Final Report October, 2020

Community assisted documentation of pre-restoration physical and biological characteristics of the Harper Estuary Final Report October, 2020

Prepared for: Kitsap County

Prepared by: Washington Sea Grant

Community assisted documentation of pre-restoration physical and biological characteristics of the Harper Estuary

Project Personnel:

PI – Kate Litle, Washington Sea Grant (WSG) CoPI, Shoreline Monitoring – Jason Toft, University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences CoPI, Crab Team – Emily Grason, WSG Contract Manager – Christina Kereki, Kitsap County Project Coordinator – Jeff Adams, WSG Wetland Ecosystem Team Research Scientist – Juhi LaFuente, UW SAFS Crab Team Coordinator – Amy Linhart, WSG Crab Team Program Assistant – Kelly Martin, WSG Community volunteers – Alex Brown, Kathie Gustin, Cindy Hardi, Roger Hardi, Jim Heytvelt, Marlene Keltner, Jackie McClure, Chris Moore, Eric Schnepp, Joyce Schnepp, Dale Walker and Ed Weston.

Funding Statement:

Funding for this estuary monitoring project and report was provided by the Washington Department of Ecology [Grant Agreement No. OTGP-2018-KiCoCD- 00007]

Suggested Citation:

Litle, K, JD Toft, EW Grason, C Kereki, JW Adams, A Linhart, JR LaFuente, K Martin. 2020. Community assisted documentation of pre-restoration physical and biological characteristics of the Harper Estuary Final Report. Washington Sea Grant. 38 pages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 5

METHODS 5

SHORELINE MONITORING 5 Beach Wrack 5 Logs 6 Insects 6 Sediment Size 6 Vertical Profiles 6

CRAB TEAM MONITORING 8 Trapping Protocol 10 Molt Survey Protocol 11

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 12

SHORELINE MONITORING 12 Beach Wrack 12 Logs 14 Insects 14 Sediment Size 15 Vertical Profiles 16

CRAB TEAM 19 Trapping 19 Molt Survey 28

NEXT STEPS 30

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 30

PHOTOS 31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Washington Sea Grant (WSG) collaborated with the University of Washington’s (UW) Wetland Ecosystem Team (WET) to conduct baseline shoreline and estuary monitoring at the Harper Estuary complex in 2019 and 2020, engaging community members in monitoring activities and using approaches outlined in the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox (https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/toolbox/home) and in the WSG Crab Team volunteer handbook (https://wsg.washington.edu/crabteam/getinvolved/toolbox/). The approach and baseline data collected over the course of the project are presented in this document and provide a foundation for understanding what, if any, changes to the measured biological and physical features measured take place once more free tidal exchange has been reestablished between Harper’s upper estuary and outer bay.

4 INTRODUCTION

Washington Sea Grant (WSG) collaborated with the University of Washington’s (UW) Wetland Ecosystem Team (WET) to conduct baseline shoreline and estuary monitoring at the Harper Estuary in 2019 and 2020. Using approaches outlined in the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox (https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/toolbox/home) and in the WSG Crab Team volunteer handbook (https://wsg.washington.edu/crabteam/getinvolved/toolbox/) and engaging volunteers from within the Harper community and Kitsap County, project personnel collected physical and biological data relevant to changes that are likely to result from the proposed Olympiad Drive bridge construction and Harper Estuary restoration. The monitoring work was a natural extension of WSG’s experience working with volunteers to monitor Kitsap shorelines and of WET’s development of the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox and shoreline monitoring throughout the Puget Sound region.

The proposed bridge on Olympiad Drive will remove an undersized, 36-inch culvert and have a 12 -foot span, reestablishing the tidal influence in the upper estuary. In particular, increased accessibility to the upper estuary for mobile fauna, wrack material and h0abitat structure like logs is expected to reestablish habitat structure, movement of fish, crab and other mobile species and sources of organic material and nutrients that may be limited by the current conditions. Engaging community members in this project greatly increased the data collection capacity while more deeply connecting to the Harper Estuary ecosystem and the results of restoration efforts.

This report represents the culmination of shoreline and Crab Team monitoring efforts in the Harper Estuary complex in 2019 and 2020.

METHODS SHORELINE MONITORING

With established protocols from the Shoreline Monitoring Toolbox (https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/toolbox/home) that are used by volunteer and professional monitors throughout Puget Sound, UW Wetland Ecosystem Team Staff characterized baseline conditions at 50m transects (parallel to the shoreline) within Harper Estuary. Three sites were surveyed (1) the outer beach, (2) the inner bay, and (3) the estuary upstream of the road (Figure 1). Surveys were conducted once at each transect during two years, on May 7, 2019 and June 24, 2020.

Beach Wrack We surveyed wrack percent cover of algae, eelgrass, terrestrial, and human derived debris deposited on the beach on an ebbing tide using a 0.1 m2 quadrat at ten

random points along a 50 m transect parallel to the beach. Wrack depth and overall width of the wrack-line were measured at each quadrat. Logs We counted the number of logs (driftwood) and the landward depth of the accumulated logs (log-line) perpendicular to the shoreline at five random points along a 50m transect.

Insects We surveyed for insects, a contributing food source for out-migrating juvenile salmonids, using fallout traps (40 x 25 cm plastic bins with a small amount of soapy water). These were deployed for 24 hours to sample terrestrial insects and arthropods in vegetated supratidal habitats at five random points along a 50m transect. Samples were preserved in 70% isopropanol and returned to the laboratory and sorted, identified, and enumerated under dissecting microscopes. Sediment Size

We surveyed surface sediment grain size using visual estimation, and subsurface (5 cm) when possible, at five random points along the same 50m transect where beach wrack was surveyed. A visual estimate was made of the sediment percent composition in five size classes: cobble (>6 cm), pebble (4 mm-6 cm), granule (2-4 mm), sand (“gritty” up to 2 mm), and silt/clay (smooth between your fingers), as well as shell hash. Vertical Profiles We used a transit and stadia rod to measure the vertical change along three profile lines (Figure 1) chosen to represent locations that are both expected to remain relatively unchanged and that are expected to be reshaped as a result of the restoration efforts. This approach is well suited for volunteer assistance from community members and can be readily repeated in the future with minimal time commitment from project staff.

Figure 1. Map of vertical profile lines (Profile 1-3) and habitat transect locations (Beach, Bay, Estuary).

CRAB TEAM MONITORING

WSG's Crab Team is an established, region-wide, volunteer monitoring program for mobile fauna in pocket estuaries, lagoons and tide flats that targets crustaceans with molt surveys and both crustaceans and fish with baited trapping. Volunteers receive training in March, then survey established sites from April through September. Monitoring within the Harper Estuary complex during the course of this research included 3 additional sites to expand the spatial assessment of the baseline data collection. Training: Crab Team volunteers received training in March 2019 during a one-day new volunteer training and/or a half-day returning volunteer training. While COVID- 19 restrictions prevented training of new volunteers in 2020, the program’s critical service status allowed existing volunteers to monitor as planned while using precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Crab Team Monitoring: Standard Crab Team surveys were conducted at the previously established site in the upper estuary during April through September of 2019 and 2020. Protocols are briefly summarized below. A detailed protocol handbook, data sheets and additional resources are available as part of the online Crab Team volunteer toolbox. https://wsg.washington.edu/crabteam/getinvolved/toolbox/

Enhanced Crab Team Trapping: To gather information at a spatial scale relevant to restoration efforts, Crab Team trapping was conducted at three additional locations in May and August of 2019 and 2020 with an additional collection in April of 2019. The estuary complex was divided into four zones (Figure 2) for spatial and temporal assessment of mobile epifauna, via trapping and molt searches during the 2019 and 2020 field seasons. The delineation of these zones was based on geographic features expected to influence the ecological community, primarily those related to freshwater and saltwater inundation regimes.

• Zone 1: Most open and marine influenced. Primarily tidal flat with shallow channel draining from restored salt marsh (Zone 2) as well as freshwater stream inputs. This is the only zone with no substantial barriers to marine tidal flow or wind fetch. • Zone 2: Upland salt marsh, with recently restored tidal influence through breached berm. High sill elevation means this marsh is shallow and infrequently inundated. Limited freshwater input. Substantial vegetation with small shallow pools and channels and lots of vegetation cover primarily composed of Salicornia (pickleweed). • Zone 3: Tidal mudflat upstream of culvert, with narrow, shallow stream channel. Mudflat largely devoid of vegetation, with pedestaling banks and saltmarsh vegetation. Channel combines two freshwater inputs.

• Zone 4: One of two stream inputs. Narrow, incised channel, with limited marine influence and consistent freshwater flow. Zones 1, 2, and 4 were trapped during enhanced monitoring efforts in April of 2019 and in May and August of both 2019 and 2020 for expanded spatial assessment. Zone 3 was trapped both during enhanced efforts (5 total), and as part of regular WSG Crab Team monthly monitoring April through September of each year (12 Harper Estuary Zone Map total) for increased temporal and seasonal assessment.

Zone 2 Zone 1

Zone 3

Zone 4

Figure 2. Map of Harper Estuary Crab Team monitoring zones (semi-opaque shapes) and approximate trapping locations (points). Molt searches for each zone took place within zone

boundaries.

Trapping Protocol Two types of traps are used in Crab Team monitoring: galvanized steel cylindrical minnow traps and square Fukui fish traps (Figure 3). With a smaller mesh size and smaller openings, the cylindrical minnow traps are used to target young-of-the-year crab. Fukui traps have a larger mesh size and much larger openings to allow adult crabs to be captured. To reduce the risk of larger, or terrestrial organisms getting into the traps, the Fukui openings are narrowed by half by fastening the entrance panels together at the center with a zip tie. During each sampling event, three of each trap type are set on the rising tide, alternating trap type and spacing each trap approximately 10 meters apart at the same tide height (Figure 4). Each trap is baited with approximately 175 grams of frozen mackerel, enclosed in a bait jar, and then staked into the substrate using a 36” metal rod, bent at the top, to help hold the trap in place.

Figure 3. Galvanized steel cylindrical minnow traps (left) and square Fukui fish traps (right) are baited with mackerel and set at Crab Team monitoring sites to target different sizes of European green crab.

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of arrangement of baited traps in monthly sampling.

After a soak time of typically 20-22 hours, less in some cases, the traps are retrieved and the following actions taken: ● Trap contents are photographed ● Fish are identified, counted and released. ● Crabs (except hermit crabs) are sexed, sized, counted and released. ● Other invertebrates are identified, counted and released.

Molt Survey Protocol

All crabs must molt to grow, and the molted exoskeletons are often deposited by the high tide onto the upper beach with seaweed and other beach wrack and debris. Crab Team staff and volunteers begin at the established start point, then have 20 total person minutes (20 minutes for one molt collector, 10 minutes for each of two molt collectors, etc.) to collect as many molts as possible. Participants are instructed to target the highest concentrations of molts in the general area but pick up any molts they see. Once the time is up, all collected molts with half or more of a carapace are identified, counted and recorded.

11 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

SHORELINE MONITORING

Beach wrack, log, insect and riparian data has been uploaded to the Shoreline Monitoring Database (http://shoremonitor.webfactional.com/). By incorporating information collected during this project into the regional database, researchers and managers from have access to the work at the Harper Estuary complex and can include the information in understanding the regional context of this and similar projects.

Beach Wrack

In both 2019 and 2020, beach wrack was primarily composed of algae, with lesser amounts of terrestrial debris and eelgrass (Figure 5). Human-made debris was negligible. Total percent composition was highest at the beach in both years, followed by the bay, with lowest at the estuary. This follows the location of the sites, as the beach and bay are closest to marine algae and eelgrass sources that are deposited on the beaches on the ebbing tide. Measurements of beach wrack width and depth showed somewhat similar trends, at least between the beach and bay sites (Figure 6). Measurements at the estuary were more variable, with low measurements of wrack depth in 2019, and high measurements of wrack depth in 2020. Because the sampling took place a month later in 2020, pickleweed and other vegetation were more developed for the season and may have been better able to retain wrack material.

Figure 5. Beach wrack composition at sites in 2019 and 2020.

Figure 6. Wrack width (m) and depth (cm) at sites in 2019 and 2020.

Logs Number of logs was highest at the beach in both years, followed by the bay, with lowest number of logs at the estuary (Figure 7). Again, this followed the same pattern of site location that the wrack data showed. Width of the log-line was highest at the beach in 2019 and the bay in 2020, with lowest values at the estuary.

Figure 7. Number of logs and width of the logline (m) at sites in 2019 and 2020.

Insects

Fallout traps captured a diverse assemblage of terrestrial insects and other arthropods (Figure 8). In contrast to the patterns in the beach wrack and log data, total densities were highest at the estuary site. Hemiptera and Diptera are two orders of insects that were abundant at all sites, especially at the estuary, and are preyed upon by juvenile salmon. Thysanoptera typically had higher densities at the beach and bay sites. There were also some non-flying arthropods in the fallout traps, such as acari (mites), collembola (springtails), araneae (spiders), and amphipods (talitrid beach-hoppers). Species richness was not dramatically different between monitoring locations or from year to year but will be an additional measure to evaluate after the restoration work has been completed, invasive plants controlled and the native plant community matured.

Figure 8. Density of terrestrial insects and other arthropods in fallout traps at sites in 2019 and 2020.

Sediment Size

Sediment sizes at the beach wrack line were typical of Puget Sound mixed-sediment beaches, primarily composed of sand, granule, pebbles, and some amount of cobble (Figure 9). The subsurface (5 cm) had more sand in 2019, and less sand in 2020. In 2020, the beach also had shell hash in the sediment. The bay site had more of the smaller sized sand or silt/clay sediments, and less granule sediments than the beach. The estuary site was entirely silt/clay in both years.

Figure 9. Proportion of sediment sizes in wrack line surveys at sites in 2019 and 2020.

Vertical Profiles Vertical profile data was collected along two profile lines in the upper estuary in both 2019 and 2020 and along a line in the outer estuary once in 2020. Profile 1 (Figure 10) was laid out to cross the cut into the newly connected marsh area through the culvert plunge pool to the top of the bulkhead on Southworth Drive. The starting elevation for Profile 1 was approximated at +12’ elevation relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Profile 2 (Figure 11) crossed the estuary south of Olympiad Drive, passing through the Crab Team marker. Profile 3 (Figure 12) started at the Crab Team site marker and extended in a southwesterly direction. The Crab Team site marker elevation was estimated at +11’ elevation relative to MLLW. Both elevation references for the site could be measured using existing LIDAR data to refine for future profile repetitions.

Data collected in 2019 and 2020 can serve as a baseline for easily collected profiles that will reflect major changes in the contours and shape of the estuary after restoration. Additionally, these same lines can be evaluated with LIDAR data that is available prior to culvert replacement and expected to be available after the project is completed.

Figure 10. Graphical representation of the 2020 vertical profile for profile 1, crossing the estuary north of Olympiad Drive.

Figure 11. Graphical representation of the 2019 and 2020 vertical profiles for profile 1, crossing the estuary north of Olympiad Drive.

Figure 12. Graphical representation of the 2019 and 2020 vertical profiles for profile 3, crossing the estuary north of Olympiad Drive. A slight difference in direction of the line is reflected in some of the differences along the line. Future repetition of the profile can conform to either or both lines to explore subtle differences.

CRAB TEAM

Trapping

Trapping captured a total of eight species of mobile epifauna, including two crab, one shrimp, and five fish species (Table 1). As in most pocket estuaries sampled across the entire 55 site Crab Team network within the Salish Sea, overall species richness was low and the vast majority of trap catch was dominated by the hairy shore crab (Hemigrapsus oregonensis) and the staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), which together comprised the 99.6% percent of all animals captured in traps across all efforts at Harper during 2019 and 2020.

Table 1. Total trap contents for all sampling efforts at Harper Estuary, 2019-2020.

Spatially, these two dominant species varied consistently between years, with limited exception. H oregonensis was greatest in zones 2 and 3, both very low energy, muddy, marine-influenced sites. Though water temperature was not recorded, based on morphology and inundation, these sites are likely characterized by high water temperatures during summer months (Figure 13). L. armatus was captured at lower abundances in zone 2 relative to zone 1, both years, while this species increased dramatically in zones 3 and 4 in 2020 relative to 2019 (Figure 14). In zone 4, the increase was driven primarily by a single “bingo” trap in August that captured 39 individuals. In Zone 3, the increase in 2020 relative to 2019, while still variable across traps within a sampling effort, was observed during multiple efforts across the season (Figure 15). Both of these two species had seasonal patterns that were relatively consistent across the two years, with H. oregonensis becoming most abundant in the latter half

of the season (July - September), while L. armatus was relatively most abundant in late spring (April – June, Figure 16). For both species, however, there was a trend toward greater peak abundance in 2020 than 2019 and this trend was observed across all four zones. Beyond the two dominant species, most others were infrequent visitors to any of the sites. A few species-specific zone associations were apparent, however, and were consistent with expectations of habitat influences (Table 2). For instance, the prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, was only ever captured in zone 4, the furthest upstream site with greatest freshwater influence, consistent with this species’ preference for relatively freshwater. Three spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), a fish that can move flexibly between fresh and saltwater, was also only ever found upstream of the culvert. By contrast, the purple shore crab, H. nudus, was only ever captured below the existing culvert, in zones 1 and 2. Size of H. oregonensis did not vary appreciably by zone (Figure 17) but demonstrated a “u-shaped” seasonal trend in zone 3, which had the greatest temporal resolution for this species. The pattern was driven both by relative increase in number of larger crabs (>22mm) at the beginning and end of the season, as well as greater relative presence of smaller crabs (<13mm) in the middle of the season (Figure 18).

140 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 120 Zone 4

100

60 Number of Individuals

0 2019 2020

Figure 13. Mean (+/- SEM) number of Hemigrapsus oregonensis per trap by year and zone.

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 6 Zone 4

3 Number of Individuals

0 2019 2020

Figure 14. Mean (+/- SEM) number of Leptocottus armatus per trap by year and zone.

15 ● 2019 ● 2020

10 ●

●

Number of individuals 5

●

● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 ● ●

100 150 200 250

Day of Year

Figure 15. Mean (+/- SEM) number of Leptocottus armatus per trap by day of year from Zone 3 only. Data shown from both regular Crab Team efforts and enhanced sampling efforts. Observations from 2019 are traced with black circles and solid lines, those from 2020 with white circles and dotted line.

● 2019 ● 2020 200

● 150 ●

100 ● ●

Number of individuals ● ● ● ● ● ● 50

● ● ● ● ● ●

0 ●

100 150 200 250

Day of Year

Figure 16. Mean (+/- SEM) number of Hemigrapsus oregonensis per trap by day of year from Zone 3 only. Data shown from both regular Crab Team efforts and enhanced sampling efforts. Observations from 2019 are traced with black circles and solid lines, those from 2020 with white circles and dotted line.

Table 2. Trap contents, in number of individuals, by species (see Table 1 for codes), zone (see map), and years. Total effort broken is listed as number of trap sets across full season.

●

15 Carapace width (mm) Carapace

●

1 2 3 4 Zone

Figure 17. Boxplot showing carapace width (mm) of Hemigrapsus oregonensis by zone. Within each zone, size data aggregates all sampling efforts for that zone over both years. Dark bar indicates median and box contains 2nd and 3rd quartiles. Whiskers indicate extent of 1st and 4th quartiles and open circles indicated outliers.

● ●

●● ● ● ● ●

25 ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●

● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●●

● ●●● ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●●●

●● ●●● ● ●● ●●●● ●●●● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●● 20 ●● ●● ●● ● ●●●● ●●●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●●●

●● ●●● ●● ●● ●●●● ●●●● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●●

●● ●●●● ●● ●● ●●● ●●●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●●

●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ●●●●

● ●●●● ●● ●● ●●● ●●●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●●●

15 ●● ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●●

● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●●

● ●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● Carapace Width (mm) Carapace

● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●

● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● 10 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2019 ● ● ● 2020

100 150 200 250 Day of year

Figure 18. Carapace width (mm) of Hemigrapsus oregonensis by day of year for crabs captured only in zone 3. X-axis is jittered slightly for visibility. Green circles indicated 2019 captures and blue circles denote 2020 captures.

Molt Survey

A total of 11 species was detected during molt searches across all zones and efforts (Table 3), the majority of which were not captured in traps, including Dungeness (Metacarcinus (Cancer) magister) and red rock crabs (Cancer productus). The increased diversity in molts relative to traps likely reflects the tendency of molts to wash into sites even if the living crabs are not using those sites. Similar to traps, H. oregonensis dominated the molt community across all zones and surveys. The two zones below the culvert had appreciably greater species richness represented in molts (8 and 7 species for zones 1 and 2 respectively) than the zones above the culvert (3 species apiece in both zones 3 and 4) possibly indicating the culvert and road filter dispersal of crustacean shells from more open water. Because seasonality in molt abundance was driven almost entirely by H. oregonensis, annual overall trends in molt abundance are most readily observable in zone 3, which has the greatest temporal resolution in surveys. During both years, abundance of H. oregonensis molts followed a seasonal pattern (Figure 19) similar to that observed for this species in traps (Figure 16), with abundance of molts peaking in the latter portion of the season, either August (2020) or September (2019). Notably, however, no increase in molt abundance from 2019 to 2020 consonant with increase in live crabs trapped was observed. This may reflect that volunteers collecting molts were operating at or near maximum collection rates, or that spatial distribution of molts differed at times of peak abundance, confounding detectability of seasonal trends.

Table 3. Total crustacean molts for all species found during molt surveys by zone. Note enhanced and regular efforts are combined for zone 3.

● 300 ● ●

250 ●

●

● 200 ●

● ● 150 ● ●

●

● Number of Molts 100

● 50 ● ● ● ● 2019 0 ● 2020

100 150 200 250 Day of Year

Figure 19. Number of Hemigrapsus oregonensis molts collected during surveys by day of year for crabs captured only in zone 3. Green circles indicated 2019 captures and blue circles denote 2020 captures.

Next Steps

The opportunity to explore the current status of the Harper estuary complex provides a valuable contribution to the network of of shoreline habitat and estuary monitoring throughout the Puget Sound and an opportunity to engage community members to share a deeper connection with the estuary and to expand the capacity for data collection, inform science and management. While this report represents the conclusion of the current funding support for monitoring, Crab Team monitoring of Zone 3 is expected to continue as an important part of the program’s regional green crab early detection and estuary monitoring program, and vertical profiles can be readily repeated annually with volunteer assistance and existing staff capacity. However, the expanded Crab Team monitoring effort and other components of shoreline monitoring will likely need additional support to continue baseline and/or post-construction monitoring.

Monitoring the Harper Estuary also established valuable connections between researchers at the UW and WWU that will continue beyond this project. Habitat transects locations were coordinated between researchers, and while time and resources did not allow for collaboration on baseline monitoring reporting, future monitoring in the estuary may create opportunities for deeper integration of data analysis and interpretation. Acknowledgments

We would also like to acknowledge the Suquamish, Duwamish and Tulalip People on whose aboriginal lands we are honored to have had the opportunity and humbled to have the responsibility of learning, restoration, healing and stewardship. Major elements of this project would not have been possible without the support of the Washington Department of Ecology and Kitsap County and the administrative support of Washington Sea Grant and the UW. Project staff would particularly like to thank the volunteers from the Harper Community who clearly love and are invested in their estuary and their community. With limited support for monitoring of major restoration efforts, community volunteers’ generosity of time and talent is the driving force for advancing our understanding of benefits and impacts of restoration efforts.

PHOTOS

Photo 1. Surveying beach wrack at the bay site in 2019. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 2. Insect fallout traps at the estuary site in 2019. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 3. Insect fallout traps at the bay site in 2019. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 4. Insect fallout traps at the beach site in 2019. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 5. Sediment surveys at the beach site in 2019. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 6. Beach wrack survey at the beach site in 2020. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 7. Beach wrack survey at the estuary site in 2020. (photo: Jason Toft)

Photo 8. Profile 1 from start looking west southwest.

Photo 9. Vertical change data collection on profile 2.

Photo 10. Profile 3 from end looking toward start at Crab Team site marker.

Photo 11. Crab Team trap collection from the main in zone. (photo: Jeff Adams)

Photo 12. Community members retrieving Crab Team traps from zone 1. (photo: Kelly Martin)

Photo 13. Example of trap catch from the zone 3 Crab Team site. Trap photos are reviewed for quality assurance.

Photo 14. A prickly sculpin (more typical of fresher water) from zone 4. (photo: Jeff Adams)

Photo 15. Example of crustacean shells collected during molt surveys. (photo: Kelly Martin)

Photo 16. 2014 Photo of a coho parr stranded at low tide in the culvert plunge pool. (photo: Jeff Adams)