Key Peninsula, Gig Harbor, and Islands Watershed Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment

Key Peninsula, Gig Harbor, and Islands Watershed Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment

Final Report

Prepared for Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Environmental Services, Water Programs

July 3, 2003 12570-01

Anchorage Key Peninsula, Gig Harbor, and Islands Watershed Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment

Boston Final Report

Prepared for Denver Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Environmental Services, Water Programs 9850 - 64th Street West University Place, WA 98467 Edmonds

July 3, 2003 12570-01 Eureka

Prepared by Pentec Environmental Jersey City

Jon Houghton Cory Ruedebusch Senior Biologist Staff Biologist Long Beach

J. Eric Hagen Andrea MacLennan Project Biologist Environmental Scientist

Portland Juliet Fabbri Environmental Scientist

A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc. Seattle 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 Fax 425.778.9417 Tel 425.775.4682

CONTENTS Page

SUMMARY v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1 Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed 1 Objectives 2 General Approach 3

NEARSHORE HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODS 4

Information Sources 4 ShoreZone Inventory 4 Shoreline Photos 5 Drift Cell/Sector Data 5 Priority Habitats and Species 5 2002 Habitat Surveys 5 Tidal Habitat Model 5 Littoral Shoreline Surveys 7 Macrovegetation Surveys 7 GIS Database Development 8 Additional Data Presentations 9

RESULTS 10

General 10 Shoreline Types 10 EMU Descriptions 12 EMU 1 12 EMU 2 13 EMU 3 14 EMU 4 14 EMU 5 15 EMU 6 16 EMU 7 17 EMU 8 18 EMU 9 18 EMU 10 19 EMU 11 21

Pentec Environmental Page i 12570-01 July 3, 2003

CONTENTS (Continued) Page

EMU 12 22 EMU 13 24 EMU 14 25 EMU 15 26 Restoration Opportunities 27 EMU 1 27 EMU 2 28 EMU 3 28 EMU 4 29 EMU 5 29 EMU 6 29 EMU 7 30 EMU 8 30 EMU 9 31 EMU 10 31 EMU 11 32 EMU 12 32 EMU 13 33 EMU 14 34 EMU 15 34

DISCUSSION 34

REFERENCES 37

TABLES

1 Restoration Opportunities in the KGI Study Area 2 KGI Watershed Nearshore Salmonid Habitat Assessment Tidal Habitat Model Question Answer Frequency

FIGURES

1 EMU Boundaries 2 EMU 01 Relative Habitat Quality 3 EMU 01 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 4 EMU 01 Eelgrass Observations 5 EMU 02 Relative Habitat Quality 6 EMU 02 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 7 EMU 02 Eelgrass Observations

Pentec Environmental Page ii 12570-01 July 3, 2003

CONTENTS (Continued)

8 EMU 03 Relative Habitat Quality 9 EMU 03 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 10 EMU 03 Eelgrass Observations 11 EMU 04 Relative Habitat Quality 12 EMU 04 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 13 EMU 04 Eelgrass Observations 14 EMU 05 Relative Habitat Quality 15 EMU 05 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 16 EMU 05 Eelgrass Observations 17 EMU 06 Relative Habitat Quality 18 EMU 06 Eelgrass Observations 19 EMU 06 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 20 EMU 07 Relative Habitat Quality 21 EMU 07 Eelgrass Observations 22 EMU 07 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 23 EMU 08 Relative Habitat Quality 24 EMU 08 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 25 EMU 08 Eelgrass Observations 26 EMU 09 Relative Habitat Quality 27 EMU 09 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 28 EMU 09 Eelgrass Observations 29 EMU 10 Relative Habitat Quality 30 EMU 10 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 31 EMU 10 Eelgrass Observations 32 EMU 11-South Relative Habitat Quality 33 EMU 11-North Relative Habitat Quality 34 EMU 11-South Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 35 EMU 11-North Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 36 EMU 12 Relative Habitat Quality 37 EMU 12 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 38 EMU 12 Eelgrass Observations 39 EMU 13 Relative Habitat Quality 40 EMU 13 Eelgrass Observations 41 EMU 13 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 42 EMU 14 Relative Habitat Quality 43 EMU 14 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 44 EMU 14 Eelgrass Observations 45 EMU 15 Relative Habitat Quality 46 EMU 15 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads 47 EMU 15 Eelgrass Observations

Pentec Environmental Page iii 12570-01 July 3, 2003

CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B MANUAL FOR USE AND APPLICATION OF SEWIP TIDAL HABITAT MODEL

APPENDIX C TIDAL HABITAT MODEL SCORE SHEET

APPENDIX D GIS DATABASE USERS GUIDE

Pentec Environmental Page iv 12570-01 July 3, 2003

SUMMARY

This report presents results of a nearshore salmon habitat assessment for the approximately 179 miles of marine shoreline in western Pierce County, Washington. The study area includes the shorelines of the Key Peninsula; the Gig Harbor Peninsula; and Fox, McNeil, and Anderson islands, as well as several smaller islands. Collectively, this area is referred to as the Key Peninsula–Gig Harbor–Islands (KGI) Watershed. Although it is located within the study area, McNeil Island is owned by the state and therefore will not be included in any of Pierce County’s preservation or restoration plans. Because of its limited shoreline development, however, McNeil Island was included in the field assessment as a reference site. The KGI Watershed encompasses the southeastern portion of East Kitsap Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15.

Phase 1 of this work included gathering and evaluating existing background data that are relevant to the KGI shorelines; data have been drawn from a variety of sources. Upon review of these data, as well as available tools for conducting the shoreline inventory, the Technical Advisory Group concluded that the Tidal Habitat Model (THM) was an appropriate framework for assessing shoreline conditions and associated habitat quality and function for juvenile salmonids. The THM, which previously has been used by the study team to inventory shorelines in WRIA 7 and 8, can also be used to evaluate and prioritize restoration opportunities.

In Phase 2, we conducted a field reconnaissance of the entire shoreline of the KGI study area to gather data with which to complete the shoreline inventory and the THM application. In areas where the field observations of eelgrass presence did not match the eelgrass maps in the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) ShoreZone database, we completed additional surveys using an underwater video camera system to confirm eelgrass distribution. Field data were used to score each shoreline assessment area using the THM and were imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) for mapping of important indicators of habitat quality and/or stressors.

The 179 miles of shoreline in the study area were divided into 15 large subareas (ecological management units, EMU) of similar geographic and hydrographic characteristics. These subareas were further divided into 413 smaller reaches of shoreline (assessment units, AU) with relatively homogeneous littoral and riparian characteristics, and were scored with the THM. AUs within each EMU were ranked relative to the highest scoring AUs in the EMU to provide a ready measure of the best and poorest salmon habitat within each EMU. Typically the higher scoring AUs had features such as feeder bluffs, large eelgrass beds, or

Pentec Environmental Page v 12570-01 July 3, 2003

sources of large woody debris (LWD) that provide ecological benefit to areas beyond the boundaries of the AUs. Lower scoring AUs were those that have been altered by human activities such as bulkheading, overwater structures, and riparian degradation.

The relative condition of salmon habitat among EMUs was also determined by comparison of the mean of THM scores. Highest ranking EMUs were those with the least shoreline modification, for example, around McNeal Island and along the west side of the Tacoma Narrows; Gig Harbor, which has extensive shoreline modification and overwater structures, had the lowest mean EMU score.

During the course of the assessment, AUs that have been disturbed by human activity, but which retain a high potential for habitat restoration, were identified. Potential restoration actions most prevalent throughout the study area include bulkhead and fill removal, riparian enhancement, removal of derelict structures, and restoration of connectivity between the nearshore and freshwater “mini-estuaries”.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for KGI Watershed Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment was provided by Pierce County Water Programs with funding assistance from the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB; IAC Grant 01-13470) and by Hart Crowser, Inc. The authors wish to recognize these organizations for their support. In particular, we have appreciated the support and encouragement of the Contract Manager, Mr. Dave Renstrom of Pierce County and Mike Ramsey, SRFB Contract Administrator. Also, we would like to thank the KGI Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for their review of our approaches and of the draft report which have added insight and local knowledge to the product. TAG members include:

• David Renstrom, Pierce County Public Works and Utilities

• Don Haring, Washington Conservation Commission/Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Doris Small, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Dave Molenaar, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Ron Teissere, Washington Department of Natural Resources

• Russ Ladley, The Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Pentec Environmental Page vi 12570-01 July 3, 2003

KEY PENINSULA, GIG HARBOR, AND ISLANDS WATERSHED NEARSHORE SALMON HABITAT ASSESSMENT—DRAFT REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Background

Nearshore habitats in Puget Sound are the focus of increasing attention by biologists, planners, regulators, and resource managers seeking to understand the importance of shorelines in supporting a wide variety of important species. Nearshore habitats span a continuum from uplands, through riparian and intertidal zones, to subtidal areas (Williams et al. 2001). In addition to their obvious direct importance for public use (recreation) and aesthetics, nearshore areas are critical to the life histories of numerous species of birds, mammals, shellfish, forage fish and, perhaps most significantly, salmonids now listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Newly revised but not yet adopted guidelines for shoreline management under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) call for each jurisdiction regulating activities in shorelines of statewide significance to conduct an inventory of its shorelines. Such inventories are to be used in establishing appropriate shoreline use designations, and in identifying high-quality areas that should be protected and those that have a high potential for restoration of former ecological functions.

Several programs initiated as a result of the listing of salmonids under ESA have recognized that gaps exist in our knowledge of existing conditions in our nearshore areas and of their specific roles in supporting important marine species and processes. These programs also recognize the need to identify those high-quality areas that should be preserved, and to identify, evaluate, and rank areas with restoration potential. Such programs include the state’s Salmon Recovery Plan, the state/federal Shared Strategy, and the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

Key Peninsula-Gig Harbor-Islands Watershed

The Key Peninsula–Gig Harbor–Islands (KGI) Watershed includes the Pierce County portion of Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 (Figure 1). The KGI Watershed lies between the northern end of Case Inlet on the west and the Tacoma Narrows and Dalco and Colvos passages on the east, including several islands in the eastern portion of southern Puget Sound. A small portion of the KGI Watershed lies in the northeast corner of Mason County at the head of Case Inlet (North Bay). However, this segment was not included in this habitat

Pentec Environmental Page 1 12570-01 July 3, 2003

assessment because it is outside of the County’s land-use boundary. The KGI Watershed contains approximately 101,000 acres (158 square miles) and 179 miles of shoreline. It is composed of two large peninsulas (Key and Gig Harbor) and three main islands, including Fox, McNeil, and Anderson. Smaller islands include Raft, Herron, Cutts, Eagle, Gertrude, and Tanglewood. Except for the City of Gig Harbor and several smaller unincorporated communities, the KGI Watershed is largely rural. The 2000 population estimate was 56,285 and population growth predictions for the watershed include as many as 87,000 residents by 2020 (PSRC, as referenced in KGI Watershed Committee 1999.)

The majority of the KGI Watershed shoreline is protected from severe weather conditions, although the shorelines along the Tacoma Narrows and Dalco and Colvos passages, and some of the more exposed south and east-facing shorelines (e.g., Fox Island), are occasionally subjected to high wind and wave energy.

Juvenile salmonid use of KGI nearshore areas has not been well documented but can be inferred from work to the south (e.g., the Nisqually Delta, Fresh et al. 1978) and the north (e.g., Vashon/Bainbridge Islands, J. Brenner, King County personal communications). Despite the lack of large salmon spawning streams in the area, juvenile salmonid use of shorelines is expected to be moderate to high throughout the area. Certainly Colvos Passage and the Tacoma Narrows (EMUs 1 and 3) are critical ocean migration routes for salmon originating in all south Puget Sound streams and rivers. Carr and Case inlets and bays to the south and west of the study area have a number of small streams that support small runs of salmon, primarily coho and chum, which also rear along the KGI shorelines. Certainly the Nisqually River is the source of the vast majority of juvenile salmonids using the areas shorelines.

Objectives

Pentec Environmental (Pentec) conducted this study for Pierce County (County). The County initiated this study to provide data for broader restoration and land-use planning efforts in the KGI Watershed area. The overall objectives of this project included the following:

Characterize and map nearshore habitat features and impediments to salmonid habitat function in the KGI Watershed study area;

Identify high-quality habitats that should be considered for protection; and

Identify impaired habitats that should be considered for restoration.

Pentec Environmental Page 2 12570-01 July 3, 2003

In addition, this habitat assessment provides data with which to address three of the Shoreline Goals set forth in the KGI Watershed Action Plan (KGI Watershed Committee 1999):

Provide a better inventory of shoreline conditions;

Support opportunities for shoreline restoration; and

Conserve valuable habitat areas.

This study also provides data that will be useful in addressing certain General Action Recommendations for Marine Nearshore Areas presented in the WRIA 15 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis (Haring 2000), including the following:

Protect existing functional nearshore habitat, and restore impaired nearshore function where possible; and

Conduct comprehensive assessment of nearshore habitat conditions, including characterization of shoreline geology, substrate composition, riparian condition, and habitat utilization by salmonids and baitfish.

General Approach

The KGI Watershed Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment was conducted in two phases, which are described in more detail in the following sections. Briefly, Phase 1 included a literature search, collection and review of existing information on salmon habitat conditions in this nearshore area, and determination of the relevancy of that information to this assessment. The existing shoreline/nearshore habitat information obtained in Phase 1 was used to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) database for the study area.

Phase 2 included collection of missing information (identified in Phase 1) on nearshore habitat conditions through field investigations, a detailed analysis of existing shoreline/nearshore habitat conditions, and identification of areas that should be protected and those with a high degree of restoration potential. The study area shorelines were divided into segments or “assessment units” (AUs) based on physical and biological similarities, which were evaluated using the Tidal Habitat Model (THM) (City of Everett and Pentec 2001). Eelgrass surveys, using underwater video mapping, were conducted to confirm eelgrass distribution in areas where the low tide, field survey observations (by skiff) of eelgrass presence or absence did not agree with data from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources ShoreZone survey data. The new information

Pentec Environmental Page 3 12570-01 July 3, 2003

collected as part of the Phase 2 field investigations was incorporated into a spatial database provided to the County’s GIS division.

NEARSHORE HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODS

Information Sources

Information on nearshore habitat conditions, including important habitat-forming processes, and presence of important fish species and habitat utilization was obtained from state resource agencies and through field surveys, as described below.

ShoreZone Inventory

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) ShoreZone Inventory database provided a significant source of information on physical habitat conditions and biological communities in the KGI Watershed study area (DNR 2001). The ShoreZone Inventory, completed by the DNR’s Aquatic Resources Division Nearshore Habitat Program, characterizes more than 3,000 miles of the state’s saltwater shorelines. Most of the intertidal areas within the KGI Watershed were included in aerial video surveys conducted in June 1997 and June 1999. This inventory has been identified by the Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) as Best Available Science for designating and protecting critical areas (OCD 2002).

The Nearshore Program used these video recordings to create geographic data (in a GIS database) that summarize the physical and biological characteristics of the shoreline. ShoreZone includes more than 50 parameters that describe shoreline geomorphology, vegetation, and anthropogenic development.

Because the ShoreZone GIS base map was of a higher resolution than that available from the County’s Planning Department at the time this study was initiated, it was agreed that ShoreZone would serve as the GIS base map for this KGI Watershed Nearshore Habitat Assessment. Additional habitat information (described below) available from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and from other groups/governmental agencies, and new information obtained through field surveys, also was incorporated into this GIS database.

Pentec Environmental Page 4 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Shoreline Photos

We obtained recent (2000) oblique aerial photographs of the KGI Watershed shoreline from Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program (Ecology 2001). Each photo shows approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline taken near low tide. The individual photos were lined up to produce a continuous shoreline mosaic. The photos were highly useful for interpreting bluff geology and slope stability, riparian vegetation, shallow subtidal vegetation, overwater coverage of structures, and shoreline modifications such as bulkheads and seawalls.

Drift Cell/Sector Data

We also obtained GIS data regarding the presence of net shore-drift and drift cells within the KGI Watershed study area from Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. We used these data (see below) in delineating ecological management units (EMUs) and assessment units (AUs) for analysis with the THM.

Priority Habitats and Species

We consulted the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database for information regarding presence of habitats and species in the KGI Watershed study area considered by Washington State resource managers to be priorities for conservation and management (WDFW 2003). As defined by WDFW, priority species include state endangered, threatened, sensitive, and candidate species; animal aggregations considered vulnerable; and those species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Of particular importance to this effort was the PHS mapping of known forage fish spawning areas.

2002 Habitat Surveys

Tidal Habitat Model

Pentec assessed shoreline conditions and salmonid habitat quality of the KGI Watershed nearshore through review of the aerial shoreline photographs, and existing habitat data, and through 2002 field surveys using the indicators of the THM as a guide.

Pentec Environmental Page 5 12570-01 July 3, 2003

The THM was developed by an interagency technical advisory committee that met over a period of 1+ years. The model was an integral part of the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan (SEWIP) Salmon Overlay (City of Everett and Pentec 2001) which has been adopted by the City of Everett as part of their recent Shoreline Master Program update. We first produced a continuous shoreline mosaic by lining up individual oblique aerial shoreline photos obtained from Ecology. Using the THM protocols, ShoreZone data presentations, Ecology’s drift sector maps, and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, we divided the study area into 15 EMUs. The EMUs were established to comprise relatively uniform geographic units of shoreline with more or less consistent oceanography, geology, and adjacent land uses (Figure 1).

These EMUs were further subdivided into AUs for more detailed mapping and application of the THM. We delineated AUs to be sections of shoreline that contained relatively homogeneous in substrate, degree of shoreline modification, riparian vegetation, and adjacent land use. A total of 413 AUs were established in the study area.

Each AU was evaluated using the various data sources listed above and through shoreline field surveys (see below) for existing habitat conditions. The THM model asks a series of 34 “yes” or “no” questions about the hydrological, chemical, physical, geomorphological, biological, and landscape features (indicators) present within the AU. A discussion of the underlying rationale and assumptions for each question is provided in Appendix B. The model questions are provided in the THM score sheet (Appendix C). The model is focused only on indicators that are of direct or indirect relevance to anadromous salmonids, primarily juveniles, although certain features also rate habitat quality for adults. Values are based on the degree to which each indicator was judged to be associated with the positive aspects of each function. Indicators strongly associated with the function being assessed were assigned a value of 3; those moderately associated with the function were assigned a value of 2; those weakly associated with the function were assigned a value of 1. Several questions include multiple subquestions, identifying the degree to which the indicator is present (e.g., percentage of shoreline that has a marsh fringe); only one subquestion is answered under each question.

Aspects of some indicators were judged by model developers to be disproportionately beneficial (e.g., presence of a natural tidal channel wetted at mean lower low water [MLLW]) or adverse (e.g., presence of riprap or bulkheads below mean higher high water [MHHW]) to such a degree that they were assigned positive or decimal (negative) multipliers that were applied to the sum of the values from all the other indicators. The positive multipliers are generally considered to be process-related; i.e., those features such as feeder bluffs that

Pentec Environmental Page 6 12570-01 July 3, 2003

are expected to provide benefits beyond the immediate AU being evaluated. Different multipliers for chinook/chum salmon and coho salmon/bull trout for certain indicators reflect differences in habitat preference/requirements for these species. Juvenile chinook and chum salmon are particularly dependent on estuarine/nearshore habitats for feeding and rearing in their early marine life history, whereas juvenile coho salmon and bull trout are more stream oriented, spending a greater portion of their early life history in streams and rivers before migrating to the marine environment. Because the focus of this habitat assessment is on the marine nearshore of the KGI Watershed study area (i.e., few large streams exist here), and because of the paucity of anadromous bull trout in the south sound, we scored and report herein only the model scores for chinook/chum salmon.

We present the results of the THM inventory by EMU on a series of maps. AU scores were normalized within each EMU to allow identification of the highest-quality habitats. We also ranked AUs into categories based on the normalized scores to show the relative habitat quality within each EMU: those with relative scores of 1.0 to 0.71 were ranked as high, 0.70 to 0.41 as medium, and 0.40 and less as low. AUs containing specific indicators were also mapped (e.g., AUs with more than 50 percent of the shoreline occupied by bulkheads; AUs with functioning feeder bluffs; AUs with various amounts of eelgrass).

Littoral Shoreline Surveys

Pentec conducted shoreline surveys during low tide (i.e., below +4 feet MLLW) to verify the photo information (including updating landscape features) and to provide additional information on intertidal habitat (e.g., presence/extent of eelgrass beds). The surveys were conducted by small boat using a two-person crew. Additional surveys were scheduled during high tides to allow access to high marsh and sub-estuary habitats not accessible at low tide. The surveys were completed in a total of 20 field days between June and August 2002.

Macrovegetation Surveys

We conducted underwater video surveys using Pentec’s Sea-All™ underwater video mapping system to determine the presence (or absence) of eelgrass (Zostera marina and Z. japonica) within the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats of the KGI study area. This video system incorporates Differential Global Positioning System technology for precise positioning. A total of approximately 35 miles of shoreline were surveyed between late August and mid-September 2002, and the results were projected onto the GIS base map.

Pentec Environmental Page 7 12570-01 July 3, 2003

We conducted these surveys in areas where the littoral field survey crew noted conditions that differed from those reported in the DNR ShoreZone maps. In most cases this occurred where the ShoreZone data indicated eelgrass was present, but the littoral shoreline surveys did not observe it. It is possible that in some locations eelgrass distribution and/or densities may have varied significantly during the time between the different surveys (i.e., June 1997 and 1999, and summer 2002). Also, it is hypothesized that drifting mats of macroalgae (e.g., ulvoids) present at the time of the aerial surveys may have obscured the intertidal/shallow subtidal zone to such a degree that in some areas (particularly in shallow bays and inlets) the abundance of eelgrass was overestimated. The latter would seem to be a plausible explanation, considering observations were made from approximately 300 feet altitude at a speed of approximately 60 knots. Regardless of the specific differences between survey methods, we believe that the combination of aerial, onwater, and underwater video surveys provides the best available measure of eelgrass distribution within the KGI Watershed study area at the time this habitat assessment was performed.

In the eelgrass maps presented in this report (e.g., Figure 4), the amount of eelgrass seen in an AU by the field crews in a skiff is presented as color-coded lines representing the five possible amounts from red (<5 percent of the shoreline) to blue (>25 percent of total AU area). Where underwater video surveys were conducted, a dark line is indicated offshore of these colored lines. The irregular nature of these lines represents the actual trackline run in the video survey. A line consisting of multiple black “x”s (each “x” representing an observation point) indicates no eelgrass present. Yellow circles indicate the presence of eelgrass along the video track. Note that each yellow circle represents an amount of eelgrass that is unquantified, i.e., the area of the yellow circle does not represent an area of eelgrass but rather a point where eelgrass was present. If eelgrass was seen in the video survey, but had not been seen in the skiff survey, a decision was made as to whether the amount of eelgrass in the AU triggered any of the THM indicator questions (Question 230 a - d; Appendix C). If eelgrass was seen in the skiff survey, but not in the video survey, it was scored per the positive observation from the skiff survey.

GIS Database Development

Using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, we entered the THM indicator presence/absence field data for the individual AUs to calculate overall AU scores. These data were then transferred to a single self-populating spreadsheet with look-up tables for each indicator (attribute).

Pentec Environmental Page 8 12570-01 July 3, 2003

All data from the master spreadsheet and the look-up tables were converted into a GIS database file and joined with the line shapefile (obtained from ShoreZone) of the Pierce County shoreline, making each of the field categories available for mapping. We clipped the shoreline shapefile for Pierce County at each AU and EMU break as seen from the aerial photos, using digital orthophotographs downloaded from the University of Washington geospatial data archive Web site (UW 2002). This enabled us to accurately transfer the AU breaks into the GIS environment.

Data in the following categories and indicators were entered into the GIS database: EMU, AU number, score, and type, and responses to the THM questionnaire (Appendix C). Restoration and conservation opportunities were also identified, categorized, and included in the database. A separate shapefile includes a “hotlink” field to view photos taken in the field of restoration opportunities. A complete description of each attribute field is provided in the metadata file associated with the AU boundary shapefile. Additional details of data-handling protocols and descriptions of the GIS products produced are presented in the GIS Users Guide (Appendix D).

Additional Data Presentations

We identified restoration opportunities in the field and in the office using the aerial photographs. These opportunities were identified based on the appearance of the existing shoreline habitat and the apparent potential that stressors, such as filling, bulkheading, or derelict structures, could be removed with minimum impairment of existing land uses and minimum risk to existing structures. It is recognized that the majority of these opportunities are on private properties where the presence of a willing landowner would be a prerequisite for habitat restoration. It is also recognized that functions of existing structures may exist that were not obvious to the field investigators and that those functions might eliminate the opportunity from further consideration. Restoration opportunities were grouped into the following categories (listed in approximate order of potential benefit to be gained from most to least) and tabulated by EMU:

Stream-mouth restoration (SMR); Dam/dike breaching (DB); Culvert maintenance (CM); Marsh restoration (MR); Artificial fill removal (FR); Bulkhead removal (BR); Riparian enhancement (RE); Relic structure removal (RSR); and

Pentec Environmental Page 9 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Dilapidated dock/pier removal (DDR).

We also identified conservation/preservation priorities or opportunities as those AUs scoring within the highest 30 percent of all AUs within each EMU (i.e., based on the normalized value). These areas represent shorelines that provide the best remaining shoreline habitat and that should be considered for some level of protection to preserve existing habitat functions.

RESULTS

General

A total of 15 EMUs were defined and 413 AUs were delineated and scored using the THM. Shoreline surveys were conducted by skiff, usually with a two-person crew, between June and August 2002. The underwater video surveys were conducted between August 26 and September 14, 2002.

Over the entire KGI study area, THM scores for the 413 AUs ranged from 6.8 to 193.5 with a mean of 51.0. The lowest scores reflected heavily modified shorelines with multiple stressors present, and the highest quality shorelines were generally in near natural condition with multiple process-related indicators (feeder bluffs, salt marsh, eelgrass beds) that greatly increase their habitat function.

In the EMU-by-EMU descriptions and associated figures that follow, the qualitative ratings of low, medium, or high quality are relative to the highest value AU in that EMU. Thus, while all EMUs have at least one high quality AU, there is considerable variation in the relative number of AUs in each of the category ranks. For example, EMU 3 along the west side of the Tacoma Narrows is generally in its natural condition and has only two low quality AUs; all the rest are ranked high (Figure 8). More commonly, one very high quality AU would drive the relative score of many remaining AUs into the low category. Thus, it is important to consider both the THM scores and relative rankings within the EMU.

Shoreline Types

We identified four major shoreline types within the KGI study area, including open (or exposed) shorelines, inlets (often sub-estuaries), lagoons, and spits. Most of the 15 EMUs include AUs with more than one shoreline type, although one type (usually open shorelines) may predominate within an EMU.

Pentec Environmental Page 10 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Open shorelines are the predominant shoreline type in the KGI study area, accounting for about 61 percent of the 413 AUs that were delineated. These shorelines are typically subjected to greater wind and wave action and often to faster currents, although this can vary significantly by location. As a result of this increased energy, the more exposed shorelines tend to have substrates composed of larger-grained materials (coarse sand and gravels). Open shorelines include a wide range of landscape or geomorphological features (e.g., from low or no bank to high bluff, stable or actively eroding slopes, etc.), and may or may not include riparian buffers. Where present, low-gradient, intertidal areas of open shorelines provide important foraging opportunities for juvenile salmonids, as well as refuge from predators. Many of the beaches also contain suitable forage fish spawning habitat, although actual spawning activity may not be documented. In addition, macrovegetation, including algae or eelgrass beds, significantly enhances the habitat value of open shorelines.

Inlets (or protected embayments), which include about 22 percent of the total AUs in the KGI study area, are much more protected from wave and current activity compared with open shorelines. The substrates tend to contain higher percentages of fines and/or mud, particularly in estuarine areas. Other shorelines within the inlet may have steeper slopes or be mostly rocky. Habitat value for juvenile salmonids is highest along the protected shorelines that have a low slope, finer-grained substrate, and undisturbed riparian zone. Because they are more protected, inlets are attractive for shoreline development, including extensive use of bulkheads, docks, and other shoreline and overwater structures. Gig Harbor (EMU 2, discussed below) is prime example of intensive shoreline development within a protected bay.

Lagoons and spits together account for the remaining 16 percent of the AU/shoreline types in the KGI study area. A spit generally has little or no bank and, depending on elevation, may become partially submerged during high tides. The outer shoreline is exposed to higher wave and current action, which, depending on direction, may wrap around the end of the spit where sediments tend to accumulate.

Depending on the particular location, a lagoon may exist on the inside of a spit. Lagoons are typically shallow and much of the substrate may be exposed at low tide levels. At higher tide levels, the wetted areas provide important feeding and refuge habitat for juvenile salmonids. Habitat value is significantly increased by the presence of a tidal channel, providing access to the lagoon, and brackish or salt marsh vegetation.

As we discuss in the following sections, various manmade structures and landscape disturbances within the nearshore and adjacent uplands have

Pentec Environmental Page 11 12570-01 July 3, 2003

significantly altered the natural habitat and habitat-forming processes in much of the study area.

EMU Descriptions

EMU 1

EMU 1 includes approximately 6.1 miles of shoreline located on the eastern shoreline of Colvos Passage at the northern extent of the study area. The EMU begins at the Kitsap County–Pierce County border (AU 1.01) and extends southward to end at the sand spit (AU 1.16) located on the north side of the Gig Harbor entrance (Figure 2). With the exception of the spit, the entire EMU is open shoreline. Much of the upper shoreline (above ordinary high water [OHW]) is bordered by reaches with high, steep banks; these areas are interspersed with shorter sections of low-bank shoreline. Most of the high-bank shoreline and surrounding hillsides are wooded, and active feeder bluffs exist in a number of locations (Figure 3). In general, the areas with high, active, feeder bluffs also provide sources of large woody debris (LWD) and scored quite high in the THM for habitat function (Photo 1). Two small freshwater drainages exist midway between the northern and southern boundaries of EMU 1. Houses are scattered throughout the hillsides. A few houses and/or cabins have been built along the base of the high-bank segments.

The low-bank sections are almost fully developed with waterfront homes and the shorelines are almost entirely bulkheaded with some of the bulkheads extending well into the intertidal zone. Several docks have also been constructed. Some of the AUs include relic or dilapidated structures (old docks, etc.) along the beach or upper shoreline. These are discussed in more detail below (see Restoration Opportunities). In general the low-bank, developed sections scored relatively low for habitat function. A pattern of alternating high- and low-quality habitats is seen from north to south along this EMU (Figure 2).

The beach along EMU 1 is primarily a mix of sand and gravel and most of the upper shoreline appears to be suitable for forage fish spawning. Both sand lance and surf smelt spawning (although primarily the latter) have been documented along the shoreline by WDFW (2003). Patches of eelgrass occur in the lower intertidal zone from AU 1.01 to AU 1.12 (Figure 4).

In terms of the overall habitat quality, the mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 1 was 47.2, which was below the mean habitat value of 51.0 for all 413 AUs in the KGI study area.

Pentec Environmental Page 12 12570-01 July 3, 2003

EMU 2

EMU 2 includes all of Gig Harbor (Figure 5) and has approximately 3.9 miles of shoreline divided into 10 AUs. AU 2.01 begins on the inside of the spit on the north side of the harbor entrance. The shoreline along the north side of the harbor has been extensively modified, including widespread use of bulkheads, construction of numerous docks and other overwater structures, a public boat launch, and removal of native riparian vegetation (Figure 6). The beach along the north side of the harbor (AUs 2.01 and 2.02) contains a mixture of sand/gravel and finer materials. WDFW indicates surf smelt spawning occurs along the upper beach in portions of both AU 2.01 and AU 2.02.

Although ShoreZone indicated patches of eelgrass were present along most of the AU 2.01 shoreline, we did not observe eelgrass there during the 2002 field (i.e., boat) survey (Figure 7). In addition, no eelgrass was seen during the underwater video survey conducted just inside the north entrance to the harbor. Due to the large number of docks along the shoreline, the Sea-All™ survey could not be extended farther into the harbor. However, because the tides were very low at the time of the field reconnaissance, the likelihood that eelgrass was missed during the shoreline survey is low.

At the northernmost arm of the harbor is an estuary formed where Crescent Creek enters the bay (AU 2.04). This area was rated by the THM as having the highest habitat quality in the EMU (Figure 5). At low tide a large mudflat extends along the adjacent shorelines to AU 2.03 and AU 2.05. AU 2.06, among the lowest quality habitats (2.08 is lowest with 6.8), includes a marina (including covered moorage), and several smaller piers. The adjacent AU (2.07) contains the North Creek estuary, which has been significantly reduced in size by culverting of the creek and the filling of the upper intertidal mudflat; however, a broad sandflat covers the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal portions of this AU (Photo 2).

The south shoreline of Gig Harbor has also been extensively developed. AU 2.08 encompasses one large marina and AU 2.09 contains numerous marinas and piers, and other overwater buildings. AU 2.09 also contains a small, remnant saltmarsh that may offer some restoration potential. The remainder of the Gig Harbor shoreline (AU 2.10) is also bulkheaded and includes one single overwater structure (large deck) constructed on piles. The majority of the shoreline of Gig Harbor was rated as low quality habitat relative to the good habitat around the mouth of Crescent Creek (Figure 5).

Pentec Environmental Page 13 12570-01 July 3, 2003

The mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 2 was 22.2, which was the lowest average among the 15 EMUs in the KGI study area and well below the overall mean AU score (51.0).

EMU 3

EMU 3 begins just outside of the south-side entrance to Gig Harbor and continues for approximately 6.0 miles south along the Tacoma Narrows to Point Fosdick (AU 3.09; Figure 8). The entire EMU consists of high-bank, open shoreline (including a very high, steep face in AU 3.03), except for the newly acquired Pierce County Park at the Doc Weathers property (AU 3.07) located south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. A densely wooded riparian buffer is present throughout most of the EMU.

Although houses cover much of the landscape inland from the tops of the bluffs that characterize the EMU, there is very little shoreline development in EMU 3. Most development is concentrated in AU 3.01 where more than a dozen houses or cabins have been built on or over the beach. Even here, much of the riparian buffer has been left intact.

With very limited modifications, the shoreline habitat in EMU 3 is largely functioning at its maximum possible level. Numerous active feeder bluffs continually provide a steady supply of sediments to the beach, where due to the high waves and currents within the Narrows, lighter materials are continually being eroded and redistributed to other, lower energy shorelines to the north or south (Figure 9). Most the upper shoreline appears to be suitable for forage fish spawning, but only sand lance spawning has been documented in this area. The forest riparian buffer contributes LWD to the shoreline, helping to stabilize the upper beach as well as supply LWD to other shorelines. Kelp beds dominated by bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) and wrack (Laminaria spp.) are widespread in the mostly gravel, cobble, or boulder shallow subtidal zone. Because of the coarse substrate, eelgrass was present only in AU 3.08 near Point Fosdick (Figure 10).

In general, most AUs along this shore scored relatively high when normalized to the best quality AU present (AU 3.08) (Figure 8). As a result, the mean of the AU habitat scores in this EMU was 57.6, which was above the overall AU mean.

EMU 4

EMU 4, consisting of 18 AUs, begins to the west of Point Fosdick and includes all of Wollochet Bay (approximately 8.4 miles of shoreline; Figure 11). The mostly low-bank, open shoreline in AU 4.01 is heavily developed, including

Pentec Environmental Page 14 12570-01 July 3, 2003

extensive bulkheading. Very little native vegetation has been left intact. There is comparatively more riparian vegetation in the adjacent AU (4.02), but only in locations where the higher bank precludes waterfront construction. Within the bay the shoreline has also been heavily modified (Figure 12). In addition to bulkheads, docks and other overwater structures are more prevalent.

Three small streams enter the bay on the eastern shore, which provides additional habitat value in AUs 4.05, 4.07, and 4.10. In addition, some of the AUs contain small feeder bluffs that enhance the habitat value. The upper beach along this shoreline is primarily sand and potentially provides suitable habitat for forage fish. However, WDFW indicates little or no documented spawning along this side of the bay. Most of the eelgrass along the east shore exists in AU 4.03, although some eelgrass is present farther into the bay through AU 4.05 (Figure 13).

At the head of Wollochet Bay is a relatively large estuary (including extensive marsh edge) formed at the mouth of Artondale Creek and a smaller, unnamed stream (AU 4.12). A large mudflat is exposed at low tide. Compared to much of the rest of the bay, less shoreline development has occurred here, leaving the shoreline in a mostly natural state (Figure 11).

Continuing along the western shore toward the mouth of the bay, the shoreline again is mostly bulkheaded through AU 4.14. By comparison, AU 4.15 has a comparatively more natural shoreline. Eelgrass patches also begin to appear in AU 4.15 (Figure 13). AUs 4.16 to 4.18 form the transition from the inner to the outer bay. In terms of relative habitat value, the highest scoring of the AUs is AU 4.16. In addition to containing feeder bluffs and providing a source of LWD, this AU is further enhanced by the presence of extensive eelgrass beds.

The mean of the 18 AU habitat scores in EMU 4 was 33.5, which was well below the overall mean AU score of 51.0.

EMU 5

EMU 5 (10 AUs) begins west of Wollochet Bay along the north shore of Hale Passage and continues for about 4.3 miles, ending a short distance west of Shaws Cove (Figure 14). With the exception of the Shaws Cove spit, most of the shoreline is open (although partially sheltered by Fox Island), and the majority of these AUs share the same habitat characteristics. Most of the available waterfront here has been developed and the majority of the shoreline has been bulkheaded, although portions of the shoreline have been left relatively undisturbed (Figure 15). The presence of springs in both AU 5.02 and AU 5.06, as well as the presence of a marsh in AU 5.06, significantly improve the habitat

Pentec Environmental Page 15 12570-01 July 3, 2003

value of those AUs. In addition, AU 5.06 contains a wetted tidal channel (at low tides) and the riparian zone provides a significant source of LWD rating it by far the highest-scoring AU present. Because it contains a high bank, AU 5.05 has very little shoreline armoring (i.e., riprap to protect stairways). AU 5.05 also provides the largest feeder bluff in the EMU. Feeder bluffs also enhance habitat value in AUs 5.01, 5.02, and 5.08, yet their relative value was rated as low in comparison to AU 5.06 (Figure 15). Most the upper shoreline appears to be suitable for forage fish spawning, although only sand lance have been known to spawn within this EMU. Eelgrass occurs in only a few locations in EMU 5, including AU 5.02 and AU 5.10, and smaller, isolated patches in AU 5.03 (Figure 16).

The mean of the AU habitat scores in this EMU was 37.7, which was well below the overall mean AU score for the KGI study area.

EMU 6

EMU 6 includes approximately 15.3 miles of the eastern shoreline of Carr Inlet from approximately Green Point to Allen Point, including Raft Island and Cutts Island (Figure 17). EMU 6 is divided into 31 AUs encompassing a wide variety of shoreline habitats, including open shoreline, inlets, spits, and a lagoon. Eelgrass beds are extensive, particularly north of Horsehead Bay to Raft Island (including Cutts Island) and around Allen Point (Figure 18). Most of the upper shoreline in EMU 6 consists of a mix of sand and gravel and appears to be suitable for forage fish spawning, although the only documented spawning areas are in Horsehead Bay.

Within the range of habitat values found within EMU 6, the highest functioning shoreline is that of Cutts Island (AU 6.31) (Figure 17). This small, isolated island (a state park) is devoid of the habitat stressors that are prevalent along much of the inhabited shoreline elsewhere in EMU 6. Among the significant habitat attributes of the island are active feeder bluffs (Figure 19) and overhanging trees that provide LWD. In addition, extensive eelgrass beds (Figure 18) are found within the surrounding shallows, which extend a good distance to the north of the island.

As expected, the lowest scoring areas were found in the extensively developed areas such as Horsehead Bay, and other impacted shoreline AUs with few of the natural habitat features that benefit salmon (Figure 17). These areas typically contain a high percentage of hardened shoreline (Figure 19) and multiple docks, and lack riparian vegetation, eelgrass, or productive intertidal substrates.

Pentec Environmental Page 16 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Similar to other shoreline AUs within the larger KGI Watershed with moderate habitat value, the AUs within EMU 6 that scored in the middle ranges tend to have at least some of the more beneficial habitat features of the higher scoring AUs (e.g., riparian vegetation, eelgrass, mud/fines), but also have been affected to some degree by shoreline development (Figure 17). In the case of the lagoon at Allen Point (AU 6.29), however, it is the dense accumulation of woody debris at the north end of the lagoon that diminishes the overall habitat value of this otherwise high-quality AU.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 6 was 46.3, which was below the overall AU mean of 51.0.

EMU 7

EMU 7 includes approximately 11.0 miles of Carr Inlet/Henderson Bay beginning at Allen Point on the western shoreline of the Gig Harbor Peninsula, extending north into Burley Lagoon and down the opposite shoreline (i.e., east shoreline of the Key Peninsula), ending less than 1 mile south of Wauna (Figure 20). The 22 AUs of EMU 7 include the relatively exposed open shorelines of Carr Inlet/Henderson Bay and the mostly protected tidal flats within Burley Lagoon. Most of the upper shoreline appears to be suitable for forage fish spawning (i.e., primarily a mix of sand and gravel). However, the only documented spawning (surf smelt) exists in AUs 7.05 and 7.06.

Approximately 1.6 miles of shoreline within Burley Lagoon lies north of the Pierce County–Kitsap County line; although this area was not scored, its high habitat quality is probably reflected in the high model score for AU 7.16 along the east Key Peninsula shoreline of Burley Lagoon near the county line (Figure 20). The undisturbed shoreline habitat here includes a wooded riparian zone, an extensive marsh, and a tidal channel. In terms of relative habitat value, the next highest scoring AU is a short, undeveloped reach along the east shore of Henderson Bay (AU 7.07). This AU contains an intact riparian buffer that provides LWD and a near continuous band of eelgrass (Figure 21). Two other AUs—one within and one outside of Burley Lagoon (AUs 7.18 and 7.04, respectively)—scored nearly as high (Figure 20).

The lowest scoring AU is located along the east shoreline at the entrance to Burley Lagoon (AU 7.12) (Figure 20). The AU contains few of the positive habitat attributes (e.g., riparian buffer, fine-grained substrate, eelgrass, etc.) found in other AUs in Henderson Bay and in Burley Lagoon, and is impacted by the presence of beach armoring and overwater structures (including the Purdy Road bridge) (Figure 22). Among the other AUs scoring nearly as low are AUs 7.02, 7.08, 7.21, and 7.22. These AUs also contain fewer of the natural

Pentec Environmental Page 17 12570-01 July 3, 2003

habitat-enhancing features that most of the middle-range and the higher scoring AUs possess, and have also experienced one or more significant shoreline modifications.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 7 was 46.0, which was below the KGI study area AU mean.

EMU 8

EMU 8 begins less than 1 mile south of Wauna on the east shoreline of Key Peninsula and continues approximately 14.4 miles south to the entrance of Van Geldern Cove (Figure 23). The 29 AUs within EMU 8 include a mix of open shoreline and inlets. The three highest-ranking AUs (in descending order) include a lagoon (AU 8.19), open shoreline (AU 8.09), and an inlet (AU 8.06). Each of these AUs has been left in a natural state and each AU contains one or more of the features (e.g., feeder bluff, extensive marsh, tidal channel, large eelgrass beds) that significantly enhance the overall habitat value (Figures 24 and 25). However, the amount of eelgrass present along the open shoreline AUs appears to be independent of the degree of shoreline modification. Most of the open shoreline reaches appear to be suitable for forage fish spawning, although documented spawning exists only in AU 8.10 and along portions of the shoreline south of Glen Cove.

Examples of the effects of shoreline modifications on the overall habitat value of the AU can generally be seen in alternating AUs from AU 8.20 to AU 8.29 (Figure 23). These open shoreline AUs have many habitat features in common. However, the effects of extensive shoreline armoring and clearing of native vegetation can be seen in the differences between habitat scores. Those areas with a high steep bank that may not be suitable for shoreline development and therefore retain more natural habitat and have higher overall value score well (e.g., AU 8.22, 8.24, 8.28). In the adjacent AUs (e.g., in AU 8.21, 8.23, 8.25 through 8.27, and 8.29), the loss of feeder bluffs and LWD inputs from shoreline armoring and clearing and grading are reflected in significantly reduced habitat values. These are among the lowest scoring AUs in EMU 8.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 8 was 60.5, which was well above the overall AU mean.

EMU 9

EMU 9 includes approximately 12.3 miles of the east shoreline of Key Peninsula from Van Geldern Cove to Pitt Passage, including Pitt Island (Figure 26). The 30 individual AUs include the exposed open shorelines along Carr Inlet and the

Pentec Environmental Page 18 12570-01 July 3, 2003

north entrance to Pitt Passage, the sheltered beaches within Van Geldern Cove and Mayo Cove, and three spits. Among these AUs, the greatest habitat value as determined by the THM exists along the open shoreline of Pitt Passage at AU 9.28 (Figure 26). This largely undeveloped shoreline benefits by the presence of active feeder bluffs (Figure 27), LWD inputs, and abundant eelgrass (Figure 28). Most of these open shoreline reaches are composed of a sand and gravel mix and appear to be suitable for forage fish spawning. However, documented forage fish spawning areas exist only in short reaches at the entrance to Van Geldern Cove and in Mayo Cove. Other relatively high-scoring open shorelines exist along South Head, including AU 9.21 and AU 9.23. Both of these AUs include a natural, undisturbed shoreline with active feeder bluffs and LWD inputs. In contrast, the relatively low habitat quality of AUs 9.18 and 9.19 nearby (also open shorelines) is largely attributable to extensive bulkheading (Figure 27). In addition, AU 9.18 has been cleared of most of the forested riparian zone.

Within Mayo Cove, the shoreline along Penrose State Park (AU 9.14) has been left in a natural state and contains both a densely wooded riparian buffer and active feeder bluffs. Patches of eelgrass in the lower intertidal and subtidal zone also contribute to the relatively high habitat value (Figure 26). AU 9.12 extends a short distance up the small estuary formed by the stream outlet (or drainage channel) leading from Bay Lake. Both the presence of a marsh and a natural tidal channel in this AU contribute to its overall habitat value. In contrast, the AU 9.13 shoreline has been partially armored and several floating docks rest directly on the beach surface during low tides. As a consequence, the overall habitat value is markedly decreased.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in this EMU was 50.2, which was nearly equal to the overall mean AU value of 51.0.

EMU 10

EMU 10 begins at the north end of Pitt Passage on the Key Peninsula and extends south through Filucy Bay and down to Devil’s Head located at the tip of the peninsula (a distance of approximately 10.9 miles; Figure 29). The 13 open shoreline AUs along Pitt Passage and Drayton Passage (i.e., AU 10.01 to AU 10.13) include both modified and natural shoreline reaches. Most of these reaches appear to be suitable for forage fish spawning, while documented surf smelt and sand lance spawning exists primarily south of Filucy Bay. The highest-quality AU habitats are the natural shorelines that include a wooded riparian buffer that provides LWD inputs as well as multiple feeder bluffs that supply beach sediments (AUs 10.06 and 10.07; Figure 30). In contrast, the lowest-quality open shoreline habitat includes those AUs with extensive

Pentec Environmental Page 19 12570-01 July 3, 2003

bulkheading (AUs 10.05 and 10.10) and minimal riparian buffer (AU 10.10; Figure 29).

While overall habitat quality is relatively low compared to the unmodified open shorelines immediately to the north (i.e., AUs 10.07 and 10.06), the spit at AU 10.08 creates a protected zone (depositional area) on the inside (north side; part of AU 10.7) that allows for establishment of marsh vegetation. The outer spit, however, contains fewer of the beneficial habitat features found in the higher scoring AUs, such as a wooded riparian fringe or feeder bluffs. Another important habitat feature, eelgrass, is present only along Pitt Passage at the north end of EMU 10 (i.e., AU 10.1 and 10.2); Figure 31).

Shoreline habitat quality within Filucy Bay (i.e., AUs 10.14 to 10.22), like that elsewhere throughout the study area, has been greatly impacted by the level of shoreline development that has occurred there. Compared to the outer shorelines of AUs 10.1 to 10.13, much of the protected, low-bank shoreline within Filucy Bay has experienced extensive residential development, including shoreline hardening (Figure 30). Only the north cove (AU 10.21) has remained largely undeveloped. There are also a number of private docks and small floats, as well as a marina. However, the overall intensity of shoreline development is lower than exists in Gig Harbor.

As the only high-quality habitat within Filucy Bay, the north cove contains a marsh fringe and a shallow tidal channel. In addition, most of the cove is bordered by dense stands of trees (i.e., source of LWD), and a feeder bluff exists along the southeast shoreline near the border between AU 10.21 and AU 10.22 (Figure 30). A feeder bluff also exists within AU 10.22 near the entrance to Filucy Bay (i.e., on north side), but the overall habitat value of AU 10.22 is reduced by the extensive bulkheading.

At the opposite end of the relative habitat scale, the lowest quality habitats are found in AUs 10.18 and 10.20 (Figure 29). Both shorelines have been extensively modified through armoring. In addition, both AUs include overwater structures, including several private docks and small floats in AU 10.20 and a marina in AU 10.18. AU 10.18 also contains derelict structures (including a dock/platform), which further degrade habitat value. This site is discussed in more detail under Restoration Opportunities.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in this EMU was 57.8, which was above the overall AU mean.

Pentec Environmental Page 20 12570-01 July 3, 2003

EMU 11

EMU 11 includes approximately 26.0 miles of shoreline on the west side of the Key Peninsula from Devil’s Head north to (but not including) Vaughn Bay (Figures 32 [south] and 33 [north]). Herron Island is also included as part of EMU 11. Most of the shoreline area along Case Inlet is exposed (open shoreline) except for a relatively small percentage of shoreline/nearshore habitat located within Taylor Bay, Whiteman Cove, Dutcher Cove, and two smaller unnamed inlets. Much of the open shoreline above OHW includes high, steep bluffs, which preclude waterfront development. Many of these contain active feeder bluffs (Figures 34 [south] and 35 [north]) and are sources of LWD. In contrast, the low-bank areas are much more likely to contain shoreline development (i.e., single-family homes) which usually include placement of riprap or vertical concrete bulkheads. Because of the exposure to wind and waves, few overwater structures have been constructed.

The littoral substrates within the exposed areas are primarily sand or sand and gravel mix. Most of the shoreline reaches appear to be suitable for forage fish spawning, although spawning has been documented only within isolated reaches. The lower energy, depositional zones of the protected inlets and lagoons typically contain a much higher percentage of mixed fines and/or mud. Eelgrass was only seen during skiff surveys in one AU (AU 11.47) in this EMU (greater than 25% of low tide line).At higher tide levels, Taylor Bay and Dutcher Cove, as well as other accessible protected areas, provide important refuge and epibenthic foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids migrating along the western shoreline of Key Peninsula. This is reflected in the overall habitat scores, with Dutcher Cove scoring highest in terms of relative habitat value (Figure 33). In contrast, several of the more isolated lagoon areas provide slightly less functional habitat value because they are accessible only at the higher tidal stages. The largest lagoon, Whiteman Cove (AU 11.16), and the adjacent spit (11.18) have been modified so that the only access to the lagoon is via two culverts with tidegates (Photo 3). Prior to construction of the roadway atop the spit and installation of the culverts, it is likely the cove was more accessible and therefore utilized by juvenile salmonids to a greater extent. At the time of the August 2002 survey, several small, unidentified fish were observed milling about the tidegates; however, it is unclear to what extent, if any, juvenile salmonids now utilize Whiteman Cove. Adjacent to the cove are a lagoon and a marsh (AU 11.17). The lagoon, which is isolated from the cove by sheet pile, likely supported saltmarsh vegetation at one time (Photo 4). Portions of the lagoon and the surrounding marsh are now smothered by accumulated woody debris (see Restoration Opportunities).

Pentec Environmental Page 21 12570-01 July 3, 2003

As is typical throughout the KGI study area, habitat quality along the west side of the Key Peninsula for similar shoreline-types is highly dependent on the amount of shoreline development—most notably shoreline armoring—that has occurred there. In terms of relative habitat value, the highest functioning areas include inlets and the more accessible lagoons (e.g., AUs 11.07, 11.12, and 11.44). This is due both to the habitat attributes typically associated with these areas (e.g., presence of a tidal channel or marsh habitat, etc.) and also to the fact that these areas have experienced relatively few modifications (except as previously noted for Whiteman Cove). As most of the shoreline development is concentrated in the low-bank areas, these AUs tend to rank among the lowest for overall habitat function. Also scoring relatively low are the outer shorelines associated with sand spits, although most—with the exception of AU 11.18 (near Whiteman Cove)—have not been developed. As previously noted, these areas typically lack riparian or marsh vegetation, or other important habitat attributes often associated with the unmodified open shorelines (e.g., feeder bluffs and LWD) or inlets (e.g., mud-mixed fine substrates, tidal channels, etc.).

Most of the habitat surrounding Herron Island is open shoreline, but there are a lagoon and a sand spit are located on the southwest shoreline, and there is a small inlet on the northern tip of the island (Figure 33). The majority of the low-bank shoreline has been modified by riprap and concrete bulkheads (i.e., AUs 11.50, 11.55, and 11.57; Figure 35). In contrast, the high, steep bluffs in AU 11.51 at the south end of the island preclude shoreline development.

The highest-quality shoreline habitat associated with Herron Island is in AU 11.53. The lagoon habitat was created behind a sand spit (AU 11.52) formed by accumulated sediments that have eroded along the face of the bluffs in AU 11.51 (Figure 33). These sediments are swept around the tip of the island by the prevailing currents (drift) and deposited along the east and west shorelines. Beneficial habitat features of the lagoon include shoreline vegetation, an extensive marsh fringe, and a fine-grained substrate. Despite the presence of a narrow footbridge over the entrance, the lagoon is accessible to young salmon under normal tidal conditions.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in this EMU was 56.3, which was above the overall mean AU value.

EMU 12

EMU 12 includes approximately 8.8 miles of the Case Inlet shoreline on the west side of the Key Peninsula. EMU 12 includes Vaughn Bay and Rocky Bay and ends at the Pierce County–Mason County line (Figure 36). A narrow sand spit almost extends across the entrance to Vaughn Bay (AU 12.01) and helps to

Pentec Environmental Page 22 12570-01 July 3, 2003

shelter the Vaughn Bay shoreline (particularly on the north side near the entrance) from wind and wave action. The shorelines within the bay have largely been hardened through bulkheading and a number of private docks and floats have also been built (Figure 37). Much of the native shoreline vegetation has been removed, but there are isolated stands of trees that provide some shading of the beach (mainly south side). A tidal flat exists at the head of the bay near the mouth of Vaughn Creek and a smaller, unnamed stream is located just to the north. With fewer shoreline modifications and more trees within this assessment unit (AU 12.03), the salmonid habitat quality is comparatively higher (Figure 36) than along other parts of the bay.

Continuing along the north shoreline outside of (i.e., west of) the bay, the beach is much more exposed to wind and wave energy. One relatively short reach includes a high, nearly vertical bluff (i.e., south end of “Windy Bluff”) that is actively eroding (AU 12.06). Other habitat features, including the presence of LWD along the bluff and extensive eelgrass offshore (Figure 38), contribute to the relatively high overall habitat quality of this AU (Figure 36). The eroded materials from the south-facing bluff are swept around the adjacent bend where they are deposited, helping to form a sand spit (AU 12.07). Forage fish (i.e., surf smelt) spawning has been documented near the entrances to both Vaughn and Rocky bays, as well as the north of Rocky Bay, but suitable forage fish spawning habitat exists in other reaches as well. Marsh vegetation along the inside of the spit adds to the habitat value of the lagoon formed on the inside of the spit (i.e., AU 12.08). However, overall habitat value of the lagoon is still relatively low when compared to some of the higher value assessment units in EMU 12 (i.e., AU 12.06 and in Rocky Bay; Figure 36).

Habitat value in Rocky Bay is generally higher toward the inner bay where there is an extensive tideflat (and tidal channels) and comparatively more vegetation. The greatest habitat value within EMU 12 exists at the head of the bay (AU 12.16), where the presence of a tidal marsh, combined with the almost complete absence of shoreline modification, significantly increases the habitat value compared with the two adjacent AUs.

In terms of overall rank, the second highest score within EMU 12 exists within the lagoon (AU 12.18) on the north shore of Rocky Bay. The presence of a riparian margin (source of LWD), a marsh, and a tidal channel contributes to the high functional habitat value of the lagoon. As expected, the exposed or outer shoreline of the adjacent spit (AU 12.19) has comparatively lower habitat value.

The two remaining open shoreline AUs extending west to the Pierce County line (AUs 12.20 and 12.21) are typical of much of the open shoreline within the study area, including the presence of single-family homes and a partly to mostly

Pentec Environmental Page 23 12570-01 July 3, 2003

armored beach, with pockets of trees and shrubs that provide some riparian function.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in this EMU was 64.5, which was substantially higher than the mean study area AU value of 51.0. This was the highest average among the 15 EMUs in the KGI study area.

EMU 13

EMU 13 includes the approximately 15.8 miles of marine shoreline on Fox Island (Figure 39). In general, the north-facing shoreline is much more protected from wind and wave energy compared to the south side of the island. The mostly low- or medium-bank shorelines here have also been more attractive for waterfront development, including widespread shoreline hardening and other structures and land-use modifications that significantly degrade habitat quality.

In contrast, much of the southern shoreline is high bank, particularly toward the southeast part of the island (i.e., around Gibson Point) where high, steep bluffs rise up from the beach. Reflecting the level of shoreline development (and the availability of suitable land), the habitat quality along this side of the island generally alternates between low and medium quality (Figure 39). In addition, several of the AUs benefit from the presence of eelgrass (Figure 40). However, despite the fact that the south-facing AUs generally have less shoreline development, only one AU (AU 13.11) was judged to contain relatively high quality habitat. The longest continuous stretch of moderate quality habitat is located along the southeast shoreline (AUs 13.17 through 13.19). Along with the high bluffs and steep banks, these areas contain more feeder bluffs, including evidence of recent slides (Figure 41 and Photo 5).

Beginning from approximately AU 13.22 and continuing along the northeast side of Fox Island, the medium- to low-bank shorelines reappear. By AU 13.24, most of the shoreline is hardened and the adjoining upland areas have been cleared and developed, with only small pockets of wooded habitat remaining near the shoreline. However, some of these AUs along the east end of Hale Passage still contain a mostly natural beach (i.e., little or no hardening) and at least some riparian function so that they rate moderate habitat quality (Figure 39). Continuing northwest along the shoreline all of the way to the north end of Fox Island, shoreline modifications become more intensive and overall habitat quality remains relatively low.

Additional, mostly moderate quality shoreline is found on Tanglewood Island (AUs 13.49 and 13.51; Figure 39). The shoreline surrounding this tiny island is

Pentec Environmental Page 24 12570-01 July 3, 2003

mostly undisturbed, with the exception of the northern tip where there are extensive shoreline modifications associated with the lighthouse station.

Most of the upper beach substrate along Fox Island appears to be suitable for forage fish spawning. However, WDFW has only documented sand lance spawning along three isolated reaches.

Overall, the mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 13 was 34.4, which was well below the mean AU value for the entire KGI study area.

EMU 14

EMU 14 includes the approximately 21.9 miles of Anderson Island shoreline (Figure 42). The majority of this shoreline is exposed (open shoreline), with a lesser amount located within three larger bays (Amsterdam, Oro, and East Oro) and several smaller inlets and lagoons. The higher quality habitats are typically associated with those protected inlets and lagoons that include such habitat-enhancing features as a stream channel/tidal channel, a marsh, and a forested riparian buffer. The highest-quality areas typically have experienced little or no shoreline development. However, because of its relative isolation (accessible by ferry or private vessel only), Anderson Island as a whole has experienced relatively less development than other, more accessible EMUs. Overall, the two highest quality habitats are found in Carslon Bay (AU 14.32) and at the head of Oro Bay (AU 14.14) (Figure 42). In the case of Oro Bay, salmonid habitat quality is diminished somewhat because the culvert runs beneath the island’s main north-south roadway (Ekenstem–Johnson Road). This culvert here presents a partial blockage to juvenile salmonids that might utilize the extensive marsh habitat that exists upstream of the road (see Restoration Opportunities, below). Other shoreline units within Oro and East Oro bays also provide relatively good quality habitat (e.g., AUs 14.10 through 14.13), as do other shoreline units located on the opposite side of the island in Amsterdam Bay (AU 14.39) and in two small lagoons near the northern part of the island (AUs 14.46 and 14.49) (Figure 42)

Conversely, habitat quality within much of the shoreline area within these inlets has been substantially degraded as a result of shoreline hardening (bulkheads), overwater structures, and removal of much of the forested buffer. However, in the case of AU 14.09, located at the head of East Oro Bay, a dike blocks tidal exchange and fish access to an extensive wetland and marsh (Photo 6). As discussed under Restoration Opportunities, below, restoring salmonid access to this area would result in substantial benefits in habitat quality.

Pentec Environmental Page 25 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Most of the open shoreline areas provide moderate quality habitat function. The relatively few shoreline units that rated low for quality were generally affected to some degree by shoreline development. However, few areas have experienced what could be described as “intensive development,” like that which exists in some of the other more accessible areas of the study area (portions of Fox Island, for example). Even with lower density development, the presence of bulkheads and other forms of shoreline hardening common to many of these low- to moderate-bank areas significantly degrades the habitat quality (Figure 43). In contrast, as noted elsewhere, the high-bank areas on the island typically scored the highest among the open shoreline habitats because the steep terrain largely precludes waterfront development. Habitat quality in these areas is further enhanced by the presence of active feeder bluffs and an intact riparian buffer that supplies LWD.

Significant habitat features within the littoral zone include forage fish spawning habitat (upper beach) and eelgrass beds. WDFW has documented forage fish spawning (sand lance and surf smelt) in only a few locations along the western and southern shorelines; however, potentially suitable spawning habitat is found throughout much of the open shoreline. Eelgrass is found in only a few locations along the northern, southern, and eastern shorelines (Figure 44).

In terms of the overall habitat quality, the mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 14 was 58.6, which was above the overall AU mean.

EMU 15

EMU 15 includes the approximately 12.5 miles of mostly open shoreline habitat surrounding McNeil Island (Figure 45). Because of its restricted access as a Washington State Correctional Facility, McNeil Island has experienced virtually none of the residential shoreline development that has occurred throughout much of the KGI study area. With few exceptions, the shoreline has been left in a mostly natural state. The major modifications are concentrated along the southeast shoreline at the site of the main correctional facility (AU 15.26; Figure 45). These include the ferry terminal and a smaller pier, a boat ramp, a bulkhead, and extensive use of riprap. Other sites have experienced more moderate shoreline alteration, including relatively short sections of bulkhead in AUs 15.9 and 15.20 (Still Harbor). In addition, four small creeks, which comprise the primary surface drainages on the island, have been impounded and therefore both flow and access near the shoreline has been restricted. This greatly affects or prevents the establishment of marsh habitat, which forms important transitional habitat for juvenile salmonids.

Pentec Environmental Page 26 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Nonetheless, compared with rest of the KGI study area, relative habitat quality associated with the individual AUs is much less affected by shoreline development. Outside of the few locations identified above, the major variations in quality usually result from the presence or absence of feeder bluffs and/or a riparian zone that also provides LWD (Figure 46). The highest quality AU (AU 15.24) also benefits by the presence of an extensive marsh (Figure 45).

Most of the eelgrass around McNeil Island is concentrated along the west shoreline of the island in Pitt Passage, with lesser concentrations along the south and east shorelines (Figure 47). To date, WDFW has not identified forage fish spawning surveys on McNeil Island; however, it appears that suitable spawning habitat does exist in many locations.

The mean of the AU habitat scores in EMU 15 was 64.0, which was well above the overall KGI study area AU mean of 51.0, and just slightly below the mean AU value for EMU 12.

Restoration Opportunities

Note that all photos are contained in Appendix A.

EMU 1

Using both the aerial photos and the littoral shoreline surveys, we identified four restoration opportunities in EMU 1 (Table 1). Within AU 1.02 there is what appears to be the remains of an old vessel (hull) partially embedded in the upper beach along with a few large pieces of fiberglass scattered around it that were likely part of the vessel. As a relic structure that potentially smothers habitat, the remains of this wreck could be removed to restore the natural beach surface.

Just to the south in AU 1.03 is the site of a former industrial or commercial operation. The property includes concrete bulkheads/riprap with placement of fill that created a waterfront work area that appears to be little used. At the far end (south) is a row of empty abandoned concrete vaults that serves as a seawall (Photo 7). Beach restoration along this portion of the property could include removal of the vaults and the bulkhead, along with removal of fill and re-grading to the natural contours of the upper beach, followed by planting of native vegetation to restore riparian function.

Farther to the south in AUs 1.08 and 1.09, there are at least two more sites where bulkheads have been constructed that do not appear to be necessary (i.e., they do not appear to provide or protect utilized uplands and do not appear to be needed to protect the upland property/waterfront structure [house]

Pentec Environmental Page 27 12570-01 July 3, 2003

from erosion). Marsh vegetation was growing behind one of the bulkheads. Although the need for some of the other bulkheads within the EMU may also be questionable, in this case, structures on the site are located well above the beach and would not be endangered if the bulkhead were removed. Alternatively, other forms of shoreline protection (e.g., bioengineering) could be used that do not reflect wave energy directly back onto the beach as do vertical bulkheads, or cut off the natural sediment inputs that form the beach.

EMU 2

As previously described, most of Gig Harbor (EMU 2) has undergone intensive shoreline development and most of the previously existing marsh habitat there has been filled in. The primary opportunities for restoration are limited to enhancement of the remaining marsh fringe, which still would provide benefits to juvenile salmonid within the bay. The most significant opportunities for marsh restoration exist in AU 2.07 and AU 2.09 (Table 1).

The estuary formed at the mouth of North Creek (AU 2.07) has largely been filled in and paved over, and several buildings now occupy the site (see Photo 2). A limited amount of riparian and marsh vegetation remains along the water’s edge to both sides of the main creek channel. This fringe could be enhanced through additional planting of riparian and marsh vegetation, particularly along the south side where there is a clearing now occupied mostly by low shrubs and grasses.

A short distance to the south in AU 2.09 is a small area containing saltmarsh vegetation in between the densely packed piers. There appears to be old floats or other debris along the water’s edge that rests on bottom at low tide smothering the benthic habitat. Removing the floats and/or debris and restoring vegetation along the adjacent shoreline would provide modest habitat improvement in an area that is otherwise heavily impacted by the presence of bulkheads and overwater structures.

In addition to the marsh restoration, sections of a wooden pier with styrofoam floats in AU 2.09 have deteriorated to the point that they are essentially unusable. Removal of these dilapidated sections would decrease (albeit only by a very small percentage) the amount of overwater cover in the bay.

EMU 3

No specific restoration opportunities were identified in this EMU due to the presence of very limited shoreline development (located mainly at north end).

Pentec Environmental Page 28 12570-01 July 3, 2003

EMU 4

Although EMU 4 has been highly modified, there appears to be limited restoration opportunity here (i.e., few specific sites). One noticeable opportunity for beach habitat improvement exists in AU 4.04 where approximately 70 old piles (the remains of a pier) could be removed from the intertidal zone (Table 1).

As in much of the study area, alternative methods for bank stabilization could replace many of the private bulkheads that now exist in EMU 4.

EMU 5

One site-specific restoration opportunity was identified in this EMU (Table 1). In AU 5.10 (Shaws Cove spit) there is steel/wire framing, possibly the remnants of a vessel, lying partly on the upper beach and on the riparian shrub-scrub fringe above MHHW (Photo 8). Removal of this debris would improve the upper beach habitat along the spit.

Elsewhere in EMU 5 there are multiple locations where the placement of a bulkhead appears to provide very little functional value (i.e., does not directly protect a structure). One such example is in AU 5.06, adjacent to a small estuary and marsh. A concrete bulkhead located on one side appears to encroach into the lower estuary, which at one time may have been more extensive. The only apparent function of the bulkhead is to protect a portion of a large grassy area that is well away from the closest residential structure.

EMU 6

We identified multiple locations, primarily from AU 6.09 to AU 6.12 and AU 6.14 to 6.16, where bulkheads are present but many appear to have little value in protecting structures (Table 1). Specific examples where bulkheads are failing or have little or no value include AU 6.15, where an old wooden bulkhead/retaining wall has failed (Raft Island; Photo 9), and AU 6.17, where a concrete bulkhead deteriorated (Photo 10). The former is non-functioning and appears to have been abandoned some time ago. Therefore, it could simply be removed. Rather than repair the existing concrete bulkhead in AU 6.17, it could be replaced with a bioengineered structure that would still provide bank stability.

Additional opportunities to improve nearshore habitat exist in AU 6.04, where the remnants of an old wood dock lies on the beach, and in AU 6.14, where there is a dilapidated wood float that is partially submerged (Photo 11). Both structures could easily be removed.

Pentec Environmental Page 29 12570-01 July 3, 2003

At the north end of EMU 6 is a lagoon (AU 6.29) that has partly been filled in with accumulated woody debris. The debris has smothered a portion of the marsh at the north end of the AU. Removal of much of this woody debris would increase the area of marsh habitat.

EMU 7

Within AU 7.1 is a wooden bulkhead that has failed in several locations and does not appear to offer much protection to nearby structures as the area behind the bulkhead is densely vegetated. In this case, simply removing the wooden bulkhead to restore the natural shoreline processes may be sufficient. Of the many other bulkheads that exist in EMU 7, a number may also have questionable function or could be replaced by alternative forms of bank protection.

Farther north in Burley Lagoon near the mouth of Purdy Creek (AU 7.12 and 7.13), the shoreline is armored with riprap, and it appears that concrete debris has also been dumped there (Photo 12). There is also an apparently abandoned two-story structure at the water’s edge. The rest of the site also contains some dilapidated structures and debris and may possibly be used as a storage facility or equipment yard for a nearby business. Substantial shoreline habitat improvement would be obtained by removing the concrete debris and removing and replacing the riprap through bioengineering techniques, and creating a riparian buffer.

Also in AU 7.13, the culvert that conveys Purdy Creek beneath Highway 16 appeared to be a partial barrier to upstream fish passage. Improvements would potentially allow fish to fully access habitats upstream, although other access/habitat issues would likely need to be addressed. Additionally, riparian enhancement along the lower stream channel would provide shallow-water shading.

EMU 8

Several restoration opportunities were identified in EMU 8 (Table 1). A relic structure, possibly the remains of a raft, is partially embedded in the beach in AU 8.02. In AU 8.07 there are a large number of piles in the mudflat within the inlet that could be removed. In AU 8.10 a concrete bulkhead has partially collapsed and the remaining sections provide little or no function, as the structures (houses) are located on top of a bluff (Photo 13). Another bulkhead in AU 8.10 has been constructed using sections of concrete pipe (Photo 14). Backfilling of the area behind the bulkhead has created a bench where pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and other vegetation now grows. However, the bulkhead does not

Pentec Environmental Page 30 12570-01 July 3, 2003

provide protection of any structure and removal would restore the natural beach slope.

Farther to the south in Glen Cove, makeshift bulkheads have been placed in AU 8.16 at the water’s edge, presumably to provide some degree of bank stability. Materials used include old tires/gabions and 55-gallon drums (Photos 15 and 16). These bulkheads should be removed or replaced. Other bulkhead-removal/restoration opportunities exist in AU 8.17.

South of Glen Cove in AU 8.21 and AU 8.24 there are several sites where extensive riprap or bulkheads have been placed along the shoreline but where no armoring is needed for protection of nearby structures.

EMU 9

Specific habitat restoration opportunities in EMU 9 exist within Mayo Cove. In AU 9.11 these opportunities include removal of debris from the beach, including decomposing floats and sections of at least two dilapidated docks; removal of several old boats that are resting on the upper beach within the marsh vegetation (Photo 17); and removal and/or reconstruction of a failing bulkhead (Photo 18). In AU 9.13, habitat improvements would include removal of a dilapidated building resting on piles (overwater structure) and removal of an old boat that is resting on marsh vegetation.

Similar to other EMUs in the study area, there are multiple sites where bulkheads or riprap do not appear to be needed for protection of structures or other maintained areas (e.g., gardens, etc.). Instead, bioengineered alternatives could provide a similar degree of shoreline protection (if needed) without most of the deleterious effects potentially associated with vertical bulkheads and placement of riprap.

EMU 10

Relatively few restoration opportunities were identified in EMU 10 (Table 1). Specific opportunities include removal of an old, dilapidated wooden dock in AU 10.02 and removal of bulkheads that serve no apparent function in AUs 10.02 and 10.06. In AU 10.02, a bulkhead was constructed on the beach below a high, vegetated bluff. Yet, the closest structure (a house) is positioned well back from the edge of the bluff. In AU 10.06, soldier piles have been installed along the upper beach. However, the area behind the wall is densely vegetated and no nearby structures were visible that would need to be protected.

Pentec Environmental Page 31 12570-01 July 3, 2003

In addition, there are other locations where bulkheads or riprap do not appear to be necessary for protection of nearby structures or other important features and if still needed, could be protected using bioengineered alternatives.

EMU 11

Specific habitat restoration opportunities in EMU 11 include two sites where debris could be removed: a detached section of a dock in the tidal channel of Taylor Bay (AU 11.11) and a decaying wooden boat that is lying on top of a marsh in AU 11.43 (Table 1).

Other restoration sites involve potential restoration in lagoons that at one time likely provided protected salmonid habitat, including saltmarsh habitat. Tidal influence and fish access to Whiteman Cove (AU 11.16) is via two long culverts, each with a tide gate (see Photo 3). Breaching of the spit in one or more locations would allow saltwater intrusion. Alternatively, modification of the culverts and tide gates would allow for (improved) fish access to the cove. In addition, fish access and tidal influence to a small lagoon (AU 11.17) that has been isolated from Whiteman Cove could be restored by removing sheet piling. Restoration of the marsh could include removal of accumulated woody debris (see Photo 4).

A second site is the lagoon (AU 11.28) located behind Camp Gallagher (in AU 11.27). Restoration of the tidal connection via breaching of the spit/roadway would restore saltmarsh habitat within the lagoon.

There are also multiple locations within EMU 11 where bulkheads or riprap do not appear to be necessary for protection of nearby structures or other important features. In places where bank protection is still required, shorelines could be protected through bioengineering.

EMU 12

Habitat restoration opportunities were identified in three AUs within EMU 12 (Table 1). In AU 12.03 (Vaughn Bay), a concrete bulkhead was constructed along the shoreline although the adjacent upland is a vacant field. Directly behind the bulkhead is a zone of vegetation, including mature trees and shrubs. Removal of the bulkhead would restore the natural shoreline processes here.

In AU 12.04, a wood bulkhead extends across the mouth of a small stream that drains into Vaughn Bay. The bulkhead is notched to maintain flow within the stream channel (Photo 19). Removal of the bulkhead would restore the small

Pentec Environmental Page 32 12570-01 July 3, 2003

estuary that once existed there prior to bulkhead construction. The adjacent properties (private homes) could be protected through bioengineered methods.

In AU 12.09 (Rocky Bay), we identified three separate restoration opportunities. In one location, a remaining section of dilapidated wooden dock extends outward from the shoreline. In another location old tires have been stacked up along the shoreline, presumably to serve as a makeshift bulkhead. Removal of both the platform and tires would help improve habitat quality within this AU. Elsewhere in Rocky Bay, a wooden platform, possibly the remnants of a dock, overhangs the upper intertidal zone in AU 12.15. This structure could also be removed.

As described in other EMUs containing numerous bulkheads, there are multiple sites in EMU 12 where vertical bulkheads or extensive riprapping—and the degree of shoreline protection they provide—do not appear to be needed given the specific circumstances. If needed, shoreline protection could be provided through bioengineering.

EMU 13

Multiple restoration opportunities were identified in EMU 13 (Fox Island) (Table 1). In AU 13.03, lost or discarded netting lying on the beach in the intertidal zone could be removed. In AU 13.04, after a slope failure directly behind it, broken sections of a concrete bulkhead have been pushed out onto beach where they cover the natural substrates. A much larger landslide in AU 13.15 caused extensive damage to a beachfront home and bulkhead. Assuming the structure is now uninhabitable, it could be removed along with the bulkhead, which no longer serves a purpose. Failing bulkheads that could be removed or replaced with bioengineered alternatives were also observed on Tanglewood Island (AU 13.50) (Photo 20).

It should be noted that multiple sites in EMU 13 contained bulkheads (still intact) that could also be removed or replaced using much less disruptive bioengineered methods.

In AU 13.31, the remaining pier structure of an abandoned ferry dock could be removed to restore the natural shoreline (Photo 21). A much smaller abandoned and dilapidated structure built on piles over the beach in AU 13.40 could also be removed.

Pentec Environmental Page 33 12570-01 July 3, 2003

EMU 14

Within EMU 14 (Anderson Island), large marsh restoration opportunities exist in Oro Bay and in East Oro Bay (Table 1). In East Oro Bay, a dike prevents saltwater intrusion and fish access into the extensive marsh and wetland on the opposite side (AU 14.09; Photos 6 and 22). Removal of the dike to allow tidal exchange would greatly expand the area of saltmarsh habitat and substantially improve salmonid habitat quality in the bay. In Oro Bay, replacement of the existing culvert beneath Ekenstem–Johnson Road with a box culvert would improve both tidal exchange and fish passage to the marsh and tidal channel habitat upstream of the roadway (AU 14.14).

Other specific restoration opportunities identified in EMU 14 are much smaller in scale and primarily involve removal of debris and relic/dilapidated structures. At the time the survey was conducted in July 2002, a partially submerged vessel in AU 14.16 could have potentially leaked oil or contained other hazardous materials (it is unknown if the boat has since been salvaged). In AUs 14.40, 14.41, and 14.42, various pieces of wood debris and styrofoam floats are scattered on parts of the beach and in the adjacent marsh fringe.

Like the rest of the study area, EMU 14 also contains multiple bulkheads with little apparent functional value.

EMU 15

EMU 15 (McNeil Island) has a number of opportunities to restore small streams into mini-estuaries. Because of the status of the island as a state penitentiary, these opportunities were not further identified.

DISCUSSION

The approach taken to inventory the shorelines of the KGI study area was to rely initially on existing information (especially ShoreZone and the Ecology shoreline photo series) and to follow that with field surveys on the water, gathering additional information required for use of the THM. This approach, similar to that used in the Snohomish Estuary (City of Everett and Pentec 2001), was found to be very efficient, with primary field survey of 179 miles of shoreline completed with 20 days of field survey by skiff. The THM provides an indicator of relative shoreline habitat quality for salmonids, especially juvenile chinook and chum salmon, that has been used to identify highest-quality shoreline areas that should be considered for protections. Specifically, those AUs scoring within the highest 30 percent of all AUs within each EMU should be examined more

Pentec Environmental Page 34 12570-01 July 3, 2003

closely to ensure that existing land-use regulations provide a level of protection needed to maintain the present functional habitat value.

By its nature, the THM leads to high ratings for particular habitats (e.g., those at stream mouths at head of bays; those with feeder bluffs and sources of LWD) deemed to provide high function for juvenile salmonids directly (stream mouths, eelgrass beds) or indirectly (feeder bluffs, LWD sources). However, the model is focused on features within a given AU, and thus may not fully capture the importance of the landscape through which a juvenile salmonid passes. It must be recognized by model users and reviewers of this report that salmon require a continuum of suitable habitats for optimum growth and survival.

The on-the-water field surveys were used to verify the eelgrass mapping information available from the DNR ShoreZone database. In the great majority of cases (more than 78 percent of the total shoreline), information from both approaches was consistent. Underwater video surveys of approximately 38 linear miles of shoreline were used to resolve differences between the two surveys. Data from the underwater video survey can be considered as an update to information in ShoreZone and was used in several cases to modify THM scorings based on the on-the-water field surveys.

The existing habitat descriptions and variations in habitat scoring indicate the high level of nearshore modification has negatively impacted juvenile salmonid habitat quality over much of the study area. With the exception of McNeil Island, residential shoreline development—primarily shoreline hardening—is pervasive along the majority of low- to medium-bank shorelines. Fifty-five percent of the AUs (227 out of 413 AUs) contain shorelines that are at least 10 percent riprapped or bulkheaded, and 68 percent of these AUs contain shorelines that are more than 50 percent hardened (Table 2). As we have discussed, bioengineering techniques, though not yet widely used in the Puget Sound area, are a viable alternative to vertical bulkheads in many instances (Zelo et al. 2000). Often alternative shoreline protections can reduce the adverse effects of vertical bulkheads and other forms of armoring that reflect wave energy directly back onto the beach or cut off the natural sediment inputs that form the beach. We’ve identified some of the specific cases where bulkheads appear to be unnecessary to protect adjacent land uses or have failed and could be replaced with less disruptive alternatives that would still provide the required level of protection. Many other bulkheads or riprapped banks may be of marginal value and could also be removed and/or replaced to restore the natural habitat-forming processes.

One of the potential effects of shoreline hardening on habitat is degradation (lowering) of beach elevations and coarsening of beach sediments. The primary

Pentec Environmental Page 35 12570-01 July 3, 2003

location where this linkage has been documented in Puget Sound is at Lincoln Park (Zelo et al. 2000). Because of incompletely understood conditions at this site, shoreline hardening, coupled with loss of adjacent sediment sources, has resulted in the often-cited effects of beach lowering and hardening with resultant changes in biological communities, including loss of eelgrass (Macdonald et al. 1994, Williams and Thom 2001). Other examples around the Sound, to the extent that they exist, have not been studied.

Over much of the KGI area, there appeared to be little relation between presence of bulkheads and presence of eelgrass in the adjacent lower intertidal and subtidal areas of an AU. This lack of correlation may result from the fact that the great majority of bulkheads in the study area are in the upper intertidal areas; only 7 percent of the AUs containing bulkheads along at least 10 percent of the shore included bulkheads that extend below mean sea level (MSL) (+6 feet MLLW) (Table 2).

Overwater structures (less common along the exposed open shorelines) can eliminate eelgrass or significantly reduce growth rates through shading and partial shading (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). In the KGI study area, most docks, especially those for private residences, do not extend across the entire intertidal zone and, thus, there are relatively few locations where overwater structures likely affect eelgrass. Shading below about MSL can also reduce the production of benthic micro- and macroalgae. Since the majority of docks in the KGI area are associated with private residences, most are relatively narrow (e.g., less than 8 feet wide), minimizing the shading impact. Where numerous such docks occur in a single embayment, however (a condition common throughout the area), the cumulative effect on benthic productivity may be significant.

The full range of data gathered in this study (the presence or absence of the several indicators in the THM within a given AU) has not been presented or discussed in this report but is available within the GIS database provided to the County. It is relatively easy to map the AU with a given indicator of interest; for example, the extent of riparian vegetation or marsh fringe in AU could be mapped in much the same way as eelgrass is depicted above.

Where human activities have degraded habitat characteristics, resulting in lower quality shorelines, areas were identified that may be candidates for habitat restoration (Table 1). Many of the opportunities discussed fall into the category of bulkhead removal, relocation, or re-engineering. Thus, a substantial number of the projects identified would provide benefits to forage fish spawning habitat, an indirect benefit to salmon. Only a fraction of the many individual bulkheaded parcels are called out in this section. Those identified are primarily those where the existing bulkheads do not appear to be necessary to protect adjacent

Pentec Environmental Page 36 12570-01 July 3, 2003

structures, or where the existing bulkhead is failing and appears to be a candidate for replacement with a bioengineered structure.

Restoration opportunities are presented without consideration (or knowledge) of property ownership, the past history of the site, or the future plans of property owners. Thus, the list must be considered to provide a preliminary compilation against which other screening and prioritization criteria should be applied to identify projects that are both feasible and cost effective at providing substantial improvements in littoral habitat quality. Although not completed in this effort, the THM can be used to calculate increases in salmon habitat function that would result from a given restoration scenario. This increase in function, along with factors such as size of the project, land ownership, existing property or infrastructure at risk, and cost, can be used to prioritize a list of potential restoration projects (e.g., City of Everett and Pentec 2001).

REFERENCES

City of Everett and Pentec, 2001. Salmon Overlay to the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan. Prepared by the City of Everett, Washington, and Pentec Environmental, Edmonds, Washington.

DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources), 2001. The Washington State ShoreZone Inventory. CD-ROM. Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2001. Oblique Aerial Photos, 2000 Series. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Olympia, Washington.

Fresh, K.L., D. Rabin, C. Simenstad, E.O. Salo, K. Garrison, and L. Matheson, 1978. Fish Ecology Studies in the Nisqually Reach Area of Southern Puget Sound, Washington. Final Report. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle.

Haring, D., 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 15, East Kitsap Watershed. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.

KGI Watershed Committee, 1999. Key Peninsula–Gig Harbor–Islands Watershed Action Plan and Characterization Report. http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/services/home/environ/planning/tabofcont.htm

Pentec Environmental Page 37 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Macdonald, K., D. Simpson, B. Paulson, J. Cox, and J. Gendron, 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects of Physical Coastal Processes in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, Volume 5. Publication 94-78. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Nightingale, B., and C. Simenstad, 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. White paper. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

OCD (Washington State Office of Community Development), 2002. Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas. Washington State Office of Community Development, Olympia, Washington.

UW (University of Washington), 2002. Digital Ortho Quads and Quarter-Quads for Washington State: DOQ Files in the Seattle 1° × 2° Quadrangle [online report]. University of Washington, Geology Department, Seattle. http://duff.geology.washington.edu/data/raster/doqs/seattle.html

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2003. Priority Habitats and Species Database. WDFW, Olympia.

Williams, G.D., and R.M. Thom, 2001. White Paper: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington.

Zelo, I.H., H. Shipman, and J.S. Brennan, 2000. Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

00570\001\kgihabitatassess.doc

Pentec Environmental Page 38 12570-01 July 3, 2003

TABLES

Pentec Environmental 12570-01 July 3, 2003 Table 1 - Restoration Opportunities in the KGI Study Area Sheet 1 of 3

EMU AU Restoration Brief Description Type 1 1.02 RSR Remove old hull and debris from upper beach. 1.03 BR/FR Remove concrete vaults and bulkhead; remove fill and re-grade to the natural contours of the upper beach. Follow up by planting native vegetation to restore riparian function. 1.08 BR Remove unnecessary bulkhead. 1.09 2 2.07 RE Enhance riparian fringe through additional planting of riparian and marsh vegetation, particularly along the south side where there is a clearing. 2.09 RSR/DDR Remove dilapidated dock and floats and/or debris from beach; restore RE riparian vegetation along the adjacent shoreline. 3 No specific restoration opportunities identified. 4 4.04 RSR Remove old piles (the remains of a pier) from the intertidal zone. 5 5.10 RSR Remove steel framing or ribbing, possibly the remnants of a vessel, from upper beach and riparian shrub-scrub fringe. 6 6.04 DDR Remove remnants of an old wood dock from the beach. 6.14 DDR Remove dilapidated wood float that is partially submerged. 6.15 BR Remove old wooden bulkhead/retaining wall that has failed. 6.17 BR Remove concrete bulkhead that has deteriorated. Replace using bioengineered structure. 6.29 MR Remove accumulated woody debris from north end of lagoon. 7 7.01 BR Remove wooden bulkhead that has failed in several locations. 7.12 BR/RSR Remove concrete debris and remove/replace riprap through bioengineering 7.13 RE techniques; create a riparian buffer. 7.13 CM/RE Improve fish passage in Purdy Creek beneath Highway 16 to allow fish to fully access habitats upstream; enhance riparian buffer along the lower stream channel. 8 8.02 RSR Remove debris (remains of a raft?) that is partially embedded in the beach. 8.07 RSR Remove old piles from the mudflat. 8.10 BR Remove remaining sections of unnecessary concrete bulkhead that has partially collapsed; remove bulkhead constructed using sections of concrete pipe to restore the natural beach slope. 8.16 BR Remove makeshift bulkheads constructed using old tires/gabions and 55-gallon drums. 8.17 BR/RE Multiple bulkhead-removal/restoration opportunities. 8.21 8.24 Table 1 - Restoration Opportunities in the KGI Study Area Sheet 2 of 3

EMU AU Restoration Brief Description Type 9 9.11 RSR/BR Remove debris from the beach, including decomposing floats and sections of DDR at least two dilapidated docks, remove several old boats that are resting on the upper beach within the marsh vegetation; remove and/or reconstruct a failing bulkhead. 9.13 DDR/RSR Remove a dilapidated building resting on piles (overwater structure) and remove an old boat that is resting on marsh vegetation. 10 10.02 BR/DRR Remove unnecessary bulkhead below bluff; remove an old, dilapidated wooden dock. 10.06 BR Remove soldier piles that have been installed along the upper beach. 11 11.11 RSR Remove detached section of a dock in the tidal channel of Taylor Bay. 11.16 DB Restore saltmarsh habitat in Whitman Cove by breaching the spit in one or more locations. Alternatively, modify the culverts and tide gates to allow (improved) fish access to the cove. 11.17 DB Remove sheet piling to allow saltwater intrusion into lagoon off of Whitman Cove. 11.28 DB Restore saltmarsh habitat/fish access in lagoon behind Camp Gallagher (in AU 11.27) by breaching the spit/roadway to restore tidal connection. 11.43 RSR Remove decaying wooden boat that is lying on top of a marsh. 12 12.03 BR Remove an unnecessary concrete bulkhead to restore the natural shoreline processes. 12.09 SMR/BR In Rocky Bay, remove a wood bulkhead at stream mouth to restore the DDR mini-estuary; remove old tires stacked up along shoreline. Remove remaining section of a dilapidated wooden dock. 12.15 DDR Remove a wooden platform, possibly the remnants of a dock, overhanging the upper intertidal zone. 13 13.03 RSR Remove discarded netting lying on beach. 13.04 BR Remove sections of a concrete bulkhead that have been pushed out onto beach following a landslide. 13.15 BR/RSR Remove extensively damaged (via landslide) beachfront home and bulkhead. Assumes the structure is now uninhabitable. 13.31 DDR Remove the remaining structure of an abandoned ferry dock to restore the natural shoreline. 13.40 DDR Remove abandoned and dilapidated structure built on piles over the beach. 13.50 BR Remove failing bulkheads and replace, if necessary, with bioengineered alternatives. Table 1 - Restoration Opportunities in the KGI Study Area Sheet 3 of 3

EMU AU Restoration Brief Description Type 14 14.09 DB Remove/breach a dike at head of East Oro Bay to expand the area of saltmarsh habitat and substantially improve salmonid habitat quality in the bay. 14.14 CM Replace the existing culvert beneath Ekenstem-Johnson Road with a box culvert to improve both tidal exchange and fish passage to the marsh and tidal channel habitat upstream of the roadway. 14.16 RSR Remove a partially submerged vessel that could potentially leak oil or contain other hazardous materials (it is unknown if the boat has since been salvaged). 14.40 RSR Remove various pieces of wood debris and styrofoam floats that are 14.41 scattered on parts of the beach and in the adjacent marsh fringe. 14.42

00570\001\table1.doc SMR = Stream-mouth restoration DB = Dam/dike breaching CM = Culvert maintenance MR = Marsh restoration FR = Artificial fill removal BR = Bulkhead removal RE = Riparian enhancement RSR = Relic structure removal DDR = Dilapidated dock/pier removal

Table 2 - KGI Watershed Nearshore Salmonid Habitat Assessment Sheet 1 of 2 Tidal Habitat Model Question Answer Frequency

Question Question Answer No. Frequency 1 AU has vernal or perennial freshwater stream or spring 43 2a AU is depositional (slow currents, low wave action) over 25% of littoral area 95 2b AU is depositional (slow currents, low wave action) over 50% of littoral area 146 3 AU has refuge from high velocities (e.g., during max. ebb) 112 4a AU contains a natural tidal channel wetted at MLLW 46 4b AU contains tidal channel wetted at MSL (i.e., shallow drainage) 46 5 Tidal channel is dendritic or highly sinuous 70 6a Fresh water only (salinity <0.5 ppt) 0 6b Oligohaline to Mesohaline (sal. variable: often 0.5 to 5 ppt, but can range to 18 20 ppt) 6c Polyhaline (sal. typically 18 to 30 ppt) 384 7a Temp/DO meet criteria for salmonid health during major use periods 90 7b Temp/DO meet criteria for salmonid health at all times 314 8a Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW >3 (include islands) 58 8b Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW 1.2 to 3 (include islands) 80 8c Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW <1.2 (include islands) 266 9 AU is sheltered from waves 128 10a Slope of substrate in littoral zone >10h:1v (i.e., low gradient) 290 10b Slope of substrate in littoral zone <10h:1v but >5h:1v (i.e., moderate) 102 10c Slope of substrate in littoral zone <5h:1v but >2h:1v (i.e., steeper) 12 11a >10% of AU is littoral (MHHW to -10 ft; use OHW if marsh veg. above MHHW) 0 11b >25% of AU is littoral (MHHW to -10 ft; use OHW where vegetation indicates) 0 11c >50% of AU is littoral (MHHW to -10 ft; use OHW where vegetation indicates) 404 12 Substrate in littoral zone - silty sand >25% of area 243 13 Substrate in littoral zone - mud or mixed fine 25 to 50% of area 175 14 Substrate in littoral zone - mud or mixed fine >50% of area 115 15 Upper intertidal zone contains potential forage fish spawning habitat 265 16a Buffer: marsh edge >10 ft wide over 50% of shoreline 30 16b Marsh edge >5 ft wide over 50% of shoreline; or >10 ft wide over 25 to 50% of 44 shoreline 16c Marsh edge exists but <5 ft wide, or less than 25% (but >5%) of shoreline 60 16d Marsh of native species occupies more than 25% of total AU 25 17a Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested >25 ft wide over 10 to 24% of shoreline 61 17b Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested >25 ft wide over 25 to 50% of shoreline 55 17c Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested >25 ft over 50% of shoreline 198 18 Riparian vegetation is dominated by native species 227 19 Riparian zone provides significant source of LWD recruitment 194 20a AU has low- to moderate-gradient intertidal continuity with adjacent AU (one 106 side) Table 2 - KGI Watershed Nearshore Salmonid Habitat Assessment Sheet 2 of 2 Tidal Habitat Model Question Answer Frequency

Question Question Answer No. Frequency 20b AU has low- to moderate-gradient intertidal continuity with adjacent AUs (both 267 sides) 21a 1 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or /100 m² of AU whichever is 216 greater 21b 0.5 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or /100 m² of AU whichever is 31 greater 21c 0.2 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or /100 m² of AU whichever is 37 greater 22 Algal cover over 10% of littoral area (during springtime) 357 23a Eelgrass or kelp (laminarians) is present along 5 to 10% of low tide line of AU 34 23b Eelgrass or kelp (laminarians) is present along 10 to 25% of low tide line of AU 21 23c Eelgrass or kelp (laminarians) is present along more than 25% of low tide line 47 of AU 23d Eelgrass or kelp (laminarians) occupies more than 25% of total AU 23 24 Do functioning feeder bluffs provide a significant source of sediment to the AU 173 25a Immigration/emigration restricted 25 to 50% of the time 0 25b Immigration/emigration restricted 50 to 75% of the time 3 25c Immigration/emigration restricted 75 to 90% of the time 3 26a Wood debris present on the bottom 25 to 75% cover over AU 2 26b Wood debris present on the bottom >75% over AU 0 27a Log rafting affects 10 to 50% of AU on a recurring basis 0 27b Log rafting affects over 50% of AU on a recurring basis 0 28a Water col. conditions exceed salmonid thresholds during periods of high 0 abundance 28b Water col. conditions exceed salmonid thresholds during periods of low 0 abundance 29a Sediment chemical contam. present (>SQS over more than 25% of AU) 0 29b Sediment chemical contam. present (>CSL over more than 25% of AU) 0 30a Riprap or vertical bulkheads extend below MHHW for 10 to 50% of shore 72 30b Riprap or vertical bulkheads extend below MHHW along >50% of shore 155 31 Majority of riprapped or bulkheaded shoreline extends below MSL (+6 ft 15 MLLW) 32a Finger pier or dock >8 ft wide 56 32b Two or more finger piers or docks >8 ft wide; or single pier or dock >25 ft wide 61 33a Overwater structures cover 10 to 30% of littoral area in AU 8 33b Overwater structures cover 30 to 50% of littoral area in AU 1 33c Overwater structures cover 50 to 75% of littoral area in AU 0 33d Overwater structures cover >75% of littoral area in AU 0 34 Littoral benthic habitat routinely disturbed by prop wash, chronic oil spills, or 8 dredging

00570\001\table2.doc

FIGURES

Pentec Environmental 12570-01 July 3, 2003 KGI Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment EMU Boundaries

E

M

U

7

E 1 MU 12 2 U U M M E E

6 8 U U M M E E

E M U EM 4 U 5 9 U M E 3 E U M M U E 1 3

E M U

1 1 15 EMU

0 1

U M E

4

1

U

M

E £

015,0007,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 1 EMU 1 Relative Habitat Quality

1.01 34.8

!

1.02 57.6 !

1.03 9.5 !

1.04 81.0 !

1.05

14.7 Point ! Richmond

1.06 75.0

Legend ! 1.07

Relative Habitat Quality 14.7 !

! Low 1.08

! Medium 139.2

Colvos Passage !

! High AU Number 1.09 14.5 AU Score

Low = 9.5 ! ! 1.10 High = 139.2 66.0 Mean = 47.2 1.11

13.9 !

1.13 ! 1.12

11.2 75.0 !

1.14 84.0

Gig Harbor !

1.15

48.3 ! ! 1.16 Dalco Passage £ 16.0

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 2 EMU 1 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

1.01

!

1.02

!

1.03

1.04

!

1.05

Point

! Richmond

1.06 !

1.07 !

1.08 Colvos Passage !

Legend !

! Active Feeder Bluff ! 1.09

Bulkhead (>50% of shore) !

Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) ! ! 1.10

1.11 !

! 1.12 ! 1.13

1.14

Gig Harbor !

1.15 !

! Dalco Passage 1.16 £

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 3 EMU 1 Eelgrass Observations

1.01

!

1.02

! DDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD (!(!DDDDDDDDDD (!DDD DD DDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDD DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD 3 DD .0 DD1 DDDDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD (!DDD (!(!DDD (!DD !

1.04

!

1.05 Point

Legend ! Richmond Eelgrass Observation

! none 1.06

! 5-10% low tide line !

! 11-25% low tide line 1.07 !

! >25% low tide line

! >25% total AU 1.08 Colvos Passage ! Sea-All Survey (not to scale)

(! Eelgrass 1.09

D

None ! ! 1.10

1.11 !

! 1.12

DDD DDD DDD DDD DDDD DDD DDD DDD DDD

DD

DDDD ! D 1.13

1.14

Gig Harbor !

1.15

! ! Dalco Passage 1.16 £

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 4 EMU 2 Relative Habitat Quality

2.04 59.4

!

2.03 ! 2.05 25.6

31.2 !

!

2.06 7.1

2.02 ! 21.1 2.07

35.5 !

!

2.08 Gig Harbor 6.8

! 2.01 19.0

2.09 Legend 7.7 Relative Habitat Quality

! Low

! Medium

!

! High AU Number 2.10 AU Score 9.0

Low = 6.8 ! High = 59.4 £ Mean = 22.2

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

1,000500 0 1,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 5 EMU 2 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

4 0 . 2 !

2

. 0

3

5

2.0 !

!

6 .0 2

2 . 0 07 2

2. !

Gig Harbor 2 . 0 8

2 2 .0 . 9 0

1 2

Legend .1

0 !

Bulkhead (>50% of shore) !

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore)

£ ! Active Feeder Bluff

1,000500 0 1,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 6 EMU 2 Eelgrass Observations

4 0 . 2 !

2

. 0

3 !

5

2.0 !

!

6 .0

2 ! 2 . 0 07 2

2. !

!

2 . 0 8 Gig Harbor

!

2 2 .0 . 9 0 1

DD Legend DDDDDD DD DDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDD DD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDD DD DDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DD ! DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DD D DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Eelgrass Observation DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD D DDDD D DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

DDDDDDD DDDDDDD

0 DDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDD D D DDDD DDDDD ! 1 none . 2 Sea-All Survey

! (! Eelgrass

£ D None

1,000500 0 1,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 7 EMU 3 Relative Habitat Quality

3.01 Legend 9.7

! Relative Habitat Quality

! Low

! High AU Number

AU Score 3.02 Low = 9.7 75 High = 78.0 Mean = 57.6

!

3.03

75

! !

3.04

75

! !

3.05

75

! ! 3.06 60

Wollochet Bay Tacoma Narrows !

3.07 !

13.3 !

3.08

78

! !

3.09 !

! 57.6 Point Fosdick £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU. 3,50003,5001,750 Feet 12570 4/03 Figure 8 EMU 3 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

3 . 0 1

!

Legend 3 .0 2

! Active Feeder Bluff

! Bulkhead (>50% of shore)

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore)

!

3

. 0

3 !

.04

3 !

5 .0

3 !

6 Wollochet Bay .0

3 Tacoma Narrows

! ! 7 0 .! 3

08

3. ! 9

3.0

! ! Point Fosdick £

3,50003,5001,750 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 9 EMU 3 Eelgrass Observations

3 . 0 1

Legend ! Eelgrass Observation

! none

! 5-10% low tide line Sea-All Survey (not to scale) 3 .0 (! Eelgrass 2

D None

!

3

. 0

3 !

4 0 .

3 !

5 .0

3 !

Wollochet Bay 6 .0

3 Tacoma Narrows ! 7 0 . ! 3 DD DDD DDDD DDD DDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD 8 DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD 0 DDDDDDDD . DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDD 3 DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD ! DDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDD 9 DDDDDD

3.0 ! Point Fosdick £

3,50003,5001,750 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 10 EMU 4 Relative Habitat Quality

4.12 Legend 40.3 Relative Habitat Quality

! Low

! !

!

! Medium 4.11 ! 23.5 High 4.13 27.4 4.10 AU Number

37.8

!

! AU Score ! ! Low = 7.8 ! 4.09 16.8 High = 96

Mean = 33.5

! ! 4.08 4.14

37.6 40.3

! ! 4.07 37.8

! !

4.06 4.15 30.2 81.6

4.16

! !

! !

! 96 ! !

! 4.05 !

4.18 ! Wollochet Bay 30.2 7.8 4.17 12.6

4.04 ! 12

! 4.03

32.2

! !

4.02

16.1

! !

4.01 22.4 Fox Island Point Fosdick £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

2,5001,250 0 2,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 11 EMU 4 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

!

!

! !

!

Legend ! !

! Active Feeder Bluff

! Bulkhead (>50% of shore)

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! Wollochet Bay

!

!

!

! ! Point Fosdick £

2,5001,250 0 2,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 12 EMU 4 Eelgrass Observations

Legend Eelgrass Observation

12 ! 4. none

! 5-10% low tide line !

! 11-25% low tide line !

4 . ! 1 >25% low tide line 1

! >25% total AU

4

.

3 1 ! 0 1 Sea-All Survey (not to scale) .

D 4 DDD

DD D ! D DD D DDD DD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDD ! DDDD ( ! DDDD 4. DDDDDDDD (!DD DD Eelgrass DD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDD 0 DD D DDD DDDDD DDD 9 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!DDDDDD (!DDDDDD (!DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDD D DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDD None D DDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDD

DDDD D DDDDDD D DDDDDDD ! DDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDD

4 4 .0 .1 8

4 ! 4.07

! !

DDDD DDDD DDDDDD DD DDDDDD D DDD DDD DDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDD DD DDDDD D DDDDD DDDD DDDD DDD DDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDD DDDDDDDD DDD DDDDD DD DDD DDD DDDDD (!DDD DDD DDDDDDDDD 5 !(D DDD D (!DD DDDDD D !(DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!DDD DDDDDDD 1 (!DD DDDDD !DDD DDDDDD D(!DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD . (!DDD DDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDD DDD DDDD 4.06 DDDD 4 DDD DDDD DD DDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDD DDD DDD DD DDDDDD DDD DDDD DDDD DDD (!DDDD DDDDD (!DDD

DDD DDDDD

DDDDDD DD DDDDDD ! DDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD DD!D(DDDD DDD (!(!D

DDDD DD(!DDD(!DDDDD DDDDD

DDDD 4 DD(!DD(! (!DDD

DDDDDDD !(DD( DDD !

DDDDDDDDD D(!DDDDDD D DDD . ! D(!DD DD DDDDDDDD 1 DDDD D(!DD(!DDDDD DDDDD

DDDDDD 6 (!D(!(!DD DDDDDD D .1 DD DDD DD 4 D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDD DD DD 8 ! DD D DDDDDDDDD DD (!D DDDDDD DDDDD(DDDDDD DDDD DDDDDD DD DD D DD DD D 7 D D DDDDDDDDDDDD D DD

(!D 1 DDD D DDD (!!(! . DDDDDDDD(!DD D D

(!(!(! DDDD DDDDDD(!DDD D D (!(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDD 4 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!(DDDDD D DDDDDDDD (!(!(!DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDD(!DD DDDD(!D DDDDDD ((! ! 4 (!DDD D D D D D .0 (DD D D D D D 5 (! DD DD DDDDDDD DDD (! DD (!(!(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD D D DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DD DDDDDD D DDD (!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Wollochet Bay DDDDD DDD DDD D D D D D D D DD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDD ! 04 4.

3 ! 0 .

4 !

4 .0

2 !

4 .01 £

2,5001,250 0 2,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 13 EMU 5 Relative Habitat Quality

5.08 5.06

27.7 171 ! !

! ! !

5.07 ! ! 5.05 5.09 14 14.5 32

5.04

!

Shaws Cove !

! 9.5

! ! !

5.10 ! Green Point 20 5.03

14 5.02 !

! 46.2 ! ! 5.01 28

Hale Passage

Legend Relative Habitat Quality

! Low Fox Island

! High AU Number AU Score Low = 9.5 High = 171.0 £ Mean = 37.7

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 14 EMU 5 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

5.08 ! 6

5. 5.0

! ! 07

! 5 9 .0 .0 5 5 Shaws Cove

! ! 5

.04 !

5.10 ! 5.

Green Point 03

! ! 5 .0

2 !

! 5. 01

Hale Passage

Fox Island Legend

! Active Feeder Bluff

! Bulkhead (>50% of shore) £ ! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore)

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 15 EMU 5 Eelgrass Observations

5.08 ! 6 DD 5 DDDDD 0

DD . D . ! D 0 DD DD 7 D DDD 5 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

(! DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDD (!DDDDDDD DD ! 9 DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD ! 0 DDDDDD DDDDD D . DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD 5 DDDDDDDDDD 5 DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD . D DD 0 DD DD 5 DD (!DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD (!DD(!D

DDDDD DDDDDDDD!(DDDD((!(!DD D DD(! (!

DDDDD DDDDDD (! Shaws Cove D DDDDD DD DDDDDDDD D D ! DD DD D DDD D DDD DDDDDDD DDD DDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDD D ! DDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDD D 5 DDDD

(!D DD . (!DDDDDDDDDDDD

DD 04

! DDDD ! 0 DDDDDD DDDD 1 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD . DDDDDD DDDDD 5 DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD Green Point DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDD

DD 5 DD DDDDDDDDD .

DDDD 03 D DDDDDDDDDD DDD ! DD DDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD 5 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDD DDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD! DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD !(!( (!(!DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DD (!(! .0 DDDD (!(!D DD(!DDDDD(!DDD (!D(!DD(!DDD 2 DDD DDDDD DD

DDD

DDDD DDDDDDD ! DDDDDDDD DDDDD 5 DDDD DDDD DDDD . DDDDDDDDDDD 0 DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 1 DDDDD DD DDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDD DDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDD DDDDDDDD

Hale Passage Legend Eelgrass Observation

! none

! 5-10% low tide line

! 11-25% low tide line Fox Island

! >25% low tide line

! >25% total AU Sea-All Survey (not to scale) (! Eelgrass

£ D None

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 16 EMU 6 Relative Habitat Quality

6.30 ! 18.9

Allen Point ! ! 6.29

6.25 !

! 86.1

6.28 75.6 !

54 ! ! !

6.26 ! 6.27 86.4 40.6 6.24 22.7

!

! Carr Inlet !

6.12

! 60.9 ! 6.13 17.9 6.23

13.4 6.21

! !

! !

! Raft Island ! 55.5 6.22 6.14 32 ! 6.15 71.3

28.6 ! 6.20

! 6.11 ! ! 6.18 21.8 54.6 15.1 ! ! ! ! ! 6.19 6.31 6.16 21.6

156 14.6 ! ! 6.10 40.6 6.17 Cutts Island 95.8

! 6.09 32.2

! 6.08 96.0 Legend

Relative Habitat Quality

! !

! Low Horsehead Bay

! Medium 6.03 6.07 !

35 29.1 High

! !

! AU Number

6.04 AU Score

12.1 ! Low = 12.1 6.02 High = 156.0 54.6 Mean = 46.3 6.06 13.4

! !

! 6.05 6.01 15.7 62.4 Green Point £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 17 EMU 6 Eelgrass Observations

(!DDDD DDDDDDDD (!D DD(!(!(!(!(!(! (!D !(!( (!D!(!( !(!((!(!!(D( DDDDDD !((!(!(! D(!(!(!!!(D!(D DDD!( D DDD(!D(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(! D!D(DDDD!(!( (!DD(!D(!D(!(D! DDD!(!(D D ! DD(!(!DDD D!D(D!D(DDDD DDD(!DD(!DD DDD(!DD(!(!DD DDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD 0 D DDD 3 D D D D . D D 6 D D D DDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDD (!(! DDDDDDD DDDDD D DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDD

DDDD DDDDDD DD D ! DD D D D D D Allen Point D D DD D 9 D D 2 D D . D D 6 D D DDDDD

DDDDDD DDDDDDD D ! DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD !(DDDDDDDDDDD D (!!(!D

DDDDDDD (

D D (! (!(!!DD(! ! 5 (!(!(!DD (!(!(!(!!(D 2 (!(! D .

(!(!D 6.28 (!D ! (!(!(!DDDD (!(!(DDDD 6 6 (!D (!!(D (!(!D . !((!DDDDD 2 (!(!DDDDD (DDDDD (!DD(!DDDDD (!(!DDDDD 7 (!(DD 6 (!(!DD ! (!(!DD !(DD (!DDDDDDDDD 2 (!D !DDDDDD (!D(!DDDDD(!DDD(!DDDDDDDDDDDDD . (!DDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DD DD DDD DDDDDDDDD D D ! DDDDDDDD D DDDDD(!DDD(!DDDDDDD!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!!((!DDDDD 6 DDDDDDDDDDDDD (!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!D(!(!((!(!(!DDD (!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(D!D(!(!(!(! (!(!(!(DDD (!(!(!D DD (!D(!D (!(!DDDD 4 (!(!!(D (!DDDDDD (!(!DD (! D 2 (!D (!D . (!(!DD (!DD D D 6 DD DD (!DDDDDDDDDDDD (!DDDDD DDD DD DD DDDD DDDD

DDDDD

DDD ! DDDD DDDD ! DDDDD DDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDD Carr Inlet D D D DDDDDDD D

DDDDDDDDD D D 3 DDDDD

.1 DDD 6! 6.12 DD DDD DDDD D DDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDD 3

DDDDDDDDD

DD D 6 DDDDD . DDDD 2 DDDDDD 1 DD DDDDDDDD !

DDDDDDDDDDDD 2

DD DDDD ! DD DDD . ! DD DDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDD (!(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDD (!(!(!DD DD D!(DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD (DDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD(!DD(!(!DD DD 6 2 DDDD D D !DDD 6 DDDDDDDDDDD D DDD (!(!(DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDD DDD (!DDDD (!(!DDDDDDD DDD (!DDDD 2 (!D DDD DD DDDDDDD ! D D D Raft Island D D . (!DD DDD DDDDD . DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDD D DD 1 DDDDDD DD DD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDDD D DD D DD 6 DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DD D DD DD D DDDDDD DDDDDD D D DDDDD D DDDDDD D D DDD 4 D DDDDDD D DD DDDDDD D DDDDDDDD D D DDD D DDDDDDDD !(D DDD DDDDDD D !DD (!D(!DDDDDD DDDDDDD D (!(!D!DDDDD(DDDDD D DD D DD(!DDDD(!D(!(!(!D D 6 D D D D!(DD(!(!(! D 5 D D D (!D(!(!DDD((!D DD . DDDDDDDDDD

D DDD!DD (!D DD 1 DDDDD DDDDDDDDD D DD!(D (! D DDD DDD D DD DDDDD(!DDDDDD (!D DD 1 1 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D

DD DDDDDDDDD DDD(!D DD . !DDDDD DDDDDD DDD DD DDD(!D(!DDD(!DDDD(! DD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD D DD D(!D(!D D ! DD(!DD D(!D DDDD(!(!(!DDDDD DD 6 0 DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DDDDD(!D(!D DDDD(!(!DDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD(!(!(!DD(!DDD D DDD!(DDDD DD (! (DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD (!DD D!( 2 DDD!((!(!D(!DDDDDDD DD(!!(DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!(!(!(!(!DDDD D D !(!(! D . (! DDD(!DDD DD (!D DD ! !(DDDD(!DD DDDDD D (! DD 8 (!!(D!D(!(!(!(! D (!D D ! 6 (!(!D(D DDD (! D DDDD(!D (!DDD (!DD !( DD 1 D (!D(!DD(!D (!DDD !(D DD . (!(!D(!(!(! (!DDD DD (!D DD (!D (!DDDD D DD (!D DD(!DD! D (! DD 6 (!DD !(DD!((!(! DDDDDDDDDDDD DD (!D DDDD (!DDD !(D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDD (!(! DD ! DDDDDDDD D!(DDDDDDDDDDD!DD D DDD (!(!(!(!(!(!DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 6 !(DD(!DDD(!( D D(!DDD D(!D D DDDDDDD DDDD DD 1 (!(D(!DD D D(!D (! D DDD DDDDDDD D . !((! D!(DDD D D(!D(!D (! DD DDDDD DD D 6 !( (!D(!DD D D (!(D!(!D DDDDDDDDD D ! !( DD(!DD(!D D (!DD(!D (!(!(!(!!(DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD ! !( (!DD(!D D D(!D(!(!(!(!(!(! !( DD(!D DD D D(!D(!D(! ! !(D !(DD(!DDDD DD DD (!DDDD(!DD(!D(!DD !(D DDDD(!DDDDD DD DD D (!D!((!DD !(DD (!D(!DDD DD DD DD (!D(! DD !((D(!DD (!DDDD D DD (!(!DDDD Cutts Island !(D(!(!(!DDD(! DDDDD D DD (!(!!( 9 (!(! DD!(DD!D(D DDDDD DD DDDD (!D(!(! !( DD(!(!DD DDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD(!DDD!((! !( D (!DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD (!DD!((!D D(!DDD (! D (!D(!(!(!D(!DD DDDDDD!D(DD!(!((!DD (!(!D!((!(!(!!(!DDDDDD .1 DDDDDDDDDDDD!(DD!(D!((!((!!D(DD! (!!((!(!(!(DD DDDDDDDD !(!((!(!(! D(!D DDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DD (! DD !(!(!((!(! (!DD D (!D(! DD 1!(D!(!( DDDDD!(DDD DDDD (!(!(! DD 6 (!(!D DDD(!(! DDD (! DDD DDD (!D DDD !( DDD 3 DDD(! (!DD (!DD (! DDD !(D(!D(! D(!DDDD D!( DDD ( DDD D(! D 7

(!D DDDDD (!D!( DDD

(! (!DDD (!D!( DD 6.DDDD (!D (!DDDD D(! DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD D (! ! D D! D D D DDDDD (!D DDDD DDDDDD!D!(D DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD D(!DDD D D DDD D !(!( DDDDD 1 DDD(!DDDDD D DDDD (!DD(!(!(!(! DDDDDD D (! D !((!DD DD D!((!D . D !(D!(DDDD DD D (!!((! DDDD D (!(!!(D DD D (!(!(!D 6 DDDD !( D (!!((!DDD DDD (! D (!!(D D 0 DD !( DDDDDDDDDD (!!(!( DD (!DD D (!(!!( DD (!DD D DDDDDD(!(! 1 DDDDDDDD DDD D D(!(!(!!( DDDDDD DDD D !!((! . DD DD D (!!(!( DD (!D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!(!(! DD(!DDD DD (!(!(!DD 6 DD!( DD !((!(!DD (!DDD DD (!(!DD !(DDDD DDD DDDDDDDD!D(D!(DDDDDDD DD (DD DD DDD DD (!(!(!(!( DD !(DD DDD D !(D(!( DD !(D DDD DD D(! D (!DD DD DDD D(! D (!DD DDDD D(! DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDD (!!(DDDDDDDDDD D !(D!(DDDDD !(DDD!(D(! (!D(!D !((!(!DD !(!(DD DDD!(DD D(!(!D !!((!DD (!DD!(DDDDDDD D(!DD(!DDDDDD D!(DDD(!D DDD(!DD(!DDDD DDDDDD!(DDDDD DD(!DDD(!DD DDD(!DDD!DDD D(!D(!D D(!DDD ! DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD D D D D DDD D DDDD DD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDD D DD D DDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD!D(DDD DDDDDDDD(! DDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DD 9 DDDDD DD DDDD DD DDDDDD DD DDDDD DD 0 DDDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD . DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!(!D D 6 D(!D D D DDDDDDDD(!DDDD DD(!D(!(!(! (!(!DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD(!(! ! DDDDDDDDDDD DD D (!DDDDD DDDDDDD D(! D (!D DDDDD DDD (!D(!D (!D (!DDDDD DDDDDDD DD(! DD DD DD (!D D D D!DDDD DDD(!D (!D (!DD (!DDD (!DD (!DDD D!D(D !(DDD(! (DDDD (!DD (!DDDDD (!DD D DDD 6 .0 8

! Legend

6 . 0 Horsehead Bay 7 Eelgrass Observation DDDDD DDDDDD 3 DDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDD D DD DDDD

0 D DD . DD DD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDD DDDDD D D ! 6DDDDDDDDDD DDD DD DDDDDDDD D DDD

DD DDD DDD ! DD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDD(! D D DDDDDDDDD D none DDDD D (!DDDDDD DDD DDDD (!DDDDD DDDDDD(!D !(DDD DDDDDDD(!DDDD D!( (!DD

D!(DD!D( (!DDD D!(DDD!( !(DDD(!

DDDD( ! (!D(!DDD (!DD DDDDD(!D DD D DDDDDDDD ! DD DDDDDD DD DDDD D DDDD (!D D(!DDD DD D DD DD DDDDDDDDD D DD 5-10% low tide line D DD D DDDDD D DDDD DD DDDD DD DDD

DD DDD D DDD

D DDD DD DDDD D DDDD ! DD DD DD DD D DD

D DDD DDDDDD

D DDD DDD D DDD 6 DD D DDDD DDDD

DDDDDD DDDDD 11-25% low tide line DDD D DD

DDDDD D DDDDD DD . D D

(!DDDDD DDDDDD DD

DDD D DDDDDDDDD D D 0 DDD D DDD D DDDDDD D

DD D DDD D

DD DD D D !

DD DDD DDD D D DD 2 DDDD D D DDDD DDD D ! DD DDDDDD D D D DDD DDDD DD D D DDD DDDD DDD D DDD (!D DDDD D DD DDD DDD D

DD DDDD DD D

DDDDDD DD D D 6 >25% low tide line DD D D DDDD DDD D DDDD DDD D D DD DDDD D

D D DDD D D D DD D .

D DD DDDD D

DD DDD DDD D D D D D 0

DD DDD DD D DDDD DDD D DD DDD D ! DDDD DDDDDD D

DDD DDDD D D DD D 6 DD DDDD D DDD DD D DDD DDD D D(!DD DDDDDDD D D(!D DDDD D >25% total AU D D DDDD D DD DD DDDD D DD DD DDDD DD DD DD (!DDD D DD D DDDD DDD DD!(DDD DDDDDDD DDD DDDDD(!DD DD DDD DDDDDD 4 DD DDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DD DD 0 DDDD DDDDD DDD (!DDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDD . DD DD DDDD DD DDD D DDDDDD D D DDDDDDDDD 6 D DD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD Sea-All Survey (not to scale) D D DD DDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDD DD D D DD DD DDD DDD DD DDD DDDDDD DDD D DDDDD DDDDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD D DDD D D DD DDD D D DDD D DDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDD DDDDDD DDDDD ! DDDDDDD DDDDDDDD ( DDDD DD DDD DD DDDD DD DD DDD D Eelgrass DDD ! D D DDD DD D D DD 6 DD DDDD D D D DDDDDDDDDDDD DDD D D ! DDD DDD DDD DDD . DDD (!DDD DDD DD DDD DDD 0 DDD DDDDDD DD DDDDDD DD D DDD D D D 1 DD

DD D DD D D 5 D DD D D DD ! DD (!DD

DDD 0 None DD

DDD D . D D D DD

DD 6 DD DD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD D DDD DD DDD DDD DD DDD D D D DD D DDDD DDDD DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDD DDD DD DDD DD DDDD DD DDDD DD DDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD (!DDDDDD DDD DDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDD DDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD DDDDDDD D DDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDD D DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DD DDDDDDD £ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 18 EMU 6 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

! 0 6.3 9

2 .

6 6

.2

! 8 ! 5

.2 6 ! 6 . 2 7 6 ! 2 . 6

4 2 . 6

!

Carr Inlet 13 ! 3 6! .

2

. 12 6

6. 6.21

! ! !

6 2 2 . . ! Raft Island 1 6

4

6. 15 ! 0 1 . ! 1 6 .2 ! 6 18! 6. ! 6.16 ! ! ! 9 Cutts Island .1 6 1

3 0 7 ! 1 6. .1 . 6 6

! 9 .0 6

!

6 .0

8 !

6 . 0 Horsehead Bay 7

03 6.

!

! 6 0 . Legend 2 6 0 . 6

! Active Feeder Bluff 4

0 .

6 ! Bulkhead (>50% of shore) !

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) 5

!

0

. 6 £ 6.01

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 19 EMU 7 Relative Habitat Quality

Burley

Kitsap County

! Pierce County 7.16 171 ! 7.15 61.5 Burley Lagoon

7.17

48 !

7.14 55.1

!

7.18 Purdy Creek ! 86.4 ! 7.13 26.5 !

7.19 ! 7.12

20.2 10.1

! !

7.11 !

Wauna ! 7.20 30.4

! !

! ! 33.6 !

! 7.21 7.10

! ! 17.5 35 7.22 19.6

Henderson Bay !

7.08 ! 7.09 17 36.1

7.07 ! 93

! 7.06 36.5 Legend 7.05 ! 30.2 Relative Habitat Quality

! Low

7.04 ! ! Medium 84

! High !

7.02 ! 18.2 ! AU Number 7.03 AU Score 7.01 ! 49.2 32.2 Low = 10.1 High = 171.0 Mean = 46.0 £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 20 EMU 7 Eelgrass Observations

Burley

Kitsap County

! 7 Pierce County . 1 6 ! 7.15 Burley Lagoon Legend

! Eelgrass Observation

7 ! 7

. none 1 1 .

4 7

!

! 5-10% low tide line !

11-25% low tide line ! 7.13 ! >25% low tide line ! 7

8 .

.1 1 ! ! 2 >25% total AU 7

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DD ! DD DD D DD 7 DDDD D DD 0 DDDDDD D DD D DD D D 2 !((! D DD . . D (!(!(! D D DDDD DDD !(D (!(! D D 7 DD(!D(!(!(!D (!DDD (!(! D D 1 9 D (!(!(!DDDD (! D D (!D (!(!DDDD (!! D D 1 D (!D DDD (!(!(!DDD(!DD DDD . D !(D(!(! (!(!(!DDDDDD DD D !((!(! (!(! DDDD 7 D !(D (!(! !((!(!DDDDDDDDDDD 1 DDDDDDDDD D (!D (!D (!(!DD DDDD

DD DDDDD (! D (!D (! DD DDD

DD DDD(! D D !( DD DD ! D D(! D D !( D D Sea-All Survey (not to scale) D (!(!(! (!D D (!(!D DD DD (!(!(!DDDDD D D !( D DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD (! (!(!(!(!D DD DDDDDDDD D (! D DDD DD DDDDDDDD !( (!D(!(!(!(!((! D !(D DDDD DDD DD DDDDD (! (! D !(DD (!DDD DDDDDDDD D (!(!DD !( !(D D (!DD (!DDD

DD DDDDD D (!(!(!(!(! (!DD DD D !(D DD DDDDD D (!(!(!(!(! DD (!DD DDD DD (!D

D DDDDD (!(!(!(!(!DDDDDDDDDD DDD !(DD !(DD(!DDD D ! DD (!DDDD !(D (!(!DDD DDDD (!DDD (!DD DDDD ! D (!(!DDDDD !(D DDDDDDDDD DD DDD D !(D(!(!(!DDDDDDDD (!D D DDDDDDDDD (!D (!D (!(!(!(!DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DD (!D D (!(!(!(! (!D DD DD DD D (!DDD (! 1 DD D !(D D(!DDD D (!D (!D DD(!D 2 D (!DD !(D DDDD . DD (!D D(!D(! DDDDD Eelgrass D (!D D(!(!(!(!D D (!D D D 7 DDD DD (!D DD DDDD DDDD (!D D (!DD D DDDDDDD D (!(!(!(! DDDDDDD (!D (!D (!(!(! DDD(!DD (!D (!(!DDDD (!D D

22 !

D 7. None ! 7.

1

0

Henderson Bay !

9 7.0 08 ! 7.

! 7

0

.

7

!

! 7.06

5 7.0

!

4 .0

7 !

!

3 2 0 .0 . ! 7 7

1 .0 7 £

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 21 EMU 7 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

Burley

Kitsap County Pierce County 7 . 1 .15 6 7

Burley Lagoon

!

7 7

.

1 1 .

4 7

!

7.13 !

! 7 8 .1 .1 2

7 ! ! 7 19 . 7. 0 1

7.2 1

! ! !

1 ! 7.2

7 ! . 2 1

2 0 7.!

Henderson Bay 9 7.0

08 ! 7.

7

0

.

7

!

7.06

7.05

! 4 .0 7

! Legend 2 !

.0 3 7 0 !

7. ! Active Feeder Bluff

! Bulkhead (>50% of shore) 1 .0 7 ! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) £

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 22 EMU 8 Relative Habitat Quality

8.01

16.4

! 8.06 ! 126

8.02 !

! ! 81

8.05

! 79 ! 8.07 Henderson Bay 91.1 8.04 8.03

17.9 12.9 ! !

! !

!

8.08

!

! 18.4

! ! 8.09 144 8.16 59.2

Glen Cove 8.15

! ! 19.6 8.10

!

! 8.14 39.2

! ! 93.6 !

8.13

! !

! ! 73! 8.17 8.11 81.6 8.12 78 25

! 8.18 8.19 81 162 ! !

8.20

! ! 71.3 !

! 8.21 8.22 18.2

84

! !

8.23 ! 8.24 ! 16.1

96

! ! Legend

8.25 Relative Habitat Quality 16.4 ! Low

! Medium

! !

8.26 ! High

43.5 ! 8.27 ! AU Number

18.2 !

! AU Score !

! 8.28 Low = 12.9 78 High = 162.0 Mean = 60.5 8.29 Carr Inlet

15.1 ! ! £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

4,5002,250 0 4,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 23 EMU 8 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

1 8.0

8.06 !

8

. 0 02

Legend 5 8. ! ! 3 8 0 Henderson Bay Active Feeder Bluff . .

0 8

7

!

8.04 ! Bulkhead (>50% of shore) !

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore)

08 ! 8.

09

8. !

8.16

! 8.15 .10 ! ! 8

!

! 8.14 !

!

! 8.13 7 1 !

. 1 .1 8 8.12 8

!

8

. 1

8.19 8

20

8.

! !

1

! 2 . 8 2 2 .

8

! !

3 .2

8 !

4

.2 8!

5 .2

8 !

6 2 . 8 7 .2

8 !

8 2 Carr Inlet .

8 !

8

.

2

9 £ !

4,5002,250 0 4,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 24 EMU 8 Eelgrass Observations

Legend

.01 8! DDDDDDDD DD D DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DD (!DDDD(!DDDD DD DDDDDDDD D !D(D!((! DD DDDDDDDDDDDDD(!D( DD DD(!DD(!DD(! 8 D DDDD(!D D DDD!(DDD . DDDDDDDD (!D D(!D(!(! 0 DD DDDDDDD (!D (!DD Sea-All Survey (not to scale) D DD (!D !( D D (!D !(D 6 DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!D !(DDD DD DDDDD DDDDDDDDD(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDD!D(DD DD DD DDD(!DDD(!DDD (!D!(! DDDDDD (!DDD (!DD DDDDDDD (!D(! D DDDDDDDDD DDD DDD (!DD( DDDDDDD(!DDD DD(!! DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!DD (!DDD DD ((!(!D(!DD(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DDD (!!(!DDDDDDDDDD (!DD (! (!D (!(!D(!(! DDDDDD (!(!DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

(!DD (!D (!(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

(!DDDDDDD (!DD (! DDDDD ! ! DDDD!(DDD DDDDDDDD(!DD DDDDD(!D(!DD (!(! 8 DD DD DD(!DD (! DD(!DDD DDDD(!DDD DDDDDD .0 DD DDDDDDDDD Eelgrass DDD DDD(!DDDDDDDD (!DDDD D DDDD 2 DDDDDD(!DDDDDDDDDDDD 0 DD(!DD (!D 5 . !DD!(DD 8 DDDDDDDDDD(!DDD(!D DDD DD(!DDDDDDDD DDD DDD DDDDDDDDDD DD DDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DDD DDDDD(!DD DDDD D ! DDDDDDDDD DD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD None DDDDDDDDDD DD DD DD D DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD D DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD!D(DD!D(DDDDD DD(!(!(!D 3 DD (!DD D(!DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD(!DDD Henderson Bay DDDDDDDDD DDDD 0 DD 8 . DD DDDD DDDDD DDDDDDD . 8 DDDD DDDD Eelgrass Observation 07 DDDDD DD

DD DDD

DD D DD

! DD D

4 DD D

0 D D

. D D 8 D D D ! D D ! D D D D D DD DDDDD DDDD (!DDDD DDDDDDD none DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DD D DDDDDD D DD DDDDDDDDD D D DDDDDD D D DDDDDDDDDDD D

DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD(!DD

! DDDDDDD DDDD!(DDDDDD DDD ! D(!(!D(!(!(!DD DD DD(!D DDD D D D(!D DD D!(D(!D D D(D D D D(!DD D

DD D DDDDDDD

5-10% low tide line DDDD D DDD D DDDDDDDD

! ! 08 11-25% low tide line 8. 09 DDD . DDD

8 DDD

DDDD ! DDDDDDDDDDDD

!DD(!DDDDD(! DDD(D ! D! DDDDDDDDDDD!(DD!(DDD!(D!( DDDDDDDDDD!((!(!(!(! D!(!(!(!(!(( >25% low tide line DD !(!(!(( DDDD !( DD DDDDD!(DD!(DDD DDDDDDDDD!((!D!(!(!(!(!(!((!DDD DD(!(!(!D(!(!(!((! D DD!(DD

DDDD (!D !(!(( DDDDD!(!(!(!D(!(!

D(!D(!(!(!(DD DDDDD!(DDDDDDDDDD(!DDDD ! D !( (! (!D(!(!(!(!(!(!(! (!!(DD (!DDD!(DDDD D(!DDD(! (!D(!(!D DDDDDDDDDD!(DDDDDD >25% total AU D !(DD D(!(!D D !(D D (!D D (D (!D D (!D DD DDDDDD (!DDD DDD DD DDD DDDDDDDDDD D D DDDD DDDDDDD DDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D (!DDD

D DD(!DDDD

! 5 0 D DDD 8.1 D D D D 1 DD DDD

6 D DD .1 D D 8 D . D D D D 8 DDD DDDD!DDD ! DD DDD( DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDD

DDD DDDDD (!DDD

DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD!D(!((!(! D 4 ! DDDD D DDDDDDDDDD!(DDD!(!( D .1 DD D !( D 8 DD D !( DDDD DDDDDDDDD DD DD(!(!(!(!(! DDDD DD DDDDDDDDD!(!(!((! ! DDDDD DDDD!(!(!(!(DDD(!(!( DDD DDDDDDD!((!DD(!(!(!(!(! DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD !(DDD!(DD!(DDD DDDDD DD (!(!DD(!DD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDD 8.13 DDDDD

DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD

DDDD DDDDD

DDDD ! DDD DDDD DDDDDD

7 DDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD ! DDDD DDDD ! DD D DD DDDDDDD 1 DDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDDD (!(!DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD . !(D DDDD (!(! DDDDDDDDDDDD (!!( DDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDD(!DDDDDDDDD (!(!D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(!DDDD 1 D(!DD( (!DDD DD(!DDDD 8 D!( (!DD( (!(! (!DD 1 (!DDD . (!DDDDDD (!DDDD 8 DDD (!DDDD DD(!D DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DD DDD D DD D DDDDDDD ! DDDDDDDDD D D D D D DD DD DDD DD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDDD DD DDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD 8.1 D D 8 DD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDD (!(!DD DD (!DDDDD DDDDD (!DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD 8. (!DDDDDDD 19 DD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD (!DDDDDD (!DDDDD (!DDDD DD DD DDD D 0 D D D D 2 DD DD DDDD DDDDDDDDD DDD DDDD D DDDDD 8. DDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDD DDDD

DDD DDDD ! D D (!DDDD(!DD D(!DDDDDD D(!DDD DDD DDDD(!D DDDD DDDDD DDD 1 DDD D(!DDDDD DD DDDDDDD DD D(!DD

D (!DDD

2 DDDDD (!DDDDDD ! DD D DD!DD(D!DDDDDDDD . DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD(DDDDDDDDDDDDD(! DDDDDD(!DDD (! DDD(!DDDDDDDDDDD 8 (!(!DDDDDDDD D (! DDDDD (!DDDDD (!DD DDDDDD DDDDD DDD!(DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD(! DDD DDD 2 DD DD DDD DDD 2 DD DD . DD DDD DD DDDDDDDD 8 DDDDDDDD

D(!D(!DD

DD DD ! (!D D DDDDDDD (!DDDD DDDDD!(DDDDDDD DD(!DDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDD DD(!DDD D(!DDDDD 3 DDDDD(!DD DDDDDD DD D DDD 2 (!DDD . (DDD DDDD DDDDD

DDDDDDDD

8 DDDDDDDDDDDDD ! DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDDD D D D D D D (!DDD DD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 4 DDDDDD D D D(!DDDD DDDDDDD!(DD DDDDDDDD(!D(! 2 DDDDD!DDD (!DDD . DD(!DDDDDD

D DDDD

DDD!D (!!(DDD!( ! (D 8 DDD D(!DDDDD (!D(!DDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD(!D(! D(!(!(!D DD (!D D (!DDD (!D DDDDD DDDDDDD (!D(!DD (!(!D D DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD(!DDD D DDDD(!DDD(!DDDDD DDDDDDD(!DDDD DDDDDD(!DDDDD(! DDDDDD(!(!(!(D DDDD (!DDD DD DDDD 5 D DDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDD(!DD(! (!DDD 2 (!DD (D!DD . D(!DD D D DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD 8 DDDDDD DD DDDD DD D DDDD (!DD DDDD (!DDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDD !DDDDDD !(DD!(DDD DD!D(DD!(D DDDD(!DD D D D(!D (!(!DDDD (!!(DDDD (D (!D !(DDD DD(!DDD (!DDD DD D DDDD (!DDDDDD (!D(!DDDD D(!DDDDDD DDD(!DD DDDDD DDDD

!(DDDD

(!DD ! (DD DD (!DDDD (!DDDDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDD D D 6 DDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDD D 2 DD(!DD DD DD DDD . DD DDD DDDDD DDDD D(!DDDDD 8 DD(!DD DDD

DDDD DD

DD DDDDD ! DDDDD (!DDDDD D(!DDDDD D!(DDD D (!D(D D DDDD 7 D(!DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD (!DDDDDD DDDDDDD(!D 2 DD D D(!D . DDDDDD DDDDD (!DDD(!DD !(DD D

8 (DDDDDD

(!DDDDDDDD ! DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD DD DDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD 8 DDDDDDDDD .2

8 !

9 Carr Inlet

2 .

8 £ !

4,5002,250 0 4,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 25 EMU 9 Relative Habitat Quality

9.01

33 ! !

9.02 14 Van Geldern Cove

9.06 !

! 75.6 !

! ! 9.07 9.08 9.03 9.05 ! 13.3 26.9 38.7 31.5

! Carr Inlet

! 9.04 ! Mayo Cove 25.9 9.09 37.8 ! ! Penrose Point

9.10 9.16

! ! 84 9.11 28 36.9 9.14

105 9.17

! ! ! ! 84 9.15 ! 9.13 20.8 9.12 ! 19.8

86.4

! ! South Head 9.18

12.9 ! 9.22

! ! 51.2 ! 9.21 9.19 96 18.9 9.23 ! 96

9.20 ! ! 33.6 9.24 43.4

!

9.25 43.4

Legend !

Relative Habitat Quality 9.26 84

! Low

! Medium ! 9.27 !

! High 36.4 Pitt Island

! 9.28 ! AU Number 9.30 129.6 75 ! AU Score ! Low = 12.9 9.29 High = 129.6 23 £ Mean = 50.2 McNeil Island

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 26 EMU 9 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

9.01

2 .0 9 Van Gledern Cove

7 ! .0 ! 9

5 ! ! .0 9. 03 9 06 . 8 ! 9 0 . ! 9 4 .0 Carr Inlet

9 ! ! Mayo Cove

9

0 .

9 ! !

6 0 1 1 . . 9 7 1 9 1 .1 . 9 9 5

9.14 9.1 ! ! !

! 3 .1 9

2 .1

9 ! 9 .1 South Head 8

! 9.22

! ! ! 9. 19 1

.2

9 9

.

! 2 3 9.20

! !

9

.

2

4

!

9

.

2 5 Legend

!

! Active Feeder Bluff

9 ! . Bulkhead (>50% of shore) 2 6

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) ! 9.27 £ !

8

2 9.30 . ! 9

! 9.29

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 27 EMU 9 Eelgrass Observations

01 9.!

2 .0 9 Van Gledern Cove DDDDDD DDD DDDD DD DDDD DD DDDD DD DD DD DD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD D DDDDDDDDD DD DDD DDDD DDD DD DDDD(!DDDDDD(!DDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD (!(!(!DD(!D(! DDDD DDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDD (!DD DD D DDDDDDDDD!(!(!((!(!DDDDDD D (!DD(!!(DD(!(!D DDDD D (!DD!(DD!(DD D (!(!DDD(! D DDD DD (!(!(!DDDDDD ! DDD (!(!(!(!DD !(DD D (!(!DD(!(!DDD DDD D (!(!D(!DDD D DD (!DD(!(!DD D DDD (!DD(!D(!DDD DDDD (!DDD(!DDDDDD DDDD (!D(!DDDD D D (!(!DDD D (!D D ! (! D 5 D

7 DD

DDD ! 0 D . 0 D 9 ! D . DD . DDD 9 06 D 9 D 3 DDD DD DD 0 DD . DDDD DD ! D 9 D DD DDDDD DDDD D DD D ! DDDD 8 DDDDDD DD(! 4 D D 0 DDD 0 DDDDD Carr Inlet . DDDDD . DDDDDDD DDDD DDD(!DDD

9 9 !(DDD(!D

!((D D ! (!DD (!DD (!DDDD !D(D D (!DD(!D (!DD D (!(! DD !( DDDD Mayo Cove (! D (!D DDD D(!DDDD D (!D D DD D 9 DDD D DD D DDDDD D DDDD DD 0 DDDD D (!D D DDDD D . DDDD D D D D D D DDD 9 D DDD ! D D D DDD

D DDD !

DD DD DDDDDDDDDDD ! 0 .1 6 9 .1 1 9 .1 9 5

9. .1

14 9 7 ! ! ! 1 . D DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 9 DDD DD DDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDD DDDDDDDD ! DDDD 3 .1 ! 9 2 .1

9 ! 9 .1 South Head 8

! 2

9.2! ! 9. 19 1 .2 9 3 ! .2 9

! ! DDDDD DDD 9 DDDD . D DDDDD 2 D DDDDD 0 DD DD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDD D D D DD D DDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDD DD D DD

DDD D 4 D D DDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDD

DDD 2 DD DDDD

DDD . DD DDD DDDDDDD DDDD DD

D D 9 DD D DDD DDD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDD Legend DDD DDDD DDDD ! DDDDDDD DDD D DDDD D DDDDDD DDDDDDD Eelgrass Observation 5

2 .

! none 9

! 5-10% low tide line !

! 11-25% low tide line

9

. ! 2

>25% low tide line 6

! >25% total AU ! 9.27 Sea-All Survey (not to scale) !

(! 8

£ 2 9.30 Eelgrass . ! 9

D ! 9.29 None !

3,00003,0001,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 28 EMU 10 Relative Habitat Quality

Legend 10.21

Relative Habitat Quality 141 ! 10.01

Low 69.6

!

! Medium !

! High 10.20 10.02 AU Number 10.19 13.9 93 49.5 !

AU Score Pitt Passage Low = 10.8 ! 10.22 ! 68 High = 141.0 10.18 !

Mean = 57.8 10.8 ! ! ! 10.17 10.03 55.2 44.4 McNeil Island 10.16 Filucy Bay 25.5 10.14

20.8 ! ! McDermott Point !

10.04 10.15 57.6

32.6 !

10.05

28 !

10.06

93 !

10.07

111 ! Drayton Passage 10.08

10.09 ! 27

78.3

! ! 10.10 10.11 14.7

78 !

10.12

10.13 84 Anderson Island

75 ! ! Devils Head £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 29 EMU 10 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

1

2 . 0 1 1 .0

0

!

1! !

2 .0 10 0 .2 0 1 1 0 ! . 1 9

1 ! 0

! . 2 2 10.18 !

! 03!

7 10. 1

! .1 ! 0 0 1 . 1

6 McNeil Island Filucy Bay

Legend !

Feeder Bluff 10.14 !

! ! 5 Bulkhead (>50% of shore) !

0.1

1 !

Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) 4 0 . 0

1

! !

5

0 .

0

1

! !

6

0 .

0

1 !

7

0 .

0 1 !

08 0. 9 1 .0

10 !

0 !

1! 1 1 . . 0

0 1 1! 2 .1 10 Anderson Island

.13 ! ! 10 £

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 30 EMU 10 Eelgrass Observations

Legend Eelgrass Observation 1

2

. ! 1 none 0 .0

1 0

1! !

5-10% low tide line ! ! 2 .0 11-25% low tide line 10

! >25% low tide line 0

2 ! ! . 0 >25% total AU 10.19 1

1 ! 0 ! . 2 No Sea-All Surveys in EMU 10 2 ! 10.18 !

0.03 !

7 1 1 .1 ! 0 0 1 . 1

6 McNeil Island Filucy Bay

10.14 ! !

! 5 0.1 1 4 0 . 0

1 !

5

0 .

0 ! 1

6

0 .

0

1 !

7

0 .

0 1 !

8 ! .0 9 10 .0 10

0! 1

. 0 ! 1 1

! .1 0 2 1 .1 10 Anderson Island

.13 ! ! 10 £

3,00003,0001,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 31 EMU 11-South Relative Habitat Quality 11.29 96

!! 11.27 11.28

17.5 67.5

! ! 11.26 75 Legend

! 11.25

13.3 Relative Habitat Quality

! ! Key Peninsula

11.24 ! Low

75 !

! 11.23 ! ! Medium

57 ! !

! 11.21 High 11.22 72

23 AU Number !

11.20 ! 11.19 !

33.6 ! 66 AU Score

! ! 11.17 ! Low = 8.4 11.18 11.4

11.16 High = 170.1

! 20 ! 8.4 Mean = 56.3 ! Whiteman Cove

11.15 81

Case Inlet

! !

11.14 78 11.12 11.11

132 93.2 ! 11.13 !

!

! 18.2 ! !! 11.10 39 ! Taylor Bay 11.09 25 11.08 69

11.06 !

31 ! ! 11.07 ! 132 11.05 11.04

72 !

! ! 26

11.03 !

108 ! 11.02 26 11.01 69 Devils Head £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

4,0002,000 0 4,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 32 EMU 11-North Relative Habitat Quality

Vaughn Bay

!

11.49 16.1

11.48 ! 81 ! 11.47 62.4 11.44 170.1 Dutcher Cove Case Inlet

! 11.43 ! 11.46 ! ! 102 63 ! ! 11.42 11.45 25 36 11.41

52.9 ! 11.39 ! ! 11.40 52.5 ! 72 11.38 60

11.37 ! 62.4

11.33 11.36

Herron Island 16.6 22 !

11.56 ! ! ! 11.35 !

11.55 39.9 11.57 ! ! 64.5 !

14.7 ! ! 47.3 11.34

! 81 ! ! 11.50 11.32 11.54 43.4 62.4 42

! Legend

! ! 11.52 11.53! 23 ! 133 11.31

! 50.4 Relative Habitat Quality

11.51 ! ! ! 11.30 60 ! Low 16.2 £

11.29 ! Medium 96 ! High 11.27 !! 11.28 AU Number

17.5 67.5 ! ! 11.26 AU Score 75 Low = 8.4 Key Peninsula !

11.25 High = 170.1

! 13.3 ! 11.24 Mean = 56.3

75

! ! ! !

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

5,0002,500 0 5,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 33

EMU 11-South Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

1

1

.

2 9

!!

11.27 11.28 ! 1 1 Key Peninsula . 2 6

! 1 Legend 1

.

2

5 ! ! Active Feeder Bluff 1

1 . ! 2 4 Bulkhead (>50% of shore)

! 11.23 !

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) 11.22 ! 11

.21 ! ! 11.20

! 11.19

! !

! 11.17

11.18 11.16 !

! Whiteman Cove

1 1 . 1

Case Inlet 5 !

1 1 . 1 4

.12

11 ! 11.11

.13!

! 11!

!! 11.10 ! Taylor Bay 11.09

11.08

11.06 ! ! 11.07 ! 11.05 11.04

!

! 11.03 ! 11.02 11.01 Devils Head £

4,0002,000 0 4,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 34 EMU 11 North - Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

!

9 4 . 1 1

! 11.48 !

11.47 4 .4 11 Case Inlet !

! 6 ! .4 11 11.41

! 11.40

8 .3 1 1

!

.37 11

Herron Island !

1 !

! 5 1! .5 .5 ! 7 1 11.34

1 ! 2 ! 3 . 0 1 5 1 . 1 11.54 1

!

!

! 1 3 11.52 11.53 . 1 ! 1 11.51 ! £

9

2

1. 1 Legend 7 !

2

. 1 1 !

1 ! 1 Active Feeder Bluff

.

2 6 !

1 Bulkhead (>50% of shore) 1 ! .

25 ! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) ! 1

1

. 2

4

5,0002,500 0 5,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 35 EMU 12 Relative Habitat Quality

12.16

193.5

! !

Mason County Pierce County

! 12.17 113.4 12.15

133.2

! ! ! 12.14

90

! 12.18 ! 12.13

162 25

! ! !

12.21 ! 12.12 ! !

! 56.7 ! 74.4 12.19 12.20 42

38.4 !

! 12.11 Legend Rocky Bay 26.5 Relative Habitat Quality !

! Low 12.10

16.8 ! Medium

! High

! 12.08 AU Number 52 ! AU Score 12.09 12.07 15.8 Low = 15.1 26 High = 193.5

! Mean = 64.5

! !

12.06 !

144 ! 12.05 29.4

12.04

! ! 15.1

12.01

! 27 ! 12.03 Vaughn Bay 58.3

!

! ! 16

12.02 15.7 £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

2,0001,000 0 2,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 36 EMU 12 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

6 .1 2 1

Mason County Pierce County

!

5

1 7 . 1 2

. 1 2 1

12.14 !

! 12.13

18

! . ! !

12

! ! 1! 2. 12.12 12.21 20 .19 12 1 2

. ! ! 1 1 Rocky Bay 0 .1 ! 12

!

! 8 .0 9 7 2 .0 0 1 2 . 1 2

1

! ! 12

.06

! !

12 .05

1 ! 2 .04

12.03 !

1 Vaughn Bay 0 . ! 2 1 12.02

Legend

! Feeder Bluff

! Bulkhead (>50% of shore)

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) £

2,00002,0001,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 37 EMU 12 Eelgrass Observations

Legend Eelgrass Observation

! none

12.16 !

! 5-10% low tide line

Mason County Pierce County ! 11-25% low tide line !

! >25% low tide line

7 .1 12.15 ! 2 1 >25% total AU

Sea-All Survey (not to scale) ! 1! 2.14

(! ! Eelgrass DDDDDDDDD 12.13 8 DD DD D DD DD DDDD 1 D DDD . DDDDD

DDDD ! DD ! DDDDD DDDD 12 DDD D DD DDD

DDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDD

DDDDD

DDDD ! 1! DDD DD 1 2 D 2 DD .12

. DDD 2 DD 1 DD None 0 DDD 2 DDDD D D D . ! DDD DD 2 DDDDD DDD 1 9DD DDDD D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 1DDDDD DDD . DD DD DDDDDD DDDDDDD 2 DDDDD DD DDD DDDDDD DD DDDD DDDD DDD DD DDDD DDDDDDD 1 DDDD DD DD DDDD DDDD D DDDDD DD DD DDDDD DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDD DDD DD DDDDDDD D DDD DDD DD DDDD D DDDDDD DDD D DDDDDD D DDDDD DDDDDD DD DDD DDD 1 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDD DD D DDDDDDDDDDD D DDD DD D DDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDD DDD 2 D DDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDD

D !(D DDD DDDD D !(D! DDD DDDDD

D !(D DDD DDDDDD . !(D (!D DDDD D DDDDD ! DDDDDDD (! !(!( DDDDDDDDD D DDDD 1 DD DDDDDDD !( !(!( D DDDDDD DD DDDD DDDDDDDD D (!DDDDDD(!D DDDD!D(DD!( D DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DD DDDDDDD D (!DD(!DDDDDDDDD (! D DDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDD D (!(!D !(!(!(!(! D DDDDD DDDD DDDD D 1 D (!DDDDDDD !(D D(!(!(!( D DDDDDD DD DDDD D (! DDDDD(!DD D DD DDDDD DDD DDD DDD D (!(!(! DD D D DDDD DDD DDD DDD D D !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDD D DDD DDD DD DDD D!(!(!(!(!(!(!(( (!(! DD D DDDD DD DDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!D( DDDDD D DDDDD DD DDDD DDDDDD DDD D DD (!DDDDDDDDDD(!DD(!D (! DD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDD DD DDD DDDDD DD!(!(!((!(!D DDDDD (! DD DDDDDDDDD D DDDDD DDD DDD DDDDD !((!(!(!(!DD(!(!( D DDDDDD (!D D DDDDDDDD DD DDDD DD DD DDDD(!!((!DDDD D DD (!D D DDDDDD D DDDDDDD DDD DD DDDD!( DDDD (!DDDDDD DDD DDDDD DDD DDDDD DD DDD D!D( (! (! DDD (!DDDDDD D DDDD DDD DD (!(! (!(! (!D DDD DDDDDDD D DDDD DD D !(!(!(!(!(!(!(! (!(!(!(!D DD DDDDDDDDD DDD DDDD DD (!(!(!(!(!(! (!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!D(!DDDDD DD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD (! D DDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDD DDD DD DD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDD DD DD DDDD DDD DDD DDDDDDD DD DDD DDDDDDD DDDDD DD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDD DD D DD Rocky DDDDD ! DDD DD DDDD DDDD DD DD D DDD D DD D DD D DDD DD DD Bay DDD DD 0 DD D DDD DD DDD DD 1 DDD DDD . D DDD DD DDD 2 D D DD DDD DDDDDDDDDDD 1 DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD D DDD D DD D DD D DDD D DDDD DD DDDD D DDDDD DDDD DDDDDD D DDDD DDDDDDDDDDD D DDDD DDDD D DDDDDDDD D DDDDD DD DDDDDDDDD DD DDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDD DDDD DD DDDD DDD DDDDDDDDD DDD DDD DDDDD DD DDDDD DD DDDD DD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD D DDDDDD !

! 9 .0 7 2 0 8 1 . 0 2 . 1 2 1

! ! 12

.06 !

1 2.05

1 ! 2 .04

12.03 !

1 Vaughn Bay 0 . !

2 1 ! 12.02 £

2,0001,000 0 2,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 38 EMU 13 Relative Habitat Quality

13.03

22 Nearns Point

! 13.04 ! 13.02 18.2 10.6

13.47

!

! 13.48

! 8.1 14.7 !

13.46 13.05 13.01 ! !

14.6 22.4 62.4 ! ! 13.43 13.42 13.50

13.45 9.5 23.9 7.6

14.6 ! !

13.06 ! Tanglewood Island

! ! 13.35

78.0 ! 13.44 13.36 ! 14.5 35 13.49 13.51 14

! 13.41 67.5 ! Ketners Point 13.07 ! 78.0 !

10.1 ! 14.7 !

13.08 13.40 ! 13.34 ! 13.37 78.0 9.1 15.4

! 13.38 22.1 13.39 13.09 ! 11.5 15.4 10.1 13.32

! 21 13.10 ! ! 37.0 13.33 13.31 11.6 16.1 !

Hale Passage

! 13.11 ! 138.0 13.30

! 11.1 ! Fox Island 13.29 13.12 20.2 25.2

! ! 13.13 72.0 ! 13.28 13.25

11.2 26! Legend ! 13.24 13.14 ! 13.26 42.0

16.1 13.27 ! 51 ! !

Relative Habitat Quality ! 13.22

47.3 21.0 !

Low 13.15 13.23 ! 13.21

96.0 45.4 ! 64.8

Medium !

!

! High 13.20 13.16 38.0 36.0 AU Number !

! AU Score £ 13.19 Low = 7.6 48.0 ! High = 138.0 Mean = 34.4 13.17 13.18 90.0 69.0

! Gibson Point

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 39 EMU 13 Eelgrass Observations

Nearns Point 13.03 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD

DDDDDD DDDDD DDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDD ! DD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD 4 ! 13.0 .0 2

3 DDDDDDDD1 D 3 D . D 4 D 7

8 DD .4 D 13 D

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD DD ! DDD D

1 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD ! D D DDD D D D

D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD D DD ! DDD D DDDDDD D DDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD 1 DD !( DDDD 3 D (!(!(! DDDD . D !(!( DDD 0 D (!(! DD

1 DD (!( DDDD DD !( DD !( ! DD DD 1 (!(!(! DDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDD

3 DDDDDD .46 DD 13 DD

DDD DDDDD!(D ! ! D!(!(DD (!(!DD(DDDDDDDDD . (!D(!DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD 0 DDD(! DDDD DDDD DDDDDDD

5 (!DDDDD

DDDD DDD DD ! ! DDDDDDDD DDDDD DDD 1 DD 3 DD . DD 4 DD 2 DDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD 5 DDDDDDD 4 DD . D 3 DD 1 DD DDDD

DDDDDD

DDDDD DDDDD D D ! 1 DD D DDDDDD .43

D D 13

3 DDDDDDD 13.50

. ! 0 ! DD DD DDD ! Tanglewood Island 6 DDDD DDDDD ! DDDDD 1 DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD

! 1 DDDDD DDDDDDDDDD 13.44 D DDD D

3 DDD 9 1 D 3.! 3 D D 3 D 1 5 DD DD D 4 DD . . D DDDDDDDD 0 DDDDD DDDDD 4 DDD . 5 DDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDD 7 DDDD DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD . DDDDDDDDDDD 1 DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ! ! 3 DDDDDDDD

DDD Ketners Point DD

3 DDD DDDDDDDDDD

1 ! DDDD 1 DD! DDDDD 6 7 DDDDDD 3 1 DDDDD

8 DDDDD 3

! 3 .0 ! . 1 3 .

8 3 . 3

3 1 . 3 4 4 !

1 1 ! 1 0 3 3 .

3

.0 1 ! 3 1 9 . ! 3 9

1 ! 13.32 3 ! ! .1 13.33 0 13 .3 ! 1 1 3 Hale Passage

.1 1 ! 1 3

.3

! 0 ! 1 Fox Island 1 3 3 Legend . .1 2 2 9 D DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD ! DDD 1 DDD Eelgrass Observation DDD D DDD 3

DDD 13 DD ! DDD . DDD

DDD 1 DDD

DD 3 ! DD DDD . DDD DDD 2 DDD DDD DDD none DDD 8 DD DDD DDD ! DDD DDD

DDD DDD

DDD DDD ! DD

DDD

DDD DDD 1 D 3. D 25 DDD ! DDD 1 DDD 5-10% low tide line DDD DD 1 DDD DD ! 1 3 DDD

DDD 3 DD !

DDD . D 3

DDD 2 DDD . ! 1

. 4 !

4 1 2

11-25% low tide line 3 6 ! !

. ! 13

DD 2 DDDD . DDD ! DD 2 DDDD 1 7 DDDD

DDDD 2 DDDD 3

DDDD DDDD DD . ! >25% low tide line DDDDD DDD 1 DDDD DDDD DDDDDD 5 D DDDDD 1 DD DDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDD 1 D D 3

D . D D 2 D D 3 DDD DDDDD DDD D 3 ! DD D DDDD DDDDDD DDD DDDDD DDD DD D D . DDDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDD D D 2 DDDD DDDDDDD >25% total AU DDD D DDDD D DD DDDD DDD D 1 DDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDD DD D D D ! D D D DD ! D DDDDDD D D DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDD Sea-All Survey (not to scale) 1 3 . 1 0

6 2 (! . Eelgrass 3 !

1

!

D None 9 .1 (!DDD (!D 3 (!D (!D 1 (!DD DD (!DD D ! DD DDDDDDDD DDD DDD (!DD (!D (!D (!(!D (!D (!DDDDDD (!(!(!DD D (!(!(!DD(!DDDDDDDD 8 (!(!DDDDDDD (!(!D(!DDD(!DDD 1 1 DD(!DDDDDDDD . D (!DD 3 (!DD 3 (!(!DDDDDD (!D . D 1 D 1 DD DDDD DDDDDDD DDD 7 DD DDD DDD DDDD DDDDDDD (!DDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDD D DD DDDDDDDDD DD D DD DDDDDDDDDDD D DD !DDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDD DD DDDDDDD DDD DDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DD DDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Gibson Point £

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 40 EMU 13 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

.03 Nearns Point

13 ! 1 4 3.02 .0

3

1 ! ! 13.01 8 13.47

1 .4 !

3 3 ! ! 13.46 . 1 0

5

! ! 5 ! 13.42

4

.

3

13 13.43!

1 50

. . ! 0 ! Tanglewood Island 6 ! 13 ! 1 13.44 3 1 13.35 3 1 .0 9 . 5

7 4 4 . !

! .

1 Ketners Point 1 ! 3 3 ! 6 3 7

1

1 ! 3 . ! . 0 3 1 8 . 3

8 3 3

1 4 3 .4 ! . ! 3 3 1 0 1 3 1 .

3 1 ! .0 3 9 . 1 ! 3 1 9 3

.1 13.32 0 ! 13.33 13 .3 ! 1 1 3 Hale Passage .1 1 1 3

! .3

0 !

! 1 Fox Island 3 . 2 9

! 1

3 13 !

.1 ! . 3 2 8

!

13.25

! 1 ! 1 3 3 . 1 .2

1 1 3 4

4 3 .

2

!

! . !

! ! 1 2 6 1 3 7 .2

13 3 2

. ! . ! 15 2 3 1

Legend 3

.

2

1 ! ! Feeder Bluff ! 1

3 ! . 0 1

2

Bulkhead (>50% of shore) 6 .

3

1 ! !

Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) ! 9 .1 13 !

8 1 .1 3 13 .1 7

! Gibson Point £

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 41 EMU 14 Relative Habitat Quality

14.57 Otso 14.51 75

Point ! ! 35

Eagle Island !

14.50

81 !

14.52 14.55

! 14.48 !

! ! 28 51.8 14.53 ! 23

38.4 !

14.45 14.49 14.56 28 ! 99 14.54 55.2

! ! 14.47 74.3

Drayton Passage 75 ! 14.46 14.01 79.2 11.5

Yoman 14.44 ! 84 Point

14.02 75.6

Amsterdam Bay ! 14.43 Anderson Island 69.6 14.38

14.37 14.42

42 ! !

14.36 26.3 ! ! ! 20.8 52.5 !

14.40 14.35 ! 14.39 17.4 78 96 ! 14.41

37 ! Treble Point 14.34 ! 32.6 14.09 24.5 Sandy

! Point 14.33 14.32 ! 66 14.03 175.5 14.14 14.07 42 Carlson Bay ! 175.5 ! 25.6

! ! ! ! 14.06

14.31 !

! 14.08 62.4 14.04 30 ! 14.10 87 ! 81

105 ! 14.05 14.13 14.11 45.4 14.30 14.15 108 93 Cole Point 14.12 East Oro Bay 78 43.2 96 ! Legend ! ! ! Oro Bay

14.20 Relative Habitat Quality !

33.6 14.29 !

! Low 30 !

14.19 ! !

! 14.16 14.21 ! 17.4 Medium 28.8

! 14.18 13.2

! 14.17 24.3 High ! 33 14.22 14.27 14.26 56 AU Number !

14.28 36.8 ! ! ! 37 Lyle 78 ! AU Score Thompson Cove 14.25 Point 64 Low = 11.5 14.24 14.23 High = 175.5 90 ! 75 Mean = 58.6 £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 42 EMU 14 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

Otso 7 Point 5

1 .

4 !

!

! .5 4 Eagle Island

1 1

! 0 ! .5 4 1

14.52 ! ! 1 4.

53 8! 14.4 14

.55

! 7 ! 4 14.49 . 1

4 4 ! 1 5 14.54 . 4.4 5 1 ! 6 6

.4 ! 4 1 Drayton Passage 1 4 .0 1

! Yoman 4 4 . Point 4

1

1

4

.

0 2

1 ! 4 Anderson Island .4 Amsterdam Bay 3 1 7 !

.3 4. 14 ! 4 6 1 2

14.3 4

.4

! ! 0 5 .3 4

1 41 ! 14.

4 3 . 4

1 ! Treble Point 09 Sandy 1 4. 4. 1 4.03 Point 33 1!

1 4. 1 ! 4 3 4 1 2 . 14.0 . 1 7 3 4 ! ! 4 ! 1 1 14 . .0 Carlson Bay 1 6

0 ! 1 1 4

1 4 ! .0 4 .3 1 5 .

4 0 1

.

1 1 East Oro Cole Point 3 1 Bay 4.04

4.1 ! 1 5 2

! !

1 .

! 4 1

1 Oro Bay

4

.2 !

9 9 ! 1 . 14 4 .2 0 14 1 !

! . 1 14.16 2 4 1 . 2 8 1 14.17 4 . 2 Legend 2 14.27 3 ! 2

! ! . ! ! 14.25 4 1 Feeder Bluff 4

2

Thompson Cove . ! 4

Bulkhead (>50% of shore) 1 ! ! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore) £

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 43 EMU 14 Eelgrass Observations

Otso 7 5 Point .

1 !

! 4. 4 Eagle Island

51 1 0 ! .5 4

1 14.52 DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDD! DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDD D 1 DDDDDDDDDDD DDDD

8 DDDDDDDDD 4 4 D D . D D

4 D D

1 D D D D DDD D

DDD ! DDD D ! . D

DD D DDD 1 DDDDDDDDDD 5 D

D 4! D !

D 3 . DD D ! 5

DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD 5

DD DDD DD ! DDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDD DDD 9 D 14.4 DD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DD DD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DDD D 1 DDDDDDDD D 7 D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DD 4

DD 4 5 DDD ! . 14.54

4.4 .5 1 ! 4 ! 1 6 6

.4 ! 4 1 Drayton Passage 1 4 .0 1

Yoman ! 4 Point 4 . 4

1

1

4

.0 2

DDD DDDDDD DD D 1 DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD 4 D D DD DDDD . DDDDDDDDD 4 DDDDDDD DD D 3 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D ! D D DDDD D DDDDDDDD D Anderson Island DDDDDDDDD D DD DDDD D DDDD D DD DDD DD DDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDD DD D Amsterdam Bay DDD D

DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDD

D 1

D ! D 7 DDDDDDDDDD

3 DD! 4 . D 4 DD D

DDDDDD 1! DDDDDDD D D D DD .

! DDDDDDDDD 4 D ! D .36 D 2 14 1 ! 4

.4

! 0 5 ! .3 4

1 1 ! 4 14. 4 3 . Treble 4 Point 1 !

9 14.0

03 ! Sandy 14 1 14. .3 4. ! Point 3 32

! 4

! 1 1 14.31 . ! 4.07 4 ! ! !

! ! 1 1 4

4.08 .06 ! 1 Carlson Bay DDDDDD D D 1 D D 4 D . D D 1 D D 0 D D DDD DDDD DDDD DD 1 DDDD DDD ! DDD D DDD DDDD D DDD 4

DDD D DDD

DDD DD DDD 1 DD D ! DDDDDDD D DDD D DDDDD D . DD D DDDDDDD D 4 DDDDDDDD DDD D D 0 DDD 1 D D D DDDDD DD D D DDDDD DD D D DDD DD D D DDDDD 5 . DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDD DD DD 4 DDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDD D 3 DDDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD DDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDD D DDD D D DDDDDDDD D D DD DDD D DDDD DDD 0 DDDD D . 1 D DDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD DD .1 D D D D D DD DD 14 D DDDDDDD DD DDD D DD DD D DD DDDDDD DDDDDDD D DDDDD D DDDDDD 1 DDDD D D D DD DDD DDDDDDD D DDDDD D D DDDD D D DDDDDDDDDDDD DD DD DDDD D D DD(! Cole Point D D DD D D (! D D 3 D D D ! DDDDD DDD DD East DD (!!(D DD D D DD (!D DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD 4 (!DDDD DDD DDD DD (!D DDDD D 1 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD 0 DDDDDDDD D!(D!(DDDD DD D D D DDDD . D (!(! DDD D 4 D DD DDDDDD D(!(!(!(!D(!(!(!(! D D D DDD D DD 4 !( DD D . DD DDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDD DDDDD !(!D(!(!(!(!(! D D D DD DDDD D 1 D DDDDD (!( DDDD D 1 D DDDD DD D DD DDDD (!DD

DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDD DD D ! DDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD(!(!DD 5 DDD 2 D D D D DDD DDDD DD!(DD DDDDDDDDD D DDD DDD D DDD DD DDDD(!D(!(!(!DDDDD(!DD Legend D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD D DDDDDD DDDDD DDD(!DD(!(!(!(!DDD(!DDDD D D DDD DDDD Oro Bay DDDDDD D DD DD (! DD DD DDD DDD D DDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD

DDDD ! DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DD D DDDDDDDDDD 1 DD DD D D D D D DDDD ! DDDD DD DDDDD DD DD D

DDD D DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD DD D . DD D DDD DDD D D DDD D DDDDD DDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDD DD D D D DDDDDD DDDDDDD DDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD D DDD D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DDDDDDDDDDD DD DD DD DDDDDD D

DDDDD D D DD DDDDDD DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD D DD DDDDDDDD D 4 D D DD D DD D DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD D D DDD D DDDDDD DDDD D DDDDDD DDD D DD DDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DD DDDD DDDDDD DD DDDD DDD DDDDDD DD DDD DD DDDDDDD

DDD DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDD 1 D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDD ! DD DDDD DD DDD DDDDDDD DDDDD DDD DD DDDDD DD DD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Eelgrass Observation DD DDD DDDDDDD Oro Bay DDD D DD DDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDD 1 DDDDDDDDD

DDDDD DDD

! DD 14 DD .20 4 DDD DDDD DDDDDDDD DD DD ! DDDDDD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDD D . DDDDDDDD DD D DDDD DDDD D

2 DDD DDDDDD

none DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD D DDDD D DDDDD D DDDDDD ! D DD 9 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D DD DDDD DDDDDD DDD D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDD D DDDDDD

DDD D DD

D D

D DD ! D D ! D D 9 D DD 1 D D . D D 4 D D 1 D D D DD D DD 14 D DD DDD

5-10% low tide line DDDD ! D ! DD DDDDDD DD DDDD DDDDD

1 DDDDD 4 DD .16 DD

.2 DD

1 DDD ! DD ! DD DDD DDDDD 4 DDDDD

1 DDDDD ! 8 DDDD .1 DD 14 D DD . DDDD 11-25% low tide line DDD D DD DDDDD 2 DD DD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDD DDDDD 8 DDD

DDDDD DDD DD DDD DDDDDDD

DD DDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDD ! D DD DD .17 DDDDDDDD D 4 D D 1 DD D DDD

DDD DDDDDDDDD

DDD 1 DDDD DDDD ! DDD DDDDDD DDDD >25% low tide line DDDDD 4 DDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDDD DDDDD .

DDDDDD 2 DDDDDDDDDD

DDDD DDDD ! DDD 14. DD 26 DDDDDDDD 2 DDDDDDDDDD DDD DDD 1 DD 4 DD . ! D 2 DD 7 DDDDD DDDDDDDDDD >25% total AU DDDD ! DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD ! DDDDDDDDDDDDD 14. D D 25 DDDDDDDDDDDD ! DDDD DDDD ! DDDD D DDDD DDDDDDDDDDD (!DDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD D DDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDD DDDDD (!(!DDD(!DDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD!D((!(!DDD DD DDDDDDDDDDD (!DDDDD (!(!(!DDD!((!!((!(!!(!(!(D (!(!(!DDDD (!(!(!(!!( 4 (!(!DD (!D (!DDDD (!DDD DDDD DD(!D Sea-All Survey (not to scale) DDDDDDDDDD 2 . 3

4 2 4. 1 1 (! Eelgrass Thompson Cove !

D None £

3,0001,500 0 3,000 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 44 EMU 15 Relative Habitat Quality

15.13 96

15.15

!

! 78

! ! 15.14

36

! !

!

15.12 !

! ! 15.17

! 15.11 84 ! 75

87 15.16

! ! !

48 ! e 15.18 g 26

a 15.10 !

! s ! Gertrude Island

!

s ! 66 !

a 15.19 15.30 !

P 15.09 15.22

tt 32.4 84

! i 30.8 Still ! 15.29 78

P 15.08 90

!

! Harbor

!

78 !

! !

15.20 ! McNeil Island ! 14.5 15.23 15.21 75 102

15.07 !

62 !

! ! ! 15.06 15.24 50 ! 192

15.05 ! 87 15.04 26 15.25 ! 15.03 ! 75 ! 35

! 15.02 50 ! ! 15.28 15.26 11.2 72 ! B 15.01 ! 15.27 alch 32.4 46 Passa ge Legend Relative Habitat Quality

! Low

! Medium

! High AU Number AU Score Anderson Island Low = 11.2 High = 192.0 Mean = 64.0 £

Habitat quality is relative to other AU scores in the EMU.

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 45 EMU 15 Feeder Bluffs and Bulkheads

Legend

! Active Feeder Bluff

! Bulkhead (>50% of shore)

! Bulkhead (10 - 50% of shore)

15.13

15.15 !

15.14 !

15.12

! ! 15.17 15.11 !

15.16 ! 15.18 e g !

a Gertrude Island

s ! ! s !

a 15.19 ! P 15.09 15.30 15.22

t it 15.29!

P 15.08 Still

! !

! Harbor !

15.20 McNeil Island ! 15.23 15.21

15.07 ! ! 15.06 15.24

!

15.05 ! 15.04 15.25 ! 15.03

! 15.02 ! 15.28 ! 15.26 15.01 ! 15.27

Ba lch Pa ssage

Anderson Island £

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 46 EMU 15 Eelgrass Observations

15.13

15.15

! !

15.14 !

15.12 !

! 15.17 15.11 !

15.16

! ! 15.18 e g !

a

s ! Gertrude Island

s ! a 15.19 ! P 15.09 15.30 15.22

t it !

P 15.08 Still 15.29

!

Harbor ! !

15.20 McNeil Island ! 15.23 15.21

15.07

! ! ! 15.06 15.24

!

15.05 ! 15.04 15.25 ! 15.03 ! !

! 15.02 ! 15.28 ! 15.26 ! 15.01 ! 15.27

Ba lch Pa ssage Legend Eelgrass Observation

! none

! 5-10% low tide line

! 11-25% low tide line

! >25% low tide line Anderson Island

! >25% total AU No Sea-All Survey in EMU 15 £

3,5001,750 0 3,500 Feet 12570 7/03 Figure 47

APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS

Pentec Environmental 12570-01 July 3, 2003 Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 1 - Recent landslide indicates active feeder bluffs (AU 1.14).

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 2 - North Creek estuary in Gig Harbor (AU 2.07) (Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Oblique Aerial Photos, 2000 Series).

Photo 3 - Tidegate (one of two) in Whiteman Cove (AU 11.16). Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 4 - Lagoon and marsh (AU 11.17) separated from Whiteman Cove by sheet pile wall. Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 5 - Recent landslide along the southwestern shoreline of Fox Island (AU 13.17).

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 6 - A dike separates a large marsh and wetland on Anderson Island (AU 14.09) from the rest of East Oro Bay (Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Oblique Aerial Photos, 2000 Series).

Photo 7 - Concrete vaults and bulkhead in AU 1.03. Restoration of the beach could include removal of the vaults and the bulkhead, along with removal of fill and re-grading to the natural contours of the upper beach, followed by planting of native vegetation.

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 8 - Steel/wire framework lying partly on the upper beach and on the riparian shrub-scrub fringe above MHHW on Shaws Cove spit (AU 5.10). Removal of the relic structure would improve the upper beach habitat along the spit.

Photo 9 - Failed wooden bulkhead on Raft Island (AU 6.15). Remnants could be removed to restore beach to natural conditions.

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 10 - Deteriorating concrete bulkhead (AU 6.17). Bulkhead could be replaced with bioengineered structure that would still provide bank stability.

Photo 11 - Dilapidated wood and styrofoam float (AU 6.14). Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 12 - Riprap and concrete debris line the shore in Burley Lagoon near the mouth of Purdy Creek (AU 7.12). Shoreline habitat improvement could be obtained by removing the debris and abandoned structure(s), and removing and replacing the riprap through bioengineering techniques. Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 13 - Concrete bulkhead that has partially collapsed in AU 8.10. Remaining bulkhead appears to provide little or no function in protecting structures on top of bluff.

Photo 14 - Bulkhead in AU 8.10 has been constructed using sections of concrete pipe. Removal of the bulkhead would restore the natural beach slope. Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 15 - Old tires and concrete debris placed along the shoreline in AU 8.16.

Photo 16 - Fifty-five gallon barrels/drums used to stabilize the bank in AU 8.16.

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 17 - Boats resting on the upper beach within the marsh vegetation in AU 9.11.

Photo 18 - Decaying bulkhead in Mayo Cove (AU 9.11).

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 19 - Wood bulkhead at the mouth of a small stream that drains into Vaughn Bay (AU 12.4). Removal of the bulkhead would restore the small estuary that once existed there prior to bulkhead construction.

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 20 - Section of stone bulkhead that has collapsed in AU 13.50. If necessary, bulkhead could be replaced with bioengineered alternative.

Pentec Environmental 12570-01

Photo 21 - Remaining pier structure of an abandoned ferry dock on Fox Island (AU 13.31). Structures could be removed to restore the natural shoreline.

Photo 22 - A dike at the head of East Oro Bay prevents saltwater intrusion and fish access into the extensive marsh and wetland on the opposite side (AU 14.09). Removal of the dike would greatly expand the area of saltmarsh habitat and substantially improve salmonid habitat quality in the bay.

APPENDIX B MANUAL FOR USE AND APPLICATION OF SEWIP TIDAL HABITAT MODEL

Pentec Environmental 12570-01 July 3, 2003

MANUAL FOR USE AND APPLICATION OF TIDAL HABITAT MODEL

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Tidal Habitat Model (THM; the model) provides a method for inventorying existing tidal habitat (marine shoreline and estuaries) function for salmonids that can be completed using aerial photographs and a single site visit during a low tide. The model is the result of substantial modifications to the anadromous fish portion of the Mudflat Model developed originally by an interagency technical advisory committee for the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Program (SEWIP) (City of Everett et al. 1997). The model modifications were focused on more accurately describing the quality of habitats in the estuary and adjacent nearshore areas for salmonids, with emphasis on chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout. Ecological functions addressed by the model include feeding, migration, predator avoidance, and saltwater adaptation.

GENERAL APPROACH

The THM follows the indicator value assessment (IVA) method of the original SEWIP model and is patterned after the approach of Hruby et al. (1995). The model assesses discrete units of habitat that are delineated by physical changes in habitat types or hydrological boundaries between units of habitat. These discrete units are termed assessment units (AUs). The model asks a series of “yes” or “no” questions about the hydrological, chemical, physical, geomorphological, biological, and landscape features (indicators) present within the AU. A value is assigned for each positive response. These values were based on the degree to which each indicator was judged to be associated with the positive aspects of each function: indicators strongly associated with the function being assessed were assigned a value of 3; those moderately associated were assigned a value of 2; those weakly associated with the function were assigned a value of 1. Aspects of some indicators were judged to be disproportionately beneficial (e.g., large areas of native marsh) or adverse (e.g., severe hydromodification or chemical contamination) to such a degree that they were assigned positive or negative multipliers that are applied to the sum of the values from all the other indicators. Both the indicator value rankings of specific landscape features and the overall value multipliers were assigned metrics based upon evidence from the literature where available, or where literature was lacking, by the collective agreement of the expert panelists.

Pentec Environmental Page 1 12570-01 July 3, 2003

APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

Although developed for use as part of the overall SEWIP, the THM was intended to be fully applicable to other estuary and nearshore conditions around the greater Puget Sound area. The model is designed to be relevant to both tidal estuarine habitats and nearshore environments. Some model questions may not be applicable for both estuarine and nearshore habitats; if the model question is not relevant (or the indicator is not present), the question is simply left as a nonaffirmative answer. In the nearshore, for example, no AU is expected to have a native plant marsh over more than 25 percent of its area; hence this question (16d) likely will never be scored in nearshore areas. This will not diminish the model’s ability to rate the relative quality of an AU within the nearshore, however. The model is focused only on indicators that are of direct or indirect relevance to anadromous salmonids. Moreover, the model focuses on existing or presumed indicator condition, not on the processes necessary to maintain those conditions. Although the model is clearly focused on the several important functions provided by estuarine and nearshore areas to juvenile salmonids, certain features of the model also serve to rate quality for adult salmon.

DOCUMENT PURPOSE

This document sets forth the underlying rationale and assumptions for each question and provides the model user with background information and protocols to assist in model application. The model is composed of 34 questions. To refine the model sensitivity to complexities and gradients in the environment, several questions include multiple subquestions, with only one subquestion to be answered under each question. This manual lists and describes the main questions. All questions and subquestions can be found in the field inventory sheets, Appendix B.

MAPPING METHODOLOGY

The AUs are first delineated on a series of oblique aerial photographs available from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Other information sources (e.g., indicating shoreline modifications) may be available (e.g., in GIS) and used in conjunction with major transitions in riparian condition or shoreline morphology in the initial delineation (done in the office) of the AUs. The AU boundaries may be adjusted on the basis of field observations of transitional conditions that are not evident in the photos or other information sources.

Pentec Environmental Page 2 12570-01 July 3, 2003

In defining the specific AU boundaries in the waterward and landward directions, the following conventions are used:

1. Waterward Boundary

• For nearshore AUs, the waterward boundary will be set at −30 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), the approximate limit of productive vegetative growth that directly forms habitat for salmonids (e.g., beds of bull kelp, Nereocystis luetkeana).

• In the estuarine areas and tidal rivers, waterward boundary will be set at the edge of dredged navigation channel or at the −10 feet MLLW contour, where bathymetric data are available.

• In large distributary channels or river mainstems, the waterward boundary will be set at 50 feet waterward of the lowest line of vegetation visible in aerial photos except where more extensive shallow sand or mud bars were evident in aerial photos or from the field surveys; in those cases, the boundary is drawn 50 feet waterward of the lowest edge of the visible shallow-water area.

• In narrow tidal channels, AUs may span the entire stream width and include both banks.

2. Landward Boundary

• In AUs lacking riparian vegetation (e.g., riprapped or bulkheaded areas) the boundary will be set at mean higher high water (MHHW).

• In AUs scored as having a riparian buffer (either above or below ordinary high water [OHW]), the landward boundary will be set at 25 feet landward of OHW or to the top of any adjacent dike, whichever is least.

In AUs meeting the criterion for large woody debris (LWD) contribution, the boundary is set at one site potential tree height (187 feet) from OHW or to the limit of the trees that could contribute LWD, whichever is least.

Several questions in the model are scored on the basis of portions of the AU that lie within the littoral zone. The littoral zone is defined as that area between MHHW (about +11.2 feet MLLW) to −10 feet MLLW, the area typically considered to be important habitat for juvenile anadromous fish during their early marine life history (e.g., McDonald et al. 1987). In areas where the upper

Pentec Environmental Page 3 12570-01 July 3, 2003

beach is vegetated with water-dependent vegetation, the OHW line will be used to define the upper limit of the AU.

Along the major tidal river channels lacking a dredged channel, shoreline AUs will be defined and rated down to extreme low water (ELW) in the adjacent channel. This is done to focus assessment of habitat function on those attributes most important to juvenile salmonids. It is assumed that, while moving downstream in the water column of the center portion of the mainstem channels, juvenile salmonids are not dependent on shoreline features that are scored in the model (e.g., McDonald et al. 1987).

ASSUMPTIONS AND FIELD PROTOCOL

Indicator Group - Hydrology

Question 1: Does AU have a vernal or perennial freshwater stream or spring?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and osmoregulatory (saltwater adaptation) functions. Fresh water entering a tidal littoral habitat is assumed to provide increased ecological function by providing a range of small-scale salinity gradients that allow juvenile salmonids to select a salinity compatible with their stage of osmoregulatory adaptation (Thorpe 1994, Healey 1991, Rich 1920). Contributions of fresh water at the saltwater interface can also add diversity of plant and prey assemblages. For example, saltmarshes with freshwater input are more likely to support sedge assemblages that produce prey used by juvenile chinook (Pomeroy 1981). Freshwater streams and springs are especially useful for ocean-type chinook fry that outmigrate to estuary environments shortly after emergence from the gravel (Healey 1982).

Protocol: Answer “yes” if the AU has a freshwater stream or spring during the spring outmigration period. Spring or stream must be of sufficient flow to either modify the vegetative assemblages present or maintain a channel with sufficient depth to provide juvenile salmonids refuge during low tides. Freshwater inflow should be sufficient that salinity in the stream is lower than the ambient tidal water flowing by the AU. Note that presence of a channel is scored separately in Questions 4 and 5; thus, additional value is assumed if the channel is formed by freshwater rather than tidal flow.

Scoring can be done from maps or aerial photographs but may require field survey to verify that the water flow has significant freshwater inflow and does not consist merely of tidal drainage.

Pentec Environmental Page 4 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 2: Is littoral area of AU depositional (slow currents, low wave action)?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding function. Depositional areas are where settling of fine-grained sediments and organic particles occurs. Depositional areas in estuarine habitats have been shown to be more productive for epibenthic zooplankton prey of juvenile salmonids than are nondepositional areas (e.g., Sibert et al. 1977, Houghton and Gilmour 1997, Houghton et al. 1998).

Protocol: Subquestions are scored based on the percentage of the littoral portion of the AU area that displays depositional characteristics, i.e., fine-grained sediments or accumulations of organic debris. Vegetated marsh areas will almost always be depositional; areas with coarse sand or gravel will seldom be depositional in an estuarine or nearshore environment.

Percentage of AU that is depositional can be determined from maps or aerial photographs, but in many cases will require field verification of breaks in habitat (e.g., sediment) type.

Question 3: Does AU have refuge from high velocities (e.g., during maximum ebb tide)?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the migration function and is relevant to estuarine AUs only (i.e., it will not be scored for most nearshore areas). Refuge from high velocities during river flooding or during maximum ebb tides allows juvenile salmonids to remain in the estuarine environment longer, potentially increasing the opportunities for feeding and growth before continued migration into the marine environment (Maser and Sedell 1994, Levy and Northcote 1981).

Protocol: Determination that refuge from high velocities is present in an AU may be possible from high-quality aerial photography, but field verification is usually necessary. Features providing this refuge include, but may not be limited to: LWD, large boulders or bedrock features, deep channel areas connected to main distributary channels, blind sloughs, and off-channel mudflat/marsh complexes with low tide refuge. In some cases, artificially constructed features such as wing walls, bridge piers, or riprap may also provide refuge from high velocities (e.g., Maser and Sedell 1994, CDFG 1995).

Pentec Environmental Page 5 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 4: Does AU contain a tidal channel?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the predation/protection and feeding functions. Shallow tidal channels in marsh/mudflats provide low-tide refuge and feeding opportunities for juvenile salmonids (e.g., Levy and Northcote 1982, Levings 1982, Ryall and Levings 1987, Healey 1991). These functions are especially important for chinook fry (Congleton et al. 1981, Levy and Northcote 1982), as movement by this species into deeper water appears to be controlled by size (Thorpe 1994), probably as a manifestation of predator avoidance. Presence of a channel within an AU allows fish to remain within the AU during low-tide periods (Healey 1982) and prolongs the opportunities for fish to exploit food resources within the AU. Deeper channels and those that remain flooded at tides equal to or lower than MLLW provide additional benefits as deepwater refuge from certain types of predators (e.g., Levy and Northcote 1982). The habitat benefits to chinook of a deep tidal channel are sufficient that a natural, deep tidal channel (or a channel constructed to simulate and function as a natural channel) are given a positive multiplier of 1.5. Channel benefits for bull trout and coho are less well documented but are given a positive multiplier of 1.3. Shallower drainages (i.e., those that do not retain sufficient water for juvenile salmonid residence when the tide falls below mean sea level [MSL]) are still valuable but provide those values for only a portion of the tidal cycle. Constructed navigation channels that bisect an AU were considered to provide many of the functions provided by natural channels.

Protocol: Unless photos taken at different tide stages are available, scoring this indicator will require a site survey. An AU that lies along the margin of one of the major distributary channels of the river does not receive a positive answer for this question unless it has side channels that enter the distributary. “Yes” is the appropriate answer to Question 4a, if the channel is either deep enough (e.g., deeper than 0 feet MLLW) or contains enough runoff flow to provide habitat for juvenile salmonids during low tides. If a natural channel is present but it does not provide habitat below mean tide level, or if a dredged navigation channel is present, answer “yes” to Question 4b.

Question 5: Is tidal channel dendritic or highly sinuous?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the predation/protection and feeding functions. Most natural unconfined stream channels are sinuous, and channels through broad natural mudflats are often also dendritic, with first-, second-, and third-order channels (Congleton et al. 1981). Increased length provided by channels that are either dendritic or highly sinuous provides increased low-tide refuge area and increased access to more of the AU at more tidal elevations.

Pentec Environmental Page 6 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Healey (1982) also notes that sinuous channels increase trapping of detritus, increasing prey productivity.

Protocol: Channel morphology can be determined using aerial photographs or by site survey. A highly sinuous channel is defined as one that has sinuosity of greater than 1.5; i.e., where the channel length between two points is 1.5 times the straight line distance between the two points. A dendritic channel system within an AU must have multiple secondary channels; the secondary channels can be shallower than the main channel.

Indicator Group – Water Quality

Question 6: What range of salinity is present in AU?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and osmoregulatory (saltwater adaptation) functions. Presence of a range of salinities within the estuarine environment provides staging opportunities for outmigrant and returning salmonids to adjust physiologically between fresh and salt water. The range of salinities available within the estuary transition zone also affects the juvenile salmonid forage base by providing niches unavailable in fresh water only, and thereby a more diverse assemblage of food organisms (e.g., insects and crustaceans) (Pentec 1992). For the function of physiological transition (i.e., up- or down-regulation of gill ATPase activation for adjustment to changing NaCl concentrations), AUs with polyhaline salinities (marine conditions with > 18 parts per thousand [ppt] salinity) are considered less important to salmonids than AUs with typically oligohaline or mesohaline salinities (variable salinity often ranging between 0.5 and 5 ppt but occasionally ranging as high as 18 ppt). This difference in importance is a result of the fact that most physiological changes that occur during smoltification occur at the lower salinities (Healey 1982). However, species that spend a greater portion of their early life history rearing in fresh water (e.g., coho, bull trout) may engage in extended rearing in an AU that has predominantly fresh water (almost always < 0.5 ppt).

Protocol: The range of salinities within an AU may be based on location within the study area, ascertained from previous monitoring efforts, or can be evaluated during field survey using either a hydrometer or refractometer. For example, rivers are by definition fresh water, although a deep-channel salt wedge may be present (answer “yes” to Question 6a). AUs in the other estuary and nearshore areas are polyhaline (answer “yes” to Question 6c). In EMUs 2 and 3 efforts should be made to characterize the salinities over the tidal range experienced within the AU. This characterization need not require empirical testing, but if modeled, uncertainties should be minimized.

Pentec Environmental Page 7 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 7: Do temperature and dissolved oxygen meet criteria for salmonid health?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the health and growth efficiency of salmonids in the AU. An AU will provide no function for salmonid rearing or refuge during periods when dissolved oxygen (DO) and/or temperature exceed thresholds of tolerance for the species. Threshold for temperature is considered to be 18oC (64oF) as a 24-hour average. Threshold for DO is considered to be greater than 8 mg/L in fresh water (EMU 1); greater than 6 mg/L in marine areas (EMUs 4 through 7); and greater than 7 mg/L in EMU 2 and 3. Maximum habitat function is provided when the majority of an AU meets the temperature/DO thresholds at all times. However, if the majority of an AU does not meet temperature and/or DO criteria for salmonids at some times, e.g., mid-day in midsummer, it can still provide suitable habitat at other times, when temperature and/or DO are not limiting.

Protocol: Range of temperature and DO within an AU should be determined from previous monitoring efforts to the extent practicable. Alternatively, or additionally, these data can be collected during field visits with portable field probes. Efforts should be made to characterize the temperature/DO over the tidal and seasonal range experienced within the AU. This characterization could be modeled and need not require field measurement. Measurement of acceptable temperature and DO in an AU in the late spring or summer suggests that these water quality factors would be unlikely to limit salmonid use in the fall through early spring, when temperatures are lower and DOs higher.

Indicator Group – Physical Features

Question 8: Shoreline complexity: What is the ratio of the AU high-water shoreline length at MHHW to its linear width at MLLW?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the migration, predation/protection, and feeding functions. Higher shoreline complexity increases the “edge effect” by increasing the length of shoreline in close proximity to vegetation and the opportunity for fish to feed and find refuge from certain predators along the upper tide line. Shoreline vegetation provides direct shade, cover, and insect fall for juvenile salmonids (e.g., Spence et al. 1996; Cordell et al. 1997, 1998; Hetrick et al. 1998a,b) as well as indirect benefits from contribution of leaves and twigs to the detrital food base within the AU.

Protocol: Waterward edge width is the straight-line distance (e.g., at MLLW) between the boundary lines between the AU in question and the two adjacent AUs, measured parallel to the flow of the adjacent river channel, or parallel to

Pentec Environmental Page 8 12570-01 July 3, 2003

the beach contour, in nearshore AUs. The high-water shoreline at MHHW is approximately the distance a fish migrating in shallow water would follow at high tide in transiting through the AU. In the estuary, this line may coincide with the transition from unvegetated mudflat to vegetated marsh. In a modified AU, the line may be along a dike edge or bulkhead. In nearshore areas, this line may be the high tide wrack line and may or may not be vegetated, or it may follow the MHHW line along a modified (e.g., riprapped) shoreline. If an island is present wholly within the AU, the distance around that island at MHHW is added to the length of the MHHW shoreline around the perimeter of the AU. This question is best answered using aerial photographs taken at low tide.

Question 9: Is AU sheltered from waves?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and refuge functions. Shelter from wave action provides a stable sediment/water interface. This stability allows accumulation of fine organic detritus on the sediment surface and allows development of a productive microflora, primarily benthic diatoms. Both detritus and microflora are grazed by epibenthic zooplankters that are prey for juvenile salmonids (Healey 1982, 1991). Shelter from wave action also reduces suspension of sediment that can reduce feeding efficiency of juvenile salmonids For example, Bisson and Bilby (1982) showed that juvenile salmonid feeding efficiency was reduced in waters with turbidities greater than 70 to 100 NTU. (See Newcomb and Jensen 1996 for comprehensive review of suspended sediment effects.)

Protocol: This indicator is scored based on the geographic location and morphological configuration of the AU and surrounding uplands in relation to prevailing winds. Most AUs in inlets are sheltered from waves. In some AUs, a portion of the area may be exposed to waves while the remainder is not; answer this question “yes” if more than 50 percent of the AU is sheltered.

Question 10: What is the predominant slope of the AU in the littoral zone?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and predation/protection functions. Lower slopes in the littoral zone are presumed to provide small fish with shallow-water escape from certain types of predators such as piscivorous fish (Thorpe 1994). Shallower slopes also tend to be composed of finer sediments and provide a stable sediment/water interface for development of epibenthic zooplankton prey (CDFG 1995).

Protocol: Simple field measurements using a hand-held clinometer or visual observations can be used to score this question. The answer is based on the

Pentec Environmental Page 9 12570-01 July 3, 2003

average slope over the majority of the littoral zone of the AU. For example, an AU with a riprapped margin between OHW and MSL, but with a broad mudflat from the toe of the riprap to the channel edge, would merit a “yes” on Question 10a. (The adverse effects of the riprap would be accounted for in several other questions in the model.)

Most mudflats or marshes are flatter than 10h:1v. Shoreline areas that are modified with riprap are often steeper than 2h:1v and thus would receive no score under this question. Detailed surveying may be needed to score areas with intermediate slopes, such as an AU along a distributary channel with a moderately sloped, diked shoreline.

Question 11: What range of depths is present in the AU?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and predation/protection functions. Littoral areas between MHHW and −10 feet MLLW are typically considered to constitute the depth range wherein juvenile salmonids prefer to feed and migrate during their early marine life history (Thorpe 1994, CDFG 1995). This range encompasses the depths at which smaller juvenile salmonids feed primarily on epibenthic prey (e.g., amphipods, harpacticoid copepods, decapod larvae, see Healey 1982); larger smolts transition to a more pelagic lifestyle and feed predominantly on prey such as fish larvae in the water column (Kask and Parker 1972, Healey 1991, Thorpe 1994). Also, availability of shallow water provides alternatives for predator avoidance. Thus, an AU that has more of its area within the littoral depth range is considered to provide better functions for juvenile salmonids than an AU where much of the area is deeper or seldom inundated.

Protocol: Percentage of the AU within the preferred littoral range can be determined in the field or from available bathymetric surveys. Where native marsh vegetation extends above MHHW, the littoral area should be extended to OHW, since the high marsh also contributes to salmonid habitat quality.

Indicator Group – Sediment Type

Questions 12 through 15: What sediment types are found in the littoral portion of the AU?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding function. Presence of finer-grained sediments, either as a silt or mud bottom or in a matrix of coarser gravel or cobble, is indicative of a more productive littoral environment for salmonid prey, primarily epibenthic crustaceans (CDFG 1995, Pentec 1996, Angell and Balcomb 1982, Simenstad et al. 1991, Sanders 1959).

Pentec Environmental Page 10 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Protocol: Note that Questions 12 through 15 can each be answered in the affirmative independent of other responses. If the littoral zone of an AU has 75 to 100 percent mud or mixed fine substrates, “yes” is the correct answer to Questions 13 and 14.

Question 12: Answer “yes” if the littoral zone of the AU has more than 25 percent of its bottom covered with silty sand.

Question 13: Answer “yes” if the littoral zone of the AU has 25 to 50 percent of its bottom covered with mud or mixed fine sediments.

Question 14: Answer “yes” if the littoral zone of the AU has more than 50 percent of its bottom covered with mud or mixed fine sediments.

Note: An AU with 80 percent mud or mixed fine substrate would score a “yes” for both Questions 13 and 14, for a total value of 5. Also, an AU with 30 percent silty sand, 40 percent mud, and 30 percent coarse sand or cobble would answer “yes” to Question 12 and “yes” on Question 13, for a total value of 3.

Question 15: Answer “yes” if the AU has spawning habitat for surf smelt or sand lance in the upper intertidal zone.

Surf smelt spawn in a coarse mixture of sand, pea gravel, and shell fragments at high-tide swash lines (Bargmann 1998, Eschmeyer and Herald 1983). Sand lance spawn in sand-gravel substrate in the upper intertidal zone between mean high tide and approximately + 5 feet (Bargmann 1998). The WDFW baitfish unit in La Conner should be contacted regarding identified spawning areas in any particular AU.

Indicator Group – Riparian Zone

Two aspects of the nature of the riparian zone bordering estuarine and nearshore AUs are considered in the model: the extent of tidal marshes below OHW and the extent of riparian scrub-shrub and forest above OHW. It is recognized that the several functions of riparian buffers typically identified as applicable along streams higher in the watershed (e.g., Spence et al. 1996, Brosofske et al. 1997, Hetrick et al. 1998a,b) are not fully applicable in providing similar functions in the estuary and nearshore areas. Nonetheless, these riparian zones do affect the quality of these habitats for salmonids. Questions 16 through 19 address the feeding and refuge (predation/protection) functions.

Pentec Environmental Page 11 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 16: Is the vegetated edge below ordinary high water?

Assumptions: Many tidal areas are bordered by intertidal marshes that serve several of the buffer functions typical in more fluvial systems. For example, the marsh may provide refuge (for juvenile salmonids that can swim in among the vegetation to avoid predators), food (e.g., insect production [Cordell et al. 1998]; amphipods [Levings 1990]), and a source of detrital energy to important food webs. Marshes are a principal foraging area for ocean-type chinook fry (Levings 1990, Thorpe 1994) and are extensively used by salmonids at night (CDFG 1995). The model assumes that juvenile salmonids utilize primarily the waterward edge of tidal marshes and do not penetrate more than a few feet into densely vegetated areas; thus, full functional value is given for an AU with saltmarsh around 50 percent of its shoreline that is greater than 10 feet in width. The additional indirect functions provided in AUs with a tidal marsh of native vegetation covering more than 25 percent of their area are recognized with a 2X multiplier in Question 16d.

Protocol: In most cases, width of the vegetated edge must be assessed from site survey of the AU, as aerial photography will not provide the accuracy to delineate the vegetated edge at the widths defined by the model. Also, assessment of species composition (i.e., non-native vs. native) is required to address the multiplier defined in 16d. Answer “yes” to Question 16d if native species occupy the vegetated edge over greater than 25 percent of the AU surface area below OHW.

Question 17: Is the vegetated edge above ordinary high water?

Assumptions: If the marsh fringe is of sufficient width, the contribution of riparian forests at higher elevations (> OHW) is reduced, or, at the very least, effective only during the highest tides. For example, trees may provide shade along the edge of the high marsh that is seldom underwater; hence, shading will have little effect on water temperature. However, if the saltmarsh fringe is relatively narrow, riparian forests along the edge of the saltmarsh may provide highly effective shading over the water, and relatively increased contributions of organic components to support the detrital food web over that contributed by saltmarsh vegetation alone. Such conditions could be found particularly within the upper estuary. Riparian scrub-shrub and forests are assumed to begin providing significant functions in estuarine and nearshore areas at widths exceeding 25 feet or covering the waterward sides and tops of dikes. Credit is given under Question 17 even where the riparian vegetation is dominated by non-native species such as blackberry, on the assumption that this vegetation will still provide shading, insect fall, and litter fall to the aquatic environment.

Pentec Environmental Page 12 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Additional credit is given under Question 18 if the vegetation is predominantly native species.

Protocol: Width and composition of the riparian forest is usually assessed from a site survey of the AU, as aerial photography may not provide the accuracy to delineate the riparian composition at the widths defined by the model. Answer “yes,” as appropriate, among the three qualifiers (i.e., 17a,b,c) based upon field measurements or estimates of the width of the riparian zone above OHW and the extent of the AU high-water margin that has riparian scrub-shrub or forests greater than 25 feet in width. Credit can be given for vegetated widths less than 25 feet where the shoreline configuration supports riparian vegetation for the full width that may interact with the aquatic environment (e.g., the waterward slope and top of a dike).

Question 18: Is the riparian zone vegetation dominated by native species?

Assumptions: It is assumed that riparian vegetation that includes a mix of native species will provide a greater food resource to juvenile salmonids than will a riparian border of non-native species.

Protocol: If the riparian scrub-shrub or forest vegetation is dominated (>50 percent of the total cover) by native species, answer yes to Question 18.

Question 19: Does the riparian zone of the AU provide a significant source of LWD?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and predator/protection functions. In general, the role of LWD in providing fish habitat within the estuary and nearshore is assumed to be of lesser importance than its role in freshwater fluvial conditions upstream. This is because of tidal water-level changes, which leave anchored wood submerged, or out of the water, a portion of the time, and because of the reduced importance of the pool-forming function of wood in estuaries where juvenile salmonid use is less than year-round. Late seral stands of riparian forest are necessary to recruit LWD into the active stream channel or marshes accessible to anadromous fish. Immature riparian forests do not provide LWD that will be retained for a long enough period of time in the channel to be considered important fish habitat elements. To be of direct habitat value to salmonids, LWD must be large enough to be retained in the channel and thereby provide hydraulic control, cover, and velocity refuge. Large wood also provides for organic contributions to the estuary and thereby supplements the detrital base (Maser and Sedell 1994).

Pentec Environmental Page 13 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Relatively smaller sizes of LWD can be retained in lower-energy, off-channel estuarine habitats and thus provide the same functions as larger LWD in more active channels. Mature trees considered for this purpose are those with diameter at breast height (dbh) of more than 0.3 m. Trees recruit to the estuary or nearshore from the adjacent riparian zone are assumed to have limbs and rootwads attached; thus, the criterion for recruitment is similar to that for inwater LWD with limbs or rootwads (Question 20).

Protocol: The state of maturity of a riparian stand can be evaluated from recent, high-quality, aerial photographs, or from field surveys. Answer “yes” to Question 19 if at least 50 percent of the riparian zone of the AU contains mature trees that meet the 0.3-m dbh size criterion, and if those trees have the potential to fall into areas accessible to juvenile salmonids, generally considered to be below MHHW. If the area between MHHW and OHW consists of a broad, vegetated marsh, trees that fall from the riparian forest will land in these vegetated areas and have little potential to provide the full function of LWD in stream or shoreline areas. Although such trees may still provide limited function, they would not be considered to be a significant source of LWD in the context of the model. Diameter at breast height should be considered from field measurements of at least six trees within the AU.

Indicator Group – Landscape/Connectivity

Question 20: Is AU connected to adjacent AU by low- to moderate-gradient littoral habitats?

Assumptions: This question addresses the migration and predator-avoidance functions. Free and safe movement of juvenile salmonids through the sequence of habitats available in the estuary is an important determinant of the overall functional quality of the estuary (Thorpe 1994). Therefore, availability of a safe migration pathway from one AU to the adjacent AU is considered to improve the function of both. A safe migration pathway is defined as a low-gradient, e.g., 5h:1v or flatter, transition from one AU to the next.

Protocol: The boundaries between AUs should be examined during field surveys to determine the nature of shorelines. Often, distinct breaks in shoreline type will be used to define the boundaries of adjacent AUs. If these breaks are the result of shoreline armoring, bulkheading, or deep water, then the two adjacent AUs would be judged to lack shallow-water connectivity. If one AU transitions into the next along a low- to moderate-gradient shoreline in one direction, answer “yes” to Question 20a. If it has low-gradient transitions into adjacent AU on both sides, answer “yes” to Question 20b.

Pentec Environmental Page 14 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Indicator Group – Special Habitat Features

Question 21: Does the AU contain significant densities of LWD?

Assumptions: This indicator addresses the feeding and predation/protection functions. The relative importance of LWD in providing physical habitat and hydraulic control in the estuary and marine nearshore areas is believed to be lower than in upstream reaches, but it is still important (e.g., Maser and Sedell 1994). Suitable criteria for wood loading in estuaries and marine areas have not been established by quantitative research and likely would vary substantially over the gradient of conditions present.

The retention of wood in the channel is a function of channel width, wood size, and wood type, whereby wide channels retain proportionately less wood per unit channel length than narrower channels. Most of the wood recruited into estuaries and nearshore areas is derived from upstream sources, not from riparian stands immediately adjacent to AUs within the estuary. For purposes of this model, LWD is defined to include the following:

logs with length > 10 m and diameter > 0.6 m;

logs/trees with rootwad and/or branches, length > 10 m, and diameter > 0.3 m; and

stumps with diameter > 1 m.

Wood-loading densities proposed for the estuary and nearshore reflect a reduced ecological function of LWD in estuary and nearshore areas compared with densities suggested by WDNR as needed to rank as “good” loading levels in streams. The inchannel densities assumed in the model to provide full ecological function would rate as “fair” under the WDNR (1994) watershed analysis protocols for channel widths less than 20 m in streams. This rating is justified on the basis of the reduced functionality of LWD in the estuarine environment (for salmonid habitat), and the “channel widths” found in the estuary that often exceed 20 m. The suggested model LWD assessment values would be within the range considered “good” by Ralph et al. (1991) for Washington streams with channel widths less than 20 m in unmanaged forests (range reported: 0.46 to 3.95 pieces per channel width). LWD criteria have typically been based on number of pieces per linear distance of stream channel, reflecting the derivation of those values. LWD densities (number of pieces per 100 m²) are also proposed for broader marsh and mudflat areas that are prevalent in estuarine areas, although no field measurements are available upon which to base these levels.

Pentec Environmental Page 15 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Protocol: Wood loadings within a channel edge or nearshore AU must be assessed by field survey of the AU. Number of pieces by size class along the edge of the MHHW line should be counted along with those visible at lower water levels. In a broader marsh or mudflat AU, the number of pieces of LWD visible between MLLW and MHHW is counted and divided by the area of the AU between the same boundaries.

Question 22: Does the AU support macroalgal coverage over more than 10 percent of the littoral area during the spring outmigration period?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding and predator-avoidance functions. Macroalgae, especially where represented by several species, provide a substrate for growth of diatoms and for grazing by epibenthic crustaceans that constitute an important prey of juvenile salmonids (Northcote et al. 1979, Healey 1982, Levings 1990). In nearshore areas, macroalgae such as rockweed (Fucus gardneri) and laminarians (e.g., Laminaria saccharina) also provide vertical structure above the bottom that can provide refuge for juvenile salmonids from piscivores.

Protocol: This question may be scored based on high-quality color or color-infrared photographs; if such photographs are not available, a springtime field survey will be required. Area of coverage within the littoral zone will be visually estimated.

Question 23: Does the AU support eelgrass along the lower intertidal edge?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding and predator-avoidance functions. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) has been demonstrated to provide high-quality feeding and refuge habitat for juvenile salmonids (e.g., Simenstad and Wissmar 1985, Levings 1990, Thorpe 1994). Harpacticoid copepods in particular may be highly abundant on eelgrass blades. Eelgrass also provides a substrate for spawning by herring and may also provide structure for predator avoidance (e.g., Thom et al. 1994). Eelgrass may be found between about +2 feet and −18 feet MLLW, depending on water clarity.

Note: While the importance of eelgrass in overall AU function for juvenile salmonids is reflected in the THM, the model and local management policies cannot be used as the sole means of addressing eelgrass impacts and mitigation requirements from a development proposal. Actions that might affect eelgrass beds must also comply with WDFW policies and the state Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110).

Pentec Environmental Page 16 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Protocol: This question may be scored based on high-quality color or color-infrared photographs; if such photographs are not available, field surveys will be required. Field surveys should be conducted between late spring and early fall by diver, underwater video, or by extreme low-tide foot or boat surveys.

Choose one of the following:

Question 23a: Answer “yes” if eelgrass is present along 5 to 10 percent of the low-tide shoreline of the AU.

Question 23b: Answer “yes” if eelgrass is present along 10 to 25 percent of the low-tide shoreline of the AU.

Question 23c: Answer “yes” if eelgrass is present along more than 25 percent of the low-tide shoreline of the AU.

Question 23d: Answer “yes” if eelgrass is present over more than 25 percent of the entire area of the AU.

This question results in a multiplier of 2 times the entire score for the AU and reflects the high importance placed on eelgrass for juvenile salmonids and for overall nearshore ecosystem function.

Question 24: Do functioning feeder bluffs provide a significant source of sediment to the AU?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding function. Erosion of gravel feeder bluffs along the shorelines of Puget Sound is a major contributor to the maintenance of certain types of shoreline habitat (e.g., Canning and Shipman 1995), including areas that support spawning by important forage fish species (Bargmann 1998, Eschmeyer and Herald 1983). In many areas of Puget Sound, feeder bluffs have been isolated from erosion by shoreline hardening (see Question 30) increasing the relative importance of remaining bluffs.

Protocol: This question is best scored during a field visit. Answer “yes” if a feeder bluff is present that is not cut off at its base from wave erosion and longshore sediment transport, and if the bluff appears to provide a significant sediment source to the associated beach.

Pentec Environmental Page 17 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Indicator group – Stressors

Question 25: Is access to the AU by anadromous fish limited?

Assumptions: Artificial (manmade) barriers to immigration and emigration limit habitat use by salmonids for rearing, and thereby may reduce the overall carrying capacity of the estuarine environment for salmonid production. Any AU with access restricted by an artificial barrier over 90 percent of the time is considered to provide no function for salmonids, and the model score for such an AU would be zero (i.e., no value). Many portions of estuarine habitats will be naturally restrictive at certain times of the year because of high water temperatures or tidal conditions; such natural restrictions to habitat use are not penalized under this protocol.

Freshwater and estuarine habitat restrictions may represent the singlemost important element to reducing the ability of a system to support salmonids. Variable stressor penalties recognize that not all barriers are complete; that is, some habitat may be accessible under some tidal conditions and not others. Stressor penalties increase with increasing access restrictions to habitat. Artificial barriers restricting estuarine use include diking, ditching, dredging, and impassable or restrictive tide-gated culverts (Beechie et al. 1994).

Protocol: To answer this question, the assessor must examine the AU for the presence/absence of culverts and/or dikes. If these are present within the AU, they pose a potential restriction to tidal circulation and immigration/emigration for salmonids. Culverts should be evaluated for length, slope, presence/absence of tidegates, and tide-gate functionality (if present). If present, the assessor should address tide-gate functionality at both low and high tide. The assessor will determine if the potential exists to strand salmonids within the AU on the basis of the evaluation of the tide-gate function. Culvert slope and length will be evaluated for their ability to pass juvenile salmonids upstream on an ebb tide by virtue of the velocity and depth gradients established. Criteria for juvenile salmonid passage will follow those reported by Powers (1997). Dikes or storm berms that totally isolate an AU from salmon-accessible waters on all but flood or extreme tides (e.g., AU accessible less than 10 percent of the time) dictate that it is inappropriate to score the AU for salmon in its present state.

The lowest penalty (Question 25a) recognizes that an AU with partially restricted access (i.e., is inaccessible 25 to 50 percent of the time) may still provide important habitat for salmonids. A barrier restriction that exists 50 to 75 percent of the time (Question 25b) carries a greater risk of stranding or isolation of fish within the AU, thereby resulting in increased mortality. An AU that is only accessible between 10 and 25 percent of the time is considered to provide

Pentec Environmental Page 18 12570-01 July 3, 2003

limited habitat for juvenile salmonids and is assigned the lowest decimal multiplier.

Question 26: Does the AU contain accumulations of wood debris (e.g., bark) over the bottom?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding function. Small to moderate accumulation of wood debris on the bottom (up to 40 percent by volume) can have a stimulatory effect on benthic assemblages (Kathman et al. 1984, Schaumberg and Walker 1973). However, dense accumulations of wood debris that smother the bottom (i.e., reach 100 percent cover of the bottom) have been shown to have a strongly negative effect on benthic infauna and to result in significant changes to epibenthos (e.g., Conlan and Ellis 1979, Jackson 1986, Freese and O’Clair 1987).

Protocol: Two levels of wood debris accumulation are reflected by Questions 26a and 26b. For AUs that are largely intertidal, this question can be answered by a field reconnaissance during low tide. Subtidal areas where wood debris accumulations can be expected must be surveyed by some combination of grab sampling, video observations, or diver observations.

Question 27: Does intertidal log raft storage occur in the AU?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding function. Grounding of log rafts at low tide can affect the benthic community by compacting sediments, smothering organisms, and precluding access to the underlying sediments. Zegers (1979) found an 88 to 95 percent reduction in benthic organism populations in Coos Bay, Oregon, due to grounding of logs. Smith (1977) found that the only benthic organism not affected by grounding of logs in the Snohomish River Estuary was the epibenthic amphipod Anisogammarus. (These animals, which are a preferred prey species of juvenile salmonids, may have been attracted to the log rafts.) This question is scored based on the percentage of the AU affected by log raft storage on a recurring basis (i.e., more than once a quarter), because the effects of log raft grounding on epibenthic prey of juvenile salmonids diminish rapidly with time since the last storage (e.g., Cheney 1989).

Protocol: Answer “yes” to Question 27a if log rafts have affected 10 to 50 percent of the AU in the last 3 months. Answer “yes” to Question 27b if log rafts have affected more than 50 percent of the AU in the same time period.

Pentec Environmental Page 19 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 28: Do water column contaminant concentrations exceed salmonid thresholds for health or survival?

Assumption: This question addresses the feeding and health functions. Toxicants within the water column could cause direct mortality, preclude the use of habitat, or cause sublethal toxicity to salmonids during periods of exposure within an AU. For example, outmigrant juvenile salmonids passing through a PCB- and PAH-contaminated portion of the Duwamish River Estuary were found to exhibit reduced disease resistance relative to unexposed control group fish (Arkoosh et al. 1998). The impact from such exposures to the overall salmonid population within a WRIA is assumed to be proportional to the relative percentage of the population exposed to those conditions when such thresholds are exceeded. Thus, if water column thresholds are exceeded during periods of high abundance, then the impact could be significant; if thresholds are exceeded during low abundance periods, the impact from the stressor would be less significant. The THM stressor multipliers reflect this proportionality difference, by assigning multipliers of 0.3 and 0.7 to the total score during periods of high and low salmonid abundance, respectively. It is assumed that exceedance of existing water quality toxicant standards within an AU would equate to a potentially stressful condition for salmonids, and such exceedances, if present over a significant portion of the AU, would warrant the application of one of the above stressor multipliers; stressors present in a limited, permitted, mixing zone within the AU would not warrant a positive response to these questions. It is also assumed that these stressor multipliers would be assigned to anthropogenic toxicants only. Conventional water quality parameters (temperature and DO) are not evaluated under the stressor categories (see Question 7).

Protocol: Evaluation of water column pollutants within an AU can be conducted by review of relevant and applicable data from the site or from a nearby location that could be construed to exhibit similar conditions based upon site history. If there were no historical record of industrial activity on or near the site, it would be unlikely that toxicant exceedances in the water column would exist. Should field reconnaissance suggest that water quality is locally impaired within the AU, then field sampling should be conducted and samples submitted to a qualified laboratory to define the extent and significance of impairment. Field observations of odd color, odor, sheen, or unusual biological indicators (e.g., dead fish, dead algae, etc.) would be indicators to the assessor that water samples should be collected and submitted for analysis. If water samples are collected, site conditions will dictate whether simple grab samples or depth-integrated sampling is warranted. Standard water sampling protocols will be followed in accordance with laboratory procedures (APHA 1995).

Pentec Environmental Page 20 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 29: Do AU sediments contain contamination at levels that may affect salmonid health or prey base?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding and health functions. Toxicants within sediment may serve as a source of bioavailable contaminants to which salmonids could be exposed within an AU. Contaminated sediments could preclude the use of habitat or cause sublethal toxicity to salmonids during periods of exposure within an AU. They could also affect the species abundance and distribution of critical salmonid food organisms. The direct impact from contaminated sediment exposures to the overall salmonid population within a WRIA is proportional to the total area affected, and the concentrations of the contaminants within the area contaminated as defined by the state sediment quality standards (SQS) or cleanup screening levels (CSLs). The SQS and CSLs are biological criteria based on benthic infaunal taxa not directly trophically linked to salmonids. Since salmonids do not depend heavily on food webs based on infauna, it is assumed that the adverse effects of sediment contamination on salmonids are less severe than those of water column contamination.

Protocol: Existing data will be used to evaluate sediment conditions within an AU, to the extent possible. Should there be no foreseeable source of contamination to the site (e.g., no on-site or adjacent industry, or recent history of such) then it will be assumed that the sediment would meet salmonid use thresholds. If review of the site history indicates otherwise and no sediment evaluations have been conducted, then sediment sampling will be considered. Existing sediment sampling protocols will be followed in accordance with local jurisdiction requirements. Thus, sampling may involve grab samples for surficial sediments or sediment coring. Site-specific protocols will be developed for each evaluation in conjunction with regulatory authorities.

Thus, if SQS thresholds are exceeded over more than 25 percent of the AU, a multiplier of 0.8 is applied to the total THM score, whereas if the higher CSL levels are exceeded over the same aerial extent, a multiplier of 0.6 is applied. Similar to the water column evaluations of toxicants, it is also assumed that these sediment-stressor multipliers would be assigned to anthropogenic toxicants only; thus, conventional sediment quality parameters (e.g., grain size, total organic carbon) are evaluated.

Question 30: Does AU shoreline include riprap or vertical bulkheads extending below MHHW?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding, migration, and predator-avoidance functions, as well as shoreline sediment source and transport

Pentec Environmental Page 21 12570-01 July 3, 2003

processes, and reflects the horizontal extent of shoreline hardening. It is widely assumed that juvenile salmonids encountering vertical bulkheads or steep riprap as they migrate along estuarine or marine shorelines are more vulnerable to predation than they are as they migrate along gradually sloping beaches (e.g., Heiser and Finn 1970, Thom et al. 1994). Smaller fish (e.g., pinks, chums, and ocean-type chinook) are considered to be more vulnerable to predation along a vertical bulkhead than larger fish such as stream-type chinook, coho, and bull trout. Limited observations of predation along bulkheads and riprap in the Everett Harbor area (Pentec 1997) found that larger salmonids (possibly bull or cutthroat trout) were the primary predators on smaller salmonids. Thus, vertical bulkheads result in a lesser reduction of habitat function (a higher decimal multiplier) for bull trout and coho than for chinook. Vertical bulkheads also provide less shallow-water surface area for generation of epibenthic prey favored by smaller juvenile salmonids and may force fish to switch to pelagic prey.

Riprapping or bulkheading of shorelines also interferes with normal shoreline sediment erosion and deposition processes (e.g., Canning and Shipman 1995). Thus, bulkheads or riprap at any slope that limits natural shoreline processes is scored under this question.

Protocol: This question can be answered either through site photographs of sufficient detail or through a site visit. Answer “yes” to Question 30a if the AU high-water shoreline has 10 to 50 percent riprap or vertical bulkheads, or “yes” to Question 30b if more than 50 percent of the shoreline is hardened.

Question 31: Do riprap or bulkheads extend below mean sea level over the majority of the hardened AU shoreline?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding, migration, and predator-avoidance functions and reflects the vertical extent of shoreline hardening. The tidal nature of littoral habitat is recognized along with the fact that riprap or bulkheading can eliminate a large proportion of the intertidal habitat that would normally be available to juvenile salmonids. AUs in which the majority of the shoreline hardening extends below MSL (about +6 feet MLLW) will lack essential natural features of upper intertidal habitat and will be reduced in overall area. Migrating fish will encounter the hardened shoreline over 50 percent of the time. Therefore, this condition is scored with an additional decimal multiplier.

Protocol: This question can be answered either through site photographs of sufficient detail or through a site visit. Answer “yes” to Question 31 if shoreline hardening extends below MSL over a major portion (e.g., more than 25 percent) of AU shoreline scored as hardened in Question 30.

Pentec Environmental Page 22 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Question 32: Does the AU have one or more finger piers or marginal wharfs?

Assumptions: This question addresses the predator-avoidance function. Limited studies and observations have shown that a portion of shoreline-migrating juvenile salmonids, upon encountering a large overwater structure in marine areas, may either delay further shoreline movement for a time or move waterward along the margin of the wharf (e.g., Pentec 1997, Heiser and Finn 1970). It is presumed that those fish that move into deeper water or farther from shore may become more vulnerable to certain types of predation than they would be had they not encountered the wharf, although there is little information in the literature to document this predation (Pentec 1997, Simenstad et al. 1999). The degree of light penetration under the structure is considered to be important in determining the degree of interruption of migration induced by a wharf, but Ratte and Salo (1985) found no significant difference in the numbers of juvenile salmonids captured under a wharf in Tacoma between periods when the under-wharf area was artificially lighted and when it was unlit.

Protocol: This question can be answered either through site photographs or through a site visit. Answer “yes” to Question 32a if the AU has one finger pier, dock, or wharf greater than 8 feet wide, or “yes” to Question 32b if the AU has either two or more docks that are 8 to 25 feet wide or a single structure that is more than 25 feet wide.

Question 33: Is more than 10 percent of the AU littoral area covered with overwater structures that are more than 8 feet wide?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding, migration, and predator-avoidance functions. Shading of littoral area bottoms can reduce or eliminate benthic primary productivity. The effect is seen between elevations of about +8 feet MLLW (on most substrates; OHW in a marsh area) and −10 to −25 feet MLLW (depending on water clarity). Above +8 feet MLLW, there is little primary production on most substrates and rates of production are more limited by high light and desiccation; reduced light levels (e.g., partial shading by a narrow dock) can actually increase primary productivity at higher elevations. Overwater structures such as marina floats, while they may produce substantial epibenthic prey (e.g., Kozloff 1987), can create a maze that surface-oriented juvenile salmonids can follow in random directions, potentially delaying their progress along a given reach of shoreline. Overwater structures, like finger piers, can also lead fish into deeper water where they may be more vulnerable to certain types of predation than they would be in shallower waters. However, Cardwell et al. (1980) found that abundance of chinook and coho salmon, as well as herring, were higher inside the Skyline Marina than outside, and they

Pentec Environmental Page 23 12570-01 July 3, 2003

noted a scarcity of fish and avian predators on juvenile salmonids within the marina. They also reported that prey favored by chinook and coho juveniles were more abundant in the marina than in nearby Burrows Bay.

Protocol: This question can be answered by scale drawings, aerial photographs, or by on-site measurements. Areas with light-transmissive grating or other material should be subtracted from the area of coverage before scoring this question. Answer “yes” to Question 33a if the AU has a total overwater coverage of 10 to 30 percent of its total littoral area; “yes” to Question 33b if overwater coverage is between 30 and 50 percent; “yes” to Question 33c if overwater coverage is between 50 and 75 percent; and “yes” to Question 33d if overwater coverage is greater than 75 percent.

Question 34: Is littoral area in the AU routinely disturbed by propeller scour, oil spills, or dredging?

Assumptions: This question addresses the feeding and salmonid health functions. Routine or recurring disturbances of the benthic environment that reduce the productivity or health of epibenthic prey of salmonids degrade the quality of the habitat. Propeller scour can resuspend finer and more richly organic surficial sediments that provide habitat for epibenthic zooplankters. Chronic oil releases can leave the epibenthos in a constant state of early recovery from an oiling event and could result in increased bioaccumulation of PAHs in salmon via a sediment-to-epibenthos pathway (e.g., Arkoosh et al. 1998). Dredging will eliminate less mobile existing benthos from an area and may result in a postdredging bottom that is less rich in organic matter, and which serves as a basis for epibenthic food webs upon which juvenile salmonids are dependent (e.g., Healey 1982). However, recovery of benthos, and especially of epibenthos, is expected to be rapid (e.g., McCauley et al. 1977, Richardson et al. 1977, Romberg et al. 1995.)

Protocol: Answer “yes” to Question 34 if any one of the following is applicable:

1. AU is sufficiently shallow to be scoured by vessel propeller wash over 25 percent of the littoral portion of the AU on a recurring basis.

2. The nature of use of the AU or adjacent areas is such that oil sheens are frequently visible on the water surface along the shoreline and can be assumed to affect at least 25 percent of the AU on a recurring basis.

3. The AU contains areas that are dredged for maintenance of navigation depths on a recurring basis; e.g., more than once every 6 years.

Pentec Environmental Page 24 12570-01 July 3, 2003

REFERENCES

Angell, T., and K.C. Balcomb III, 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.

Arkoosh, M.R., E. Casillas, P. Huffman, E. Clemons, J. Evered, J.E. Stein, and U. Varanasi, 1998. Increased Susceptibility of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from a Contaminated Estuary to Vibrio anguillarum. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127:360-374.

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.

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman, 1994. Estimating Coho Salmon Rearing Habitat and Smolt Production Losses in a Large River Basin, and Implications for Habitat Restoration. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 14:797-811.

Bisson, P.A., and R.E. Bilby, 1982. Avoidance of Suspended Sediment by Juvenile Coho Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4:371-374.

Brosofske K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin, 1997. Harvesting Effects on Microclimatic Gradients from Small Streams to Uplands in Western Washington. Ecological Applications, 7(4):1188-1200.

Canning, D.J., and H. Shipman, 1995. The Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Erosion Control and Associated Land Clearing Practices, Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, Volume 10. Shorelands and Water Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.

Cardwell, R.D., S.J. Olsen, M.I. Carr, and E.W. Sanborn, 1980. Biotic, Water Quality, and Hydrologic Characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. Washington State Department of Fisheries Technical Report No. 54, Olympia.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 1995. Inland and Anadromous Sport Fish Management and Research. Klamath River Basin

Pentec Environmental Page 25 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Juvenile Salmonid Investigation: Habitat Type Utilization of Juvenile Salmonids in the Klamath River Estuary, April 1991 through September 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Final Performance Report, Federal Aid Project F-51-R, Sacramento.

Cheney, D.P., 1989. Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Attachment C to City of Everett Environmental Checklist, Proposed 12th Street Marina. Report of BioAquatics International, Bellevue, Washington, for Hulbert Mill Company, Everett, Washington.

City of Everett, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1997. Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan (SEWIP). Prepared by the City of Everett Project Team, Everett, Washington.

Congleton, J.L., S.K. Davis, and S.R. Foley, 1981. Distribution, Abundance and Outmigration Timing of Chum and Chinook Salmon Fry in the Skagit Salt Marsh. E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors. Proceedings of the Salmon and Trout Migratory Behavior Symposium, University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Seattle.

Conlan, K.E., and D.V. Ellis, 1979. Effects of Wood Waste on Sand-Bed Benthos. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 10:262-267.

Cordell, J.R., L.M. Tear, K. Jensen, and V. Luiting, 1997. Duwamish River Coastal America Restoration and Reference Sites: Results from 1995 Monitoring Studies. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Resource Institute, FRI-UW-9709, Seattle.

Cordell, J.R., L.M. Tear, K. Jensen, and H.H. Higgins, 1998. Duwamish River Coastal America Restoration and Reference Sites: Results from 1997 Monitoring Studies, Draft. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Resource Institute, Seattle.

Eschmeyer, W.N., and E.S. Herald, 1983. A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.

Freese, J.L., and C.E. O’Clair, 1987. Reduced Survival and Condition of the Bivalves Protothaca Staminea and Mytilus edulis Buried by Decomposing Bark. Marine Environmental Research, 23:49-64.

Pentec Environmental Page 26 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Healey, M.C., 1982. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Estuaries: The Life Support System. V.S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine Comparisons, Academic Press, New York.

Healey, M.C., 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Heiser, D.W., and E.L. Finn, Jr., 1970. Observations of Juvenile Chum and Pink Salmon in Marina and Bulkhead Areas. Supplemental Progress Report, Puget Sound Studies, Washington Department of Fisheries, Management and Research Division, Olympia.

Hetrick, N.J., M.A. Brusven, T.C. Bjornn, R.M. Keith, and W.R. Meehan, 1998a. Effects of Canopy Removal on Invertebrates and Diet of Juvenile Coho Salmon in a Small Stream in Southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127:876-888.

Hetrick N.J., and M.A. Brusven, W.R. Meehan, and T.C. Bjornn, 1998b. Changes in Solar Input, Water Temperature, Periphyton Accumulation, and Allochthonous Input and Storage after Canopy Removal along Two Small Salmon Streams in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127:859-875.

Houghton, J.P., and R.H. Gilmour, 1997. Ecological Functions of a Saltmarsh/Mudflat Complex Created using Clean Dredged Material, Jetty Island, Washington. K.B. Macdonald and F. Weinmann. Wetland and Riparian Restoration: Taking a Broader View. United State Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.

Houghton, J.P., R.H. Gilmour, and D.L. Gregoire, 1998. Ecological Functions of a Saltmarsh/Mudflat Complex Created using Dredged Material at Jetty Island, Washington—the Final Verdict. Abstracts & Biographies, Poster Abstracts. Puget Sound Research ’98.

Hruby, T., W.E. Cesanek, and K.E. Miller, 1995. Estimating Relative Wetland Values for Regional Planning. Wetlands 15(2):93-107.

Jackson, R.G., 1986. Effects of Bark Accumulation on Benthic Infauna at a Log Transfer Facility in Southeast Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 17(6):258-262.

Kask, B.A., and R.R. Parker, 1972. Observations on Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Somass River Estuary Port Alberni, British Columbia. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Technical Report 308.

Pentec Environmental Page 27 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Kathman, R.D., S.F. Cross, and M. Waldichuk, 1984. Effects of Wood Waste on the Recruitment Potential of Marine Benthic Communities. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1284, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, West Vancouver, British Columbia.

Kozloff, E.N., 1987. Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Levings, C.D., 1982. Short-Term Use of a Low Tide Refuge in a Sandlfat by Juvenile Chinook, (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha), Fraser River estuary. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1111, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fisheries Research Branch, West Vancouver, British Columbia.

Levings, C.D., 1990. Strategies for Fish Habitat Management in Estuaries: Comparison of Estuarine Function and Fish Survival. W.L.T. van Densen, B. Steinmetz, and R.H. Hughes, editors. Management of Freshwater Fisheries, Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee, Göteborg, Sweden.

Levy, D.A., and T.G. Northcote, 1981. The Distribution and Abundance of Juvenile Salmon in Marsh Habitats of the Fraser River Estuary. University of British Columbia, Westwater Research Center, Technical Report 25, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Levy, D.A., and T.G. Northcote, 1982. Juvenile Salmon Residency in a Marsh Area of the Fraser River Estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39:270-276.

Maser, C., and J.R. Sedell, 1994. From the Forest to the Sea, the Ecology of Wood in Streams, Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

McCauley, J.F., R.A. Parr, and D.R. Hancock, 1977. Benthic Infauna and Maintenance Dredging—A Case Study. Pergamon Press, Water Research, II:233-242.

MacDonald, J.S., C.D. Levings, C.D. McAllister, U.H.M. Fagerlund, and J.R. McBride, 1987. A Field Experiment to Test the Importance of Estuaries for Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) Survival: Short-Term Results. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 45:1366-1377.

Pentec Environmental Page 28 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen, 1996. Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries: A Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:693-727.

Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston, and K. Tsumura, 1979. Feeding Relationships and Food Web Structure of Lower Fraser River Fishes. University of British Columbia, Westwater Research Center, Technical Report 16, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Pentec (Pentec Environmental, Inc.), 1992. Port of Everett Snohomish Estuary Fish Habitat Study 1991-1992. Final Report. Prepared for the Port of Everett, Washington, by Pentec, Edmonds, Washington.

Pentec (Pentec Environmental, Inc.), 1996. Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials, Jetty Island Habitat Development Demonstration Project. Year 5 Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Port of Everett, Washington, by Pentec, Edmonds, Washington.

Pentec (Pentec Environmental, Inc.), 1997. Movement of Juvenile Salmon Through Industrialized Areas of Everett Harbor. Prepared for Port of Everett, Washington, by Pentec, Edmonds, Washington.

Pomeroy, L.R., and R.G. Wiegert, editors, 1981. The Ecology of a Saltmarsh. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Ralph, S.C., T. Cardoso, G.C. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J. Naiman, 1991. Status and Trends of Instream Habitat in Forested Lands of Washington: The Timber-Fish-Wildlife Ambient Monitoring Project. 1989-1991 Biennial Progress Report, Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle.

Ratte, L.D., and E.O. Salo, 1985. Under-Pier Ecology of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, FRI-UW-8508, Seattle.

Rich, W.H., 1920. Early History and Seaward Migration of Chinook Salmon in the Columbia and Sacramento Rivers. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries (US), 37:74.

Richardson, M.D., A.G. Carey, Jr., and W.A. Colgate, 1977. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations Columbia River Site, Oregon. Appendix C: The Effects of Dredged Material Disposal on Benthic Assemblages. U.S. Army Corps of

Pentec Environmental Page 29 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Dredged Material Research Program Technical Report D-77-30, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Romberg, P., C. Homan, and D. Wilson, 1995. Monitoring at Two Sediment Caps in Elliott Bay. Puget Sound Research ‘95: Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, Washington.

Ryall, R., and C.D. Levings, 1987. Juvenile Salmon Utilization of Rejuvenated Tidal Channels in the Squamish Estuary, British Columbia. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1904.

Sanders, H.L., 1959. Sediments and the Structure of Bottom Communities. M. Sears, editor. Intern. Oceanogr. Congress-reprints. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

Schaumburg, F.D., and J. Walker, 1973. The Influence of Benthic Bark Deposits on the Aquatic Community and the Quality of Natural Waters. Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Sibert, J., T.J. Brown, M.C. Healy, B.A. Ask, and R.J. Naiman, 1977. Detritus-Based Food Webs: Exploitation by Juvenile Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Science, 196-:649-650.

Simenstad, C.A., B.J. 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. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia.

Simenstad, C.A., and R.C. Wissmar, 1985. S13C Evidence of the Origins and Fates of Organic Carbon in Estuaries and Nearshore Marine Food Webs. Marine Ecology Program, 22:141-152.

Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Tanner, R.M. Thom, and L.L. Conquest, 1991. Puget Sound Estuary Program: Estuarine Habitat Assessment Protocol. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, EPA 910/9-91-037, Seattle, Washington.

Smith, J.E., 1977. A Baseline Study of Invertebrates and of the Environmental Impact of Intertidal Log Rafting on the Snohomish River Delta. University of Washington, Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, College of Fisheries, Seattle.

Pentec Environmental Page 30 12570-01 July 3, 2003

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki, 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. ManTech (Management Technology) Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, TR-4501-96-6057, Oregon.

Thom, R.M., D.K. Shreffler, and K. Macdonald, 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Coastal Ecology and Biological Resources in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies Volume 7. Shorelands and Water Resources Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia.

Thorpe, J.E., 1994. Salmonid Fishes and the Estuarine Environment. Estuaries, 17(1A):76-93.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 1997. Culvert Hydraulics Related to Upstream Juvenile Salmon Passage. WDFW, Lands and Restoration Services Program, Olympia.

WDNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources), 1994. Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.1. Forest Practices Board, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia.

Zegers, P., 1979. The Effects of Log Raft Grounding on the Benthic Invertebrates of the Coos Estuary. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality, Coos Bay, Oregon.

00570\001\appendixa.doc

Pentec Environmental Page 31 12570-01 July 3, 2003

APPENDIX C TIDAL HABITAT MODEL SCORE SHEET

Pentec Environmental 12570-01 July 3, 2003 Field inventory sheet.

THM IVA for Estuarine or Marine Habitat (This model assumes source of water is tidal fresh, brackish, or marine) * F-feeding; M-migration, O-osmoregulatory, Date Surveyors On site or Off site? Circle P-predator avoidance, H-health/toxicity Functions AU # Supplement w/Aerials? Date and Type? Y/N CH CO/BT Addressed* Comments Hydrology F, M, O 1 AU has vernal or perennial freshwater stream or spring 3 3 F, O 2a AU is depositional (slow currents, low wave action) over 25% of littoral area 2 2 F 2b AU is depositional (slow currents, low wave action) over 50% of littoral area 3 3 F 3 AU has refuge from high velocities (e.g., during max. ebb) 3 3 M, P 4a AU contains a natural tidal channel wetted at MLLW X1.5 X1.3 F, P 4b AU contains tidal channel wetted at MSL (i.e., shallow drainage) 2 2 F, P 5 Tidal channel is dendritic or highly sinuous 3 3 F, P Water Quality 6a Fresh water only (salinity < 0.5 ppt) 1 3 F 6b Oligohaline to Mesohaline (sal. variable: often 0.5 to 5 ppt, but can range to 18 ppt) 3 3 F, O 6c Polyhaline (sal. typically 18 to 30 ppt) 1 1 F, O 7a Temp/DO meet criteria for salmonid health during major use periods 2 2 H 7b Temp/DO meet criteria for salmonid health at all times 3 3 H Physical Features Vascular plant/mud (or sand) flat boundary (vegetated/unvegetated boundary) Shoreline complexity 8a Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW > 3 (include islands) 3 3 F, P 8b Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW 1.2 to 3 (include islands) 2 2 F, P 8c Ratio of length of MHHW boundary to width at MLLW < 1.2 (include islands) 1 1 F, P Exposure 9 AU is sheltered from waves 2 2 F Slope 10a Slope of substrate in littoral zone > 10h:1v (i.e., low gradient) 3 3 F, P 10b Slope of substrate in littoral zone < 10h:1v but > 5h:1v (i.e., moderate) 2 2 F, P 10c Slope of substrate in littoral zone < 5h:1v but > 2h:1v (i.e., steeper) 1 1 F, P

Page 1 Field inventory sheet.

AU # Date Surveyors Y/N CH CO/BT Address Comments Range of Depths 11a > 10% of AU is littoral (MHHW to -10 ft; use OHW if marsh veg. above MHHW) 1 1 F, P 11b > 25% of AU is littoral (MHHW to -10 ft; use OHW where vegetation indicates) 2 2 F, P 11c > 50% of AU is littoral (MHHW to -10 ft; use OHW where vegetation indicates) 3 3 F, P Sediments (surficial only) 12 Substrate in littoral zone - silty sand > 25% of area 1 1 F 13 Substrate in littoral zone - mud or mixed fine 25 to+B64 50% of area 2 2 F 14 Substrate in littoral zone - mud or mixed fine > 50% of area 3 3 F 15 Upper intertidal zone contains potential forage fish spawning habitat 3 3 F Vegetated Edge Below OHW 16a Buffer: marsh edge > 10 ft wide over 50% of shoreline 3 3 F, P 16b Marsh edge > 5 ft wide over 50% of shoreline; or > 10 ft wide over 25-50% of shoreline 2 2 F, P 16c Marsh edge exists but < 5 ft wide, or less than 25% (but > 5%) of shoreline 1 1 F, P 16d Marsh of native species occupies more than 25% of total AU X 2 X 2 F Above OHW (riparian zone) 17a Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested > 25 ft wide over 10 to 24% of shoreline 1 1 F, P 17b Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested > 25 ft wide over 25 to 50% of shoreline 2 2 F, P 17c Riparian scrub-shrub and/or forested > 25 ft over 50% of shoreline 3 3 F, P 18 Riparian vegetation is dominated by native species 1 1 F 19 Riparian zone provides signif. source of LWD recruitment X1.5 X1.5 F, P Landscape 20a AU has low to moderate gradient intertidal continuity with adjacent AU (one side) 1 1 M, P 20b AU has low to moderate gradient intertidal continuity with adjacent AUs (both sides) 3 3 M, P Special Habitat Features Large Woody Debris (LWD) density (LWD must be in the IT zone below MHHW) 21a 1.0 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or /100 m² of AU whichever is greater 33 P 21b 0.5 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or /100 m² of AU whichever is greater 22 P 21c 0.2 piece/channel width, /30 m of shoreline, or /100 m² of AU whichever is greater 11 P

Page 2 Field inventory sheet.

AU # Date Surveyors Y/N CH CO/BT Address Comments Submerged Vegetation (note provisions with regard to impacts to macrovegetation)** 22 Algal cover over 10% of littoral area (during springtime) 1 1 F, P 23a Eelgrass is present along 5 to 10% of low tide line of AU 1 1 F, P 23b Eelgrass is present along 10 to 25% of low tide line of AU 2 2 F, P 23c Eelgrass is present along more than 25% of low tide line of AU 3 3 F, P 23d Eelgrass occupies more than 25% of total AU X 2 X 2 F, P 24 Do functioning feeder bluffs provide a significant source of sediment to the AU? X 2 X 2 F Stressors 25a Immigration/emigration restricted 25 to 50% of the time X 0.8 X 0.8 M 25b Immigration/emigration restricted 50 to 75% of the time X 0.5 X 0.5 M 25c Immigration/emigration restricted 75 to 90% of the time X 0.3 X 0.3 M 26a Wood debris present on the bottom 25% to 75% cover over AU X 0.7 X 0.7 F 26b Wood debris present on the bottom > 75% over AU X 0.5 X 0.5 F 27a Log rafting affects 10 to 50% of AU on a recurring basis X 0.7 X 0.7 F 27b Log rafting affects over 50% of AU on a recurring basis X 0.5 X 0.5 F 28a Water col. conditions exceed salmonid thresholds during periods of high abundance X 0.3 X 0.3 H 28b Water col. conditions exceed salmonid thresholds during periods of low abundance X 0.7 X 0.7 H 29a Sediment chemical contam. present (> SQS over more than 25% of AU) X 0.8 X 0.8 F, H 29b Sediment chemical contam. present (>CSL over more than 25% of AU) X 0.6 X 0.6 F, H 30a Riprap or vertical bulkheads extend below MHHW for 10 - 50% of shore X 0.8 X 0.9 P,M,F 30b Riprap or vertical bulkheads extend below MHHW along > 50% of shore X 0.7 X 0.8 P,M,F 31 Majority of riprapped or bulkheaded shoreline extends below MSL (+6 ft MLLW) X 0.8 X 0.9 P,M,F 32a Finger pier or dock > 8 ft wide X 0.9 - - P 32b Two or more finger piers or docks > 8 ft wide; or single pier or dock > 25 ft wide X 0.8 X 0.9 P 33a Overwater structures cover 10 to 30% of littoral area in AU X 0.8 X 0.9 P,M,F 33b Overwater structures cover 30 to 50% of littoral area in AU X 0.7 X 0.8 P,M,F 33c Overwater structures cover 50 to 75% of littoral area in AU X 0.6 X 0.7 P,M,F 33d Overwater structures cover > 75% of littoral area in AU X 0.5 X 0.6 P,M,F 34 Littoral benthic habitat routinely disturbed by prop wash, chronic oil spills, or dredging X 0.9 X 0.9 H, F 00570\001\appendixb.xls

Page 3

APPENDIX D GIS DATABASE USERS GUIDE

Pentec Environmental 12570-01 July 3, 2003 APPENDIX D – GIS USER’S GUIDE

KGI Watershed Nearshore Salmon Habitat Assessment Spatial Database

Pentec assessed shoreline conditions and salmonid habitat quality of the KGI Watershed nearshore through review of aerial shoreline photographs and existing habitat data, and through 2002 field surveys using the indicators of the Tidal Habitat Model (THM) as a guide. These data were incorporated into a GIS database by joining the field data with the line shapefile (obtained from the Department of Natural Resources [DNR] ShoreZone) of the Pierce County shoreline, making each of the field categories available for mapping. A separate shapefile was created with hot links to photographs of restoration opportunities within various assessment units (AUs). Results from the Sea-All™ video mapping survey to determine the presence (or absence) of eelgrass are also included.

Methods

Because the ShoreZone GIS base map was of a higher resolution than that available from the County’s Planning Department at the time this study was initiated, it was agreed that ShoreZone would serve as the GIS base map for this KGI Watershed Nearshore Habitat Assessment. We clipped the shoreline shapefile -to Pierce County. Using digital orthophotographs downloaded from the University of Washington geospatial data archive Web site (http://duff. geology.washington.edu/data/raster/docs/), we split the shoreline to delineate the boundaries of each AU and Ecological Management Unit (EMU).

Data in the following categories and indicators were incorporated into the GIS database and can therefore be mapped: EMU number, AU number, calculated THM score, shore type, percent depositional area, slope, sediments, potential forage fish habitat, percent of shoreline with marsh, riparian characteristics, eelgrass beds, bulkheading, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, LWD density, feeder bluffs, continuity, immigration/emigration restrictions, piers and docks, overwater structures, frequent spills, and dredging. The rationale and protocols used in scoring these indicators are provided in Appendix B.

Restoration and conservation opportunities were also identified, categorized, and included in the database. A separate shapefile includes a “hotlink” field to view photos taken in the field of restoration opportunities. A complete description of each attribute field is provided.

Underwater video surveys were conducted using Pentec’s Sea-All™ video mapping system to determine the presence or absence of eelgrass within the

Pentec Environmental Page 1 12570-01 July 3, 2003 lower intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats of the KGI study area. This video system incorporates Differential Global Positioning System technology for precise positioning. A total of approximately 35 miles of shoreline were surveyed between late August and mid-September 2002, and the results were incorporated into a single shapefile. Each data point represents either presence or absence of eelgrass at a specific geographic location.

Entity and Attribute Information for Habitat Assessment

EMU Definition: Labels the EMU.

EMU_NUMBER Definition: Labels the EMU number.

AU_NUMBER Definition: Labels each section of shoreline with the AU number; this is the unique identifier.

LENGTH Definition: Length of AU in feet measured along the high tide line (software generated).

AU_MILES Definition: Length of AU in miles measured along the high tide line (software generated).

AU_SCORE Definition: AU THM score represents habitat quality. Shows the results from running the model on the 34 different habitat indicators for each AU.

QUALITY Definition: Categorizes quality relative to other AU scores within the EMU. All AU scores within the EMU were normalized against the highest-quality AU; quality ratings were defined as a percentage of the score of the highest-quality AU, as follows: 1 high quality (>71 percent) 2 moderate quality (41 to 70 percent) 3 low quality (40 percent or lower)

AU_TYPE Definition: Describes the type of shoreline habitat present from the following four types: open, inlet, spit, lagoon.

Pentec Environmental Page 2 12570-01 July 3, 2003 DEPOSITION Definition: Indicates a zone of deposition of fine-grained sediments and organic debris; defined as 0 None 2 >25 percent of littoral area 3 >50 percent of littoral area

SLOPE Definition: Defined as 1 steep: <5h:1v but >2h:1v (areas steeper than 2h:1v were not scored) 2 moderate: <10h:1v but >5h:1v 3 low: >10h:1v

SEDIMENTS Definition: Describes the presence of fine-grained sediments; defined as 0 other 1 silty sand >25 percent 2 mud and fines >25-50 percent 3 mud and fines >50 percent 4 silty sand >25 percent, mud and fines >50 percent 5 mud and fines 75-100 percent 6 silty sand >25 percent, mud and fines 25-50 percent

FORAGE_FIS Definition: Indicates the presence of potential forage fish habitat; defined as 0 none 3 potential forage fish habitat

MARSH Definition: Indicates the extent of tidal marshes below ordinary high water (OHW); defined as 0 none 1 <5 feet wide and <25 percent of shoreline 2 >5 feet wide and over 50 percent OR >10 feet wide over 25-50 percent of shoreline 3 >10 feet wide and >50 percent of shoreline 4 >25 percent of AU

RIPARIAN_E Definition: Indicates the extent of riparian scrub-shrub and forest above OHW; defined as 0 none 1 10 to 24 percent of shoreline 2 25 to 50 percent of shoreline 3 51 to 100 percent of shoreline

Pentec Environmental Page 3 12570-01 July 3, 2003 LWD_RECRUI Definition: Identifies whether greater than 50 percent of the riparian zone of the AU contains mature trees that meet the 0.3-meter diameter at breast height criterion, and if those trees have the potential to fall into areas accessible to juvenile salmonids (below mean higher high water [MHHW]); defined as y yes n no

LWD_DENSIT Definition: Describes the abundance of LWD in the AU, represented as logs, logs/trees with rootwads, and branches and stumps; defined as 0 none 1 0.2 piece/30 meters of shoreline 2 0.5 piece/30 meters of shoreline 3 1.0 piece/30 meters of shoreline

EELGRASS Definition: Describes the abundance of eelgrass in the AU; defined as 0 none 1 5 to 10 percent of low tide line 2 10 to 25 percent of low tide line 3 >25 percent of low tide line 4 >25 percent of total AU area

FEEDER_BLU Definition: Describes the presence of active feeder bluffs (“cliffs”) in the assessment unit, capable of contributing new sediments to the intertidal zone, that are not cut off at the base from wave erosion and longshore sediment transport: y yes n no

CONTINUITY Definition: Describes the boundary between adjacent AUs, intertidal continuity exists where the transition from one AU to the next follows a low- to moderate-gradient shoreline; defined as 0 no intertidal continuity with adjacent AUs 1 intertidal continuity with adjacent AU on one side 3 intertidal continuity with adjacent AUs on both sides

IMMIG_EMIG Definition: Describes if access to the whole AU is limited by man-made structure; includes culverts, dikes, storm berms, and tide-gates; defined as 0 none 1 25 to 50 percent of the time 2 50 to 75 percent of the time 3 75 to 95 percent of the time

Pentec Environmental Page 4 12570-01 July 3, 2003 BULKHEADIN Definition: Describes the presence and extent of shoreline armoring; defined as 0 none 1 10 to 50 percent of shoreline below MHHW 2 51 to 100 percent of shoreline below MHHW 3 10 to 50 percent of shoreline below mean sea level (MSL) 4 51 to 100 percent of shoreline below MSL

PIERS_DOCK Definition: Describes the presence of piers and docks in the AU; also includes other structures that create shadows, such as bridges; defined as 0 none 1 1 pier or dock >8 feet wide 2 2 or more piers or docks >8 feet wide, OR 1 pier or dock >25 feet wide

H2O_STRUCT Definition: Describes the quantity of the littoral area of the AU shaded by overwater structures, such as marinas; defined as 0 none 1 10 to 30 percent of littoral area of AU 2 30 to 50 percent of littoral area of AU 3 50 to 75 percent of littoral area of AU 4 75 to 100 percent of littoral area of AU

DREDGING Definition: Indicates whether the AU is subject to frequent propeller scour, oil spills or dredging; defined as y yes n no

RO Definition: describes the type of restoration opportunity available in the AU; defined as SMR stream mouth restoration DB dam/dike breaching CM culvert maintenance MR marsh restoration FR artificial fill removal BR bulkhead removal RSR relic structure removal DDR dilapidated dock/pier removal RE riparian enhancement

Pentec Environmental Page 5 12570-01 July 3, 2003 Data Included on CD

The KGI Shoreline Habitat Assessment Spatial Database includes spatial data, tabular data, photographs, and documentation:

Documentation: Appendix D, the GIS User’s Guide, shapefile metadata, and a guide to viewing hotlinked photographs are included.

Shapefiles: Three ArcView shapefiles are included. The shapefile au_boundry_new_data.shp includes the AU boundaries for the KGI shoreline and the associated tabular data describing the features of each AU. The emu_photos.shp shapefile includes a series of points that provide a hotlink to restoration opportunity photographs taken in the field. For optimal viewing of these photographs, we recommend using the ArcView project file restoration_photos.apr. The points do not represent the exact location where the photos were taken, rather they were taken within the AU. The results of the Sea-All™ video mapping survey of eelgrass is included in shapefile seaall_eg_survey_merged.shp.

ArcView Project File: One ArcView project file is included: restoration_photos.apr. This project shows the project area, each EMU, and points on the appropriate AU representing where photos of restoration opportunities exist. These points do not represent the exact location of the restoration opportunity, rather they were taken somewhere within the AU. To view photos, make sure the extension “JPEG (JFIF) Image Support” is turned on. While the “restoration opportunity photos” theme is active, use the lightning rod tool to click on any point (click the point with the bottom tip of the lightning rod). A photo should open in a new view. Turn on the AU theme and zoom in to site of interest to see which AU the photo was taken in. Also, each photo has the AU number as the first part of the file name.

Photographs: Photos of restoration opportunities are included. The restoration_photos.apr project provides links to these photos.

Usage Guidelines

The KGI Shoreline Habitat Assessment Spatial Database characterizes many biotic and physical attributes of the marine shoreline in western Pierce County. The various features of each AU have the potential to be mapped. Data can also be analyzed quantitatively. Keep in mind, however, that each field gives a single value to the entire AU. Some fields may indicate presence/absence within an AU (e.g., forage fish habitat) and a value of “present” does not mean that it is necessarily present throughout the AU.

Pentec Environmental Page 6 12570-01 July 3, 2003