HomeMy WebLinkAboutRI01 Shellfish_PBA_30_Oct_2015Programmatic Biological Assessment
Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program
October 2015
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
This page intentionally left blank
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities i Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2.1. Regulatory Program Authority ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Program Implementation ............................................................................................................... 2
2.3. Consultation History ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.4. Purpose and Development of the PBA ......................................................................................... 3
3. Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Permitting Actions ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.1. Activity Reauthorization ....................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2. Continuing versus New Activities ........................................................................................ 6
3.1.3. Additional Notification Requirements .................................................................................. 7
3.1.4. Review of NWP 48 Verifications Issued in 2012 and 2013 ................................................. 7
3.1.5. Pending and Recently Authorized Activities ........................................................................ 7
3.1.6. Use as Reference BA and Coordination with the Services ................................................... 8
3.2. Geographic Extent ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Description of Shellfish Activities .............................................................................................. 11
3.4. Activity Acreage ......................................................................................................................... 40
3.5. Conservation Measures ............................................................................................................... 49
3.6. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ..................................................................................... 53
3.7. Pesticide Application .................................................................................................................. 54
3.8. Comparison with 2007 NWP 48 Consultation ............................................................................ 54
4. Action Area .......................................................................................................................................... 57
5. Status of the Species ............................................................................................................................. 58
6. Environmental Baseline ....................................................................................................................... 77
7. Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 83
7.1. Effects of Individual Activities ................................................................................................... 83
7.2. Spatial Extent and Frequency of Effects ..................................................................................... 89
7.3. Summary of Primary Effects by Region ..................................................................................... 97
7.4. Interrelated Effects .................................................................................................................... 101
7.5. Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 102
8. Effect Determinations......................................................................................................................... 103
9. Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 122
10. References .......................................................................................................................................... 127
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities ii Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendices
Appendix A. DRAFT Programmatic ESA Consultation SPIF ................................................................ A-1
Appendix B. Summary of aquaculture activities proposed in permit applications received to date ........ B-1
Appendix C Frequency of in-water shellfish activities ........................................................................... C-1
Appendix D. Continuing aquaculture and eelgrass .................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E. Proposed activities and forage fish spawning ..................................................................... E-1
Appendix F. Continuing aquaculture in-water activities ........................................................................... F-1
Appendix G. Continuing aquaculture with cover nets .............................................................................. G-1
Appendix H. Critical habitat overlap with proposed activities ................................................................. H-1
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities iii Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figures
Figure 3-1. Washington inland marine waters included within the geographic scope of the PBA. ............ 10
Figure 3-2. Penn Cove Shellfish mussel rafts and harvest barge ............................................................... 12
Figure 3-3. Commercial mussel raft in south Puget Sound ........................................................................ 13
Figure 3-4. Oyster cultch shell with spat stacked on pallets ...................................................................... 15
Figure 3-5. A FLUPSY .............................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-6. Oyster bottom culture and hummocks, Willapa Bay............................................................... 18
Figure 3-7. Hand harvest of oysters, South Puget Sound .......................................................................... 19
Figure 3-8. Oyster dredge in Willapa Bay ................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3-9. Oyster longline culture, Willapa Bay. ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 3-10. Oyster bag culture, south Puget Sound ................................................................................. 22
Figure 3-11. Oyster rack and bag tumbling system, South Puget Sound .................................................... 23
Figure 3-12. Adding gravel to a clam bed (i.e., graveling) ......................................................................... 25
Figure 3-13. Clam cover nets in South Puget Sound. ................................................................................ 26
Figure 3-14. Hand harvest of Manila clams. .............................................................................................. 27
Figure 3-15. Mechanical harvest in North Puget Sound ............................................................................ 28
Figure 3-16. Manila clam bags set into, on the substrate ........................................................................... 29
Figure 3-17. Geoduck cultivation using individual tube nets for predator control, South Puget Sound ... 31
Figure 3-18. Cover netting placed over geoduck tubes, South Puget Sound ............................................. 32
Figure 3-19. Geoduck tunnel net over rebar frame .................................................................................... 33
Figure 3-20. Harvesting geoduck at low tide ............................................................................................. 34
Figure 3-21. Geoduck dive harvest sequence ............................................................................................ 35
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities iv Programmatic Biological Assessment
Tables
Table 3-1. Types of support vessels and equipment used while implementing PBA covered activities and
estimated in-air noise ................................................................................................................ 36
Table 3-2. Summary of shellfish activities included within the proposed action of the PBA. .................. 36
Table 3-3. List of shellfish activities not included as “PBA covered activities” ........................................ 39
Table 3-4. Summary of floating commercial aquaculture acreage ............................................................. 41
Table 3-5. Summary of ground-based commercial aquaculture acreage .................................................... 42
Table 3-6. Summary of commercial aquaculture activities and acreage ..................................................... 43
Table 3-7. Summary of continuing (active and fallow) commercial aquaculture activities and acreage ... 43
Table 3-8. Distribution of ground-based commercial aquaculture continuing footprints and acreage by
species cultivated ...................................................................................................................... 44
Table 3-9. Distribution of species cultivated and primary cultivation methods ......................................... 45
Table 3-10. Summary of subtidal acres for geoduck harvest ..................................................................... 47
Table 3-11. Recreation acres proposed for shellfish activity ..................................................................... 48
Table 3-12. Restoration acres proposed for shellfish activity ..................................................................... 48
Table 3-13. Summary of the total acreage potentially authorized for shellfish activity during the
anticipated 20 year period of the PBA action ........................................................................... 49
Table 3-14. Summary of important differences in the proposed action between the 2007 ESA
consultation for NWP 48 and the 2015 shellfish activity PBA ................................................ 55
Table 5-1. ESA listed species occurring in the action area ......................................................................... 58
Table 5-2. Summary of ESA listed species potentially affected by the proposed action that are further
evaluated within the PBA. ........................................................................................................ 60
Table 5-3. Observations and Distribution of Canary Rockfish in Inland Washington Waters as reported in
REEF Surveys Between January 1996 and July 2013 .............................................................. 68
Table 5-4. Eulachon Spawning and Estuarine Areas in Washington .......................................................... 72
Table 6-1. Summary of continuing activities that are part of the environmental baseline .......................... 79
Table 6-2. Percent of total commercial aquaculture acres that are classified as continuing active ........... 80
Table 6-3. Continuing aquaculture activities with separate ESA consultation ........................................... 80
Table 6-4. New shellfish activities with separate ESA consultation........................................................... 81
Table 7-1. Summary of shellfish activity effects on habitat ...................................................................... 88
Table 7-2. Ground-based shellfish activity acreage relative to total tideland acreage ................................ 90
Table 7-3. Shellfish activity frequency of occurrence and acres completed per day .................................. 91
Table 7-4. Estimated frequency in-water activities would be conducted in the intertidal zone .................. 93
Table 7-5. Artificial structure by region ..................................................................................................... 94
Table 7-6. Summary of shellfish activities potentially co-located with eelgrass ........................................ 95
Table 7-7. Summary of continuing active and fallow acreage potentially co-located with WDFW mapped
forage fish spawning areas ........................................................................................................ 96
Table 7-8. Percent of total mapped herring spawning area potentially affected by continuing activities in
active and fallow areas .............................................................................................................. 97
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities v Programmatic Biological Assessment
Tables (cont.)
Table 7-9. Summary of anticipated future aquaculture species cultured and methods ............................... 98
Table 8-1. Summary of ESA determinations of effect. ............................................................................. 121
Table 9-1. Life History Stage and Habitat Use for Fish Species with Designated EFH Potentially in the
action area .............................................................................................................................. 123
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities vi Programmatic Biological Assessment
Abbreviations
BA Biological Assessment
BiOp Biological Opinion
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
DA Department of the Army
dB decibel
DPS Distinct Population Segment
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU evolutionarily significant unit
FLUPSY floating upwelling system
FR Federal Register
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
JARPA Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
MPG major population groups
MHHW mean higher high water
MLLW mean lower low water
MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NWP Nationwide Permit
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PBA Programmatic Biological Assessment
PCE Primary Constituent Elements
PCN pre-construction notification
PCSGA Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association
PSP Puget Sound Partnership
PSSTRT Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team
PSTRT Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities vii Programmatic Biological Assessment
SLOPES standard local operating procedures for endangered species
SPIF specific project information form
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOH Washington Department of Health
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
1. Introduction
The Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for regulating shellfish
related activities in the state of Washington under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899. The issuance of permits under the Regulatory
Program authorizing shellfish related activities constitutes a Federal action that requires compliance with
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to complete consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) on any Federal action that may affect
an ESA listed species or designated critical habitat (50 CFR 402). Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act
of 1996, requires Federal agencies to complete consultation with NMFS on any Federal action that may
adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) (50 CFR 600). ESA listed species and EFH exist in
Washington State where the Corps would permit shellfish related activities.
The Corps has developed this Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) to comply with the
requirements of ESA Section 7(a) and MSA Section 305(b) and to initiate consultation with NMFS and
USFWS (the Services) for the Regulatory Program authorization of inland marine shellfish activities.
The Corps and the Services have worked together to develop the PBA and proposed action which has
resulted in Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) to facilitate Corps
regulation of shellfish activities in Washington State.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 2 Programmatic Biological Assessment
2. Background
2.1. Regulatory Program Authority
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the RHA of 1899, the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Corps, is responsible for administering a Regulatory Program that requires permits for
certain activities in waters of the United States (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 320-331). Under
Section 404, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
Under Section 10, the Corps regulates structures and/or work in or affecting the course, condition, or
capacity of navigable waters of the United States.
2.2. Program Implementation
The Corps implements the Regulatory Program and regulates activities through the issuance of
Department of Army (DA) permits. This can take the form of individual project specific permits or
general permits. Project specific permits are typically referred to as standard or individual permits.
Activities requiring Corps authorization that are similar in nature and have minimal individual and
cumulative environmental impacts may qualify for authorization by a general permit, such as a regional
general permit or a nationwide permit (NWP). The Corps issues letters of verification for activities that
qualify for an NWP. The complete set of NWPs is re-issued every five years. General and specific
conditions are developed in concert with the NWPs. The Corps last issued the NWPs on February 21,
2012 (the “2012 NWPs”). On March 18, 2012, the Corps Seattle District issued regional conditions for
the 2012 NWPs.
Project applicants must submit a permit application in order for the Corps to evaluate regulatory
compliance. In Washington State, the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) serves as the
application. This application is required in all cases for individual permits. For verification under NWPs
the need for an application is determined by specific conditions associated with the NWPs. NWP
National General Condition 18 (from the 2012 version of the NWPs) requires an application to be
submitted if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the
project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat. This application must be submitted prior
to work occurring, and is therefore commonly known as a ‘pre construction notification’ or ‘PCN’. Due
to the number and distribution of threatened or endangered species throughout Washington State inland
marine waters, the application/PCN requirement is triggered in all cases where work is proposed in
Washington State inland marine waters.
2.3. Consultation History
In 2007, the Corps issued a new NWP (NWP 48 - Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities)
with the 2007 version of the NWPs. The purpose of NWP 48 was to regulate existing commercial
shellfish aquaculture activities. The Corps (Portland District) submitted a PBA evaluating effects of
implementing NWP 48 in Washington State to the Services later in 2007 to meet requirements of the ESA
and MSA (Jones and Stokes 2007). An addendum to the PBA was completed in 2008 (ENVIRON 2008).
Separate Biological Opinions were completed by NMFS and USFWS in 2009 (NMFS 2009; USFWS
2009). In 2010, consultation with the Services was reinitiated with the submittal of an addendum to the
PBA that addressed a change in the action and new species listings (Anchor 2010). The Services issued
letters of concurrence in 2011 concluding the consultation.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
In March of 2012, a new set of NWPs was issued by the Corps which superseded the 2007 version of the
NWPs. The 2012 NWP 48 expanded the scope of commercial aquaculture activities covered under the
NWP to include expansion activities and new activities in addition to covering existing activities. Since
the prior ESA consultation was based on the 2007 NWP 48, the ESA coverage it provided was limited to
those commercial shellfish aquaculture activities conducted under the 2007 NWP 48 and did not extend to
activities conducted under the 2012 NWP 48. Updated ESA consultation to address activities conducted
under the 2012 NWP 48 is therefore required to comply with the ESA and MSA.
At the national level, the Corps initiated formal consultation with NMFS on the 2012 version of the
NWPs. NMFS issued a final BiOp in November 2014 with the conclusion that the program is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under the
jurisdiction of NMFS and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat or
critical habitat proposed for designation (NMFS 2014). The BiOp acknowledged a two step process that
the NWP program follows to ensure ESA compliance. The first step is the issuance of the NWPs
themselves which formed the basis of the national consultation. The second step is regional or local ESA
consultation.
In 2014, the Seattle District Corps prepared a new PBA for a range of shellfish activities that could be
authorized in Washington State by various types of permits. The PBA was submitted to the Services in
September 2014. The PBA was broader in scope than the previous NWP 48 consultation completed in
2011 which was only for shellfish activities that could be authorized by the 2007 version of NWP 48.
Subsequent review and discussion between the Corps and Services resulted in revision of the document
and an updated PBA that was resubmitted in December 2014. Continued coordination with the Services
and other parties resulted in additional revisions which are represented in the current updated PBA dated
October 2015.
A limited number of individual shellfish projects in Washington State have also been authorized by the
Corps with individual ESA consultations.
2.4. Purpose and Development of the PBA
The Corps regulates a range of shellfish activities including activities conducted for commercial
aquaculture, recreation, restoration, and wild harvest. A range of permit types could be used to authorize
these shellfish activities. For example, certain aquaculture activities could be authorized under NWP 48
Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities) while a native shellfish restoration project could be
authorized under NWP 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities).
Individual permits could also be issued for any type of shellfish activity. Despite the different permit
types and underlying purposes of these shellfish activities, the shellfish activities themselves along with
their effects on the environment and ESA listed species may be quite similar. For example, the same
methods could be employed to grow shellfish for an aquaculture purpose as for a restoration project. The
emphasis of the PBA is therefore on the specific shellfish activities and not on any particular permit type
e.g., NWP 48 vs. individual permit) or activity purpose (e.g., aquaculture vs. restoration). This is an
important distinction between this PBA and the prior consultation for NWP 48 that was initiated in 2007.
The prior consultation included only one permit (NWP 48) under the proposed action.
The PBA has been developed in coordination with the Services with the objective of achieving ESA and
MSA compliance in an efficient and programmatic manner for shellfish activities authorized by the Corps
Regulatory Program. The intent is to comprehensively address as much of the expected shellfish activity
permitting as possible within the framework of the PBA. For those shellfish activities that are not
included within the PBA proposed action and thus not comprehensively addressed by the consultation, the
PBA is expected to be used as reference BA. The purpose of the reference BA is to streamline any
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
follow-on consultation that may be necessary to achieve ESA compliance for those shellfish activities not
completely covered by the PBA consultation. The procedures for how the PBA would be used as a
reference document are detailed in Section 3.1.
A series of Conservation Measures are included within the proposed action. These Conservation
Measures, which have been coordinated with the Services during the consultation process, must be
adhered to in order for an activity to be authorized by the Corps under the PBA consultation.
The PBA does not include every possible shellfish activity that could be authorized by the Corps. The
activities included in the PBA are those that are the most common, frequently conducted, or considered
standard practice. Those activities that are novel, infrequent or unknown, or that result in potential
impacts beyond the thresholds established for the PBA, would require further consultation under ESA.
For example, installation of new floating rafts for shellfish culture are uncommon in the action area and
the Corps does not expect to authorize many, if any, new such rafts over the duration of the PBA. These
structures could potentially be authorized under NWP 48, but this activity is not included within the PBA
proposed action.
The PBA emphasis on shellfish activities allows the resulting consultation to cover a timeframe that is not
encumbered by the timeframes associated with specific Corps permits. The PBA proposed action is
intended to extend beyond the expiration of the 2012 NWPs on 18 March 2017 and beyond the typical 3
to10 year authorization period for an individual permit. Although, the PBA consultation would not have
a predetermined expiration date, the proposed action is based on an anticipated 20 year timeframe. Its
period of applicability would instead be tied to specific acreage limits. The geographic area for the
proposed action has been divided into five regions. Acreage limits for authorized shellfish activities have
been developed for each of the regions. If and when these acreages are reached, and if warranted, an
addendum to the PBA may be prepared to increase the amount of acreage. The acreage limits were
developed based on a 20 year time horizon.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 5 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3. Proposed Action
3.1. Permitting Actions
The Federal action is the issuance of individual permits and the issuance of verification letters (or
verifications) under general permits such as a NWP authorizing shellfish related activities within the
inland marine waters of the State of Washington. Permit applications are required for all activities
proposed in this PBA whether they could be authorized by an individual permit or a NWP. This means
that written approval from the Corps is required before work commences in all cases.
Shellfish activities authorized by the Corps could be conducted for a variety of purposes including, but
not necessarily limited to, culture and/or farming of shellfish for human or animal consumption (i.e.,
aquaculture), commercial harvest of naturally occurring shellfish populations, activities to support
recreational shellfish harvest (e.g., seeding, grow out, etc.), and ecological restoration (e.g., improving
water quality, restoring native shellfish populations).
Prior to authorizing any activity, the Corps would review applications in accordance with the regulations
found at 33 CFR 320- 332. For all actions this may include avoiding or minimizing impacts or requiring
compensatory mitigation for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. Any compensatory mitigation
required will comply with the regulations found in 33 CFR 332 and 40 CFR 230. Mitigation
requirements include consideration of impacts to special aquatic sites (40 CFR 230 SubPart E), ensuring
that adverse impacts are minimized (40 CFR 230 Subpart H), determining appropriate compensatory
mitigation if necessary (40 CFR 230 Subpart J), and determining consistency with the PBA and its
Conservation Measures. When evaluating a permit application under the NWP process, the Corps assures
compliance with the mitigation regulations through NWP General Condition 23 (Mitigation). Other
important considerations involved in the review of any permit application include tribal trust
responsibilities the Federal Government has to Native American Tribes. For individual permits, the
review would also include a public interest review (33 CFR 320.4). For purposes of the PBA action and
effects analysis, it is assumed that no additional avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation
measures will be implemented beyond those measures described in Section 3.5 under Conservation
Measures. This is a conservative assumption but is necessary because, 1) the outcome of any required
avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation under the Regulatory Program is uncertain and may
vary from project to project, and (2) the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation would be
focused on addressing impacts associated with the CWA and RHA, and not necessarily address impacts to
ESA listed species or designated critical habitat.
The Corps anticipates the majority of permitting actions (but not necessarily the majority of acreage)
under the PBA would be verifications authorizing shellfish activities under NWP 48 (Commercial
Shellfish Aquaculture Activities). However, shellfish activities may also be authorized under other NWPs
including but not necessarily limited to NWP 4 (Fish and Wildlife Harvesting, Enhancement, and
Attraction Devices), and NWP 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement
Activities). Finally, the Corps could authorize shellfish activities with an individual permit.
The specific activities that are included within the proposed action are described according to shellfish
species in Section 3.3. For each shellfish species, a suite of activities are described that constitute the
PBA covered activities’.
In order for an applicant’s proposed shellfish activities to comply with the ESA using this PBA, the
activities must 1) fall within the scope of activities described in Section 3 of the PBA, 2) incorporate the
relevant Conservation Measures (Section 3.5), and 3) occur within the geographic area considered by the
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 6 Programmatic Biological Assessment
PBA (Figure 3-1). For permit applicants that describe shellfish activities that do not meet these
conditions, further ESA consultation may be necessary prior to the issuance of a Corps permit or
verification.
3.1.1. Activity Reauthorization
Individual permits are usually issued for a period of 3 to 10 years. Upon the expiration of an individual
permit, a project applicant must reapply for a new permit in order to continue the activity. NWPs are
reissued every five years. All previously issued verifications expire upon the issuance of a new set of
NWPs. Applicants that wish to continue an activity must be reauthorized by the Corps. The majority of
permitting actions conducted under this PBA are expected to be for reauthorizing ongoing activities. It is
possible that over the expected 20 year timeframe of the PBA that an individual activity within the same
footprint could be authorized as many as three or four times.
3.1.2. Continuing versus New Activities
For the subset of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities described in this PBA that would be
authorized under NWP 48, there is a distinction made between aquaculture activities that have been in
place and continuing for some period of time and activities that are new. This classification is necessary
due to the regulatory history of NWP 48. For purposes of this PBA, each commercial aquaculture activity
is classified as either ‘continuing’ or ‘new’. ‘Continuing’1 shellfish aquaculture activities are those
activities that had been granted a permit, license, or lease from a state or local agency specifically
authorizing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities and that were occurring within a defined
geographic footprint prior to18 March 2007. The emphasis is on the specific geographic footprint on
which the activity was/is occurring. These activities are on-going and continue to occur in the identified
footprint as of the date of the PBA. Based on permit applications previously submitted to the Corps, the
continuing activities and their geog raphic footprints have been identifi ed and recorded in a database that
is maintained by the Corps. ‘New’ activities are those activities that were initiated after 18 March 2007
and essentially include all activities that do not qualify as continuing. Expansion of activities into a new
geographic footprint that had not previously been in commercial aquaculture is treated as a new footprint
for the purpose of this PBA. Continuing footprints and new footprints are also referred to as 'continuing
activities and 'new activities' in this PBA. A new activity would not be reclassified as a continuing
activity in the future but would remain classified as new.
Shellfish activities proposed for lands classified as continuing are managed differently by the Regulatory
Program than activities proposed for lands classified as new. This is reflected both in the PBA
Conservation Measures (see Section 3.5) and in elements of the proposed action related to structures.
Continuing activities that include the use of certain currently serviceable structures (i.e., rafts, floats, and
Floating Upwelling Systems (FLUPSYs)) that were in place and authorized to be operating for a
commercial shellfish aquaculture activity prior to 18 March 2007 are included among the list of PBA
covered activities. Permits or verifications for their continued use and operation can thus be issued using
the PBA. Maintenance of ‘continuing’ structures is also considered a PBA covered activity. Installation
1 The term continuing as used in this PBA has a different meaning than the term existing as defined by the 2012
NWP 48. A continuing activity area/acreage refers to the specific geographic footprint on which a shellfish activity
is occurring. An existing activity area refers to a leased area or an ownership area that may or may not have an
active shellfish activity occurring in some part of the leased or owned area. The existing activity area is also
referred to as a project area in NWP 48 terminology. In some cases, a continuing activity area/footprint may be
identical to an existing project area. In many cases a continuing activity footprint may be smaller than an existing
project area. In no cases would a continuing activity footprint be larger than an existing project area. To avoid
confusion, the terms existing and project area are not further used in this PBA. The emphasis is on the terms
continuing and footprint.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 7 Programmatic Biological Assessment
and operation of ‘new’ structures or the expansion of ‘continuing’ structures are not PBA covered
activities. Permit applicants proposing new structures or expansions will require further ESA
consultation prior to the issuance of a Corps permit or verification.
In the 2007 version of NWP 48, there was reference to ‘areas that are periodically allowed to lie fallow as
part of normal operations’ (reference from 72 FR 11092). Use of the term ‘fallow area’ was discontinued
in the 2012 version of NWP 48. The term is used throughout the PBA in order to accurately describe
these areas and characterize effects to ESA listed species and designated critical habitat. Based on
previously submitted permit applications received under the 2007 version of NWP 48 and verifications
issued by the Corps since 2012, all areas previously identified as fallow had not had active cultivation
since at least 2007 or much longer in some cases. For the purpose of the PBA and determining effects, it
is assumed that shellfish activities will occur in all areas currently identified as fallow. The CMs for
continuing active cultivation will apply to these activities.
3.1.3. Additional Notification Requirements
As described previously in Section 2.2, project applicants must submit a permit application in order for
the Corps to evaluate regulatory compliance before issuing a permit or verification. When a permittee
desires to make certain changes to activities previously authorized by permit or verification, additional
notification to the Corps is required before work is initiated to ensure regulatory compliance. Applicants
would need to re-submit an application, providing notice as to the desired changes. Such applications are
required in the following circumstances:
If a permittee changes methods, materials, equipment, species cultured, or activity location.
If a permittee cannot, or chooses not to, meet all permit conditions or Conservation Measures
e.g., work windows).
In general, the Corps would evaluate permit applications for compliance with the regulations found in 33
CFR 332 and 40 CFR 230 as discussed previously.
3.1.4. Review of NWP 48 Verifications Issued in 2012 and 2013
Between 19 March 2012 and February 2013, the Corps issued approximately 850 verifications under the
2012 version of NWP 48 using the ESA consultation completed in 2011. Subsequent discussion between
the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS in February 2013 determined the 2011 consultation only covered
activities tied to the 2007 version of NWP 48. Verifications issued under the 2012 version of NWP 48
were not covered. The Corps subsequently stopped verifying activities under NWP 48 unless a separate,
individual ESA consultation had been completed for the activity. At the conclusion of this programmatic
ESA consultation, the Corps will review the previously issued NWP 48 verifications and either 1)
reauthorize the activity if it is consistent with the conditions of the new PBA/consultation, 2) provide
opportunity for the applicant to modify activities to fit within the scope of the PBA and then reauthorize
the activity, or 3) suspend the previous verification and pursue individual ESA consultation within the
framework discussed below if the activity does not meet the conditions of the PBA consultation. These
850 verifications are included as an element of the PBA proposed action and effects analysis so the
subsequent authorization could be covered under the PBA consultation.
3.1.5. Pending and Recently Authorized Activities
The Corps currently has a backlog of about 100 aquaculture applications for both continuing and new
activities. The ESA compliance for these applications is currently being addressed on a case by case basis
and if completed may be authorized by the Corps. As of July 2014, a total of 62 shellfish activity
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 8 Programmatic Biological Assessment
footprints had been authorized with individual ESA compliance. Depending on when the PBA
consultation is completed, the ESA compliance for some of the pending applications may be addressed
under the PBA. Those activities with completed ESA compliance are not included within the PBA
proposed action. However, most or all of these recently authorized activities with completed ESA
compliance are expected by the Corps to be reauthorized in the future once the recently issued permit or
verification expires. Acreages for these activities are therefore included within the proposed action in
anticipation of this future reauthorization so that the ESA compliance for the reauthorized activity can be
addressed with the PBA consultation.
3.1.6. Use as Reference BA and Coordination with the Services
In order to ensure project applicant compliance with the ESA, the Corps has developed a draft specific
project information form (SPIF) that must be filled out by project applicants. The SPIF is the mechanism
by which the Corps receives detailed information about a specific project which is used to verify applicant
compliance with the ESA. If the project is in compliance with the PBA consultation, then no further
consultation with the Services would occur. If the applicant does not meet all of the requirements of the
PBA consultation, then further consultation with the Services would be initiated. Depending on the
nature of the proposed activities, the SPIF may be used as a reference BA or a separate BA may be
written. In either case, the focus of the consultation would be limited to the subset of applicant activities
that are outside of the PBA proposed action. It is possible that compensatory mitigation may be required
for activities that are not consistent with the PBA. The PBA consultation would be used to address ESA
compliance for the subset of activities consistent with the PBA. An acreage footprint would be assigned
to each activity authorized with the PBA consultation and deducted against the total acreage developed
for the PBA. The draft SPIF is attached as Appendix A. The SPIF will be finalized once the PBA
consultation is completed.
The Corps would maintain a database of all authorized shellfish activities that would include details on
whether individual applicant activities were authorized consistent with the PBA consultation or whether
further consultation was conducted and the PBA used as a reference BA. The database will include a
summary of how the PBA was used as a reference BA for the applicable permits or verifications. The
Federal action includes the submission of an annual report by the Corps to the Services that summarizes
the previous year’s shellfish related permitting activities conducted under the PBA. The report would
ostensibly be a summary of the previously mentioned database for the prior year. The report would
include 1) an assessment of overall program activity, 2) the number and types of verifications or permits
issued, 3) details for how the PBA was used as a reference BA, 4) detailed information for each
authorized activity including the permittee(s) name, general location, type of culture, type of harvest
method, map illustrating the specific footprint for each authorized activity with latitude and longitude
new activities would have latitude/longitude for all project corners; continuing activities would have
latitude/longitude centroid), and 5) the identification of new activities authorized in areas in the vicinity of
eelgrass or kelp. The Corps plans to submit the report by February 15 of each year and host an annual
coordination meeting with the Services by March 31 of each year to discuss the annual report and any
actions that could make the program more efficient or accountable. The annual review will also be used
to make adjustments to the PBA acreages as necessary to ensure ESA compliance.
3.2. Geographic Extent
The objective of the PBA is to include all permitting actions for shellfish activities conducted within the
inland marine waters of the State of Washington, excluding the Columbia River. For the purpose of the
PBA, this geographic area is subdivided into five geographic regions which include Grays Harbor,
Willapa Bay, Hood Canal, South Puget Sound, and North Puget Sound (Figure 3-1). The boundary lines
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 9 Programmatic Biological Assessment
for these geographic areas are based on Tidal Reference Areas defined by the State of Washington (WAC
220-110-240). Note that individual Tidal Reference Areas (there are a total of 17) have been combined
for the purpose of the PBA. For the Grays Harbor region, the western boundary is defined by a line
projected from the outermost end of the north jetty to the outermost end of the south jetty. The western
boundary of the Willapa Bay region is defined by a line projected from Leadbetter Point to Cape
Shoalwater Light. The western boundary of the North Puget Sound Region is not specifically defined in
the WAC Tidal Reference Area system. For the purpose of the PBA that boundary line is drawn between
Cape Flattery, Washington, and Carmanah Point (Vancouver Island), British Columbia. The North Puget
Sound Region extends north to the Canadian border. Tidal reference area 14 which includes the outer
coastal waters is not included within the geographic scope of the PBA.
Within this geographic area, activities would occur in waters shallower than elevation -70 ft MLLW2 with
a few possible exceptions for continuing floating structures such as mussel rafts which may occur in areas
of deeper water.
The PBA action does not include shellfish activities within the following areas:
o all areas within 0.25 miles of snowy plover designated foraging or nesting critical habitat under
ESA, including but not limited to Leadbetter Point in Pacific County and Copalis Spit in Grays
Harbor County (Appendix H).
o all areas within 200 ft of any bird, land mammal, insect, or plant critical habitat either designated
or proposed under the ESA (e.g., marbled murrelet, Taylor’s checker-spot butterfly, streaked horn
lark) (Appendix H).
The vast majority of shellfish activities would occur in areas designated by the Washington Department
of Health (WDOH) as approved, conditionally approved, or restricted (for commercial growing areas) and
open, or conditionally open beaches (for recreational areas). It is assumed that some areas currently
classified by WDOH as prohibited may be upgraded in the future. The Puget Sound Partnership has
targeted a net increase from 2007 to 2020 of 10,800 harvestable shellfish acres, which includes 7,000
acres where harvest is currently prohibited (PSP 2014). Shellfish activities conducted for restoration or
water quality purposes could occur throughout the geographic area of the proposed action regardless of
the WDOH classification. The WDOH classification does not directly affect the scope of the proposed
action, but would likely affect decisions made by applicants on the scope and location of their proposed
activities.
2 All elevations in this document are relative to mean lower low water (MLLW)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 10 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-1. Washington inland marine waters included within the geographic scope of the PBA.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 11 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3.3. Description of Shellfish Activities
This section describes the suite of shellfish activities that are included within the proposed action of the
PBA. These activities are collectively referred to as the ‘PBA covered activities’. The descriptions are
written from an aquaculture perspective because this represents the majority of shellfish activity that
would be authorized under the proposed action and they encompass the range of shellfish activities that
would likely be proposed by non-aquaculture permit applicants. The information was gathered from
multiple sources including PCSGA (2011; 2013a; 2013b), WDNR (2008; 2013), Corps (2014a) and from
knowledge of the professional Corps staff that have been involved in regulating shellfish activities. There
is wide variation in the manner in which individual shellfish activities are conducted and the
equipment/materials used. The descriptions below should be considered generally representative of the
individual activities, but it is acknowledged that variability inherent within individual activities is not
necessarily captured. This variability might result in some uncertainty when it comes to applying the
PBA to a variation of a common activity that is covered by the PBA versus a novel activity that would not
be covered. The Corps would use its discretion in applying the PBA in such a case. All permitted
activities under the PBA, including for such gray area cases, would be coordinated with the Services, and
reviewed as part of the annual PBA meeting. The PBA covered activities are summarized in Section
3.3.6. Section 3.4 describes specific acreages in each geographic region for the PBA covered activities.
These two components (general description and acreage) together describe the work that would be
authorized by the Corps under the proposed action.
3.3.1. Mussel Activities
There are two species of mussels cultured in Washington State marine waters. These include Mytilus
trossulus, commonly known as the blue mussel and Mytilus galloprovincialis, commonly known as the
Mediterranean or Gallo mussel. The blue mussel is native to Washington State. The mussel activities
described below may be performed at any time of day and at any time of year. They are not dependent on
season or tides.
3.3.1.1. Rafts, Floats, other Structures, and Surface Longlines
Mussels are typically grown suspended from rafts or surface longlines anchored in subtidal waters, but
they can be grown from any structure (e.g., pier) where there is adequate water depth at low tide. A raft is
considered an open-framed floating structure with cross beams. Raft platforms are constructed of lumber,
aluminum, galvanized steel, and plywood with some form of flotation. Lines with attached mussels are
suspended from the raft. There may be multiple rafts for one activity footprint (Figure 3-2).
A float is a floating platform structure, typically rectangular, that is either anchored or attached to a pier
or dock. Floats are used as working platforms, storage or for mooring boats. A float can be towed into
place for anchoring.
The proposed action includes the operation and maintenance of currently serviceable rafts and floats that
qualify as continuing activities (pre-18 March 2007). New rafts and floats or the relocation or expansion
of continuing rafts and floats are excluded from the PBA proposed action.
Other structures the Corps would permit under the proposed action are discharge and intake pipes
associated with upland wet-storage tanks. These tanks are placed in upland areas and used for holding
shellfish species for some period of time. Water is circulated through the tanks via pipes that extend from
the tanks to the nearby marine waters. There would typically be pipes for both intake and discharge. The
activity must be compliant with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)) and have an NPDES permit, if necessary, before the Corps would issue a
permit or verification under the proposed action. The upland wet-storage tanks themselves and their
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 12 Programmatic Biological Assessment
associated discharge are not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps so would not be permitted
under the proposed action.
Figure 3-2. Penn Cove Shellfish mussel rafts and harvest barge (Everett Herald 2013)
Surface or floating longlines are typically made of heavy polypropylene or nylon rope suspended by
floats or buoys or they could be suspended from a structure such as a pier. They can consist of a single
buoy and rope with attached cultured species extending below the buoy and anchored to the substrate.
They can consist of multiple buoys connected by rope extending horizontally across the water surface for
hundreds of feet. Rope with cultured species would be hung at intervals along this horizontal line. Large
anchors to the substrate may also be placed at intervals along the line and at each end.
Seeding and Planting
Naturally-spawned mussel seed are set on lines or metal screen frames in net cages that are suspended in
the water during the late spring spawning season. Hatchery seed, when used, is already set on lines or
screen frames at the nursery, and then transported to the mussel farm for planting. Once the seed reaches
6 to 12 millimeters long, which can take several months in winter or several weeks in summer, it is
scraped from the frames or stripped from the lines and sluiced into polyethylene net sausage-like tubes,
called “socks,” each with a strand of line threaded down the length of the sock for strength. A mussel
disc may be inserted into the socks at intervals to support the weight of the mussels growing above it.
Concrete weights with stainless steel wire hooks are hung on the bottom end of each mussel sock for
tension. The socks are then attached to the raft or surface longline (Figure 3-3).
Maintenance and Grow-out
When the mussels reach about 1 inch in length, the weights are often removed from the socks and saved
for reuse. Predator exclusion nets are hung around the perimeter of the rafts. Nets may be in place all
year or may be used seasonally. If the predator exclusion nets become excessively fouled (e.g., with
barnacles, algae, other aquatic vegetation or biological growth), they may be cleaned in place by hand or
by mechanical methods. They may also be removed and then cleaned. Fouling organisms may also be
removed from the raft structure itself.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 13 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-3. Commercial mussel raft in south Puget Sound (Corps site visit 2013)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 14 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Harvest
When cultured mussels reach market size, about 12 to14 months of age, socks or lines of mussels are
removed from the longline or raft for cleaning and grading. Biofouling is typically removed from
mussels during harvest as the mussels are cleaned. The waste material is commonly returned to the water
or put into a shell pile on shore. The mussels are stripped from the socks and bulk-bagged and tagged for
transport to shore. Mussels that fall from the lines onto the predator nets or the bottom substrate may be
harvested by hand or by suction dredge. Weights are reclaimed for re-use, and used socking and lines are
recycled or disposed of at an appropriate waste facility. Harvesting occurs year round as mussels mature.
3.3.1.2. Mussel Bottom Culture
Mussel bottom culture entails growing mussels directly on the bottom substrate or in/on a container that is
supported on the substrate. This may include growing mussels in bags or on trays supported on the
substrate as described in the following sections for oyster and clams. Bottom culture could entail
harvesting natural set mussels on stakes placed into the substrate or recruited to the substrate directly.
The culture and harvest activities are similar to oyster stake and rack and bag culture methods. The
reader is referred to the oyster stake and rack and bag sections for more detail on how this activity would
be conducted.
3.3.2. Oyster Activities
Several species of oysters are cultured on the West Coast including the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas),
Kumamoto oyster (Crassostrea sikamea), Eastern oyster (also known as American oyster) (Crassostrea
virginica), European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis), and the Olympia oyster (Ostrea conchaphila). Only the
Olympia oyster is native to Washington State.
Oyster ground is often classified or referred to by its use, such as seed ground, grow-out ground, or
fattening ground. There are four general strategies for oyster culture which depend on target markets,
beach characteristics, and environmental conditions. These strategies include stake culture, rack-and-bag
culture, bottom culture, and longline culture.
Many oyster activities are performed by workers on foot during low tides that expose the culture bed.
The lowest tides occur for a period of several days each lunar month (29 days). During these low tides,
workers may be present on the bed for 3 to 6 hours. In this document, work performed during these
monthly low tides is described as occurring “during low tide.” Work can occur at any time of the year;
although, traditionally, December through January has been a strong market for commercially harvested
oysters. Oysters are typically harvested between 18 months and 4 years of age (Corps 2014a).
Oyster activities may also be performed at high tides or in the subtidal zone. These work activities would
not be dependent on tides and could occur at any time of the year. Harvest activities may occur at any
time.
The oyster activities discussed below all generally use oyster cultch as a basis for the culture. Oyster
cultch is oyster shell with attached oyster seed (or spat). Cultch is prepared by bundling washed and aged
Pacific oyster shells (“mother shells”) in plastic mesh bags which are then placed in the intertidal zone
prior to spawning season. Up to thousands of cultch bags may be required for a single oyster operation.
Naturalized seed then collects on the bags of shell which creates the oyster cultch. Stakes with attached
shell or ‘hummocks’ of shell placed in intertidal areas may also be used to collect naturalized seed.
Alternatively, seeding of the mother shells may occur in an upland hatchery. The cultch bags remain in
the intertidal zone, either loose or on pallets, until the seed is large enough or “hard” enough (i.e., firmly
cemented onto the mother shell and able to resist predation and desiccation) to withstand being moved
onto the culture beds (Figure 3-4).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 15 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-4. Oyster cultch shell with spat stacked on pallets (Corps site visit 2013)
3.3.2.1. Rafts, Floats, FLUPSYs, and other Structures
Oyster activities do not use structures to the same extent as mussel activities. Continuing rafts/floats may
be used as work platforms while oyster activities are occurring at a site. These rafts/floats may be
anchored to the substrate or attached to a vessel. Rafts and FLUPSY floats may also be used to grow-out
seed. A FLUPSY is a type of float structure specifically used for growing out seed to a larger size (Figure
3-5). Because it requires a power connection, FLUPSYs may be placed in the intertidal zone adjacent to
power sources, such as attached to a pier. The floating structure continuously draws seawater through the
system. Juvenile shellfish, one to two millimeters in length, are transported to a FLUPSY from a shellfish
hatchery. The seed is placed in bins with screened bottoms that are lowered into openings in a floating
frame and suspended in the seawater. Several bins are placed in a row on either side of a central enclosed
channel that ends at a paddlewheel or pump. The wheel or pump draws water out of the central channel
creating an inflow of seawater through the bottom of the seed bins, continuously feeding the juvenile
shellfish. The outflow from the bins is through a dropped section on one side of the bin facing the central
channel. Typically, the FLUPSY platform is equipped with overhead hoists so the bins can be cleaned
and moved. Once seed have reached a suitable size, they are removed from the FLUPSY and
transplanted to a grow-out site
The proposed action includes reauthorization and maintenance of currently serviceable rafts, floats, and
FLUPSYs that qualify as continuing activities (pre-18 March 2007). New rafts, floats, and FLUPSYs or
the relocation or expansion of continuing rafts, floats, and FLUPSYs are excluded from the PBA
proposed action.
Trays or bins elevated above the substrate may be used for additional seed grow-out or nursery seed
boosting. Trays or bins are affixed to racks set on the substrate. Racks have typically been made of
rebar, angle iron, and in rare cases, wood and or plywood. Trays are typically made of plastic. Racks
may be deployed for a few months or longer. There may also be use of what are termed "stackable nester
trays" for boosting seed. Tidal depths for elevated trays on racks vary from a +3 feet to -15 feet Mean
Lower Low Water. Trays or bins may also be placed directly on the substrate (PCSGA 2013a).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 16 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-5. A FLUPSY (Fisher Island Oysters 2007 in PCSGA 2011)
Upland wet-storage tanks, as described above for mussel activities, could also be used for oyster
activities. The Corps would permit the pipes (for both discharge and intake) associated with these tanks
under the proposed action.
3.3.2.2. Oyster Floating Culture
Oyster floating culture occurs using lantern nets, bags, trays, cages, or vertical ropes or wires suspended
from surface longlines or rafts similar to that described above for mussels. Floating culture occurs in the
subtidal zone. Surface longlines are heavy lines suspended by floats or buoys attached at intervals along
the lines, anchored in place at each end. Lantern nets, adopted from Japanese shellfish culture, are stacks
of round mesh-covered wire trays enclosed in tough plastic netting. The nets, bags, trays, cages, or
vertical ropes or wires are hung from the surface longlines or rafts.
Seeding
Single set oyster seed is placed on the trays or in the bags and suspended in the water. Oyster cultch may
be attached directly to the vertical ropes or wires.
Maintenance and Grow-out
Single oysters are regularly sorted and graded throughout the growth cycle. Every three or four months
trays are pulled, the stacks taken apart, and oysters are put through a hand or mechanical grading process.
The trays are then restocked, stacks rebuilt, de-fouled by removing species such as barnacles, algae and
other aquatic vegetation, and returned to the water. Oysters grown directly on vertical lines are in clusters
and receive little attention between seeding and harvesting.
Harvest
A vessel equipped with davits and winches works along the lines, and the trays, nets or bags are detached
from the line one by one and lifted into the vessel. The gear is typically washed as it is pulled aboard.
Oysters are removed and placed into tubs where they may be cleaned and sorted.
Oysters grown using floating culture may be transplanted to an intertidal bed for two to four weeks to
harden”. Hardening extends the shelf-life of floating cultured oysters by literally hardening the shell
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 17 Programmatic Biological Assessment
making it less prone to chipping, breakage, and mortality during transport and conditioning them to close
their shells tightly when out of the water to retain body fluids. Oysters are re-harvested from the
transplanted areas using bottom culture harvest methods. Alternatively, oysters grown by floating culture
may be hung from docks at a tidal elevation that results in hardening them.
3.3.2.3. Oyster Bottom Culture
Bottom culture entails growing oysters directly on the substrate in intertidal or shallow subtidal areas
Figure 3-6).
Seeding and Planting
Prior to planting, oyster beds are prepared by removing debris such as driftwood, rocks, and predators
e.g., starfish, oyster drills) by hand or mechanically by dragging a chain or net bag. Any oysters that
remain on site from the previous growing cycle may be removed or thinned. In some areas the substrate
may occasionally be enhanced with crushed oyster shells often mixed with washed gravel to harden the
ground (see discussion of graveling in Section 3.3.3).
Seeding occurs by spraying oyster cultch from the deck of a barge or casting it by hand. In some cases,
farms rely solely on the natural set of oyster seed. Oyster hummocks may be created by mounds of oyster
shell which provide a substrate more conducive to attracting natural seed (Figure 3-6).
Maintenance and Grow-out
Oysters may be transplanted from one site to another at some point during grow-out. For example,
oysters may be moved from an initial growing area to “fattening” grounds with higher levels of nutrients
allowing the oysters to grow more rapidly. Oysters may be removed for transplant either by hand or by
dredge.
Oysters may sink into the mud in areas where the substrate is soft. When this happens, the oysters are
harrowed to pull them up out of the mud. The harrow is a skidder with many tines, towed along the
substrate by a boat. The harrow penetrates the substrate by a few inches, breaking up the oyster clusters,
and moves the oysters back to the surface. This method is also referred to as "dragging". Dragging is
typically performed during the second or third year of growth. Oyster dredge-harvest vessels are used for
dragging by substituting the dredge baskets with drag tools which they hang on the outrigger cables.
About five acres can typically be harrowed in one day (Corps 2014a).
Harvest
Harvest typically occurs either by hand during low tide or by dredge. During hand harvest, workers use
hand tools or hand-pick oysters and place them into various sized containers placed on the bed (Figure
3-7). Larger containers may be equipped with ropes and buoys that can be lifted with a boom crane onto
the deck of a barge at high tide. Smaller containers are sometimes placed or dumped on decks of scows
for retrieval at high tide or are carried off the beach at low tide.
Mechanical or dredge harvest occurs by use of a harvest bag that is lowered from a barge or boat by boom
crane or hydraulic winch at high tide and pulled along the bottom to scoop up or 'dredge' the oysters. The
dredge bags have a leading edge (blade) consisting of a steel frame with teeth and a steel mesh collection
bag attached to the frame. As the dredge bags are towed across the substrate, the oysters are loosened and
guided into the bags. The bag is then hoisted onto the boat deck, emptied, and then redeployed. Two
dredge bags may be towed simultaneously off each side of the boat. The boats, such as the one shown in
Figure 3-8, can haul large volumes that can weigh over twenty tons. Dredge equipment can typically be
adjusted so that the correct depth is dredged as tide levels change. A given area may be dredged twice in
succession to ensure recovery of the maximum number of oysters (Corps 2014a). Harrowing may occur
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 18 Programmatic Biological Assessment
between the two successive dredge events in order to increase recovery of oysters. Alternatively, the area
may be hand harvested at low tide after initial dredging to obtain any remaining oysters.
Figure 3-6. Oyster bottom culture (top) and hummocks (bottom), Willapa Bay (UW 2015)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 19 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-7. Hand harvest of oysters, South Puget Sound (Taylor Shellfish 2013)
One crop of oysters is typically dredged twice before actually being harvested. In some case, oysters may
be dredged at about one year and then transplanted to a grow-out bed. In other cases, the oysters may not
be transplanted to a finishing (fattening) bed until they are closer to harvest size. Dredging can be
accomplished at a rate of one acre harvested every two days depending on the time of year and density of
oysters (Corps 2014a). In summary, an individual oyster bed may commonly be dredged a total of three
times over the plant to harvest cycle.
Figure 3-8. Oyster dredge in Willapa Bay (Bay Center Farms 2015)
3.3.2.4. Oyster Longline Culture
In longline culture, oysters are grown in clusters on rope lines suspended off the bottom (typically 3 feet
or less) between upright stakes made of PVC or metal pipe. This method keeps the oysters from sinking
into soft substrates and minimizes their exposure to predators. Since the activity is supported by
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 20 Programmatic Biological Assessment
structures placed on the substrate, it is considered a ground-based culture method in this PBA to
differentiate it from the floating or surface longlines discussed previously.
Seeding and Planting
Bed preparation activities are similar to those described above under bottom culture with the following
additions. Residual oysters (“drop offs”) dislodged from the lines during the previous growing cycle are
typically harvested using bottom culture methods. The substrate may be leveled either manually or by
mechanical means to address accumulations of sediment that have occurred since the previous planting
cycle. If the PVC or metal stakes were removed after the previous harvest they are replaced by hand.
When bed preparation is complete, long polypropylene or nylon lines with a piece of seeded oyster cultch
attached approximately every foot are suspended above the ground between the stakes.
Maintenance and Grow-out
The oysters grow in clusters supported by the longlines over a period of 2 to 4 years (Figure 3-9). The
longlines are checked periodically during low tides to ensure that they remain secured to the pipe and that
the pipe remains in place. Periodic control of fouling organisms (e.g., mussels, barnacles, algae and other
aquatic vegetation) and predator species may take place.
Figure 3-9. Oyster longline culture, Willapa Bay (Corps site visit 2014).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 21 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Harvest
Longline oysters may be harvested by hand or by machine. Hand harvest entails cutting oyster clusters
off lines by hand at low tide and placing the clusters in harvest tubs equipped with buoys for retrieval by a
vessel with a boom crane or hydraulic hoist at a higher tide. The oysters are then barged to shore. Some
smaller operations carry the tubs off the beach by hand.
With mechanical harvesting, buoys are attached at intervals along the lines at low tide. During high tide
the buoys are attached to a reel mounted on a vessel that pulls the lines off the stakes and reels them onto
the boat. The oyster clusters are cut from the lines and then transported to processing plants or market.
Some attached biological material (e.g., barnacles, algae) may incidentally fall off the lines during
harvest. The oysters are removed from the lines at the processing facility and the line disposed of as
waste material. Barnacles and mussels that remain on the lines are removed and may be re-used for their
shell material.
About 5,000 to 7,500 sq. ft. (1/8 acre) can be harvested in one day (Corps 2014a). Pipes are often pulled
after harvest and the area then harrowed and dredged to collect the remaining oysters. The ground could
then be dragged with a chain or net bag to level it and remove debris before replacing stakes for the next
cycle. Alternatively, stakes may remain in place depending on the environmental and substrate
conditions.
3.3.2.5. Oyster Stake Culture
Oyster stake culture consists of metal or PVC stakes regularly spaced across the growing site with oysters
attached directly to the stakes.
Seeding and Planting
Bed preparation methods are similar to those described above under bottom and longline culture. During
low tides, stakes made of hard-surfaced material such as metal or PVC pipe are driven into the ground
approximately two feet apart to allow water circulation and easy access at harvest. Stakes are limited to
two feet in height to minimize obstruction to boaters.
Stakes can be seeded in upland hatchery setting tanks before being planted in the beds or transported to
the site as bare stakes where there is a reliable natural seed set. Bare stakes might be planted during the
prior winter to allow barnacles and other organisms to attach to the stakes, increasing the surface area
available for setting oyster spat. An alternative method of seeding is to attach one to several pieces of
seeded oyster cultch to each stake.
Maintenance and Grow-out
Stakes are left in place throughout a two to four year growing cycle. In areas where natural spawning
occurs, multiple year classes of oysters grow on the stakes, with smaller, younger oysters growing on top
of older oysters. The area is maintained by periodically checking stakes to ensure they remain upright
and by removing fouling organisms (e.g., mussels, barnacles, algae and other aquatic vegetation) and
predators. Stakes may be repositioned or replaced as needed. Some oysters may be periodically removed
to relieve overcrowding. Oysters that fall from or are knocked off the stakes are harvested periodically by
hand. They may be transplanted to firmer ground to improve their condition for harvest at a later time.
Harvest
Oysters are selectively hand harvested during low tide by prying clusters of market-sized oysters from the
stakes or removing the stakes entirely. They are placed in containers and either hand carried off the beach
or loaded on a boat for transport to shore. Undersized single oysters from the clusters may be
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 22 Programmatic Biological Assessment
transplanted to a special bed for grow-out since they cannot reattach to the stakes. They would then be
harvested using bottom culture methods when they reach market size. Market-sized drop-offs that have
not settled into the mud are harvested along with those pried from the stakes.
Fouling organisms would typically be dislodged during harvest. Stakes that are removed for reuse would
be allowed to dry in an upland location to remove biofouling. Shell material may be stored for reuse.
3.3.2.6. Oyster Rack and/or Bag Culture
Rack and bag or bag culture entails growing oysters within plastic bags or other containers that are placed
either directly on the substrate or on racks or lines that suspend the bags above the substrate.
Seeding and Planting
Bed preparation methods are similar to those described above for the other oyster culture methods.
During low tide, longlines and PVC/metal stakes may be installed on the bed to secure the bags. Wood or
metal racks could also be installed to keep the bags off the ground. Racks with legs may be placed
directly on the substrate, or supports may be driven into the substrate. Single-set seed or oyster cultch is
placed in reusable plastic net bags closed with plastic ties or galvanized metal rings. Bags are attached to
the racks, stakes, or lines using reusable plastic or wire ties.
Figure 3-10. Oyster bag culture, south Puget Sound (NOAA Photo as reported in InsideBainbridge 2015)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 23 Programmatic Biological Assessment
In some cases, oysters are cultivated using a tumble bag system (Figure 3-11). Oyster tumbling involves
attaching a buoy and securing the bags to a single horizontal stainless steel rod held in place by rebar
stakes driven into the substrate. The oyster-seed filled bags pivot on the rod and float with the tide. The
ebb and flow of the tide agitates the oysters or "tumbles" them.
Figure 3-11. Oyster rack and bag tumbling system, South Puget Sound (Corps site visit 2013)
Maintenance and Grow-out
Oysters are left to grow in the bags. The operation is checked periodically during low tides to ensure that
the bags remain secure and to remove fouling organisms (e.g., mussels, barnacles, algae and other aquatic
vegetation) and predators. Bags may be turned as often as every two weeks to control fouling organisms.
Oysters may be periodically redistributed between bags to reduce densities. Oysters may be placed in
progressively larger mesh size bags as the oysters grow.
Harvest
Oysters are harvested at low tide by removing the bags from their supports and transferring them to a
boat, wheelbarrow, or vehicle for transport to shore. Bags may also be loaded on a boat at higher tides.
Biofouling is common on the bags with barnacles and mussels the primary fouling organisms. To
removal biofouling, bags are typically placed in upland areas where they are allowed to dry which allows
for easier removal of fouling organisms prior to re-use. The activity to ‘dry’ bags typically occurs during
the summer months.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 24 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3.3.3. Clam Activities
Several species of clams are cultured or harvested in Washington State including the littleneck clam
Leukoma staminea), Manila clam (Venerupis philippinarum), butter clam (Saxidomus gigantea), Eastern
soft shell clam (Mya arenaria), horse clam (Tresus nuttallii and Tresus capax), razor clam (Siliqua
patula), and the cockle (Clinocardium nuttallii). The most commonly cultured clam, the Manila clam, is
not native to Washington State.
The following clam activities could occur any time of the year.
3.3.3.1. Rafts, Floats, FLUPSYs, and other Structures
Rafts, floats and FLUPSYs are used less in clam activities than they are in oyster and mussel activities.
Their use for clam culture would be similar to that described above in the mussel and oyster sections. The
proposed action includes reauthorization and maintenance of currently serviceable rafts, floats, and
FLUPSYs that qualify as continuing activities (pre-18 March 2007). New rafts, floats, and FLUPSYs or
the relocation or expansion of continuing rafts, floats, and FLUPSYs are excluded from the PBA
proposed action.
Upland wet-storage tanks, as described above for mussel activities, could be used for clam activities. The
Corps would permit the pipes (for both discharge and intake) associated with these tanks under the
proposed action.
3.3.3.2. Clam Bottom Culture
Bottom culture entails growing clams directly on the substrate of intertidal areas.
Seeding and planting
Prior to planting clam seed on the tidelands, beds are prepared in a number of ways depending on the
location. Bed preparation activities are similar to those described above for oyster bottom culture. The
substrate may be prepared by removing aquatic vegetation, mussels, and other undesired species. Any
shellfish present on site may be harvested to reduce competition. These activities could be conducted by
hand or by mechanical means (e.g., water jet, harrowing).
Graveling (also called frosting) is a common activity employed for clam culture. This consists of adding
gravel and/or shell when the tide is high enough to float a barge. Graveling by vessel often occurs during
about a two hour window at slack tide. Applying at the slack tide allows for a more accurate placement
of the graveling material. In a 1-2 hour period, about 1 acre can be graveled to a depth of up to 1 inch
Corps 2014a). Several thin layers of material may be placed over a period of days (Figure 3-13). To
place a single 0.5-inch layer requires about 70 cubic yards of washed gravel or shell per acre. An
individual site would not be graveled more frequently than once per year. Many sites are graveled
annually whereas other may be graveled at a lesser frequency.
Clam seed is typically acquired from hatcheries and planted in the spring and early summer. Intertidal
trays or bags may be used as nursery systems until seed is of sufficient size to plant. The trays are
typically two-foot by two-foot with ¼ inch diameter openings that permit water to flow through. They
are employed in stacks of six or seven, and placed in the lower intertidal areas secured with rebar or
anchored with sand bags. Clam bags as described in the section on bag culture can also be used to hold
clams in a nursery system. Natural spawning and setting of clams also occurs. Clam seed sizes and
methods of seeding vary, depending on site-specific factors such as predation and weather conditions.
Planting methods include hand-spreading seed at low tide upon bare, exposed substrate; hand-spreading
seed on an incoming tide when the water is approximately four inches deep; hand-spreading seed on an
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 25 Programmatic Biological Assessment
outgoing tide when the water is approximately two to three feet deep; or spreading seed at high tide from
a boat.
Figure 3-12. Adding gravel to a clam bed (i.e., graveling) (PCSGA 2011)
Immediately after seeding, cover nets may be placed over the seeded areas to protect clams from
predators such as crabs and ducks. Cover nets are typically made from plastic such as polypropylene
Figure 3-13). The net edges are typically buried in a trench or weighed with a lead line and secured with
rebar stakes. Predator cover netting typically remains on site until harvest.
Maintenance and Grow-out
After each growing season, surveys may be conducted during low tide to assess seed survival and
distribution, and to estimate potential yield. Based on survey results, additional seeding activity may
occur. Netting used to protect clams from predation can become fouled with barnacles, mussels, aquatic
vegetation (e.g., algae, eelgrass) or other organisms. The nets usually remain on site throughout the
growing period. Fouling organisms may be removed by hand or by mechanical means while the nets are
in place. Depending on local conditions, net cleaning may occur as often as monthly or not at all.
Biofouling occurs most frequently during the late spring and summer months.
Harvest
Before harvest begins, bed boundaries may be staked and any predator netting folded back during a low
tide. Hand harvesters dig clams during low tides using a clam rake (Figure 3-14). Shovels or other hand
operated tools may also be used. Market-size clams (typically about 3 years of age) are selectively
harvested, placed in buckets, bagged, tagged, and removed. Undersized clams are returned to beds for
future harvests. Since a given clam bed may contain multiple year classes of clams, it may be harvested
on a regular schedule (such as annually) to harvest individual year classes of clams. Clams harvested for
sale are generally left in net bags in wet storage. Clams are typically maintained in wet storage either
directly in marine waters or in upland tanks filled with seawater for at least 24 hours in order to purge
sand. Upland tanks are connected to the marine waters through intake and outfall structures (pipes) that
are compliant with the NPDES.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 26 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-13. Clam cover nets in South Puget Sound (Corps site visit 2014).
Harvesting of clams also occurs with mechanical equipment (Figure 3-15). This equipment is driven on
the substrate when the tide is out and excavates the substrate to a depth of about 4-6 inches in order to
extract the clams. Clams are harvested after 3 years. About 0.8 acres per day of clams can be
mechanically harvested which results in about 12 to 15 days of work for each acre (Corps 2014a). The
use of a 'hydraulic escalator harvester' equipment is not included among the PBA covered activities.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 27 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-14. Hand harvest of Manila clams (top, Willapa Oysters 2007 in PCSGA 2011; bottom, South
Puget Sound, Corps site visit 2013).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 28 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-15. Mechanical harvest, low tide in North Puget Sound (GoogleEarth 2015; PSI 2015)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 29 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3.3.3.3. Clam Bag Culture
Clam bag culture is similar to the bag culture described previously for oysters. Clams are typically grown
in plastic mesh bags placed directly on the substrate.
Seeding and Planting
Bed preparation activities are similar to those described above. Prior to setting bags on the tidelands,
shallow (typically 2 to 4 inches) trenches may be dug during low tide with rakes or hoes to provide a
more secure foundation for setting down the clam bags (Figure 3-14).
Clam seed (typically 5-8 millimeters) is placed in reusable plastic net bags closed with plastic ties or
galvanized metal rings. Gravel and/or shell fragments may be added to the bags. Bags may be placed in
shallow trenches during low tide and allowed to “silt-in” (i.e., become buried in the substrate). In high
current or wind areas, bags may be held in place with 4 to 6 inch metal stakes.
Figure 3-16. Manila clam bags set into, on the substrate (Corps site visit 2013)
Maintenance and Grow-out
Bags are monitored during low tide throughout the grow-out cycle to make sure they remain secured.
They may be turned occasionally to optimize growth. Fouling organisms (e.g., mussels, barnacles, algae
and other aquatic vegetation) and predators may be periodically removed.
Harvest
When the clams reach market size, the bags are removed from the growing area. Harvesting may occur
when there is one to two feet of water, so that sand and mud that accumulated in the bags during grow-out
can be sieved from the bags in place. Bags are transported to a processing site where any added substrate
is separated for later reuse.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 30 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3.3.4. Geoduck Activities
Geoduck (Panopea abrupta) is native to Washington State and is the largest known burrowing clam.
Geoduck is a relatively new species for culture. Washington is the principal state in the United States
actively farming geoducks. Cultivation under the proposed action would occur between elevation +7 ft to
4.5 ft MLLW. Naturally seeded or wild geoduck could occur from about +1 ft to deeper than -100 ft
MLLW. Harvest of the wild population would occur no deeper than -70 ft MLLW under the PBA. This
is the typical maximum depth for this activity (WDNR 2008).
3.3.4.1. Rafts, Floats, FLUPSYs, and other Structures
Continuing structures would include the use of floats, FLUPSYs, rafts and seed grow-out trays or racks.
All of these types of structures have been described above in the mussel, oyster and clam sections. The
proposed action includes reauthorization and maintenance of currently serviceable rafts, floats, and
FLUPSYs that qualify as continuing activities (pre-18 March 2007). New rafts, floats, and FLUPSYs or
the relocation or expansion of continuing rafts and floats are excluded from the PBA proposed action.
3.3.4.2. Geoduck Culture
Seeding and Planting
Bed preparation activities are similar to those described above. Bed preparation can also include a "pre-
harvest" to remove all current shellfish on the bed including naturally seeded geoduck already present on
the site. Undesired species such as sea stars and sand dollars (Clypeasterioda) may be removed by hand.
Some growers may attempt to re-locate sand dollars to nearby suitable habitat; other growers remove
them permanently from the marine environment.
The most common method of culture currently in use consists of placing a 6-inch diameter, 9-inch long
PVC pipe (pipe sizes may vary among growers) by hand into the substrate during low tide, usually
leaving the top section of pipe (also called a tube) exposed. Two to four seed clams (usually from
hatcheries) are placed in each tube where they burrow into the substrate. Tubes are typically installed into
the substrate at a density of about 1 tube per square foot or about 42,000 tubes per acre. The top of each
pipe is covered with a plastic mesh net and secured with a rubber band to exclude predators (Figure 3-17).
Additional cover netting may be placed over the tube field on beaches with heavy wind and wave action
to guard against the tubes becoming dislodged in storms (Figure 3-18). Some growers do not use the
individual pipe net covering but use the cover netting to cover the whole field of tubes. Some growers
use flexible net tubes (Vexar®) instead of the PVC pipe, which eliminates the need for the additional
cover netting. Intertidal geoduck culture typically ranges between the +5.0 and the -4.5 feet tidal
elevation (MLLW). Geoduck seed can also be directly set into the substrate without the use of any
structure.
Another method being used to exclude predators is net tunnels (Figure 3-19). The tunnels are made from
4-foot wide rolls of polyethylene net placed over a rebar frame to hold the net a couple of inches above
the substrate with the net edges buried by the substrate. They are currently being used in the intertidal
area. The mesh opening of the net is either 1/4-inch or 3/8-inch. A 24-inch wide net without a rebar
frame may also be used.
Maintenance and Grow-out
Fouling organisms including mussels, cockle clams, and sand dollars often accumulate inside the tubes.
Aquatic vegetation (e.g., algae and eelgrass) may also accumulate on or over the tubes. When this occurs,
which could be throughout the year, these fouling organisms are removed.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 31 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-17. Geoduck cultivation using individual tube nets for predator control, South Puget Sound (top,
OPB 2012) and Discovery Bay (bottom, Kitsap Sun 2015)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 32 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-18. Cover netting placed over geoduck tubes, South Puget Sound (Corps site visit 2014)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 33 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure 3-19. Geoduck tunnel net over rebar frame (Dewey 2013)
Tubes and netting are typically removed after 18 months to 2 years when the young clams have buried
themselves to a depth sufficient to evade predators (about 14 inches). After tube removal, large area nets
may be redeployed over the bed for several months. The tubes and nets are often taken to upland
locations and allowed to dry in order to easily remove fouling organisms. They are then typically reused.
As the clams grow, they may gradually dislodge the tubes from the substrate before they can be removed.
The dislodged tubes could potentially be swept away from the site by the tides.
Harvest
Naturally produced geoducks can live for more than 100 years and may be harvested at any age or size.
Cultivated geoducks are typically harvested 4 to 7 years after planting or when they reach about 2 pounds.
A site seeded at 160,000 per acre might be expected to produce 32,000 to 40,000 marketable geoduck per
acre. The geoducks are harvested in the intertidal zone at low tide (Figure 3-20) or by divers at high tide
in the intertidal or subtidal zone. In either case, the geoducks are typically harvested using hand-operated
water jet probes. For water jet harvest, the probe is a pipe about 18 to 24 inches long with a nozzle on the
end that releases surface-supplied seawater from a 1-inch internal diameter hose at a pressure of about 40
pounds per square inch (about the same pressure as that from a standard garden hose) and a flow of up to
20 gallons per minute.
This harvest method allows the hand extraction of geoducks, which burrow as deep as 3 feet. The
harvester inserts the probe in the substrate next to an exposed geoduck siphon or the hole left when the
siphon is retracted. By discharging pressurized water around the geoduck, the sediment is loosened and
the clam is removed by hand. For the dive harvester, this entire process takes 5 to 10 seconds (Figure
3-21). Each diver carries a mesh bag to collect the harvested geoducks. Divers periodically surface to
unload their bags. One diver can harvest 500 to 1,000 geoducks per day. Multiple divers may work in an
area at one time. Dive harvesters work no more than 3 to 4 hours per day.
Geoduck harvesting occurs year-round and is not limited by tidal height. However, dive harvesting tends
to be the dominant method during winter months (November through February) due to the prevalence of
high daytime tides, the absence of suitable low tides for daytime beach harvest, and generally favorable
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 34 Programmatic Biological Assessment
market conditions during that period. Both low-tide and dive harvests may occur on the same sites. It is
estimated that the dive harvest is used about 75% of the time compared to the non-dive harvest method
Cheney 2007 referenced in Anchor 2010). Harvest occurs until all harvestable-sized geoduck are
removed from the harvest area. Harvesters make several sweeps of a tract to ensure all harvestable-sized
geoduck are removed. Because of differences in geoduck growth rates with a mix of harvest-sized and
under-sized clams, only a portion of a project area may be harvested, with the remainder set aside for later
dive or beach harvest. Additionally, a dive harvest is typically supplemented with beach harvest when
clam densities are reduced in the project area. Harvest may also be constrained by tide and current
conditions with slow or slack water conditions reducing or restricting the ability to effectively harvest
with divers.
Figure 3-20. Harvesting geoduck at low tide (PCSGA 2011, CPPSH 2015)
Dive harvest is the typical method used for harvesting subtidal geoducks. Dive harvesters work within an
approximate 100-foot range from the harvest vessel, or to the maximum lengths of their air and water
lines. Intakes for supplying water to the onboard pumps are positioned several feet below the water
surface. Intakes will be screened per Conservation Measure.
3.3.5. Vessel and Vehicle Support
Various types of vessels and vehicles could be used to support activities for all shellfish species. Vessels
could include offshore rafts, small open crafts with outboard motors, and larger barges (Table 3-1). Land
vehicles (e.g., trucks, ATV) could also be used to support the various activities. Use of support vessels
would be within the immediate shellfish activity area or the immediate vicinity.
Vessels could be used to mechanically harvest, tow harrow, prepare or maintain the substrate (e.g.,
graveling). Vehicles may be used on the culture beds as a base of operations and to transport equipment
and shellfish. Vehicles can also be used to mechanically harvest or prepare the substrate for harvest
Figure 3-15). This could include tractors harrowing/tilling the substrate.
Geoduck dive harvesters work from small surface vessels or dive platforms that contain machinery for
surface-supplied diver air and water jets, diver communication equipment, and on-deck storage for
harvested geoducks. Dive boats used to harvest cultivated geoduck may be anchored over the harvest
sites and moved to deeper water during low tides. Dive boats used to harvest subtidal geoduck typically
move over the harvest area as needed to adjust the divers’ position relative to geoduck density.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 35 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Information on vessel sizes have has been provided by PCSGA which is expected to be representative of
the range of support vessels that would be used for the various types of activities described above.
Figure 3-21. Geoduck dive harvest sequence (Anchor 2010)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 36 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 3-1. Types of support vessels and equipment used while implementing PBA covered activities and
estimated in-air noise (PCSGA 2013b).
Equipment Purpose Estimated dBA
5hp motor with propeller FLUPSY 65@100 yards
10hp engine skiffs, water pumps, hatchery
intake 65 @ 100 yards
40-330hp engine boat inboard/outboard 65-90 @ 0.5 m
air compressor diving 77-85 @ 7m
power washer (4000 psi) nursery raft/FLUPSY <100 @ operator ear
3 feet)
electric hoist lifting nursery raft/FLUPSY 75-85 @ 50 ft
crane lifting nursery raft/FLUPSY 81 @ 50 ft
harvester (6 cylinder Chevy Vortec engine) harvesting clams 60-90 @ 15 m
3.3.6. Summary of Covered Activities
The PBA covered activities are summarized below in Table 3-2. This summary may not necessarily list
all the activities described in the previous sections.
Table 3-2. Summary of shellfish activities included within the proposed action of the PBA.
Species PBA Covered Activities and Structures
Mussel
Blue,
Gallo
Seeding/
Planting
Raft, floats, and associated maintenance that are components of
a ‘continuing’ activity
Set lines or metal screen frames in net cages suspended in water
to naturally set seed.
Install socks weighted and lashed to rafts, lines, or stakes and
suspended in water for hatchery-raised seed.
Place buoys or anchors used to mark and secure structures
Maintenance/
Grow-out
Placement/maintenance of predator exclusion nets
Replace and maintain stakes and lines
Remove biofouling and weights
Monitor growth
Harvest/
Processing
Strip mussels from the lines or socks
Bag mussels for transport
Intake or outfall structures (pipes) (discharge compliant with
NPDES) to connect upland wet storage holding tanks
Oyster Seeding/
Planting
Raft, floats, and FLUPSYs and associated maintenance that are
components of a ‘continuing’ activity
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 37 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Species PBA Covered Activities and Structures
Pacific,
Olympia,
Kumamoto,
Eastern,
European
flat
Prepare substrate by removal of debris (rocks/large wood)
Remove/relocate undesired aquatic species
Apply up to 1-inch layer of gravel/shell annually to firm
substrate (sprayed from vessel, or delivered with land vehicle
and mechanically or hand deposited). Deposited material
cannot be thicker than one inch even on a temporary basis.
Mechanically level substrate
Use of 'continuing' seed floats
Use of work floats
Use of racks/elevated trays or bins
Create oyster hummocks (oyster shell mounds)
Install bags of cultch material onto stakes, lines, racks, trays or
secured directly onto substrate
Suspend lantern nets, bags, cages, vertical ropes or wires from
surface longlines, or 'continuing' rafts
Maintenance/
Grow-out
Continued removal of debris/aquatic species, as necessary
Flip/turn bags
Re-position stakes
Remove excess biofouling
Harrow to lift excess mud or sand/re-level substrate
Pull and restack trays
Harvest/
Processing
Hand harvest into containers for transport
Mechanical shallow depth dredging from barges
Collection and transport of oysters to 'fattening' beds to harden
2nd harvest then occurs)
Wet storage (in-water)
Use of work platforms
Intake or outfall structures (pipes) (discharge compliant with
NPDES) to connect upland wet storage holding tanks
Clam
Manila,
littleneck,
butter,
eastern soft
shell,
horse,
razor,
cockle
Seeding/
Planting
Raft, floats, and FLUPSYs and associated maintenance that are
components of a ‘continuing’ activity
Use of seed grow-out trays and bins
Prepare substrate by removal of debris (rocks/large wood)
Remove/re-locate other aquatic species (starfish, vegetation)
Apply up to 1 inch layer of gravel/shell annually to firm
substrate (sprayed from vessel, or delivered with land vehicle
and mechanically or hand deposited). Deposited material
cannot be thicker than one inch even on a temporary basis.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 38 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Species PBA Covered Activities and Structures
Placing secured nets on the substrate
Applying seed from vessel/vehicle or from foot
Place secured or trenched-in net bags
Maintenance/
Grow-out
Continued removal of debris/aquatic species, as necessary
Repositioning/cleaning nets to remove debris/biofouling
Turning bags
Harvest/
Processing
Hand digging/bag removal
Mechanical harvest
Geoduck Seeding/
Planting
Raft, floats, and FLUPSYs and associated maintenance that are
components of a ‘continuing’ activity
Use of seed grow-out trays and bins
Prepare substrate by removal of debris (rocks/large wood)
Remove/re-locate undesired aquatic species
Install PVC tubes with individual net covers or flexible net
tubes
Install secured area net covers
Install secured net tunnels
Maintenance/
Grow-out
Clean tubes to remove debris/biofouling
Remove tubes/nets (area nets may be reset after tubes removed)
Harvest/
Processing
Harvest by hand (low tide, high tide, and subtidal by divers)
Use of pressured water to liquefy substrate
All species Use of work platforms
Vessel support (grounding/anchoring)
Land vehicle/foot support to and from uplands to transport
equipment, material, shellfish, and people
3.3.7. Activities Specifically Excluded
Certain shellfish activities (Table 3-3) have been excluded from the proposed action for various reasons
including:
Activity results in uncertain or unknown impacts not appropriate for a programmatic consultation
e.g., new cultivation methods, new berms or dikes). Individual ESA consultation on a case by
case basis is more appropriate in these cases.
Activity is already covered under a programmatic or individual ESA consultation (e.g., mooring
buoys, piers).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 39 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Activity extends sufficiently beyond the jurisdiction of the Corps regulatory program and/or is
regulated by another Federal agency (e.g., upland hatcheries, NPDES discharge, pesticide use).
Any unauthorized activity (e.g., not permitted) is not included in the action of this PBA.
Table 3-3. List of shellfish activities not included as “PBA covered activities”
PBA Excluded Activities and Structures
Vertical fencing/vertical nets or drift fences (includes oyster corrals; does not apply to raft nets)
New berms or dikes or the expansion or maintenance of current, authorized berms or dikes
Use of a hopper-type barge or other method that results in material (i.e., gravel or shell) placed during
graveling or frosting activities that is thicker than 1 inch in depth even for short periods of time.
Pile driving
Installation and maintenance of mooring buoys
Construction, maintenance, and operation of upland hatcheries
Cultivation of shellfish species not previously cultivated in the action area for the PBA
Construction, maintenance, and operation of attendant features, such as docks, piers, boat ramps,
stockpiles, or staging areas
Deposition of shell material back into waters of the United States as waste
Dredging or creating channels (e.g., placing sand bags) so as to redirect fresh water flow
Installation of new rafts, floats, or FLUPSYs or the relocation or expansion of 'continuing' rafts, floats,
or FLUPSYs.
Any form of chemical application to control undesired species (e.g., non-native eelgrass Zostera
japonica, burrowing shrimp)
The use of materials that lack structural integrity in the marine environment (e.g. plastic children’s
wading pools, unencapsulated Styrofoam®).
Unauthorized activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 40 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3.4. Activity Acreage
In order to determine the scale of shellfish activity conducted under the proposed action, the Corps
developed an estimate for the total acreage of shellfish activity that is expected to be authorized by Corps
permits over the next 20 years. The acreages were developed based on activity purpose and then further
subdivided by geographic region. The activity purposes include commercial aquaculture, subtidal
geoduck harvest, recreation, and restoration. The commercial aquaculture activities were further
subdivided as discussed in Section 3.4.1. Estimates for the amount of acreage that could be authorized
under the proposed action are provided for each of these categories by geographic region.
The acreage estimates are based on many factors including historical Corps permit applications, estimates
provided by commercial shellfish growers for future aquaculture production, estimates provided by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for recreation related purposes, coordination with
the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and their potential shellfish activities, and the
general knowledge and expertise of the Corps professional staff that have processed shellfish related
permit applications.
Section 3.1 should be referenced for details on how these acreage amounts will be managed under the
PBA.
3.4.1. Commercial Aquaculture
The majority of permitting actions authorizing shellfish activity using the PBA are expected to be for
commercial aquaculture purposes. Commercial aquaculture activities are divided between activities that
qualify as ‘continuing’ and those considered to be ‘new’. Section 3.1 should be referenced for the
definitions of continuing and new activities. Continuing activities are further subdivided based on
whether structures occur as part of the activity. The relevant structures are FLUPSYs, floats, and rafts.
The continuing activities account for most of the expected shellfish aquaculture both by acreage and
number of expected permitting actions. The Corps has previously received permit applications for all
continuing activities and a number of applications for new activities. Many of these have been previously
verified under NWP 48 or issued individual permits. For the purpose of categorizing acreages, the
activities have been subdivided into floating culture (i.e., with floating lines or rafts) and ground-based
culture which includes all other activities including oyster longline culture. Based on analysis of permit
applications, there are a total of 934 shellfish activity footprints that qualify as continuing. Of these, a
total of 927 include ground-based activities conducted in the intertidal or adjacent shallow subtidal areas.
The remaining seven activity footprints are for floating culture with rafts exclusively. Five of the
continuing activities include both raft and ground-based culture. There are also a limited number of floats
and FLUPSYs that qualify as continuing. All of the continuing activities including the structures (rafts,
floats, and FLUPSYs) could potentially be reauthorized using the PBA for ESA compliance. Details on
the number of these activities and the associated acreage are summarized below.
Floats and FLUPSYs
Analysis of historical permit applications maintained by the Corps indicates there are a total of six
shellfish activity footprints with continuing floats or FLUPSYs (Table 3-4). These are all located in the
Willapa Bay (3 footprints) and South Puget Sound (3 footprints) regions. Only continuing floats or
FLUPSYs and their maintenance would be authorized by the Corps under the proposed action.
Floating aquaculture
Analysis of historical permit applications indicates that floating aquaculture activities occur in Willapa
Bay, Hood Canal, South Puget Sound and North Puget Sound. With respect to floating culture with rafts,
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 41 Programmatic Biological Assessment
only continuing floating activities and their maintenance would be authorized under the proposed action.
New rafts would not be authorized under the PBA. There are a total of twelve continuing active
footprints with rafts that cover 87 acres as detailed in Table 3-4. New surface or floating longlines would
be authorized under the proposed action. There are a total of 22 continuing active and 32 continuing
fallow acres with surface longlines (Table 3-4). The geographic locations for each of the floating culture
continuing activities are illustrated in Appendix D. New floating acres are estimates based on
coordination with the shellfish industry and Corps professional judgment.
Table 3-4. Summary of floating commercial aquaculture acreage
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
footprints with
floats/FLUPSYs 0 3 0 3 0 6
Continuing footprints
rafts 0 0 2 8 2 12
Continuing active raft
acres 0 0 12 13 62 87
Continuing fallow raft
acres NI NI NI NI NI NI
Continuing footprints
surface longlines 0 2 4 2 1 9
Continuing active
surface longline acres 0 2 11 7 2 22
Continuing fallow
surface longline acres 0 27 5 0 0 32
New floating acres
surface longlines 5 25 17 22 5 74
Total floating
aquaculture acres 5 54 45 42 69 215
Note: Continuing fallow and new floating acres include surface longline culture methods only. Floating culture
with rafts are included for continuing active acres only. NI = not included in proposed action.
Ground-based aquaculture
Ground-based commercial aquaculture encompasses all of the activities discussed in Section 3.3 except
for the floating activities using rafts. The anticipated acreage for these activities includes both continuing
and new activities (Table 3-5). The acreage for the continuing activities was collected from permit
applications that are maintained by the Corps. The acreage and geographic footprints for this category of
activities is expected to remain relatively constant over the period of the PBA. There may be some minor
adjustments to the database based on updated information received from permit applicants. For example,
a small percentage of the fallow acres were on permit applications with both floating and ground-based
aquaculture. The PBA assumes these fallow areas would be for ground-based aquaculture in the future
and so they are represented as such in Table 3-5. This could be shifted when more information is
obtained from the applicant or a new permit application is submitted. The PBA annual review meetings
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 42 Programmatic Biological Assessment
will be used to adjust acreage totals for each category as necessary to ensure ESA compliance. The
geographic locations for each of the continuing activity footprints are illustrated in Appendix D.
The total acreage for new activities is estimated based on projections provided to the Corps by the
aquaculture industry, the historical rate of permit applications, and the experience of Corps professional
staff.
Table 3-5. Summary of ground-based commercial aquaculture acreage
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Continuing ground-
based footprints 28 251 207 371 70 927
Continuing active
ground-based acres 1,145 16,395 926 2,331 1,290 22,087
Continuing fallow
ground-based acres 1,820 9,441 397 780 2,333 14,771
Total continuing
ground-based acres 2,965 25,836 1,323 3,111 3,623 36,858
New ground-based
acres 95 75 421 426 310 1,327
Total ground-based
commercial
aquaculture acres
3,060 25,911 1,744 3,537 3,933 38,185
The vast majority of the ground-based commercial aquaculture and all new activities would occur at tidal
elevations between - 4.5 ft and +7 ft MLLW. It is probable that some percentage of this total acreage
would be authorized (or reauthorized) at subtidal elevations (i.e., deeper than - 4.5 ft MLLW). This
would typically be shallow subtidal lands immediately adjacent to intertidal shellfish activity areas.
Based on an analysis of historical permit applications, 22 acres of subtidal lands were previously
authorized as continuing shellfish activities. Because permit applicants have not historically been
required to delineate their project footprints by tidal elevation, this total likely underestimates the subtidal
acreage of continuing shellfish activity. This conclusion is supported by Corps professional staff
knowledge of many of the continuing shellfish activity areas. Analysis of aquatic parcel maps and the
Corps geographic database also indicates that greater than 22 acres of subtidal lands have likely been
previously authorized. WDNR has indicated all but 1,085 acres of marine bedlands (i.e., deeper than
extreme low tide) in the State of Washington are owned by WDNR, and WDNR does not lease these
lands for ground-based aquaculture currently and does not plan to lease them in the future at least within
the expected timeframe of the PBA (WDNR 2013a). WDNR does lease subtidal lands for floating raft
aquaculture activities. Because public subtidal lands would not be used for ground-based aquaculture,
these 1,085 acres would be considered the maximum amount of subtidal acreage available for ground-
based commercial aquaculture. This would constitute less than 3% of the total continuing commercial
acreage. These unknown subtidal acres are included in the totals for ground-based activities in Table 3-5.
They could either be continuing active or fallow acres.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 43 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Summary of commercial aquaculture acreage
Commercial aquaculture activities are summarized by floats/FLUPSYs, floating, and ground-based
activities. The total potential commercial aquaculture acreage that would be authorized under the PBA by
geographic region is illustrated in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Summary of commercial aquaculture activities and acreage
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
footprints with
floats/FLUPSYs 0 3 0 3 0 6
Total floating acres 5 54 45 42 69 215
Total ground-based
acres 3,060 25,911 1,744 3,537 3,933 38,185
Total commercial
aquaculture acres 3,065 25,965 1,789 3,578 4,002 38,400
The continuing commercial aquaculture activities have a different status than the new activities due to
their historical and continued operation as discussed previously. Due to this status it is important to
summarize this subset of activities separately (see Table 3-7).
Table 3-7. Summary of continuing (active and fallow) commercial aquaculture activities and acreage
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Continuing footprints 28 251 209 375 71 934
Continuing footprints
with floats/FLUPSYs 0 3 0 3 0 6
Continuing floating
acres 0 29 28 20 64 141
Continuing ground-
based acres 2,965 25,836 1,323 3,111 3,623 36,858
Total continuing acres 2,965 25,865 1,351 3,131 3,687 36,999
The vast majority of acreage for commercial aquaculture is for activities classified as continuing which
includes both floating and ground-based activities. Since the continuing activities represent the majority
of all shellfish activity potentially authorized under the proposed action, an evaluation of this information
is useful for understanding the action and its effect on listed species and their critical habitat. It is
anticipated that all of the continuing activities would be reauthorized by the Corps under the PBA. A
detailed summary of the shellfish activities proposed by historical permit applicants can be found in
Appendix B. A summary of the species cultivated by ground based methods can be found in Table 3-8.
The table does not include a small amount of mussel bottom culture. The predominant species cultured
varies by geographic region. On an acreage basis, the most commonly cultured species appears to be
oyster followed by non-geoduck clams.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 44 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 3-8. Distribution of ground-based commercial aquaculture continuing footprints and acreage by
species cultivated
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 45 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Oyster culture methods vary by region. The ground culture method is by far the dominant method used
for clams in all regions. A summary of primary culture methods and an estimate for the relative
distribution of species cultured by region is illustrated in Table 3-9. The estimate is based on the
information in Appendix B and Table 3-8. This estimate is consistent with the PCSGA estimate of 300
acres currently used for geoduck culture in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal regions (PCSGA 2013a).
Table 3-9. Distribution of species cultivated and primary cultivation methods
Grays Harbor Willapa Bay Hood Canal South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound
continuing
active acres 1,145 16,397 949 2,351 1,354
cultured species
distribution and
methods
oyster dominant oyster primary
followed by
clam, negligible
geoduck
oyster most
common
followed closely
by clam, less
geoduck
relatively equal
distribution of
oyster, clam;
slightly less
geoduck
oyster and clam
most common;
less geoduck
oyster 95% 80-95% 40-60% 30-50% 50-60%
clam 1-5% 5-15% 20-40% 30-50% 30-40%
geoduck 0% 1% 10-20% 15-30% 1-10%
mussel 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
oyster culture
methods
bottom culture
primary;
longlines
common
bottom culture
primary; some
longlines;
limited rack &
bag
bottom culture
primary; some
longlines;
limited rack &
bag
bottom culture
dominant;
limited rack &
bag, longlines
bottom culture
primary;
longlines
common; some
rack & bag
clam culture
methods bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom
mussel culture
methods NA surface
longlines
rafts & surface
longlines
rafts & surface
longlines
rafts & surface
longlines
continuing
fallow acres 1,820 9,468 402 780 2,333
cultured species
distribution and
methods
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
new acres 100 100 438 448 315
oyster & clam 95% 25% 78% 62% 79%
geoduck 0% 50% 18% 33% 19%
mussel 5% 25% 4% 5% 2%
Note: only new suspended lines for mussels would be authorized under the PBA (i.e., not rafts)
The Corps has also received a number of applications for shellfish activities that are classified as new. A
summary of the species cultured and the methods employed for this subset of the new activities can be
found in Appendix B. The Corps queried the PCSGA for estimates of future anticipated shellfish culture
activities (PCSGA 2013a). The acreage provided is reflected in the tables above and in Table 3-9.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 46 Programmatic Biological Assessment
The PBA makes the following assumptions about future aquaculture activities for the purpose of
determining effects of the action:
1) The future anticipated shellfish activities/species cultured on the continuing active acreage will
remain largely the same relative to the activities that have been occurring over the recent history
as described in Table 3-9.
2) The future anticipated shellfish activities/species cultured on the continuing fallow acreage will
be consistent with that expressed in permit applications for each region. These activities closely
mirror the activities on the continuing active acreage as illustrated in Table 3-9.
3) The future anticipated shellfish activities/species cultured on the new acreage is assumed to
approximate the species cultured distribution estimates provided to the Corps from the shellfish
industry as illustrated in Table 3-9 (PCSGA 2013a).
3.4.2. Subtidal Geoduck Harvest
In 2008, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was completed for geoduck harvest conducted by WDNR on
WDNR lands. This geoduck harvest is for naturally occurring (not cultivated) geoduck. Under the PBA
proposed action, the Corps anticipates authorizing activities described and carried out under the HCP.
This includes a total annual harvest on a maximum of 6,000 acres of subtidal lands. Since the HCP
represents a completed ESA consultation, the Corps would use the HCP consultation to address ESA
compliance for these activities. The HCP activities are therefore not considered part of the proposed
action in this PBA. The HCP activities and their effects are discussed in the context of cumulative effects
and are included in the environmental baseline.
The Corps could also authorize subtidal geoduck harvest activities conducted outside the framework of
the HCP. Acreage for these activities is included within the proposed action and discussed in the effects
section of the PBA. The vast majority of this harvest is expected to occur on state owned subtidal lands
within identified geoduck management tracts (see Appendix E). However it could also occur on non-state
owned subtidal lands. WDNR indicates there is a total of 1,085 acres of non state-owned subtidal land in
Washington State (WDNR 2013a). It is uncertain to what degree these lands contain geoduck for harvest.
For the purpose of the PBA, it is assumed geoduck harvest would occur on these acres in the Hood Canal,
North and South Puget Sound regions of the PBA where native geoduck occur. The non state-owned land
acres for each region are estimates made by the Corps based on the WDNR aquatic parcel database
WDNR 2014a).
The acreage for this activity is separated into two categories, the total harvestable acreage and that
acreage that is annually harvested (Table 3-10). The total harvestable acreage is the total acreage that
could potentially be harvested over the 20 year period of the PBA. It includes the total acreage for the
identified geoduck tracts described in the HCP updated to reflect more recent geoduck surveys (WDFW
2010a), plus the acreage for harvest on non state-owned lands. This acreage could increase in the future
as additional geoduck harvest tracks are identified. The subset of non-state owned lands where this
activity could occur are not specifically identified. It is possible that a percentage of this latter acreage
overlaps with ground-based commercial aquaculture acreage described in Section 3.4.1. As described
previously the aquaculture acreage includes some subtidal lands. The total harvestable acreage would not
be harvested every year. The annually harvested acreage would typically be about 250 to 300 acres
distributed geographically as illustrated in Table 3-10. These numbers are estimates based on the WDNR
HCP (WDNR 2008) and Corps professional staff. The maximum acreage harvested in any one year
would be about 6,050 acres on both state and non-state owned land that would be geographically
distributed as illustrated in Table 3-10. This would be in addition to the 6,000 acres annually harvested
under the framework of the HCP.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 47 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 3-10. Summary of subtidal acres for geoduck harvest
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay Hood Canal South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Total potentially harvestable acreage over 20 year PBA
State lands 0 0 6,503 22,176 18,454 47,133
Non-state lands 0 0 200 500 300 1,000
Total 0 0 6,703 22,676 18,754 48,133
Annually harvested acreage under PBA
State lands
typical year 0 0 62 137 54 253
State lands
maximum 0 0 1,500 3,000 3,000 6,000
Non-state lands 0 0 10 25 15 50
Total 0 0 1,510 3,025 3,015 6,050
Annually harvested acreage under WDNR HCP
Typical year 0 0 62 137 54 253
Maximum 0 0 1,500 3,000 3,000 6,000
Cumulative annually harvested acreage (PBA & WDNR HCP)
Typical year 0 0 135 300 123 558
Maximum 0 0 3,010 6,025 6,015 12,050
Notes:
1. The total maximum annual harvested acreage for all regions combined is less than the sum for the individual
regions. This means that the maximum acreage for all regions combined would never be harvested during the
same year.
2. Due to differences in boundary lines for geographic management regions in the PBA and HCP, actual region
acreages may differ slightly from that illustrated in the table.
Most of the subtidal geoduck harvest would occur between -18 ft to -70 ft MLLW. A small percentage
may occur in shallower subtidal areas particularly on the non-state owned lands. The only activity that
would occur on this acreage is geoduck dive harvest as described in Section 3.3.4 and in the HCP
WDNR 2008). Harvest could occur at multiple locations simultaneously. For a given location, harvest
could occur daily over a period of months at a time. The same location could also be harvested
intermittently for several years in a row depending on the status of the remaining geoduck population.
The Conservation Measures would be applied to subtidal geoduck harvest just as they would be applied to
other activities covered by the PBA.
3.4.3. Recreation
Recreational shellfish activities could include various seeding, maintenance, and harvesting activities for
all the PBA shellfish species (mussel, oyster, clam, and geoduck). The objective is to enhance
populations sufficient to support regular recreational harvest (i.e., for personal use). In some cases the
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 48 Programmatic Biological Assessment
activities may resemble an aquaculture operation. Harvest could potentially occur on seeded or wild
shellfish populations. Seeding and growing for purposes of shellfish related recreation would be limited
to intertidal lands between +7 ft and - 4.5 ft MLLW. The acreages (Table 3-11) are based on information
provided by WDFW (Brady 2014), historical Corps permitting, and the judgment of Corps professional
staff regarding future permitting expectations.
Table 3-11. Recreation acres proposed for shellfish activity
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Recreation acres 0 0 74 41 45 160
3.4.4. Restoration
Restoration activities included within the scope of the PBA include activities to seed and re-populate tidal
or subtidal waters for purposes of habitat enhancement, ecological restoration, water quality
improvement, or to increase the population size of native shellfish species. These activities could include
seeding, planting, maintenance, and grow-out activities. Harvesting would generally not be considered a
restoration activity except for purposes of scientific monitoring. Restoration activities are somewhat
different than the other types of activities in that they are expected to occur only once as opposed to
occurring on a regular (e.g., annually) basis like commercial aquaculture and recreation activities. The
acreage estimates (Table 3-12) are based on the historical rate of Corps permitting for these types of
activities.
Table 3-12. Restoration acres proposed for shellfish activity
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Restoration acres 0 0 24 126 5 155
3.4.5. Summary Shellfish Activity Acreage
The proposed action includes authorization of permits for many different types of shellfish activity.
These are broadly categorized as commercial aquaculture, subtidal geoduck harvest, recreation, and
restoration. The total acreage potentially permitted under the PBA for each of these categories is
summarized in Table 3-13.
Commercial aquaculture is typically an ongoing activity with continued activity within a given footprint
every year. Shellfish activities conducted to support recreation may also occur on a regular basis within a
given footprint. Subtidal geoduck harvest and restoration activities are most likely to be one time actions
for a given geographic footprint that do not continue to occur every year.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 49 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 3-13. Summary of the total acreage potentially authorized for shellfish activity during the
anticipated 20 year period of the PBA action
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Commercial
Aquaculture 3,065 25,965 1,789 3,578 4,002 38,400
Subtidal geoduck
harvest 0 0 6,703 22,676 18,754 48,133
Recreation 0 0 74 41 45 160
Restoration 0 0 24 126 5 155
Note: Commercial aquaculture includes both floating and ground-based activities.
3.5. Conservation Measures
The following Conservation Measures are included as elements of the proposed action. The PBA covered
activities would be conducted in a manner consistent with the Conservation Measures. All the
Conservation Measures would apply to all shellfish activities regardless of purpose including commercial
aquaculture, subtidal geoduck harvest, recreation, and restoration except for those commercial
aquaculture activities that are classified as ‘continuing’ which would be excluded from the requirements
for certain Measures. Subtidal geoduck harvest, recreation, and restoration related shellfish activities are
all considered to be 'new' activities for the purpose of the Conservation Measures. The Conservation
Measures will be Permit Conditions that are tied to individual permits or NWP verifications issued by the
Corps authorizing shellfish activity.
1. Gravel and shell shall be washed prior to use for substrate enhancement (e.g., frosting, shellfish
bed restoration) and applied in minimal amounts using methods which result in less than 1 inch
depth on the substrate annually. Shell material shall be procured from clean sources that do not
deplete the exiting supply of shell bottom. Shells shall be cleaned or left on dry land for a
minimum of one month, or both, before placement in the marine environment. Shells from the
local area shall be used whenever possible. Shell or gravel material shall not be placed so that it
creates piles on the substrate. Use of a split-hull (e.g., hopper-type) barge to place material is
prohibited.
2. The placement of gravel or shell directly into the water column (i.e., graveling or frosting) shall
not be conducted between February 1 and March 15 in designated critical habitat for Hood Canal
summer chum salmon.
3. For ‘new’ activities only, gravel or shell material shall not be applied to enhance substrate for
shellfish activities where native eelgrass (Zostera marina) or kelp (rooted/attached brown algae in
the order Laminariales) is present.
4. Turbidity resulting from oyster dredge harvest shall be minimized by adjusting dredge bags to
skim” the surface of the substrate during harvest.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 50 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5. Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, tires) shall not be discharged or used
as fill (e.g., used to secure nets, create nurseries, etc.).
6. For ‘new’ activities only, shellfish activities (e.g., racks, stakes, tubes, nets, bags, long-lines, on-
bottom cultivation) shall not occur within 16 horizontal feet of native eelgrass (Zostera marina)
or kelp (rooted/attached brown algae in the order Laminariales). If eelgrass is present in the
vicinity of an area new to shellfish activities, the eelgrass shall be delineated and a map or sketch
prepared and submitted to the Corps. Surveys to determine presence and location of eelgrass shall
be done during times of peak above-ground biomass: June 1 – September 30. The following
information must be included to scale: parcel boundaries, eelgrass locations and on-site
dimensions, shellfish activity locations and dimensions.
7. For ‘new’ activities only, activities shall not occur above the tidal elevation of +7 feet (MLLW) if
the area is listed as documented surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) spawning habitat by WDFW.
A map showing the location of documented surf smelt spawning habitat is available at the
WDFW website.
8. For ‘new’ activities only, activities shall not occur above the tidal elevation of +5 feet (MLLW) if
the area is documented as Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) spawning habitat by the
WDFW. A map showing the location of documented Pacific sand lance spawning habitat is
available at the WDFW website.
9. If conducting 1) mechanical dredge harvesting, 2) raking, 3) harrowing, 4) tilling, leveling or
other bed preparation activities, 5) frosting or applying gravel or shell on beds, or 6) removing
equipment or material (nets, tubes, bags) within a documented or potential spawning area for
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) outside the approved work window (see Seattle District Corps
website), the work area shall be surveyed for the presence of herring spawn prior to the activity
occurring. Vegetation, substrate, and materials (nets, tubes, etc.) shall be inspected. 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 herring spawn is no longer present. A record shall be
maintained of spawn surveys including the date and time of surveys; the area, materials, and
equipment surveyed; results of the survey, etc. The Corps and the Services shall be notified if
spawn is detected during a survey. The record of spawn surveys shall be made available upon
request to the Corps and the Services.
10. For ‘new’ activities only, activities occurring in or adjacent to potential spawning habitat for sand
lance, or surf smelt shall have a spawn survey completed in the work area by an approved
biologist3 prior to undertaking bed preparation, maintenance, and harvest activities if work will
occur outside approved work windows for these species. If eggs are 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. A record shall be maintained of spawn surveys including the date and
time of surveys; the area, materials, and equipment surveyed; results of the survey, etc. The Corps
and the Services shall be notified if spawn is detected during a survey. The record of spawn
surveys shall be made available upon request to the Corps and the Services.
3 For information on how to become an “approved biologist” for forage fish surveys contact WDFW.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 51 Programmatic Biological Assessment
11. All shellfish gear (e.g., socks, bags, racks, marker stakes, rebar, nets, and tubes) that is not
immediately needed or is not firmly secured to the substrate will be moved to a storage area
landward of MHHW prior to the next high tide. Gear that is firmly secured to the substrate may
remain on the tidelands for a consecutive period of time up to 7 days. Note: This is not meant to
apply to the wet storage of harvested shellfish.
12. All pump intakes (e.g., for washing down gear) that use seawater shall be screened in accordance
with NMFS and WDFW criteria. Note: This does not apply to work boat motor intakes (jet
pumps) or through-hull intakes.
13. Land vehicles (e.g., all-terrain, trucks) shall be washed in an upland area such that wash water is
not allowed to enter any stream, waterbody, or wetland. Wash water shall be disposed of upland
in a location where all water is infiltrated into the ground (i.e., no flow into a waterbody or
wetland).
14. Land vehicles shall be stored, fueled, and maintained in a vehicle staging area located 150 feet or
more from any stream, waterbody, or wetland. Where this is not possible, documentation must be
provided to the Corps as to why compliance is not possible, written approval from the Corps must
be obtained, and the operators shall have a spill prevention plan and maintain a readily-available
spill prevention and clean-up kit.
15. For boats and other gas-powered vehicles or power equipment that cannot be fueled in a staging
area 150 feet away from a waterbody or at a fuel dock, fuels shall be transferred in Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)-compliant portable fuel containers 5 gallons or smaller at a time during
refilling. A polypropylene pad or other appropriate spill protection and a funnel or spill-proof
spout shall be used when refueling to prevent possible contamination of waters. A spill kit shall
be available and used in the event of a spill. All spills shall be reported to the Washington
Emergency Management Office at (800) 258-5990. All waste oil or other clean-up materials
contaminated with petroleum products will be properly disposed of off-site.
16. All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any stream, waterbody, or wetland shall be inspected
daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected shall be repaired
in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes operation and the leak and repair
documented in a record that is available for review on request by the Corps and Services.
17. The direct or indirect contact of toxic compounds including creosote, wood preservatives, paint,
etc. within the marine environment shall be prevented. [This does not apply to boats]
18. All tubes, mesh bags and area nets shall be clearly, indelibly, and permanently marked to identify
the permittee name and contact information (e.g., telephone number, email address, mailing
address). On the nets, identification markers shall be placed with a minimum of one
identification marker for each 50 feet of net.
19. All equipment and gear including anti-predator nets, stakes, and tubes shall be tightly secured to
prevent them from breaking free.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 52 Programmatic Biological Assessment
20. All foam material (whether used for floatation of for any other purpose) must be encapsulated
within a shell that prevents breakup or loss of foam material into the water and is not readily
subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or abrasion. Un-encapsulated foam material used for
current on-going activities shall be removed or replaced with the encapsulated type.
21. Tires shall not be used as part of above and below structures or where tires could potentially
come in contact with the water (e.g., floatation, fenders, hinges). Tires used for floatation
currently shall be replaced with inert or encapsulated materials, such as plastic or encased foam,
during maintenance or repair of the structure.
22. At least once every three months, beaches in the project vicinity will be patrolled by crews who
will retrieve debris (e.g., anti-predator nets, bags, stakes, disks, tubes) that escape from the project
area. Within the project vicinity, locations will 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 shellfish related debris appropriately. A record shall be
maintained with the following information and the record will 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, other pertinent information.
23. When performing other activities on-site, the grower shall routinely inspect for and document any
fish or wildlife found entangled in nets or other shellfish equipment. In the event that fish, bird, or
mammal is found entangled, the grower shall: 1) provide immediate notice (within 24 hours) to
WDFW (all species), Services (ESA listed species) or Marine Mammal Stranding Network
marine mammals), 2) attempt to release the individual(s) without harm, and 3) provide a written
and photographic record of the event, including dates, species identification, number of
individuals, and final disposition, to the Corps and Services. Contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Law Enforcement Office at (425) 883-8122 with any questions about the preservation of
specimens.
24. Vehicles (e.g., ATVs, tractors) shall not be used within native eelgrass (Zostera marina). If there
is no other alternative for site access, a plan will be developed describing specific measures
and/or best management practices that will be undertaken to minimize negative effects to eelgrass
from vehicle operation. The access plan shall include the following components: (a) frequency of
access at each location, (b) use of only the minimum vehicles needed to conduct the work and a
description of the minimum number of vehicles needed at each visit, and (c) consistency in
anchoring/grounding in the same location and/or traveling on the same path to restrict eelgrass
disturbance to a very small footprint.
25. Vessels shall not ground or anchor in native eelgrass (Zostera marina) or kelp (rooted/attached
brown algae in the order Laminariales) and paths through native eelgrass or kelp shall not be
established. If there is no other access to the site or the special condition cannot be met due to
human safety considerations, a site-specific plan shall be developed describing specific measures
and/or best management practices that will be undertaken to minimize negative effects to eelgrass
and kelp from vessel operation and accessing the shellfish areas. The access plan shall include
the following components: (a) frequency of access at each location, (b) use of only the minimum
number of boats and/or crew members needed to conduct the work and a description of the
minimum number of boats and crewmembers needed at each visit, and (c) consistency in
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 53 Programmatic Biological Assessment
anchoring/grounding in the same location and/or walking on the same path to restrict eelgrass
disturbance to a very small footprint.
26. Unless prohibited by substrate or other specific site conditions, floats and rafts shall use
embedded anchors and midline floats to prevent dragging of anchors or lines. Floats and rafts that
are not in compliance with this standard shall be updated to meet this standard during scheduled
maintenance, repair, or replacement or before the end of the term of the next renewed
authorization. [Any alternative to using an embedded anchor must be approved by the NMFS.]
27. Activities that are directly associated with shellfish activities (e.g., access roads, wet storage)
shall not result in removal of native riparian vegetation extending landward 150 ft horizontally
from MHHW (includes both wetland and upland vegetation) and disturbance shall be limited to
the minimum necessary to access or engage in shellfish activities.
28. Native salt marsh vegetation shall not be removed and disturbance shall be limited to the
minimum necessary to access or engage in shellfish activities.
3.6. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under
consideration (50 CFR 402.02).
The proposed action consists of issuing various types of permits under Section 404 of the CWA and/or
Section 10 of the RHA authorizing shellfish activities as described in Section 3.3. Under Section 404 of
the CWA, the Corps authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
Under Section 10 of the RHA, the Corps regulates structures and/or work in or affecting the course,
condition, or capacity of navigable waters of the United States. The suite of PBA covered activities
necessarily fall within these Corps regulatory authorities. There are several activities that would or could
occur in support of the PBA covered activities but that would not be regulated by the Corps because they
fall outside of the Corps regulatory authority. These are discussed below along with a determination of
whether they are considered to be interdependent or interrelated.
3.6.1. Vessel and Vehicle Traffic
Vessel (boat/barge), vehicle (e.g., trucks, ATV), or foot traffic related to the transportation of people and
materials to and from PBA covered activity areas is necessary to support the PBA covered activities in
many, if not all, cases. Vessels could land on the shoreline and load or unload items to waiting vehicles
or to individual persons who could then carry these items to an upland destination. Vehicle traffic could
occur to and from shellfish activity areas directly along shorelines without any dock or pier. Vehicles
could be traveling directly on the substrate (i.e., mudflats) to a proximate upland destination. The
distinction between the interdependent vessel and vehicle traffic and the support activity described in
Section 3.3.5 is the proximity to the shellfish activity area. The interdependent activity would be that
traffic that occurs some distance from the activity area whereas the traffic described in Section 3.3.5
would occur in the immediate vicinity of the shellfish activity area.
The Corps does not regulate general marine or vehicle traffic to and from shellfish activity areas. Since
these support activities are a necessary element of performing many of the PBA covered activities, they
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 54 Programmatic Biological Assessment
are considered an interdependent activity. Details on the types of vessels and vehicles that would be used
are described above in Section 3.3.5.
In most cases, vessel traffic is anticipated to occur from the shellfish activity areas to a local pier, dock, or
to the shoreline directly such as to a local beach. In some cases vessel traffic could occur from activity
areas to a more distant destination (e.g., to deliver product to market). For the purpose of the PBA, this
indirect effect is assumed to extend to the nearest navigation channel for vessels, or to an improved road
surface for vehicles (assumed to be within several hundred feet of the shoreline).
3.6.2. Upland Storage Sites
Upland locations used for storing equipment, materials (e.g., shell), or maintaining live product in tanks
e.g., wet storage) could occur in close proximity to shellfish activity areas. These upland locations are in
many cases interdependent with the shellfish activity area. The use and management of upland storage
locations in close proximity to shellfish activity areas are considered to be interdependent with the
proposed action. Disturbance (e.g., of native riparian vegetation) in such upland areas shall be minimized
consistent with the Conservation Measures.
3.6.3. Shore Facilities
Shore facilities such as hatcheries and processing plants are typically used in coordination with the PBA
covered shellfish activities but are not regulated by the Corps. They are operated independently of any of
the PBA covered activities and do not depend on the covered activities except at a much larger scale or
context than what would be considered an interdependent or interrelated activity. These types or facilities
are not considered to be interdependent or interrelated with the proposed action.
3.7. Pesticide Application
The application of pesticides, including carbaryl to control burrowing shrimp species, is not regulated by
the Corps but has historically been associated with some aquaculture activities. Pesticide use is not
universal to activities covered by this PBA, but rather is elective depending on waterbody, species
cultivated, growing conditions, and individual decision. Such pesticide application is regulated by the
EPA and is generally governed under section 402 of the CWA as administered by the Washington State
Department of Ecology. Permits for the application of pesticides, including carbaryl, along with any
associated ESA section 7 consultation, are the responsibility of those wishing to use the pesticides. If a
Corps permittee elects to use pesticides, the permittee must obtain the appropriate pesticide use permit
and complete any relevant ESA consultation as detailed in the Corps issued permit or verification. The
application of pesticides including carbaryl is not covered by this PBA.
3.8. Comparison with 2007 NWP 48 Consultation
In 2007, the Corps initiated ESA consultation for the implementation and administration of the 2007
version of NWP 48 for existing commercial aquaculture activities. The consultation was concluded in
2011. The 2007 version of NWP 48 has since expired making the prior ESA consultation obsolete. A
new version of NWP 48 was issued in 2012 and includes a different set of aquaculture activities. The
new set of NWP 48 activities have been combined with numerous other Corps permitting actions for non-
aquaculture related shellfish activities to form the proposed action for the current PBA. The proposed
action for the current PBA is therefore significantly different and more expansive in scope than for the
2007 ESA consultation. Furthermore, the Corps has significantly more information about the commercial
aquaculture activities in the State of Washington today than it did in 2007. This resulted in several
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 55 Programmatic Biological Assessment
important changes to the commercial aquaculture component of the proposed action in the 2015 PBA
compared to 2007 that is further discussed below. Finally, and most importantly, the structure of the
2015 PBA proposed action is fundamentally different than the action presented in the 2007 PBA. The
emphasis is on the specific types and methods of the shellfish activities themselves and not on specific
permits and their related authorization periods. This change in structure results in a proposed action that
does not expire with the expiration of an individual or general permit which allows for more efficient
administration of the Regulatory Program and compliance with ESA. The important differences between
the two proposed actions are summarized below in Table 3-14.
Table 3-14. Summary of important differences in the proposed action between the 2007 ESA
consultation for NWP 48 and the 2015 shellfish activity PBA
proposed action
element
2007 NWP 48 PBA consultation
concluded in 2011) 2015 PBA
general description
Seattle District authorization of
existing commercial shellfish
aquaculture activities under Section
404 of the CWA and Section 10 of
the RHA
Seattle District authorization of a suite of ongoing
and new shellfish related activities under Section
404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the RHA
activity/project
purposes
focus is on NWP 48 exclusively;
included ongoing commercial
aquaculture only
focus is on individual shellfish activities; includes
ongoing and new commercial aquaculture;
recreation related shellfish activities; restoration
related shellfish activities; subtidal geoduck
harvest; could include other purposes provided the
individual activities are described in PBA
Corps permits
included
2007 version of NWP 48 only any and all types of permits potentially issued by
the Corps provided it is for a shellfish related
activity;
includes individual permits and the 2012, 2017,
2022, & 2027 versions of NWP 4, 27, 48, or
potentially other general permits
time period
2007 to 2012 expiration tied to authorized acreage limits;
anticipated timeframe is 20 years extending from
2012 to 2032
geographic region
small, separate locations within
Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and
Puget Sound (including Hood Canal)
all inland marine waters of Washington State
excluding the Columbia River
action area
the active and fallow areas for each
individual aquaculture operation plus
an area 5% larger than the individual
operation footprints to account for
drift of turbid waters
the entire embayments of Grays Harbor, Willapa
Bay, Hood Canal, South Puget Sound and North
Puget Sound to the Canadian border to account for
unknown future locations for new shellfish
activities and for effects of in-air noise associated
with shellfish activity operations
total acreage 38,327 acres 86,813 acres
total commercial
aquaculture acreage
38,327 acres 38,365 acres
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 56 Programmatic Biological Assessment
proposed action
element
2007 NWP 48 PBA consultation
concluded in 2011) 2015 PBA
fallow areas
All acreage identified as fallow by
permit applicants assumed to be in
active aquaculture 'as part of normal
operations'.
It is assumed that shellfish activities will occur in
all areas currently identified as fallow. This
results in a conservative approach to the PBA
effects analysis and determination.
previously
identified fallow
acreage included
amount of fallow acreage not
separately quantified
14,796 acres
number of permit
conditions/
conservation
measures
16 (when consultation completed) 28
pesticide
application
identified as interdependent activity Not part of proposed action; not an interdependent
activity. Pesticides are under the jurisdiction of
EPA, a separate Federal agency with an existing
ESA consultation for such activities.
upland hatcheries
element of proposed action An interdependent activity; Corps does not
regulate upland hatcheries as there is no CWA
Section 404 or RHA Section 10 nexus
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 57 Programmatic Biological Assessment
4. Action Area
The geographic area directly affected by activities authorized by the proposed action can be broadly
described as the inland marine waters of Washington State between the tidal elevations of +7 ft and -70 ft
MLLW in Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and the straits of Juan de Fuca and
Georgia (Figure 3-1) with a few exceptions as described in section 3.2. This elevation band is illustrated
throughout the action area in the Figures in Appendix D. For the purpose of the PBA, this area has been
subdivided into five geographic regions identified as Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, Hood Canal, south
Puget Sound, and north Puget Sound. The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or
indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR
402.02). For the purpose of this PBA, the action area includes the immediate area directly affected by the
action as described above, the area extending beyond the directly affected area where interrelated and
interdependent activities as described in Section 3.6 would occur, and a noise driven buffer extending out
from the area encompassed by the interrelated and interdependent actions as discussed below.
Based on information provided by applicants on the type of equipment that could be used, the Corps has
estimated noise buffers extending about 4,000 feet upland from MHHW (see Section 7.1.7). Due to the
interrelated activity of vessel traffic, which could occur throughout the action area from the shoreline to
navigation channels which are roughly in the center of each of the PBA regions, and the potential
geographic locations for new activities including subtidal geoduck harvest, the entire inland marine area
identified in Figure 3-1 is included within the action area.
The action area includes portions of the following counties in Washington State: Pacific, Grays Harbor,
Clallam, Jefferson, Mason, Whatcom, San Juan, Skagit, Island, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and
Kitsap.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 58 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5. Status of the Species
Species listed under the ESA that occur in Washington State counties within the action area are
summarized in Table 5-1. Because of specialized habitat requirements, lack of tolerance for human
development, or both, some of these species would not be expected to occur in the action area, and/or
there should be no effect on it/them from the proposed action. They will not be further considered in this
document. Species that could potentially be affected by the proposed action are summarized in Table 5-2.
Table 5-1. ESA listed species occurring in the action area
Species (common name)
Pacific Grays Harbor Clallam
Jefferson Mason Whatcom San Juan Skagit Island Snohomish King Pierce Thurston Kitsap Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS
x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), California/
Oregon/Washington DPS x
x x x x x x x x x x x x Northern
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
caurina) x x x x
x x x x
x x x Short-
tailed
albatross (Phoebastria
albatrus) x x x
x Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus),
Pacific Coast DPS x
x Streaked
horned lark (Eremophila alpestris
strigata) x x x x
x Yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) - proposedTaylor’
s checkerspot butterfly Coccyzus
americanus) x x x Oregon
silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta) x
xMazama
pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis, T. m. glacialis, T. m.
tumuli, T. m. yelmensis) x x Canada lynx (Felis lynx
canadensis) x x x x x Gray wolf (Canis
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 59 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Species (common name)
Pacific Grays Harbor Clallam
Jefferson Mason Whatcom San Juan Skagit Island Snohomish
King Pierce Thurston Kitsap North
American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) - proposed x
x x x
x Oregon spotted frog (Rana
pretiosa) proposed) x
x h
h h x Golden paintbrush (Castilleja
levisecta) x x
h x Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) h Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) x x Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), Puget Sound
ESU x x x x x x x x x x x x Steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), Puget Sound DPS
x x x x x x x x x
x x x
Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus
keta), Hood
Canal Summer ESU x
x x x x
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River
ESU x x
x x Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), Columbia River ESU x x x x Bocaccio (Sebastes
paucispinus), Georgia Basin
DPS x x x x x x x x x x x x Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes
ruberrimus), Georgia Basin DPS
x x x x x x x x x x x x Canary rockfish (Sebastes
pinniger), Georgia Basin
DPS x x x x x x x x
x x x
x Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Southern DPS x x x x x x
Pacific Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus)
x x x x x x x x x x x x Killer whale, Southern Resident
DPS (Orcinus orca)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x Humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) x x
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 60 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 5-2 summarizes the ESA status of species potentially affected by the proposed action. General
habitat requirements for these species can be found elsewhere including Jones and Stokes (2007), Anchor
2009), NMFS (2009), USFWS (2009) and referenced Federal Register notices and recovery plans. The
emphasis in the below section is on the species occurrence and critical habitat within the action area.
Table 5-2. Summary of ESA listed species potentially affected by the proposed action that are further
evaluated within the PBA.
Species Classification Critical Habitat Recovery plan
Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU Threatened Designated Yes
Puget Sound Steelhead DPS Threatened Proposed No
Hood Canal Summer Chum salmon
ESU
Threatened Designated Yes
Lower Columbia River Chinook
salmon ESU
Threatened Designated Yes
Columbia River Chum salmon ESU Threatened Designated Yes
Green sturgeon, Southern DPS Threatened Designated No
Bocaccio, Georgia Basin DPS Endangered Proposed No
Yelloweye Rockfish DPS Threatened Proposed No
Canary Rockfish DPS Threatened Proposed No
Pacific eulachon, Southern DPS Threatened Designated No
Killer whale, Southern Resident DPS Endangered Designated Yes
Humpback whale Endangered None Yes
Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS Threatened Designated Draft
Marbled murrelet,
California/Oregon/Washington DPS
Threatened Designated Yes
Western snowy plover, Pacific Coast
DPS
Threatened Designated Yes
5.1. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
The Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU was listed as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into
Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 61 Programmatic Biological Assessment
streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington,
and 26 artificial propagation programs.
The recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook is comprised of two documents: Puget Sound Chinook
Recovery Plan (SSPS 2005) and Final Supplement to the Shared Strategy's Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan (NMFS 2006).
5.1.1. Status in the Action Area
Chinook salmon use the marine nearshore and offshore areas for juvenile rearing, migration, and adult
foraging. Puget Sound Chinook salmon occur in the Hood Canal, north Puget Sound, and south Puget
Sound regions as defined by the PBA. They are not known to occur in Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor.
Juveniles would occur primarily in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas. Adults would occur primarily in
deeper water and not in the intertidal zone.
5.1.2. Critical Habitat
On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (70
FR 52630). Specific areas proposed for designation include approximately 1,724 miles of streams and
lakes and 2,182 miles of nearshore marine habitat. Designated critical habitat occurs in the action area.
NMFS described six principal biological or physical constituent elements (PCEs) to describe important
elements of the designated critical habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species. These six
primary constituent elements are:
PCE 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting
spawning, incubation and larval development. These features are essential to conservation because
without them the species cannot successfully spawn and produce offspring.
PCE 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain
physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage
supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging
large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels,
and undercut banks.
PCE 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions
and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks
and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
PCE 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and
side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
PCE 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and
forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural
cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,
and side channels. The focus on nearshore areas is in Puget Sound because of its unique and
relatively sheltered fjord-like setting (as opposed to the more open coastlines of Washington and
Oregon).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 62 Programmatic Biological Assessment
PCE 6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates
and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. No specific areas have been designated based on this
PCE.
5.2. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon
The Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU was listed as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR
37160). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the Columbia
River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between
Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and includes the Willamette
River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River, and
17 artificial propagation programs.
The Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan is based on three locally-developed plans,
each of which covers a different portion of the species’ range: Lower Columbia River Conservation and
Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead (ODFW 2010); ESA Recovery Plan for
the White Salmon River Watershed (NMFS 2013a); and Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery
and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2010).
5.2.1. Status in the Action Area
Chinook salmon use the marine nearshore and offshore areas of for juvenile rearing, migration, and adult
foraging. Juvenile Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon have been found in the Strait of Juan de Fuca
Shaffer et al. 2012). It is presumed they may also occur in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor based on their
tendency to use the nearshore habitat (NMFS 2011). It is also possible that an occasional adult may enter
Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor. They would not be expected to occur in the further inland waters of Puget
Sound or in Hood Canal.
5.2.2. Designated Critical Habitat
On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
70 FR 52630). The specific areas proposed for designation include approximately 1,344 miles of
streams and lakes in Washington and Oregon. The downstream extent of the critical habitat is the mouth
of the Columbia River at the Pacific Ocean. No critical habitat for this species occurs in the action area.
5.3. Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon
The Hood Canal summer chum ESU was listed as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The ESU
includes all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries
as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay,
Washington. The ESU also includes some hatchery stocks. The recovery plan is comprised of two
documents: Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan
HCCC 2005) and the Final Supplement to the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum
Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS 2007).
5.3.1. Status in the Action Area
Hood Canal summer chum occur in the Hood Canal and North Puget Sound regions as defined by the
PBA. Juveniles would occur primarily in the intertidal zone during the late winter and early spring.
Adults would occur in deeper water during the summer.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 63 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5.3.2. Designated Critical Habitat
On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon
ESU (70 FR 52630). Designated critical habitat includes approximately 79 miles of streams and 377
miles of nearshore marine habitat. The PCEs listed above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical
habitat also apply to critical habitat for Hood Canal summer chum salmon.
5.4. Columbia River Chum Salmon
The Columbia River chum ESU was listed as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The ESU
includes all naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in
Washington and Oregon and includes some hatchery stocks.
The Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan is based on three locally-developed plans,
each of which covers a different portion of the species’ range: Lower Columbia River Conservation and
Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead (ODFW 2010); ESA Recovery Plan for
the White Salmon River Watershed (NMFS 2013a); and Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery
and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2010).
5.4.1. Status in the Action Area
Chum salmon use the marine nearshore and offshore areas of for juvenile rearing, migration, and adult
foraging. Similar to the discussion above for lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, juvenile Lower
Columbia River chum salmon have been found in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Shaffer et al. 2012) and are
presumed to occur in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor based on their tendency to use the nearshore habitat
NMFS 2011). It is also possible that an occasional adult may enter Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor. They
would not be expected to occur in the further inland waters of Puget Sound or in Hood Canal.
5.4.2. Critical Habitat
On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for Columbia River chum salmon (70 FR
52630). The specific areas proposed for designation include approximately 708 miles of freshwater and
estuarine habitat in Oregon and Washington in the lower Columbia River and its tributaries. The
downstream extent of the proposed critical habitat is the mouth of the Columbia River at the Pacific
Ocean (latitude 46.2485, longitude -124.0782). No critical habitat for this species occurs within the
action area.
5.5. Puget Sound Steelhead
The Puget Sound steelhead DPS was listed as threatened on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722). The DPS
includes all naturally spawned anadromous winter-run and summer-run steelhead populations, in streams
in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to
the west by the Elwha River (inclusive) and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek
inclusive), as well as two hatchery populations. NMFS is currently finalizing population structure and
viability reports that will inform the development of a recovery plan.
5.5.1. Status in the Action Area
Steelhead would occur throughout the south Puget Sound, north Puget Sound, and Hood Canal regions as
defined by the PBA. They would not be expected to occur in Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor. Juveniles
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 64 Programmatic Biological Assessment
would migrate to deeper waters soon after entering salt water and spend only minimal time in the
intertidal zone. Adults likewise would occur primarily in deeper habitat and not in the intertidal zone.
5.5.2. Critical Habitat
On January 14, 2013, NMFS proposed to designate critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead (78 FR
2726). The specific areas proposed for designation include approximately 1,880 miles of freshwater and
estuarine habitat in Puget Sound, Washington. NMFS did not propose to designate the nearshore zone in
Puget Sound as critical habitat because steelhead move rapidly out of freshwater into offshore marine
areas which did not make it possible for NMFS to identify specific areas in the nearshore zone where
essential features for steelhead are found (78 FR 2729). The PCEs listed above for Puget Sound Chinook
salmon critical habitat also apply to proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead.
5.6. Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout
The Coastal-Puget Sound DPS was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The DPS
encompasses all Pacific coast drainages within the coterminous United States north of the Columbia River
in Washington, including those flowing into Puget Sound. This population segment is geographically
segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain range.
The population segment is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States (64 FR 58909).
In September 2015, USFWS released a final recovery plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (USFWS
2015).
5.6.1. Status in the Action Area
Bull trout occur in the action area as adults or subadults. Bull trout have been recorded in all parts of the
action area from Grays Harbor north, through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in Hood Canal, and in much of
Puget Sound. Bull trout are not known to occur in Willapa Bay (WDFW 2004). Bull trout could occur in
subtidal or intertidal waters as they forage for prey.
5.6.2. Designated Critical Habitat
On October 18, 2010, the USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout throughout their United States
range, including the Coastal-Puget Sound DPSs (75 FR 63898). The critical habitat was categorized into
32 critical habitat units within 6 recovery units (75 FR 63935). Only two of the critical habitat units
occur within the action area: the Olympic Unit and Puget Sound Unit. Several waterbodies associated
with tribal lands, habitat conservation plans, and Navy training areas have been excluded from the critical
habitat designation (75 FR 63975-86).
The portion of the action area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound DPS includes most of the
eastern waters of Puget Sound from the Nisqually Reach to the Canadian border, but does not include the
San Juan Islands and does not include most of the action area in south Puget Sound. Designated critical
habitat also includes most of Hood Canal, the east end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Grays Harbor.
In freshwater areas, critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and
a lateral extent as defined by the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the opposite
bank. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the ordinary high-water line determines the
lateral extent of critical habitat. The lateral extent of critical habitat in lakes may initially be defined by
the perimeter of the waterbody as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. In marine
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 65 Programmatic Biological Assessment
nearshore areas, the inshore extent of critical habitat is the MHHW line, including the uppermost reach of
the saltwater wedge within tidally influenced, freshwater heads of estuaries. Critical habitat extends
offshore to the depth of 10 meters (33 feet) relative to the Mean Lower Low Water line (75 FR 63935).
USFWS developed the following PCEs for bull trout:
PCE 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to
contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.
PCE 2. Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between
spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not
limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
PCE 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
PCE 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and
processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood,
side channels, pools, undercut banks, and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths,
gradients, velocities, and structure.
PCE 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia
available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this
range will depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and
seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local
groundwater influence.
PCE 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure
success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile
survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand,
embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine
sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system.
PCE 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal
ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph.
PCE 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not
inhibited.
PCE 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern
pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species
that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout.
5.7. Green Sturgeon
NMFS published a final rule on April 7, 2006 listing the Southern DPS as threatened (71 FR 17757). A
recovery plan for the Southern DPS green sturgeon is under development.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 66 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5.7.1. Status in the Action Area
During the late summer and early fall, subadult and nonspawning adult green sturgeon concentrate in
Pacific coastal estuaries north of San Francisco Bay including Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor (Emmett et
al. 1991; Moser and Lindley 2007; Israel et al. 2004), although the reason for this behavior remains
unknown. Adult green sturgeon appear to be the most common sturgeon species in Willapa Bay,
Washington (Emmett et al. 1991). However, no spawning is known to occur in this system, and the
population of origin for these fish is unknown (Rien et al. 2000).
Adult and subadult green sturgeon in estuaries feed on crangonid shrimp, burrowing thalassinidean
shrimp (primarily the burrowing ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis), amphipods, clams, juvenile
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), anchovies, sand lances (Ammodytes hexapterus), lingcod (Ophiodon
elongatus), and other unidentified fish species (Moyle et al. 1995; Moser and Lindley 2007; Dumbauld et
al. 2008). Burrowing ghost shrimp comprised approximately 50 percent of the stomach contents of green
sturgeon in Willapa Bay (Dumbauld et al. 2008). Kelly et al. (2007) found adults and subadults within
San Francisco Bay foraged in water less than 10 m in depth.
5.7.2. Designated Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for Southern DPS green sturgeon was designated on October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52300). The
specific areas designated occur in California, Oregon, and Washington and include approximately 515
miles of freshwater riverine habitat, 897 square miles of estuarine habitat, 11,421 square miles of marine
habitat, 487 miles of habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and 135 square miles in the Yolo and
Sutter bypasses of the Sacramento River. In Washington State, only estuarine and coastal marine areas
were designated as critical habitat. Coastal United States marine waters within a 360-foot depth (relative
to MLLW) from the Columbia River north to Cape Flattery, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, to the
United States border with Canada. All tidally influenced areas of Willapa Bay up to the elevation of
mean higher high water, including, but not limited to, areas upstream to the head of tide endpoint in 14
tributaries. All tidally influenced areas of Grays Harbor up to the elevation of mean higher high water,
including, but not limited to, areas upstream to the head of tide endpoint in 22 tributaries.
NMFS developed PCEs for green sturgeon in freshwater, estuarine, and coastal marine areas. Since the
action area include estuarine and coastal marine critical habitat, PCEs for these areas are described below.
Green sturgeon Southern DPS estuarine area PCEs include:
PCE 1. Food resources. Abundant prey items within estuarine habitats and substrates for juvenile,
subadult, and adult life stages. Prey species for juvenile, subadult, and adult green sturgeon within
bays and estuaries primarily consist of benthic invertebrates and fishes, including crangonid
shrimp, burrowing thalassinidean shrimp (particularly the burrowing ghost shrimp), amphipods,
isopods, clams, annelid worms, crabs, sand lances, and anchovies.
PCE 2. Water flow. Within bays and estuaries adjacent to the Sacramento River (i.e., the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta and the Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco bays), sufficient flow into the bay
and estuary to allow adults to successfully orient to the incoming flow and migrate upstream to
spawning grounds.
PCE 3. Water quality. Water quality, including temperature, salinity, oxygen content, and other chemical
characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages. Suitable water
temperatures for juvenile green sturgeon should be below 24 °C. Suitable salinities range from
brackish water (10 ppt) to salt water (33 ppt). Subadult and adult green sturgeon occupy a wide
range of dissolved oxygen levels, but may need a minimum dissolved oxygen level of at least 6.54 mg
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 67 Programmatic Biological Assessment
02/l (Kelly et al. 2007; Moser and Lindley 2007). Suitable water quality also includes water with
acceptably low levels of contaminants (e.g., pesticides, PAHs, elevated levels of heavy metals) that
may disrupt the normal development of juvenile life stages, or the growth, survival, or reproduction
of subadult or adult stages.
PCE 4. Migratory corridor. A migratory pathway necessary for the safe and timely passage of Southern
DPS fish within estuarine habitats and between estuarine and riverine or marine habitats. We define
safe and timely passage to mean that human-induced impediments, either physical, chemical, or
biological, do not alter the migratory behavior of the fish such that its survival or the overall
viability of the species is compromised (e.g., an impediment that compromises the ability of fish to
reach thermal refugia by the time they enter a particular life stage).
PCE 5. Water depth. A diversity of depths necessary for shelter, foraging, and migration of juvenile,
subadult, and adult life stages. Subadult and adult green sturgeon occupy a diversity of depths within
bays and estuaries for feeding and migration. Tagged adults and subadults within the San Francisco
Bay estuary primarily occupied waters over shallow depths of less than 10 m, either swimming near
the surface or foraging along the bottom (Kelly et al. 2007).
PCE 6. Sediment quality. Sediment quality (i.e., chemical characteristics) necessary for normal behavior,
growth, and viability of all life stages. This includes sediments free of elevated levels of contaminants
e.g., selenium, PAHs, and pesticides) that can cause adverse effects on all life stages of green
sturgeon (see description of ‘‘Sediment quality’’ for riverine habitats above).
Green sturgeon Southern DPS coastal marine area PCEs include:
PCE 1. Migratory corridor. A migratory pathway necessary for the safe and timely passage of Southern
DPS fish within marine and between estuarine and marine habitats. We define safe and timely
passage to mean that human- induced impediments, either physical, chemical, or biological, do not
alter the migratory behavior of the fish such that its survival or the overall viability of the species is
compromised (e.g., an impediment that compromises the ability of fish to reach abundant prey
resources during the summer months in Washington and Oregon estuaries).
PCE 2. Water quality. Coastal marine waters with adequate dissolved oxygen levels and acceptably low
levels of contaminants (e.g., pesticides, PAHs, heavy metals that may disrupt the normal behavior,
growth, and viability of subadult and adult green sturgeon). Based on studies of tagged subadult and
adult green sturgeon in the San Francisco Bay estuary, CA, and Willapa Bay, WA, subadults and
adults may need a minimum dissolved oxygen level of at least 6.54 mg O2/l (Kelly et al. 2007; Moser
and Lindley 2007).
PCE 3. Food resources. Abundant prey items for subadults and adults, which may include benthic
invertebrates and fish. Green sturgeon spend more than half their lives in coastal marine and
estuarine waters, spending from 3–20 years at a time out at sea.
5.8. Canary Rockfish
The Georgia Basin canary rockfish was listed as threatened on April 28, 2010 (75FR 22276). The range
of the DPS encompasses Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin in Washington (United States) and British
Columbia (Canada) with the Victoria Sill as the likely western boundary of the DPS (74 FR 18527).
NMFS has appointed a Recovery Team to aide in the development of the recovery plan for listed rockfish.
NMFS hopes to have a draft recovery plan prepared for internal review in early 2014.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 68 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5.8.1. Status in the Action Area
In North Sound (Strait of Georgia, San Juan Islands, and Strait of Juan de Fuca) recreational fisheries,
canary rockfish constituted an average of 1.4 percent for the recreational catch from 1980 to 1986, but
their frequency decreased to an average of 0.6 percent of the catch from 1996 to 2002 when their
retention was prohibited (Palsson et al. 2009, cited in Drake et al. 2010). Washington REEF surveys
between 1996 and 2013 suggest that canary rockfish are most consistently observed in northern waters of
Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the outer coast (Table 5-3).
Table 5-3. Observations and Distribution of Canary Rockfish in Inland Washington Waters as reported in
REEF Surveys Between January 1996 and July 2013 (REEF 2013).
Survey Area Species Observations1,
sighting frequency %)2
YOY Observations1
sighting frequency %)2
STRAIT OF GEORGIA (CANADA) 13, (0.5%) -
WESTERN VANCOUVER ISLAND (CANADA) 121, (15.4%) -
QUEEN CHARLOTTE STRAIT (CANADA) 4, (0.9%) -
SAN JUAN ISLANDS 19 (1.5%) -
Shaw Island 2, (3%) -
HOOD CANAL 36, (1.6%) -
Dabob Bay 23, (4.2%) -
Quatsap Pt/Misery Pt – Potlatch State Park 13, (0.8%) -
MT VERNON - EVERETT 3, (0.2%) 2, (0.2%)
Whidbey Island 3, (0.3%) 2, (0.2%)
SEATTLE - OLYMPIA 13, (0.3%) 5, (0.1%)
Vashon Island 3, (1.0%) 1, (0%)
West Seattle 4, (0.4%) 1, (0.1%)
Burien - Tacoma area 6, (0.2%) -
OLYMPIC PENINSULA 74, (5.6%) 32, (2.4%)
Hood Head - Dungeness Bay 2, (0.7%) -
Dungeness Bay to Kydaka Point - 7, (2.8%)
Kydaka Point to Cape Flattery 72, (9.3%) 25, (3.2%)
KITSAP PENINSULA (EAST SIDE) AND
SOUTH SOUND 1, (0.2%) -
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 69 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Survey Area Species Observations1,
sighting frequency %)2
YOY Observations1
sighting frequency %)2
Kitsap Peninsula (Port Gamble - Gig Harbor) 1, (0.3%) -
CAPE FLATTERY - N COLUMBIA RIVER
PACIFIC COAST) 8, (11.4%) 8, (11.4%)
Notes: 1Observations represent the number of surveys that observed individuals or YOY yelloweye rockfish.
2Sighting frequency represents the percentage of surveys conducted that contained individuals or YOY yelloweye
rockfish. Individual = adults and juveniles combined; YOY = young of year only.
Canary rockfish may occur throughout the Hood Canal, north Puget Sound, and south Puget Sound
regions. Adults would typically be found in deep waters at or near the bottom often associated with hard
bottom areas and along rocky shelves and pinnacles (NMFS 2013b). Juveniles would occur in shallow
intertidal areas. They would not be expected to occur in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
5.8.2. Critical Habitat
On November 13, 2014, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS (79
FR 68042). The proposed critical habitat includes 590 square miles of nearshore habitat and 414 square
miles of deepwater habitat of Puget Sound, Washington. The portion of the action area proposed as
critical habitat includes parts of South Puget Sound, North Puget Sound, and Hood Canal.
In nearshore areas, the proposed critical habitat occurs from the shoreline from extreme high water out to
a depth no greater than 30 meters (98 feet) relative to mean lower low water. In deepwater areas, the
proposed critical habitat occurs from depths greater than 30 meters (98 feet). Essential features of the
proposed critical habitat are described below.
In nearshore areas, juvenile settlement habitats located with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble
compositions that also support kelp are essential for conservation because these features enable forage
opportunities and refuge from predators and enable behavioral and physiological changes needed for
juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. Several attributes of these sites determine the quality of the
area including the quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth,
survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved
oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
In deepwater areas, benthic habitats or sites deeper than 30 meters (98 feet) that possess or are adjacent to
areas of complex bathymetry consisting of rock and or highly rugose habitat are essential to conservation
because these features support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities by providing the
structure for adult bocaccio to avoid predation, seek food and persist for decades. Several attributes of
these habitats or sites determine the quality of the area including: (1) quantity, quality, and availability of
prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; (2) water
quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding
opportunities; and (3) the type and amount of structure and rugosity that supports feeding opportunities
and predator avoidance.
5.9. Bocaccio
The Georgia Basin bocaccio (rockfish) DPS was listed as endangered on April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22276).
The range of the DPS encompasses Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin in Washington (United States)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 70 Programmatic Biological Assessment
and British Columbia (Canada) with the Victoria Sill as the likely western boundary of the DPS (74 FR
18527).
NMFS has appointed a Recovery Team to aide in the development of the recovery plan for listed rockfish.
NMFS hopes to have a draft recovery plan prepared for internal review in early 2014.
5.9.1. Status in the Action Area
Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface, occasionally associated with drifting
kelp mats (Love et al. 2002). They have been found as far as 480 kilometers (149 miles) offshore. Most
bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months before settling to shallow areas, although some may remain
pelagic as long as 5.5 months. Larval rockfish (not identified to species) have been documented in each
basin of the Puget Sound (NMFS 2013b).
Juveniles settle to shallow, algae-covered rocky areas or to eelgrass (Zostera marina) and sand (Love et
al. 1991, cited in NMFS 2013b). They may school in these nearshore waters (MacCall and He 2002).
Several weeks after settlement, fish move to deeper waters in the 18 to 30 meters (59 to 98 feet) range
where they are found on rocky reefs (Love and Yoklavich 2008, cited in NMFS 2013b). Adults inhabit
waters from 12 to 478 meters (39 to 1,600 feet) but are most common at depths of 50 to 250 meters (164
to 820 feet) (Love et al. 2002). Adults are generally associated with hard substrata, but do occupy mud
flats, particularly those near structure such as boulders and crevices (Anderson and Yoklavich 2007, cited
in NMFS 2013b).
Recreational catch data reported between the mid-1960s and the 1970s suggested that bocaccio were rare
in Puget Sound proper (south of Admiralty Inlet) (Drake et al. 2010). However, throughout the late
1970s, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Washington State Sport Catch
Reports documented that 8 to 9 percent of catches included bocaccio (Drake et al. 2010). These reports
were primarily (66 percent) in punch card area 13 (south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge). In 1980-1989,
bocaccio were reported in 0.24 percent of the 8,430 rockfish identified (Palsson et al. 2009, cited in Drake
et al. 2010). From 1996 to 2007, bocaccio were not observed out of the 2,238 rockfish identified in the
dockside surveys of the recreational catches (Palsson et al. 2009, cited in Drake et al. 2010). REEF
survey data for January 1996 through July 2013 indicate that bocaccio are identified in less than 0.02
percent of surveys with one observation each in the Seattle-Olympia area and the Hood Canal area (REEF
2013). The latest records of bocaccio sightings were in 2011 (Hood Canal) and in 2001 (Seattle-
Olympia). In its review of available data, NMFS indicated bocaccio occupy each of the major regions of
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. In North Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia, records and
observations of bocaccio are rare (COSEWIC 2002, cited in Drake et al. 2010).
5.9.2. Critical Habitat
On November 13, 2015, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Georgia Basin bocaccio DPS (79 FR
68042). The proposed critical habitat includes 590 square miles of nearshore habitat and 414 square
miles of deepwater habitat of Puget Sound, Washington which is identical to critical habitat proposed for
canary rockfish. The portion of the action area proposed as critical habitat includes parts of South Puget
Sound, North Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal. Essential features of the
critical habitat identified by NMFS are also identical to those identified for canary rockfish as described
above.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 71 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5.10. Yelloweye Rockfish
The Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish DPS was listed as threatened on April 28, 2010 (75FR 22276).
The range of the DPS encompasses Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin in Washington (United States)
and British Columbia (Canada) with the Victoria Sill as the likely western boundary of the DPS (74 FR
18527).
NMFS has appointed a Recovery Team to aide in the development of the recovery plan for listed rockfish.
NMFS hopes to have a draft recovery plan prepared for internal review in early 2014.
5.10.1. Status in the Action Area
In Puget Sound, the species is more frequently observed in north than in south Puget Sound (Miller and
Borton 1980; Love et al. 2002; NMFS 2013b), which is likely due to the greater amount of rocky habitat
in north Puget Sound. Palsson et al. (2009, cited in Drake et al. 2010) also found a relatively high
frequency of yelloweye rockfish distribution in Hood Canal based on trawl surveys (1987-2005) and
scuba surveys (1995-2006). Since the 1960s WDFW has recorded a progressive decline in yelloweye
rockfish in recreational catch surveys. In the 1960s, yelloweye rockfish was 2.4 percent of the
recreational harvest in North Sound (Strait of Georgia, San Juan Islands, and Strait of Juan de Fuca), it
occurred in 2.1 percent of the harvest in the 1980s, but then decreased to an average of 1 percent after
1996 until the prohibition for landing the species in Puget Sound took effect in 2002 (Palsson et al. 2009,
cited in Drake et al. 2010). Although the species is rare Puget Sound, based on a review of available data,
NMFS indicates yelloweye rockfish occupy each of the major regions of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
NMFS 2013b).
In Puget Sound, yelloweye rockfish are believed to fertilize eggs during the winter to summer months and
give birth in early spring to late summer (Washington et al. 1978, cited in NMFS 2013b). After
parturition, yelloweye rockfish larvae remain pelagic for up to 2 months before settling (Moser 1996b,
cited in NMFS 2013b). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface, occasionally
associated with drifting kelp mats (Love et al. 2002). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish do not typically occupy
intertidal waters (Studebaker et al. 2009, cited in NMFS 2013b), but instead most settle in habitats along
the shallow range of adult habitats in areas of complex bathymetry, rocky/boulder habitats, and cloud
sponges in waters greater than 30 meters (98 feet) (Richards 1986, cited in NMFS 2013b).
5.10.2. Critical Habitat
On November 13, 2015, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish DPS
79 FR 68042). The specific areas proposed for designation for yelloweye rockfish include 414 sq mi
1,488.6 sq km) of marine habitat in Puget Sound, Washington (78 FR 47635).
The portion of the action area proposed as critical habitat includes deeper waters of South Puget Sound,
North Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal, identical to that for the other two
rockfish species described above. Essential features of the proposed deepwater habitat are also described
above. No shallow water critical habitat was proposed for yelloweye rockfish.
5.11. Pacific Eulachon
The southern DPS of Pacific eulachon was listed as threatened on March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13012). The
DPS encompasses eulachon populations spawning from the Skeena River in British Columbia (inclusive)
and the Mad River in northern California (inclusive) (75 FR 13022).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 72 Programmatic Biological Assessment
On July 3, 2013, NMFS announced its intent to prepare a recovery plan for the species and requested
information from the public (78 FR 40104).
5.11.1. Status in the Action Area
In Washington, most eulachon are found in the Columbia River basin; spawning runs also occur in some
coastal rivers and tributaries to Puget Sound (Emmett et al. 1991; Willson et al. 2006). Southern DPS
eulachon are not expected to occur in Puget Sound (Wydoski and Whitney 2003), but could occur in the
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor portions of the action area due to the proximity of these waterbodies to the
Columbia River.
Table 5-4 details the known eulachon spawning areas in Washington based on the 2010 Eulachon Status
Review (Gustafson et al. 2010). Eulachon are described as “common” in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
Emmett et al. 1991, cited in Gustafson et al. 2010; Monaco et al. 1990).
Table 5-4. Eulachon Spawning and Estuarine Areas in Washington(from Gustafson et al. 2010)
Eulachon Spawning Areas Spawning Regularity Estuary
Bear River Occasional Willapa Bay
Naselle River Occasional Willapa Bay
Nemah River Unknown Willapa Bay
Wynoochie River Unknown Grays Harbor
Elwha River Occasional Juan de Fuca
Puyallup River Unknown Puget Sound
Notes: Unknown, Irregular, Anecdotal, Occasional – sporadic, infrequent occurrence, does not occur every year and
may not occur in most years, especially those rivers with a spawning regularity of “unknown.”
Eulachon would rarely occur in Puget Sound (Wydoski and Whitney 2003; Penttila 2009), but could
occur in Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor. Juvenile eulachon rear in marine nearshore areas and if
present, would be expected in these portions of the action area.
5.11.2. Critical Habitat
On October 20, 2011, NMFS designated critical habitat for the southern DPS eulachon (76 FR 65324).
The critical habitat includes 16 specific areas within the states of California, Oregon, and Washington.
One of these areas, the Elwha River, occurs within the action area.
In estuarine areas, critical habitat includes tidally influenced areas as defined by the elevation of mean
higher high water.
NMFS determined that the following physical or biological features are essential for conservation of the
southern DPS of eulachon.
PCE 1. Freshwater spawning and incubation sites with water flow, quality and temperature conditions
and substrate supporting spawning and incubation.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 73 Programmatic Biological Assessment
PCE 2. Freshwater and estuarine migration corridors free of obstruction and with water flow, quality
and temperature conditions supporting larval and adult mobility, and with abundant prey items
supporting larval feeding after the yolk sac is depleted.
PCE 3. Nearshore and offshore marine foraging habitat with water quality and available prey,
supporting juveniles and adult survival.
5.12. Southern Resident Killer Whale
NMFS listed the southern resident killer whale population as endangered on November 18, 2005 (70 FR
69903) and published a recovery plan for species in January 2008 (NMFS 2008).
5.12.1. Status in the Action Area
The southern resident killer whale population consists of three pods, identified as J, K, and L pods, that
reside for part of the year in the inland waterways of the Strait of Georgia, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and
Puget Sound in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, especially during the spring, summer,
and fall (Ford et al. 2000; Krahn et al. 2004, cited in NMFS 2008). There are seasonal and temporal
differences in habitat use by the three southern resident pods in Puget Sound (Hauser 2006, cited in
NMFS 2008). The west side of San Juan Island and Haro Strait is the most commonly used area among
all three pods during the summer, but other regions (e.g., the south end of Vancouver Island) are used in
varying extents by the three pods during the summer (Krahn et al. 2004). While the summer range has
been fairly well defined, the movements and distribution during non-summer are poorly understood for
the southern resident killer whale population. Recent data suggests that J pod is more frequently sighted
in Puget Sound than the other two pods during non-summer months (Krahn et al. 2004).
Southern resident killer whale generally spend the majority of their time in deeper water and only
occasionally enter water less than about 16 feet (5 meters) deep (Heimlich-Boran 1988, Baird 2000, 2001,
cited in NMFS 2008). Most foraging is done over deep open water (41percent of sightings), shallow
slopes (32 percent), or deep slopes (19 percent). Frequently, pods forage within 50-100 meters of shore
Ford et al. 1998, cited in NMFS 2008).
5.12.2. Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for southern resident killer whales was designated on November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69054)
in three specific areas: 1) Summer Core Area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands; 2)
Puget Sound; and 3) the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Critical habitat includes approximately 2,560 square miles
of Puget Sound, excluding areas with water less than 20 feet deep relative to extreme high water. There is
no critical habitat designated in Hood Canal, Willapa Bay, or Grays Harbor.
The PCEs for southern resident killer whale critical habitat are:
PCE 1. Water quality to support growth and development;
PCE 2. Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support individual growth,
reproduction and development, as well as overall population growth
PCE 3. Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 74 Programmatic Biological Assessment
5.13. Humpback Whale
The humpback whale was listed as endangered on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). A final recovery plan for
the humpback whale was published in November 1991 (NMFS 1991).
5.13.1. Status in the Action Area
Humpback whale migratory routes pass through Washington’s coastal waters, but not the inland waters of
Puget Sound (75 FR 68474). Individual humpback whales have been reported to occasionally enter Puget
Sound (75 FR 68474) and John Calambokidis, of Cascadia Research Collective, estimates their entry into
Puget Sound occurs about once a year (Calambokidis and Steiger 1990; John Calambokidis, pers. comm.
2011). Falcone et al. (2005) reported 10 humpback whale sightings in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and
Strait of Georgia from 1990 through 2004, whereas only 2 humpback whale sightings were reported in
Puget Sound during this same time period.
5.13.2. Critical Habitat
Critical habitat has not been proposed or designated for the humpback whale.
5.14. Marbled Murrelet
The Washington/Oregon/California population of marbled murrelet was listed as threatened by USFWS
on October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45328). USFWS published a recovery plan for the species in 1997 (USFWS
1997).
5.14.1. Status in the Action Area
The marbled murrelet belongs to the diving seabird family, Alcidae. Murrelets live primarily in a marine
environment, but during the summer nesting season they fly inland to nest, typically in low-elevation old
growth and mature coniferous forests (Hamer 1995; Hamer and Cummins 1991). At sea, murrelets can be
found as dispersed pairs, in flocks, or in aggregates (crowded or massed into a dense cluster) (Strachan et
al. 1995; Strong et al. 1996). Marbled murrelets forage predominantly within 1.25 mile (2 kilometers) of
shore (Strachan et al. 1995), although the species can be found further offshore (Piatt and Naslund 1995;
Ralph and Miller 1995). Thompson (1996) found that in Washington State, murrelets were most
numerous within 200 meters of shore, and rarely found at or beyond 1,200 meters from shore. Speich and
Wahl (1995) observed that murrelets tend to be most abundant over eelgrass and kelp substrate, on
shorelines with broad shelves, and along shorelines with narrow shelves where kelp is present in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. They reported that significant numbers of murrelets might also be
found in areas of tidal activity. Murrelets feed primarily on fish and invertebrates (Burkett 1995).
Murrelets can potentially be found in all five regions of the action area.
5.14.2. Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated on May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26256) and revised on
October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61599). Critical habitat was identified in the terrestrial environment but not in
the marine environment. There are two PCEs for marbled murrelet.
PCE 1. Individual trees with potential nesting platforms
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 75 Programmatic Biological Assessment
PCE 2. Forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting
platforms, and with a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height
5.15. Western Snowy Plover
The Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993 (58
FR 12864). On April 21, 2006, USFWS found that the Pacific Coast population of western snowy plover
constituted a valid DPS (71 FR 20607). In 2007 USFWS published a recovery plan for the species
USFWS 2007).
5.15.1. Status in the Action Area
Coastal populations of snowy plovers nest on sand spits, dune-backed beaches, unvegetated beach
strands, open areas around estuaries, and beaches at river mouths; utilizing areas with little, or no
vegetation above the high tide line (Stenzel et al. 1981; Wilson-Jacobs and Meslow 1984; Warriner et al.
1986). Saltpans, lagoons, dredge spoils, and salt evaporators along the coast are used less extensively by
nesting plovers (Warriner et al. 1986). Most adults arrive in Washington during late April, with
maximum numbers present in mid-May to late June. Nest initiation and egg laying occurs from late April
to late June, with fledging occurring from late June through August (WDFW 1995).
Historically, five coastal areas supported nesting plovers in Washington (WDFW 1995, cited in Pearson
et al. 2010). From 1993 through 2010, the number of nesting locations occupied during recent years has
ranged from four to two sites (Pearson et al. 2010). The estimated 2010 Washington breeding adult
population was 43 (Pearson et al. 2010). All of the breeding adults observed were found on two nesting
sites. In Washington, nesting snowy plovers are only present at Damon Point and Oyehut Wildlife Area
at Ocean Shores, South Beach north of Willapa Bay, and Leadbetter Point in Willapa National Wildlife
Refuge. Wintering snowy plovers are regularly observed at Leadbetter Point and have been found only
rarely on other beaches (WDFW 1995).
5.15.2. Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for snowy plovers along the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California was revised by
USFWS on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36737). Approximately 24,527 acres of critical habitat in Washington,
Oregon, and California have been designated. Four units in Washington, totaling 6,077 acres, were
designated as critical habitat: Copalis Spit (Grays Harbor County), Damon Point (Grays Harbor County),
Midway Beach and Shoalwater/Graveyard Spit (Pacific County), and Leadbetter Spit and Gunpowder
Sands Island (Pacific County).
The PCEs essential to the conservation of the Pacific Coast WSP are the following: Sandy beaches, dune
systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars,
artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites, with:
PCE 1. Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas and above the daily high tides;
PCE 2. Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse vegetation, that are between the
annual low tide or low water flow and annual high tide or high water flow, subject to inundation but
not constantly under water, that support small invertebrates, such as crabs, worms, flies, beetles,
spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and ostracods, that are essential food sources;
PCE 3. Surf- or water-deposited organic debris, such as seaweed (including kelp and eelgrass) or
driftwood located on open substrates that supports and attracts small invertebrates described in PCE
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 76 Programmatic Biological Assessment
2 for food, and provides cover or shelter from predators and weather, and assists in
avoidance of detection (crypsis) for nests, chicks, and incubating adults;
PCE 4. PCE 4. Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or human-attracted
predators, which provide relatively undisturbed areas for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 77 Programmatic Biological Assessment
6. Environmental Baseline
The environmental baseline represents the set of environmental conditions, captured as of the consultation
benchmark date, to which the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action would be added. It
includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private activities in the action area, the
anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal
or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with
the consultation in process” (50 CFR 402.02).
The environmental baseline includes the collective effects of past and ongoing human activities “leading
to the current status of the species, habitat (including designated critical habitat), and ecosystem, within
the action area” (USFWS and NMFS 1998). It is a "snapshot" of a species' health at a specified point in
time. The environmental baseline also encompasses those effects resulting from activities that are
presently covered under a concluded ESA consultation.
The environmental baseline benchmark date for this PBA is 18 March 2012. This is the date the 2012
version of the NWPs was issued and represents the first action in a series of actions undertaken or to be
undertaken by the Corps authorizing shellfish activities described in this PBA. While the PBA action
includes issuance of other type of permits, including individual permits and future versions of the NWPs,
this date is the starting point for all these permitting actions and is thus the appropriate date for
determining environmental baseline effects to which effects of the action should be added.
The general physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the environmental baseline have been well
documented in the prior ESA consultation for NWP 48 (Jones and Stokes 2007, NMFS 2009, USFWS
2009) and are considered to still be broadly representative of the conditions in 2012. This information is
incorporated by reference. The following discussion broadly supplements and updates this prior
information and focuses specifically on historical shellfish activities and their influence on the
environmental baseline. Specific elements of the environmental baseline, such as current eelgrass and
forage fish spawning distributions, are discussed and presented in the effects section and Appendices of
the PBA in the context of effects.
North and South Puget Sound (including Strait of Juan de Fuca) and Hood Canal
The majority of the following information in this section is referenced from the 2012 State of the Sound:
A Biennial Report on the Recovery of Puget Sound (Puget Sound Partnership 2012).
In Puget Sound and Hood Canal, marine water quality conditions have generally declined over the past
ten years. Low dissolved oxygen continues to be a significant problem in a number of locations. The
largest driver of declining marine water quality has been nitrate concentrations. Human activity is
suspected to be the cause of the increase. The trend in marine sediment quality is not clear. Of concern is
a reduction in the benthic invertebrate community in the Bainbridge Basin of Central Puget Sound.
There continues to be about 36,000 acres of shellfish beds closed to harvest due to water contamination.
This represents about 19% of the 190,000 acres of WDOH classified commercial and recreational
shellfish beds. Some shellfish areas were upgraded and others downgraded. Between 2007 and 2011
improvements in water quality led to a net increase of 1,384 acres in shellfish beds open to harvesting. In
South Puget Sound, Oakland Bay and Henderson Inlet gained 799 acres and 240 acres, respectively,
upgraded because of improving water quality. However, in North Puget Sound, Samish Bay had a
significant WDOH downgrade of 4,047 acres of shellfish growing areas. Oil spills also led to localized
shellfish closures. In 2012, Penn Cove (North Puget Sound) shellfish beds were closed temporarily due
to a 7,000 plus gallon spill.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 78 Programmatic Biological Assessment
On average, eelgrass coverage has not changed in recent years. At individual sites where a change in
coverage was detected, more areas showed declines than increases. Small, shoreline fringing eelgrass
beds throughout the Sound are in decline. Hood Canal has the greatest number of sites where eelgrass has
decreased, with 83% of the monitored sites indicating a decline. In North Puget Sound, 73% of sites in
the Saratoga-Whidbey Basin were in decline.
South and Central Puget Sound have shown no significant recent change in spawning herring stocks. The
population of the historically most abundant stock, the spring spawning Cherry Point herring in North
Puget Sound, has declined by 90% since 1973 and remains critically low with no sign of recovery. Urban
development continues to increase in central Puget Sound. Shoreline armoring increased a net of 6 miles
from 2007 to 2010.
A total of 2,300 acres of estuarine habitat restoration projects were completed between 2007 and 2011.
This includes the 2009 Nisqually estuary restoration where 4 miles of dikes were removed resulting in an
increase in the salt marsh habitat in South Puget Sound by 50%. In 2015, the largest dam removal in U.S.
history was completed on the Elwha River, which flows into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Since 2009
WDNR has designated four new aquatic reserves at Cherry Point, Smith and Minor Islands, and
Protection Island (North Puget Sound locations), and at Nisqually Reach (South Puget Sound). As of
2012, Washington State Department of Transportation has removed barriers to fish passage at 168 sites
and have identified an additional 785 sites for barrier removal. Natural Resource Damage Assessment
efforts have been active in the heavily industrialized Duwamish and the Puyallup river deltas which have
resulted in improved habitat conditions in localized areas.
Between 2006 and 2011, 2,176 acres/year of non-federal Puget Sound basin forest was converted to
developed cover. This amount probably under-reports small changes, such as clearing for residential
development.
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
Currently two sediment locations in Grays Harbor are listed on Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired
waterbodies: one for chlorinated benzene chemicals in the outer Grays Harbor reaches and one for
numerous organic compounds and metal in an inner Grays Harbor reaches (Corps 2014c).
Two indigenous species of burrowing shrimp (ghost shrimp Neotrypaea californiensis and mud shrimp
Upogebia pugettensis) can make sediments too soft and unstable for clam and oyster cultivation. From
1963 through 2014, commercial shellfish growers in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay have used the N-
methyl carbamate “carbaryl” pesticide to control burrowing shrimp (WDOE 2015a).
In recent years there have been efforts to remove the non-native seagrass (Zostera japonica) from Willapa
Bay. This has included the use of harrowing and other mechanical methods (PCSGA 2013a). In April
2014, the herbicide imazamox was applied to aquaculture acreage in 2014 under an NPDES permit
WDOE 2015b).
In Willapa Bay, the acreage of Spartina (a noxious weed that grows in the upper intertidal zone) has
declined as a result of chemical and mechanical means so that in 2012 only about 1.3 acres remain
WDOE 2015a).
Environmental baseline and shellfish activities
Shellfish activities including aquaculture and the harvest of wild shellfish have occurred in Washington
State for over 100 years. Corps authorization of these activities began in the 1970s with the permitting of
rafts for shellfish aquaculture (no permits older than this were located in the Corps archives). The
authorizations were predominantly for RHA Section 10 purposes. The Corps began exercising its CWA
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 79 Programmatic Biological Assessment
jurisdiction on a national level with the issuance of NWP 48 as discussed previously. Habitat restoration
projects focused on shellfish have also been permitted by the Corps in recent years. As a result of this
regulatory history, the recent history of shellfish activity has been fairly well documented. All of the
historical shellfish activities and their effects on the environment are part of the environmental baseline.
Table 6-1. Summary of continuing activities that are part of the environmental baseline
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
of individual
footprints 28 251 209 375 71 934
footprints with floats
and/or FLUPSYs 0 3 0 3 0 6
Continuing active
floating acres 0 2 23 20 64 109
Continuing active
ground-based acres 1,145 16,395 926 2,331 1,290 22,087
Total continuing active
acres 1,145 16,397 949 2,351 1,354 22,196
The commercial aquaculture activities that are classified as continuing active in the proposed action are
among the historical activities that are part of the environmental baseline. Acreage classified as
continuing active has by definition been engaged in shellfish activity since at least 2007 and likely for
much longer in many cases. The effects on habitat and listed species from these activities have similarly
been occurring for as long as the activities have been active. The number of individual geographic
footprints for continuing active aquaculture and their associated acreage are summarized in Table 6-1.
The specific locations of these activities are illustrated in Appendix D. Under the proposed action,
activities on these lands would be reauthorized during the period of the PBA. Given this overlap between
the environmental baseline and the proposed action as it pertains to continuing active aquaculture, effects
of these activities are presented in the effects sections (Sections 7 and 8). A summary of the relative
contribution of the continuing active aquaculture acreage to the total commercial aquaculture acreage is
presented in Table 6-2.
Acreage identified as continuing fallow may also have been engaged in shellfish activity at some point in
the past according to permit applications, but is not engaged in shellfish activity presently (as of the
18 March 2012 benchmark date). According to permit applications, no shellfish activity has occurred on
fallow lands since at least 2007 and most for a much longer time period (e.g., decades). The aquatic
habitat has likely adjusted to or been modified by shellfish cultivation and harvest activities that have
been occurring for many years on the continuing active acreage. The status of the aquatic habitat on
fallow acreage is unknown since shellfish activities on these lands have not occurred for many years.
Based on the permit application record which indicates the fallow areas have not had active cultivation
since at least 2007, it is assumed for the purpose of the PBA that the fallow lands exist currently in an
unmodified or ‘recovered’ state. A resumption of shellfish activity in these areas may therefore result in
impacts to the aquatic habitat similar to the impacts that might result from aquaculture initiated in areas
classified as new. Any effects to listed species or designated critical habitat associated with resuming or
initiating aquaculture in these fallow areas or the new commercial aquaculture activities are not
components of the environmental baseline but represent new effects on habitat and listed species relative
to the environmental baseline.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 80 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 6-2. Percent of total commercial aquaculture acres that are classified as continuing active
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Total commercial
aquaculture acres 3,065 25,965 1,789 3,578 4,002 38,400
Total continuing
active acres 1,145 16,397 949 2,351 1,354 22,196
Total continuing
fallow acres 1,820 9,468 402 780 2,333 14,803
New acres 100 100 438 448 315 1,401
of total classified
as new 3% < 1% 24% 13% 8% 4%
of total classified
as continuing fallow 59% 36% 22% 22% 58% 39%
of total classified
as continuing active 37% 63% 53% 66% 34% 58%
Similar to new commercial aquaculture, the other broad categories of shellfish activity that could be
authorized under the PBA including subtidal geoduck harvest, recreation, and restoration are treated as
new' activities for the purpose of the PBA and Conservation Measures. In some cases, there may have
been historical shellfish activity on a given new acreage such as a prior geoduck harvest. However, the
PBA assumes that any historical subtidal geoduck harvest, recreation, or restoration related shellfish
activity is sufficiently in the past to no longer be influencing habitat conditions at that site. Similar to the
fallow acreage, these areas are assumed to have recovered from any prior disturbance that may have
occurred.
Table 6-3. Continuing aquaculture activities with separate ESA consultation (as of July 2014)
Since 2013, there have been a number of shellfish activities authorized by the Corps that have had ESA
compliance addressed through an individual project specific ESA consultation. These include both
continuing (Table 6-3) and new (Table 6-4) commercial aquaculture activities. Since the ESA
compliance for these activities has been completed, any associated effects on ESA listed species and
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 81 Programmatic Biological Assessment
designated critical habitat is part of the environmental baseline. When the current permit for these
activities expires (e.g., in 2017 for those authorized with an NWP), the PBA could be used to address
ESA compliance for the reauthorized activities. The reauthorized activities would not be part of the
environmental baseline, but would be part of the proposed action.
Table 6-4. New shellfish activities with separate ESA consultation (as of July 2014)
Comparison to environmental baseline for the 2007 NWP 48 consultation
The benchmark date for the 2007 NWP 48 consultation was 12 March 2007. This was the date the new
NWP 48 was issued. Permit actions by the Corps, specifically verification of ongoing commercial
aquaculture activities, were anticipated to begin shortly after this date. At the time the 2007 PBA was
completed, the Corps had very little information on the extent, acreage, or scope of the commercial
aquaculture activities. Based on the description of the NWP 48, it was assumed that the fallow acreage
was part of a normal rotation of activities. All of these ongoing activities including both the active and
fallow components were considered to be broadly part of the normal operation of each of the commercial
aquaculture activities in the 2007 PBA action. These activities predated the benchmark date and in most
cases were presumed to be ongoing for many years before this date. These activities were therefore all
components of the environmental baseline for the purpose of ESA. Similarly, the effects of all these
activities, both on the active and fallow acreages, were considered part of the environmental baseline.
The effect of the action was to authorize these activities for another five years into the future thus
extending the period of effects.
During the next few years (2007- 2009), applications were submitted for all the commercial shellfish
aquaculture activities requesting verification under NWP 48. From this information, the geographic
location and extent of the activities was determined including the acreage that was in active culture and
the acreage that was currently in a fallow status. Some of this information was submitted after the initial
PBA submittal in 2007 and was used to finalize the two resulting BiOps.
The Corps authorized many of these activities in 2012 and as a result learned that the previously
identified fallow acreage was still fallow in 2012. In most cases, this acreage is still fallow today. Since
no activity had occurred on the fallow lands for at least five years since 2007, the habitat condition of
these areas is likely different than if it had been engaged in aquaculture or some regular rotation of
aquaculture. It has likely 'recovered' from any prior aquaculture impact or exists (as of the 2012
benchmark) in an unmodified (by aquaculture) state. When aquaculture is initiated or resumed on these
fallow lands, there are likely to be new impacts on the habitat or to ESA listed species relative to the
environmental baseline for this 2015 PBA which has a benchmark date of 2012 for the environmental
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 82 Programmatic Biological Assessment
baseline. This results in different effects for aquaculture activities conducted on fallow lands under the
2015 PBA action compared to the 2007 PBA action. This difference is most likely due to a lack of
information about the fallow acreage in 2007 and an incorrect assumption about the activities conducted
on this acreage at that time.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 83 Programmatic Biological Assessment
7. Effects of the Proposed Action
The proposed action includes the initiation and continuation of aquaculture, implementation of a number
of recreation and restoration related shellfish projects, and harvest of native subtidal geoducks.
Aquaculture consists of a collection of individual activities that each have their own effects. These
effects may be relatively short-term or longer lasting. The effects of these individual activities are
discussed below in Section 7.1. Of equal or more relevance to ESA listed species are the effects of the
collective activities, their frequency, duration, timing, geographic location, and general scale across the
landscape. The restoration, recreation, and subtidal geoduck harvest activities result in effects that are
limited in duration because the work may only be conducted once on a given footprint. In some cases, the
effects of a recreation activity could be similar to aquaculture. The frequency and geographic scale of the
activities are discussed Section 7.2. The relevance of these effects to ESA listed species and critical
habitat is discussed in Section 8.
7.1. Effects of Individual Activities
The effects described below are written from the perspective of a worst-case effects scenario relative to
issues such as work timing and husbandry practices. The purpose of this approach is to ensure the full
range of possible effects is discussed. A brief summary of these effects is provided in Table 7-1 for the
culture methods and many of the individual activities.
7.1.1. Water Quality
Bivalves themselves remove phytoplankton and suspended particles from the water column. High
densities of bivalves that occur with aquaculture can locally decrease phytoplankton, nutrients, and
suspended material increasing water clarity (WDNR 2014b; Straus et al. 2013; Heffernan 1999; Newel
2004). Wastes from the cultured species are excreted into the water column and ultimately settle to
nearby sediments.
Many of the shellfish activities (e.g., dredging, dive harvest) physically disturb the substrate which results
in localized turbidity, increases in suspended sediment, and potentially changes in other water quality
parameters such as lower dissolved oxygen (Mercaldo-Allen and Goldberg 2011, Heffernan 1999). These
water quality effects may be delayed for activities conducted at low tide ‘in the dry’ until the tide floods
the area. There may be a turbidity plume emanating from the actively worked area at low tide for some
activities such as intertidal geoduck harvest. In-water activities such as dredging and dive harvest may
affect water quality during the period of activity and a short period afterwards. These effects on water
quality are temporary and not expected to persist longer than a period of hours or days (Mercaldo-Allen
and Goldberg 2011).
7.1.2. Substrate and Sediments
Physical disturbance of the substrate can occur as a result of anchors placed for rafts or surface longlines,
from bed preparation activities (e.g., tilling, harrowing, substrate leveling), planting activities (e.g.,
installation of nets), harvest (e.g., raking, dredge, hydraulic harvest), the grounding of vessels and support
structures, and the general traffic of personnel and equipment. Sediment compaction can occur from
vessel grounding, vehicle and personnel traffic. Topographic variation and natural debris such as large
wood and boulders are often removed. In some cases this can result in filling of tidal channels in order to
level a bed. Bed preparation techniques vary widely as do their effects depending on the specific cultured
species and individual grower practices. Bed preparation and harvest activities such as dredging, tilling,
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 84 Programmatic Biological Assessment
raking, and hydraulic harvest result in turning over the sediments may temporarily alter the physical
composition and chemistry of the sediment (Mercaldo-Allen and Goldberg 2011, Bendell-Young 2006,
WDNR 2014b). Hydraulic harvest in geoduck culture areas results in liquefaction of the substrate.
Subtidal geoduck harvest temporarily leaves behind a series of depressions, or holes where the clams are
extracted. The number of depressions created across a harvested area in a tract depends on the density of
geoducks. The fate of these depressions, in terms of the time to refill, depends on the substrate
composition and tidal currents. The time for them to refill can range from several days up to 7 months
Goodwin 1978).
Many activities result in a change to the composition of the native substrate which is often mud or
sandflats. Graveling results in a generally firmer substrate with a larger grain size. Oyster bottom culture
results in a substrate that is predominantly or entirely oysters that are periodically removed during
harvest. Longline and stake culture result in an altered substrate that is partially shaded/occupied by
oysters and stakes. Culture techniques that use racks, bags, nets, and PVC tubes result in an altered
substrate that is intermittently or more broadly surfaced with plastic. There can be wide variability in the
coverage of the plastic structure across the substrate depending on the practices of individual growers.
Bag culture could be sufficiently dense to completely cover an existing substrate over a relatively broad
area (Figure 3-10). Similarly plastic nets placed for clam or geoduck culture could extend over multiple
acres (Figure 3-18). Alternatively, structures may be placed in rows that result in alternating plastic
versus native substrate (Figure 3-11, Figure 3-19). Where the profile of the artificial structure is low, for
example with bags resting on the substrate or area nets, sediment may gradually accumulate on top of the
structure resulting in a return, at least in part, to a substrate similar to what existed before the activities
were initiated. Periodic maintenance of the nets may remove this accumulated sediment. The artificial
structure can be present for multiple years in a particular location (e.g., geoduck tubes) or can remain
almost continuously over time as new crops are quickly planted after harvest (e.g., clam bags, area nets
for clam culture).
Activities that involve placement of structure such as rafts, floating longlines, oyster longline, and rack
and bag culture can affect water currents and circulation patterns, can lead to changes in rates of erosion
and sedimentation, and altered tidal channels (WDNR 2014b, Wisehart 2007). Sedimentation and
nutrient enrichment may occur from the settling of wastes to the substrate from the cultured species
Heffernan 1999, WDNR 2013a). Culture using rafts and longlines in particular often experience nutrient
enrichment of the local sediments due to accumulation of biological waste and shell material from the
cultured species. Anoxic sediments from nutrient enrichment have been documented below rafts
Hargrave et al. 2008; Heffernan 1999). Man-made debris such as metal and plastic can also accumulate
beneath rafts.
7.1.3. Vegetation
Activities in areas classified as new by the PBA including subtidal geoduck harvest, recreation, and
restoration activities, would not affect eelgrass or kelp due to a Conservation Measure. Aquaculture
activities classified as continuing active and fallow would occur in areas containing eelgrass.
Effects on aquatic vegetation can occur where shellfish activities are co-located with aquatic vegetation
including eelgrass and kelp. Rafts shade the underlying substrate limiting the growth of aquatic
vegetation. They are typically sited in waters too deep for eelgrass. Macroalgae such as kelp could be
negatively affected or excluded from areas beneath rafts (WDNR 2014b). Floating culture using lines
suspended from buoys would typically have a smaller footprint than a raft so substrate shading may be
limited depending on spacing of the lines.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 85 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Ground-based culture activities are often conducted in the same tidal zone occupied by eelgrass. In Puget
Sound, WDNR inventoried eelgrass (Z. marina) at a minimum elevation of -41 ft MLLW at a site in
central Puget Sound and a maximum elevation of +7.5 ft MLLW at a site in Hood Canal (WDNR 2011).
The average minimum and maximum elevations throughout Puget Sound were +0.3 to +3.0 ft MLLW.
This range encompasses the elevations where ground-based shellfish activities would occur. When
shellfish activities are co-located in areas with eelgrass, a net loss in eelgrass is typically the result either
as a result of bed preparation activities, competition for space with the culture species or equipment, or
harvest (Tallis et al. 2009, Wagner et al. 2012, Wisehart 2007; Dumbauld et al. 2009, Ruisink et al. 2012,
NMFS 2009, NMFS 2005, Rumrill and Poulton 2004). This is the case for all forms of ground-based
culture. Eelgrass is replaced by oysters, culture bags, and geoduck tubes. Eelgrass often coexists within
the culture area albeit at a reduced density. Bed preparation and harvest activities physically remove
eelgrass (Ruesink and Rowell 2012; Tallis et al. 2009; Boese 2002, Simenstad and Fresh 1995). Use of
vessels and floats can smother and cause physical disturbance to eelgrass due to grounding of the vessels
NMFS 2005). Longline and suspended bag culture may shade eelgrass and preclude it underneath the
structure (Skinner et al. 2014; WDNR 2014b). Biofouling on cover nets can reduce light availability for
eelgrass (WDNR 2013a). The magnitude and duration of effect may vary depending on culture method
and individual grower practices. For example, dense, mature bottom oyster culture may totally preclude
eelgrass during certain parts of the aquaculture cycle while lesser densities of oyster may allow eelgrass to
coexist within the culture area.
Eelgrass recovery times after disturbance vary depending on the type of disturbance, environmental
conditions, and the availability of local seed sources. Timeframes can range from less than two to greater
than five years (Dumbauld et al. 2009; Tallis et al. 2009; Wisehart; 2007, Boese 2002).
7.1.4. Benthic Community
Most shellfish activities affect the existing benthic community to some degree due to the physical
disturbance of the substrate. Each phase of the aquaculture cycle of activity which is characterized by bed
preparation (e.g., tilling), planting (e.g., net installation), maintenance (e.g., cleaning area nets), and
harvest results in physical disturbance of the benthic community and often a temporary decrease in
abundance of many infaunal and epifaunal species (Vanblaricom et al. 2015; Mercaldo-Allen and
Goldberg 2011; WDNR 2014b; Straus et al. 2013; Dumbauld 2008; Heffernan 1999; Bendell-Young
2006; Simenstad and Fresh 1995). Bed preparation activities often directly remove many species
including bivalve predator species, bivalve competitor species, and commercial species such as
bivalves/burrowing shrimp. Bag culture techniques result in bags with bivalves placed directly on the
substrate smothering the existing benthic community. The magnitude and duration of the effect is
variable depending on the activity, individual husbandry practices, and environmental conditions. The
benthic community typically recovers in a period of weeks or months depending on the activity
Vanblaricom et al. 2015; WDNR 2014b; Mercaldo-Allen and Goldberg 2011; WDNR 2008).
Benthic community diversity and/or composition may be altered as a result of physical changes to the
substrate depending on the specific culture method and activity. Oyster bottom culture results in a shift in
the composition of the benthic community to an oyster dominated community. This may have positive,
negative or neutral effects on individual species. Areas with mature oyster bottom culture may have a
comparable level of species diversity and abundance to an eelgrass based habitat (Ferraro and Cole 2007).
Once oysters are harvested, the benthic community may begin transition back to the pre-oyster based
community that existed previously. Regular graveling can result in shifts in the composition of the
benthic community due to the change in substrate composition over time (Simenstad and Fresh 1995,
Simenstad et al. 1991). When activities result in removal of eelgrass, a corresponding change in the
benthic community occurs (Carvalho et al. 2006, Simenstad and Fresh 1995). Changes in sediment
chemistry from nutrient enrichment can result in decreased benthic community abundance and diversity
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 86 Programmatic Biological Assessment
for some culture methods (Heffernan 1999; Stenton-Dozey 2001). Shifts in benthic community
composition diversity are less clear for other culture methods and the subject of active study.
Activities that include installation of artificial structure such as geoduck tubes, nets, bags, or longlines
may result in shifts in benthic macrofauna. In a study of geoduck tubes, increased numbers of transient
fish and macro invertebrate species were found when the structure was in place (McDonald et al. 2015).
Effects ended when the structure was removed. Tubes and nets are typically in place for 2 to 3 years
before harvest at 4 to 7 years. A study of rack and bag culture also suggested habitat benefits of the
structure to certain fish and invertebrate species (Dealteris et al. 2004). Studies with area nets have been
variable with no changes in species composition and diversity in some cases (Vanblaricom et al. 2015;
Simenstad et al. 1993) and altered species diversity and composition measured in others (Bendell-Young
2006).
7.1.5. Fish and Birds
In-water activity, noise, and increases in suspended sediment would displace many fish species and birds
from localized work areas. Temporary decreases in benthic community abundance would locally
decrease available prey for fish. Eelgrass provides important habitat and prey for many fish and bird
species including juvenile salmon. In areas where eelgrass is removed, the fish community may be
negatively affected (NMFS 2005).
Forage fish are an important prey resource for many species including Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull
trout and marbled murrelet. Several forage fish including Pacific herring, surf smelt, and Pacific sand
lance spawn throughout the action area. Spawning and egg incubation could potentially be affected by
shellfish activities. In the Puget Sound region, herring spawn in the lower half of the intertidal or shallow
subtidal zone down to a depth of -10 ft MLLW depending on water clarity (Penttila 2007). Native
eelgrass, Z. marina, is of primary importance as a herring spawning substrate. Spawning also occurs on
other aquatic vegetation and rocks. The removal of vegetation, which may occur as a result of some of
the shellfish activities could decrease available spawning habitat for herring. Spawning could potentially
occur on shellfish gear such as racks or tubes. A Conservation Measure would prohibit certain shellfish
activities during the period herring spawn is present at a given site. This would minimize, but not
necessarily eliminate, impacts to herring eggs.
Sand lance deposit their eggs in substrate that is predominantly sand in the high intertidal above +5 ft
MLLW. Surf smelt tend to spawn in substrates with a mix of sand and gravel above +7 ft MLLW
Penttila 2007). Shellfish activities conducted when spawning is occurring or after eggs have been
deposited could potentially disturb these species or destroy eggs. Culture and harvest activities would not
typically occur above +7 ft MLLW but would occur below that elevation in the zone where sand lance
may deposit eggs. Above +7 ft, shellfish activities would still occur including general travel to and from
shellfish activity areas, temporary storage/staging of equipment, and grounding of floats which all could
result in trampling, smothering, or loss of eggs. Conservation Measures would minimize impacts from
activities classified as new. These measures do not apply to the continuing active and fallow aquaculture
activities.
Area nets used for clam and geoduck culture could potentially entrap fish, birds, or other aquatic species
if they become loose or dislodged (Bendell 2015, Corps 2014b, Smith et al. 2006). This could occur due
to variable husbandry practices with respect to net installation and maintenance, the high energy of the
marine environment which makes securing nets difficult, and large wood debris strikes that create holes in
the nets. Under the proposed action, anti-predator cover nets must be tightly secured to the substrate,
maintained, and periodically inspected in accordance with the Conservation Measures. This should
minimize, but not necessarily eliminate, the number of loose or dislodged nets. Rack and/or bag culture
could also entrap fish species by creating a physical barrier across the tidelands (Figure 3-11). This
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 87 Programmatic Biological Assessment
barrier could temporarily impound water and/or prevent fish from returning to deeper water during a
receding tide which would result in stranding fish on the tidelands. The density and orientation of the
structure relative to water drainage patterns would be particularly important in determining the risk of this
occurring. Finally, nets associated with floating rafts would exclude fish from habitat under the rafts.
Net deployment may occasionally capture fish depending on the depth of the nets.
7.1.6. Contaminants
The use of vessels and vehicles could result in accidental discharges of fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic
fluids. The effect on water quality depends on the type of contaminant spilled, time of year, spill volume,
and success of containment efforts. The action includes Conservation Measures to minimize the risk of
such spills in the aquatic environment.
7.1.7. Noise
Noise from equipment operation could temporarily disturb and displace both aquatic and upland species
from the local area. The types of vessels commonly used for shellfish activities are listed in Table 3-1.
To estimate noise produced by shellfish activities, an analysis was conducted using data from Wyatt
2008) for a commonly used vessel, a 21-foot Boston Whaler with a 250 horsepower Johnson 2-cycle
outboard motor. Operating this vessel at full speed produced a sound measured at 147.2 decibels (dB)
root mean square (RMS) re 1 microPascal at 1 meter4. Assuming a background underwater sound level of
120 dB RMS, which is the threshold established by NMFS for behavioral effects to marine mammals, and
using the practical spreading loss model preferred by NMFS and USFWS, sound produced by this vessel
would attenuate to 120 dB RMS within 65 meters (213 feet). Larger vessels could also be used on
occasion which could potentially generate greater underwater sound levels.
The intermittent use of power equipment is likely to produce in air noise of up to 81 dBA for dive
harvesting and 82 dBA for shoreline work. Over marine water, the 81 dBA value would attenuate to the
background level (57 dBA) within 792 feet and over a terrestrial habitat the 82 dBA would attenuate to
the background noise level of a rural environment (35 dBA) within 3793 feet (0.71 mile). Maximum
surface noise levels from boat operations and dive support equipment for subtidal geoduck harvest was
measured at 61 to 58 dBA at a distance of 100 feet where auxiliary equipment was housed on deck and 55
to 53 dBA where equipment was housed below deck (WDNR 2008).
7.1.8. Summary
Effects of the various shellfish activities on habitat are summarized in Table 7-1. It is a summary of
worst-case effects that would not necessarily occur in all locations where the activity is occurring.
Substantial local variability would be expected due to individual grower practices (e.g., densities, scale,
techniques) and environmental conditions.
4 In this document, underwater sound pressure levels given in units of dB RMS and dB peak are referenced to a
pressure of 1 microPascal and sound pressure levels given in dB SEL (sound exposure level) are referenced to 1
microPascal2 second unless otherwise noted.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 88 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 7-1. Summary of shellfish activity effects on habitat
Shellfish
Activity
Cultured/
Harvested
Species
Primary Effects on Habitat
floating culture and harvest methods
floating culture
with rafts, anti-
predator nets
mussel
altered benthic substrate dominated by shell/barnacle debris
nutrient enrichment of sediments; potential anoxia
decreased benthic species diversity and abundance
shaded substrate limiting or preventing aquatic vegetation
potentially trap fish, bird species within nets
contributes plastic debris to the aquatic environment (e.g., disks, nets)
surface
longlines
mussel,
oyster, clam limited shading of substrate, minor effects on aquatic vegetation
FLUPSYs oyster, clam,
geoduck shades substrate preventing or limiting growth of aquatic vegetation
ground-based culture and harvest methods
oyster bottom
culture oyster altered benthic habitat and species composition
aquatic vegetation replaced by oyster habitat
longline, stake
culture oyster
altered benthic habitat, nutrient enrichment; potential affect on benthic
community composition
reduction of aquatic vegetation
increased sedimentation
potential disruption of fish travel patterns, foraging
rack and bag
culture oyster
altered benthic habitat; potential affect on benthic community composition
aquatic vegetation removed
creates barriers to tidal flow; altered sedimentation/erosion patterns
contributes plastic debris to the aquatic environment
potential migration barrier and stranding of fish and other species
loss of forage fish spawning habitat (e.g., sand lance)
clam ground
culture clam
altered substrate due to graveling, artificial structure (e.g., nets); shift in
benthic community composition over time due to regular graveling
aquatic vegetation removed, reduced due to artificial structure, activities
loss of forage fish spawning habitat (e.g., sand lance)
bag culture
bags directly
on substrate)
clam, oyster
altered benthic habitat; potential affect on benthic community composition
aquatic vegetation removed, reduced due to artificial structure, activities
contributes plastic debris to the aquatic environment
loss of forage fish spawning habitat (e.g., sand lance)
geoduck culture geoduck
altered benthic habitat; potential affect on benthic community composition
aquatic vegetation removed, reduced due to artificial structure, activities
contributes plastic debris ( e.g., PVC tubes, nets) to the aquatic environment
low tide activities
install and
maintenance of
area nets
clam,
geoduck
altered benthic habitat; temporary decrease in benthic community abundance
lost and unsecured nets lead to fish and wildlife entanglement
hand' harvest
rakes, shovels, clam, oyster substrate disturbance, temporary decrease in benthic community abundance,
aquatic vegetation (e.g., eelgrass)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 89 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Shellfish
Activity
Cultured/
Harvested
Species
Primary Effects on Habitat
containers) short-term increase in suspended sediments
potential loss of forage fish eggs (e.g., sand lance)
bed preparation
mechanized
tilling, leveling
substrate,
hydraulic pre-
harvest)
oyster, clam,
geoduck
substrate disturbance, temporary decrease in benthic community abundance,
aquatic vegetation removed, reduced
short-term increase in suspended sediments
altered, filled tidal channels
low tide
hydraulic
harvest
geoduck
substrate disturbance, temporary decreases in benthic community abundance,
aquatic vegetation removed, reduced
short-term increase in suspended sediments
longline harvest oyster
substrate disturbance, temporary decreases in benthic community
abundance,
aquatic vegetation removed, reduced
vehicle and
vessel traffic on
tidelands
oyster, clam,
geoduck,
mussel
localized compaction of substrate , smothering of benthic community,
aquatic vegetation
compaction, smothering of incubating surf smelt and sand lance eggs
temporary
equipment
storage on
tidelands; use of
floats, work
platforms
oyster, clam,
geoduck,
mussel
localized compaction of substrate , smothering of benthic community,
aquatic vegetation
compaction, smothering of incubating surf smelt and sand lance eggs
shades substrate limiting or precluding vegetation
in-water activities
dredging,
harrowing,
longline harvest
oyster, clam
in-water disturbance, noise, increased suspended sediments
substrate disturbance, temporary decreases in benthic community abundance
aquatic vegetation (e.g., eelgrass) removed
potential loss of forage fish eggs (e.g., herring)
graveling oyster, clam
gradually alters substrate from mud/sand to firmer, gravelly substrate; altered
benthic community over time
in-water disturbance, noise, increased suspended sediments
hydraulic dive
harvest -
intertidal
geoduck
in-water disturbance, noise, increased suspended sediments
substrate disturbance, temporary decreases in benthic community abundance
aquatic vegetation (e.g., eelgrass) removed
potential loss of forage fish eggs (e.g., herring)
hydraulic dive
harvest -
subtidal
geoduck
localized and minor effects on benthic community
in-water disturbance, noise, increased suspended sediments
disruption of fish travel patterns, foraging
7.2. Spatial Extent and Frequency of Effects
The following section discusses the scale and frequency of activities and effects resulting from the
proposed action. Assumptions about the scale of the action are discussed in Section 3.4 and repeated in
Section 7.3 where effects are summarized by geographic region. Assumptions about frequency are
discussed in the following section.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 90 Programmatic Biological Assessment
7.2.1. Extent of Floating Activities
Floating aquaculture occurs in all of the geographic regions of the PBA except for Grays Harbor. In all
cases the acreages involved are negligible in the context of each region. Activities are concentrated in a
few embayments (e.g., Quilcene Bay, Penn Cove) where the acreage covers a larger percent of the
embayment area (see figures in Appendix D). Effects would be limited to the immediate proximity of the
work areas and would continue for the duration of the PBA and likely beyond. All of the floating rafts,
FLUPSYs and floats are classified as continuing active which means effects associated from the
structures themselves are not appreciably different from the environmental baseline.
7.2.2. Extent of Tideland Activities
The vast majority of the ground-based continuing active and fallow/new activities would occur in the
intertidal zone as would all of the new aquaculture, restoration, and recreation activities. An unknown but
likely insignificant percentage of the ground-based continuing aquaculture activities (both active and
fallow) would occur in the shallow subtidal zone. For these reasons and to simplify the analysis, the
entire ground-based acreage is considered intertidal. The percentage of the total intertidal acreage that
would be devoted to shellfish activities within each PBA geographic region is summarized in Table 7-2.
The total tideland acres are based on the area classified as marine tideland in the Washington State
aquatic parcel GIS database (WDNR 2014a). Marine tidelands extend from ordinary high tide down to
extreme low tide (WDNR 2013a). This analysis indicates proportionally how much of the intertidal
habitat would be affected by the proposed action.
Table 7-2. Ground-based shellfish activity acreage relative to total tideland acreage
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 91 Programmatic Biological Assessment
For all regions combined, the continuing fallow and new shellfish activity would occur on 8% of the
combined tidelands. This varies between a low of 3% in South Puget Sound to a high of 19% in Willapa
Bay. Continuing active aquaculture activities occur on 10% of the combined tidelands across all the
regions although there is quite a bit of variability ranging from a low of 2% in North Puget Sound to a
high of 33% in Willapa Bay. The cumulative total percentage of tidelands with some form of shellfish
activity is 18% across all the regions. This coarse scale analysis illustrates the geographic magnitude of
the action. Comparatively higher percentages of tidelands may be affected in individual embayments
within each region. For example, in South Puget Sound, shellfish activities are concentrated in the far
south and west corner of the region (see Appendix D). In north Puget Sound, shellfish activities are
concentrated in several smaller embayments including Samish Bay, Discovery Bay, and Kilisut Harbor.
The acreages classified as fallow and new contain relatively undisturbed habitat currently. The action
would result in a change from this undisturbed habitat to an aquaculture farm. Activities with effects
similar to those described in Section 7.1 would occur on this acreage over the 20 year period of the PBA
and likely longer.
7.2.3. Frequency of Disturbance
Some of the proposed shellfish activities may only be conducted once in that footprint over the
anticipated 20 year period of the PBA and thus would have a very limited period of effects. An example
of this would be activities to support a habitat restoration project or a subtidal geoduck harvest. In other
cases, multiple activities may occur on a given footprint annually or potentially more frequently for the
duration of the PBA. For example active maintenance of cover nets for clams could occur monthly.
Active oyster bottom culture on a given footprint could include two successive dredges, harrowing, and
graveling each year. The frequency of activities on most acreage would fall somewhere in between these
extremes. The variability in activity frequency among shellfish growers is also high. Table 7-3 lists
frequencies of occurrence for a number of the activities. The information was gathered from individuals
engaged in aquaculture in the State of Washington (Corps 2014a, Corps 2011).
Table 7-3. Shellfish activity frequency of occurrence and acres completed per day
Activity Acres completed per day Frequency of occurrence
mussel harvest -- 12-14 months
graveling 1 1 year
harrowing/tilling 5 1 - 4 years
dredge harvest (includes for transplanting) 0.5 1 - 4 years
longline mechanical harvest 0.125 3 years
geoduck harvest (in cultured areas) .01 - .06 4 - 7 years
clam raking 0.05 - 0.1 3 yrs
clam mechanical harvest 0.8 3 years
net install, removal (clam, geoduck) -- 2 - 3 yrs
Note: This information does not necessarily encompass the full range of activity rates and frequencies for the
activities. There is wide variability. The information is considered representative but is based on a limited
sampling of aquaculture growers (sources Corps 2014a, Corps 2011).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 92 Programmatic Biological Assessment
For some areas, particularly larger aquaculture acreages, there is a progression of activity from one end of
the acreage to the other that may occur over a series of days, weeks, or longer. Certain effects, such as
increases in suspended sediment, from one part of the acreage may drift over locations where the activity
had previously been completed thereby extending the duration of effects in that location. This is most
applicable to those activities that take comparatively longer to conduct (see Table 7-3). For example,
harvest of cultured geoduck is a comparatively time consuming activity that could occur for months at a
particular location as it slowly progresses across the acreage.
Most of the activities occur at a frequency of only once every year, or once every few years on given
acreage. In the context of the temporary impacts that occur with the activities, the relevance of this
frequency is dependent on recovery from the impact. Effects that diminish quickly such as increases in
suspended sediment are minor in the context of a once per year frequency. The collective activities
conducted on a particular acreage may increase this to 3 or 4 times per year. Collectively the total period
of effects is still minor and on the order of days. For impacts that require a slightly longer period for
recovery such as the benthic community (weeks to months) following bed preparation or harvest
activities, the period for effects would be comparatively longer. For impacts where recovery times are on
the order of years, such as disturbance to eelgrass, an annual or every few year repeat disturbance may
never allow a full recovery of the eelgrass from the impact or the impact would be repeated shortly after
recovery is achieved.
In-water Disturbance
Activities conducted in-water include graveling, harrowing, dredging, mechanical longline harvest, and
geoduck dive harvest where there is potential to directly affect fish species. To determine the frequency
and extent of these in-water activities at a regional scale, estimates were made for the total acres per day
worked and total activity days for each region. ‘Acres worked per day’ is an estimate of the number of
acres that would be worked every day for one year to complete the tasks in one year. The analysis
assumes the activity effort is equally spread across the entire year which may be unrealistic but does
provide some indication of the relative scale of the collective activity level. 'Activity days per year' is an
estimate of the number of days that are required to be worked in order to complete the task on the activity
acres during one year. It is analogous to ‘man-days’. More detail including the methodology used to
develop the estimates can be found in Appendix C. The locations of the specific in-water activities can be
found in Appendix F. This analysis is for work that occurs in the intertidal zone, so it does not include
subtidal geoduck dive harvest.
The analysis suggests work is regularly occurring, perhaps on a daily basis, at the regional scale. This is
consistent with the idea that shellfish product must be delivered to market on a regular and perhaps daily
basis. Willapa Bay is by far the region with the most work occurring. There are an estimated 139 acres
that would be worked each work day to accomplish all the tasks in one year. Relative to the total tideland
acreage per region, the acres worked per day estimate is negligible (0.3 % in Willapa Bay). If assume
work only occurs once per month, this increases to 6% of the tidelands worked in Willapa Bay on that one
day per month. In some small embayments where shellfish activities are more concentrated, this
percentage of activity relative to the total tidelands in that one embayment would be higher.
Subtidal Disturbance
In-water activities would also occur for the subtidal geoduck element of the proposed action. These
activities would all be conducted in subtidal waters. These activities are expected to occur just about
every day on a limited acreage in the Hood Canal and two Puget Sound regions. The locations for the
subtidal geoduck harvest tracts are illustrated in Appendix H. The vast majority, but not necessarily all,
of the subtidal geoduck harvest would be expected to occur within these localized areas. The North Puget
Sound region is about 1.4 million acres, Hood Canal is about 100,000 acres, and south Puget Sound about
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 93 Programmatic Biological Assessment
300,000 acres. The total annual harvested acreage of about 6,000 acres under the proposed action would
be distributed throughout these broad areas but concentrated along the shorelines in most cases. The
estimated maximum acreage harvested per day comprise an insignificant percent of the total area within
these regions.
Table 7-4. Estimated frequency in-water activities would be conducted in the intertidal zone (see
Appendix C for details)
acres engaged in
in-water activities
in-water activity
acres worked/day
in-water activity
days/year
Grays Harbor
Continuing active 2,018 5.9 4,003
Cont. fallow & new 2,885 9.5 5,579
Subtotal 4,903 15.4 9,582
Willapa Bay
Continuing active 25,113 86.0 42,542
Cont. fallow & new 15,164 53.2 25,340
Subtotal 40,277 139.1 67,882
Hood Canal
Continuing active 645 1.6 1,408
Cont. fallow & new 1,609 4.9 2,719
Subtotal 2,254 6.6 4,127
South Puget
Sound
Continuing active 2,283 7.9 3,959
Cont. fallow & new 1,939 6.1 3,551
Subtotal 4,222 14.0 7,510
North Puget
Sound
Continuing active 1,649 6.0 2,531
Cont. fallow & new 3,162 11.3 3,912
Subtotal 4,811 17.3 6,443
Total
Continuing active 31,708 107.4 54,442
Cont. fallow & new 24,759 85.0 41,101
Grand Total 56,467 192.4 95,543
Note: acres worked/day assumes work occurs each work day throughout the year (260 work days/yr)
7.2.4. Cover Nets and Artificial Structure
Culture methods that result in a change to the substrate (e.g., bag culture, cover nets) would result in
impacts that may be more or less continuous for the period of the PBA because there is no recovery or
return to the prior substrate and habitat conditions. A new crop of bags would be placed shortly after the
previous crop is harvested. Geoduck culture would result in periods with and without structure.
Depending on individual grower practices, structure to support geoduck culture is expected to occur
between 30 and 60% of the time for the anticipated 20 period of the PBA.
The placement of artificial structure for growing shellfish occurs in all the geographic regions of the PBA.
The number of acres potentially with artificial structure is summarized by region in Table 7-5. These
acreages are best interpreted as a maximum for each culture method which, if implemented, would result
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 94 Programmatic Biological Assessment
in a less than equivalent decrease in acreage for another activity in the region (see discussion in Appendix
B). The geographic locations where cover nets would occur for the continuing active and fallow acres are
illustrated in Appendix G. It is assumed that all new aquaculture activities will also employ methods
using artificial structure. Restoration and recreation related activities are generally not expected to
employ artificial structure although there may some exceptions.
Table 7-5. Artificial structure by region
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound
oyster
longline/stake
active 732 4,377 268 171 719
fallow 533 1,913 77 51 2,081
rack and/or
bags (clam and
oyster)
active 29 829 115 189 328
fallow 6 72 23 51 2,050
geoduck tubes
active 0 1 453 931 369
fallow 0 67 110 518 2,108
cover nets
active 0 3,380 538 2,011 637
fallow 0 2,637 337 724 2,204
new aquaculture 100 100 438 448 315
total
active 861 8,687 1,812 3,750 2,368
fallow & new 639 4,789 985 1,792 8,758
total (plastic
structure only)
active 129 4,310 1,544 3,579 1,649
fallow & new 106 2,876 908 1,741 6,677
Notes:
1. Acreages are likely overstated by some unknown amount due to double or triple counting associated with
limited detail on permit applications (See App. B). Acreages are best interpreted as a maximum for each activity
which, if implemented, would result in a less than equivalent decrease in acreage for another activity in the
region.
2. All new acres assumed to potentially contain plastic structure or longline/stake.
7.2.5. Eelgrass
The continuing active and fallow aquaculture acres could potentially occur in areas with eelgrass. A
geographic analysis was conducted to estimate the aquaculture acreage potentially co-located with
eelgrass. A description of the analysis, detailed results, and figures illustrating geographic locations
where aquaculture and eelgrass are co-located can be found in Appendix D. The results provide a
conservative estimate of aquaculture co-located with eelgrass appropriate for the PBA. The results are
summarized in Table 7-6. They suggest there is substantial overlap between eelgrass and much of the
continuing active and fallow aquaculture acreage. This pattern occurs in all the geographic regions. An
estimated 14,803 acres of continuing active aquaculture is potentially co-located with eelgrass across all
the geographic regions. This results in reduced productivity and habitat function for this eelgrass as
discussed in Section 7.1. This is an ongoing effect under the environmental baseline that will continue
under the proposed action. An estimated 11,227 acres of continuing fallow acreage would be co-located
with eelgrass under the proposed action. Effects to eelgrass in the fallow areas would be considered new
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 95 Programmatic Biological Assessment
effects relative to the environmental baseline. The magnitude of effect would be dependent on the type of
culture method employed and the activities conducted as described in Section 7.1.
Willapa Bay has by far the most overlap between eelgrass and the continuing active and fallow acres.
This is followed by the North Puget Sound and Grays Harbor regions where over 1,000 acres of eelgrass
are estimated to overlap with the fallow acreage. Aquaculture activities (active and fallow) are more
often than not co-located with eelgrass in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the North Puget Sound Region.
In the Hood Canal region, aquaculture acreage is equally split between areas with and without eelgrass.
The South Puget Sound region appears to be the notable exception where a minority of the acreage is co-
located with eelgrass. Continuing aquaculture activities would occur in 49% of the total mapped eelgrass
acreage in Willapa Bay and 21% of the mapped eelgrass in Hood Canal. These percentages are less in the
other regions.
New aquaculture, recreation, and restoration related shellfish activities would not be located in eelgrass
Z. marina) under the proposed action. They would be located a minimum of 16 ft from the boundary of
eelgrass per a Conservation Measure.
Table 7-6. Summary of shellfish activities potentially co-located with eelgrass
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
continuing active footprints 17 161 34 2 21 235
continuing active acres 766 12,170 392 180 1,131 14,803
continuing fallow footprints 13 81 42 1 13 150
continuing fallow acres 1,152 7,448 294 95 2,239 11,227
Total acres (active & fallow): 1,918 19,618 685 275 3,370 25,866
of continuing active
acreage potentially co-located
with eelgrass
67% 74% 41% 8% 84% 66%
of continuing fallow
acreage potentially co-located
with eelgrass
63% 79% 73% 12% 96% 76%
of eelgrass in region
potentially co-located with
aquaculture (active & fallow)
5% 49% 21% 9% 7% 20%
Note: See Appendix D for more detail, summary of methodology, and geographic locations
7.2.6. Forage Fish
The continuing active and fallow acreages could be co-located with forage fish spawning areas and thus
affect spawning success as discussed previously in Section 7.1. A geographic analysis was conducted to
estimate the aquaculture acreage potentially co-located with forage fish spawning areas. A description of
the analysis, detailed results, and figures illustrating geographic locations where aquaculture and forage
fish spawning are co-located can be found in Appendix E. The analysis is summarized in Table 7-7 and
suggests there is substantial overlap between forage fish spawning locations and aquaculture activities.
There are an estimated total of 3,297 fallow acres across all regions co-located with forage fish spawning
areas. In the two Puget Sound regions and in Hood Canal, active and fallow acreage is co-located with
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 96 Programmatic Biological Assessment
mapped spawning habitat for all three forage fish species analyzed. In Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay,
aquaculture acreage appears co-located only with herring spawning areas.
Table 7-7. Summary of continuing active and fallow acreage potentially co-located with WDFW mapped
forage fish spawning areas
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound Total
Herring
continuing active acres 73 2,200 211 79 486 3,049
continuing fallow acres 0 510 58 14 2,184 2,766
Surf smelt
continuing active acres 0 0 130 532 59 721
continuing fallow acres 0 0 67 359 15 441
Sand lance
continuing active acres 0 0 169 78 79 326
continuing fallow acres 0 0 28 20 42 90
total active acres co-located
with spawning areas 73 2,200 510 688 623 4,094
of total active acres co-
located with spawning areas 6% 13% 54% 29% 46% 18%
total fallow acres co-located
with spawning areas 0 510 153 394 2,241 3,297
of total fallow acres co-
located with spawning areas 0% 5% 37% 50% 96% 22%
cumulative total (active +
fallow): 73 2,710 663 1082 2,864 7,391
of cumulative total co-
located with spawning areas 2% 10% 49% 34% 78% 20%
Note: See Appendix E for more detail, summary of methodology, and maps.
The analysis suggests that Willapa Bay and North Puget Sound are the regions where the most overlap
may occur on an acreage basis. Relative to the total mapped herring spawning area in each region,
activities in Willapa Bay tend to occur in well over half of the mapped spawning area, by far the largest
proportion of any of the regions. Most of this overlap is with ongoing aquaculture activities. The North
Puget Sound region contains the most fallow acres (2,241 acres) potentially co-located with forage fish
spawning areas. Much of this is overlap with the herring spawning area in Samish Bay. The South Puget
Sound region active and fallow acres are co-located more with surf smelt spawning areas relative to the
other two species.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 97 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 7-8. Percent of total mapped herring spawning area potentially affected by continuing activities in
active and fallow areas
Grays
Harbor
Willapa
Bay
Hood
Canal
South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound
Total WDFW mapped herring
spawning acres 462 4,691 5,179 4,740 33,730
of total mapped herring acres that
potentially overlap with continuing
active acres
16% 47% 4% 2% 1%
of total mapped herring acres that
potentially overlap with continuing
fallow acres
0% 11% 1% 0.3% 6%
7.3. Summary of Primary Effects by Region
This section summarizes the future expected activities and habitat effects for each of the geographic
regions of the PBA. Assumptions about the aquaculture action discussed previously in Section 3 are
repeated below and in Table 7-9 to provide context for the discussion. The assumptions are:
1) The future anticipated shellfish activities/species cultured on the continuing active acreage will
remain largely the same relative to the activities that have been occurring over the recent history
as described in permit applications.
2) The future anticipated shellfish activities/species cultured on the continuing fallow acreage will
be consistent with that expressed in permit applications for each region. These activities closely
mirror the activities on the continuing active acreage.
3) The future anticipated shellfish activities/species cultured on the new acreage is assumed to
approximate the species cultured distribution estimates provided to the Corps from the shellfish
industry illustrated in Table 7-9 under new acres (PCSGA 2013a).
7.3.1. Grays Harbor
Oyster bottom culture and its related activities predominate in Grays Harbor with longline culture also
common. In-water activities common to the region include dredging, harrowing, and longline harvest.
This is expected to continue in the future. Fallow and new acreage is also anticipated to be predominantly
for oyster culture using the same methods. No cover nets are currently documented in Grays Harbor, and
they would not be expected to occur for new activities except on a very limited basis. For purposes of the
analysis, however; it is assumed that all new activities could contain cover nets or bags for clam culture.
No restoration, recreation, or subtidal geoduck activities are expected to occur in Grays Harbor.
A total of 5% of the total tidelands in the region would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat and species. Effects from
activities conducted on this acreage would persist for as long as the anticipated time period of the PBA
and likely beyond. Cumulatively, effects from all shellfish activities including on acreage classified as
continuing active would occur on 7.5% of the tidelands in Grays Harbor. Effects would be concentrated
in the North and South lobes of the embayment on the extensive tidelands in these areas (see Figure D-1).
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 98 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Table 7-9. Summary of anticipated future aquaculture species cultured and methods
Grays Harbor Willapa Bay Hood Canal South Puget
Sound
North Puget
Sound
continuing active
acres 1,145 16,397 949 2,351 1,354
cultured species
distribution and
methods
oyster dominant oyster primary
followed by
clam, negligible
geoduck
oyster most
common
followed closely
by clam, less
geoduck
relatively equal
distribution of
oyster, clam;
slightly less
geoduck
oyster and clam
most common;
less geoduck
oyster 95% 80-95% 40-60% 30-50% 50-60%
clam 1-5% 5-15% 20-40% 30-50% 30-40%
geoduck 0% 1% 10-20% 15-30% 1-10%
mussel 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
oyster culture
methods
bottom culture
primary;
longlines
common
bottom culture
primary; some
longlines;
limited rack &
bag
bottom culture
primary; some
longlines;
limited rack &
bag
bottom culture
dominant;
limited rack &
bag, longlines
bottom culture
primary;
longlines
common; some
rack & bag
clam culture
methods bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom
mussel culture
methods NA surface
longlines
rafts & surface
longlines
rafts & surface
longlines
rafts & surface
longlines
continuing fallow
acres 1,820 9,468 402 780 2,333
cultured species
distribution and
methods
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
same cultured
species &
methods as
cont. active
above
new aquaculture
acres 100 100 438 448 315
oyster & clam 95% 25% 78% 62% 79%
geoduck 0% 50% 18% 33% 19%
mussel 5% 25% 4% 5% 2%
total aquaculture
acres 3,065 25,965 1,789 3,578 4,002
recreation acres 0 0 74 41 45
restoration acres 0 0 24 126 5
subtidal geoduck
acres 0 0 6,703 22,676 18,754
Note: only new suspended lines for mussels would be authorized under the PBA (i.e., not rafts)
There are an estimated 1,152 fallow acres co-located with eelgrass in Grays Harbor. The action assumes
oyster bottom and longline culture methods would occur in these areas in the future. This would
substantially reduce or eliminate the eelgrass in these areas at least during significant portions of the
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 99 Programmatic Biological Assessment
culture and harvest cycle. It does not appear that any fallow acreage is co-located with forage fish
spawning areas so no impact to these species is anticipated.
Temporary habitat effects of the activities include short-term degradation of water quality, noise and
general activity disturbance, and temporary decreases in benthic community abundance. These activities
would be expected to displace fish and other species in the immediate vicinity of the activity. The
frequency of in-water work is conservatively estimated to be 10 acres worked per day averaged over one
year for activities on fallow and new acres and 15 acres per day for all shellfish activities, which is 0.04%
of the total tideland area in the Grays Harbor region.
7.3.2. Willapa Bay
Oyster bottom culture is the primary culture method in Willapa Bay with a lesser amount of longline
culture, limited oyster rack and bag culture and some clam culture. There does appear to be substantial
acreage with cover nets. In-water activities common to the region include dredging, harrowing,
graveling, and longline harvest. This relative distribution of culture methods and individual activities is
expected to continue in the future on both continuing active and fallow acres. New activities are expected
to be focused on geoduck culture with lesser amounts of clam, oyster, and mussel culture. No restoration,
recreation, or subtidal geoduck activities are expected to occur in Grays Harbor.
A total of 19% of the total tidelands in the region would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat and species. Effects from
activities conducted on this acreage would persist for as long as the anticipated time period of the PBA
and likely beyond. Cumulatively, effects from all shellfish activities including on acreage classified as
continuing active would occur on 53% of the tidelands in Willapa Bay. Effects would occur throughout
the region on the extensive tidelands that characterize the embayment.
There are an estimated 7,448 fallow acres co-located with eelgrass in Willapa Bay. The action assumes
oyster bottom and the other activities listed above would occur in these areas in the future. This would
substantially reduce or eliminate the eelgrass in these areas at least during significant portions of the
culture and harvest cycle. There are an estimated 510 fallow acres co-located with herring spawning
areas. Spawning in these areas would be negatively affected primarily by the loss of eelgrass spawning
substrate.
Temporary habitat effects of the activities include short-term degradation of water quality, noise and
general activity disturbance, and temporary decreases in benthic community abundance. These activities
would be expected to displace fish and other species in the immediate vicinity of the activity. The
frequency of in-water work is conservatively estimated to be 53 acres worked per day averaged over one
year for activities on fallow and new acres and 139 acres per day for all shellfish activities, which is 0.3%
of the total tideland area in the Willapa Bay region.
7.3.3. Hood Canal
Oyster and clam culture are both common in Hood Canal with a smaller amount of geoduck. Bottom
culture is the primary method for growing all species. There are lesser amounts of longline and rack
and/or bag culture. About 10% of the continuing footprints have cover nets. In-water activities that occur
include graveling, dive harvest, and longline harvest. This relative distribution of culture methods and
individual activities is expected to continue in the future on both continuing active, fallow, and new
aquaculture acres. Subtidal geoduck harvest, and some restoration, and recreation related shellfish
activities are also expected to occur in Hood Canal.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 100 Programmatic Biological Assessment
A total of 8% of the total tidelands in the region would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat and species. Effects from
activities conducted on this acreage would persist for as long as the anticipated time period of the PBA
and likely beyond. Cumulatively, effects from all shellfish activities including on acreage classified as
continuing active would occur on 16% of the tidelands. Hood Canal is a deep fiord like embayment
characterized by narrow ribbons of tidelands along the shoreline interrupted by small estuaries at river
mouths that have a somewhat greater tideland area depending on the size of the river. Activities and their
effects would be focused along these shoreline areas and estuaries throughout the region.
There are an estimated 257 fallow acres co-located with eelgrass in Hood Canal. The action assumes
oyster and clam bottom and the other activities listed above would occur in these areas in the future. This
would substantially reduce or eliminate the eelgrass in these areas at least during significant portions of
the culture and harvest cycle. There are an estimated 153 fallow acres co-located with forage fish
spawning areas. Spawning in these areas would be negatively affected primarily by the loss of aquatic
vegetation spawning substrate and smothering of eggs.
Temporary habitat effects of the activities include short-term degradation of water quality, noise and
general activity disturbance, and temporary decreases in benthic community abundance. These activities
would be expected to displace fish and other species in the immediate vicinity of the activity. The
frequency of in-water work is conservatively estimated to be 5 acres worked per day averaged over one
year for activities on fallow and new acres and 7 acres per day for all shellfish activities, which is 0.05%
of the total tideland area in the Hood Canal region.
7.3.4. South Puget Sound
Oyster and clam culture are both common in South Puget Sound followed closely by geoduck. Bottom
culture is the primary method for growing all species with some longline and rack and/or bag culture.
Cover nets are common and occur on about 75% of the continuing footprints. In-water activities that
occur include dredging, graveling, dive harvest, and longline harvest. This relative distribution of culture
methods and individual activities is expected to continue in the future on both continuing active, fallow,
and new aquaculture acres. Subtidal geoduck harvest, and some restoration, and recreation related
shellfish activities are also expected to occur in South Puget Sound.
A total of 5% of the total tidelands in the region would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat and species. Effects from
activities conducted on this acreage would persist for as long as the anticipated time period of the PBA
and likely beyond. Cumulatively, effects from all shellfish activities including on acreage classified as
continuing active would occur on 12% of the tidelands. Activities and effects in the South Puget Sound
region would be focused in the south and east part of the region along shoreline areas and in small
embayments although new activities could occur throughout the region. Most of the acreage in some of
these smaller estuaries may be engaged aquaculture.
There are an estimated 115 fallow acres co-located with eelgrass in South Puget Sound. The action
assumes the shellfish activities listed above would occur in these areas in the future. This would
substantially reduce or eliminate the eelgrass in these areas at least during significant portions of the
culture and harvest cycle. There are an estimated 394 fallow acres co-located with forage fish spawning
areas, primarily for surf smelt. Spawning in these areas would be negatively affected primarily by the
smothering of eggs.
Temporary habitat effects of the activities include short-term degradation of water quality, noise and
general activity disturbance, and temporary decreases in benthic community abundance. These activities
would be expected to displace fish and other species in the immediate vicinity of the activity. The
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 101 Programmatic Biological Assessment
frequency of in-water work is conservatively estimated to be 6 acres worked per day averaged over one
year for activities on fallow and new acres and 14 acres per day for all shellfish activities, which is 0.05%
of the total tideland area in the South Puget Sound region. Given the concentration of activity acreage in
the south and east corner of the region, the frequency of activity in this area would be quite a bit higher
than this average.
7.3.5. North Puget Sound
Oyster and clam culture are both common in North Puget Sound with a very small amount of geoduck.
Bottom culture is the primary method for growing all species with some longline, stake, and rack and bag
culture. Cover nets are common and occur on about 46% of the continuing footprints. In-water activities
that occur include graveling, harrowing, dive harvest, and longline harvest. This relative distribution of
culture methods and individual activities is expected to continue in the future on both continuing active,
fallow, and new aquaculture acres. Subtidal geoduck harvest, and some restoration, and recreation related
shellfish activities are also expected to occur in North Puget Sound.
A total of 3% of the total tidelands in the region would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat and species. Effects from
activities conducted on this acreage would persist for as long as the anticipated time period of the PBA
and likely beyond. Cumulatively, effects from all shellfish activities including on acreage classified as
continuing active would occur on 5% of the tidelands. Activities and effects in the North Puget Sound
region would be focused in a handful of embayments including Samish Bay, Discovery Bay, Sequim Bay,
Kilisut Harbor and in the vicinity of Skagit Bay. The percent of tidelands engaged in shellfish activities
in these embayments would be significantly higher than this regional average. For example, 50% of the
tidelands in Samish Bay contain continuing active or fallow acreage. New activities could occur
throughout the region.
There are an estimated 2,194 fallow acres co-located with eelgrass in North Puget Sound. The action
assumes the shellfish activities listed above would occur in these areas in the future. This would
substantially reduce or eliminate the eelgrass in these areas at least during significant portions of the
culture and harvest cycle. There are an estimated 2,241 fallow acres co-located with forage fish spawning
areas, primarily for herring. Spawning in these areas would be negatively affected by the loss of eelgrass
spawning substrate.
Temporary habitat effects of the activities include short-term degradation of water quality, noise and
general activity disturbance, and temporary decreases in benthic community abundance. These activities
would be expected to displace fish and other species in the immediate vicinity of the activity. The
frequency of in-water work is conservatively estimated to be 11 acres worked per day averaged over one
year for activities on fallow and new acres and 18 acres per day for all shellfish activities, which is 0.02%
of the total tideland area in the region. The frequency of activity in the embayments where activities are
concentrated would be significantly higher than this regional average.
7.4. Interrelated Effects
The two interrelated/interdependent activities are vessel and vehicle traffic occurring to and from the
shellfish activity areas and the use of upland storage sites. Effects of the interrelated vessel and vehicle
traffic are similar to that described for vehicle and vessel traffic conducted as part of the proposed action
Section 7.1.7). The effects would simply be extended beyond the immediate vicinity of the shellfish
activity areas. The additional traffic contributed by shellfish activities to the total traffic in the various
geographic regions is negligible in most areas. In more remote locations, such as Willapa Bay, the
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 102 Programmatic Biological Assessment
shellfish activity traffic may constitute a high percentage of the total traffic. Conservation Measures
would help to minimize any effects from vehicle and vessel traffic.
Upland storage sites would be used to store shellfish equipment such as nets, bags, racks, and tubes.
Shell could also be stored at these sites. Effects to the environment from the use of these sites would be
minor in part due to the Conservation Measures which would minimize effects to vegetation and require
certain best management practices.
7.5. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects include those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to
consultation (50 CFR 402). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not
considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
Non Federal actions in the area include State shellfish or angling regulations, State hatchery practices,
discharge of stormwater and agricultural runoff, increased population growth, industrial development, and
urbanization. State shellfish and angling regulation changes generally support greater restrictions on
recreation to protect listed species. State hatchery practices may have negative effects on naturally
produced salmonids through genetic introgression, competition, and disease transmission resulting from
hatchery introductions. Future urban growth and industrial development within or near the action area
may adversely affect water quality and estuarine productivity.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 103 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8. Effect Determinations
The proposed action includes the authorization or reauthorization by permit of work conducted in support
of shellfish aquaculture, recreation, restoration, and subtidal geoduck harvest. These activities result in a
pattern of effects on the environment that individually have varying levels of persistence ranging from
several days (e.g., temporary increases in suspended sediment) to many years (e.g., degraded eelgrass,
leveling of substrate). For aquaculture, this pattern includes a regular frequency to the individual and
collective effects over time as the activities are repeated. In the continuing active aquaculture areas, this
pattern of effects has been occurring since at least 2007 and pre-date the environmental baseline
benchmark date. The effect of the action for continuing aquaculture is to continue this pattern of effects
in these areas for the period of any permit. This pattern of effects does not currently occur in the fallow
and new aquaculture areas. The proposed action assumes initiation of aquaculture activities and their
pattern of effects in the continuing fallow and new areas. The effects from the three categories of
aquaculture acreage (i.e., active, fallow, and new) would continue for the 20 year period of the PBA. The
effects of the action on each of the ESA listed species are summarized below. Additional detail on
individual effects can be found in the previous section.
The determination of effect conclusion for each species and critical habitat is based on the following
definitions described in the ESA Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998).
o No effect - the appropriate conclusion when the action agency determines its proposed action will
not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat.
o May affect - the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on listed
species or designated critical habitat.
o Is not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species are
expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are
contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. Insignificant effects
relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable
effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be
able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable
effects to occur.
o Is likely to adversely affect - the appropriate finding in a biological assessment (or conclusion
during informal consultation) if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or
indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is
not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to adversely affect").
In the event the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species, but is also
likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action "is likely to adversely affect" the
listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action, an "is
likely to adversely affect" determination should be made.
o Take - to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by FWS to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by FWS
as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly
disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or
sheltering.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 104 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8.1. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Of the five geographic regions that are included within the proposed action, Puget Sound Chinook salmon
are potentially affected by activities conducted in three of the regions including Hood Canal, South Puget
Sound, and North Puget Sound. They are not present in Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor and should not be
affected by proposed activities conducted in these two regions.
8.1.1. Species Effects
The following effects to Chinook salmon are expected to occur during the anticipated 20 year period of
the PBA. Specific geographic locations where effects to Chinook salmon are more likely to occur are
estuaries at the mouths of rivers with spawning Chinook salmon populations (Appendix H). Such rivers
with significant aquaculture acreage include the Nisqually, Skagit, and Skokomish Rivers. During the
early part of the emigration season (e.g., February), juveniles are smaller and may be more vulnerable in
these areas
Cover nets are located in many locations in the nearshore habitat where juvenile Chinook salmon would
occur including at the mouths of the Nisqually, Skagit, and Skokomish Rivers (Appendix G). As
discussed in Section 7.1, unsecured and damaged nets have been documented capturing and killing fish
species. The action includes a Conservation Measure to minimize the degree this occurs. However,
given the prevalence of nets, inconsistent husbandry practices, difficulty fully securing nets in the aquatic
environment, proximity to major spawning rivers, and the 20 year time period of the PBA, some unknown
amount of juvenile salmon entanglement in nets is likely to occur. Rack and/or bag culture may function
in a similar manner resulting in the entrapment and/or stranding of juvenile salmon as the tide retreats
from these areas (see Section 7.1). These would be considered adverse effects to this species.
Salmon prey species would be negatively affected by the proposed action. Invertebrate prey would be
temporarily reduced following many of the individual activities resulting in decreased foraging success
and displacement of juveniles for potentially months at a time in the most impacted areas. While the
scale is relatively large with some amount of impacted acreage occurring nearly continuously for the
duration of the PBA, it would still account for a small percent of the total area available for foraging at
any one time. Shifts in the benthic community may occur across large tideland acreages due to alteration
of the benthic substrate. This would have unknown consequences for the benthic invertebrates preferred
by juvenile salmon.
The action would result in temporary in-water disturbance and noise associated with human activity and
degradation of water quality such as increases in suspended sediments. These effects would occur
broadly throughout the action area and occur on a near daily basis for the 20 year period of the PBA
including when juvenile Chinook salmon are present. These activities would displace juveniles.
8.1.2. Critical Habitat
There are about 161,800 acres of designated nearshore critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
Within this area, there are 4,654 acres of continuing active aquaculture activity (ground-based and
floating), 3,515 acres of continuing fallow aquaculture, and 1,201 acres of new aquaculture. Together this
represents 6% of the designated critical habitat. Recreation and restoration related shellfish activities
would add another 315 acres of shellfish activities conducted within the critical habitat. There is some
variation in the extent of effects depending on the geographic region. Effects from activities conducted
on the new and fallow acreage would occur on 8% of the total tidelands in Hood Canal, 5% of the total
tidelands in South Puget Sound, and 3% of the total tidelands in North Puget Sound (Table 7-2). Within
these broad geographic regions, shellfish activities would be concentrated in certain areas or smaller
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 105 Programmatic Biological Assessment
embayments (Appendix D). This includes the southwest corner of Puget Sound, Samish Bay, Discovery
Bay, Kilisut Harbor, and numerous locations in Hood Canal. Continuing fallow acreage occurs in the
deltas of the Nisqually and Skokomish Rivers, and numerous smaller river deltas with Puget Sound
Chinook salmon spawning populations. Since the critical habitat extends to a depth of 30 meters, the
influence of these activities would be biased towards the shallower part of this range and occur
predominantly in the intertidal elevation range.
Most of the subtidal geoduck harvest would also occur within Chinook salmon critical habitat. This
activity would occur in deeper waters than the other shellfish activities. While the typical annual acreage
for this activity is expected to be small on the order of 300 acres, the annual maximum harvested acreage
is 6,050 acres under the proposed action which is about 4% of the critical habitat. This would be in
addition to the maximum 6,000 acres annual harvest rate under the geoduck HCP. Combining all acreage
where shellfish activities could occur annually, the cumulative total represents 13% of the Chinook
salmon critical habitat. Appendix H illustrates the location of the continuing and new (as of July 2014)
aquaculture activities relative to designated nearshore critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
The proposed action would not affect freshwater critical habitat and associated PCEs 1, 2, and 3. It would
also not affect offshore areas and associated PCE 6. Potential effects to PCEs 4 and 5 for estuarine and
nearshore areas are discussed below.
PCE 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and
side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
o Continuing fallow and new acreage would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. Natural structure and
habitat such as large wood, boulders, and tidal channels would be removed. Artificial structure
including plastic nets, bags, tubes, and metal stakes would be added. This would temporarily
decrease benthic community abundance and may lead to shifts in species composition over time.
Activities causing regular substrate and water column disturbance would occur regularly which
would decrease benthic community abundance. Ongoing effects from the activities conducted on
the continuing active acreage would continue to occur for the period of the PBA.
o Eelgrass would be substantially degraded or removed in areas identified as continuing fallow.
The frequency of disturbance would likely result in a condition where eelgrass never fully
recovers. The amount of eelgrass acreage impacted is roughly estimated to be 2,628 acres within
the designated critical habitat. Eelgrass provides numerous habitat functions including sediment
stabilization, improved water quality, and a substrate for Pacific herring spawning. It is also a
key component of the estuarine and nearshore food web harboring numerous invertebrate salmon
prey species, and provides cover for juvenile salmon from predators. Loss of eelgrass would
negatively affect these habitat functions. These effects would be most evident in Samish Bay in
the North Puget Sound Region, in numerous locations throughout Hood Canal including the
Skokomish River delta, and in the Nisqually River delta in the South Puget Sound Region (see
Appendix D).
o There would be reduced spawning success of forage fish prey species where aquaculture acreage
is co-located with spawning. There are an estimated 2,788 fallow and 1,821 active aquaculture
acres that are co-located with mapped forage fish spawning areas within the critical habitat.
PCE 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and
forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 106 Programmatic Biological Assessment
cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,
and side channels.
o Nearshore marine areas would be affected in a manner similar to that described above under
PCE 4.
8.1.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound
Chinook salmon designated critical habitat.
8.2. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon
Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon are presumed to occasionally occur in Willapa Bay, Grays
Harbor, and the western part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (North Puget Sound region). They are
potentially affected by activities conducted in these regions.
8.2.1. Species Effects
The effects discussed above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon could also occur to lower Columbia River
Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay and other parts of the action area where they may occur. However, given
the only occasional presence of this species in the action area, effects would be insignificant or
discountable.
8.2.2. Critical habitat
There is no designated critical habitat for lower Columbia River Chinook salmon within the action area.
8.2.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Lower Columbia River Chinook
salmon. The proposed action would have no effect on Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon designated
critical habitat.
8.3. Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon
Of the five geographic regions that are included within the proposed action, Hood Canal summer chum
salmon are potentially affected by activities conducted in the Hood Canal and North Puget Sound regions.
They are not present in Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor and are not expected to occur in the south Puget
Sound region.
8.3.1. Species Effects
When they first enter saltwater, juvenile chum are small, not strong swimmers, and typically remain in
very shallow water close to the shoreline (Simenstad 2000). They are thus more vulnerable to the
activities conducted under the proposed action at this stage in their life history. There are a number of
relatively small streams (e.g., Jimmycomelately Cr., Tahuya River) and even some larger streams (e.g.,
Hamma Hamma River) with spawning chum populations that have substantial aquaculture acreage
located at the river mouth (Appendix H). For example, of the approximately 140 acres of tidelands at the
mouth of Jimmycomelately Cr., 68 are classified as fallow aquaculture and 11 acres are classified as
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 107 Programmatic Biological Assessment
active aquaculture. The fallow acreage alone represents about 50% of the total tideland area. It is
possible substantial new acreage could also be initiated in one or several of these estuaries to the point
where most of the estuarine tidelands are engaged in some form of aquaculture.
Cover nets are located in many locations in the nearshore habitat and smaller estuaries where juvenile
chum salmon would occur (Appendix G). As discussed in Section 7.1, unsecured and damaged nets have
been documented capturing and killing fish species. The action includes a Conservation Measure to
minimize the degree this occurs. However, given the prevalence of nets, inconsistent husbandry
practices, difficulty fully securing nets in the aquatic environment, proximity to major spawning rivers,
and the 20 year time period of the PBA, some unknown amount of juvenile salmon entanglement in nets
is likely to occur. Rack and/or bag culture may function in a similar manner resulting in the entrapment
and/or stranding of juvenile salmon as the tide retreats from these areas (see Section 7.1).
Salmon prey species would be negatively affected by the proposed action. Invertebrate prey would be
temporarily reduced following many of the individual activities resulting in decreased foraging success
and displacement of juveniles for potentially months at a time in the most impacted areas. While the
scale is relatively large with some amount of impacted acreage occurring nearly continuously for the
duration of the PBA, it would still account for a small percent of the total area available for foraging at
any one time. In localized areas such as at the mouths of the smaller streams mentioned above, the scale
of effect may be greater depending on the timing of the work. Since activities could occur at any time of
year, it is possible (perhaps likely given the scale and timeframe of the PBA) that an activity such as
dredging or geoduck harvest could occur across a substantial portion of the acreage of one of these small
estuaries immediately preceding and/or during the juvenile emigration period. This could result in
substantial depletion of the benthic invertebrate prey community in this estuary during the time juvenile
chum salmon are arriving. Juvenile chum emigrate early in the year when there is typically low prey
abundance and they are known to migrate rapidly and far in search of prey (Tynan 1997, WDFW and
Point No Point Treaty Tribes 2000). This scenario would add to the already low prey base at this time of
year, increase competition between juveniles, and force additional travel in search of prey which may
increase vulnerability to predators. If the activities were conducted in the main flow of the channel, chum
may be vulnerable to injury from striking equipment.
The action would result in temporary in-water disturbance and noise associated with human activity and
degradation of water quality such as increases in suspended sediments. These effects would occur
broadly throughout the action area and occur on a near daily basis for the 20 year period of the PBA
including when juvenile chum salmon are present. These activities would displace juveniles. They may
be unable to avoid areas with high amounts of suspended sediments in some cases, for example in tidal
channels adjacent to work areas. Given the narrow band of shallow water habitat along the shoreline in
Hood Canal, it is possible a shellfish activity and its immediate effects could occupy most of this
shoreline habitat in a localized area and potentially interrupt migration, forcing juveniles into deeper
waters and increasing their vulnerability to predators.
The scale of the action acreage, proximity to juvenile salmon, and the 20 year timeframe of the PBA
suggest all or most of the effects described above are likely to occur. They are therefore not discountable
and would be considered adverse effects on chum salmon.
8.3.2. Critical Habitat
There are about 24,658 acres of designated nearshore critical habitat for Hood Canal summer chum
salmon much of which extends into the North Puget Sound Region along the Olympic Peninsula. Within
the boundary of the designated critical habitat, there are a total of 1,087 continuing active acres and 577
continuing fallow acres (Appendix H). There are also potentially 748 acres of new aquaculture assuming
all the new acreage for the North Puget Sound region occurs within the critical habitat. Together this
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 108 Programmatic Biological Assessment
represents about 10% of the critical habitat that would be engaged in regular aquaculture activities. These
activities would occur predominantly in the intertidal zone and would be spread throughout the critical
habitat. Aquaculture activities are concentrated in a number of locations along Hood Canal including the
Narrows and Quilcene Bay, and just north of Hood Canal in Discovery Bay and Kilisut Harbor.
Recreation and restoration could add another 148 acres of shellfish activity within the critical habitat. Up
to 3,000 acres of subtidal geoduck harvest under the PBA and 3,000 under the WDNR HCP could also
occur within the critical habitat on an annual basis. Combining all acreage where shellfish activities
could occur annually, the cumulative total represents 34% of the Hood Canal summer chum salmon
critical habitat.
The proposed action would not affect freshwater critical habitat and associated PCEs 1, 2, and 3. It would
also not affect offshore areas and associated PCE 6. Potential effects to PCEs 4 and 5 for estuarine and
nearshore areas are discussed below.
PCE 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and
side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
o Continuing fallow and new acreage would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. Natural structure and
habitat such as large wood, boulders, and tidal channels would be removed. Artificial structure
including plastic nets, bags, tubes, and metal stakes would be added. This would temporarily
decrease benthic community abundance and may lead to shifts in species composition over time.
Activities causing regular substrate and water column disturbance would occur regularly which
would decrease benthic community abundance. Ongoing effects from the activities conducted on
the continuing active acreage would continue to occur for the period of the PBA.
o Eelgrass would be substantially degraded or removed in areas identified as continuing fallow.
The frequency of disturbance would likely result in a condition where eelgrass never fully
recovers. A total of 10% of the total eelgrass in Hood Canal is co-located with active aquaculture
and another 8% co-located with fallow acres. Eelgrass provides numerous habitat functions
including sediment stabilization, improved water quality, and a substrate for Pacific herring
spawning. It is also a key component of the estuarine and nearshore food web harboring
numerous invertebrate salmon prey species, and provides cover for juvenile salmon from
predators. Loss of eelgrass would negatively affect these habitat functions. These effects would
occur in numerous locations throughout the critical habitat (see Appendix D).
o There would be reduced spawning success of forage fish prey species where aquaculture acreage
is co-located with spawning. There are an estimated 153 fallow and 510 active aquaculture acres
that are co-located with mapped forage fish spawning areas in Hood Canal. Additional acres are
co-located with spawning areas within the critical habitat north of the Hood Canal region along
the Olympic Peninsula.
PCE 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and
forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural
cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,
and side channels.
o Nearshore marine areas would be affected in manner similar to that described above under PCE 4.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 109 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8.3.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect Hood Canal summer chum salmon and Hood
Canal summer chum salmon designated critical habitat.
8.4. Columbia River Chum Salmon
Columbia River chum salmon are presumed to occasionally occur in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the
western part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (North Puget Sound region). They are potentially affected by
activities conducted in these regions.
8.4.1. Species Effects
The effects discussed above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon could also occur to Columbia River chum
salmon in Willapa Bay and other parts of the action area where they may occur. However, given the only
occasional presence of this species in the action area, effects would be insignificant or discountable.
8.4.2. Critical Habitat
There is no designated critical habitat for lower Columbia River chum salmon within the action area.
8.4.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Columbia River chum salmon. The
proposed action would have no effect on Columbia River chum Salmon designated critical habitat.
8.5. Puget Sound Steelhead
Puget Sound steelhead are potentially affected by activities conducted in three of the geographic regions
including Hood Canal, South Puget Sound, and North Puget Sound. They are not present in Willapa Bay
or Grays Harbor and should not be affected by proposed activities conducted in these two regions.
8.5.1. Species Effects
Puget Sound steelhead are thought to move quickly to offshore areas once they enter saltwater with very
limited time spent in the intertidal zone (78 FR 2726, Moore et al. 2015). Their interaction with shellfish
activity areas is thus also expected to be very limited. Adults also would not typically occur in the
intertidal zone.
If present in the intertidal zone, steelhead would be displaced by temporary in-water disturbance and
noise associated with human activity and degradation of water quality such as increases in suspended
sediments. These effects would occur broadly throughout the action area and occur on a near daily basis
for the 20 year period of the PBA. Given the limited presence of steelhead in shellfish activity areas,
these effects would be insignificant.
8.5.2. Critical Habitat
No saltwater or estuarine areas are proposed for designation as critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead.
The proposed action would not affect freshwater areas and would thus have no effect on freshwater
critical habitat proposed for steelhead. There are two PCE’s proposed for steelhead that are specific to
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 110 Programmatic Biological Assessment
saltwater areas. The PCEs and effects of the action on the PCEs are identical to that for Puget Sound
Chinook salmon discussed above.
8.5.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead and may affect,
likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead proposed critical habitat.
8.6. Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout occur in all geographic regions of the PBA with the possible exception of
Willapa Bay although they potentially could occur here as well on an infrequent basis.
8.6.1. Species Effects
Adult and sub-adult bull trout could potentially be affected by the proposed shellfish activities. Subadult
and adult bull trout forage in intertidal areas (Beamer et al. 2004). The smaller individuals forage for
invertebrates while larger individuals consume fish species (e.g., surf smelt, herring) (Goetz et al. 2004).
Since this species is active in the intertidal zone and they occur throughout the action area, they would
occur in the same location as the proposed action activities.
Bull trout would be affected by temporary in-water disturbance and noise associated with human activity
and degradation of water quality such as increases in suspended sediments. These effects would occur
broadly throughout the action area and occur on a near daily basis for the 20 year period of the PBA.
These activities would displace bull trout.
Cover nets are located in many locations in the nearshore habitat where bull trout would occur including
Discovery Bay, Samish Bay, and at the mouths of the Nisqually, Skagit, and Skokomish Rivers
Appendix G). As discussed in Section 7.1, unsecured and damaged nets have been documented
capturing and killing fish species. The action includes a Conservation Measure to minimize the degree
this occurs. However, given the prevalence of nets, inconsistent husbandry practices, difficulty fully
securing nets in the aquatic environment, proximity to major spawning rivers, and the 20 year time period
of the PBA, some unknown amount of bull trout entanglement in nets is likely to occur. Rack and/or bag
culture may function in a similar manner resulting in the entrapment and/or stranding as the tide retreats
from these areas (see Section 7.1). These would be considered adverse effects to this species.
Prey species would be negatively affected by the proposed action. There would be reduced spawning
success of forage fish species where fallow acreage is co-located with spawning. Shifts in the benthic
community may occur across large tideland acreages due to alteration of the benthic substrate.
Invertebrate prey would be temporarily reduced following many of the individual activities resulting in
decreased foraging success and displacement of juveniles for potentially months at a time in the most
impacted areas. While the scale is relatively large with some amount of impacted acreage occurring
nearly continuously for the duration of the PBA, it would still account for a small percent of the total area
available for foraging at any one time. This would be an insignificant effect on bull trout.
8.6.2. Critical Habitat
Appendix H illustrates the location of shellfish activities relative to designated nearshore critical habitat
for bull trout. Each of the PCEs is listed below followed by a description of potential effects on the PCE.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 111 Programmatic Biological Assessment
PCE 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to
contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.
o The proposed action would have no effect on this PCE.
PCE 2. Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between
spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not
limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
o Shellfish activities may temporarily displace bull trout from local areas due to turbidity or general
disturbance associated with the activity but this should not affect their general migration patterns.
PCE 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
o The action would temporarily decrease benthic community abundance and may lead to shifts in
species composition over time. Activities causing regular substrate and water column disturbance
would occur regularly which would decrease benthic community abundance.
o Eelgrass would be substantially degraded or removed in areas identified as continuing fallow.
The frequency of disturbance would likely result in a condition where eelgrass never fully
recovers. Eelgrass is a key component of the estuarine and nearshore food web harboring
numerous invertebrate prey species and a substrate for Pacific herring spawning. Loss of eelgrass
would negatively affect these habitat functions. Critical habitat where these effects would be
most evident include Samish Bay, Nisqually delta, numerous locations throughout Hood Canal
including the Skokomish River delta, and in Grays Harbor (see Appendix D).
o There would be reduced spawning success of forage fish species where aquaculture acreage is co-
located with spawning. There are an estimated 2,788 fallow and 1,821 active aquaculture acres
that are co-located with mapped forage fish spawning areas within the critical habitat in the Puget
Sound and Hood Canal regions and 1,152 acres in Grays Harbor.
PCE 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and
processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood,
side channels, pools, undercut banks, and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths,
gradients, velocities, and structure.
o Continuing fallow and new acreage would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. Natural structure such
as large wood or boulders would be removed. Artificial structure including plastic nets, bags,
tubes, and metal stakes would be added.
o Natural processes on the fallow and new acreages would be minimized and replaced by regular
shellfish activities associated with aquaculture.
PCE 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia
available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this
range will depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and
seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local
groundwater influence.
o The proposed action would have no effect on this PCE.
PCE 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure
success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 112 Programmatic Biological Assessment
survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand,
embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine
sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system.
o The proposed action would have no effect on this PCE.
PCE 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal
ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph.
o The proposed action would have no effect on this PCE
PCE 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not
inhibited.
o The proposed action would degrade water quality (e.g., increases in suspended sediments) in
localized areas of the nearshore marine habitat on a near daily basis for the 20 year period of the
PBA.
PCE 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern
pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species
that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout.
o The proposed action would have no effect on this PCE
8.6.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect bull trout and bull trout designated critical
habitat.
8.7. Green Sturgeon Southern DPS
Within the action area, the green sturgeon is common in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor during the
summer and fall (Lindley et al. 2011). Although not common, they could also occur in the other
geographic regions of the PBA.
8.7.1. Species Effects
Green sturgeon rarely occur in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal regions so there interaction with shellfish
activities is unlikely in these regions. In Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, both shallow estuaries with
extensive tidelands, green sturgeon make use of intertidal mudflats to forage for benthic invertebrates
Dumbauld et al. 2008).
Navigation dredging and vessel strikes have been documented to cause mortality to several species of
sturgeon (Clarke 2011, Stanford et al. 2009). Green sturgeon would also be vulnerable to these activities,
although this has not been documented in the action area. Oyster dredging conducted under the proposed
action is much different in character than that conducted for navigation both in the scale of the dredge
operation and the dredge depth. Nevertheless, given the scale of acreage in the proposed action, the 20
year timeframe of the PBA, and the use of the intertidal areas where oyster dredging occurs by green
sturgeon, injury to sturgeon from dredging or harrowing is possible. The high rate of in-water activity
conducted in relatively shallow water, particularly in Willapa Bay, may pose a risk of vessel strikes to
green sturgeon. Strikes of sturgeon species with large vessels have been documented outside of the action
area (Stanford et al. 2009). The risk of a vessel strike in Willapa Bay is probably low, but given the rates
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 113 Programmatic Biological Assessment
of in-water activity, the presence of green sturgeon in shallow water where that activity occurs, and the 20
year timeframe of the PBA, this effect is not discountable.
Cover nets are located in many locations in Willapa Bay. As discussed in Section 7.1, unsecured and
damaged nets have been documented capturing and killing fish species. The action includes a
Conservation Measure to minimize the degree this occurs. However, given the prevalence of nets,
inconsistent husbandry practices, difficulty fully securing nets in the aquatic environment, sturgeon use of
tidelands for foraging, and the 20 year timeframe of the PBA, some unknown amount of entanglement in
nets is possible. Rack and/or bag culture may function in a similar manner resulting in the entrapment
and/or stranding as the tide retreats from these areas (see Section 7.1).
The scale of in-water activities and prevalence of nets, particularly in Willapa Bay, the 20 year timeframe
of the PBA, and the use of the tidelands by green sturgeon, together suggest the risk of physical injury
and/or entanglement is not discountable. These would therefore be considered adverse effects on green
sturgeon.
8.7.2. Critical Habitat
Designated critical habitat for green sturgeon in estuarine areas occurs in the Willapa Bay and Grays
Harbor regions of the PBA. Designated critical habitat in coastal marine areas occurs within the North
Puget Sound region of the PBA. There is no freshwater critical habitat within the action area. Appendix
H illustrates the location of shellfish activities relative to designated estuarine and coastal marine critical
habitat. PCEs were developed for freshwater riverine systems, estuarine areas, and nearshore marine
waters. Potential impacts to the estuarine and marine PCEs are discussed below.
The specific PCEs essential for the conservation of the Southern DPS in estuarine areas include:
PCE 1. Food resources. Abundant prey items within estuarine habitats and substrates for juvenile,
subadult, and adult life stages. Prey species for juvenile, subadult, and adult green sturgeon within
bays and estuaries primarily consist of benthic invertebrates and fishes, including crangonid
shrimp, burrowing thalassinidean shrimp (particularly the burrowing ghost shrimp), amphipods,
isopods, clams, annelid worms, crabs, sand lances, and anchovies.
o Continuing fallow and new acreage would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. Prey species would
be negatively affected by the proposed action. Shifts in benthic community composition may
occur across large tideland acreages in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay due to alteration of the
benthic substrate. This would have unknown consequences for the benthic invertebrate
population. Invertebrate prey would be temporarily reduced following many of the individual
activities resulting in decreased foraging success and displacement for potentially months at a
time in the most impacted areas. Ongoing effects from the activities conducted on the continuing
active acreage would continue to occur for the period of the PBA. While the scale is relatively
large with some amount of impacted acreage occurring nearly continuously for the duration of the
PBA, it would still account for a small percent of the total area available for foraging at any one
time.
PCE 2. Water flow. Within bays and estuaries adjacent to the Sacramento River (i.e., the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta and the Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco bays), sufficient flow into the bay
and estuary to allow adults to successfully orient to the incoming flow and migrate upstream to
spawning grounds.
o The Sacramento River estuaries are outside of the action area. The proposed action would have
no effect on this PCE.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 114 Programmatic Biological Assessment
PCE 3. Water quality. Water quality, including temperature, salinity, oxygen content, and other chemical
characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages. Suitable water
temperatures for juvenile green sturgeon should be below 24 °C. Suitable salinities range from
brackish water (10 ppt) to salt water (33 ppt). Subadult and adult green sturgeon occupy a wide
range of dissolved oxygen levels, but may need a minimum dissolved oxygen level of at least 6.54 mg
02/l (Kelly et al. 2007; Moser and Lindley 2007). Suitable water quality also includes water with
acceptably low levels of contaminants (e.g., pesticides, PAHs, elevated levels of heavy metals) that
may disrupt the normal development of juvenile life stages, or the growth, survival, or reproduction
of subadult or adult stages.
o It is possible that some activities, such as harrowing, could temporarily decrease dissolved
oxygen locally as anaerobic sediments are brought to the surface. This would not be a significant
effect.
PCE 4. Migratory corridor. A migratory pathway necessary for the safe and timely passage of Southern
DPS fish within estuarine habitats and between estuarine and riverine or marine habitats. We define
safe and timely passage to mean that human-induced impediments, either physical, chemical, or
biological, do not alter the migratory behavior of the fish such that its survival or the overall
viability of the species is compromised (e.g., an impediment that compromises the ability of fish to
reach thermal refugia by the time they enter a particular life stage).
o The proposed action would have no effect on migratory pathways for green sturgeon. Structure
on the intertidal habitat and periodic harvest activities conducted at high tide could temporarily
displace green sturgeon but these effects should be highly localized with no effect on broader
migration patterns.
PCE 5. Water depth. A diversity of depths necessary for shelter, foraging, and migration of juvenile,
subadult, and adult life stages. Subadult and adult green sturgeon occupy a diversity of depths within
bays and estuaries for feeding and migration. Tagged adults and subadults within the San Francisco
Bay estuary primarily occupied waters over shallow depths of less than 10 m, either swimming near
the surface or foraging along the bottom (Kelly et al. 2007).
o The proposed action would only have negligible impacts on depths within the action area.
Activities such as applying gravel to substrate or leveling activities would result in only minor
and insignificant changes in the elevation of the substrate.
PCE 6. Sediment quality. Sediment quality (i.e., chemical characteristics) necessary for normal behavior,
growth, and viability of all life stages. This includes sediments free of elevated levels of contaminants
e.g., selenium, PAHs, and pesticides) that can cause adverse effects on all life stages of green
sturgeon.
o The use of vessels and vehicles results in accidental discharges of fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic
fluids. The effect on water quality depends on the type of contaminant spilled, time of year, spill
volume, and success of containment efforts. The action includes Conservation Measures to
minimize the risk of such spills in the aquatic environment.
Green sturgeon Southern DPS coastal marine area PCEs include:
PCE 7. Migratory corridor. A migratory pathway necessary for the safe and timely passage of Southern
DPS fish within marine and between estuarine and marine habitats. We define safe and timely
passage to mean that human- induced impediments, either physical, chemical, or biological, do not
alter the migratory behavior of the fish such that its survival or the overall viability of the species is
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 115 Programmatic Biological Assessment
compromised (e.g., an impediment that compromises the ability of fish to reach abundant prey
resources during the summer months in Washington and Oregon estuaries).
o Shellfish activities including subtidal geoduck harvest are very localized and unlikely to affect
green sturgeon migration patterns.
PCE 8. Water quality. Coastal marine waters with adequate dissolved oxygen levels and acceptably low
levels of contaminants (e.g., pesticides, PAHs, heavy metals that may disrupt the normal behavior,
growth, and viability of subadult and adult green sturgeon). Based on studies of tagged subadult and
adult green sturgeon in the San Francisco Bay estuary, CA, and Willapa Bay, WA, subadults and
adults may need a minimum dissolved oxygen level of at least 6.54 mg O2/l (Kelly et al. 2007; Moser
and Lindley 2007).
o The proposed action would cause temporary localized turbidity. The magnitude and extent of
turbidity increases would have negligible effect on green sturgeon.
PCE 9. Food resources. Abundant prey items for subadults and adults, which may include benthic
invertebrates and fish. Green sturgeon spend more than half their lives in coastal marine and
estuarine waters, spending from 3–20 years at a time out at sea.
o Subtidal geoduck harvest would disturb benthic habitat and temporarily reduce benthic prey
organisms in localized areas. Green sturgeon, if affected, may shift foraging to undisturbed
locations. Given the scale and short term duration of this effect, green sturgeon would not be
affected in a meaningful way.
8.7.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect green sturgeon and may affect, not likely to
adversely affect green sturgeon designated critical habitat
8.8. Puget Sound Rockfish
The three ESA listed Puget Sound rockfish species occur within the Hood Canal, south Puget Sound, and
north Puget Sound regions. They do not occur in the Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor region.
8.8.1. Species Effects
Juvenile boccacio and canary rockfish inhabit intertidal areas as juveniles before gradually moving to
deeper water (Love et al. 1991). They feed on benthic invertebrates during this stage of their life history.
Temporary in-water disturbance and noise associated with human activity and degradation of water
quality such as increases in suspended sediments could displace them. These affects would occur broadly
throughout the action area and occur on a near daily basis for the 20 year period of the PBA. Rockfish
could be attracted to the altered bottom substrates (e.g., oyster substrate) that would occur as a result of
the action. They would be periodically displaced from these areas when shellfish related activities occur.
Cover nets are located in many locations in the nearshore habitat where juvenile boccacio and canary
rockfish may settle. As discussed in Section 7.1, unsecured and damaged nets have been documented
capturing and killing fish species. The action includes a Conservation Measure to minimize the degree
this occurs. However, given the prevalence of nets, inconsistent husbandry practices, difficulty fully
securing nets in the aquatic environment, and the 20 year time period of the PBA, some unknown amount
of rockfish entanglement in nets is likely to occur. Rack and/or bag culture may function in a similar
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 116 Programmatic Biological Assessment
manner resulting in the entrapment and/or stranding of rockfish as the tide retreats from these areas (see
Section 7.1). These would be considered adverse effects to this species.
8.8.2. Critical Habitat
The critical habitat for rockfish includes 590 square miles of nearshore habitat and 414 square miles of
deepwater habitat of Puget Sound, Washington. The portion of the action area designated as critical
habitat includes parts of South Puget Sound, North Puget Sound, and Hood Canal.
In nearshore areas, the proposed critical habitat occurs from the shoreline from extreme high water out to
a depth no greater than 30 meters (98 feet) relative to mean lower low water. In deepwater areas, the
proposed critical habitat occurs from depths greater than 30 meters (98 feet). Appendix H illustrates the
location of shellfish activities relative to the proposed critical habitat. Essential features of the proposed
critical habitat are described below.
1. In nearshore areas, juvenile settlement habitats with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble
compositions that also support kelp are essential for conservation because these features enable
forage opportunities and refuge from predators and enable behavioral and physiological changes
needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. Several attributes of these sites determine the
quality of the area including a) the quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities, and b) water quality and
sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding
opportunities.
o Continuing fallow and new acreage would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. Natural structure such
as large wood or boulders would be removed. Artificial structure including plastic nets, bags,
tubes, and metal stakes would be added. This would temporarily decrease benthic community
abundance and may lead to shifts in species composition over time. Activities causing regular
substrate and water column disturbance would occur regularly which would decrease benthic
community abundance. While the scale is relatively large with some amount of impacted
acreage occurring nearly continuously for the duration of the PBA, it would still account for a
small percent of the total area available for foraging at any one time.
o There would be reduced spawning success of forage fish prey species where aquaculture acreage
is co-located with spawning. Rockfish have diverse diets that include many different fish species
and invertebrates (78FR 47635). This effect of forage fish would not affect prey availability for
rockfish.
2. In deepwater areas, benthic habitats or sites deeper than 30 meters (98 feet) that possess or are
adjacent to areas of complex bathymetry consisting of rock and or highly rugose habitat are essential
to conservation because these features support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding
opportunities by providing the structure for adult bocaccio to avoid predation, seek food and persist
for decades. Several attributes of these habitats or sites determine the quality of the area including:
1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities; (2) water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to
support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and (3) the type and amount of
structure and rugosity that supports feeding opportunities and predator avoidance.
o The proposed action would not occur in waters deeper than -70 ft MLLW. There should be no
effect on rockfish deepwater habitats.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 117 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8.8.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect canary rockfish and bocaccio. The proposed
action may affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for canary rockfish and bocaccio. The
proposed action would have no effect on yelloweye rockfish or yelloweye rockfish critical habitat (only
deepwater habitat designated).
8.9. Eulachon
Eulachon could potentially be found throughout the action area. They can occasionally be found in
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor due to their proximity to the spawning populations in the Columbia River.
They are considered to be an infrequent visitor to most of the Puget Sound and Hood Canal Regions.
8.9.1. Species Effects
Effects on eulachon would be similar to those described above for the other fish species. They may be
displaced from localized areas by increases in turbidity or by general in-water activity levels. Prey
organisms would be reduced in localized areas following certain shellfish activities such as harvest. This
may result in decreased foraging success in these localized areas. Individuals may shift foraging to
undisturbed areas until prey items recover in the impacted area. Given the limited eulachon presence,
these effects are insignificant.
8.9.2. Critical habitat
The proposed action would not affect freshwater designated critical habitat. While no specific saltwater
areas are designated, PCEs were developed for saltwater areas. Effects to eulachon PCEs are discussed
below.
PCE 1. Freshwater spawning and incubation sites with water flow, quality and temperature conditions
and substrate supporting spawning and incubation.
o The proposed action would have no effect on freshwater areas.
PCE 2. Freshwater and estuarine migration corridors free of obstruction and with water flow, quality
and temperature conditions supporting larval and adult mobility, and with abundant prey items
supporting larval feeding after the yolk sac is depleted.
o Continuing fallow and new acreage would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed
condition to an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. Natural structure such
as large wood or boulders would be removed. Artificial structure including plastic nets, bags,
tubes, and metal stakes would be added. This would temporarily decrease benthic community
abundance and may lead to shifts in species composition over time. Activities causing regular
substrate and water column disturbance would occur regularly which would decrease benthic
community abundance. While the scale is relatively large with some amount of impacted
acreage occurring nearly continuously for the duration of the PBA, it would still account for a
small percent of the total area available for foraging at any one time.
PCE 3. Nearshore and offshore marine foraging habitat with water quality and available prey,
supporting juveniles and adult survival.
o Effects on nearshore habitat would be similar to that described above for estuaries under PCE 2.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 118 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8.9.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect eulachon and eulachon designated critical
habitat.
8.10. Southern Resident Killer Whale
The southern resident killer whale occurs primarily in the north and south Puget Sound regions of the
PBA. They could also potentially occur in the very northern part of the Hood Canal region of the PBA.
They are not known to visit Grays Harbor or Willapa Bay (NMFS 2008).
8.10.1. Species Effects
Potential effects on southern resident killer whale include noise and in-water obstacles from vessel traffic,
subtidal dive harvest (e.g., air lines), and potentially anchor lines from floating culture methods.
Encounters would be extremely unlikely and geoduck dive harvesters would typically exit the water if
killer whales were in the area (WDNR 2008). The scale of these effects is small, and extremely localized
in nature. Southern residents would be expected to easily avoid any interaction with the activities with
minimal, if any, disturbance to their activity. These effects are discountable.
8.10.2. Critical habitat
Subtidal geoduck harvest, the operation of continuing rafts, and surface longlines would all occur within
designated critical habitat for southern residents.
Effects to southern resident killer whale PCEs are discussed below.
PCE 1. Water quality to support growth and development;
o The proposed action would have limited effects on water quality in the form of minor turbidity
and the potential for chemical/oil spills associated with vessel operations. In both cases these
effects are of a scale that would result in negligible effects on the critical habitat.
PCE 2. Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support individual growth,
reproduction and development, as well as overall population growth
o The primary prey species for southern residents are Chinook salmon from the Fraser River
accounting for 80-90% of all Chinook consumed in one study (Hanson et al. 2010). While the
action could result in some minor disturbance to juvenile Chinook salmon in Puget Sound and
Hood Canal, there should be no effect on this prey species numbers or population growth.
PCE 3. Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging.
o The proposed action would marginally increase the number of vessels on the water, create noise,
and add structure such as air hoses for divers. It is doubtful these activities would affect southern
residents although it is possible minor, insignificant deviations from travel paths could occur as a
result of noise or vessel traffic.
8.10.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect southern resident killer whale and southern
resident killer whale designated critical habitat.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 119 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8.11. Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are occasionally spotted in the Puget Sound regions of the PBA as they migrate
through the waters of Washington State.
8.11.1. Species Effects
Potential effects on humpback whale include noise and in-water obstacles from vessel traffic, subtidal
dive harvest (e.g., air lines), and potentially anchor lines from floating culture methods. The scale of
these effects is small, and extremely localized in nature. Humpbacks would be expected to easily avoid
any interaction with shellfish activities with minimal, if any, disturbance to their activity.
8.11.2. Critical habitat
No critical habitat is designated for humpback whale.
8.11.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect humpback whale.
8.12. Marbled Murrelet
Marbled murrelet occur in all regions of the action area.
8.12.1. Species Effects
Effects to marbled murrelet include temporary in-water disturbance and noise associated with human
activity and degradation of water quality such as increases in suspended sediments. These affects would
occur broadly throughout the action area and occur on a near daily basis for the 20 year period of the PBA
and may temporarily displace murrelet from local areas.
Murrelets would be expected to forage primarily in deeper waters away from intertidal shellfish activities.
Activities conducted in the subtidal zone are extremely localized and would be expected to have minimal
effect on foraging behavior. If affected, murrelets would likely shift foraging behavior to a different
location. The scale of activity is negligible relative to the foraging habitat available for murrelet. There
would be reduced spawning success of forage fish species where fallow acreage is co-located with
spawning. This is not likely to affect prey availability for murrelet given their broad foraging habitats.
These effects are insignificant or discountable.
8.12.2. Critical habitat
Appendix H illustrates the location of shellfish activities relative to marbled murrelet designated critical
habitat. Murrelet critical habitat is located in upland forested areas. The PCEs also apply to these upland
forest areas. No activity would occur in murrelet critical habitat and PCEs would not be affected.
8.12.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet. The proposed action
would have no effect on marbled murrelet designated critical habitat
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 120 Programmatic Biological Assessment
8.13. Western Snowy Plover
Western snowy plover occur within the Willapa Bay and Gray Harbor geographic regions of the PBA.
8.13.1. Species Effects
Human activity and vessel traffic could potentially disturb or displace individuals from localized areas.
Since no activity would occur within 0.25 miles of snowy plover critical habitat under the proposed
action, interaction between snowy plover and shellfish activities is expected to be infrequent.
Prey organisms would be reduced in localized areas following certain shellfish activities such as harvest.
This may result in decreased foraging success in these localized areas. Individuals may shift foraging to
undisturbed areas until prey items recover in the impacted area. Snowy plover prey availability would not
be affected by the proposed action.
8.13.2. Critical habitat
Appendix H illustrates the location of shellfish activities relative to western snowy plover critical habitat.
The PCEs essential to the conservation of the snowy plover include:
Sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt flats, mud flats, seasonally
exposed gravel bars, artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees, and dredge spoil sites, with:
PCE 1. Areas that are below heavily vegetated areas or developed areas and above the daily high tides;
o The proposed action would not affect such areas other than through occasional human presence
which could temporarily displace snowy plovers.
PCE 2. Shoreline habitat areas for feeding, with no or very sparse vegetation, that are between the
annual low tide or low water flow and annual high tide or high water flow, subject to inundation but
not constantly under water, that support small invertebrates, such as crabs, worms, flies, beetles,
spiders, sand hoppers, clams, and ostracods, that are essential food sources;
o The proposed action would affect intertidal areas in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor by adding
artificial structure, creating oyster beds, and periodic disturbance associated with shellfish
activities. There may be localized and temporary decreases in potential prey resources which
may affect foraging success in these areas. This could result in snowy plovers shifting foraging
to undisturbed locations until prey species have recovered in the disturbed areas. These activities
would not occur within the critical habitat.
PCE 3. Surf- or water-deposited organic debris, such as seaweed (including kelp and eelgrass) or
driftwood located on open substrates that supports and attracts small invertebrates described in PCE
2 for food, and provides cover or shelter from predators and weather, and assists in avoidance of
detection (crypsis) for nests, chicks, and incubating adults;
o Surf deposited debris should be minimally affected by the action. Debris such as driftwood is
typically removed from aquaculture areas. These activities would not occur within the critical
habitat.
PCE 4. Minimal disturbance from the presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or human-attracted predators,
which provide relatively undisturbed areas for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 121 Programmatic Biological Assessment
o Activities are excluded within 0.25 miles of the critical habitat. Activities such as vessel traffic
may occur on occasion near the critical habitat.
8.13.3. Effect Determination
The proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect western snowy plover and western
snowy plover designated critical habitat.
8.14. Summary
The determinations of effect on the ESA listed species and their critical habitat are summarized in Table
8-1.
Table 8-1. Summary of ESA determinations of effect.
Species ESA
Status
Determination of effect
on species
Determination of effect
on designated critical habitat
Puget Sound
Chinook Salmon threatened May affect, likely to
adversely affect
May affect, likely to adversely
affect
Lower Columbia River
Chinook Salmon threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect No effect
Hood Canal Summer
Chum Salmon threatened May affect, likely to
adversely affect
May affect, likely to adversely
affect
Columbia River Chum
Salmon threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect No effect
Puget Sound
Steelhead* threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
May affect, likely to adversely
affect
Coastal/Puget Sound
Bull Trout threatened May affect, likely to
adversely affect
May affect, likely to adversely
affect
Canary Rockfish* threatened May affect, likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Yelloweye Rockfish* threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect No effect
Bocaccio* endangered May affect, likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Green Sturgeon threatened May affect, likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Pacific Eulachon threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Southern Resident
Killer Whale endangered May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Humpback Whale endangered May affect, not likely to
adversely affect None designated
Marbled Murrelet threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect No effect
Western Snowy Plover threatened May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Critical habitat is proposed for steelhead, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 122 Programmatic Biological Assessment
9. Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS
on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Act defined EFH as “those
waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”
Descriptions of EFH are provided in Fishery Management Plans produced by the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council. The EFH mandate applies to all species managed under a Federal Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). In Washington, there are FMPs for groundfish (PFMC 2005), coastal pelagic
species (PFMC 1998), and Pacific salmon (PFMC 2014). A description of EFH from each Fisheries
Management Plan and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) relevant to the proposed action are
provided below.
Groundfish: The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP manages 80-plus species over a large and ecologically
diverse area. Information on the life histories and habitats of these species varies in completeness, so
while some species are well-studied, there is relatively little information on certain other species.
Information about the habitats and life histories of the species managed by the FMP will certainly change
over time, with varying degrees of information improvement for each species. For these reasons, it is
impractical for the Council to include descriptions identifying EFH for each life stage of the managed
species in the body of the FMP. Therefore, the FMP includes a description of the overall area identified
as groundfish EFH and describes the assessment methodology supporting this designation.
The overall extent of groundfish EFH for all FMU species is identified as all waters and substrate within
the following areas:
Depths less than or equal to 3,500 m (1,914 fathoms) to mean higher high water level (MHHW) or the
upriver extent of saltwater intrusion, defined as upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts
measure less than 0.5 ppt during the period of average annual low flow.
Seamounts in depths greater than 3,500 m as mapped in the EFH assessment GIS.
Areas designated as HAPCs not already identified by the above criteria.
Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) include estuaries, canopy kelp, and seagrasses. The estuary
HAPC encompasses the Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, Hood Canal, and South Puget Sound regions of the
PBA, and significant parts of the North Puget Sound region as illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Certain activities conducted in estuaries were identified as causing impacts to groundfish EFH. Activities
identified relevant to the proposed action include dredging, vessel operations, overwater structures, and
commercial utilization of habitat (i.e., aquaculture).
Coastal pelagic species: Amendment 8 to The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan
describes the habitat requirements of five pelagic species: Northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific
chub) mackerel, jack mackerel and market squid. These four finfish and market squid are treated as a
single species complex because of similarities in their life histories and habitat requirements. EFH for
coastal pelagic species is defined as all marine and estuarine waters from the shoreline along the coasts
of California, Oregon and Washington offshore to the limits of the EEZ and above the thermocline. The
southern boundary is the U.S.-Mexico maritime boundary. The northern boundary is more dynamic, and
is defined as the position of the 10o C isotherm, which varies seasonally and annually. These species may
occur in shallow embayments and brackish water, but do not depend on these habitats to any significant
degree.
There are no HAPCs identified for coastal pelagic species. The FMP identified a number of activities
that may directly or cumulatively, temporarily or permanently, threaten the physical, chemical and
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 123 Programmatic Biological Assessment
biological properties of the habitat utilized by CPS and/or their prey. The direct result of these threats is
that EFH may be eliminated, diminished or disrupted.' Two of these identified activities are dredging and
aquaculture. Described effects from dredging include degradation of water quality with potential impacts
on aquatic vegetation. Effects from aquaculture are primarily related to discharge of organic waste and its
accumulation in neighboring waters.
Pacific salmon: EFH for the Pacific Coast salmon fishery means those waters and substrate necessary
for salmon production needed to support a long-term, sustainable salmon fishery and salmon
contributions to a healthy ecosystem. To achieve that level of production, salmon EFH must include all
freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats in, and off of, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and
the marine waters off Alaska that are currently occupied by stocks of salmon managed under this FMP,
as well as most of the habitats that were historically occupied by those same stocks. EFH cannot be
designated for salmon stocks that are not managed under the FMP, and cannot be designated for stocks
that are listed as Ecosystem Component Species in the FMP.
The geographic extent of freshwater EFH is identified as all water bodies currently or historically
occupied by Council-managed salmon. In the estuarine and marine areas, salmon EFH extends from the
extreme high tide line in nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out
to the full extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (200 nautical miles or 370.4 km) offshore of
Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception. Foreign waters off Canada, while still
salmon habitat, are not included in salmon EFH, because they are outside United States jurisdiction.
There are five HAPCs for salmon include three freshwater habitats, estuaries, and marine and estuarine
submerged aquatic vegetation (i.e., kelp and eelgrass).
Broad categories of activities which can adversely affect salmon EFH include artificial propagation of
fish and shellfish, debris (e.g., large wood debris, macrophyte wrack) removal, and vessel impacts such as
underwater noise.
Table 9-1. Life History Stage and Habitat Use for Fish Species with Designated EFH Potentially in the
action area (PFMC 2005).
Species Lifestage Activity
Pacific Groundfishes
Spotted ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Adults All
Spotted ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Juveniles Feeding
Soupfin shark Galeorhinus galeus Adults All
Soupfin shark Galeorhinus galeus Juveniles Growth to Maturity
Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Adults All
Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Juveniles Feeding
Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Juveniles Growth to Maturity
Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata Adults All
Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata Juveniles
Big skate Raja binoculata Adults All
California skate Raja inornata Adults All
California skate Raja inornata Eggs
Longnose skate Raja rhina Adults All
Kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Adults All
Kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Larvae
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 124 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Species Lifestage Activity
Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Adults Feeding
Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Eggs
Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Juveniles Feeding
Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Larvae Feeding
Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Adults All
Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Eggs
Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Juveniles Feeding
Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Larvae
Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Adults All
Brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Adults Feeding
Brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Larvae Feeding
Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Adults
Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Larvae Feeding
Splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa Juveniles Feeding
Splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa Larvae Feeding
Yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus Adults All
Quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger Adults All
Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Adults All
Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Juveniles Feeding
Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Adults Feeding
Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Juveniles Feeding
Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Larvae Feeding
China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus Adults Feeding
Tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus Adults Feeding
Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Juveniles Feeding
Redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger Larvae Feeding
Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Adults Growth to Maturity
Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Larvae Feeding
Petrale sole Eopsetta jordani Adults All
Petrale sole Eopsetta jordani Eggs
Petrale sole Eopsetta jordani Larvae Feeding
Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Larvae
Rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus Adults Feeding
Flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon Adults All
Flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon Eggs
Flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon Juveniles Feeding
Flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon Larvae Feeding
Butter sole Isopsetta isolepis Adults All
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata Adults All
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata Eggs
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata Larvae Feeding
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 125 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Species Lifestage Activity
Pacific hake Merluccius productus Adults All
Pacific hake Merluccius productus Juveniles Feeding
Pacific hake Merluccius productus Juveniles Growth to Maturity
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus Eggs
English sole Parophrys vetulus Adults All
English sole Parophrys vetulus Eggs
English sole Parophrys vetulus Juveniles Feeding
English sole Parophrys vetulus Larvae Feeding
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Adults All
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Eggs
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Juveniles Feeding
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Larvae
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Adults All
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Eggs
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Juveniles Feeding
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Juveniles Growth to Maturity
Pacific Salmon
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tsawytscha Juveniles Feeding
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tsawytscha Adults
coho salmon O. kisutch Juveniles Feeding
coho salmon O. kisutch Adults
Puget Sound pink salmon O. gorbuscha Juveniles Feeding
Puget Sound pink salmon O. gorbuscha Adults
Coastal Pelagic Species
Northern Anchovy Engraulis mordax
Jack Mackerel Trachurus symmetricus
Pacific Sardine Sardinops sagax
Pacific (Chub) Mackerel Scomber japonicus
Market Squid Loligo opalescens
9.1. Effects
EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmon species and HAPCs for groundfish and salmon occur
throughout the geographic area where the proposed action would occur. The effects of the action on
habitat and ESA listed species are discussed in Sections 7 and 8. A brief summary of these effects on
EFH is provided below. The previous sections of the document should be consulted for more detail on
these effects.
An adverse effect on EFH is defined as any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse
effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or
substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem
components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may
result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide
impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. (50 CFR 600.810)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 126 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Groundfish and Pacific salmon EFH would be altered from the current relatively undisturbed condition to
an aquaculture farm with corresponding effects on the habitat. This includes replacement of fine grained
sediments with plastic materials, loss of eelgrass, and regular disturbance of the benthic community which
decreases prey availability. Other impacts include temporary increases in suspended sediments, noise and
disturbance associated with vessel traffic and aquaculture operations.
Coastal pelagic EFH would be affected by degraded water quality associated with increased suspended
sediment and loss of eelgrass.
9.2. Conclusion
As discussed in the PBA and summarized above, the activities authorized under the proposed action
would affect EFH. While these effects would be minimized by the implementation of the many
Conservation Measures, the proposed action would result in adverse effects to EFH for groundfish,
coastal pelagic, and Pacific salmon species.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 127 Programmatic Biological Assessment
10. References
Anchor. 2010. Biological Assessment Addendum Nationwide Permit 48. 2010. Prepared by Anchor
QEA, LLC 1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300. Seattle, Washington 98101. May 2010. 96 pp.
Bay Center Farms 2015. http://baycenterfarms.com/harvest.html
Beamer. E., R. Henderson, and K. Wolf. 2004. Bull trout use of Swinomish Reservation waters.
Unpublished report, Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, WA.
Bendell, L.I. 2015. Favored use of anti-predator netting (APN) applied for the farming of clams leads to
little benefits to industry while increasing nearshore impacts and plastics pollution. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.043
Bendell-Young, L. I. 2006. Contrasting the community structure and select geochemical characteristics of
three intertidal regions in relation to shellfish farming. Environmental Conservation 33(1):21-27.
Berry, H. D., J. R. Harper, T. F. Mumford, Jr., B. E. Bookheim, A. T. Sewell, and L. J. Tamayo. 2001.
The Washington State ShoreZone Inventory User’s Manual. Nearshore Habitat Program,
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
Borde, A.B., R.M. Thom, S. Rumrill, and L.M. Miller. 2003. Geospatial habitat change analysis in
Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries 26(48): 1104-1116.
Burkett, E. E. 1995. Marbled murrelet food habits and prey ecology, pp. 223-246 In: C.J. Ralph, G.L.
Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (tech eds.). Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet.
Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-1 52, Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 420 p.
Boese, B. L. 2002. Effects of recreational clam harvesting on eelgrass (Zostera marina) and associated
infaunal invertebrates: in situ manipulative experiments. Aquatic Botany 73(1):63-74.
Brady, B. 2014. WDFW shellfish enhancement. Email correspondence from B. Brady (WDFW) to Pam
Sanguinetti (Corps). 2 June 2014.
Calambokidis, J. and G. H. Steiger. 1990. Sightings and movements of humpback whales in Puget Sound,
Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 71:45-49.
Calambokidis, J. 2011. Personal communication with USACE. Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia,
WA, February 2010.
Carvalho, S., A. Moura, and M. Sprung. 2006. Ecological implications of removing seagrass beds
Zostera noltii) for bivalve aquaculture in southern Portugal. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 47:321-
329.
Clarke, Doug. 2011. Sturgeon Protection. Dredged Material Assessment and Management Seminar.
Engineering Research and Development Center. May 24-26, 2011. Jacksonville, FL
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2002. Assessment and Status
Report on the Bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinus, in Canada.
Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat (CPPSH). 2015.
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.orgCorps. 2014a. Phone discussions with growers
regarding frequency of specific aquaculture activities. Memorandum for record. P. Sanguinetti. 4
August 2014. 2p.
Corps. 2014b. Shellfish aquaculture debris - Memorandum for record. P. Sanguinetti, Corps Regulatory
Branch. 6 August 2014. 2p.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 128 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Corps. 2014c. Grays Harbor Navigation Improvement Project: Supplemental Biological Evaluation.
Seattle District, February 2014.
Dewey, B. 2013. Tunnel net information. Email correspondence to P. Sanguinetti, Seattle District Corps
Regulatory Branch, 28 August.
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 23(3):867-874.
Drake, J. S., E. A. Bernston, J. M. Cope, R. G. Gustafson, E. E. Holmes, P. S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R. S.
Waples, S. M. Sogard, and G. D. Williams. 2010. Status Review of 5 Rockfish Species in Puget
Sound, Washington: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger),
Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and
Redstripe Rockfish (Sebastes proriger). US Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-108, 234 p.
Dumbauld, B. R., D. L. Holden, and O. P. Langness. 2008. Do sturgeon limit burrowing shrimp
populations in Pacific Northwest estuaries? Environmental Biology of Fishes, DOI 10.1007/s
10641-008-9333-y, 14 p.
Dumbauld, B. R. and L. M. Mccoy. 2015. The effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass (Zostera marina) at
the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA). Aquaculture Environment
Interactions. 7:29-47.
Dumbauld, B. R., J. L. Ruesink, and 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. 290:196–223.
Environ (Environ International Corporation). 2008. NWP 48 Biological Assessment Addendum:
Screening Level Risk Assessment to Threatened and Endangered Species from the Use of
Carbaryl to Control Burrowing Shrimp in Washington State Shellfish Aquaculture. Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. June 30, 2008. Project or Version Number
0320390A.
Emmett, R. L., S. A. Hinton, S. L. Stone, and M. E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes
and invertebrates in West Coast estuaries, Volume II: Species life history summaries. ELMR
Report No. 8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, MD, 329p.
Everett Herald 2013. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130201/NEWS01/702019904
Falcone, E., J. Calambokidis, G. Steiger, M. Malleson, and J. Ford. 2005. Humpback whales in the Puget
Sound/Georgia Strait Region. Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research
Conference, 4 p.
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.
Gatto, L.W. 1978. Estuarine processes and intertidal habitats in Grays Harbor, Washington, A
demonstration of remote sensing techniques. CRREL Report 78-18. Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. July 1978.
Goetz, F. A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the Nearshore. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District.
Goodwin, L. 1978. Some effects of subtidal geoduck (Panopea generosa) harvest on a small experimental
plot in Puget Sound, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. Progress
Report No. 66. 21 p.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 129 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Gustafson, R. G., M. J. Ford, D. Teel, and J. S. Drake. 2010. Status review of eulachon (Thaleichthys
pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-105, 360 p
Hamer, T. E. 1995. Inland habitat associations of marbled murrelets in western Washington. In C. J.
Ralph, G. L. Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt (eds), Ecology and conservation of the
marbled murrelet. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: Pacific
Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 420 p.
Hamer, T.E. and E. Cummins. 1991. Relationship between forest characteristics and use of inland sites by
marbled murrelets in northwestern Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of
Wildlife, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Program.
Hanson, M. B., R. W. Baird, J. K. B. Ford, J.Hempelmann-Halos, D. M. Van Doornik, J. R. Candy, C. K.
Emmons, G. S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K. L. Ayres, S. K. Wasser, K.C. Balcomb, K. Balcomb-
Bartok, J. G. Sneva, M. J. Ford. 2010. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by
endangered southern resident killer whales in their summer range. Endang Species Res 11: 69–
82, 2010
Hargrave, B.T., L.I. Doucette, P.J. Cranford, B.A. Law, T.G. Milligan. 2008. Influence of mussel
aquaculture on sediment organic enrichment in a nutrient-rich coastal embayment. Marine
Ecology Progress Series. 365: 137-149.
Heffernan, M. L. 1999. A review of the ecological implications of mariculture and intertidal harvesting in
Ireland. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 7. Dublin, Ireland.
Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC). 2005. Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca
Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. HCCC, 334 p. plus 8 app.
InsideBainbridge. 2015. http://www.insidebainbridge.com/2015/05/05/org-petitions-usace-to-suspend-
industrial-aquaculture-in-puget-sound
Israel, J. A., J. F. Cordes, M. A. Blumberg, and B. May. 2004. Geographic patterns of genetic
differentiation among collections of green sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 24:922-931.
Jones and Stokes. 2007. Draft Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Analysis. Nationwide
Permit 48 in Washington. Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. October
2007
Kelly, J. T., A. P. Klimley, and C. E. Crocker. 2007. Movements of green sturgeon, Acipenser
medirostris, in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes
79:281-295.
Kitsap Sun. 2015. http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/local-news/environment/studies-of-geoduck-farms-
show-limited-effects-on photo of geoduck tube individual nets
Krahn, M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, G. M.
Ylitalo, M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, and R. S. Waples. 2004. Status review of Southern Resident
killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-62, 73 p.
Lindley, S. T., D. L. Erickson, M. L. Moser, G. Williams, O. P. Langness, B. W. McCovey jr., M.
Belchik, D. Vogel, W. Pinnix, J. T. Kelly, J. C. Heublein, and A. P. Klimley. 2011. Electronic
tagging of green sturgeon reveals population structure ad movement among estuaries. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc., 140:108-122.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 130 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB). 2010. Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery
and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. LCFRB, Olympia, WA.
Love, M. S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockshes of the Northeast Pacic.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
MacCall, A. and X. He. 2002. Status Review of the Southern Stock of Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinus).
Santa Cruz Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Santa Cruz, CA. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/bocaccio.pdf.
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. Journal of Shellfish Research 34(1):189-202. Miller,
B. S. and S. F. Borton. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: maps and data
source sheets. 3 Volumes, Washington Sea Grant Program and Washington State Dept. of
Ecology
Moore, M.E., B.A. Berejikian, F.A. Goetz, A.G. Berger, S.S. Hodgson, E.J. Connor, T.P. Quinn. 2015.
Multi-population analysis of Puget Sound steelhead survival and migration behavior. Marine
Ecology Progress Series. 537: 217-232.
Moser, M. L. and S. T. Lindley. 2007. Use of Washington estuaries by subadult and adult green sturgeon.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 79: 243-253.
Moyle, P., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special
concern in California, 2nd Edition. California Department of Fish and Game.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine
Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD, 105 p.
NMFS. 2005. Biological Opinion for Issuance of a Permit to Coast Seafoods to Plant, Grow, and Harvest
Pacific Oysters and Kumamoto Oysters in Arcata Bay within Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County,
California. November 10, 2005. Long Beach, CA.
NMFS. 2006. Final Supplement to the Shared Strategy's Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. NMFS,
Northwest Region, November 17, 2006, 43 p.
NMFS. 2007. Final Supplement to the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon
Recovery Plan, NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, OR, 47 p.
NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.
NMFS. 2009. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Programmatic Consultation Biological and Conference
Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat Consultation. Biological Opinion of the Nationwide Permit 48. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Seattle, WA. 104 p.
NMFS. 2011. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Grays
Harbor/Chehalis River Navigation Project (COE No.: WSB-00-559) (Grays Harbor County,
Washington; Sixth Field HUC 170010000005-Mid WA Coast; Fifth Field HUC 17100 I 0503-
Grays Harbor).
NMFS. 2013a. ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed. NMFS, Northwest Region.
June 2013.
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/recovery_planning/salmon_steelhead/doma
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 131 Programmatic Biological Assessment
ins/willamette_lowercol/lower_columbia/final_plan_documents/white_salmon_recovery_plan__j
une_2013.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2015.
NMFS. 2013b. Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Distinct Population Segments of
Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and Bocaccio; Draft Biological Report. NMFS, Northwest
Region, Protected Resources Division, August 2013.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/2013_draft_rockfish_bi
ological_report.pdf> accessed 08/28/2013.
NMFS. 2014. Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation, Biological Opinion and Conference Biological Opinion. Agency: United States
Army Corps of Engineers. Activities Considered: Authorization of discharges of dredged and fill
material or other structures or work into waters of the United States under the Corps' Nationwide
Permit Program. Conducted by: Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division of the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. Approved November 24, 2014.
Newell, R. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension-feeding
bivalve mollusks: a review. Journal of Shellfish Research, http://www.thefreelibrary.com.
OPB. 2012. http://www.opb.org/news/article/geoduck-farming-heddy/
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW): R. Beamesderfer, L. Berg, M. Chilcote, J. Firman, E.
Gilbert, K. Goodson, D. Jepsen, T. Jones, S. Knapp, C. Knutsen, K. Kostow, B. McIntosh, J.
Nicholas, J. Rodgers, T. Stahl and B. Taylor. 2010. Lower Columbia River conservation and
recovery plan for Oregon populations of salmon and steelhead. Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, Salem, OR.
PCSGA (Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association). 2011. Environmental Codes of Practice for
Pacific Coast Shellfish Aquaculture. June 14, 2011. 184 p.
PCSGA. 2013a. Letter from M. Barrette, PCSGA to M. Walker, Corps Regulatory Branch, titled
Programmatic Shellfish Consultation. August 12, 2013. 6p.
PCSGA. 2013b. Response to Information Request on Noise Associated with Shellfish Aquaculture
Activities in Marine Waters. Letter from Margaret Barrette, PCSGA, to Matt Bennett, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Section. December 20, 2013.
Pearson, S.F., C. Sundstrom, W. Ritchie, and K. Gunther. 2010. Washington State Snowy Plover
Population Monitoring, Research, and Management: 2010 Nesting Season Research Progress
Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA,
27 p.
Penttila, D. 2007. Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No.
2007-03. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998. Appendix D Description and Identification of
Essential Fish Habitat for the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 8
To The Northern Anchovy Fishery Management) Incorporating a Name Change to: The Coastal
Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. December 1998
PFMC. 2005. Amendment 18 (Bycatch Mitigation Program) Amendment 19 (Essential Fish Habitat) To
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and
Washington Groundfish Fishery. November 2005
PFMC. 2014. Appendix A To The Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan As Modified By
Amendment 18 To The Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Identification and Description of Essential
Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon.
September 2014
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 132 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Piatt, J.F. and N.L. Naslund. 1995. Abundance, distribution, and population status of marbled murrelets in
Alaska. In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and IF Piatt (tech eds.). Ecology and conservation
of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR- 152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest
Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 420 p.
Pacific Shellfish Institute (PSI). http://www.pacshell.org/on-the-farm.asp
Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). 2012. 2012 State of the Sound: A Biennial Report on the Recovery of
Puget Sound. Tacoma, Washington.
PSP. 2014. The 2014/2015 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. May 2014
Ralph, C. J. and S. L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of marbled murrelets in California.
Pages 353-360 In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (Tech eds.). Ecology and
conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR152. Albany, CA: Pacific
Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 420 p.
Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF). 2013. Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinus), Canary
Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) Distribution
Reports. The Reef Environmental Education Foundation. Data range 01/01/1996 to 07/31/2013.
http://www.reef.org/db/reports/dist/PAC>, accessed 08/26/2013.
Rien, T. A., L. C. Burner, R. A. Farr, M. D. Howell, and J. A. North. 2000. Green sturgeon population
characteristics in Oregon. Annual progress report. Sport Fish Restoration Project F-178-R,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, 67 p.
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.
Ruesink, J. L. and K. Rowell 2012. Seasonal effects of clams (Panopea generosa) on eelgrass (Zostera
marina) density but not recovery dynamics at an intertidal site. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 22(6): 712-720.
Ruesink, J. L., J. P. Fitzpatrick, B. R. Dumbauld, S. D. Hacker, A. C. Trimble, E. L. Wagner, L. M.
Wisehart. 2012. Life history and morphological shifts in an intertidal seagrass following multiple
disturbances. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 424-425: 25-31.
Rumrill, S. S. and V. K. Poulton. 2004. Ecological role and potential impacts of molluscan shellfish
culture in the estuarine environment of Humboldt Bay, CA. Western Regional Aquaculture
Center Annual Report 2004. Charleston, OR.
Shaffer, J. A., P. Crain, T. Kassler, D. Penttila and D. Barry. 2012. Geomorphic Habitat Type, Drift Cell,
Forage Fish and Juvenile Salmon: Are They Linked? Journal of Environmental Science and
Engineering (2012) 688-703.
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (SSPS). 2005. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Shared Strategy for
Puget Sound, Seattle, WA, 2 vols.
Simenstad, C. A. 2000. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer
chum salmon and recommended actions. Appendix Report 3.5, pp. A3.111-A3.132 in J. Ames, G.
Graves, and C. Weller (eds.), Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative: An Implementation
Plan to Recover Summer Chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. Wash.
Dept. Fish. Wildl., and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes, Olympia, WA.
Simenstad, C. A., J. R. Cordell, and L. A. Weitcamp. 1991. Effects of substrate modification on littoral
flat meiofauna: Assemblage structure changes associated with adding gravel. Seattle: Fisheries
Research Institute, University of Washington.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 133 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Simenstad, C. A. and K. L. Fresh. 1995. Influence of intertidal aquaculture on benthic communities in
Pacific Northwest estuaries: Scales of disturbance. Estuaries 18(1A):43-70.
Simenstad, C. A., L. A. Weitkamp, and J. R. Cordell. 1993. Effects of substrate modification on littoral
flat epibenthos: assemblage structure changes associated with predator exclusion nets. Technical
report to Washington Department of Fisheries FRI-UW-9310. Fisheries Research Institute,
School of Fisheries, University of Washington. Wetland Ecosystem Team, Point Whitney
Shellfish Laboratory, Brinnon, Washington.
Skinner, M. A., S. C. Courtenay, C. W. McKindsey, C. E. Carver, and A. L. Mallet. 2014. Esperimental
determination of the effects of light limitation from suspended bag oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
aquaculture on the structure and photosynthesis of eelgrass (Zostera marina). Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 459:169-180.
Speich, S. M. and T. R. Wahl. 1995. Marbled murrelet populations of Washington Marine habitat
preferences and variability of occurrence. Pp 313-326 In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and
J.F. Piatt (tech eds.). Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-
GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, 420 p.
Smith, K., M. Johnson, W. Reek, K. Gullett, A. Henry. 2006. Environmental benefits of NRCS
participation in shellfish aquaculture projects in Massachusetts. Prepared for East National
Technology Support Center, Greensboro, NC.
Stanford, B., K. Ridolfi, and B. Greenfield, 2009. Summary Report: Green Sturgeon, Longfin Smelt, and
Dredging in the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SFEI
Contribution # 598. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.
Strachan, G., M. L. McAllister, and C. J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at-sea and foraging behavior.
Pages 242-253 In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (Tech eds.). Ecology and
Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. General Technical Report. PSW-GTR152. Albany, CA:
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 420 p.
Stenton-Dozey, J., T. Probyn, and A. Busby. 2001. Impact of mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) raft-
culture on benthic macrofauna, in situ oxygen uptake, and nutrient fluxes in Saldanha Bay, South
Africa. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1-11.
Straus KM, McDonald PS, Crosson LM, Vadopalas B. 2013. Effects of geoduck aquaculture on the
environment: a synthesis of current knowledge. Produced for the 2013 Washington State
legislature. Washington Sea Grant Technical Report WSG-TR 13-02, 46 pp.
Stenzel, L. E., S. C. Peaslee, and G. W. Page. 1981. 11. Mainland Coast. Pages 6-16 in Page, G.W. and
L.E. Stenzel, (eds.). The breeding status of the snowy plover in California. Western Birds
12(1):1-40.
Strong, C. S., J. Jacobsen, D. M. Fix, M. R. Fisher, R. Levalley, C. Striplen, W. R. McIver, and I.
Gaffney. 1996. Distribution, abundance, and reproductive performance of marbled murrelets
along the northern California coast during the summers of 1994 and 1995 Final report. Crescent
Coastal Research and Mad River Biologists. Prepared for the Marbled Murrelet Study Trust,
McKinleyville, CA.
Tallis, H. M., J. L. Ruesink, B. Dumbauld, S. Hacker, L. M. Wisehart. 2009. Oysters and aquaculture
practices affect eelgrass density and productivity in a Pacific Northwest estuary. Journal of
Shellfish Research. 28(2):251-61.
Thompson, C. W. 1996. Distribution and abundance of marbled murrelets and common murres in relation
to marine habitat on the outer coast of Washington - an interim report to the Tenyo Maru Trustee
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 134 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Council. Unpublished report, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, 13 p. plus
figures.
University of Washington (UW). 2015. http://depts.washington.edu/jlrlab/labpics.php
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR, 203 p.
USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull
Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). USFWS, Portland, Oregon, 2 vol.
USFWS. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, CA. xiv + 751 p.
USFWS. 2009. Biological Opinion of the Nationwide Permit 48. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,
Washington. 188 p.
USFWS and NMFS. 1998. Final Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting
Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March
1998.
VanBlaricom, G.R., J.L. Eccles, J.D. Olden, and P.S. McDonald. 2015. Ecological effects of the harvest
phase of geoduck (Panopea generosa gould, 1850) aquaculture on infaunal communities in
southern Puget Sound, Washington. Journal of Shellfish Research 34(1): 171-187.
Wagner, E., B.R. Dumbauld, S. D. Hacker, A. C. Trimble, L. M. Wisehart, and J. L. Ruesink. 2012.
Density-dependent effects of an introduced oyster, Crassostrea gigas, on a native intertidal
seagrass, Zostera marina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 468:149-160.
Warriner, J. S., J. C. Warriner, G. W. Page, and L. E. Stenzel. 1986. Mating system and reproductive
success of a small population of polygamous snowy plovers. Wilson Bull. 98(1):15-37.
Willson, M. F., R. H. Armstrong, M.C. Hermans, and K. Koski. 2006. Eulachon: A review of biology and
an annotated bibliography. Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK. 243 p.
Wilson-Jacobs, R. and C. E. Meslow. 1984. Distribution, Abundance, and Nesting Characteristics of
Snowy Plovers on the Oregon Coast. Northwest Science, 58(1):40-48.
Wisehart, L. M., B. R. Dumbauld, J. L. Ruesink, and S. D. Hacker. 2007. Importance of eelgrass early life
history stages in response to oyster aquaculture disturbance. Marine Ecology Progress Series
344:71-80.
Wyatt, R. 2008. Joint Industry Programme on Sound and Marine Life: Review of Existing Data on
Underwater Sounds Produced by the Oil and Gas Industry. Seiche Measurements, Ltd. Great
Torrington, England.
Wyllie-Echeverria, S. and J. D. Ackerman. 2003. The seagrasses of the Pacific Coast of North America.
Pp. 199-206 in: Green, E. P. and F. T. Short, eds. World Atlas of Seagrasses. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California. 298 pp.
Wydoski, R. S. and R. L. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, Washington.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).1995. Washington State recovery plan for the
snowy plover. Olympia, WA, 87 p.
WDFW. 2004. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. <
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00193/wdfw00193.pdf>, accessed 08/26/2013.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities 135 Programmatic Biological Assessment
WDFW. 2010a. Documented Subtidal Geoduck clams (Panope abrupta) areas in Washington's inside
marine waters – geoduck. WDFW, Marine Resources, Shellfish Dive Team. vector digital data
WDFW. 2010b. WDFW GIS Database. Priority Habitats and Species Program. Herring data updated
2010. Sand lance and surf smelt updated 2008.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2001. Nearshore Habitat Program. 2001. The
Washington State ShoreZone Inventory. Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia, WA.
WDNR. 2008. Habitat Conservation Plan for Washington Department of Natural Resources’ Geoduck
Fishery. July 2008. Aquatic Resources Program. 105 p.
WDNR. 2011. Puget Sound Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Project. 2009. Report. March 7, 2011
WDNR. 2013a. Geoduck Aquaculture Research Program, Final report. Report to the Washington State
Legislature. Washington Sea Grant. University of Washington. November 2013
WDNR. 2013b. Eelgrass Generalized Polygons. Puget Sound Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Project
Geospatial Database. Nearshore Habitat Program. Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Aquatic Resources Division. Creation date 2013-12-16
WDNR. 2014a. Aquatic Land Ownership Parcels. GIS vector digital data. Available online at
http://geography.wa.gov/GeospatialPortal/dataDownload.shtml. Accessed May 2014.
WDNR. 2014b. DRAFT Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation Plan, Washington Department of Natural
Resources. August 2014.
WDOE. 2015a. Final Environmental Impact Statement Control of Burrowing Shrimp using Imidacloprid
on Commercial Oyster and Clam Beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, Washington. Water
Quality Program, Washington State Dept of Ecology, Olympia, WA, April 9, 2015.
WDOE. 2015b. Annual Operation Reports.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/eelgrass/reports.html.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix A.
DRAFT Programmatic ESA Consultation Specific Project Information Form
Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-2 Programmatic Biological Assessment
DRAFT Programmatic ESA Consultation Specific Project Information Form
Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters
Version: June 2014
Eligibility for Programmatic Consultation - to be filled out by Corps
This application:
Meets all of the requirements of this programmatic consultation
Does not meet all of the requirements of this programmatic consultation. This form
constitutes a reference biological evaluation in association with:
NMFS reference:
USFWS reference:
1. Programmatic Activity: Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters.
2. Action Area: This programmatic covers specific shellfish activities between the tidal
elevations of mean higher high water (MHHW) and -70 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) in
Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Straits of Juan de Fuca and
Georgia excluding the specific areas listed below:
all areas within 0.25 miles of snowy plover ESA designated foraging or nesting habitat,
including but not limited to Leadbetter Point in Pacific County and Copalis Spit in Grays
Harbor County
all areas within 200 ft of any bird, land mammal, insect, or plant critical habitat either
designated or proposed under the ESA (e.g., Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, streaked horn
lark).
2. Drawings and Photographs: Drawings and photographs must be submitted.
Drawings must include a vicinity map; and plan, profile, and cross-section drawings of the
proposed structures; and over- and in-water structures on adjacent properties. One map must
show (1) the boundaries of the project area (area of ownership/lease), with latitude and longitude
coordinates for each corner of the project area, (2) the name(s) of the cultivated species, and (3)
where any canopy predator nets are being used. Also, show the area within the project area
where shellfish activities would occur and areas where shellfish activities would not occur. The
tidal elevations where shellfish activities would occur should also be shown. (For assistance with
the preparation of the drawings, please refer to our Drawing Checklist located on our website at
www.nws.usace.army.mil Select Regulatory – Regulatory/Permits – Forms.)
Include photographs showing the entire project area, including the shoreline, current overwater
structures, and location of the proposed project. The photographs should be taken at ground level
and at low tide and should show a panoramic view of the entire project area in the dry.
Photographs should clearly show the presence or absence of vegetation and the substrate
composition. Close up photographs of the substrate and/or vegetation should be included if there
are any areas of particular interest. To most accurately reflect vegetation distribution, photos
should be taken at low tide during June 1 through September 30.
3. Date: __________
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
4. Applicant name:
Mailing address:____________________________________
Work phone: _____ Home phone: ______ Cell phone:_____ Email:_____________
5. Authorized agent name:
Mailing address:____________________________________
Work phone: _____ Home phone: ______ Cell phone:_____ Email:_____________
6. Location where proposed work will occur:
Address (street address, city, and county):_________________________________
Waterbody: _________
Section: ______Section ______Township ______Range:_______
Latitude: _________ Longitude:___________
Tidal elevation_______________
7. Description of Work: Describe in detail what is being installed (e.g. shellfish
species/structures). Include dimensions and materials being used. Describe cultivation,
maintenance and harvest methods for each species. If using nets, provide description and acreage
of coverage. Describe any fill material being placed (e.g., gravel or shell material). Describe use
of any nursery/grow-out structures. Attach additional pages as necessary.
8. Methodology: Describe methods and timing of work in more detail. Include site preparation,
maintenance, equipment used, and harvest techniques.
9. Description of how the area will be accessed (e.g., by shore or by vessel):
10. Forage Fish Habitat: Go to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
website for the location of documented marine beach spawning habitat .
Check box if WDFW documented habitat is present for these species at your site.
Surf Smelt: _____ Pacific Herring:_____ Sand Lance:________
For NEW activities….
Attach a report from a qualified biologist determining if the area has potential spawning habitat
for sand lance or surf smelt. The report should include (1) a description of the type of substrate
present at the tidal elevations where spawning typically occurs, (2) photos of the substrate, and
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
3) provide a determination of the suitability of the substrate for spawning.. Information on
spawning requirements for these species is available at WDFW’s marine beach spawning
website.
Check box if potential habitat is present for these species.
Surf Smelt: _____ Pacific Herring:_____ Sand Lance:________
11. Vegetation: Are vegetated shallows (e.g., native eelgrass Zostera marina) or kelp present in
the vicinity? If yes, please describe the location, species, distance to the project area, and density
in or adjacent to the project area.
If native eelgrass (Zostera marina) is present within an area new to shellfish activities, the
eelgrass will be delineated and a map or sketch prepared and submitted with this form. Surveys
to determine presence and location of eelgrass will be done during times of peak above-ground
biomass: June-September. The following information must be included to scale: parcel
boundaries, eelgrass locations, and on-site dimensions, shellfish activity locations and
dimensions. Contact the Corps prior to conducting the delineation for recommended eelgrass
delineation methodology.
Check box if an eelgrass delineation is attached:_________
12. Programmatic Conditions: In order to meet all ESA requirements for this programmatic
consultation, all programmatic conditions listed below must be met. Check each condition that
you will meet. Check each item “not applicable” if they do not apply to your project. If you
checked “will not meet” for any of the conditions, you must complete the “Will Not Meet”
section at the end of this document.
Will
Meet
Will Not
Meet
Not
Applicable
PROGRAMMATIC CONDITIONS
1. Gravel and shell shall be washed prior to use for
substrate enhancement (e.g. frosting, shellfish bed
restoration) and applied in minimal amounts using methods
that result in less than 1-inch depth on the substrate
annually. Shell material shall be procured from clean
sources that do not deplete the supply of shell bottom.
Shells shall be cleaned or left on dry land for a minimum of
one month or both before placement in the marine
environment. Shells from the local area shall be used
whenever possible. Shell or gravel material shall not be
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-5 Programmatic Biological Assessment
applied so that it piles onto the substrate. Use of a split-
hull (e.g., hopper-type) barge to dump the material is
prohibited.
2. The placement of gravel or shell directly into the water
column (i.e., graveling or frosting) shall not be conducted
between February 1 and March 15 in designated critical
habitat for Hood Canal summer chum salmon.
3. For ‘new5’ activities only, gravel or shell material shall
not be applied to enhance substrate for shellfish activities
where native eelgrass or kelp6 is present.
4. Turbidity resulting from oyster dredge harvest shall be
minimized by adjusting dredge bags to “skim” the surface
of the substrate during harvest.
5. Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies,
asphalt, tires) shall not be discharged or used as fill (e.g.,
used to secure nets, create nurseries, etc.).
6. For ‘new’ activities only, shellfish activities (e.g., racks,
stakes, tubes, nets, bags, long-lines, on-bottom cultivation)
shall not occur within 16 horizontal feet of native eelgrass
Zostera marina) or kelp. If native eelgrass is present in
the vicinity of an area new to shellfish activities, the
eelgrass shall be delineated and a map or sketch prepared
and submitted to the Corps. Surveys to determine presence
and location of eelgrass shall be done during times of peak
above-ground biomass: June—September. The following
information must be included to scale: parcel boundaries,
eelgrass locations and on-site dimensions, shellfish activity
locations and dimensions.
7. For ‘new’ activities only, activities shall not occur
above the tidal elevation of +7-ft. (MLLW) if the area is
listed as documented surf smelt spawning habitat by
WDFW. A map showing the location of documented surf
smelt spawning habitat is available at the WDFW website.
8. For ‘new’ activities only, activities shall not occur above
the tidal elevation of +5-ft. (MLLW) if the area is listed as
documented sand lance spawning habitat by WDFW. A
map showing the location of documented sand lance
spawning habitat is available at the WDFW website.
9. If conducting 1) mechanical dredge harvesting, 2)
raking, 3) harrowing, 4) tilling, leveling or other bed
preparation activities, 5) frosting or applying gravel or shell
on beds, or 6) removing equipment or material (net, tubes,
bags) within a documented or potential spawning area for
Pacific herring outside the approved work window, the
work area shall be surveyed for the presence of herring
spawn prior to the activity occurring. Vegetation,
substrate, and materials (nets, tubes, etc.) shall be
inspected. If herring spawn is present, these activities are
5 New Activities are the specific footprint of those activities that were undertaken after March 18, 2007.
6 Kelp is defined as rooted/attached brown algae in the order Laminariales.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-6 Programmatic Biological Assessment
prohibited in the area where spawning has occurred until
such time as the eggs have hatched and herring spawn is no
longer present. A record shall be maintained of spawn
surveys including the date and time of surveys; the area,
materials, and equipment surveyed; results of the survey,
etc. The Corps and the Services shall be notified if spawn
is detected during a survey. The record of spawn surveys
shall be made available upon request to the Corps and the
Services
10. For ‘new’ activities only, activities occurring in or
adjacent to potential spawning habitat for sand lance or surf
smelt shall have a spawn survey completed by an approved
biologist7 prior to undertaking bed preparation,
maintenance, and harvest activities if work shall occur
outside approved work windows for these species. If eggs
are 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. A record
shall be maintained of spawn surveys including the date
and time of surveys; the area, materials, and equipment
surveyed; results of the survey, etc. The Corps and Services
shall be notified if spawn is detected during a survey. The
record of spawn surveys shall be made available upon
request to the Corps and the Services.
11. All shellfish gear (e.g., socks, bags, racks, marker
stakes, rebar, nets, and tubes) that is not immediately
needed or is not firmly secured to the substrate will be
moved to a storage area landward of MHHW prior to the
next high tide. Gear that is firmly secured to the substrate
may remain on the tidelands for a consecutive period of
time up to 7 days. Note: This is not meant to apply to the
wet storage of harvested shellfish.
12. All pump intakes (e.g., for washing down gear) that use
seawater shall be screened in accordance with NMFS and
WDFW criteria. Note: This does not apply to work boat
motor intakes (jet pumps) or through-hull intakes.
13. Land vehicles (e.g., all-terrain, trucks) shall be washed
in an upland area such that wash water is not allowed to
enter any stream, waterbody, or wetland. Wash water shall
be disposed of upland in a location where all water is
infiltrated into the ground (i.e., no flow into a waterbody or
wetland).
14. Land vehicles shall be stored, fueled, and maintained in
a vehicle staging area located 150 feet or more from any
stream, waterbody, or wetland. Where this is not possible,
attach (1) documentation as to why compliance is not
possible, and (2) a copy of a spill-prevention plan. A
clean-up kit shall be maintained and readily available on-
site.
7 For information on how to become an approved biologist, contact WDFW
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-7 Programmatic Biological Assessment
15. For boats and other gas-powered vehicles or power
equipment that cannot be fueled in a staging area 150 ft.
away from a waterbody or at a fuel dock, fuels shall be
transferred in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-
compliant portable fuel containers 5 gallons or smaller at a
time during refilling. A polypropylene pad or other
appropriate spill protection and a funnel or spill-proof
spout shall be used in the event of a spill. A spill kit shall
be available and used in the event of a spill. All spills shall
be reported to the Washington Emergency Management
Office at (800) 258-5990. All waste oil or other clean-up
materials contaminated with petroleum products shall be
properly disposed of off-site.
16. All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any stream,
waterbody, or wetland shall be inspected daily for fluid
leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks
detected shall be repaired in the vehicle staging area before
the vehicle resumes operation and documented in a record
that is available for review on request by the Corps and
Services.
17. The direct or indirect contact of toxic compounds
including creosote, wood preservatives, paint, etc. within
the marine environment shall be prevented. [This does not
apply to boats]
18. All tubes, mesh bags and area nets shall be clearly,
indelibly, and permanently marked to identify the permittee
name and contact information (e.g., telephone number,
email address, mailing address). On the nets, identification
markers shall be placed with a minimum of one
identification marker for each 50 feet of net.
19. All equipment, gear, and other structures including
anti-predator nets, stakes, and tubes) shall be tightly
secured to prevent them from breaking free.
20. All new foam material (whether used for floatation of
for any other purpose) must be encapsulated within a shell
that prevents breakup or loss of foam material into the
water and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet
radiation or abrasion. Current un-encapsulated foam
material shall be removed or replaced.
21. Tires shall not be used as part of above and below
structures or where tires could potentially come in contact
with the water (e.g., floatation, fenders, hinges). Tires used
for floatation currently shall be replaced with inert or
encapsulated materials, such as plastic or encased foam,
during maintenance or repair of the structure.
22. At least once every three months, beaches in the project
vicinity shall be patrolled by crews who shall retrieve
debris (e.g., anti-predator nets, bags, stakes, disks, tubes)
that escapes from the project area. Within the project
vicinity, locations shall be identified where debris tends to
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-8 Programmatic Biological Assessment
accumulate due to wave, current, or wind action. After
weather events these locations shall be patrolled by crews
who shall remove and dispose of shellfish-related debris
appropriately. A record shall be maintained with the
following information and the record shall be made
available upon request to the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS:
date of patrol, location of areas patrolled, description of the
type and amount of retrieved debris, other pertinent
information.
23. When performing other activities on-site, the grower
shall routinely inspect for and document any fish or
wildlife found entangled in nets or other shellfish
equipment. In the event that fish or wildlife are found
entangled, the grower shall: 1) provide immediate notice
within 24 hours) to WDFW (all species), Services (ESA-
listed species) or Marine Mammal Stranding Network
marine mammals), 2) attempt to release the individual(s)
without harm, and 3) provide a written and photographic
record of the event, including dates, species identification,
number of individuals, and final disposition, to the Corps
and Services. Contact U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
Enforcement Office at (425) 883-8122 with any questions
about the preservation of specimens.
24. Vehicles (e.g., ATV’s, tractors) shall not be used
within native eelgrass beds. If there is no alternative for
site access, attach a plan describing specific measures
and/or best management practices that shall be undertaken
to minimize negative effects to eelgrass from vehicle
operation. The access plan shall include the following
components: (a) frequency of access at each location, (b)
use of only the minimum vehicles needed to conduct the
work and a description of the minimum number of vehicles
needed at each visit, and (c) consistency in
anchoring/grounding in the same location and/or traveling
on the same path to restrict eelgrass disturbance to a very
small footprint.
25. Vessels shall not ground or anchor in native eelgrass
Zostera marina) or kelp and paths through native eelgrass
or kelp shall not be established. If there is no other access
to the site or the special condition cannot be met due to
human-safety considerations, attach a site-specific plan
describing specific measures and/or best management
practices that shall be undertaken to minimize negative
effects to eelgrass from vessel operation and accessing the
shellfish areas. The access plan shall include the following
components: (a) frequency of access at each location, (b)
use of only the minimum vehicles needed to conduct the
work and a description of the minimum number of vehicles
needed at each visit, and (c) consistency in
anchoring/grounding in the same location and/or traveling
on the same path to restrict eelgrass disturbance to a very
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-9 Programmatic Biological Assessment
small footprint.
26. Unless prohibited by substrate or other specific site
conditions, floats and rafts must use embedded anchors and
midline floats to prevent dragging of anchors or lines.
Floats and rafts that are not in compliance with this
standard shall be upgraded to meet this standard during
scheduled maintenance, repair, or replacement or before the
end of the term of the next renewed authorization. [Any
alternative to using an embedded anchor must be approved
by the NMFS.]
27. Activities that are directly associated with shellfish
activities (e.g., access roads, wet storage) shall not result in
removal of native riparian vegetation extending landward
150 ft horizontally from MHHW (includes both wetland
and upland vegetation) and disturbance shall be limited to
the minimum necessary to access or engage in shellfish
activities.
28. Native salt marsh vegetation shall not be removed and
disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to
access or engage in shellfish activities.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
29. Vertical fencing/vertical nets or drift fences (includes
oyster corrals) are not covered and shall not be used.
30. New or maintenance to piles of any kind are not
covered under this programmatic and shall not be used.
31. Mooring buoys shall not be installed [An additional,
separate form is required for installation of mooring
buoys.]
32. Cultivation of new species of shellfish not previously
cultivated in Washington State is not covered under this
programmatic and shall not occur.
33. Attendant features, such as docks, piers, boat ramps,
stockpiles, or staging areas are not covered by this
programmatic and shall not occur. [Additional forms may
be available that address attendant features, please
coordinate with Corps prior to submitting.]
34. Deposition of shell material back into waters of the
United States as waste is not covered and shall not occur.
35. Dredging or creating channels so as to redirect fresh
water flow is not covered under this programmatic and
shall not occur.
36. New berms or dikes or the expansion or maintenance of
current, authorized berms or dikes is not covered under this
programmatic. Installation, expansion, or maintenance of
berms or dikes shall not occur.
37. Installation of “new” rafts is not covered under this
programmatic and shall not occur.
38. Expansion of continuing rafts is not covered under this
programmatic and shall not occur.
39. Installation of “new” or the relocation or expansion of
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-10 Programmatic Biological Assessment
FLUPSYs or floats is not covered under this programmatic
and shall not occur.
40. The use of materials that lack structural integrity in the
marine environment (e.g., plastic children’s wading pools)
is not a covered under this programmatic and shall not
occur.
This programmatic ESA consultation does not cover the use of pesticides or chemicals to
control invasive species.
If the applicant has checked “Will Not Meet” for any of the above conditions, or there are
associated project activities or equipment not covered by this Programmatic Consultation, or
new species and/or critical habitat is not covered under this Programmatic Consultation, then
this section must be completed and the applicant must sign below.
Please contact the Corps if you have questions.
1. List the programmatic conditions that you will not meet and explain for each one why you
can’t meet the condition of this programmatic consultation.
2. List the associated project activities not covered by this Programmatic Consultation.
Examples include new rafts, mooring buoys, or temporary use of sand bags. Attach an
addendum to address these activities. You may require the assistance of a qualified biologist to
prepare the addendum. Note: Some types of activities, such as mooring buoys, may have a
specific project information form that can be used in combination with this form.
3. Are there species and/or critical habitat in the vicinity of the project that are not covered
under this Programmatic Consultation?
4. How have you minimized impacts? Describe additional conservation measures or mitigation
you are proposing. (Note: You may need to prepare and attach an addendum that includes an
effect analysis. You may require the assistance of a qualified biologist to prepare the
addendum.)
I, as the applicant, have read all the USFWS and NMFS requirements for their Programmatic
Consultations dated XXXXX and XXXXXX, respectively. These requirements are listed on the
Seattle District Corps webpage at XXXXXXX. I understand that informal consultation with
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be initiated with this
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities A-11 Programmatic Biological Assessment
form. I will not proceed with construction until I receive written notification from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers that the proposed work is authorized.
Applicant Date
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities B-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix B
Summary of commercial shellfish activities proposed in permit applications received by the
Corps from 2007 to 2014
The proposed action includes the authorization and reauthorization of continuing aquaculture activities.
Applications for all activities that qualify as continuing have been received by the Corps. The activities
proposed in these applications are summarized in this appendix. The continuing activities are organized
by those that were previously authorized by the Corps and those that are pending as of July 2014. New
shellfish activities proposed in permit applications received as of July 2014 are also included but tallied
separately.
The purpose of this information is to provide insight into the relative commonality of the various
activities in each of the regions. For example, the information indicates that oyster culture in Grays
Harbor is primarily conducted by bottom culture and longlines. Except for the floating activities, the
acreages in this appendix are NOT realistic estimates of the acreage engaged in the various activities. In
most cases, the acreages are overstated by some unknown factor due to the limited information in permit
applications. Applications typically identify a list of the shellfish activities that are proposed, a total
active cultivation acreage, and possibly a total fallow acreage. Applicants are not required to assign
precise acreages to each individual activity. The acreage total is based on the assumption that each
individual activity proposed in an application is conducted on the entire acreage in the application. This
is unlikely to occur in many cases. For example, an applicant that proposes to grow both oysters and
clams is not likely to grow them both on the same acreage. The summary therefore would overstate the
acreage engaged in the two culture methods. In some cases, individual activities may both occur on a
given acreage (e.g., dredging and harrowing). Many applicants propose to culture only one species using
a single method. In these cases, the summary would accurately tally the acreage for those activities. Due
to a more detailed review and their limited scale, the summary for the floating activities is considered a
realistic estimate of the acres engaged in these activities.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities C-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix C
Estimated frequency of intertidal shellfish aquaculture activities conducted in-water
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities D-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix D
Continuing active aquaculture acres potentially co-located with eelgrass
This appendix provides estimates for the number of continuing aquaculture footprints and acres that are
co-located with eelgrass. The estimates are based on a single point coordinate for each aquaculture
footprint provided in permit applications. The analysis assumed that if the single point coordinate was
located within or upland of mapped eelgrass, the entire acreage associated with that coordinate was co-
located with eelgrass. This is a conservative assumption and likely results in an overestimate of the
acreage co-located with eelgrass. Two eelgrass inventories from WDNR were used for the analysis.
Towed underwater video from 2000 to 2012 was used by WDNR to map eelgrass (Z. marina) within
Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (WDNR 2013b). Eelgrass maps developed from aerial
photography in the late 1990’s were used for analysis in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay (WDNR 2001,
Berry et.al. 2001). The latter inventory did not differentiate between Z. marina and Z. japonica which
adds to the error for the estimates in these regions. Z. marina is typically found at lower tidal elevations
with Z. japonica somewhat higher although there is some overlap (WDNR 2011). There is also likely
considerable error in the 2001 inventory from the data collection method. WDNR (2001) indicates
39,861 acres of eelgrass in Willapa Bay and 36,415 acres in Grays Harbor. More recent estimates for
eelgrass in Willapa Bay range from 17,000 acres for Z. marina and 9,000 acres for Z. japonica
Dumbauld and McCoy 2015) and 8,461 acres of Z. marina with a similar coverage area for Z. japonica
Ruesick et al. 2006). Estimates for Z. marina in Grays Harbor are 7,600 acres (Borde et al. 2003),
11,700 acres (Wyllie-Echeverria and Ackerman 2003), and 10,990 acres (Gatto 1978). This suggests
WDNR (2001) may overestimate Z. marina coverage by about three-fold. In summary, these should be
considered course estimates of the aquaculture acreage co-located with eelgrass appropriate for the broad
action area.
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities D-3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure D-2. Willapa Bay continuing acres and eelgrass
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities D-4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure D-3. Hood Canal continuing acres and eelgrass
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities D-5 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure D-4. South Puget Sound (north section) continuing acres and eelgrass
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities D-7 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure D-6. North Puget Sound (north section) continuing acres and eelgrass
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities E-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix E
Shellfish activities and forage fish spawning
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities E-3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure E-2. Willapa Bay continuing acres and forage fish spawning areas
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities E-4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure E-3. Hood Canal continuing acres and forage fish spawning areas
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities E-5 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure E-4. South Puget Sound (north section) continuing acres and forage fish spawning areas
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities E-7 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure E-6. North Puget Sound (north section) continuing acres and forage fish spawning areas
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities F-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix F
Continuing in-water activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities F-3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure F-2. Willapa Bay continuing in-water activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities F-4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure F-3. Hood Canal continuing in-water activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities F-5 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure F-4. South Puget Sound (north section) continuing in-water activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities F-7 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure F-6. North Puget Sound (north section) continuing in-water activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities G-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix G
Continuing and new activities (to date) with cover nets
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities G-2 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure G-2. Willapa Bay activities with cover nets
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities G-3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure G-3. Hood Canal activities with cover nets
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities G-4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure G-4. South Puget Sound (north section) activities with cover nets
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities G-6 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure G-6. North Puget Sound (north section) activities with cover nets
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities H-1 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Appendix H
Critical habitat overlap with proposed activities
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities H-3 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure H-2. Critical habitat and proposed activities in Willapa Bay
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities H-4 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure H-3. Critical habitat and proposed activities in Hood Canal
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities H-5 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure H-4. Critical habitat and proposed activities in South Puget Sound (north section)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 October 2015
Regulatory Program Shellfish Activities H-7 Programmatic Biological Assessment
Figure H-6. Critical habitat and proposed activities in North Puget Sound (north section)
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01
CA received 08/05/25
EXHIBIT RI01