),North American green sturgeon biological features essential to the value(NMFS,2014a).As a result of the (74 FR 52300;October 9,2009), conservation of the species and that may balancing process for some military Federal Register 1 Vol. 61, No. 102 I Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26279 In _ BELLIN p FORKS r a_ 8-FA TTLE ' "- - OLYMPIA i ELLENSBURO _ o --- ---------- i i VANCOUVER o to s 80 w 60 ro. General configuration of final critical hebkot in Weehinpton Marbled Murrelet Designated Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales November 2006 NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region �} • Bellingham Port Angeles d To s Al `sl WASHINGTON ` Everett Legend Critical Habitat Areas - Area 1 -Summer Core Area(Haro Strait&San Juan Islands) - Area 2-Puget Sound r� Bremerton �ea'ttle - Area 3-Strait of Juan de Fuca - Sites Not Designated Within Habitat Areas r f Ta 1 W ✓ Olympia V11 ` This map is for general reference only. Please consult the Federal Register notice 0 5 10 20 Miles for the full description of areas designated as,�,0 critical habitat. Appendix B Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 3 Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION........................................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2 3.0 METHODS......................................................................................................................................2 3.1 Shoreline Characterization 2 3.2 Transect Line Surveys 5 3.2.1 Horizontal Transect Lines 5 3.2.2 Vertical Transect Lines 6 3.3 Forage Fish Spawning Habitat 6 3.4 Macrophyte Characterization 7 3.4.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 7 3.4.2 Other Macroalgae 7 3.5 Identification of Epibenthic Fauna,Benthic Infauna, and Other Macrofauna 8 4.0 RESULTS.........................................................................................................................................8 4.1 Shoreline Riparian Vegetation 8 4.2 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation Characterization 9 4.2.1 Upper Intertidal Habitat 9 4.2.2 Lower Intertidal Habitat 12 4.3 Epibenthic Fauna,Benthic Infauna,and Other Macrofauna 13 4.3,1 Invertebrate Species Zonation 13 4.3.2 Fish Observations 15 4.3.3 Potential Forage Fish Spawning Habitat 16 4.4 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development 16 5.0 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................18 6.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................19 TABLES Table Bl Size Classifications for Substrate Characterization Table B2 Epibenthic Fauna,Benthic Infauna,and Other Organisms Identified in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area on August 9,2014 May 2oi6 Page i Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY FIGURES Figure 131 Site Location for the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Figure B2 Culture Area Associated with the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Area Figure B3 Shoreline Riparian Vegetation Figure B4 Overview of Transect Lines Surveyed on August 9,2014 Figure B5 Biological Resources seen on Mazanti North Bay site visit on August 9,2014. Figure B6 Upper Beach Substrate in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area Figure B7 Lower Intertidal Habitat in the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Area Figure B8 Invertebrate and Macroalgae Species Observed in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area Figure B9 Land Use Associated with the Mazanti North Bay Project Area Figure B10 Surrounding Land Use Associated with the Mazanti North Bay Project Area May 2oi6 Page ii CONFLUENCE CNVIkONMCNTAL COMPANY APPENDIX B MAZANTI NORTH BAY NEARSHORE SURVEY The information presented in this report are baseline conditions associated with intertidal habitat proposed for shellfish aquaculture activities. It is intended that this information will be used for the programmatic Biological Evaluation (BE) for project submitted under the Nationwide Permit 48(NWP 48)process through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). s.o GENERAL INFORMATION The following information is a general description of the project area. More detailed information is provided in subsequent sections. 1. Applicant Name:Taylor Shellfish Farms Mailing Address: 130 SE Lynch Road,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 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 DianeC@taylorshellfish.com 360-432-0327 4. Location where proposed work will occur: Parcels: 12228-21-80292 Address: 4484 E State Route 302 Belfair,WA 98528 Waterbody: Case Inlet, Puget Sound Section: Section: Township: Range: NW 28 T22N Ro1W Latitude: project corners Longitude: project corners 1. NW Corner:47°22'27.448"N 1. NW Corner:-122°49'2.521"W 2. SW Corner:47°22'26.464"N 2. SW Corner:-122°49'3.048"W 3. NE Corner:47°22'27.451"N 3. NE Corner:-122°48'56.247"W 4. SE Corner:47°22'26.453"N 4. SE Corner:-122°48'55.986"W May 2oi6 Page i IN� Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 2.0 INTRODUCTION The project area for a NWP 48 is defined as the parcel(s) associated with leased or owned tidelands.The proposed project area is located in Mason County at the north end of Case Inlet, North Bay,in south Puget Sound (Figure B1).The tax lot parcel proposed for geoduck aquaculture is owned by a private landowner(Figure B2),and would be operated by Taylor Shellfish Farms(Taylor Shellfish). This parcel covers a total of 1.3 acres and will be identified as the"Mazanti North Bay"project area. The total culture area is about 1.27 acres,and represents intertidal elevations ranging from extreme low water(ELW),which is typically-4.5 feet(ft),up to+5.0 ft mean lower low water (MLLW).The shellfish proposed for culture include geoduck clams (Panopea generosa), Pacific oysters(Crassostrea gigas),and Manila clams(Venerupis philippinarum).The culture methods are described in the BE.This appendix reports existing conditions of the project area. 3.0 METHODS A site survey was conducted by Confluence Environmental Company(Confluence) in the proposed Mazanti North Bay project area on August 9,2014 between 9:15 to 12:15 with low slack(-2.10 ft MLLW')at 11:15.The goals of these surveys were to identify submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV)or other macroalgae species,record substrate and general beach characteristics,and document macrofauna and benthic invertebrate organisms. The following information provides a description of the survey methods related to: (1)shoreline characterization, (2)transect line surveys, (3)forage fish spawning habitat, (4)macrophyte identification,and (5)identification of epibenthic fauna,benthic infauna,and other macrofauna. 3.3- Shoreline Characterization 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. The data collected provided a description of shoreline riparian vegetation,land use,and general substrate composition with the upper and lower intertidal zone. For this aspect of the survey, Confluence staff walked the entire proposed farm footprint(to the extent possible)and extending updrift and downdrift from the project area.In addition,aerial photographs were reviewed to understand shoreline characteristics that extended beyond the field observations. 'This value is based on a tidal prediction for Allyn,WA and corrected for the difference between predicted and observed tides at Tacoma,WA,which was 0.273 ft higher than predicted(NOAA 2014). May 2=6 Page 2 Data Sources: ESRI Gray Canvas Coordinate System: P U G E T Washington State Plane South, NAD 83,US Survey Foot S O U N D Scale:1:100,000 Project 0 Area wattle Olympia H o o d C at) a I North shay Mazanti North Bay Project Area poc*y say Ca � � Project Area Inset North ! n I e t G a .r r Say � w N Scale:1:10,000 nN 0 500 1,000 Feet 0 05 1 2 A Miles Figure Bi Site Location for the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project May 2o16 Page 3 HANDSAKER Ordinary High Water Mark 221.34-00141 Mean Lower Low Water(MLLW)0.0' 1 1 --- 3.0'MLLW , +5.0'MLLW HASER 1222143-00150 10-Foot Contour t Bulkhead 4 1 Boat Ramp OTax Parcels Shellfish Culture Area �uNo&Z 000sr 0 1 Q Project Area GILKINSON 12228-21-00020 MAZANTI I � l 12228-21-50292 I ,. PINCKNEY TRS + O 12228-21.00030 PINCKNEY TRS a- 12228-21-00041 -- Old Ramp mp SCHULTZ 12228-21-90043 1 Notes: 1.Tidal elevations referenced to Allyn,WA (NOAA Station ID 9446281).Datum was SCHULTZ transformed from NAVD88 to MLLW. 12228-21-00040 1 2.The project area(Parcel 12228-21� PINCKNEY ET VIR0292) t ' , I2228-21-90042 was surveyed by Agate Land Surveying in 1 2015.The configuration differs slightly from the Mason County tax parcels.It will be re- I surveyed in June to confirm boundaries. N 3.Mean Higher High Water(14.2')occurs at the bulkhead. ` 1 Sources: Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation coordinateSy stem Agate Land Surveying 2015 Data I WA State Plane South Confluence2014 Field Data 1A1 O` Culture Area NADIR NAVDea Mason County Tax Parcels tit Ol R CONFLUENCE US Survey Foot Univ of Washington Elev Data Tlbr 0 50 100 200Feel INVIRONMENTAL COMPANY �c Eu'r+�a��its Scale:1:1,000 Prepared By:E McCormick,Cascade GIs&Consulting Approved By:M Meaders,Confluence Environmental Prepared For:D Taylor,TaylorSheBflsh Date:5/3/2016 Figure Bz Culture Area Associated with the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Area May=6 _ Page 4 Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 3.2 Transect Line Surveys Both horizontal and vertical transect lines were used to record broad habitat features throughout the Mazanti North Bay project area and an additional 5 ft updrift and 5 ft downdrift from the project area. 3.2.1 Horizontal Transect Lines Horizontal transect lines(i.e.,parallel to the tideline)were used to characterize site conditions using georeferenced video transect lines. Video footage was collected using a standard smart phone with video capabilities.The beginning and end of each transect line was recorded with a differential global positioning system(dGPS)with sub-meter accuracy. If the survey line was not parallel to the tideline,then the dGPS was used to collect the same line where the video footage was being collected. Along the northern and southern boundaries of the Mazanti North Bay,markers were placed across from one another.Transects 2-9 were videotaped crossing from one marker on the northern or southern end and linking to the corresponding marker on the other end of the property,and going from the upper intertidal habitat to the lower intertidal habitat.Transect 1 and Transect 11 were not in coordination with these markers.Transect 1 followed along the toe of the bulkhead on the eastern side of the property and Transect 11 followed along the low tideline.The lowest transect(Transect 12)was located in an area that was inundated during the time to data collect at an elevation of-4.1 ft MLLW. The intertidal habitat was divided into two zones: (1)upper intertidal habitat and (2)lower intertidal habitat.A total of eleven horizontal video transect lines were used to record the following habitat features within the two zones: ■ Upper Intertidal Habitat o Transect 1 The backshore zone along the toe of the bulkhead o Transect 2 Upper extent of marine aquatic vegetation o Transect 3 Sediment,macrophytes and organisms ■ Lower Intertidal Zone o Transect 4 Sediment transition boundary o Transect 5-10 Sediment,macrophytes, and organisms o Transect 11 Low tideline (-2.1 ft MLLW)in the lower intertidal zone o Transect 12 2 ft below the low tideline(4.1 ft MLLW) Video footage was reviewed to determine major habitat features,substrate characterization, macrophyte presence, and species identification.The lowest horizontal survey line was collected in the inundated area without video footage (visual survey)in order to understand the presence/absence of native eelgrass (Zostera marina),non-native eelgrass (Z.japonica),individual attached plants in the order Laminariales, and other flora or fauna out to the lowest extent possible.If observed,these locations were documented with a dGPS. May 2o3L6 Page 5 Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 3.2.2 Vertical Transect Lines Vertical transect lines were used to characterize changes in substrate composition and beach slope.The transect lines started near the toe of the bluff or backshore zone and extended seaward into the lower intertidal habitat using a standard survey tape. The beginning and end of each vertical transect line was recorded with a dGPS. Using the size classifications listed in Table B1, surface sediments were visually classified and the percent composition was recorded within 0.5 ft to the either side of the transect line.The distance along the transect line that corresponded to a similar substrate composition was recorded along the entire length.Data were collected by substrate zone,which indicated major changes in substrate composition. Table Bi Size Classifications for Substrate Characterization Substrate Category Size(along the longest axis) centimeters inches Silt <0.006 <0.002 Sand 0.006-0.2 0.002-0.08 Fine gravel 0.2—1.6 0.08—0.6 Coarse gravel 1.6—6.4 0.6—2.5 Cobble 6.4—25 2.5—9.8 Boulder 25-400 9.8-158 Shells N/A N/A In addition to substrate composition,beach slope was collected along vertical transect lines using a Suunto®PM5/66PC clinometer with percent and topo scales. The major changes in beach slope,which typically corresponded to changes in substrate composition,were recorded along multiple transect lines.The distance along each transect line that resulted in changes to beach slope were recorded. 3.3 Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Forage fish spawning habitat was evaluated for the following species: surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus),Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes personatus),and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi). Presence of documented forage fish spawning habitat was reviewed prior to the site survey using the on-line Forage Fish Spawning Map (WDFW 2016a).Potential forage fish spawning substrate was then identified and characterized using modified Moulton and Penttila(2001) forage fish spawning habitat survey protocols.Modified methods included not collecting bulk sediments,but instead using a visual characterization of substrate to determine potential spawning habitat. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn in sand to pea-gravel sized sediments, May 2oi6 Page 6 40-ftlit- Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY typically at elevations above+7.0 ft MLLW and+5.0 ft MLLW2, respectively(Penttila 2007). Potential spawning habitat was characterized, photographed,and identified with the dGPS. Pacific herring typically broadcast spawn over marine vegetation,such as macroalgae and eelgrass, and hard substrates and polychaete tubes(especially within south Puget Sound where eelgrass can be limited).Herring spawn at elevations typically ranging from 0 ft to-10 ft MLLW (Penttila 2007,Stick et al.2014). Substrate characterization was already described for the proposed project area.Methods used to characterize marine vegetation are discussed in the following section. 3.4 Macrophyte Characterization Confluence personnel documented aquatic vegetation in or near the intertidal project area. These macrophytes include eelgrass as well as green, red,and brown species of macroalgae. 3.4.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV) includes native eelgrass(Zostera marina)and brown macroalgae in the order Laminariales,also known as kelp.The methods for the SAV survey followed a modified version of the preliminary survey guidelines described in the Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines (WDFW 2008).Because eelgrass and attached kelp beds,if present,would be avoided using 16-ft horizontal buffers and an eelgrass survey would precede a planting cycle,there was no need to complete an advanced eelgrass and macroalgae survey. SAV in the project area was delineated using a handheld dGPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. Survey methods included walking along horizontal transects of the project area and estimating percent cover. Presence/absence of attached kelp was documented,to the extent practicable. If there were larger areas of attached kelp, the entire area was identified with a polygon and areal coverage was estimated within that area. 3.4.2 Other Macroalgae Confluence personnel documented additional macroalgae species,such as ulvoids(Ulva and Ulvaria sp.),Fucus sp.,and Gracilaria sp., in the project area.Locations and areal coverage within the upper and lower intertidal zones were recorded with dGPS and documented with 2 Note that the predominant surf smelt spawning habitat of+7 ft MLLW and sand lance spawning habitat of+5 ft MLLW is relative to the Seattle datum(Dionne,pers.comm.,2016).Correcting this for south Puget Sound results in a higher elevation(e.g.,above+8.9 ft MLLW and+6.4 ft MLLW,respectively). Therefore,restricting culture to+5 ft MLLW for the proposed culture area is a conservative approach for protecting spawning habitat for these forage fish species. May 2oi6 Page 7 lb i Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE IN V 1 RONMENTAL COMPANY photographs.Macroalgae were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level using on-line identification sources(e.g., Encyclopedia of Puget Sound 2015a,WSU Beach Watchers 2015). 3.5 Identification of Epibenthic Fauna, Benthic Infauna, and Other Macrofauna Confluence personnel documented and identified benthic epifauna (e.g.,barnacles and snails), benthic infauna that extended to the sediment surface(e.g., polychaete tubes),and other macrofauna (e.g., crabs and fish), to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Species where the identification was unclear were photographed and identifications were resolved using either on-line identification sources(e.g., Encyclopedia of Puget Sound 2015b,Mugga 2015,WSU Beach Watchers 2015),Kozloff(1993, 1996),or an expert taxonomist(e.g., Greg Jensen, Gretchen Lambert,Megan Dethier).If possible, representative photographs were collected for each species identified. 4.o RESULTS The following information are the results from data collected during the August 9,2014 survey during a-2.10 ft MLLW low tide. Photographs taken during the site survey and the DNR data sheets are attached at the end of this appendix. 4.1 Shoreline Riparian Vegetation Shoreline vegetation was dominated by manicured lawn grass and two large trees identified as black walnut(juglans nigra) directly behind the bulkhead (Figure 133). Beyond the manicured lawn were a few horicultural yard plants,likely apple and other fruiting trees.A large road, Washington State Route 302,runs behind landward of the lawn.Beyond that road lies thick unidentified tree and brush. •d I Figure 133Shoreline Riparian Vegetation May 2oi6 Page 8 e� Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 4.2 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation Characterization The following information is based on the data collected in the survey transect lines(Figure B4) and other general observations during the site survey(Figure B5).There were a total of 3 vertical transect lines and 12 horizontal transect lines collected. The vertical transect lines(sediment and slope transects)varied in length depending on the width of the upper intertidal zone,but typically ranged between 225+and 300+ft.The horizontal transect lines ranged from approximately 112 ft to 140 ft in length.The lowest horizontal transect line was visually surveyed down to about-4.10 ft MLLW;these observations below the low tide line were accomplished by wading. The results of the site survey are separated into: (1)upper intertidal habitat and(2)lower intertidal habitat. 4.2.1 Upper Intertidal Habitat The upper intertidal habitat was characterized by three horizontal transect lines and three vertical transect lines(Figure B4),which included representative habitat proposed for Manila clam and Pacific oyster aquaculture.Video footage was recorded within a tidal elevation range of about-0.5 ft to the toe of the bulkhead.The bulkhead was constructed of large rip-rap (boulders). The upper beach declined at varying gradients between 1 and 17 percent from the bulkhead to a sediment transition boundary at approximately a tidal elevation range of-0.1 ft to-0.5 ft MLLW. Throughout the site,generally,the sediment right at the toe of the bulkhead was a mixture of coarse and fine gravelly material with patches of cobble.Bands of coarse and fine gravel were observed ranging from 4 ft to 35 ft wide along the upper beach area,and then the sediment transitioned to sand/shell material approximately 60 ft from the bulkhead.This change in material size from gravel to sand/shell is the sediment transition boundary(Figure B6).The data associated with substrate composition and slope is attached to the end of this appendix. Biota observed in the upper intertidal included dried ulvoids,which was common up near the bulkhead,and patchy macrophyte cover within the larger substrate material(Fucus sp.).There were acorn barnacles(Balanus sp.)on woody debris and rocks,and occasional mussel(Mytilus sp.)shells. Of the upper beach habitat observed,no sediment was found to be suitable for surf smelt since most of the gravel tended to be larger than 0.3 inches in diameter.Similarly,there were no small pockets of sand(<0.2 inches)considered to be suitable for sand lance spawning. May 2o3.6 Page 9 SAKE ----Mean Lower Low Water(MLLW)0. 1Hµ 34-00141 ----3.0'MLLW Vertical Transect 1 ------Horizontal Transect 12221�300150 ` ———Sediment Transition Boundary 10-Foot Contour Bulkhead _ Boat Ramp JUNOR REV TRUST [�Tax Parcels 12228-21-00010 , Q Project Area 1 GILKINSON ` 1 / , 12228-21-00020 1 1 r 1 \ 1 V3 / of r PINCKNEYTRS J , _' ' 1 0 12228-21.00030 \ MAZANTI 42228-21-80 r ! , , , 1 ' 292 1 IVZ 1 1 1 PINCKNEY TRS I Old Ramp 12228-21-00041 BW R mp SCHULTZ ` 12228-21-90043 Notes: 1.Thal elevations referenced to Allyn,WA ` (NOAA Station ID 9446281).Datum was c.crr,,rz transformed from NAVD88 to MLLW. :ra 1 000�r. i q ' PINCKNEY ET VIR 2.The project area(Parcel 12225-21-80292) 12228-21-90042 was surveyed by Agate Land Surveying in 2015.The configuration differs slightly from the Mason County tax parcels.It will be re- I surveyed in June to confirm boundaries. N 3.Mean Higher High Water(14.2')occurs at ( I the bulkhead. Sources: 1►� Mazanti North Bay Biological Evaluation ,,., Coordinate Systerrv. Agate Land Surveying 2015 Survey j WA State Plane South, Confluence 2014 Field Data NAD 83,Plane So th, Mason County Tax Parcels .ITAY OR y CONFLUENCE US Univ of Washington Elev Data 0 t00 200 Feet 1"VI"O".1WAL cOMr4."Y �it E BK Survey FOOL Scale:1:1,000 Prepared By:E McCormick,Cascade GIS&Consulting Approved By:M Meaders,Confluence Environmental Prepared For:D Taylor,Taylor Shellfish Date:5/3/2016 Figure B4 Overview of Transect Lines Surveyed on August g, z02.4 Note:The tidal range of the shellfish growing area is-4.5 to+S.o ft MLLW.Transect locations are representative of habitat characteristics of the entire site. May 2oi6 Page io o Larninaria sp. HANUSAKER Barnacle ,zzz,-aa.00,a1 � ' Mean Lower Low Water(MLLW) 0.0' 1 N4SER 1 --- 3.0'MLLW I2221-J330160 1 +5.0'MLLW 1 , - — -Sediment Transition Boundary 10-Foot Contour ' -- ---Bulkhead JUNOR REV TRUST 1 , Fucus sp. 12228-21-00010 ' Ulva and Burrowing Shrimp '1 t Boat Ramp O GILKINSON Tax Parcels 12228-21-00020 , \\ Project Area 1 �- o MAZAN 1`1 12Gt8,.1.BQ•92. ' aj(.� 1 - PINCKNEYTRS 12228-21-00030 O OO p�.'.CKNO 'R2 •f .�� �. 1 Old Ramp\ � �R mp scrluLrz ` 1222&21-900E3 1 Notes: 1 , 1 1.Tidal elevations referenced to Allyn,WA (NOAA Station ID 9446281).Datum was SCHULTZ 1 transformed from NAVD88 to MLLW. 12228-21.00040 1 1 PINCKNEY ET VIR 2.The project area(Parcel 12228-21-80292) ' ' ' 12228-21-90042 was surveyed by Agate Land Surveying in 2015.The configuration differs slightly from 1 the Mason County tax parcels.It will be re- surveyed in June to confirm boundaries. N 3.Mean Higher High Water(14.2')occurs at I I I the bulkhead. , ( Mazanti North BayBiological Evaluation Sources:atand Surveying 2015 g Coordinate system 9 Y g i WA State Plane South, Confluence 2014 Field Data TAVIOR ,N< Biological Resources NAID 83,NAVD88 Mason County Tax Parcels SIEl111S1 CONFLUENCE US Survey Foot Univ of Washington Elev Data tiwr 0 50 100 200Feel ENVIepNMENlA4COMfA ,p;; scale: 000 Prepared By:E McCormick,Cascade GIs&Consulting Approved By:M Meaders,Confluence Environmental Prepared For.D Taylor,Taylor Shellfish Date:5/3/2016 Figure B5 Biological Resources seen on Mazanti North Bay site visit on August g, 2014. May 2o16 Page ii Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey_ CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY y . f' 5 +t y't' .•1 x ,�iv x`''�- `ice"k�..�ci�e�!':t""�4 �. '� a.� `}.'; ,��?!.o�{-s,: ch - - x ;i-t �'� �' ' �" •.ter! a fi `•1 ter- ` Figure B6 Upper Beach Substrate in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area Note:The red line in the photograph depicts the sediment transition boundary. 4.2.2 Lower Intertidal Habitat The lower intertidal was primarily sand substrate with minimal structure and was characterized by 9 horizontal transect lines and 3 vertical transect lines (Figure 134),which included representative habitat proposed for geoduck clam and Pacific oyster aquaculture. Video footage was recorded within a tidal elevation range of about-2.1 ft to-0.5 ft MLLW. An additional transect was visually surveyed down to about-4.10 ft MLLW, and dGPS points were collected for isolated occurrences of Laminaria sp. within this lower elevation (Figure B5). Substrate within the lower intertidal area was typical of sandflat habitat in that it was relatively homogenous and composed primarily of sand dominated by burrowing shrimp (likely Neotrypaea californiensis)mounds and trace shell material (Figure B7). The slope was gradual; primarily a 1%slope. The beach had moderate vegetative cover with pockets of macroalgae ranging from 5 to 90 percent coverage.Macroalgae within the project area included primarily ulvoids,with some occurrences of Gracilaria/Sarcodiotheca sp., and Laminaria sp.Macroalgae was primarily a product of drift deposition.The only rooted macrophytes were Gracilaria and Sarcodiotheca sp.within or near the expanded project area. Laminaria sp.located in the lower May 2oi6 Page 12 L'mft Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY portion of the project area may have been loosely attached to sand grains,but were still ' considered drift because there was no hard substrate for attachment. AW r � Figure B7 Lower Intertidal Habitat in the Proposed Mazanti North Bay Project Area Note:The red line in the photograph depicts the sediment transition boundary. 4.3 Epibenthic Fauna, Benthic Infauna, and Other Macrofauna The following information is a description of the invertebrate species zonation observed, observations of fish species, and characterization of potential spawning habitat for upper beach forage fish(e.g.,Pacific sand lance and surf smelt)potentially present in the Mazanti North Bay project area. 4.3•I Invertebrate Species Zonation Species that made up the epibenthic and benthic fauna were segregated by substrate material size.In the upper beach habitat,more sessile organisms were noted (i.e., acorn barnacles and mussels)and crabs(Hemigrapsus sp.).The middle and lower intertidal areas (sandflat habitat) were dominated by invasive mudflat snails(Batillaria attramentaria)and burrowing shrimp mounds (coincident with ulvoids). Scattered crab shells (just after a molting) and moon snail shells were observed throughout the intertidal habitat(Figure B8). May 2oi6 Page 13 Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY • {J 411 S { } Y a !:�•�' I'hoto I Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 1: Moon snail shell (Euspira lewisii) Photo 2: Mudflat snail (Batillaria attramentaria) { Photo 3:Graceful crab shell(Carinus gracilis) } Photo 4: Kelp crab(Pugettia productus) Photo 5:Ulvoid (Ulva or Ulvaria sp.)and Sarcodiotheca sp. Photo 4 Photo 5 Figure B8 Invertebrate and Macroalgae Species Observed in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area May=6 Page 14 C"ft Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Other species present in the lower intertidal included clams(Macoma sp.,Leukoma staminea), ' cockles(Clinocardium nuttallii),mussels(Mytilus sp.), oysters(Crassostrea gigas)and anemones (Epiactis sp.).More mobile organisms were present(i.e.,crabs),but no tube-dwelling species (e.g.,polychaetes)were observed.The presence of burrowing shrimp was likely restricting burrowing organisms from colonizing the area.Table B2 provides a list of epibenthic fauna and benthic infauna observed. Table B2 Epibenthic Fauna, Benthic Infauna, and Other Organisms Identified in the Mazanti North Bay Project Area on August g, 2014 Phylum Family Species Scientific Name Common Name Cnidaria Actiniidae Epiactis sp. Anenome (anemones and jellies) Balanidae Balonusspp. Acorn barnacle Arthropoda,Crustacea Grapsidae Hemigrapsus oregonensis Hairy shore crab Cancridae Carinus gracilis Graceful crab (crabs and shrimps) U o ebiidae* Neot p g rypaeacaliforniensis Burrowing shrimp mounds Epialtidae Pugettia productus Northern kelp crab Naticidae Euspira lewisii Moon snail Cardiidae Clinocardium nuttallii Heart cockle Mytilidae Mytilus californianus California mussel Gastr opoda(snails)usca Mytilidae Mytilus trossulus Pacific blue mussel astr Bivalvia(clams,oysters, Psammobiidae Nuttallia obscurato Purple varnish clam* and mussels) Tellinidae Macoma secta Macoma clam Veneridae Leukoma staminea Pacific littleneck clam Ostreidae Crassostrea gigas Pacific oyster Batillariidae Batillaria attramentaria Mudflat snail *Tentative ID 4.3•2 Fish Observations Five types of fish typically occur in south Puget Sound: (1)anadromous fish, (2) rockfish, (3) flatfish, (4)sculpin,and(5)forage fish.Anadromous fish include salmonids,bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and eulachon(Thaleichthys pacificus), although bull trout and eulachon are relatively rare in south Puget Sound.Rockfish species include the three Endangered Species Act listed rockfish,bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis),canary rockfish(S.pinniger),and yelloweye rockfish(S. ruberrimus),and other more common species of rockfish found in south Puget Sound such as copper rockfish (S. caurinus),brown rockfish(S. auriculatus),and quillback rockfish(S. maliger). Flatfish species include those common to intertidal habitat,such as English sole(Parophrys vetulus),starry flounder(Platichthys stellatus)and sand sole(Psettichthys melanostictus).Sculpin found within intertidal habitat typically include staghorn(Leptocottus armoratus)and sharpnose sculpin(Clinocottus acuticeps).Forage fish in south Puget Sound typically include the three main species in Puget Sound (i.e.,Pacific sand lance,surf smelt,and Pacific herring). May 2o16 Page i5 Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Of the above fish,no anadromous or rockfish were observed, although these species are found in south Puget Sound and assumed to be present based on more detailed shoreline surveys (Palsson 2009,WDFW 2016b,2016c).The flatfish English sole(Parophrys vetulus)was observed while walking around the tideline at 10:50 am on August 9,2014 near low tide. A few other fish were observed within the project area.For example,sculpin(Cottidae sp.) and surf perch (Embiotocidae family)were observed swimming along the low tideline at 11:15 am August 9, 2014. No forage fish were observed. 4.3.3 Potential Forage Fish Spawning Habitat There was no documented spawning habitat for surf smelt or sand lance within the project or action areas(WDFW 2016a).The closest documented surf smelt spawning habitat is approximately 150 ft to the north(1993, 1994,and 1995 surveys).The closest documented sand lance spawning habitat is approximately 2.9 miles to the southwest(WDFW 2016a). Based on the 1993, 1994, and 1995 surveys, a total of approximately 1.6 miles of shoreline was considered suitable (e.g., right size structure, overhanging vegetation present,lack of organic material[wrack] covering the substrate)in the vicinity of the project area (WDFW 2016a). However, at the time of the surveys,WDFW did not indicate suitable sites for forage fish spawning in the project area.The lack of suitable habitat may have been due to embedded gravel,materials too large for spawning, or other obstructions. The forage fish spawning and holding area maps are provided at the end of this appendix. There is no documented spawning habitat for Pacific herring within the project area(Stick et al. 2014).The closest documented holding area is approximately 12.5 miles to the south and the closest documented spawning area is 13 miles to the southwest.The Pacific herring spawning and holding area maps are provided at the end of this appendix. 4.4 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development There is a large house adjacent to the Mazanti North Bay project area with a small shed-like structure on the northeastern end of the property. Landward of the property is a large manicured lawn with two black walnut trees closest to the bulkhead. There is a series of bulkheads extending the length of the property and on the immediate north and south sides of the property line(see Figure B9). The house above the project area is located on the eastern portion of the property,landward of the bulkhead. The nothernmost bulkhead is made of rip-rap (boulders)measuring 54 ft long, 3 ft high, and 1-ft wide.The southernmost bulkhead is the same material measuring 34 ft long, 3 ft high, and 1-ft wide.A set of stone slab stairs resides between the set of bulkheads measuring 4.3 ft long,3.7 ft high, and 3.4 ft wide. May 2oi6 Page 16 - Appendix B. Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY � Shed-like structure a,- ,-� Rock slab stairs - - ' � Figure B9 Land Use Associated with the Mazanti North Bay Project Area The shed-like structure is located just northeast of the house,landward of the bulkheads,with a paved driveway extending from the house to the attached garage.Directly south of the house, garage, and driveway is a 145-ft long dirt trail to the boat launch.Seaward of the trail is a concrete boat launch on the grass measuring 32 ft long,3 inches high,and 9 ft wide. The section of concrete boat launch extending onto the beach measures 49 ft long and 11.3 ft wide (Figure 139). According to Mason County(2016),the land use surrounding the Mazanti North Bay project area is residential.The area surrounding the Mazanti North Bay property is characterized by single family houses lining the shoreline. These houses are close to the water and each have a protective bulkhead seaward of their home.Behind each house runs Washington State Route 302,and on the eastern side of the road there is a largely forested area(Figure B10). Approximately 0.25 miles away from the Mazanti North Bay property,there is a large Christmas tree farm called Bay View Farm which spans roughly 0.25 miles east to west. Land and water use of the area would include recreational clamming,beach walking,and boating within Case Inlet. May=6 Page 17 Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY � tw 'IMF N•-. � T1��.1 •'tx:►..+"�a "�'Z^�' .t:.�i 1 t r eta, N�'�. 7 i Figure Bzo Surrounding Land Use Associated with the Mazanti North Bay Project Area 5.0 SUMMARY A geoduck farm is proposed for tidelands associated with the Mazanti North Bay project area in Case Inlet. The proposed farm would occur between intertidal elevations extreme low up to +5.0 ft MLLW,for a total of 1.27 acres. Habitat associated with the riparian and intertidal areas are typical of south Puget Sound ecology. The shoreline riparian vegetation is typical of a manicured lawn with a single-family residence located above the project area. The upper intertidal habitat was characterized as being dominated by gravel/sand substrate with a 1%to 17%gradient.A sediment transition boundary(where sediment transitioned from gravel/cobble to sand and shell material)was located at a tidal elevation ranging from-0.5 ft to-0.1 ft MLLW.Aquatic vegetation in this area was patchy in distribution and dominated by Fucus sp. and ulvoids. The lower intertidal habitat was composed of relatively homogenous substrate material (sand/silt and trace shell material)and had primarily a 1%slope.There were pockets of macroalgae ranging up to 90 percent coverage.Macrophytes within the lower intertidal habitat were dominated by ulvoids, with the occasional Gracilaria sp., Sarcodiotheca sp., and Fucus sp. Invertebrate species zonation followed a pattern typical of south Puget Sound, including more sessile organisms and crabs within the upper beach habitat and burrowing shrimp in the lower May 2oi6 Page A �' Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY intertidal habitat.Other invertebrates identified included anemones,barnacles,crabs,invasive ' mud snails,moon snails,cockles,mussels,native clams, and oysters. Potentially suitable spawning habitat for sand lance and surf smelt was not observed on the project area.There is no documented spawning habitat for surf smelt,sand lance,or Pacific herring within the project area (WDFW 2016a). In summary,the proposed Mazanti North Bay project area was considered typical for habitat associated with south Puget Sound. The substrate and tidal elevations within the project area proposed for shellfish aquaculture were considered suitable habitat for all three proposed species(geoduck clams,Manila clams,and Pacific oysters). 6.o REFERENCES Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.2015a. Marine invertebrates of Puget Sound.University of Washington Tacoma Center for Urban Waters,Puget Sound Institute,Tacoma, Washington http://www.eol2u&etsound.org/articles/marine-invertebrates-puget-sound (accessed on February 13,2015). Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.2015b.Marine invertebrates of Puget Sound. University of Washington Tacoma Center for Urban Waters, Puget Sound Institute, Tacoma, Washington hU://www.eol2u&etsound.org/articles/marine-invertebrates-12uget-sound (accessed on February 13,2015). Kozloff,E. 1993.Seashore life of the northern Pacific Coast:An illustrated guide to northern California,Oregon,Washington,and British Columbia.University of Washington Press. Seattle,Washington. Kozloff,E.N. 1996. Marine invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press,Seattle,Washington. Mason County.2016.Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update:Draft Shoreline Environmental Designations. http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community dev/shoreline master program/SMP SED Ma p Feb%202016.12df(accessed on May 3,2016). 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. Mugga Ekonomisk 176rening(Mugga).2015. Invertebrate species photos and identification. http://www.mugga.se/(accessed on February 13,2015). NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).2014.Tide predictions and corrections for Station ID 9446281 (Allyn,WA)and Station ID 9446484(Tacoma,WA). May 2o3.6 Page ig Appendix B: Mazanti North Bay Nearshore Survey CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Seattle,Washington hU://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tide 12redictions.html?gid=259 (accessed on October 7, 2014). Palsson,W.A.,T.S.Tsou, G.G.Bargmann,R.M.Buckley,J.E.West,M.L.Mills,Y.W. Chen&and R.E. Pacunski.2009.The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program,Fish Management Division. 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. Stick,K.C.,A.Lindquist,and D.Lowry.2014.2012 Washington State herring stock status report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program,Fish Management Division. WDFW.2008. Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington.June 2008. WDFW.2016a. Forage Fish Spawning Map.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,Washington hU://wdfw.mal2s.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=1968f74e2d4l470cb d80blaf8dedd6b3&extent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.078l#! (accessed on February 11,2016) WDFW.2016b. Priority habitats and species on the Web. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/ (accessed February 10,2016). WDFW.2016c.SalmonScape Digital Mapper:Documented and Potential Forage Fish Spawning. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html(accessed February 10,2016). WSU Beach Watchers(Washington State University Beach Watchers).2015. EZ-ID Guides. Washington State University Extension,Coupeville, Washington http://beachwatchers.wsu.edu/ezidweb/(accessed on February 13,2015). May 2016 Page 20 Site Photographs This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing ..pw... CONFLUENCE INbIRONMfMAI.COMPANY 1 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS t Photo z— View of the project area and house from Case Inlet. Wr Photo z—View of Case Inlet from project area. oz/io/zoi6 Page i CONFLUENCE Site Photographs ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY .............................. tM - ,- Photo 3—Facing north from northern end of project area. r�ux, k AT Photo 4—Facing south from northern end of project area. oz/io/zoi6 Page 2 Site Photographs CONFLUENCE - -- ---- ENVIRONMENTAL.CUM'ANY �z},,_"es fib: �.. ,n ::. :. -_. } ��' •i' v ^ia;��. �+c. :*,�,5-S_'},., �� rsw_�a. ti. �"`Y_,1V.r x �Y'�,4 P •• `y'`�vL .F� z«l� _ '! .F$�t +�^-.v�^' r '+.. l �.'��*Va Photo 5-Property owner's house,lawn, and trees to the east of the project area. '1 raY Photo 6-Bulkhead separating intertidal zone from lawn. s oz/io/zoi6 Page 3 CONFLUENCE Site Photographs ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY .............................. ------------ e t •Y`�". m . Photo 7—New ramp for water access on eastern side of project area. ±",.J° _ � I � ..Yam'+�.�'?➢� ��h' Photo 8—Old, decrepit ramp on eastern side of project area. oz/io/zoi6 Page 4 DNR Data Sheets This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing SHORELINE INVENTORY OVERVIEW PAGE BEACH Name: Month: O�C�ay: Year: a �5�Water Body: /-4o�� Tide Level: - e TIME I PM COUNTY: CLIENT Representative: _iv�*. f . - Zone 3. Bluff/Bank -AT MID POINT ENTIRE SECTION IF THIS SECTION DOES NOT HAVE A IF THIS SECTION DOES NOT HAVE A ❑ Mud/Silt Are SAND/MIXED ❑ Not dominant BACKSHORE AT THE MID POINT, please BLUFF OR BANK, please write"N/A"for the Dominant substrate write"N/A"for the"width of the backshore "Bluff or bank resent"and move to Part 4. in the UPPER El Mixed fine � FINES dominant El Patchy Zone"and move on to Part 3. intertidal. El Sand along the shore? Continuous ENTIRE SECTION • Measure 30 feet 21 Mixed coarse •Check one. AT MID POINT Is BLUFF or BANK [9 Yes DOWN the beach EELGRASS 9] None WIDTH of the feet p ❑ No ❑ Gravel resent? from the intertidal/ ❑ Cobble coverage. ❑ Patchy backshore zone •Check one. __ backshore break, ElRock/boulder •Check one. El Continuous ElMud/Silt Maximum HEIGHT feet turn around. El Shells ❑ Mixed fine of bluff or bank. • Check one. Eelgrass SPECIES El _ ❑ Hardpan .Check all that ❑ Marina Dominant substrate ❑ Sand Vegetation ON the ❑ None in the BACKSHORE. ❑ Mixed coarse bluff or bank. R Patchy WIDTH of intertidal. feet apply. ❑ Japonica •Along the mid- ❑ Gravel •Check one. ❑ Continuous TIME of —8 M Is KELP offshore? �7 Yes point transect. ❑ Cobble Unvegetated ❑ None • Check one. measurement. __ •Check one. ❑ No J1 Rock/boulder SCARS. �, ❑ Patchy __.__.. p- ' V Continuous ❑ Mud/Slt ❑ None El Shells Cr ) •Check one. ❑ Dominant ❑ Mixed fine ALGAE coverage _ ❑ Hardpan Bottom of bluff a None substrate in the •Check one. KJ Patchy ENTIRE SECTION UNDERCUT. � Sand ❑ Continuous ❑ Patchy LOWER intertidal. •Check one. Continuous ❑ Mixed Coarse Are SAND/PEA (Maximum size of Dominant ❑ None •Measure 30 feet ❑ Gravel GRAVEL dominant pea gravel) ATTACHED ❑ Grasses/herbs UP the beach from an u the water line,turn ❑ Cobble here� Y`N just vegetation. El Shrubs 4InvasiveSpecies below the to of El Not dominant . Check one El Rock boulder p Patchy ,� Trees ENTIRE SECTION around. the intertidal? •Check one. ❑ Shells •Check one. ❑ Continuous Vegetation ❑ None Are INVASIVE species present? -- COVERAGE fR Patchy •Check Yes or No for each. ❑ Hard an ! Vegetation ❑ None �,u •Check one. ❑ Continuous European green crab ❑ Yes 59 No won OVERHANGING 4 Patchyy Vegetation OVER- El Sargassum ❑ Yes the intertidal zone. (u;c�'� ,® No •Check__one. ❑ Continuous HANGING the 01 Patchy Spartina ❑ Yes 7� No Are an of these features backshore. ❑ Continuous y Spit O Yes l�'No •Check one. _ _ English ivy ❑ Yes S No present? Are any of these features present? Hedge bindweed ❑ Yes IS No •Check Yes or No for each. Bar ❑ Yes M No • Check Yes or No for each. Himalayan blackberry ❑ Yes N No •Draw each on the site Tombolo ❑ Yes ® No Marsh ❑Yes VI No sketch. Marsh ❑ Yes R No Dunes ❑Yes No - Driftwood ❑Yes � No Japanese knotweed ❑ Yes ® No I ADDITIONAL NOTES: - Purple loosestrife ❑ Yes © No Scotch broom 11 Yes W No • Use 6. Streams, Outfalls, and Other DischargesSECTION .E SECTION Number of OUTFALLS. ❑ Number •Check one. • If there are no outfalls in this section,please check"none"and move on to Part 7. .sere TRAILS or IS Number I _ PS None PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS FOR UP TO THREE OF THE MOST ACTIVE OUTFALLS: Aths leading to this ❑ section? El None OUTFACE 1 Creek ❑Seep OUTFACE 2 ❑ Creek ❑ Seep OUTFACE 3 [3 Creek ❑ Seep •Check one. •Check one. ❑Ditch El River •Check one ❑ Ditch ❑ River •Check ❑ Ditch ❑ River El .Not visible ❑Pipe ❑ Pipe one. ❑ Pipe DOMINANT Outfall diameter inches Outfall diameter inches Outfall diameter inches ❑ Industrial structure Check Yes or No for each: Check Yes or No for each: Check Yes or No for each: ADJACENT land ❑Commercial structure Flow ❑Yes ❑No Flow ❑Yes ❑ No Flow ❑Yes ❑ No use? • Please indicate the 91 Residential structure Discoloration of water ❑Yes ❑No Discoloration of water ❑Yes ❑ No Discoloration of water ❑Yes ❑ No ONE dominant type ❑ Paved road, path or lot Associated odor ❑Yes ❑No Associated odor ❑Yes ❑ No Associated odor ❑Yes ❑ No of land use you ❑Railroad Erosion ❑Yes ❑No Erosion ❑Yes ❑ No Erosion ❑Yes ❑ No observe that is ❑ Pasture Dead animals ❑Yes ❑No Dead animals ❑Yes ❑ No Dead animals ❑Yes ❑ No immediately adjacent ❑ to the backshore or Crops Darkened sediment ❑Yes ❑No Darkened sediment [3 Yes ❑ No Darkened sediment ❑ ❑Yes No the beach. ❑Lawn Algae growth []Yes ❑No Algae growth ❑Yes ❑ No Algae growth ❑Yes ❑ No •Check one. ❑Goff coarse Debris/trash ❑Yes ❑No Debristtrash ❑Yes ❑ No Debris/trash ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Undevelo ed/natural Oil slicks/sheens ❑Yes []No Oil slicks/sheens ❑Yes ❑ No Oil slicks/sheens ❑Yes ❑ No 7. Shoreline Structures — ENTIRE SECTION 8. Species Identification — ENTIRE SECTION Number of STRUCTURES. •Check one. SPECIES COUNT LOCATION 4Ll Number •If there are no structures,check"none"and move on to Part 8. •Common names okay •Check one. • In the water,on the water, intertidal, ❑None PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS FOR UP TO FOUR OF THE 1 2-5 >5 backshore,upland,in flight,etc. LARGEST STRUCTURES: 1 19 !rQ(, ev t4,441.ee STRUCTURE 1 Pier/dock STRUCTURE 2 ❑ Pier/dock 2 ❑ ❑ 91 •Check one. J7 Bulkhead/seawall •Check one. ❑ Bulkhead/seawall 3 cL.' ❑ ❑ ® �' " ❑ Jetty/groin ❑ Jetty/groin 4 14 ❑ ❑ ❑ DikeAevee [I Dike/levee 5 ca ❑ ❑ B I 1 �� ❑ Launch/ramp S Launch/ramp 6 ❑ ❑ Other: I-] Other: 7 I, �: ❑ El from: i Made from: c4k,,:Ark, Distance to plot: Of M 0 1 Distance to plot: _{G 0 of YW 1.1 8 1 ❑ ❑ 19 Height: 3 feet Height: C)feet 9 ❑ 12 El Width: I feet a r` Width: I�� feet 10 ❑ ❑ ED Length: �fe'51 Length: Poor feet 11 El CONDITION ❑ Poor 5 �5 CONDITION ❑ oor 12 ❑ ® ❑ t •Check one. ❑ Excellent k Good �6" •Check one. El Excellent 13 Q �' El ❑ I STRUCTURE 3 ❑ Pier/dock STRUCTURE 4 El4 f Pier/dock 1rQ tc ra r ❑ ❑ •Check one. ❑ Bulkhead/seawall •Check one. 0 Bulkhead/seawall 9. Vegetation SECTION [IJetty/groin ElJetty/groin BACKSHORE/UPLAND species INTERTIDAL species ❑ Dike/levee ❑ Dike/levee •Common names okay. •Common names okay. Launch/ramp ❑ Launch/ramp 1 1 Other: ❑ Other: 2 �' r 2 La e Made from: ' Made from: Q- r k 3 3 Distance to plot: q/ of!'lJ I• Distance to plot: Height: iAtk feet Height: feet 4 4 F 5 5 Width: feet Width: feet - Length: feet Length: feet 6 6G C CONDITION 12 Poor CONDITION ❑ Poor 7 7 [3 Good El Good 8 8 .Check one. 0 Excellent Check one. Excellent 9 9 EC LOGY wm u mmm suu CoasW Atlas t3;t;, nrn�,t•. t ot7end Tools Search C.eN.Rd— , •ice ;� W victor — — kk srougtton .•�Eta• � .�`', �� o Y� �<� I• `E V.tlar.RiOprr� pew- • N• ,�". •. v k M w Y l I Manzanti -�i Sediment Transect and Slope Data This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Table B-1.Substrate Transect Data Transect Total Percent ft Substrate Composition# length(ft) Length(ft) Boulder : . Cobble 0-1 0 0 50 0 0 50 1-5 0 0 20 60 0 20 present 6 0 0 10 60 10 20 6-12.5 0 0 20 50 20 10 dried,wrack at 12.5 ft 12.5-20 0 0 40 10 50 0 20-22.5 0 0 20 40 40 0 MV 1.1 225+ 22.5-28 0 0 20 40 40 0 28-38 0 0 80 10 8 2 38-57 0 90 0 0 0 10 57-61 0 30 0 10 10 50 present 61-87 0 0 0 40 40 20 87-110 0 30 15 0 50 5 present 110-121 0 0 15 20 50 15 present 121-225+ 0 0 0 0 95 5 0-2 75 0 10 5 5 5 2-7 0 3 5 10 80 2 dried,wrack at 4.5 ft 7-13 5 0 3 5 85 5 2 13 5-19 0 3 45 50 2 0 19-26.5 0 5 40 40 10 5 26-5-29 0 5 60 30 3 2 MV 2.1 300 29-35 0 20 60 1S 3 2 few 35-46 0 60 15 10 3 12 present 46-59 0 5 10 70 5 10 59-80.5 0 10 15 i5 5 20 present attached 80.5-90 0 0 15 30 35 20 present attached 90-109 0 5 30 10 25 30 present attached 109-115 0 0 io 5 80 5 present attached 115-300 0 0 0 0 99 1 0-4 0 5 10 6o 10 5 dried,wrack at 2.6 ft 4-10.5 0 3 80 16 0 1 10.5-21 0 20 s0 25 4 1 21-39 0 20 60 10 1 9 39-51 0 50 25 10 1 14 few MV 3.1 300+ 51-64 0 60 10 20 5 5 present present 64-70 0 0 5 10 75 5 7o-8i 0 0 0 1 95 4 81-105 0 20 10 10 30 30 105-114 0 0 5 5 75 15 114-300 o O o 0 100 0 CONFLUENCE t.NVI RUN MEN TA I.COMPANY Table B-2. Slope Transect Data 0-11.7 -9 11.7-6o -12 1 225 6o-103.2 -4 103.2-121 -1 121-225 -4 0-5 -8 5-25.8 -13 25.8-44 -10 2 300 44-59 -4 59-85 -7 85-98.4 -5 9 8.4-116 -7 116-3oo -3 0-3.2 -17 3.2-10.8 -12 1o.8-36.5 -9 3 300 36.5-66 -12 66-82 -4 82-94 -5 94-116 -6 116-3oo -2 Note:lengths of slope transect segments may be different from substrate transect lengths because different features were recorded for each. Forage Fish Spawning Map This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing s Home - Forage Fish Spawning Map-Washington State DNalls Il BasemaD eb Share v print Measure - - r G About [E Content }. Legend _ j Forage Fish Spawning Data r.�' ! � �z}t•'!� 4 ?., :��r x •� w�I�, Sand Lance Spawning t+rt 7�.r �" S:It Spawning � ' ry µ .. ti �. • ' j)�A J•t' '(7� Ar� >7r ✓ Herring Spawning r,$� �c.:d; ,,. .j'. / .ry r `. f R± 4, c pre-spawner Nerrrinq Holding Areas i T y ' f County Boundaries s: a County Boundaries I fW • - Mazanti Project Area - �• i • s r .l r w+ k r ` "tfi r F or 11 41* Efn. m Help Tema of uY erwaty Copt ct Eui i Appendix C Essential Fish Habitat Assessment This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY APPENDIX C ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ACTION AGENCY U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District LOCATION The proposed project area is located in Mason County at the north end of Case Inlet in south Puget Sound.The"project area"is defined as the aquatic lands located at Township 22N,Range 01 W,Section 28.The proposed project is to grow geoduck clams(Panopea generosa),Manila clams(Venerupis philippinarum),and Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas)at commercial densities. The project area would include one parcel spanning a total of 1.30 acres,and the habitat available for culture would be a total of 1.27 acres ranging from a tidal elevation of extreme low tide(typically-4.5 feet[ft])and up to+5 ft mean lower low water(MLLW). The Biological Evaluation(BE)prepared for this project has a more detailed description of the project and culture areas. PROJECT NAME Mazanti North Bay Shellfish Farm Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Analysis 1.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND 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 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat(EFH). EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding,feeding,or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). This assessment evaluates the impacts of the proposed project to determine whether it"may adversely affect" designated EFH for federally managed fisheries species in the proposed action area.The BE describes conservation measures to avoid,minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects of the proposed action on critical habitat for Endangered Species Act(ESA) listed species,which also includes habitat designated as EFH. 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH Groundfish,coastal pelagic,and salmonid fish species that could have designated EFH in the action area are listed in Table C1.Several of these species are not typically found in the action May 203.6 Page i AppendixC: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY area due to lack of preferred habitat or occurrence in South Puget Sound. Assessment of the impacts on species that may occur in the action area is based on life-history stages described in Casillas et al. (1998) and PFMC (1998, 1999,2014). Table Ci Species of Fish with Designated Essential Fish Habitat in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name CommonName Scientific Name Groundfish Groundfish(cont.) arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias Pacific sanddab Cithorichthys sordidus big skate Raja binoculoto petrale sole Eopsetto jordani black rockfish Sebostes melanops quillback rockfish Sebastes moliger bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis ratfish Hydrologus colliei brown rockfish Sebastes ouriculatus redbanded rockfish Sebastes bobcocki butter sole Isopsetto isolepis redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger cabezon Scorpoenichthys mormorotus rex sole Glyptocepholus zachirus California skate Raja inornato rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineato canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger rosethorn rockfish Sebostes helvomaculatus China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus copper rockfish Sebastes courinus rougheye rockfish Sebastes oleutionus curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria darkblotch rockfish Sebastes cromeri sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Dover sole Microstomus pocificus sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus English sole Porophrys vetulus shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon spiny dogfish Squalus aconthias greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa hake Merluccius productus starry flounder Platichthys stellotus kelp greenling Hexagrammos decogrammus striptail rockfish Sebastes soxicola lingcod Ophiodon elongatus tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus longnose skate Rojo rhino vermilion rockfish Sebostes minictus Pacific cod Godus mocrocephalus yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flovidus Coastal Pelagic Salmonid Species market squid Loligo opolescens Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshowytscho northern anchovy Engroulis mordax coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscho Pacific mackerel Scomber joponicus Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax May 2o16 Page 2 �� Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 2.1 Species Presence in Action Area The following discussion includes the species (by major group)with designated EFH that are likely to occur in the proposed action area. 2.1.1 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 in the BE 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 rockfish (S. caurinus),brown rockfish(S. auriculatus), and quillback rockfish(S. maliger)(Bargmann et al. 2011).These three species are also the ones most frequently observed in south Puget 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 Puget Sound,and even increased during dive surveys between 1987 and 2003. Potential rockfish habitat exists in the project area,although structure is limited (sandflat habitat).Additional information specific to the project area and potential rockfish habitat is contained in the BE and Appendix B. In terms of flatfish potentially present in the proposed action area, there is potential habitat for species that typically spawn and rear in sand and mudflat habitat, such as English sole (Parophrys vetulus)and starry flounder(Platichthys stellatus).Larger flatfish, such as arrowtooth flounder(Atheresthes stomias),petrale sole(Eopsetta jordani), sand sole(Psettichthys melanostictus), and Pacific halibut(Hippoglossus stenolepis),would likely occur in the deeper waters.According to the PSAT(2007),most groundfish stocks are in good conditions in Puget Sound,although there are identified data gaps that may be hindering conservation efforts. Lance and Jeffries(2009)reported high proportions of midshipman(Porichthys notatus)and flatfish(primarily starry flounder and English sole)in harbor seal(Phoca vitulina) diets within South Sound.Diet data collected in 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 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. 2.1.2 Coastal Pelagic Species The coastal pelagic species that has the most amount of information in south Puget Sound is the northern anchovy(Engraulis mordax).Northern anchovy are pelagic schooling fish that utilize open water for broadcast spawning during late spring and summer months(Penttila 2007). Penttila (2007)noted that northern anchovy use nearshore habitats during parts of their life history.For example,young-of-the-year anchovies occur in the nearshore zone in the summer, May 2oi6 Page 3 %9 Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY presumably to feed on plankton.South Puget Sound surveys from 2003 and 2004 indicated that northern anchovy were mostly observed near Harstine Island,Squaxin Island,and Totten Inlet (Fagergren 2005).The northern anchovy was an important component of harbor seal diets in Hood Canal and San Juan Islands but not in south Puget Sound (Lance and Jeffries 2009). Because of the similarities in life history and habitat requirements,analysis of EFH for coastal pelagic species will treat all four species as a single complex.These fish are limited to waters above the thermocline where sea surface temperatures range between 10 and 26 degrees centigrade,which varies seasonally and annually(PFMC 2014). As of April 2016,the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(81 FR 19054) proactively banned commercial fishing of several types of forage fish species such as smelts (famil Osmeridae),Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes personatus),pelagic squids,and other fish where data was limited in terms of abundance and population status.These species are all considered a shared ecosystem component species,but NMFS will not designate EFH beyond what has already been identified for coastal pelagic species. Although the decision bans fishing on these species,only the coastal pelagic species identified in Table C1 above require consideration in an EFH analyses.That said,more information on potential effects to the surf smelt,sand lance,and Pacific herring is presented in the BE and additional information on existing spawning habitat is provided in Appendix B. 2.1.3 Salmonid Species WDFW(2016)identified two distinct stocks of salmonids that have designated EFH near Case Inlet: fall Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon(O.kisutch). As discussed in the BE,Chinook salmon from south Puget Sound are likely from hatchery releases. The only streams that have documented presence of Chinook salmon are Coulter Creek and Sherwood Creek located at the northern end of Case Inlet and Rocky Creek located at the northern end of Rocky Bay. Coho were documented in a number of streams and their tributaries including Coulter Creek,Rocky Creek,Sherwood Creek,and other small,unnamed creeks (WDFW 2016).There is documented spawning in the same watershed from other salmon species(e.g., chum [O. keta] and steelhead [O. mykiss]),however,these salmonids do not have designated EFH. 3.o DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Taylor Shellfish Farms(Taylor Shellfish)proposes to cultivate geoduck clam,Manila clam,and Pacific oyster at commercial densities along the northeastern shore of Case Inlet,within Mason County,Washington(Figure 1 in BE).The acreage of the proposed culture area is 1.27 acres. The proposed action includes four main activities: (1)planting and grow-out, (2)maintenance, (3)harvesting,and (4)support.A detailed description of the proposed project is presented in Section 3.0(Project Description)of the BE. May 2oi6 Page 4 1 i Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 4.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ' The Mazanti North Bay project area is within privately-owned tidelands.Land use surrounding the project area is residential.The shoreline riparian vegetation above the project area includes a manicured lawn and a few horticultural yard plants.Washington State Route 302 runs directly behind the house.The shoreline is developed with residential structures,which contributed to the patchy distribution of riparian vegetation.The intertidal habitat is characterized as a gently sloping sandflat.The upper intertidal is predominantly coarse sand and gravel.The mid-and lower intertidal habitat is dominated by sands and fines. There is macroalgae in the project area and surrounding habitat.During a site inspection conducted on August 9,2014,four species of macroalgae were documented,including ulvoids (Ulva and Ulvaria sp.), Gracilaria/Sarcodiotheca sp.,Laminaria sp.,and Fucus sp.There was no observed eelgrass(Zostera marina)in the project or action area(Ecology 2015,Appendix B). A detailed description of site characteristics is presented in Appendix B of the BE. 5.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT Section 6.0(Effects Analysis)of the BE describes,in detail,the potential impacts to habitat constituents important to ESA listed species,which are similar to those for EFH species.The analyses presented in the BE that addresses elements specific to EFH includes noise,water quality,sediment quality,sediment transport and bathymetry,migration,access, and refugia, forage fish,benthic infauna and epifauna,and aquatic vegetation. Elements of the analysis presented in the BE are reiterated or cross referenced below. PFMC(2014)mapped Habitat Areas of Particular Concern(HAPC)along the Pacific Coast. HAPCs are areas of habitat within EFH that may be ecologically important,sensitive to human- induced environmental degradation,stressed by development,and rare.In south Puget Sound, estuaries and seagrass were identified as HAPCs.The following discussion focuses on potential adverse effects to estuaries as they relate to the three main groups of fish species with designated EFH in the proposed action area. No seagrasses were identified in the project area. 5.1 Prey Resources One of the main concerns in terms of potential effects to habitat includes changes to prey resources from the use of shellfish aquaculture gear,specifically from the use of predator exclusion nets.Although these potential effects were discussed in Section 6.7 of the BE, additional details are provided in this section. The majority of literature related to effects from predator exclusion nets are from Manila clam or other hard clam culture,which maintains the nets for the entire culture cycle and is higher in the intertidal (above+3 feet mean lower low water on this site)compared to geoduck aquaculture.Based on a review of the pertinent literature, Powers et al. (2007)noted that May 2oi6 page 5 Ado Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY protective netting placed over hard clam aquaculture sites supported elevated densities of mobile invertebrates and juvenile fishes similar to natural seagrass habitats.A 5-year study of Manila clam culture in the River Exe,Devon, indicated that increased sedimentation under the netting 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(Spencer et al. 1996, 1997, 1998). Even in studies that have shown minor changes to the benthic communities,the effects persisted as long as the nets were in place and reverted to baseline conditions(or near baseline conditions) shortly after net removal or harvest(Simenstad and Fresh 1995,Spencer et al. 1998,Munroe and McKinley 2007). There are a limited number of studies that directly relate to geoduck aquaculture.Both the Department of Oceans and Fisheries(DFO)in British Columbia and the recent Washington Sea Grant(WSG)work looked at effects from predator exclusion netting associated with geoduck aquaculture.The DFO study reported an increase in benthic infauna abundance and diversity during the out-planting phase of geoduck aquaculture(Sauchyn et al.2013).WSG data also showed potential changes in certain salmonid prey items(e.g.,Americorophium amphipods)on predator exclusion nets,although the differences were not significant between the treatment and control plots(McDonald et al.2015). Overall,the effects from the use of predator exclusion nets used in Manila clam culture to potential prey resources for EFH species was seen as minor with a short-term recovery period. The predator exclusion nets used in geoduck aquaculture resulted in a neutral or slightly positive change for the infaunal community.Varying culture methods (e.g.,changing from Manila clam or geoduck culture to Pacific oyster culture)would allow for potential effects to recover from potential changes in prey resources. 5.2 Groundfish Species Many groundfish species have similar intertidal habitat requirements as those of juvenile salmon or rockfish.Specifically,they require an estuarine area free of obstruction and excessive predation;and water quality,water quantity,and salinity conditions promoting juvenile foraging opportunities that support the growth and maturation of the species,including aquatic invertebrates and fishes. Although potential effects were discussed in the BE in relation to habitat associated with ESA listed rockfish species,there was not a detailed discussion in relation to habitat associated with other groundfish species(e.g., flatfish).The following information provides a broader discussion on the potential effects related to: (1)presence of canopy nets and culture tubes(i.e., "gear'),and (2)increased turbidity and suspended sediments. According to McDonald et al. (2015), flatfish are reduced(but not excluded)from areas that use canopy nets.The data indicated that flatfish are reduced by about 50%in culture plots when gear is present compared to control plots. Flatfish were shown to increase after gear was May 2oi6 Page 6 �� Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY removed,but there was a persistent reduction of about 25%relative abundance between the ' two areas for at least a year(extent of observations).Although there may be a reduction of available flatfish habitat when gear is in place,this area is a small fraction of the total available habitat.The proposed shellfish aquaculture area represents approximately 1.27 acres of the intertidal habitat available in the project area.Therefore,presence of gear would likely have an insignificant effect on available habitat for groundfish species. Increased turbidity and suspended sediment is another potential direct effect that could result in short-term negative impacts to groundfish habitat,and a geoduck harvest represents the highest potential to disturb sediment.Flounder may show reduced feeding ability with increased turbidity(Moore and Moore 1976 as cited in Boehlert and Morgan 1985).However, geoduck harvest activities are limited in space(about 0.1 acres for one day) and duration(4 to 6 hours),and occur very infrequently compared to the entire culture cycle(i.e.,5 to 7 year grow- out period prior to harvest).Manila clam harvest activities have been shown(through video documentation)to increase flatfish feeding within the harvest area (Dewey,pers. comm.,2015). Pacific oyster harvesting is unlikely to affect suspended sediments or groundfish.Overall, shellfish aquaculture harvest activities would likely have an insignificant effect on spawning or rearing habitat of groundfish species. 5.2 Coastal Pelagic Species The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect EFH for coastal pelagic species because the project area is associated with the bottom of the water column. Harvest events would potentially make habitat in the water column temporarily unavailable,which is a conservative evaluation since estuarine fish often use turbidity as a refuge from predation(Boehlert and Morgan 1985).A geoduck harvest event is limited in space(about 0.1 acres for one day)and duration(4 to 6 hours),and occur very infrequently compared to the entire culture cycle(i.e.,5 to 7 year grow-out period prior to harvest).A Manila clam and oyster harvest event occurs more frequently(every 2 to 3 years),but is also limited in space and duration. If coastal pelagic species are present off-shore during harvest activities,they would likely avoid the area during the short(4-to 6-hour)harvest cycle.Therefore,project activities would likely have an insignificant effect on habitat of pelagic species. 5.3 Salmonid Species The primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat essential for the conservation of Chinook salmon within the action area include:an estuarine area free of obstruction and excessive predation;water quality,water quantity,and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater;natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders, and side channels;and juvenile and adult forage,including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,supporting growth and maturation.These would be the same elements considered for EFH associated with other salmonids in the action area. May 2oi6 Page 7 �j Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY Similar to the discussion of ESA listed salmonids in the BE,there are unlikely to be impacts to Chinook or coho salmon habitat found in the action area.Shellfish aquaculture has a short-term negative effect and long-term positive effect on water quality,and the proposed aquaculture does not pose a reduction in prey resources or obstructions to migration.Overall,the proposed action is expected to have an insignificant or beneficial effect on Pacific Coast salmon habitat in the project area. 6.o CONSERVATION MEASURES Implementing the conservation measures specified in Section 5.0 of the BE would avoid and minimize potential adverse effects of the proposed project.These measures are consistent with those outlined in the Taylor Shellfish(2016)Environmental Code of Practice, and additional relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the Corps from its consultation with the NMFS(2009,2011) and USFWS(2009)on Nationwide Permit 48.Avoidance of potential impacts,where possible, is the first priority. 7.0 CONCLUSION As described above,the proposed activity is not expected to cause adverse impacts on EFH parameters and should not reduce the overall value of the EFH of managed groundfish,coastal pelagic,or salmonid species. 8.o REFERENCES Bargmann,G., Palsson,W.,Burley, C.,Friedel,D.and Tsou T.2011.Environmental Impact Statement for the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,Washington. Boehlert,G.W.and J.B. Morgan. 1985.Turbidity enhances feeding abilities of larval Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasii.Hydrobiologia. 123: 161-170. Casillas, E., Crockett,L., deReynier,Y., Glock,J.,Helvey,M.,Meyer,B.,Schmitt,C.,Yoklavich, M.,Bailey,A.,Chao,B.,Johnson,B.,and Pepperell,T. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish Appendix.National Marine Fisheries Service,Seattle,Washington. Dewey,B.2015.Personal communication.Taylor Shellfish Farms.Regarding forage fish interactions associated with shellfish aquaculture gear.January 28,2015. Bi11D@taylorshellfish.com Ecology(Washington Department of Ecology).2015.Washington State Coastal Atlas. Washington State Department of Ecology,Olympia,Washington. https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx(accessed December 2,2015). 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://depts.washington.edu/uwconf/2005psgb/2005proceedings/papers/P1_FAGER.pdf May 2o16 Page 8 eaft Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY 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. McDonald,P.S.,A.W.E.Galloway,K.C.McPeek, and G.R.VanBlaricom.2015. Effects of geoduck(Panopea generosa Gould, 1850)aquaculture gear on resident and transient macrofauna communities of Puget Sound,Washington USA.Journal of Shellfish Research 34(1):137-145. Moore,J.W. and I.A.Moore. 1976.The basis of food selection in flounders,Platichthys flesus (L.) in the Severn estuary.J.Fish.Biol.9: 139-156. (as cited in Boehlert and Morgan 1985) Munroe,D.,and R.S.McKinley.2007.Commercial Manila clam(Tapes philippinarum)culture in British Columbia,Canada:The effects of predator netting on intertidal sediment characteristics. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science 72:319-328. NMFS(National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation,Silver Spring,Maryland. NMFS.2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington State.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service,Seattle,WA. 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. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service,Seattle,WA. 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. 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. PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998.The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan-Amendment 8(December 1998). Pacific Fishery Management Council,Portland,Oregon. PFMC. 1999.Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan-Appendix A,Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat,Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999). Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland,Oregon. May 2=6 Page 9 -�% Appendix C: Mazanti Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY PFMC.2014.Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan: For the California,Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery(May 2014). Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland,Oregon. 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. PSAT(Puget Sound Action Team).2007.2007 Puget Sound Update:Ninth Report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program.http://wdfw.wa.g_ov/12ublications/01051/ 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. 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. 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. Taylor Shellfish Farms(Taylor Shellfish).2016. Environmental Codes of Practice.Shelton, WA. Updated periodically by the Environmental Code Task Force(ECTF)and Taylor Shellfish Farms management. USFWS(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).2009.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,Olympia,Washington. March 2009. 198 pp. WDFW(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).2016. SalmonScape Digital Mapper: Documented and Potential Forage Fish Spawning.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html (accessed February 10,2016). May 2oi6 Page io CONFLUENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY