HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Assessment506285501.7
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
David Steele
May 2023
506285501.7
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
David Steele 1733 Dabob Post Office Road Quilcene, WA 98765
Authored by:
Kelly McDonald, Audrey Michniak, and Chris Cziesla Confluence Environmental Company
May 2023
This report should be cited as: Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2023. Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY Biological Assessment. Prepared for Rock Point Oyster, Quilcene, Washington, by Confluence, Seattle, Washington.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Federal Nexus .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project and Action Areas .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Project Area .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Action Area ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT................................................................................ 1
3.0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures ............................................................................ 4
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.1 Water/Sediment Quality ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.2 Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Anadromous Fish ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.3.2 Forage Fish ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.3.3 Birds .......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Shorelines and Riparian Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 10
4.5 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development ..................................................................... 10
4.6 ESA-Listed Species Habitat .................................................................................................................... 10
5.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Sediment Quality .................................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 12
5.4 Prey Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 12
5.5 Migration Corridor ................................................................................................................................... 13
5.6 Summary of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................. 15
6.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................. 16
6.1 Federally Listed Species......................................................................................................................... 16
6.1.1 Puget Sound/Coastal Bull Trout, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal summer-run
chum, and Puget Sound Steelhead ........................................................................................ 17
6.1.2 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Rockfish ..................................................................................... 17
6.1.3 Marbled Murrelet ..................................................................................................................... 17
6.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species ........................................................................................... 18
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 19
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TABLES Table 1. Federally listed species considered within the action area .............................................................................. 1
Table 2. Suitable habitat within the action area potentially used by ESA-listed species ............................................... 10
Table 3. Summary of Potential Direct Effects to Parameters ....................................................................................... 15
Table 4. Effects determinations for ESA-listed species ................................................................................................ 16
Table 5. Determination of effect to critical habitat ........................................................................................................ 18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Action Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDICES Appendix A Species Lists
Appendix B Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Rock Point Oyster Company, Inc. (Rock Point Oyster) operates a commercial shellfish
aquaculture farm that grows and harvests Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), Kumamoto oysters
(C. sikamea) and Manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum) on 220 acres of tidelands located within
the northern portion of Tarboo Bay, Jefferson County, Washington. Rock Point Oyster seeks
approval for an existing Floating Upweller System (FLUPSY) originally referenced as a nursery
float (approved permit NWS-2007-01150-AQ) within Tarboo Bay, Washington (the Project)
(Figure 1).
1.1 Federal Nexus
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the
Services to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or their designated critical
habitat. The federal action for the Project is the requirement of a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps is the
lead federal agency for this consultation.
The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to evaluate the Project to determine how it
may affect any threatened or endangered species listed under the ESA or their designated
critical habitat that may occur within the action area, as defined for this BA (see Section 1.2
below). This document synthesizes available information regarding habitat and species
occurrence in the action area and evaluates the effects that the Project might have had or is
currently having on ESA-listed species and their critical habitat. Additionally, an assessment of
the Project’s effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and administered by National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), is provided in this document.
1.2 Project Overview
The FLUPSY was constructed in 2014 and originally located in Blaine Harbor in Whatcom
County, located over 130 miles from Tarboo Bay, for the first 2 years. Blaine Harbor proved to
be operationally and logistically difficult given its significant distance from Rock Point Oyster’s
facilities. The FLUPSY was moved to Tarboo Bay and rebuilt in 2016 to be proximate to Rock
Point Oyster’s operations. Rock Point Oyster’s upland facilities adjacent to Tarboo Bay include a
remote setting facility and upwellers to set single oyster seed and grow it to a size ready for
subsequent growth in the FLUPSY.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 2
1.3 Project and Action Areas
1.3.1 Project Area
The project area is comprised of approximately 600 square feet (ft2) of subtidal area located
directly northeast of Tarboo Spit (Figure 1). This location is within Rock Point Oyster’s Tarboo
Bay Farm and is adjacent to Rock Point Oyster’s existing pier and shellfish work floats.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 3
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 4
1.3.2 Action Area
The action area for ESA analysis is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by
the proposed action and not merely the immediate area directly adjacent to the action” (50 CFR
402.02). The action area includes the project site and all surrounding areas where project
activities could potentially affect the environment. The extent of the action area encompasses
direct and indirect effects, as well as any effects of interrelated or interdependent actions.
The action area consists of distinct project components and the maximum extent of potential
effects associated with each component. As the Project involves no construction-related noise,
the action area includes only the immediate area where the FLUPSY and associated power cable
are located. Therefore, the action area for the Project is defined as the 600 ft2 of subtidal area that
is the direct footprint of the FLUPSY plus the approximately 300 feet corridor of the power cable
(Figure 2). The detailed analysis of the project effects and spatial extents is included in Section 5.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 1
Figure 2. Action Area
Note: Features highlighted in red are part of the action area.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 1
2.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
This BA assesses the Project effects on listed species and designated critical habitat in the action
area, and documents appropriate minimization and/or conservation measures appropriate for
the continuation of the FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay. To determine if listed species, or their critical
habitat, are present near the Project, Confluence consulted the threatened and endangered
species lists prepared by the NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS;
collectively referred to as “the Services”) (NMFS 2023, USFWS 2023).
Based on the compiled information from the Services (Appendix A), the ESA-listed species that
may occur in the action area are provided in Table 1 and are addressed in this BA. Potential
effects to designated critical habitat physical and biological features (PBFs) are also analyzed in
this document.
Table 1. Federally listed species considered within the action area
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat
Bull trout (PS/Coastal DPS) Salvelinus confluentus T Yes*
Steelhead trout (PS DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss T Yes*
Chinook salmon (PS ESU) O. tshawytscha T Yes
Chum salmon (Hood Canal Summer ESU) O. keta T Yes
Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis E Yes*
Yelloweye rockfish S. ruberrimus T Yes*
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus T Yes*
DPS – Distinct population segment; ESU – Evolutionarily Significant Unit; PS – Puget Sound, T – Threatened; E – Endangered; C - Candidate * Critical habitat has been identified but does not occur within the action area.
Several West Coast ESA-listed species may occur in the general vicinity of the action area but
are not known to occur in Tarboo Bay or intertidal habitats and so were not included in this
analysis: sockeye salmon (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), green sturgeon (Acipenser
medirostris), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), Oregon
silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta), Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori),
leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), green turtle
(Chelonia mydas), black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), white abalone (H. sorenseni), Southern
Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (B. physalus),
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Northern Pacific
right whale (Eubalaena japonica), sei whale (B. borealis borealis), sperm whale (Physeter
microcephalus), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 2
jubatus). Due to the lack of documented occurrence in the Project and action areas, lack of
suitable habitat in the action area, and lack of potential effect, the Project action would have had
no effect on these species, and they are not discussed further in this document.
The only critical habitat designated for ESA-listed species that occurs within the action area is
for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (70 FR 52629).
Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes approximately 2,312 miles of marine
nearshore habitat in Puget Sound. Critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon is
a subset of that nearshore habitat, occurring within Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 3
3.0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the details of the Project, including continued operations and
maintenance, and associated avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures used during
typical operations. Note that, even though this FLUPSY was not included in the Programmatic
Consultation on Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters (Corps 2015;
USFWS 2016; NMFS 2016), Rock Point Oyster follows the same conservation measures
identified in the Programmatic Consultation.
3.1 Operations and Maintenance
The FLUPSY has been operational since 2014 and located within the project area since 2016;
thus, no additional construction is needed. Continued operations and maintenance of the
FLUPSY involve no change to existing conditions.
A FLUPSY is a rectangular raft-like structure designed to upwell nutrient-rich water through
shellfish seed bins in order to provide a consistent source of nutrients to growing shellfish while
protecting seed from predation. Aluminum scaffolding is arranged to support a central housing
containing fiberglass wells, or silos. The bottom of each well is composed of a mesh screen.
Submerged troughs house a small electric pump. An electric pump with an enclosed stainless
steel screen intake (per NMFS fish screening standards) pulls water out of the adjacent
waterbody, creating a slow, upward flow of fresh seawater. Water exits each bin via a central
channel and is directed back into the waterbody through the pump. These components are
secured to floats for buoyancy, ultimately suspending the top of the silos above the water
surface while partially submerging the seed in mesh screen silos to allow water to flow through
the bins.
Floatation for the Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY is provided by rotomolded polyethylene. The
FLUPSY frame measures 9.5 feet by 17.67 feet and the FLUPSY overall measures 18 feet by 33
feet (594 square feet). The draft of the FLUPSY is 4 feet. Water flow in the center channel of the
FLUPSY is maintained by a ¾-horsepower variable speed electric ice-eater pump. Electric
power is supplied from shore via cable along the substrate. The cable is attached to a water pipe
that runs from Rock Point Oyster’s shore-side saltwater pump. It runs along the substrate
underwater, with the last 30 feet connected with a flexible pipe. The FLUPSY has 12 silos each
measuring 31 inches by 31 inches by 40 inches with stainless steel screen along the bottom. The
deck is all plastic grating supported by an aluminum framework. The FLUPSY is anchored in a
subtidal area (approximately 5 acres in size) that is at least 8 feet to 10 feet deep at low tide.
Helical, screw anchors or standard claw anchors are used at each of the four corners to hold the
FLUPSY in place.
Seed for the FLUPSY comes from the Rock Point Oyster remote setting upland facility adjacent
to the FLUPSY site. Pacific oyster and Kumamoto oyster larvae are typically purchased from
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 4
Hawaiian Shellfish or Whiskey Creek hatcheries. Shellfish are filter feeding organisms that
consume naturally occurring microalgae, bacteria, and organic debris directly from the water
that is circulated through the FLUPSY. No supplemental feeding with cultured algae or other
additives is needed. Seed from the FLUPSY is used at all of Rock Point Oyster’s farms
(including the adjacent Tarboo Bay farm and farms near Quilcene).
Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season, and
every other week during colder water seasons. The silos are lifted with a chain lift mounted on
an A-frame and washed with a hose supplied with saltwater pumped from alongside the
FLUPSY. During the growing season, the seed is emptied into small tubs and brought to shore
where it is sorted with a vibratory sifter, and then returned to the FLUPSY for continued grow-
out.
3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
The Project complies with appropriate conservation and minimization measures for the
activities outlined above. Applicable measures included in the Programmatic Consultation on
Shellfish Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters (Corps 2015; USFWS 2016; NMFS
2016) are included here and followed by Rock Point Oyster to avoid and/or minimize
environmental impacts.
Prior to operation, the shellfish operator will participate in a training course to recognize
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) spawn. The training course is conducted by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Pacific Coast Shellfish
Growers Association (PCSGA).
For boats and other gas-powered vehicles or power equipment that cannot be fueled in a
staging area 150 feet away from a waterbody or at a fuel dock, fuels shall be transferred
in Environmental Protection Agency-compliant portable fuel containers 5 gallons or
smaller at a time during refilling. A polypropylene pad or other appropriate spill
protection and a funnel or spill-proof spout shall be used. A spill kit shall be available
and used in the event of a spill. All spills shall be reported to the Washington
Emergency Management Office at (800) 258-5990. All waste oil or other clean-up
materials contaminated with petroleum products shall be properly disposed of off-site.
All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any stream, waterbody, or wetland shall be
inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected
shall be repaired in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes operation and
documented in a record that is available for review on request by the Corps, NMFS, and
USFWS.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 5
Direct or indirect contact of toxic compounds, including creosote, wood preservatives,
paint, etc., with the marine environment shall be prevented. This does not apply to
boats.
Unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, asphalt, or tires) will not be discharged or used
as any part of the FLUPSY.
All shellfish gear (e.g., socks, bags, racks, marker stakes, rebar, nets, and tubes) that is
not immediately needed, or is not firmly secured to the substrate, will be moved to a
storage area landward of mean higher high water prior to the next high tide. Gear that is
firmly secured to the substrate may remain on the tidelands for a consecutive period of
time up to 7 days. Note: This is not meant to apply to the wet storage of harvested
shellfish.
Tires shall not be used as part of above and below structures or where tires could
potentially come in contact with the water (e.g., floatation, fenders, hinges). Tires
currently being used for floatation shall be replaced with inert or encapsulated
materials, such as plastic or encased foam, during maintenance or repair of the structure.
Any foam material (whether used for floatation or for any other purpose) must be
encapsulated within a shell that prevents breakup or loss of foam material into the water
and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or abrasion. Un-
encapsulated foam material used for current, on-going activities shall be removed or
replaced.
At least once every three months, beaches in the project vicinity shall be patrolled by
crews who shall retrieve debris (e.g., anti- predator nets, bags, stakes, disks, tubes) that
escapes from the project area. Within the project vicinity, locations shall be identified
where debris tends to accumulate due to wave, current, or wind action. After weather
events these locations shall be patrolled by crews who shall remove and dispose of
shellfish-related debris appropriately. A record shall be maintained with the following
information and the record shall be made available upon request to the Corps, NMFS,
and USFWS: date of patrol, location of areas patrolled, description of the type and
amount of retrieved debris, other pertinent information.
When performing other activities on-site, the grower shall routinely inspect for and
document any fish or wildlife found entrapped or entangled in nets or other shellfish
equipment, stranded behind berms or dikes, or stranded within pools impounded by or
around shellfish culturing equipment. In the event that fish, birds, or mammals are
found entangled or stranded, the grower shall: 1) provide immediate notice (within 24
hours) to WDFW (all species), USFWS/NMFS (all species) or Marine Mammal Stranding
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 6
Network (marine mammals), 2) attempt to release the individual(s) without harm, and
3) provide a written and photographic record of the event, including dates, species
identification, number of individuals, and final disposition, to the Corps and Services.
Contact USFWS Law Enforcement Office at (425) 883-8122 or the Washington USFWS
Office at (360) 753- 9440 with any questions about the preservation of specimens.
The FLUPSY will be sited and configured to minimize effects on marine mammals.
During maintenance and harvest operations, due care will be taken to avoid disturbance
of marine mammals, particularly seals and sea lions, in compliance with the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
All pump intakes (e.g., for washing down gear) that use seawater shall be screened in
accordance with NMFS and WDFW criteria.
Vessels shall not ground or anchor in native eelgrass (Zostera marina) or kelp
(rooted/attached brown algae in the order Laminariales) and paths through native
eelgrass or kelp shall not be established. If there is no other access to the site or the
special condition cannot be met due to human safety considerations, a site-specific plan
shall be developed describing specific measures and/or best management practices that
will be undertaken to minimize negative effects to eelgrass and kelp from vessel
operation and accessing the shellfish areas. The access plan shall include the following
components: (a) frequency of access at each location, (b) use of only the minimum
number of boats and/or crew members needed to conduct the work and a description of
the minimum number of boats and crewmembers needed at each visit, and (c)
consistency in anchoring/grounding in the same location and/or walking on the same
path to restrict eelgrass disturbance to a very small footprint.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 7
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section summarizes the current conditions of the ecosystem and ESA-listed species habitat
in the action area resulting from past and present effects of all federal, state, or private actions
and other human activities; anticipated effects of all proposed federal projects in the action area
that have already undergone ESA consultation; and effects of state or private actions that are
concurrent with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The environmental baseline is
described in terms of the PBFs for critical habitat to support listed species that occur in the
action area.
4.1 Water/Sediment Quality
Tarboo Bay and one unnamed creek that flows into the bay have been included on the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 303(d) list based on bacterial fecal coliform
levels exceeding the established threshold in samples collected in 2017 (Ecology 2023).
However, Tarboo Bay is considered an “approved” shellfish growing area by the Washington
Department of Health (WDOH), suggesting that more recent sampling has shown acceptable
levels and WDOH has approved Rock Point Oyster’s growing area for shellfish cultivation and
harvesting. There are no listings for sediment within Tarboo Bay. Substrate in Tarboo Bay varies
from mud, sand, and gravel in areas with swift current (Steele, pers. comm., 2023). Substrate
within the action area consists primarily of muddy sand.
4.2 Aquatic Vegetation
There is no native eelgrass present within the action area or within 500 feet of the FLUPSY.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has documented eelgrass (a mix of Zostera
marina and Zostera japonica) within Dabob Bay, but none has been documented on the Rock
Point Oyster Tarboo Bay Farm (DNR 2023a). Kelp has not been identified in Tarboo Bay by
either Ecology (2023b) or the grower (Steele, pers. comm., 2023). The FLUPSY is located in a
subtidal location (i.e., -8 to -10 feet mean lower low water [MLLW]) that is not known to
support a sustained population of kelp, eelgrass, or other macroalgae (DNR 2023b).
4.3 Fish and Wildlife
The Project area is currently used for growing and harvesting Manila clams, and Pacific and
Kumamoto oysters. Other fish and wildlife that occur in the vicinity of the Project are discussed
in the following section.
4.3.1 Anadromous Fish
Salmonid species listed under the ESA that may occur within the action area and Tarboo Bay
include Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU, Puget Sound
steelhead DPS, and the Coastal-Puget Sound population of bull trout. All four of these ESA-
listed salmonid species may occur within Tarboo Bay for rearing, foraging, and/or migration.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 8
Additional salmonid species that are known to occur within Tarboo Bay include coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (O. clarkii). Both wild and hatchery-raised chum
salmon and coho salmon may be present in the vicinity of the Project. Quilcene National Fish
Hatchery rears and releases coho salmon and various hatcheries within Hood Canal raise chum
salmon. Tarboo Creek, which enters Tarboo Bay at the head of the bay, is identified by WDFW
as a spawning stream for fall spawning Chinook salmon, coho salmon, fall spawning chum
salmon, and winter spawning steelhead (WDFW 2023a). Hood Canal summer-run chum
salmon have not been documented within Tarboo Creek but are known to spawn in both Big
Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers that empty into the adjacent Quilcene Bay. Therefore, chum
salmon may occur in Tarboo Bay as juveniles for rearing and foraging. Bull trout are known to
spawn in the Skokomish River Basin (approximately 40 miles south of Tarboo Bay) and are
present within Hood Canal (USFWS 2004). There is potential for bull trout to utilize Tarboo Bay
for foraging.
Salmonid populations within the vicinity of Tarboo Bay (including those in Dabob and Quilcene
bays) have had variable returns over the last two decades. Coho salmon populations specifically
in this area have been of concern in recent years. Based on surveys of live adults and redds
within both Tarboo Creek and Little Quilcene River (which empties into Quilcene Bay), coho
salmon have had low returns since approximately 2013 (WDFW 2023b). This past spawning
year (2022) was noted as one of the worst returns for coho salmon, likely due to low flows late
into the fall months (Bahls, pers. comm. 2023). Chum salmon have been more stable in recent
years but have shown similar variability. Data from the Little Quilcene River was similar to that
for Tarboo Creek. Given that populations in both waterbodies have exhibited consistent trends,
it is likely that larger-scale drivers (e.g., oceanic conditions, harvesting) are influencing the
chum salmon stocks, rather than localized or watershed-scale impacts.
4.3.2 Rockfish
Adult rockfish habitat for the two ESA-listed species – bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish –
primarily includes deepwater (>151 feet) rocky substrates and/or shallower eelgrass and kelp
beds (BRT 2009). Both species have been observed within shallower depths and non-rocky
substrates such as sand, mud, and other unconsolidated sediments (Miller and Borton 1980),
although juvenile bocaccio are the main species recognized as utilizing nearshore habitat (Love
et al. 1991). Even then, use of the nearshore is primarily in areas with rock or cobble
composition and/or in the presence of kelp species (Love et al. 1991). Rockfish larvae are pelagic
and are found in Puget Sound from August through October (Greene and Godersky 2012).
Critical habitat for rockfish includes all areas identified by NMFS as having PBFs essential to the
conservation of the listed species (79 FR 68041; Figure 33). Juvenile settlement habitats located
in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock, and/or cobble compositions that also
support kelp (families Chordaceae, Alariaceae, Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) are
essential for conservation because these features provide rockfish forage opportunities and
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 9
refuge from predators, and enable behavioral and physiological changes needed for juveniles to
occupy deeper adult habitats. The PBFs essential to the survival of rockfish in nearshore areas
include: (1) water quality and sufficient levels of DO to support growth, survival, reproduction,
and feeding opportunities; (2) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and (3) areas free of
obstruction for fish passage. Critical habitat for rockfish does not overlap with the Project area.
4.3.3 Forage Fish
Forage fish are an important dietary resource for higher trophic-level fish and marine
mammals. The three forage fish species assessed in this document for potential Project-related
effects include surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), Pacific sand lance, (Ammodytes hexapterus) and
Pacific herring. These three species make up the majority of the forage fish prey base in Puget
Sound (Bargmann 1998, Penttila 2007). Surf smelt and Pacific sand lance spawn in sand to pea-
gravel-sized sediments, at elevations starting at +5 feet MLLW and up to mean higher high
water. Pacific herring typically spawn on eelgrass or other submerged vegetation, but may use
other structures within the nearshore environment (e.g., aquaculture gear). Forage fish
generally spawn during the winter months, although surf smelt may have longer potential
spawning seasons.
Although extensive spawning surveys have been conducted by WDFW (2023c), forage fish
spawning has not been documented in the action area. The nearest documented forage fish
spawning was an occurrence of surf smelt spawning approximately 0.39 miles and sand lance
spawning approximately 0.33 miles both occurrences located to the southwest in a channel of
the upper portion of Tarboo Bay. The most recent survey was conducted in 2002. Pacific herring
spawning has been documented within 0.61 miles southwest of the Project area in the northern
portion of Dabob Bay before entering the Rock Point Oyster farm area (WDFW 2023c).
Therefore, there are no forage fish spawning areas within the action area.
4.3.4 Birds
The only bird species listed on the ESA that may occur within the action area and Tarboo Bay is
the marbled murrelet.
Marbled murrelets occur from Alaska to California and forage in coastal waters throughout
their range. Marbled murrelets forage primarily in nearshore subtidal and pelagic waters,
usually within 1.2 miles of shore. The closest at-sea density of marbled murrelets to the action
area was identified in Dabob Bay at a density of about 3 to 5 birds/sq. km (Miller et al. 2012).
Critical habitat for marbled murrelets includes only nesting locations (76 FR 61599). Such forests
are typically coniferous forests in contiguous stands with large areas of old-growth trees. No
such nesting occurs within the vicinity of the action area. The closest identified critical habitat
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 10
for marbled murrelets is approximately 7 miles west of Tarboo Bay within forested areas
adjacent to Olympic National Park.
4.4 Shorelines and Riparian Vegetation
The Project area is overwater and in a subtidal area. Upland vegetation adjacent to the tidelands
is primarily Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and red alder (Thuja plicata). Ecology (2023b)
identifies the entire Tarboo Bay area as a salt marsh bed, although the actual plants are along
the nearshore on several spits. This is consistent with the data from USFWS (2023b) where the
emergent species are located along the shoreline and the nearshore surrounding the spit. The
FLUPSY avoids saltmarsh areas.
4.5 Surrounding Land/Water Uses and Level of Development
The area surrounding Rock Point Oyster’s Tarboo Bay FLUPSY is relatively undeveloped. The
nearest town (Quilcene, WA; 2020 population of approximately 600) is about 4 miles west of
Tarboo Bay. The upland area immediately proximate to the FLUPSY is occupied by Rock Point
Oyster’s facilities, including an office building, shop buildings, greenhouses, an upwelling
building, a wet storage building and tanks, and two homes. All buildings are dedicated to its
shellfish farm. There are also several other residential homes along Tarboo and Dabob bays.
4.6 ESA-Listed Species Habitat
This section summarizes the ESA-listed species that may be present in the action area. Table 2
provides a summary of the potential use of the action area for ESA-listed species.
Table 2. Suitable habitat within the action area potentially used by ESA-listed species
Species Foraging Spawning/ Nesting Migration Route Critical Habitat
Bull trout X N/A X N/A
Steelhead trout X N/A X N/A
Chinook salmon X N/A X X
Chum salmon X N/A X X
Bocaccio X N/A N/A N/A
Yelloweye rockfish X N/A N/A N/A
Marbled murrelet X N/A N/A N/A
Note: An “X” indicates that this habitat requirement is within the action area. N/A = not applicable
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 11
5.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS
This section addresses the potential mechanisms of effect from the Project to ESA-listed
individuals, and/or the environmental attributes and habitat qualities important to listed
species that may be present in the action area. Appendix B describes designated Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) for federally managed commercial fish species, potential Project effects to EFH,
and conservation measures.
Presented below are discussions of the direct and indirect effects of Project activities. Potential
effects discussed include a discussion of the following parameters:
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Aquatic Vegetation
Prey Resources
Migration Corridor
Potential effects are discussed in detail below with an emphasis on salmonids. ESA-listed
salmonids are the most likely species to be exposed to the effects of the Project. Note that the
existing baseline includes the presence of the FLUPSY because this is a continuation of use for a
structure that has been present in Tarboo Bay since 2016.
5.1 Water Quality
Impacts to water quality associated with continued operation of the FLUPSY would be limited
to minor turbidity increases during weekly washing of the bins and rafts. The amount of
material would not be significant relative to surrounding water quality conditions and would
not be a change from existing baseline conditions.
The presence of shellfish can result in a reduction in turbidity due to removal of phytoplankton
and particulate organic matter through filtration (Peterson and Heck 2001, Newell and Koch
2004, Cranford et al. 2011), although the amount of benefit provided to water quality depends
on the life stage, density, water circulation, and other factors. By consuming phytoplankton and
particulate organic matter, shellfish increase the amount of light reaching the sediment surface
that is available for photosynthesis (Dame et al. 1984, Koch and Beer 1996, Newell 2004, Newell
and Koch 2004). This benefit is likely negligible given the life stages present in the FLUPSY.
Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures (Section 3.2) to be followed by the
operator that would be protective for water quality conditions include: no unsuitable material
discharged into the water, no toxic compounds used, and use of spill prevention plans to ensure
that no petroleum products are released into the water.
In summary, FLUPSY maintenance activities have the potential to result in localized and
short-term increases in suspended sediment or turbidity. The presence of the oysters in the
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 12
FLUPSY also may help to reduce suspended sediment locally through filter feeding, however
this effect is likely negligible due to the size and life stage of the oysters. Overall, effects to water
quality are expected to be minor, temporary, and localized. No long-term adverse effects to
water quality are anticipated from the Project.
5.2 Sediment Quality
Bivalves excrete excess food and metabolic waste as pseudofeces, which may sink more rapidly
to the substrate than phytoplankton. In areas with extremely high density of bivalves or little
tidal flushing, pseudofeces may impact chemical processes in the substrate. Meseck et al. (2012)
studied water and sediment chemistry in the vicinity of a FLUPSY stocked with oysters.
Measurements near the FLUPSY were compared to estuarine transects throughout the
embayment to detect changes in total ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and oxygen that might be
caused by the FLUPSY. Sediment data showed no difference in fluxes of oxygen, hydrogen
sulfide, or total ammonia between the FLUPSY and elsewhere in the embayment.
Biological and sediment conditions under the FLUPSY have not changed since the structure was
installed in 2016 (Steele, pers. comm., 2023). Based on the existing research and observations by
Rock Point Oyster, the Project is not currently affecting sediment quality in the action area, nor
would it be expected to do so in the future.
5.3 Aquatic Vegetation
Due to the lack of eelgrass and kelp within the action area, no adverse impacts to aquatic
vegetation are occurring from the existing FLUPSY and no impacts are anticipated in the future.
The existing FLUPSY has not affected the presence of other macroalgae within the action area.
The presence of the FLUPSY does not impede the colonization or growth of aquatic vegetation.
It is located above the sediment surface by at least 4 feet. Because the structure is anchored to
the bottom and moves with the tides, there is no consistent shading pattern that would impact
aquatic vegetation. Overall, the existing FLUPSY avoids sensitive aquatic vegetation like
eelgrass and kelp and does not impact other macroalgae species that may colonize the bottom
substrate or the FLUPSY itself.
5.4 Prey Resources
The environmental response of benthic invertebrates to a FLUPSY depends on numerous factors
such as water depth, local currents (direction and speed), sediment grain size, and dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the benthic boundary layer. Multiple studies have indicated neutral or
positive effects to the benthic invertebrate community from raft culture. The complex surface
area provided by raft structures offers habitat for the colonization of organisms (biofouling) that
would be considered prey for fish (Tenore and Gonzalez 1976). Quarterly monitoring in 2013
and 2014 of the benthos at a floating geoduck nursery in southern Spencer Cove indicated no
measurable changes in sediment characteristics or benthic invertebrate community composition
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 13
(Selleck and Barrett 2013, 2014). Studies at existing mussel farm rafts at Deepwater Point and
Gallagher Cove during different seasons reported that the benthic invertebrate community was
likely enhanced by the residual organic material present in the particulate waste released from
overlying mussels (Brooks 2005). Finally, CRMC (2008) reviewed the changes associated with
suspended culture operations in Rhode Island, and found that culture in high current waters
does not disrupt the nutrient balance that would, in turn, result in changes to the benthic
invertebrate community.
The FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay is located in an area with high local currents and circulation.
Therefore, it is unlikely that psuedofeces or other organic material from the oysters in the
FLUPSY result in changes to the nutrient balance. More importantly, the FLUPSY likely has an
even lower potential influence on the benthic community as compared to mussel rafts because
they hold shellfish in early life stages and include bins with mesh designed to contain small
shellfish seed that will limit the potential for sedimentation. In summary, since no disruption of
the benthic environment or nutrient balance is likely occurring, it is unlikely that the existing
FLUPSY is altering the benthic resources for fish and wildlife in Tarboo Bay.
Another important prey resource, especially for marbled murrelet, is forage fish. Given the
subtidal location (the FLUPSY is anchored at approximately -8 feet MLLW), the project is not
expected to impact spawning habitat of surf smelt or sand lance. It is also notable that
documented surf smelt and sand lance spawning areas are well outside of the action area
(>0.3 miles to the southwest; WDFW 2023c). Herring spawn on submerged aquatic vegetation as
well as any available hard substrates such as bedrock, cobble, or raft and anchor assemblies.
The FLUPSY structure does not impact substrate or macroalgae on the bottom and may provide
additional structure for herring to spawn on. Similar to surf smelt and sand lance, documented
herring spawning locations are well outside of the action area (>0.6 miles southwest in Dabob
Bay where there are eelgrass beds (WDFW 2023c).
The continued presence of the FLUPSY and Project operations are not expected to affect forage
fish spawning habitat. Therefore, effects to marbled murrelet prey resources are considered to
be negligible. Overall, effects to prey resources within Tarboo Bay from the Project are
considered to be highly localized and minor.
5.5 Migration Corridor
Migrating fish, particularly juvenile salmonids, often travel in the shallow nearshore zone
(Fresh 2006). Overwater structures in the nearshore potentially affect migrating fish, depending
on the size and type of structure. A recent review of the effects of small overwater structures
within Puget Sound summarized fish responses to nearshore overwater structure (Lambert et
al. 2023). Based on literature assessing effects of larger structures like ferry terminals and one
study that monitored biological responses following the removal of a small overwater structure
(e.g., Toft et al. 2013), Lambert et al. (2023) acknowledged that juvenile salmonids likely avoid
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 14
areas directly beneath overwater structures and within the structure’s shadow. However, this is
dependent on the tide height, light conditions, and position in the nearshore area. Documented
impacts to migratory fish within intertidal areas are associated with structures that extend out
from upland into intertidal areas – such as docks and piers (Ward et al. 1994, Burdick and Short
1999). Within Tarboo Bay, outmigrating juvenile salmonids may avoid the direct footprint of the
FLUPSY but would not be excluded from other habitat in Tarboo Bay. Additionally, juvenile
salmonids are more likely to occur closer to the shoreline during outmigration. Therefore, the
FLUPSY is unlikely to significantly affect or impede juvenile salmonid migration. Regarding
coho salmon migration from Tarboo Creek, coho salmon fry typically rear in their natal stream
for a year before out-migrating. Therefore, outbound juveniles would be larger in size and
would not spend a significant amount of time within the estuarine environment where the
FLUPSY is located. Given the FLUPSY’s location away from shore, it is unlikely to act as a
barrier for out-migrating juvenile coho salmon.
Another concern with overwater structure is increased predation. A review conducted by
Simenstad et al. (1999) found no studies that attributed predation mortality to overwater
structures. Many authors have reported that predation associated with overwater structures
does not add significantly to juvenile salmonid mortality. For example, Cardwell and Fresh
(1979) analyzed the stomach contents of maturing Chinook salmon, copper rockfish (Sebastes
caurinus), and staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), 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. Ratté 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.
The Project is not likely affecting adult salmonids. Returning salmonids heading to Tarboo
Creek may remain briefly within Tarboo Bay but are not likely to be impeded by the presence of
the FLUPSY. Water levels in the creek when fish are returning are a higher limiting factor in
returns compared to the presence of the FLUPSY. It is unlikely the small footprint of the
FLUPSY affects fish transiting through the bay.
Overall, effects to fish migration are not expected to be occurring from the existing FLUPSY or
continued operation of the Project. The FLUPSY does not extend from the shoreline and would
not result in consistent shading underneath. There is no evidence to support significant changes
in fish behavior resulting from the presence of the FLUPSYs. There is also no indication that
overwater structure results in increased potential for predation or impediments to adult access
to spawning areas. Therefore, the effect to the fish migration corridor from the FLUPSY is
considered to be minor.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 15
5.6 Summary of Potential Effects
The presence and operation of the FLUPSY can result in minor, short-term, localized impacts.
No effect discussed above would result in impacts to ESA-listed individuals, and/or the
environmental attributes and habitat qualities important to listed species that may be present in
the action area. Table 3 provides a summary of potential direct effects for each parameter.
Table 3. Summary of Potential Direct Effects to Parameters
Parameter Potential Effect Duration Significance
Water Quality
Filtration: increase water clarity by reducing or controlling phytoplankton blooms and nutrients
Filtration: ongoing Filtration: negligible
Maintenance: increase suspended sediments and nutrients
Maintenance: weekly but in small volumes Maintenance: minor
Sediment Quality
Sediment Quality: introduction of shellfish feces and pseudofeces
Sediment Quality: ongoing Sediment Quality: negligible
Aquatic Vegetation
Eelgrass and Attached Kelp: avoided Eelgrass and Attached Kelp: N/A Eelgrass and Attached Kelp: N/A
Macroalgae: no shading or benthic impacts that would restrict macroalgae colonization or growth
Macroalgae: N/A Macroalgae: N/A
Prey Resources
Habitat: attachment points for fouling organisms Habitat: ongoing Habitat: potentially beneficial (i.e., source of prey)
Surf Smelt and Sand Lance: N/A Surf Smelt and Sand Lance: N/A Surf Smelt and Sand Lance: N/A
Pacific Herring: the FLUPSY structure avoids documented spawning areas and provides three-dimensional structure for spawning
Pacific Herring: ongoing Pacific Herring: potentially beneficial
Migration Corridor
Overwater Structure: existing FLUPSY includes overwater structure, but does not extend from the shoreline or block the migration corridor
Overwater Structure: Ongoing Overwater Structure: minor
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 16
6.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION
The following is a determination of effect for each species listed in Table 1. The determination is
based on the information presented in the effects analysis.
6.1 Federally Listed Species
The Project does not currently and will not affect the future viability, persistence, or distribution
of ESA-listed species potentially present in the Project or action areas. Effects of the action are
unlikely to injure or kill individual listed species, and are therefore unlikely to affect the
continuing status of the populations. There may be temporary avoidance during FLUPSY
operations, but there are no anticipated reductions in numbers, reproduction ability, or
distribution of the species. Therefore, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect ESA-listed species (Table 4).
Table 4. Effects determinations for ESA-listed species
Species Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Fish
Bull trout May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or overwintering habitat is not likely to be affected by the Project.
There is likely short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Chinook salmon May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or rearing habitat is not likely to be affected by the Project.
There may be some short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Chum salmon May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or rearing habitat would not be affected by the action.
There may be some short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Steelhead May affect, not likely to adversely affect Migration, foraging, or rearing habitat would not be affected by the action.
There may be some short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
Fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide prey.
Bocaccio rockfish May affect, not likely to adversely affect Not likely to occur in Tarboo Bay.
More typical of deepwater assemblage or nearshore habitat with eelgrass/kelp beds.
If present, there is likely short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
No changes to benthic invertebrate community (prey) or macroalgae (rearing habitat) that would affect the species.
Yelloweye rockfish May affect, not likely to adversely affect Not likely to occur in Tarboo Bay.
More typical of deepwater assemblage.
If present, there is likely short-term displacement during maintenance activities and potential avoidance of the area under the FLUPSY.
No changes to benthic invertebrate community (prey) or macroalgae (rearing habitat) that would affect the species.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 17
Species Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Birds
Marbled murrelet May affect, not likely to adversely affect Uncommon within the action area.
Presence of FLUPSY or operations will not alter the effectiveness of foraging opportunities or potential forage available.
There is no nesting habitat within the action area.
6.1.1 Puget Sound/Coastal Bull Trout, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead
The Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Puget Sound/Coastal DPS of bull
trout, the Puget Sound ESU of Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and
the Puget Sound DPS of steelhead. The Project likely results in minor changes to the habitat and
species use of Tarboo Bay. The principal changes that potentially affect Puget Sound salmonid
use of Tarboo Bay include the presence of the FLUPSY (i.e., overwater cover), and minor effects
to water quality, migration and foraging habitat, and prey resources.
While Tarboo Bay is noted as potential foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for bull
trout and potential foraging or migration habitat for other Puget Sound salmonids, the Project
does not currently and is not expected to impact the future suitability of intertidal habitats for
these uses. Thus, effects to these Puget Sound salmonid populations are expected to be
insignificant and discountable. This is consistent with the determinations made by USFWS
(2016) for bull trout and NMFS (2016) for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-
run chum salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead.
6.1.2 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Rockfish
The Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish. The Project likely results in minor changes to habitat and
species use of Tarboo Bay. The principal changes that potentially affect rockfish use of Tarboo
Bay include the presence of the FLUPSY, and minor effects to water quality, migration
corridors, and prey resources.
Yelloweye rockfish primarily rely on deeper habitats than occur in the action area, so Project
activities are expected to have limited impacts on this species. Juvenile bocaccio are known to
use intertidal habitats, but changes to habitat within the action area are expected to be minor.
The impacts to Puget Sound rockfish are therefore expected to be insignificant and
discountable.
6.1.3 Marbled Murrelet
The Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets. The principal
potential effect of the Project on marbled murrelets is from changes to prey resources. As
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 18
described above, effects of the project are expected to be minor and unlikely to result in
meaningful changes to the availability or distribution of prey for marbled murrelet. This is
consistent with the determination by USFWS (2016) for marbled murrelet.
6.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species
This section provides a determination of effect for critical habitat (Table 5). The determination is
based on the information presented in the Effects Analysis (Section 5). The action area includes
designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run
chum salmon. There is designated critical habitat for bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish and Puget
Sound steelhead, but there is no designated critical habitat for these species in the action area.
Table 5. Determination of effect to critical habitat
Species PBF Determination of Effect Basis of Determination
Chinook salmon, chum salmon
Nearshore marine & estuarine areas:
Forage
Free of obstruction
Natural cover
Salinity
Water quantity and quality
May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
No changes to forage for these species, and there is the potential that fouling organisms on the FLUPSY can provide an additional prey resource for salmonids.
No obstructions to migration would occur.
There may be some increase in available cover/refugia (e.g., anchor lines).
No changes to salinity would occur.
Only short-term changes in water quality would occur.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 19
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.
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.
Bahls, P. 2023. Northwest Watershed Institute. Email to K. McDonald, Confluence
Environmental Company, January 5, 2023.
Borgmann, K.L. 2010. A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds. Audubon
California, Tiburon, California.
Borton, S. F., and B. S. Miller. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: maps and
data source sheets. Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of
Washington, Seattle WA 98195, Technical Report.
Brooks, K.M. 2005. 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.
Cardwell, R. and K.L. Fresh. 1979. Predation upon juvenile salmon. Draft technical paper,
September 13, 1979. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington.
Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A Review of Human Disturbance Effects on Nesting
Colonial Waterbirds. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology. 22(1): 68-
79.
Cranford, P.J., J.E Ward, and S.E. Shumway. 2011. Bivalve filter feeding: Variability and limits
of the aquaculture biofilter. In: S.E. Shumway (ed). Shellfish Aquaculture and the
Environment. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
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.p
df
Dame, R.F., R.G. Zingmark, and E. Haskin. 1984. Oyster reefs as processors of estuarine
materials. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 83:239-247.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 20
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2023a. Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring
Data Viewer. Available at
https://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=83b8389234454abc87258
27b49272a31.
DNR. 2023b. Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas. Available at
https://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d0ccc569e1cd4b5189b49
2c0ba0297c5.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2023. Washington State Water Quality
Atlas [online database]. Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/waterqualityatlas/wqa/map (accessed on January 12, 2023).
Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
Washington.
Koch, E.W., and S. Beer. 1996. Tides, light and the distribution of Zostera marina in Long Island
Sound, USA. Aquatic Botany. 53(1-2): 97-107.
Meseck, L., Y. Li, M. Dixon, K. Rivara, G. Wikfors, G. Luther III. 2012. Effects of a Commercial,
Suspended Eastern Oyster Nursery Upon Nutrient and Sediment Chemistry in a Temperate,
Coastal Embayment. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. Vol. 3: 65–79, 2012.
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.
NAVSEA. 2003. Glacier Bay Watercraft Noise. Prepared by Naval Surface Warfare Center –
Caderock Division, Bremerton WA for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, National
Park Service, Washington DC.
Newell, R. I. E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension-
feeding bivalve molluscs: a review. Journal of Shellfish Research 23:51-61.
Newell, R.I.E. and E.W. Koch. 2004. Modeling seagrass density and distribution in response to
changes in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization.
Estuaries. 27: 793-806.
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
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 21
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal
Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington
State. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2011. Re-initiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Programmatic Consultation and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation for Nationwide Permit 48 Activities in Washington State. NOAA, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2012. Interim sound threshold guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle,
Washington. URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/MM-sound-thrshld.cfm
NMFS. 2017. Endangered Species Act information. NMFS, West Coast Region. Available at:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html
(accessed on January 10, 2023).
NMFS. 2022. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Biological Programmatic Opinion and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation for Shellfish Aquaculture Activities in Washington State. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
NMFS. 2023. Species Lists. NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region, Seattle, Washington. Available
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/threatened-
endangered?oq=&field_species_categories_vocab=All&field_species_details_status=All&fiel
d_region_vocab=1000001126&items_per_page=25. Accessed May 2, 2023.
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.
Ratté, 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.
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.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 22
Seattle Audubon Society. 2016. Puget Sound Seabird Survey. Available at
http://seattleaudubon.org/seabirdsurvey/bird_detail.aspx?bird_id=224 (accessed January 13,
2023).
Selleck, J., Barrett, J. 2013. Year 1 Annual report – Geoduck Floating Nursery. Prepared for
Seattle Shellfish, LLC. July 15, 2013.
Selleck, J., Barrett, J. 2014. Year 2 Annual report – Geoduck Floating Nursery. Prepared for
Seattle Shellfish, LLC. July 15, 2014.
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.
Steele, D. Rock Point Oyster Company. Communication with K. McDonald. Confluence
Environmental Company. May 2023.
Strachan, G., M. McAllister, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at-sea and foraging
behavior. Pages 247-53. In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology
and conservation of the marbled murrelet. PSW-GTR-152. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Albany, CA. 420 pp. (as cited in USFWS 2009)
Teachout, E. 2013. Conducting masking analysis for marbled murrelets & pile driving projects.
Presentation for WSDOT biologists and consultants. November 19, 2013.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3506DAAA-4B13-4E1B-855D-
36E047E07090/0/MAMU_MaskAnalysis.pdf (accessed on January 13, 2023).
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.D., J. Cordell, C. Simenstad, and L. Stamatiou. 2004. Fish distribution, abundance, and
behavior at nearshore habitats along City of Seattle marine shorelines, with an emphasis on
juvenile salmonids. Technical Report SAFS-UW-0401, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, University of Washington. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle,
Seattle, Washington.
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.
506285501.7
ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page 23
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.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2023a. SalmonScape | Online Map.
Available at: https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html (accessed on January 10,
2023)
WDFW. 2023b. Spawning Ground Survey Database | Online Resource. Available at:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/sgs-data. Accessed on May 2, 2023.
WDFW. 2023c. Forage Fish Spawning Map - Washington State. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=19b8f74e2d41470cbd80
b1af8dedd6b3&extent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781#! (Accessed January 13, 2023).
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2020. Biological Assessment
Preparation for Transportation Projects, Advanced Training Manual. Washington State
Department of Transportation, Environmental Services, Olympia, Washington. Available at
https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-
standards/manuals/environmental-manual (accessed January 13, 2023).
Wyatt, R. 2008. Review of existing data on underwater sounds produced by the oil and gas
industry. Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) Joint Industry Programme report on Sound and
Marine Life.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound
DPS of Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Vol I (of II_ Puget sound Management Unit. May
2004.
USFWS. 2009. Biological Opinion: Nationwide Permit #48 for Shellfish Aquaculture, State of
Washington. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation. USFWS reference 13410-
2008-F-0461. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by USFWS, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, Olympia, Washington. March 2009. 198 pp.
USFWS. 2023. IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation [online database]. USFWS,
Portland, Oregon. Available at: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (assessed on May 2, 2023).
506285501.7
Appendix A
Species Lists
May 02, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0076915
Project Name: Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
05/02/2023 2
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
05/02/2023 3
▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
05/02/2023 1
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
(360) 753-9440
05/02/2023 2
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2023-0076915
Project Name:Rock Point Oyster FLUPSY
Project Type:Aquaculture
Project Description:Continued operation of FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay, WA as part of the Rock
Point Oyster shellfish farm.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@47.8507508,-122.80507043454546,14z
Counties:Jefferson County, Washington
05/02/2023 3
1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467
Threatened
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus
Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212
Threatened
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1008
Proposed
Similarity of
Appearance
(Threatened)
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
1
05/02/2023 4
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
05/02/2023 5
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Confluence Environmental Company
Name:Kelly McDonald
Address:146 N Canal Street
Address Line 2:Suite 111
City:Seattle
State:WA
Zip:98103
Email kelly.mcdonald@confenv.com
Phone:2063973741
506285501.7
Appendix B
Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. B-1
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH ................................................................................................................................ B-2
3.0 SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA .................................................................................................................... B-4
3.1 Groundfish ............................................................................................................................................ B-4
3.2 Coastal Pelagic Species ....................................................................................................................... B-4
3.3 Salmonid Species ................................................................................................................................. B-4
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................ B-4
5.0 EFH CONSERVATION MEASURES ................................................................................................................ B-5
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................... B-5
6.1 Groundfish Species EFH ...................................................................................................................... B-5
6.2 Coastal Pelagic Species EFH ............................................................................................................... B-6
6.3 Salmonid Species EFH ......................................................................................................................... B-6
7.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. B-6
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. B-7
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-1
ACTION AGENCY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
LOCATION
Tarboo Bay, Washington
PROJECT NAME
Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY
1.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as
“those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity” (NMFS 1999). For interpreting this definition, the following terms apply:
Waters—includes aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological
properties used by fish. Where appropriate, waters may include aquatic areas
historically used by fish.
Substrate—includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities.
Necessary—the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed
species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem.
Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity—includes a species’ full lifecycle
(50 CFR 600.110).
Adverse effect—any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may
include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or
reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including
individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810).
This assessment evaluates the impacts of the proposed action to determine whether it “may
adversely affect” designated EFH for federally managed fisheries species in the proposed action
area. The Rock Point Oyster Company FLUPSY (the Project) biological assessment (BA) details
conservation measures associated with the Project intended to avoid, minimize, or otherwise
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-2
offset potential adverse effects of the proposed action on critical habitat for species listed under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which also includes habitat designated as EFH.
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH
Under the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for
federally managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. Detailed
description and identification of EFH are contained in the fishery management plans for
groundfish (PFMC 2019a), coastal pelagic species (PFMC 2019b), and Pacific salmon (PFMC
2016).
Designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters along the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California that are seaward from the mean high water line,
including the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths to the boundary of the U.S.
economic zone, approximately 200 miles (321.9 km) offshore (PFMC 2019a, 2019b).
Designated EFH for salmonid species within marine water extends from the nearshore and tidal
submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive
economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California, north of Point Conception to
the Canadian border (PFMC 2016).
Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid fish species that have designated EFH in the action
area are listed in Table C-1. Assessment of the impacts on species that may occur in the action
area is based on life-history stages described in PFMC (2016, 2019b, 2019a).
Table C-1 Species of Fish with Designated Essential Fish Habitat in the Action Area
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name
Groundfish Groundfish (cont.)
aurora rockfish Sebastes aurora lingcod Ophiodon elongatus
arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias longnose skate Raja rhina
bank rockfish Sebastes rufus longspine thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis
big skate Raja binoculata mexican rockfish Sebastes macdonaldi
black rockfish Sebastes melanops olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides
black and yellow rockfish Sebastes chrysomelas pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus
blackgill rockfish Sebastes melanostomus pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus
blacksplotted rockfish Sebastes melanostictus pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus
blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus petrale sole Eopsetta jordani
bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis pink rockfish Sebastes eos
bronzespotted rockfish Sebastes gilli pinkrose rockfish Sebastes simulator
brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus pygmy rockfish Sebastes wilsoni
butter sole Isopsetta isolepis pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus
cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger
calico rockfish Sebastes dallii ratfish Hydrolagus colliei
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-3
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name
california scorpionfish Scorpaena gutatta redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki
california skate Raja inornata redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger
canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus
chameleon rockfish Sebastes phillipsi rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
chilipepper rockfish Sebastes goodei rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus
china rockfish Sebastes nebulosus rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus
copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus
cowcod Sebastes levis sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria
curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus
darkblotch rockfish Sebastes crameri sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
deacon rockfish Sebastes diaconus shortbelly rockfish Sebastes jordani
dover sole Microstomus pacificus shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis
dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliatus shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus
dwarf-red rockfish Sebastes rufinanus silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis
english sole Parophrys vetulus speckled rockfish Sebastes ovalis
flag rockfish Sebastes rubrivinctus spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias
flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa
freckled rockfish Sebastes lentiginosus squarespot rockfish Sebastes hopkinsi
gopher rockfish Sebastes carnatus sunset rockfish Sebastes crocotulus
grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
greenblotched rockfish Sebastes rosenblatti starry rockfish Sebastes constellatus
greenspotted rockfish Sebastes chlorostictus stripetail rockfish Sebastes saxicola
greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus swordspine rockfish Sebastes ensifer
halfbanded rockfish Sebastes semicinctus tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus
hake Merluccius productus treefish Sebastes serriceps
harlequin rockfish Sebastes variegatus vermilion rockfish Sebastes miniatus
honeycomb rockfish Sebastes umbrosus widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas
kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus
kelp rockfish Sebastes atrovirens yellowmouth rockfish Sebastes reedi
leopard shark Triakis semifasciata yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus
Coastal Pelagic Salmonid Species
market squid Loligo opalescens Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
northern anchovy Engraulis mordax coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus
Pacific mackerel Scomber japonicus
Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax
Krill or euphausiids
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-4
3.0 SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA
The following discussion includes the species (by major group) with designated EFH in the
proposed action area.
3.1 Groundfish
There are over 90 species of marine finfish included in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan, of which over 34 have life history stages associated with estuaries.
Groundfish utilize habitats such as sand, gravel, cobble, deep and shallow tidal channels,
mudflats, kelp, eelgrass, rock reef areas, and structures such as piers and jetties (Schlosser and
Bloeser 2006). Based on species descriptions of the groundfish species associated with estuaries
(PFMC 2019c), most species have been identified as utilizing multiple habitat types, with soft-
bottom habitats (sand and or mud) being used by the most species (n=20), followed by rocky
reefs and/or pier and jetty (n=13), kelp (n=8), eelgrass (n=7), and gravel/cobble (n=3).
There would be an overlap between habitats used by groundfish and the FLUPSY. There is a
potential to disturb groundfish during FLUPSY operations through human presence and
activity. Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season,
and every other week during colder water seasons. The FLUPSY is located in a subtidal area, so
fish would be able to easily avoid locations where aquaculture activities are occurring. While
there would be some energetic cost associated with avoiding culture activities, it is considered
minimal and insignificant in relation to their daily movement patterns.
3.2 Coastal Pelagic Species
The coastal pelagic species present in Tarboo Bay that are managed under the MSA utilize
habitats such as deep and shallow tidal channels as well as structures such as piers and jetties.
Prey resources of importance to coastal pelagic species include benthic copepods, crustaceans,
and diatoms. Effects of the proposed action on major types of prey resources are discussed in
Sections 5.4 and 5.5 in the BA. Based on the existing literature, prey resources are likely
increased with shellfish aquaculture gear due to the increased amount of interstitial space and
surface area available for colonization (Ferraro and Cole 2007).
3.3 Salmonid Species
Pacific salmon EFH is established for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho
salmon (O. kisutch). Juveniles of these species may spend time rearing within the action area.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Project consists of an existing FLUPSY in Tarboo Bay, Washington. Rock Point Oyster
grows oyster seed in the FLUPSY for out planting within their farm in Tarboo Bay. The seed for
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-5
the FLUPSY comes from the Rock Point Oyster remote setting upland facility adjacent to the
FLUPSY site.
Maintenance on the FLUPSY occurs approximately weekly during the growing season, and
every other week during colder water seasons. The silos are lifted with a chain lift mounted on
an A-frame and washed with a hose supplied with salt water pumped from alongside the
FLUPSY. During the growing season, the seed is emptied into small tubs and brought to shore
where it is sorted with a vibratory sifter, then returned to the FLUPSY for continued grow-out.
The location and environmental conditions of the project area are described in detail in Sections
3.0 and 4.0 of the BA. The farm and FLUPSY locations are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the BA.
5.0 EFH CONSERVATION MEASURES
Project actions comply with applicable conservation measures outlined by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers in the Programmatic Biological Assessment on Shellfish Activities in Washington
State Inland Marine Waters (Corps 2015). Measures relevant to this Project are listed in Section
3.2 of the BA.
Implementation of these conservation measures would avoid and minimize potential adverse
effects of the proposed action on EFH within the action area.
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action’s effects on ESA species and critical habitat are reviewed within the BA
(see Section 5.0). The effects discussed represent habitat characteristics and ecological processes
that have shaped and maintain the ecosystem in Tarboo Bay, which also makes them relevant to
EFH. Potential adverse effects are summarized here in relation to EFH. It is notable that the only
relevant effect to EFH noted by NMFS (2016) in their evaluation of effects to EFH from
aquaculture in Washington State was the temporary reduction in prey resources, although even
these impacts were not determined to result in large-scale effects.
6.1 Groundfish Species EFH
In addition to being EFH for groundfish species, estuaries are designated as habitat areas of
particular concern (HAPC) for groundfish species (PFMC 2019a). As described in the BA, the
Project has the potential to have impacted estuarine intertidal habitats through minor effects to
water quality, sediment quality, prey resources, and the migration corridor. Impacts to water
quality and sediment quality are primarily limited to local and short-term increases in
suspended sediments and changes due to the filter-feeding and biodeposition of the shellfish.
These changes are not expected to significantly alter the quality of the EFH or HAPC present for
groundfish species. Presence of the aquaculture gear can locally change hydrodynamic
conditions, potentially reducing flow velocities and altering sediment dynamics (Strohmeier et
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-6
al. 2005). However, the addition of aquaculture gear provides structure within a previously
unstructured habitat that would likely increase the suitability of the habitat for juvenile
groundfish utilizing these estuarine habitats.
Overall, the impacts of the Project on intertidal habitats identified as EFH and HAPC for
groundfish species are not expected to be significant. Potential effects are limited in spatial and
temporal extent.
6.2 Coastal Pelagic Species EFH
Coastal pelagic species that have the potential to occur within the action area would primarily
rely on deep and shallow tidal channel habitats. These species are pelagic by definition,
occurring within the water column and not associated with the substrate. EFH for these species
is defined by both a geographic range and a sea surface temperature range: 10°C to 26°C (PFMC
2019b). While all estuarine and marine waters out to the extent of the US economic exclusive
zone are included in the EFH, the actual geographic range is dependent on the temperature of
the upper mixed layer of the ocean. Occurrence of coastal pelagic species within Tarboo Bay
and Hood Canal would largely be dependent on nearshore dynamics and temperatures. Thus,
while these species have the potential to occur within Tarboo Bay, the likelihood of occurrence
is low. Additionally, as noted in the previous section, the impacts to intertidal habitats from the
Project are expected to be limited in spatial and temporal extent. Therefore, potential effects to
coastal pelagic species EFH from the Project are not expected to be significant.
6.3 Salmonid Species EFH
Chinook and coho salmon are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and EFH
for these species is present in the action area. The BA details the potential effects of the Project
to Chinook salmon. The effects analysis in the BA provides a surrogate for analyzing potential
impacts to designated EFH for other salmonid species. That is, the effects to Chinook salmon
habitat from the Project have similar impacts to EFH. As described in the BA, the Project is not
expected to impact ESA-listed salmonids directly or indirectly by affecting individual survival
or by significantly altering their habitat. Potential impacts of the Project to water quality,
sediment quality, prey resources, or migration corridor are either avoided through conservation
measures or limited in spatial and temporal extent.
7.0 CONCLUSION
Although there are potential effects to EFH, with the implementation of the proposed
conservation measures, the proposed activity is not expected to cause significant impacts and
will not reduce the overall value of the EFH for managed groundfish, coastal pelagic, or
salmonid species.
APPENDIX B: ROCK POINT OYSTER FLUPSY ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
May 2023 Page B-7
8.0 REFERENCES
Corps (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2015. Programmatic Biological Assessment: Shellfish
Activities in Washington State Inland Marine Waters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program, Seattle, WA.
Ferraro, S. P., and F. A. Cole. 2007. Benthic macrofauna–habitat associations in Willapa Bay,
Washington, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71:491–507.
Kaiser, M., K. Clarke, H. Hinz, M. Austen, P. Somerfield, and I. Karakassis. 2006. Global
analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series
311:1–14.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance.
NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland.NMFS. 2016. Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Programmatic Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation:
Washington State Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture and Restoration Programmatic.
NOAA, NMFS, West Coast Region, Seattle, Washington.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2016. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management
Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coast of Washington,
Oregon, and California as Amended through Amendment 19. Page 91. Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Portland, OR.
PFMC. 2019a. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon,
and Washington Groundfish Fishery. Page 159. Pacific Fishery Management Council,
Portland, OR.
PFMC. 2019b. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan as Amended through
Amendment 17. Page 49. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
PFMC. 2019c. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Appendix B.2: Life Histories,
Geographical Distributions, and Habitat Associations of Pacific Coast Groundfish Species.
Page 275. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
Schlosser, S. C., and J. Bloeser. 2006. The collaborative study of juvenile rockfish, cabezon, and
kelp greenling habitat associations between Morro Bay, California and Newport, Oregon.
Page 14. California Sea Grant and Pacific Marine Conservation Council.
Strohmeier, T., J. Aure, A. Duinker, T. Castberg, A. Svardal, and Ø. Strand. 2005. Flow
reduction, seston depletion, meat content and distribution of diarrhetic shellfish toxins in
long-line blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) farm. Journal of Shellfish Research 24:15–23.
506285501.7