HomeMy WebLinkAboutQuilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE NWS-2007-01412
www.penncoveshellfish.com
QUILCENE BAY MUSSEL FARM EXPANSION
(NWS-2007-01412)
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
FINAL
Prepared for:
Penn Cove Shellfish LLC
August 17th, 2017
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm
(NWS-2007-01412)
Biological Evaluation
FINAL
Compiled and Edited by:
Penn Cove Shellfish, LLC
P.O. Box 148
Coupeville, WA 98239
Adapted from Original Totten Inlet Mussel Farm
Report Authored by:
Marlene Meaders, Chris Cziesla, and Kerrie McArthur
Confluence Environmental Company
August 17th, 2017
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE 08/17/2017
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Proposed Project ........................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project and Action Areas ................................................................................................ 7
3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions and Effects of the Action ...................................................... 7
3.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Sediment Quality ........................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Macroalgae .................................................................................................................. 10
3.4 Benthic Community ..................................................................................................... 11
3.5 Forage Fish .................................................................................................................. 12
3.6 Migration Corridor ....................................................................................................... 15
4.0 Evaluation of Effects on Listed Species ..................................................................................... 16
4.1 Chinook Salmon ........................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Steelhead Trout ............................................................................................................18
4.4 Bull Trout ..................................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Eulachon ...................................................................................................................... 20
4.6 Green Sturgeon ........................................................................................................... 21
4.7 Puget Sound Rockfish (Bocaccio, Canary Rockfish and Yelloweye Rockfish)................ 22
4.8 Marbled Murrelet ......................................................................................................... 23
4.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale ................................................................................... .25
5.0 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions and Cumulative Effects ............................................. 26
6.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 26
7.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 27
Tables
Table C-1 Federally Listed Species of Fish with Designated EFH in the Project Area
Table C-2 Benthic Community Structure
4.2 Chum Salmon - Summer Run...................................................................................... 17
Table 1 Federally Listed Species Considered
Table 2 Forage Fish Life Stage Timing in Puget Sound
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page ii
Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Pre-Project Vicinity Survey Map
Figure 3 Post Project Comparison Survey Depiction
Figure 4 Pre-Project and Post Project Visual Analysis
Figure 5 Principle Features of Floating Raft Clusters
Figure 6 Typical Anchor Block
Figure 7 Examples of Mussels on Grow-out Lines
Figure 8 Project Action Area Map
Figure 9 Depiction of Typical Ecosystem Services of Mussel Rafts
Figure 10 PSAMP Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Concentrations
Figure 11 Major Taxa Abundance of Project Area
Figure 12 Submerged Vegetation Map of Quilcene Bay
Figure 13 Documented Forage Fish Spawning Areas of Quilcene Bay
Appendices
Appendix A Agency Websites for ESA Species and Critical Habitat
Appendix B Penn Cove Shellfish Environmental Code of Practice (ECOP)
Appendix C Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
08/17/2017
Page 1
QUILCENE BAY MUSSEL FARM (NWS-2010-983)
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Penn Cove Shellfish is applying for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit under the Nationwide
Permit 48 (NWP 48) program to expand an exisiting floating mussel aquaculture facility in Quilcene Bay,
Washington (Figure 1). Quilcene Bay is one of two inlets at the northern end of Hood Canal in the Puget Sound.
Quilcene Bay extends 3.2 miles in a south to north direction and 0.9 miles east to west, and it is hydraulically
connected to Dabob Bay and Hood Canal. The marine waters of Quilcene Bay have a total surface area of
1,626 acres at 10.0 feet (ft) mean high water (MHW), with an intertidal area of approximately 808 acres.
Relative to the deeper bays in Puget Sound, Quilcene Bay is a deeper basin, with a mean depth of 60 ft and
a maximum depth of 222 ft.
The Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm expansion (NWS-2007-01412) would consist of an additional 9 raft clusters floating
over about 9 acres of subtidal habitat (60' to 120') in water too deep to support SAV, . The project requires a permit
from the Corps under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Issuance of permits by
federal agencies is considered an action and, therefore, requires ESA compliance. Under ESA Section 7(c), the
Corps is required to analyze the potential effects of its action (issuing the permit) on listed species and
designated critical habitat.
Confluence Environmental Company (Confluence) prepared a similar Biological Evaluation (BE) on
behalf of Taylor Shellfish to help the Corps evaluate the potential effects of their proposed project on
listed species. To determine if listed species, or their critical habitat, are present in the vicinity of the
proposed action, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) websites were accessed on July 14th, 2017. Based on information from NMFS and
USFWS (Appendix A), the ESA-listed species that may occur in the project area are provided in Table 1,
and are addressed in this BE.
Critical habitat has been designated or proposed for these species (Appendix A), although it may not
occur in the project or action areas. If critical habitat exists in North Totten Inlet, then effects to primary
constituent elements (PCEs) will be analyzed.
The following listed species were identified as maybe occurring in the vicinity:
Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), listed as threatened in 1990.
q
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 2
However due to the lack of documented occurrence in the project and action area, the lack of suitable
habitat in the action area, and lack of potential effects, the project will have no effect on this species
and they are not discussed further is this document.
Table 1 Federally Listed Species Considered
Common Name Scientific Name Listing date Federal
Status
Critical
Habitat
Fish
Bull trout (PS/Coastal DPS) Salvelinus confluentus 11-1-1999 T Yes*
Chinook salmon (PS ESU) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 6-28-2005 T Yes
Steelhead (PS DPS) O. mykiss 1-5-2006 T Proposed
Eulachon (Southern DPS) Thaleichthys pacificus 3-18-2010 T Yes*
Green sturgeon (Southern DPS) Acipenser medirostris 4-7-2006 T Yes
Bocaccio rockfish (PS/GB DPS) Sebastes paucispinis 4-28-2010 E Yes
Canary rockfish (PS/GB DPS) S. pinniger 4-28-2010 T Yes
Yelloweye rockfish (PS/GB DPS) S. ruberrimus 4-28-2010 T Yes
Birds
Marbled murrelet (WA/ OR/ CA DPS) Brachyramphus marmoratus 10-1-1992 T Yes*
Marine Mammals
Southern resident killer whale Orcinus orca 11-18-2005 E Yes
DPS – Distinct population segment; ESU – Evolutionarily Significant Unit; E – Endangered; T – Threatened; PS – Puget Sound,
GB – Georgia Basin; WA – Washington; OR – Oregon; CA – California
* Critical habitat has been identified, but does not occur within the proposed action area (as discussed in Section 4.0)
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a brief description of the proposed project and defines the project and action
areas. The project area includes those areas immediately adjacent to the project, while the larger action
area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action” (50 CFR 402.02).
2.1 Proposed Project
Penn Cove Shellfish proposes to expand and operate a floating mussel aquaculture facility (Quilcene Bay
Mussel Farm) along the southeast shore of Quilcene Bay, within Jefferson County, Washington. The
tidelands adjacent to the project area are part of tidelands owned and/or operated by Coast Seafoods.
(Figures 2 & 3). The proposed 9-raft cluster Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm would be located on the northern third
of Penn Cove subleased aquatic lands. The proposed mussel farm would cultivate “Mediterranean”
(also known as “Gallo”) mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis). Penn Cove Shellfish has cultivated this
species of mussel at this site and in Penn Cove since 1996 (Quilcene) and 1993 (Penn Cove).
The following sections describe raft design, how the rafts would be constructed, methods for culturing,
harvesting, and processing mussels, and conservation measures used to avoid or reduce impacts to
listed species and their habitat.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 3
2.1.1 Raft Design
The proposed project consists of 9 raft clusters, each comprised of separate 3-raft units (Figure 2).
The rafts themselves would float above 0.99 acres of subtidal habitat, located between -50 ft and -75 ft
MLLW. The 21.57-acre lease area is located about 250 to 300 ft horizontal distance from the shoreline,
and extends about 350 ft further offshore. The length of the expanded lease area parallels the shoreline for 800 ft.
Individual rafts would be 40 ft by 40 ft in dimension. Three raft units are to be attached end to end with 2 ft in
between, resulting in a raft cluster 40' x 120' overall. It is anticipated that there would be 9 raft clusters, each
comprised of separate 3-raft units (Figure 3). There would be an approximate 250-ft separation between raft units,
end to end, and a 75-ft separation between raft clusters laterally. The longitudinal axis of each raft unit would
be parallel to the shoreline. The total overwater coverage would be about 0.99 acres.
The rafts would be constructed of natural, untreated lumber (Douglas fir), galvanized steel cross
beams, and polystyrene billets encapsulated in woven nylon covers (for floatation). The wooden raft
structure would extend 1 to 2 ft above the water surface elevation (lower at times when the mussels have
grown to maximum harvest size). Inert, polypropalene grow-out lines would be suspended from the
raft structure (Figure 3). The grow-out lines would be stocked with hatchery-reared seed mussels.
Periodically, the mussels would be thinned and reset as each mussel crop matures. Each raft unit would
be secured in-place at both ends with nylon lines (rope) and pairs of concrete blocks (Figure 4).
Predator exclusion nets would seasonally enclose the underwater perimeter of the rafts. The mesh size of the
nets is 4" hanging on the square and the net hangs as a curtain to a depth 2 feet below the end of the mussel lines
around the outer edge of the raft cluster. The predator netting is used seasonally from fall to spring to exclude
overwintering diving ducks which prey on the juvenile mussels less than 1.5" in length. Nets are changed out to
prevent them from becoming excessively fouled by other organisms, which causes the nets to become block
the flow of water and algae through to the grow-out lines of mussels. .
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 4
2.1.2 Raft Construction
Construction of the raft units would occur at Coast Seafood facility located at Linger Longer Road
in Quilcene, (Figure 8). The proposed action would not require alteration of either facility.
The raft parts and concrete anchors would be prefabricated at the Linger Longer Road site. (Figure 8).
These units would be unloaded using a boom crane truck. Assembly of the rafts (welding parts together
and attaching floatation) would occur in the upper beach area, at about the +6 ft to +8 ft MLLW
elevation. Currently, this beach is used almost daily for parking or for storing oyster shell. No new beach
area would be disturbed by raft assembly for the proposed action. Assembly would take about 2 hours per raft.
Assembled rafts would be floated off the beach on an incoming tide and attached to one another once in place
in the water. Floating and anchoring the rafts into place within the lease area would take about 2 hours per raft.
2.1.3 Culture Methods
Each raft unit would have about 650, 20 foot-long seed lines or grow-out lines suspended from the
structure (Figure 3). Mussel seed is transplanted from seed lines to grow-out lines for final grow-out.
The mussel lines would not come near or in contact with the substrate. The immature mussels require about
14 months to reach harvestable size. The estimated biomass at the time of seeding is 6,500 pounds wet
weight. Each raft unit would generate an average of 29,250 pounds whole body, wet weight for sale per
growing period. The growing period averages 14 months (range: 12 to 23 months). It is estimated that the
proposed action would produce an average of 789,750 pounds wet weight of mussels for sale each year.
2.1.4 Harvest Methods
When mussels are ready to harvest from the grow-out lines, an aluminum 64'x 17' harvest vessel, the 'Mytilus',
would motor up adjacent to a raft and tie off. Mussel lines are then cut loose of the beams supporting them and
then brought aboard the Mytilus via a conveyor. The mussels are run through a series of machinery which
strip the mussels from the lines and the separate and grade them after which they are inspected, weighed
and bagged. The bags of mussels are then placed in to insulated plastic totes, layer iced and then offloaded
with a crane onto a 34' work skiff for transport to the Quilcene Boat Haven, then loaded into a refrigerated truck
for transpost to the packing and shipping plant operated by Penn Cove Shellfish in Coupeville, Washington.
Mussel harvest from the rafts would not involve any dredge harvesting, tilling, or harrowing of bottom
sediments.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 5
2.1.5 Phased Implementation
Development of the Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm expansion would occur over a period of about 1 to 2 years,
depending on: (a) the availability of mussel “seed” from the hatchery to start the first crop, (b) the financial
resources required to construct the new rafts and (c). the weather.
2.1.6 Conservation Measures
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mussel raft culture, including siting and raft configuration,
would be employed to maintain water quality. Penn Cove Shellfish’s Environmental Code of Practice (Penn Cove
Shellfish 2013), included in Appendix B, lists primary BMPs that would be utilized in operating the
proposed action. Additional relevant shellfish culture conservation measures adopted by the Corps
from its consultation with the NMFS (2009; 2011) and USFWS (2009a) on NWP 48 for the State of
Washington would be used for the proposed Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm expansion. Avoidance of potential
effects, where possible, is the first priority. Avoidance, conservation, and minimization measures are
described in more detail in the following sections:
Construction and Siting of Rafts
Maintenance, Repair, and Work
Species-Specific Activities
Farm Plan Record-Keeping Log
Construction and Siting of Rafts
The rafts would be constructed of natural, untreated lumber (Douglas fir), welded steel
cross beams, and polystyrene floats encapsulated in woven nylon bags, all which would
have no negative effect on water quality.
The rafts would be arranged parallel to the tidal currents to minimize interactions with flow
patterns. By design, the downstream areas influenced by the rafts would not include sensitive
intertidal and shallow subtidal zones.
The rafts were planned and configured to minimize effects on benthic organisms by placing
them in deep water with optimum fast currents for waste particle dispersion, resuspension,
and assimilation.
Because the raft units are not fixed structures (like a pier), and each unit would be separated
approximately 70 feet apart, tidal currents and wind would constantly move the rafts and their
shadows over the bottom substrate, although the site location substrate is deeper than upon which
macroalgae grows. This would allow light to reach the bottom around the periphery of each
raft unit.
08/17/2017
Page 6
Maintenance, Repair, and Work
Damage to aquatic vegetation and substrates from boats or barges would be minimized or
avoided through the following practices:
- Measures would be implemented to prevent anchors, chains, and ropes from dragging on
the bottom. These measures include the use of connected anchors and midline floats, as
practical.
- Boats and barges would typically be moored and operated in deeper water and away from
aquatic vegetation to prevent potential impacts from propeller scour or anchors. If boats
need to access the shoreline, then vessels would not ground in attached kelp beds. No
eelgrass is present in the project or action areas.
- The project area would not be used to store materials such as tools, bags, marker stakes,
rebar, or nets. Materials that are not in use or immediately needed would be removed to an
off-site storage area and the site kept clean of litter.
Operators of vehicles or machinery would reduce contamination from vehicles and equipment
through the following practices:
- Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, asphalt, or tires) would not be discharged or used as
fill (e.g., used to secure nets, create berms, or provide nurseries).
- All vessels operated within 150 ft of any stream, waterbody, or wetland would be inspected
daily for fluid leaks before beginning operations. Any leaks detected would be repaired before resuming operation.
- No petroleum products would be stored in the project or action areas.
Approximately twice annually the site and moorings would be evaluated by a diver. The diver
would manually remove debris (e.g., pieces of rope, weights, dropped tools) from bottom
sediments at that time.
Employees are trained in meeting environmental objectives.
Species Specific Activities
The rafts would be sited and configured to minimize effects on marine mammals. During
maintenance and harvest operations, due care would be taken to avoid disturbance of marine
mammals, particularly seals and sea lions, in compliance with the Federal Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Predator exclusion nets are kept taut around the raft to prevent trapping diving birds.
08/17/2017
Page 7
Farm Plan Record Keeping Log
Survivorship and growth data by year-class would be collected from farm inspections during harvest..
Periodic dive surveys would be conducted below the rafts to retrieve any gear or equipment
that may have fallen off the rafts. Any debris collected would be recorded.
Spills or cleanups conducted on the beach would be recorded and the appropriate agencies
notified.
2.2 Project and Action Areas
The expansion “project area” is defined as the 9 acres of aquatic lands north of the existing 12.57 acres where
the current mussel farm operates in Quilcene Bay. The proposed mussel rafts would be
located at Section 31,Township 27N, Range 1W, Section 5 (Figure 2). The project area is within Quilcene Bay
at the northern end of Hood Canal. The “action area” for fish resources is defined as extending 230 ft from
the rafts (Figure 5), which is the greatest distance measured that could detect any chemical or
biological changes to water quality from the rafts studied in Totten Inlet by NewFields in 2009. The
action area for avian species is defined as a 1-mile radius around the project area, which is the line-of-sight
typically used to evaluate potential effects to birds when noise effects are considered to be minor (FWS 1986).
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE
ACTION
Presented below are discussions of existing environmental conditions and temporary, permanent,
direct, indirect, and net effects of the proposed action. This section addresses only environmental
attributes and habitat qualities important to listed species that may be present in the action area and
potentially affected by the project. The topics discussed will include:
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Macroalgae
Benthic Community
Forage Fish
Migration Corridor
Detailed characterization of baseline conditions were documented in several studies prepared for a
limited-scope Environmental Impacts Statement for a similar project by Taylor Shellfish, the North
Totten Inlet Mussel Farm (TCRSD 2010). In addition, Thurston County selected an Independent Technical
Review Committee (ITRC) to review and comment on the baseline studies. The following information
includes a summary of the major findings from the final reports that incorporated the review and
comments of the ITRC, as they relate to ESA listed species.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 8
This section describes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed action related to
dissolved oxygen (DO).
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
Quilcene Bay serves as a drainage basin for the Little and Big Quilcene Rivers. Little Quilcene River
and two of its largest tributaries (Howe and Ripley Creek) are
discussed collectively because of similarities
in watershed characteristics and a common outlet in
Quilcene Bay. The Little Quilcene River drains into
Quilcene Bay north of the Big Quilcene
River in eastern Jefferson County. The Little
Quilcene River has a
drainage area of approximately 30 square miles, with 12 miles of mainstem
and 29 miles of tributaries.
The Big Quilcene River is located in eastern Jefferson County north of the Dosewallips River and
south of
the Little Quilcene River. With a drainage area of 68 square miles, the Big Quilcene
River is the largest
stream system within the Quilcene-Dabob Watershed Planning Area. Precipitation varies from 75 inches per
year in the headwaters to 50 inches per year in the town of
Quilcene, with an overall average of 63 inches per
year (JS’KT 1994). Summer chum and chinook, both federally listed, as well as coho, steelhead, pink and
cutthroat trout spawn in the Little Quilcene river and the Big Quilcene River supports runs of coho, summer
chum, fall chum, winter steelhead, searun
and resident cutthroat trout. utilize the entire Quilcene Bay
estuary complex during their juvenile rearing stage. The Quilcene Bay herring stocks are currently at
high levels of abundance and have comprised an increasing portion of the south/central Puget
Sound
region’s spawning biomass and is currently the largest in Puget Sound, with mean annual
spawning
biomass of almost 2,400 tons in the last ten years; 833 tons more than next largest
stock in that time
frame (Cherry Point).
Dissolved oxygen at the existing Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm site is evaluated using direct measurements
at -3 m and -7 m which are recorded and viewable on the NOAA NANOOS NVS web site. (Carrington 2013-17).
There have also been long-term studies that evaluated DO at the existing Penn Cove mussel rafts (Carrington,
Newcomb 2015). According to sonde data from 01/01/17 to 07/06/17, DO in the project area ranged from 5.46
to 15.17 ppm at the surface (-1 m depth) and 4.55 to 12.72 ppm at the -7 meters depth. The lowest DO
concentrations were generally observed during the spring and summer months.
3.1.2 Effects of the Action
Construction and assembly of the rafts would occur at existing upland facilities. Therefore, construction
of the rafts would have no impact on existing water quality conditions in Quilcene Bay.
According to model predictions, operation of the mussel rafts may reduce DO concentrations within
the action area, but even the lowest concentrations predicted would are slightly below the biological stress
threshold of 5.0 ppm except potentially in late August when DO decreases naturally (NewFields 2009).
Existing data (from the existing Taylor Shellfish Deepwater Point mussel rafts) used within predictive
models indicated that DO concentrations could be reduced from 10 to 70 percent within the
1 The biological stress concentration benchmark is 5.0 ppm, depending on temperature and salinity. As DO
concentrations drop below 5.0 ppm, an organism becomes increasingly stressed, more susceptible to disease, or
can even die from suffocation if it cannot move away to better conditions.
3.1 Water Quality
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 9
proposed mussel rafts. However, use of data from the Deepwater Point site may overestimate low DO
events within the predictive models because ambient DO concentrations in the summer are lower at
this site compared to the proposed project area.
NewFields (2009) predicted that DO concentrations would be lower in the Taylor raft array. Sampling
conducted in March, June, and September 2003 at the existing Deepwater Point farm indicated that DO
concentrations decreased by 10 to 25 percent of ambient conditions in the center of the raft. In August
2003, DO concentrations at the center of the raft decreased 30 percent and up to 70 percent further into
the raft. Water exiting the raft array returned to ambient DO concentrations just downstream.
Although the location of where DO would return to ambient conditions was not identified, the
measurement at 230 ft was within ambient conditions, which indicates that it would occur at least
within that distance from the rafts. Actual changes in DO concentrations at the proposed Quilcene Bay
Mussel Farm would likely be tied to current velocity and seasonal fluctuations in background DO.
The total area of reduced DO was estimated to be within a surface area ranging from 0.99 to 1.5 acres,
which is equivalent to 11 and 16 percent of the aquatic lease area, respectively. This amount of change in
DO would not be significant in terms of overall habitat changes to water quality.
3.2 Sediment Quality
This section describes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed action related to
sediment quality.
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
Quilcene Bay is located on the eastern shore of the Olympic Peninsula. The
entire bay is contained within
the confines of Jefferson County. Quilcene
Bay currently supports five to six commercial shellfish operations
which
utilize more than 1/2 of the bay's three square miles as their prime
shellfish growing and harvesting
areas. On the southwest shore there
exists a commercial oyster hatchery. The hatchery supplies substantial
quantities of oyster "seed to west coast operations; water from Quilcene
Bay is the sole source for the hatchery.
Sediment quality data and concentrations of water-column dissolved oxygen (DO) collected in
Hood Canal
from 1932 to 2005 were evaluated as part of the Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen
Program. The influence of
these measures on the composition of sediment-dwelling invertebrate
assemblages (benthos) was examined.
Sediment chemical contamination and toxicity was low, and confined to Port Gamble, Port
Ludlow, and
Dabob Bay. Coarse sands were found in northern Hood Canal and along
shorelines. Organic carbon
concentrations increased in fine-grained sediments.
DO concentrations decreased from north to south
and from shallow to deep water. Minimum DO
levels measured from 1932 through 2005 decreased over
time, periodically falling below critical
values at most southern stations and at an increasing number of
central and northern stations.
Benthic assemblages were identified for three regions and nine sub-regions of Hood Canal. The
number of
individuals and species decreased and stress-tolerant species became dominant
southward as sediment
grain size and near-bottom DO decreased, and organic carbon content and
depth increased. These factors,
in this order, acting together may have influenced the
composition of the benthos.
Obvious changes in
assemblage structure occurred within DO ranges of >3 to 6 mg/L and
< 1 mg/L. These two ranges may
represent critical DO concentrations for Hood Canal benthos.
Patterns of species succession over decreasing
DO ranges were similar to responses by the
benthos to stressors reported in fjords elsewhere.
Additional
analyses indicated that there had been little change in northern Hood Canal benthos that could be attributed
to declining oxygen levels.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 10
3.2.2 Effects of the Action
Construction and assembly of the rafts would occur at existing upland facilities. Therefore, construction
of the rafts would have no impact on sediment quality in Quilcene Bay. Because only hand tools would be
used for assembly, there would be no risk of pollutants entering the water that could affect sediment
quality.
Shellfish filter feeding creates biodeposits (feces and pseudofeces) that contribute to biogenic sources
of sediment (Peterson and Heck 2001; Dumbauld et al. 2009). Suspended culture results in only the
transfer of organic matter to sediment, which can reduce oxygen in areas with low flushing rates
(Nizzoli et al. 2005). Kaspar et al. (1985) found that sediments under suspended mussel cultures in New
Zealand contained 8.0 to 8.7 percent TVS in comparison with 7.0 to 7.1 percent TVS found at reference
sites. The authors concluded that the differences in sediment nitrate and nitrite were not significantly
different.
Review of a study to characterize likely effects on the underlying sediments from the proposed action provided
data from a sampling program designed and implemented at Taylor Shellfish’s mussel farms at Deepwater
Point and Gallagher Cove (Brooks 2005a). The transformation of organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen
associated with mussel rafts appeared to occur close to the sediment surface, with the signal
disappearing within a depth of 20 inches. Brooks (2005a) indicated that there were only minor effects
to sediment characteristics.
Additionally, NMFS (2009) evaluated the production of feces and pseudofeces by shellfish in rafts and
the accumulation of this material under the rafts in its Biological Opinion on NWP 48 for existing
aquaculture activities in Washington State. The Biological Opinion reviewed several studies that
evaluated the potential effects on sediment from aquaculture when examining dense three-
dimensional suspended raft systems of scallops and kelp (Grant and Bacher 2001) and mussels (Saxby
2002). The studies suggested that sediment effects depend on the density of the culture system, water depth,
ambient currents, tidal flows, wave energy, bottom topography and elevations, and sediment type and
deposition characteristics. In West Coast estuaries, some limited sediment accumulation has been
observed, but no adverse effects have been documented. NMFS (2009) concluded that when rafts are
placed in areas with high tidal currents, feces and pseudofeces produced by shellfish are carried away
by the currents, and these rafts have little effect on the underlying sediments, especially in deep water.
Since the proposed Penn Cove Shellfish Mussel Farm expansion would be located in deep waters with high
tidal currents, the proposed project is not expected to result in the accumulation of sediment or detritus
under the rafts; therefore, the proposed project is not expected to affect sediment quality in the action area.
3.3 Macroalgae
This section describes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed action related to
macroalgae.
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
There is limited to no macroalgae in the project area and surrounding habitat. During an inspection
conducted 24 June, 2017, there was no marine vegetation on the beach at the beach site where
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 11
the mussel rafts will be assembled for deployment. The project area has some amount of
sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) and brown kelp (Laminaria sp.), although the majority of macroalgae occurs in the
intertidal habitat of Quilcene on the northern shore . During a dive survey conducted 19 December, 2014
the survey showed that Ulva was present only to depths of -10 ft MLLW and shoreward,
but not covering any of the area where the raft-units would be located (Figure 4). Within this small area,
there was not bottom coverage of fixed macroalgae observed. . There are no eelgrass beds
in the action area (Figure 7 -Washington DNR 2015).
3.3.1 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to marine plants during construction because fabrication of
mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at the parking and shell
washing area of the Coast Seafoods Hatchery.
The proposed location of raft units is mostly in water depths too deep for macroalgae or SAV to grow.
Because the raft units are not fixed structures, that each unit would be separated by several feet, and because
of tidal currents and wind, the rafts and their shadows would constantly move over the substrate allowing
for light to reach towards the bottom around the periphery of each unit.
Additionally, the rafts are not solid, which would allow some light to penetrate towards the bottom,
especially after harvest and when the seed lines are newly placed. Due to lack of its presence, there is no
expected potential for loss of macroalgae within the project area under the proposed rafts. From a
positive impact standpoint, the raft structures may offer new attachment points for macroalgae to
grow on the project site.
3.4 Benthic Community
This section describes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed action related to the
benthic community.
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
Quilcene Bay shoreline consists largely of protected and semi-protected sand flat and
sand beaches.
Sediment sources are moderate and alongshore, except where rivers and/or
streams enter the bay where
they become more abundant and fluvial. Sediment is scarce
at the marina. Quilcene Bay is famous for its
shellfish, particularly oysters, which are
found in continuous and patchy sections throughout the bay.
Salt marsh habitat is found
along the southwest shoreline. Sargassum, barnacles, ulva and fucus are found
in patchy
segments (Shorezone Inventory 2001). Eelgrass is continuous throughout the northern
end of
the bay and the eastern shoreline. Herring are also know to spawn throughout the
northern bay area and
surf smelt spawn along the beaches on the (Penttila et al 2000).
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 12
The physiochemical data and macrobenthic community inventory were consistent for an area described
as organically enriched, but not so eutrophic as to exclude sulfide-intolerant taxa. For example, the
benthic community included polychaetes and mollusks tolerant of naturally-enriched conditions such
as marine snails (Alia gausapata, Alvania compacta, and Nassarium perpingis), The north end of the bay,
south of the Big Quilcene River, contains quantities of native littleneck (Leukoma staminea) and butter
(Saxidomus gigantea) clams and the non-native but naturalized Manila (Venerupis philippinarum) and
soft-shell (Mya arenaria) clams. The varnish clam (Nuttalia obscurata) is a more recent introduction,
and has successfully recruited to freshwater influenced habitats near the mouth of the river.
3.4.1 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to benthic epifauna during construction because fabrication
of mussel raft sections would occur on land, and assembly of the rafts would occur on the beach at the
Hatchery beach site. The assembled rafts would be towed to the project area for anchoring. While a small amount
(0.006 acres) of benthic habitat may be displaced by the concrete block anchors, the anchor ropes will
provide more than an equal amount of substrate for marine organisms to attach .
The environmental response of benthic organisms to the mussel raft expansion depends on numerous
factors such as water depth, local currents (direction and speed), sediment grain size, DO
concentrations in the benthic boundary layer, among other factors. To characterize likely effects on the
underlying sediments from the proposed mussel culture rafts in South Quilcene Bay, review of a sampling
program designed and implemented at Taylor Shellfish’s existing mussel farms at Deepwater Point and
Gallagher Cove during different seasons was conducted. According to Brooks (2005b), the megafaunal
community was likely enhanced by the residual organic material present in the particulate waste released
from the overlying mussel cultures and their symbiotic community. The results of the study also suggested
that there would not be an adverse long-term effect arising from the proposed raft culture of mussels in
North Totten Inlet, therefore the amount of area affected is not likely to significantly change the benthic
community in the Quilcene Bay area.
3.5 Forage Fish
This section describes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed action related to forage
fish.
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
Due to the fluctuating nature of forage fish populations, management emphasizes the role of the
ecosystem, rather than catch statistics (Bargmann 1998). Specifically, documented spawning habitat
and potential spawning habitat for surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes
hexapterus), and Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) is mapped on an annual basis and classified as
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 13
Adult
Larvae/Juvenile
Adult
Larvae/Juvenile
Adult
Larvae/Juvenile
Documented presence
Assumed presence
Pacific sand
lance NR Pentilla 2007
Surf smelt NR Pentilla 2007
Pacific
herring
Moderately
healthy
Pentilla 2007,
Stick et al. 2014
Mar Apr May Jun JulSpeciesLife Stage Month Stock
Status ReferencesJanFebAugSepOctNovDec
“Marine Habitat of Special Concern” under the WAC Hydraulic Code Rules (Lemberg et al. 1997). Within
Puget Sound, each species of forage fish uses about 10 percent of the shoreline as spawning habitat,
and the adjacent nearshore habitats as nursery grounds (Penttila 2007).
Pacific sand lance and surf smelt are both year-round residents in the nearshore areas of Puget Sound
and spawn in the upper beach habitat typically above +5 ft MLLW in sand and small gravel substrate,
respectively (Moulton and Penttila 2001). They are generally found in mixed schools in waters 59 to
98 ft deep. According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) forage fish spawning
database (WDFW 2014a), very few surf smelt and Pacific sand lance are not shown to spawn on intertidal
beaches adjacent to the project area (September 2001 to November 2004 NOSC forage fish surveys).
There is documented spawning of the Quilcene Bay Stock of Pacific herring along the northern shores at
the head of Quilcene Bay, but none in the project area. Spawn timing for these three forage fish species
in South Puget Sound is provided in Table 2.
Pacific herring typically broadcast spawn in eelgrass, marine algae, hard substrates, and occasionally
polychaete tubes between a tidal elevation of 0 and -10 ft MLLW (Stick 2005; Penttila 2007; Stick and
Lindquist 2009). However, marine algae is typically sparse in North Puget Sound and the Quilcene Bay
stock often spawn on hard substrates (rocks and gravel).
Table 2 Forage Fish Life Stage Timing in Puget Sound
Forage fish prey depends on life stage (size) and their location within nearshore habitat. Fresh et al.
(1981) completed a stomach content analysis for forage fish within central and southern Puget Sound.
The authors reported that juvenile herring in sublittoral habitats feed on calanoid copepods (45%),
decapod larvae (23%), and chaetognaths (10%). In neritic habitats, prey items are dominated by
calanoid and harpacticoid copepods and euphausids. Surf smelt and sand lance consume primarily
pelagic prey; however, smelt are also epibenthic feeders.
Another important, but less common Puget Sound forage fish, is the northern anchovy (Engraulis
mordax). Surveys from 2003 and 2004 indicated that no anchovy were observed near Quilcene Bay.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 14
Anchovy spawning is temperature- dependent, requiring 10 to 23.3 degrees C, which falls within the
temperature range of Quilcene Bay.(TCRSD 2010). Northern anchovy are a pelagic schooling fish that
utilize open water for broadcast spawning during late spring and summer months (Penttila 2007). It is
notable that northern anchovy were important components of harbor seal diets in Hood Canal and San
Juan Islands (Lance and Jeffries 2009).
3.5.2 Effects of the Action
There would be no risk of adverse effects to forage fish during construction because fabrication of
mussel raft parts would occur on land, and assembly of the rafts would occur on the beach at the Old
Plant Site. Because only hand tools would be used for assembly, there would be no risk of pollutants
entering the water that could affect water quality of forage fish habitat. Assembly would not occur
where potential or documented forage fish spawning habitat exists.
The proposed culture activities are not located at elevations where herring,surf smelt or sand lance
spawn (the raft structures would occur between -45 ft and -95 ft MLLW). These fish use the upper
intertidal zone for spawning, typically spawning at high tide over mixed sand and gravel substrate.
Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to impact spawning habitat of these forage fish species.
The Quilcene Bay herring stock deposit spawn mostly on rocks and gravel. No spawning was
documented in the action area. Because the deepwater location and tidal shifting, the raft units will not
shade the benthos which lacks vegetation on the substrate, it is unlikely the proposed action would have
any significant physical effect on herring spawn.
There are two main effects on forage fish from the proposed action: (1) prey availability, and
(2) structure as an attractant (discussed below in Section 3.6). Prey availability would be linked to
project effects on production of phytoplankton and zooplankton, and environmental parameters
related to primary production and the benthos. Although peaks in mussel production coincide with
patterns in phytoplankton blooms, there would not be significant changes to the water-column food web
associated with the Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm. In fact, the complex surface area provided by mussels,
raft structures, and anchor lines offers habitat for the colonization of diverse organisms (biofouling) that
would be considered prey for forage fish (copepods, gammarid amphipods). For example, Tenore and
Gonzalez (1976) found that fouling organisms on suspended lines attached to buoys or rafts increased
forage opportunities for fish. CRMC (2008) reviewed the changes associated with suspended culture
operations, and found that culture in high current waters does not disrupt the nutrient balance that would,
in turn, create a hypoxic environment diminishing benthic food productivity for fish. The expanded
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm would be sited within a high flow environment and is not likely to significantly
alter nutrients, phytoplankton, or benthic productivity.
The NMFS Biological Opinion for NWP 48 for shellfish aquaculture in Washington (NMFS 2009) also
concluded that effects of management activities on benthic communities are unlikely to impact forage
productivity. NMFS (2009) indicated that best available science supported the conclusion that existing
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 15
shellfish aquaculture in Washington State is “well within the range of normal benthic processes and
effects on productivity are likely to be so limited in space (the footprint of the shellfish bed plus some
down drift area to account for current) and duration (from a few hours to days, and certainly less than a
year).” Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be any significant adverse impact to fish or their prey
organisms caused by the proposed action. Alternatively, there could be positive effects for forage fish
because of the encrusting organisms that will form on the raft structures, suspended lines, and anchor lines
that could increase prey availability.
3.6 Migration Corridor
This section describes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed action related to the
migration corridor for ESA-listed fish.
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
Juvenile Chum salm and steelhead use the nearshore habitat extensively on their outmigration (Myers et
al. 1998; Haring 2000; Good et al. 2005; Haque 2008). Chinook fry may orient themselves within 65 ft of
the shoreline (Weitkamp 2000), and will even utilize nearshore structures, including riprap, piers, and
log rafts (Weitkamp and Schadt 1982; Taylor and Willey 1997). Juvenile bocaccio and canary rockfish
are recognized as utilizing nearshore habitat (Love et al. 1991; BRT 2009). Adult salmonids and rockfish
typically migrate in deeper water, but may come into the nearshore to feed during migration (Shreffler
and Moursund 1999; BRT 2009). Overall, fish generally migrate along, or adjacent to, shoreline habitat.
3.6.1 Effects of the Action
Overwater structures potentially affect migrating fish, depending on the size and type of structure.
Ward et al. (1994) concluded that nearshore structures (e.g., Portland Harbor and associated
development) in the lower Willamette River near Portland, Oregon presented few risks to migrating
juvenile Pacific salmon. Other studies have shown that marinas attract large populations of juvenile
salmon and baitfish (Weitkamp et al. 1981; Thom et al. 1988). Weitkamp et al. (1981) observed equal
abundances of juvenile Chinook and chum along the edges of large piers compared to adjacent
shoreline areas. In contrast, Able et al. (1998) observed reduced juvenile fish abundance under piers
when compared to open-water or areas with only piles but no overwater structures. Toft et al. (2004)
indicated that effects on nearshore fish densities and behaviors were evident when shoreline
modifications extended from the supratidal into shallow subtidal waters, which may be why Able et al.
(1998) observed changes associated with piers instead of pilings alone.
Nightingale and Simenstad (2001) noted observations of behavioral responses upon encountering large
docks, including pausing, migration delays due to disorientation, school dispersal, and migration
directional changes. These behavioral changes were observed both during the day and at night with
artificial lighting. The mechanism of action is the alteration of ambient light, which produces sharp
underwater light contrasts by casting shadows under the structures. The proposed mussel rafts are
small, include a number of spaces in between individual rafts, and would allow for light to penetrate. In
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 16
addition, no artificial lighting would be used to create shadows at night. Therefore, no changes to fish
behaviors are expected during migration.
A review conducted by Simenstad et al. (1999) found no studies that attributed predation mortality to
overwater structures. Many authors have actually reported results that lead to the supposition that
predation associated with overwater structures do not add significantly to juvenile salmonid mortality.
For example, Cardwell and Fresh (1979) analyzed the stomach contents of maturing Chinook salmon,
copper rockfish, and staghorn sculpin, and found that only staghorn sculpin stomachs contained
juvenile salmonids, and the presence of juvenile salmonids in the stomach contents did not change in
relation to added structure. Ratte and Salo (1985) provided no indication that predatory fish
aggregated under piers, and that predators were actually less abundant in shaded habitat. Finally, Salo
et al. (1980) found that juvenile salmon composed less than 4 percent of piscivorous fish diet in
association with pier habitat.
Overall, negative effects to fish migration are not expected from the proposed mussel rafts. The new rafts
would not extend from the shoreline and would not result in significant shading underneath. In addition, they
would be positioned offshore, in deeper water which may provide safe harborage and food supply for smolting
salmonids. There is no evidence that would support a change in fish behavior associated with the Quilcene Bay
Mussel Raft. There is also no indication that overwater structure results in increased potential for predation.
Therefore, the effect to the fish migration corridor from the proposed mussel raft is not considered to be
significant.
4.0 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES
This section discusses use by listed species of the action area, describes temporary and permanent
direct and indirect effects on listed species from project activities, and provides an effect
determination. This section discusses only attributes of listed species that are relevant to the project
area and likely to be affected by the project (Table 1). Appendix C evaluates the project effects on
Essential Fish Habitat (Table C-1), for federally-managed commercial fish species.
4.1 Chinook Salmon
4.1.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Estuarine and nearshore habitats are critical habitats for juvenile chinook as migration corridors
and feeding and refuge.
Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon from the South Puget Sound tributaries had a “healthy”
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) status in 1993 (WDFW 1993). However, WDFW changed
this stock’s status to “not rated” in 2002 due to atypical habitat for Chinook salmon in South Puget
Sound, as indicated by small stream sizes and low flows during the spawning season. Current returns of
Chinook salmon in South Puget Sound are attributed to releases from hatcheries. According to the
most recent harvest management plan (PSIT and WDFW 2010), the Deschutes River and McAllister
Creek spawning populations are most likely hatchery origin, and would not be included in the
08/17/2017
Page 17
4.1.2 Use of the Action Area
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission, (WSCC, Ginna Correa, November 2002),
Chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, are not found in WRIA 17 in abundant numbers as spawners
and, when found, are either the result of hatchery production or straying. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
hatchery on the Big Quilcene River has been in existence since 1911. In 1980, they began a spring chinook
program that continued until 1994. That run has not sustained itself over time, as recent spawner surveys
indicate no adult returns to the river.
4.1.3 Effects of the Action
There would be no risk of adverse impact to Puget Sound Chinook salmon or their critical habitat during
construction because fabrication of mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will
occur on the beach at the Coast Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
There would be no measureable risk of adverse effects to Puget Sound Chinook salmon or their critical
habitat because their occurrence in Quilcene Bay is rare. In addition, changes associated with the
proposed mussel raft would not significantly affect the PCEs for Chinook salmon, including water
quality, prey items, or nearshore areas free of obstruction.
4.1.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to the PCEs of Chinook salmon are expected to be insignificant and
discountable. Chinook salmon may be present in the action area, even if their presence is considered
rare. Therefore, this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed action may affect, not likely to
adversely affect Chinook salmon and their critical habitat.
4.2 Chum Salmon - Summer Run
4.2.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat
Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), also known as dog salmon and/or calico salmon, federally listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act, are found in several WRIA 17 watersheds. The Quilcene Run
is one of six core stocks that make up the Hood Canal summer 2
chum salmon population as identified by
the Puget Sound Technical Recovery 3
Team (PSTRT) (Currens 2004 ). They begin their upstream migration
between mid to late August through mid-October with fry emergence toward the end of March through
the end of April, depending on water temperatures. They are of native stock origin and managed for wild
production (WDFW and WWTribes 1994; Ames et al 2000).The abundance of chum salmonin Puget Sound
tends to fluctuate naturally during even/odd cycles, suggesting a possible competitive interaction with
pink salmon in estuary or nearshore habitats (Salo 1991 in McHenry and Lichatowich 1996).
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 18
4.2.2 Use of the Action Area
Summer Chum populations in Quilcene Bay are managed as a single native stock of composite production.
Similar to Chinook salmon, Summer Chum use the action area for rearing, foraging, and migrating. They
remain in the estuary and nearshore environments, feeding primarily on copepods, tunicates and
euphausiids, prior to migrating out to the ocean (WCCC - Correa, 2002). Chum return to freshwater in
three to five years to spawn and tend to be group spawners with each female accompanied by one or
more males. Summer Chum do not typically frequent nearshore areas, although there could be both
spawning migrations and out-migrating juveniles within the action area from August through May.
4.2.3 Effects of the Action
There would be no risk of adverse impact to Summer Chum during construction because
fabrication of mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at
the Coast Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
There would be no measureable risk of adverse effects to Summer Chum or their proposed critical habitat.
Changes associated with the proposed mussel raft would not significantly affect the PCEs for Summer
Chum, including water quality, prey items, or nearshore areas free of obstruction.
4.2.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to Summer Chum are expected to be insignificant and discountable.
Summer Chum may be present in the action area, but the proposed project will not affect their
migration, health, or forage habitat. Therefore, this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed
action may affect, not likely to adversely affect Summer Chum and their proposed critical habitat.
4.3 Steelhead Trout
4.3.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat
Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) have been documented as using all the streams entering Quilcene and
Dabob Bays and are combined into one stock. They spawn between mid-February and the
beginning of June (WDFW and WWTribes 1994). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has
been monitoring winter steelhead in the Little Quilcene River since 1999. An escapement goal has
not been set. The status is Unknown, both in SASSI and .SaSI origin of this stock is unresolved
(Thom Johnson, contribution to SaSI in review, 2002).
Steelhead trout critical habitat has not been designated, but is proposed to be the same PCEs as
Chinook salmon and within the same locations.
08/17/2017
Page 19
4.3.2 Use of the Action Area
Steelhead trout use the action area for rearing, foraging, and migrating. Steelhead do not typically
frequent nearshore areas (Busby et al. 1996; Shreffler and Moursund 1999), although there could be
both spawning migrations and out-migrating juveniles within the action area from October
through May (PSSTRT 2013).
4.3.3 Effects of the Action
There would be no risk of adverse impact to Puget Sound steelhead trout during construction because
fabrication of mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at
the Coast Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
There would be no measureable risk of adverse effects to steelhead or their proposed critical habitat.
Changes associated with the proposed mussel raft would not significantly affect the PCEs for steelhead,
including water quality, prey items, or nearshore areas free of obstruction.
4.3.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to steelhead trout are expected to be insignificant and discountable.
Steelhead may be present in the action area, but the proposed project will not affect their migration,
health, or forage habitat. Therefore, this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed action may
affect, not likely to adversely affect steelhead and their proposed critical habitat.
4.4 Bull Trout
4.4.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) have not been documented as using tributaries to Quilcene Bay
(WDFW 2014b).
While bull trout critical habitat has been designated, no critical habitat for bull trout has been
designated in Quilcene Bay.
4.4.2 Use of the Action Area
The southernmost population of bull trout in Puget Sound is found in the Puyallup River, but there is
little to no information for bull trout south of the Nisqually River or near the Kitsap Peninsula (USFWS
2009a). Because bull trout are not known to occur near Quilcene Bay, it is unlikely that either juveniles or
adults use the nearshore habitat associated with the proposed project. However, Puget Sound is
generally used as a migration corridor or foraging area, and anadromous bull trout occupy territories
ranging from about 33 ft to 2 miles and within 328 to 1,312 ft of the shoreline. Migration provides access
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 20
to more abundant or larger prey and possible overwintering options (Brenkman and Corbett 2005).
Therefore, there is potential for bull trout to be distributed into Quilcene Bay for foraging. The majority
of bull trout tend to migrate into marine waters in the spring and return to the rivers in the summer and
fall (USFWS 2004), with a few fish overwintering in marine waters (Goetz et al. 2003).
Because the project action area is not within designated bull trout critical habitat (70 FR 56212) and
there are no known runs of bull trout to tributaries of Quilcene Bay (USFWS 2009a), the use of the action
area by bull trout is limited to rare foraging.
4.4.3 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to bull trout during construction because fabrication of
mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at the Coast
Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
There would be no measurable risk of significant adverse operational impacts to bull trout because this
species rarely, if ever, occurs in Quilcene Bay. According to the USFWS (2009a), existing mussel raft
culture activities are identified as those with potential effects that are expected to be insignificant
(immeasurable) or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) for bull trout.
4.4.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to bull trout are expected to be insignificant and discountable. Bull trout
may be present in the action area, even if their presence is considered rare. Therefore, this BE reaches
the conclusion that the proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect bull trout and would
have no effect on critical habitat.
4.5 Eulachon
4.5.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat
Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) abundance exhibits considerable year-to-year variability (Hay and
Beacham 2005). However, nearly all spawning runs from California to southeastern Alaska have
declined in the past 20 years, especially since the mid-1990s. From 1938 to 1992, the median
commercial catch of eulachon in the Columbia River was approximately 2 million pounds (900,000 kg)
but from 1993 to 2006, the median catch had declined to approximately 43,000 pounds (19,500 kg),
representing a nearly 98 percent reduction in catch from the prior period. Eulachon returns in the Fraser
River and other British Columbia rivers similarly suffered severe declines in the mid-1990s and, despite
increased returns during 2001 to 2003, presently remain at very low levels (NMFS 2014a).
While eulachon critical habitat has been designated, no critical habitat for eulachon has been
designated in Quilcene Bay (NMFS 2014a).
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 21
4.5.2 Use of the Action Area
The closest populations of eulachon to Puget Sound are in the Elwha River (Shaffer et al. 2007), a
tributary to Strait of Juan de Fuca. Since eulachon are not expected to make long spawning migrations,
it is unlikely that they would be present within South Puget Sound. In a response to comments for the
final determination to list the southern DPS of eulachon as a threatened species (75 FR 13012), NMFS
stated that they found no record of eulachon spawning stocks in rivers draining into Puget Sound, and
information on the spatial distribution of the species provided by WDFW revealed no evidence of
eulachon spawning in Puget Sound now or in the past.
Because the project action area is not within designated eulachon critical habitat (50 CFR 226.222) and
there are no known runs of eulachon to tributaries of Quilcene Bay (NMFS 2014a), the use of the action
area by eulachon is limited to rare foraging.
4.5.3 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to eulachon during construction because fabrication of
mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at the Coast
Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
There would be no measureable risk of adverse effects to eulachon because their occurrence in Quilcene Bay
is rare. In addition, changes associated with the proposed mussel raft would not significantly affect water
quality, prey items, or nearshore areas free of obstruction.
4.5.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to eulachon are expected to be insignificant and discountable. Eulachon
may be present in the action area, even if their presence is considered rare. Therefore, this BE reaches
the conclusion that the proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect eulachon and would
have no effect on critical habitat.
4.6 Green Sturgeon
4.6.1 Stock Status and Critical Habitat
Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) are long-lived, slow-growing anadromous fish. There is no good
data on current stock status of green sturgeon and data on population trends is lacking (NMFS 2014b).
While green sturgeon critical habitat has been designated, no critical habitat for green sturgeon has
been designated in Quilcene Bay (50 CFR 226.219; NMFS 2014b).
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 22
4.6.2 Use of the Action Area
Green sturgeon utilize both freshwater and saltwater habitat. Adults live in oceanic waters, bays, and
estuaries when not spawning. Green sturgeon are known to forage in estuaries and bays ranging from
San Francisco Bay to British Columbia. Although spawning does not occur in Quilcene Bay or its
tributaries (NMFS 2014b), green sturgeon may forage in Quilcene Bay.
4.6.3 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to green sturgeon during construction because fabrication
of mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at the Coast
Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
.
There would be no measureable risk of adverse effects to green sturgeon because their occurrence in
Quilcene Bay is rare. In addition, changes associated with the proposed mussel raft would not
significantly affect water quality, prey items, or nearshore areas free of obstruction.
4.6.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to green sturgeon are expected to be insignificant and discountable.
Green sturgeon may be present in the action area, even if their presence is considered rare. Therefore,
this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect
green sturgeon and would have no effect on critical habitat.
4.7 Puget Sound Rockfish (Bocaccio, Canary Rockfish and Yelloweye Rockfish)
4.7.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat
Recreational catch and effort data spanning 12 years from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s suggests
possible declines of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), and yelloweye rockfish
(S. ruberrimus) in abundance in Washington (Palsson et al. 2009). While catch data are generally
constant over time, the number of angler trips increased substantially, and there was a decline in the
average number of rockfish caught per trip. Taken together, these data suggest declines in the
population over time.
Critical habitat for the three ESA-listed rockfish was designated on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 68042),
although it will not take effect until February 11, 2015. The listing included 75.3 square miles (mi2) of
nearshore habitat in South Puget Sound for juvenile canary rockfish and bocaccio, and 27.1 mi2 of
deepwater habitat for adults and juveniles of all three species. Juvenile settlement habitats located in
the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp
(families Chordaceae, Alariaceae, Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) are essential for
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 23
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. Adult
habitat includes sites that are deeper than 98 ft that possess or are adjacent to areas of complex
bathymetry consisting of rock and or highly rugose habitat. The attributes that are included in the
critical habitat include: (1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual
growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and (2) water quality and sufficient levels of
dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
Critical habitat for the three adult rockfish species, and juvenile canary rockfish and bocaccio overlap
with the proposed North Totten Inlet Mussel Raft (ERMA 2014).
4.7.2 Use of the Action Area
Adult habitat for the three ESA-listed rockfish primarily includes deepwater (>151 ft) rocky substrates
and shallow eelgrass and kelp beds for juveniles (BRT 2009). All three species have been observed
within shallower depths and non-rocky substrates such as sand, mud, and other unconsolidated
sediments (Miller and Borton 1980), although only juvenile bocaccio and canary rockfish are recognized
as utilizing nearshore habitat (Love et al. 1991). Use of the nearshore is primarily in areas with rock or
cobble composition and/or kelp species.
The project area substrate is fine to coarse grained with cobble, but no kelp species below the raft
area. Habitat is not present for adult or juvenile ESA-listed rockfish species in the action area .
Overall, adult use of the project area is unlikely. Bocaccio and rockfish juvenile use is possible,
although also considered rare.
4.7.3 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to the three ESA listed rockfish species during construction
because fabrication of mussel raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the
beach at the Coast Seafoods parking and cultch washing upland area.
There would be no measureable risk of adverse effects to the three ESA-listed rockfish species because
their occurrence in Quilcene Bay is rare. In addition, changes associated with the proposed new mussel rafts
would not significantly affect water quality, prey items, or nearshore areas free of obstruction.
4.7.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to bocaccio, canary, and yelloweye rockfish are expected to be
insignificant and discountable. The three ESA-listed rockfish species may be in the action area, even if
their presence is considered rare. Therefore, this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed action
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 24
may affect, not likely to adversely affect bocaccio, canary, and yelloweye rockfish and their critical
habitat.
4.8 Marbled Murrelet
4.8.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat
The 2013 estimated population size of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in the Pacific
Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) was estimated at about 19,617 birds, with a
population estimate for Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca at 4,395 birds (WDFW 2014c).
Critical habitat has been designated by USFWS, but there is no critical habitat within the action area.
4.8.2 Use of the Action Area
Marbled murrelets are year-round residents in coastal marine waters and embayments. Murrelets feed
near the surface or dive in pursuit of small fish and invertebrates in relatively shallow marine waters
(generally less than 98 ft deep) typically within 5 miles from the shore (Huff et al. 2006; Raphael et al.
2007). Murrelets forage both during the day and at night, and may exhibit bi-modal foraging behavior,
which means that they follow the daily vertical migrations of prey, which are at shallower depths at
night and deeper during the day. According to the USFWS (1997), the diet of the marbled murrelet
varies based on prey availability, but typically includes the three main forage fish species found in the
Puget Sound, as well as, northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific sardine
(Sardinops sagax), and juvenile rockfishes (Sebastes sp.). The main invertebrate prey includes squid
(Loligo sp.), euphausids, mysid shrimp, and large pelagic amphipods. Becker et al. (2007) reported that
reproductive success in California populations was strongly correlated with the abundance of mid-
trophic level prey (e.g., sand lance, juvenile rockfish) during the breeding and post-breeding seasons.
Marbled murrelets are known to use North Hood Canal , however with the
exception of proximity to
nesting sites and direct human footprint, none of the marine
variables measured appear
to be strongly
correlated with murrelet abundance (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-933).
In the event marbled murrelets are present in the action area, their use of the action area is
likely limited to “fly-overs” and perhaps foraging.
4.8.3 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to birds during construction because fabrication of mussel
raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at the Coast Seafoods parking
and cultch washing upland area. Noise from hand tools and disturbance from human activity is expected to
be temporary, occasional, and minor.
Operation of the proposed mussel farm is not expected to have an adverse impact on marbled
murrelets. Predator exclusion nets around the rafts will have small mesh and will be kept taut and
without loose edges that could trap diving birds.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 25
According to the USFWS (2009a), existing mussel raft culture activities were identified as having
insignificant (immeasurable) or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) effects to marbled murrelets.
4.8.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to marbled murrelets are expected to be insignificant and discountable.
Therefore, this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely
affect marbled murrelets and would have no effect on critical habitat.
4.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale
4.9.1 Population Status and Critical Habitat
The number of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Puget Sound has never been large, perhaps numbering
between 100 and 200 before 1960 (NMFS 2014c). The peak abundance in recent years occurred in 1996,
when 97 whales were counted, while the current estimate is 78 individuals (Center for Whale Research
2017).
SRKW critical habitat has been designated in Washington, consisting of approximately 2,560 mi2 of the
inland waterways (71 FR 69054). The shallow waters of Puget Sound (waters less than 20 ft deep
relative to extreme high water) are not considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the
species. Because the proposed mussel raft would be located in waters between -45 ft and -95 ft MLLW,
it would overlap with SRKW critical habitat.
4.9.2 Use of the Action Area
Killer whales that migrate into Puget Sound typically go as far south as the Nisqually River (Wiles 2004).
Palo (1972 as cited in NMFS 2008) commented that SKRW traveled to South Puget Sound most often
during the fall and winter, following the salmon and herring runs, but only noted McNeil Island and Carr
Inlet as the farthest southwest destination. It was further commented by Osborne (1999 as cited in
Wiles 2004) that in recent years, early autumn is the only time of year that K and L pods regularly occur
in the Sound. In contrast, transient orcas are more unpredictable in their movements than residents.
According to Wiles (2004), most sightings of transients in Washington occur in the summer and early
fall, with a smaller number of sightings continuing throughout the year. Use of Quilcene Bay by SRKW is
unknown, but is likely to be rare since Quilcene Bay is a confined bay at the northern end of Hood Canal
and they have not been seen in Quilcene Bay in recent decades.
4.9.3 Effects of the Action
There would be little risk of adverse impact to SRKW during construction because fabrication of mussel
raft parts will occur on land, and assembly of the rafts will occur on the beach at the Coast Seafoods parking
and cultch washing upland area..
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 26
Noise from hand tools and disturbance from human activity is expected to be temporary, occasional,
and minor.
The rafts would be sited and configured to minimize effects on marine mammals. During maintenance
and harvest operations, due care will be taken to minimize disturbance of SRKW, in compliance with
the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Noise generated by marine vessels, hand tools, and disturbance associated with human maintenance
and harvesting activities is expected to be similar to baseline activities at existing mussel farms in Quilcene
Bay and Penn Cove. If present, SRKW may avoid the area temporarily,but they would be expected to
return when human disturbances cease. Significant adverse impacts are not likely to occur to SRKW as
a result of implementation of the proposed action.
4.9.4 Effect Determination
Based on the analysis discussed in Section 3.0 above, and the implementation of the proposed project
conservation measures, effects to SRKW are expected to be insignificant and discountable. Therefore,
this BE reaches the conclusion that the proposed action may affect, not likely to adversely affect
SRKW and their critical habitat.
5.0 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are effects from state agency or private activities that are reasonably certain to
occur within the area of the federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02 Definitions). Federal
actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section, because they require
separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Interdependent actions are
from actions with no independent utility apart from the proposed action. Interrelated actions include
those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for justification. No interrelated or
interdependent actions or cumulative effects are expected to occur that may adversely affect a listed,
proposed, or candidate species in the action area.
6.0 SUMMARY
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect listed species or their habitat. Construction
could temporarily increase noise and possibly causes listed species to avoid the immediate work area,
but these effects would be temporary, occasional, and minor. Operation could affect water quality
(nitrogen concentrations) and benthic epifauna, but the affect is expected to be insignificant. Best
management practices and raft design and placement would be used to reduce impacts. Therefore, this
BE reaches the following conclusions:
May affect, not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon or their critical habitat;
May affect, not likely to adversely affect Steelhead trout or their proposed critical habitat;
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
May affect, not likely to adversely affect Summer Run Chum salmon or their critical habitat;
08/17/2017
Page 27
May affect, not likely to adversely affect bull trout and will have no effect on their critical
habitat;
May affect, not likely to adversely affect bocaccio, canary, and yelloweye rockfish or their
proposed critical habitat;
May affect, not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet and will have no effect on their
critical habitat; and
May affect, not likely to adversely affect SRKW or their critical habitat.
7.0 REFERENCES
Able, K.W., J.P. Manderson, and A.I. Studholme. 1998. The distribution of shallow water juvenile fishes
in an urban estuary: the effects of man-made structures in the Lower Hudson River. Estuaries.
21: 731-44.
Ahmed, A., G. Pelletier, M. Roberts, and A. Kolosseus. 2014. South Puget Sound dissolved oxygen
study: Water quality model calibration and scenarios. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program and Water Quality Program, Olympia,
Washington. Publication No. 14-03-004.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1403004.pdf
Albertson, S.L., K. Erickson, J.A. Newton, G. Pelletier, R.A. Reynolds, and M.L. Roberts. 2002. South
Puget Sound area water quality study. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
No. 02-03-020. Website: www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0203021.html
BAI. 2009. Macroalgae Survey for Proposed Mussel Farm North Totten Inlet, Thurston County.
Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Farms. Shelton, WA, by BioAquatics International Inc, Olympia,
WA.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan - A plan for managing the forage fish resources and
fisheries of Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Bargmann, Greg. Research Scientist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. May 4, 2010.
Personal communication by telephone conversation with Mark Pedersen, President, Margenex
International, re: recent listing of three Puget Sound rockfish species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). (as cited in TCRSD 2010)
Becker, B. H., M. Peery, and S. R. Beissinger. 2007. Ocean climate and prey availability affect the
trophic level and reproductive success of the marbled murrelet, an endangered seabird. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 329: 267-279.
Brenkman, S.J., and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in bull trout and implications for
conservation of a threatened species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25:
1073-1081.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 28
Brooks, K.M. 2000. Literature Review and Model Evaluation Describing the Environmental Effects and
Carrying Capacity Associated with the Intensive Culture of Mussels (Mytilus edulis
galloprovincialis). Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Company, Inc., Shelton, WA by Aquatic
Environmental Sciences, Port Townsend, WA
Brooks, K.M. 2002. North Totten Inlet Video Survey July 17, 2002.
Brooks, K.M. 2005a. Baseline Information Describing Sediment Physicochemistry of Totten Inlet and
the Macrobenthos of the Proposed North Totten Inlet Mussel Farm. Prepared for Taylor
Shellfish Company, Inc., Shelton, WA by Aquatic Environmental Sciences, Port Townsend, WA
Brooks, K.M. 2005b. Benthic Response at the Deepwater Point Mussel Farm in Totten Inlet, Puget
Sound, Washington State, U.S.A. Prepared for Taylor Shellfish Company, Inc., Shelton, WA by
Aquatic Environmental Sciences, Port Townsend, WA.
BRT (Biological Review Team). 2009. Preliminary scientific conclusions of the review of the status of 5
species of rockfish: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger),
yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongates) and
redstripe rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, Washington. 278 pages.
Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, I.V. Lagomarsino.
1996. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA and
Southwest Region, Long Beach CA.
Cardwell, R. and K.L. Fresh. 1979. Predation upon juvenile salmon. Draft technical paper, September 13,
1979. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington.
Center for Whale Research. 2010. Orca Research and Reports. Center for Whale Research, Friday
Harbor, Washington. http://www.whaleresearch.com/research.html
CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council). 2008. Working Group on Aquaculture Regulations.
Report on the Deliberations of the Group and Suggestions to Guide Future Development.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.crmc.state.ri.us/ContentPages/2448123522.pd
f
Dumbauld, B.R., J.L. Ruesink, and S.S. Rumrill. 2009. The ecological role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture
in the estuarine environment: a review with application to oyster and clam culture in West
Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture. 290(3-4): 196-223.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. South Puget Sound Water Quality Study.
State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia. Publication No. 08-03-037.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 29
Ecology. 2014. Washington Coastal Atlas. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/atlas_home.html (accessed November
7, 2014).
ERMA (Environmental Response Management Application). 2014. Pacific Northwest: Proposed rockfish
critical habitat. https://www.erma.unh.edu/northwest/erma.html (accessed November 21,
2014)
Fagergren, D. 2005. Northern Anchovy: The Other Forage Fish. Puget Sound Action Team. Proceedings
of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference. URL:
http://www.engr.washington.edu/epp/psgb/2005psgb/proceedings/papers/P1_FAGER.pdf
Fresh, K.L., R.D. Cardwell, and R.R. Koons. 1981. Food habits of Pacific salmon, baitfish, and their
potential competitors and predators in the marine waters of Washington, August 1978 to
September 1979. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Progress Report No. 145, 58 p.
FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Bald eagle management guidelines for Oregon and Washington.
Portland, Oregon. 10 pp.
Goetz, F. A., E. Jeanes, G. Hart, C. Ebel, J. Starkes, and E. Conner. 2003. Behavior of Anadromous Bull
Trout in the Puget Sound and Pacific Coast of Washington. PowerPoint presentation, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (eds.). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West
Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66. 598
pp.
Goodwin. C.L. 1977. The effects of season on visual and photographic assessment of subtidal geoduck
clam (Panope generosa Gould) populations. Veliger. 20: 155-158.
Grant, J. and C. Bacher. 2001. A numerical model of flow modification induced by suspended
aquaculture in a Chinese bay. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58 (5), 1003–1011
Haque, S.R. 2008. Movement patterns of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in South
Puget Sound, Washington 2006-2007. Master’s Thesis, The Evergreen State College. June
2008.
Haring, D. 2000. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East), Final
Report. Washington State Conservation Commission.
Hay, D.E., and T.D. Beacham. 2005. Stock identification of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), an
anadromous smelt in the eastern Pacific. Paper presented at ICES 2005 Annual Science
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 30
Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. Online at
http://www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2005/K/K1405.pdf
Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson, and J. Baldwin. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan – the
first 10 years (1994-2003): Status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled
murrelet. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station.
PNW-GTR-650. 160 pp.
Kaspar, H.F., P.A. Gillespie, I.C. Boyer and A.L. MacKenzie. 1985. Effects of Mussel Aquaculture on the
Nitrogen Cycle and Benthic Communities in Kenepuru Sound, Marlborough Sounds, New
Zealand. Mar. Biol. Vol. 85.
Kuttel Jr., M. 2003. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (west), Kitsap
Basin and 14 (north), Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin. Washington State Conservation
Commission. Olympia, Washington. June 2003.
Lance, M.M. and S.J. Jeffries. 2009. Harbor seal diet in Hood Canal, South Puget Sound and the San
Juan Island archipelago. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program,
Science Division. Lakewood, WA. PSMFC Job Cod 497, NOAA Award No. NA05NMF4391151
Lemberg, N.A., M.F. O’Toole, D.E. Penttila, and K.C. Stick. 1997. 1996 Forage fish stock status report.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Management Program. December 1997.
Stock Status Report No. 98-1.
Long, E., M. Dutch, S. Aasen, K. Welch, J. Hameedi, S. Mogoon, S. Carr, T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K.
Scott, C. Mueller, and J. Anderson. 2002. Sediment Quality in Puget Sound, Year 3 – Southern
Puget Sound. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia. Publication No. 02-03-033.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0203033.pdf
Love, M.S., M.H. Carr, and L.J. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the
genus Sebastes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 30: 225-243.
Miller, B.S. and S.F. Borton. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: Maps and data
source sheets. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, 3 vols.
Miller, S.L., M.G. Raphael, G.A. Falxa, C. Strong, J. Baldwin, T. Bloxton, B.M. Galleher, M. Lance, D.
Lynch, S.F. Pearson, C.J. Ralph, and R.D. Young. 2012. Recent population decline of the
marbled murrelet in the Pacific Northwest. The Condor. 114(4): 771-781.
Moulton, L.L. and D.E. Penttila. 2001. Field manual for sampling forage fish spawn in intertidal shore
regions, first edition. San Juan County Forage Fish Assessment Project. March 2001.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 31
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. J. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W.
Waknitz, K. Neely, S. Lindley, R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo.,
NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pp.
NewFields (NewFields LLC). 2009. An Assessment of Potential Water Column Impacts of Mussel Raft
Culture in Totten Inlet. Prepared for Taylor Resources, Inc., Shelton, WA by NewFields
Northwest, Port Gamble, WA.
Nightingale B.J., C.A. Simenstad, Jr. 2001. Overwater structures: marine issues. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. White Paper. Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/finalmar.pdf
Nizzoli, D., D.T. Welsh, M. Bartoli, and P. Viaroli. 2005. Impacts of mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
farming on oxygen consumption and nutrient recycling in a eutrophic coastal lagoon.
Hydrobiologia. 550: 183-198.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Services). 2009. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Programmatic
Consultation Biological and Conference Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Nationwide Permit 48, Washington.
NOAA Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Services, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, WA.
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.com/uploads/090904-3-NWP_48_04-28-2009.pdf
NMFS. 2011. Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
NOAA Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Services, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, WA.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/swkw_5year_review.pdf
NMFS. 2014a. Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). NOAA Fisheries, Silver Springs, MD.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/pacificeulachon.htm#distribution (accessed
November 21, 2014).
NMFS. 2014b. Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). NOAA Fisheries, Silver Springs, MD.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/greensturgeon.htm#habitat (accessed November
21, 2014).
NMFS. 2014c. Southern Resident Killer Whales: 10 years of research and conservation.
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/killer_whale_report/pdfs/bigreport62514.pdf
(accessed November 21, 2014).
Osborne, R.W. 1999. A historical ecology of Salish Sea "resident" killer whales (Orcinus orca): with
implications for management. Ph.D. thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.
(as cited in Wiles 2004)
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 32
Palo, G.J. 1972. Notes on the natural history of the killer whale Orcinus orca in Washington State.
Murrelet: 53: 22-24. (as cited in NMFS 2008)
Palsson, W. A., T.S. Tsou, G. G. Bargman, R. M. Buckley, J. E. West, M. L. Mills, Y. W. Cheng, and R. E.
Pacunski. 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA.
Partridge, V., S. Weakland, M. Dutch, E. Long, and K. Welch. 2014. Sediment quality in South Puget
Sound, changes from 1999 to 2011. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication 14-
03-006. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1403006.pdf
Penttila, D.E. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Prepared in support of the Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical Report 2007-
03.
Peterson, B.J., and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2001. Positive Interactions between suspension-feeding bivalves and
seagrass—a facultative mutualism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213: 143-155.
PSIT and WDFW (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010.
Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest management
component. April 12, 2010.
PSSTRT (Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team). 2013. Viability criteria for Puget Sound
steelhead. Final Review Draft. 373 pp.
Raphael, M.G., J. Baldwin, G.A. Falxa, M.H. Huff, M. Lance, S.L. Miller, S.F. Pearson, C.J. Ralph, C.
Strong, and C. Thompson. 2007. Regional population monitoring of the marbled murrelet: field
and analytical methods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-716. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 pp.
Ratte, L. and E.O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay,
FRI-UW-8508. UW Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, Washington.
Rensel (Rensel Associates Aquatic Sciences) and PTI (PTI Environmental Services). 1991. Nutrients and
Phytoplankton in Puget Sound. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle,
WA. Report 910/9-91-002.
Salo, E. O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, C.J. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A. Simenstad. 1980. The effects of
construction of naval facilities on the outmigration of juvenile salmonids from Hood Canal,
Washington. Final Report FRI-UW-8006. University of Washington, Fish. Res. Inst.
Saxby, S.A., 2002. A review of food availability, sea water characteristics and bivalve growth
performance at coastal culture sites in temperate and warm temperate regions of the world.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 33
Fisheries Research Report No. 132, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, Perth,
Australia, 42p.
Shaffer, J.A., D. Penttila, M. McHenry, and D. Vilella. 2007. Observations of eulachon, Thaleichthys
pacificus, in the Elwha River, Olympic Peninsula Washington. Northwest Science. 81(1): 76-81.
Shreffler, D.K. and R. Moursund. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on migrating juvenile salmon along
Puget Sound shorelines: Phase II field studies at Port Townsend Ferry Terminal, Contract GCA-
1723. Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle, Washington.
Simenstad, C.A., B. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on
juvenile salmon migrating along Puget Sound shorelines: Phase I synthesis of state of
knowledge. Research Project T9903 Task A2. Washington State Department of Transportation.
Seattle, Washington.
Stick, K.C. 2005. 2004 Washington State herring stock status report. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Fish Management Division. May 2005. Stock Status Report No. 05-01.
Stick, K.C. and A. Lindquist. 2009. 2008 Washington State herring stock status report. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program. Seattle, Washington. FPA 09-05.
Stick, K.C., A. Lindquist, and D. Lowry. 2014. 2012 Washington State herring stock status report.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Fish Management Division.
Taylor Shellfish (Taylor Shellfish Farms). 2014. Environmental Code of Practice (ECOP). Prepared by
Taylor Shellfish Farms. Shelton, WA. November 13, 2014.
Taylor, W.S. and W.S. Wiley. 1997. Port of Seattle fish mitigation study: Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage
facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Seattle, Washington.
TCRSD (Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department). 2010. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, North Totten Inlet Mussel Farm. Thurston County Resource Stewardship
Department, Land Use and Environmental Review Section, Olympia, Washington.
Tenore, K.R. and Gonzalez, N., 1976. Food chain patterns in the Ria de Arosa, Spain: an area of
intense mussel culture. Proc. 10th EMBS, Ostend, Belgium, 2: 601-619
Thom, R.M., C.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, and E.O Salo. 1988. Fisheries mitigation plan for expansion of
moorage at Blaine Marina, FRI-UW-8817. Fish. Res. Inst. University of Washington. Seattle,
Washington.
Toft, J., C. Simenstad, J. Cordell, and L Stamatiou. 2004. Fish Distribution, Abundance, and Behavior at
Nearshore Habitats along City of Seattle Marine Shorelines, with an Emphasis on Juvenile
Salmonids. University of Washington, Wetland Ecosystem Team. Seattle, Washington.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 34
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.
USFWS. 2004. Draft recovery plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Volumes I and II. USFWS Region 1. Portland, OR. 410 p and 297 p.
USFWS. 2009a. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Nationwide Permit
48 for Shellfish Aquaculture State of Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA.
Reference: 13410-2008-F-0461
USFWS. 2009b. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-year Review. USFWS, Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2417.pdf
Ward, D.L., A.A. Nigro, R.A. Farr, and C.J. Knutson. 1994. Influence of waterway development on
migrational characteristics of juvenile salmonids in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14: 362-371.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and
steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. Olympia,
Washington. 215 pp.
WDFW. 2004. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00193/wdfw00193.pdf
WDFW. 2014a. Forage fish spawning and holding area location map. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/projects/marine_beach_spawning/ (accessed
November 7, 2014).
WDFW. 2014b. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html (accessed October 30, 2014).
WDFW. 2014c. Marbled Murrelet Population Trends. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia, WA.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/projects/seabird/marbled_murrelet_population/inde
x.html (accessed October 30, 2014).
Weitkamp, D. 2000. Young salmon in estuarine habitats. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, Washington.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
08/17/2017
Page 35
Weitkamp, D.E. and T.H. Schadt. 1982. 1980 Juvenile Salmonid Study. Parametrix. Report to Port of
Seattle. Seattle, Washington.
Weitkamp, D.E., E. Gullekson, and T.H. Schadt. 1981. Shilshole Bay fisheries resources, spring 1981.
Report by Parametrix, Inc. to Port of Seattle. Seattle, Washington. 15 pages.
Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 106 pages.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Figures
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure 1.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity Map
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Source: Google Maps
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure 2.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 2
Pre-Project Site Survey Map
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure 3.pdf
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 3
Post Project Comparison Survey Depiction
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure 4.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 4
Pre-Project and Post Project Comparison
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
M
u
s
s
e
l
F
a
r
m
\Re
p
o
r
t
s\
Fi
g
u
r
e
s
\Fi
g
u
r
e
5 .p
d
f
08
/16
/20
1
7
FI
G
U
R
E
5
-
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
o
f
F
l
o
a
t
i
n
g
R
a
f
t
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
s
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
Mu
s
s
e
l
F
a
r
m
B
E
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
fo
r
Pe
n
n
C
o
v
e
Sh
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
M
u
s
s
e
l
F
a
r
m
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
6
.
p
d
f
0
8
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
7
F
I
G
U
R
E
6
-
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
A
n
c
h
o
r
B
l
o
c
k
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
M
u
s
s
e
l
F
a
r
m
B
E
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
f
o
r
P
e
n
n
C
o
v
e
S
h
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
M
a
p
s
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure7.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 7
Examples of Mussels on Grow-out Lines
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
Penn Cove Shellfish
Mussel Set Mature Mussels
FI
G
U
R
E
6
Pr
e
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
M
u
s
s
e
l
F
a
r
m
\Re
p
o
r
t
s\
Fi
g
u
r
e
s
\Fi
g
u
r
e
8 .p
d
f
08
/16
/20
1
7
FI
G
U
R
E
8 -
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
Mu
s
s
e
l
F
a
r
m
B
E
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
fo
r
Pe
n
n
C
o
v
e
Sh
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
So
u
r
c
e
:
Go
o
g
l
e
M
a
p
s
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure 9.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 9
Typical Ecosystem Services of Mussel Rafts
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Oyster Catchers Roost on Mussel Rafts Chum Salmon Smolts Feeding Amongst Mussel Rafts
Dissolved oxygen concentrations measured during the June 2004 PSAMP Spatial
Sediment Monitoring Program, and depth in meters relative to local extremely lower-low water
(ELLW).
June 2004 PSAMP Spatial
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure 10.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 10
PSAMP Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Concentrations
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
Penn Cove Shellfish
Misc. Taxa
Echinodermata
Mollusca
Arthropoda
Annelida
Marine water
River
Washington 37
5
0
(
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
)
Misc. Taxa
Echinodermata
Mollusca
Arthropoda
Annelida
Marine water
River
Washington 37
5
0
(
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
)
Major taxa abundance measured at each station in Hood Canal for the 1999
PSAMP/NOAA Monitoring Program.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure11.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 11
Major Taxa Abundance of Project Area
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure12.pdf 08/16/2017
FIGURE 12
Submerged Vegetaion Map of Quilcene Bay
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Source: Google Maps
Penn Cove Mussel Farm\Reports\Figures\Figure13.pdf 17/14/2017
FIGURE 13
Documented Forage Fish Spawning of Quilcene Bay
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm BE
Quilcene Bay, Washington
for Penn Cove Shellfish
Source: WDFW 2014
Mussel Farm Site
Appendix A
Agency Websites for ESA
Species and Critical Habitat
Species Fact Sheet
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus
Photo credit: R. Tabor, FWS Washington Conterminous United States
STATUS: THREATENED
CRITICAL HABITAT:
DESIGNATED
Bull trout potentially occur in these Washington counties:
Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston,
Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, Clallam, Jefferson,
Mason, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Wahkiakum, San Juan,
Island, Kitsap, Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima,
Klickitat, Benton, Grant, Douglas, Walla Walla, Franklin,
Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman,
Columbia, Garfield, Asotin
(Maps may reflect historical as well as recent sightings)
In 1999, the populations of bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, within the conterminous United
States were federally listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The
most recent critical habitat designation was completed in 2010.
Current and Historical Status
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus, family Salmonidae) are char native to the Pacific Northwest
and western Canada. The historical range of bull trout includes major river basins in the
Pacific Northwest at about 41 to 60 degrees North latitude, from the southern limits in the
McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of
the Yukon River in the Northwest Territories, Canada. To the west, the bull trout’s current
range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and
southeast Alaska. Bull trout occur in portions of the Columbia River and tributaries within the
basin, including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath
River basin of south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the
headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta and Montana and in the MacKenzie River
system in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm: Appendix A - ESA and CH Website Info
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm: Appendix A - ESA and CH Website Info
KWWSV ZZZIZVJRYZDIZRVSHFLHV)DFWVKHHWV%7ILQDOSGI
Bull trout are believed to have declined throughout 50% of their range. There are nine major
watersheds where bull trout have likely been extirpated: the Okanogan River, Lake Chelan,
Satsop River, Lower Nisqually River, and White Salmon River in Washington; the Clackamas
River (recently reintroduced here), Santiam River, and Upper Deschutes River in Oregon; and
the McCloud River in northern California.
Description and Life History
Bull trout are a cold-water fish of relatively pristine stream and lake habitats in western North
America. They are grouped with the char, within the salmonid family of fishes. Bull trout
coloration ranges from green to greyish-blue (sometimes displaying silvery sides when in lakes
and marine waters), and are spotted with pale yellowish to orange spots. The absence of
black spots on the dorsal fin distinguishes bull trout from most other species of char and trout
that are native to the Pacific Northwest.
Bull trout should not be confused with Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Although they look
very alike based on external similarity of appearance, morphological (form and structure) and
genetic analyses have confirmed the distinctiveness of the two species in their different, but
overlapping, geographic distributions. Both species occur together in western Washington, for
example, with little or no interbreeding. Lastly, bull trout and Dolly Varden each appear to be
more closely related genetically to other species of Salvelinus than they are to each other.
The bull trout is most closely related to the Japanese white-spotted char (S. leucomaenis)
whereas the Dolly Varden is most closely related to the Arctic char (S. alpinus).
The size and age of bull trout at maturity depends upon life history strategy. Resident fish tend
to be smaller than migratory fish at maturity, and produce fewer eggs. Bull trout normally
reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and may live longer than 12 years.
The life history of bull trout may be one of the most complex of any Pacific salmonid. Four
general life-history forms of bull trout have been recognized:
• Nonmigratory or resident bull trout. This life history form includes fish generally
found in small streams and headwater tributaries. These non-migratory bull trout, in
general, appear to grow more slowly than other life-history forms, are smaller at
maturity, and generally do not live as long as migratory forms.
• Riverine or fluvial bull trout. This freshwater life history form includes fish that
migrate entirely within fresh water streams. This includes fish that overwinter and
mature in large rivers or streams and then migrate to small tributaries to spawn.
• Lacustrine or adfluvial bull trout. This freshwater life history form includes fish that
overwinter and mature in large lakes or reservoirs and then migrate to small tributaries
to spawn. These are typically the largest forms of bull trout, reaching sizes up to 30 lbs.
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm: Appendix A - ESA and CH Website Info
KWWSV ZZZIZVJRYZDIZRVSHFLHV)DFWVKHHWV%7ILQDOSGI
• Marine or amphidromous/anadromous bull trout. This is the rarest life history form,
and only occurs in western Washington within the coterminous United States. This
includes fish that migrate out to marine nearshore waters and sometimes into other
stream systems to overwinter and mature, returning to small tributaries in their natal
watershed to spawn.
Bull trout typically spawn from late July to December, with peak spawning in September for
most interior populations and late October for most coastal populations. The period of egg
incubation to emergence of fry from their spawning gravels may take up to 210 days (7
months). Juvenile migratory bull trout rear one to four years in their natal stream before
migrating either to a river, lake/reservoir, or nearshore marine area to mature. Resident and
migratory forms or mixed migratory forms may all be found together, and either form may give
rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behaviors.
Habitat
• Bull trout have some of the most specific habitat requirements of any salmonid, and
these are often described as the "Four C's": Cold, Clean, Complex and Connected
habitat.
• Bull trout require colder water temperature than most salmonids. Water temperature
above 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) is believed to limit bull trout
distribution. They typically spawn in water temperatures below 9 degrees Celsius (48
degrees Fahrenheit).
• They require the cleanest stream substrates for spawning and rearing. Juvenile bull
trout frequently use the spaces between cobble and boulders to shelter.
• They need complex habitats, including streams with riffles and deep pools, side
channels, undercut banks, and lots of large instream wood/logs for shelter and foraging.
• They also rely on river, lake and ocean habitats that connect to headwater streams for
annual spawning and feeding migrations. These annual migrations are necessary to
complete their life history.
Reasons for Decline
The following activities or types of land use have contributed to the bull trout’s decline: dams,
forest management practices, livestock grazing, agricultural practices, transportation networks,
mining, residential development and urbanization, fisheries management activities, and any of
a host of general practices as well as some natural events (e.g., fire or flood under certain
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm: Appendix A - ESA and CH Website Info
KWWSV ZZZIZVJRYZDIZRVSHFLHV)DFWVKHHWV%7ILQDOSGI
circumstances) that may contribute to historical and current isolation and habitat
fragmentation. Nonnative species, forest management practices, and fish passage issues are
the top factors limiting bull trout populations at the range-wide level, both currently and
historically.
Conservation Efforts
Areas of critical habitat have been designated within their range in the coterminous United
States to protect habitat and promote the recovery of the species. Three separate draft bull
trout recovery plans were completed between 2002 and 2004, first for the Columbia and
Klamath region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) and then subsequently for the Coastal-
Puget Sound region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a) and Jarbidge River region (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b). None have been finalized. In 2008, a 5-year status review
conducted by the Service concluded bull trout status was stable (status remained unchanged)
range-wide, including some populations that were increasing and others that were decreasing
in various parts of the range. Numerous conservation efforts (e.g., culvert replacements, fish
passage improvements at dams, instream and riparian habitat restoration, nonnative fish
suppression, improved forest management and livestock grazing practices) have occurred
across their range since the time of listing which have resulted in significant improvements to
bull trout habitat.
Beginning in 2010, the Service began to revise its recovery strategy for bull trout across the
coterminous United States and anticipates issuing an updated draft recovery plan in 2012.
References and Links
Final Rule to List Bull Trout (November 1999)
Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout (October 2010)
Bull Trout Critical Habitat Map for Washington State
Final Critical Habitat Designation - Unit Maps
5-Year Status Review for Bull Trout (April 2008)
Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plans (2002 and 2004)
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm: Appendix A - ESA and CH Website Info
KWWSV ZZZIZVJRYZDIZRVSHFLHV)DFWVKHHWV%7ILQDOSGI
2333 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 9/Thursday, January 14, 2010/Proposed Rules
(xiii) Puget Sound Marine Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description
of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),
Puget Sound Marine Subunit, follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:22 Jan 13, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 000
Quilcene Bay Mussel Farm: Appendix A - ESA and CH Website Info