Year 5 Annual Report Floating Nursery Mason County, Washington

Prepared for Seattle , LLC

August 31, 2017 12755-01

Year 5 Annual Report Geoduck Floating Nursery Mason County, Washington

Prepared for Seattle Shellfish, LLC

August 31, 2017 12755-01

Prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc.

Jessica Blanchette Marine Biologist

12755-01 August 31, 2017

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 METHODS 2 2.1 Surface Observations 2 2.2 Diver Surveys 3

3.0 RESULTS 4 3.1 Surface Observations 4 3.2 Diver Surveys 5

4.0 DISCUSSION 6

5.0 REFERENCES 7

TABLES Table 1 – Depths for Each Site, by Date 4 Table 2 – Light Attenuation Coefficients for Each Site, by Direction and Date 5 Table 3 – Dive Survey Results (attached)

FIGURES Figure 1 – Monitoring Site Map

APPENDIX A Photo Log

12755-01 August 31, 2017

Year 5 Annual Report Geoduck Floating Nursery Mason County, Washington

1.0 INTRODUCTION On March 17, 2010, Seattle Shellfish LLC (Seattle Shellfish) submitted an application through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to transition an existing intertidal “kiddie” pool geoduck nursery system to a floating nursery system in Spencer Cove, an inlet on the northeast side of Harstene Island (Reference Number NWS-2010-258; USACE 2010; Figure 1). The floating nursery system would provide a protected environment to grow geoduck seed to an optimal size for survival during the out- planting process (0.4 to 0.6 inches [10–15 millimeters] shell length). Seattle Shellfish typically holds their seed for 6 weeks to 6 months in a protected structure (i.e., nursery), depending on the time of year when it is obtained from the hatchery.

Concerns with potential impacts of the intertidal pool system (e.g., habitat impacts, water-quality effects) led Seattle Shellfish to propose the use of a floating geoduck seed nursery system. The floating system is comprised of a series of rafts connected to galvanized steel pilings. This allows for natural hydrologic processes within the intertidal and subtidal environments while still allowing Seattle Shellfish to maintain healthy stocks of geoduck seed (Photograph 1) that will have a higher chance of survival following planting.

The Biological Evaluation (BE) for the nursery facility indicates that the seafloor below the floating nursery rafts varies in depth from –5 to –9.3 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) (letter from Environ International Corporation [Environ] to USACE Seattle District, April 25, 2010). Given these shallow depths, shading effects of the floating rafts may be great enough to affect benthic plant and invertebrate communities. In addition, several studies have documented that migrating salmonid juveniles avoid darkened areas, altering their paths to avoid these areas.

Mason County issued a conditional Shoreline Permit for this project on May 26, 2010 (Mason County Shoreline Permit No. SHR2008-00016). This permit is subject to five conditions as follows:

1. “The County shall hire a suitably qualified expert to devise and implement a five year monitoring plan at the expense of the Applicant. The monitoring plan shall identify and assess impacts to endangered fish and its habitat. Additional mitigation shall be imposed by staff as necessary to mitigate impacts identified in the monitoring of the plan.

2. Lighting shall be the minimum required by applicable regulations for navigation safety, unless additional lighting is deemed necessary by staff for safe navigation.

3. The floating nurseries shall never reach less than three feet above ground level.

12755-01 August 31, 2017 2 | Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery

4. Areas and gear subjected to herring spawn shall not be disturbed until the eggs have hatched, unless the Applicant establishes to staff that compliance with this condition would unreasonably interfere with aquaculture operations.

5. Sand for the nurseries stored in upland areas shall be covered to prevent adverse impacts to water quality.”

Hart Crowser involvement includes on-site monitoring for determining outcomes specific to Conditions 1 and 3. Quaterly and annual monitoring of the nursery and habitat provides an assement of potential impacts to aquatic habitat and endangered fish—though currently there are no endangerd fish listed in the vicinity of the nursery—as well as tracking the water depth above the ground level below the floating nursery. This document provides results from the fifth and final year of monitoring.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Surface Observations Conditions at the floating nursery rafts were documented quarterly between June 2013 and June 2017. The nursery rafts are connected to a floating walkway, referred to as the log boom, which is in turn tethered to the steel pilings. The log boom runs approximately north to south (Figure 1). One survey monitoring station was established at each end of the log boom, with three stations along the log boom at relatively equal distances. The north station was marked as Site 1, with Site 5 at the south end of the log boom. The five stations were permanently marked along the log boom for comparative monitoring.

Information documented at each station included photographs, depth measurements, light readings, fish counts, dominant algae and invertebrates, and other general observations. Photographs were taken in the four (approximate) compass directions, in order to capture the surrounding location and water conditions. Depth measurements were taken directly under the log boom, relative to MLLW. Depth was considered accurate to the nearest 10 centimeters (cm), given the soft sediment and poor visibility to the bottom; however, localized currents and wave action can cause readings to vary by 0.5 meters.

Light levels were monitored using a LICOR quantum irradiance meter equipped with air and underwater sensors. The LICOR allows for simultaneous air and water light measurements, thus taking into account ambient light levels at the time in-water measurements are collected. Light readings were taken off the east and west sides of the log boom, at the surface and at depth, to measure any shading effects beneath the floating structures. Light units are measured in micro-einsteins per meter squared, and the difference between surface and depth readings was calculated as the attenuation coefficient (K) using the equation: 퐼 ln ( 푧) 퐼 K = 0 −z where I0 is the irradiance at the surface, Iz is irradiance at depth, z (Dixon and Kirkpatrick 1995).

12755-01 August 31, 2017 Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | 3

Greater attenuation coefficients indicate greater light absorption levels through the water column as, for example, from turbidity or . Collectively, the data on light levels allow for the determination of the extent and magnitude of shading caused by the nursery facility.

2.2 Diver Surveys An assessment of fish presence and aquatic habitat conditions was conducted both under and adjacent to the Seattle Shellfish nursery facility on June 21, 2017. This survey followed methods described by Hart Crowser in their Geoduck Floating Nursery Monitoring Plan (2013), and the Field Reconnaissance Studies Report prepared by Environ (2010). Six diving transects were established in the reconnaissance survey of the site. GPS waypoints from the pre-project baseline survey were used by Hart Crowser to reestablish these transects, to allow for comparisons of newly collected data with the observations made in prior years.

Two divers swam side-by-side, making observations of biological conditions of the seafloor along the six transects. Each diver made observations within 1 meter on one side of the transect lines, so that collectively their observations covered an area 2 meters wide for the length of each transect. These observations were recorded at 10-meter intervals along each transect. Five of the transects were 50 meters long and ran perpendicular across the floating nursery system while one 150-meter transect ran parallel along the western edge of the log boom. The location of the selected transects are illustrated in Figure 1 and are described as follows.

 Transect 1: 50 meters long, to the north and perpendicular to the existing floating system where there was no impact from the construction of the float or operation of the shellfish nursery. This is considered a reference transect.

 Transect 2: 50 meters long, at the north end of the log boom and perpendicular to the existing floating system.

 Transect 3: 50 meters long, perpendicular to the existing floating system. This transect crosses under the floats near the center of the operation.

 Transect 4: 50 meters long, perpendicular to the existing floating system. This transect crosses under the floats near the south end of the facility.

 Transect 5: 50 meters long, at the south end of the log boom and perpendicular to the existing floating system.

 Transect 6: 150 meters long and along the western edge of the floating structure. This transect ran directly below the rafts that were moored to the log boom.

To determine habitat conditions, information documented included sediment condition and type, depth along the transect, microalgae, eelgrass (if present), epibenthic invertebrates, and fish. Macroalgae were quantified by percent cover per square meter. Epibenthic invertebrates and fish were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic unit based on visual observations.

12755-01 August 31, 2017 4 | Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Surface Observations Photographs for each monitoring period were included in previous quarterly monitoring reports. Select photos are included in this report for comparison between monitoring events (Photographs 1–5). The number of platforms attached to the log boom varied between monitoring events. Platforms included the nursery rafts, work platforms for carrying equipment and supplies, and vessels for transporting supplies and personnel. There were generally between three and nine platforms attached to the log boom during observations.

No fish were observed in Year 5. Other biota observed included algae and invertebrates. In comparison to previous sampling, the dominant algae attached to the log boom and floating platforms has consistently been Laminaria kelp, with the green algae Ulva sp., an unidentified “stringy” green algae (possibly Acrosiphonia sp.), and filamentous red alga (likely Gracilariopsis Appendix A, Photograph 6) also present during most monitoring, except in December 2016 when no stringy green alga was present. The invertebrate complex observed has been relatively consistent through the 5 years of sampling, with dominant species including (Mytilus sp.), (Balanus glandula), bryozoans, plumose anemones (Metridium sp.), and moon jellies (Aurelia aurita).

Depth readings among the quarterly monitoring events varied by as much as 3.1 m MLLW within a single site (Site 4) and by as much as 2.6 m MLLW between sites (Table 1). This pattern of seasonal changes in depth have been noted in prior years as well. Sites 4 and 5, at the south end of the log boom, were usually deeper than other sites, averaging 4.8 and 4.5 m MLLW, respectively, for Year 5. While previous years exhibited greater depths in fall and winter months, Years 4 and 5 do not appear to adhere to this pattern; the deepest recordings for Year 5 were in June of 2017 (Table 1). Despite seasonal changes, depth readings across sites have generally been consistent over the 5 years of monitoring and Year 5 is no exception. Overall, for Year 5, average conditions ranged from 3.1 to 5.3 m MLLW. Deepest readings of the 5 years occurred in December 2013 and none have shown evidence of scour or accumulaton of sediment.

Table 1 – Depths (meter MLLW) for Each Site by Date

Site 17-Jun 17-Mar 16-Dec 16-Sep 16-Jun 16-Mar 15-Dec 15-Sep 15-Jun 15-Mar 14-Dec 14-Sep 14-Jun 14-Mar 13-Dec 13-Sep 13-Jun 1 4.6 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.5 3.2 3.3 4 3.1 4.3 4.9 3.8 2.9 2 4.1 3.6 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.9 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.1 4 4.9 3.9 2.9 3 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.0 3.4 3.6 2.9 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.8 4 3.3 4.3 5.2 4 3.3 4 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 3.4 4.7 3.3 5.6 5 4.8 4.8 5.1 4.7 5.6 6.2 6.4 4.7 5 4.2 4.2 4.3 5.4 4.6 4.7 3.2 5.1 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.9 4.4 5.5 5.2 3.9 Average 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.1 4.4 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.3 3.6 4.5 5.3 4.7 3.5 Note: Values presented with most recent time periods on left hand side of table.

Light attenuation coefficients in Year 5 varied with season, but were relatively consistent between sites within each quarterly monitoring, and did not differ greatly based on location (east or west) of sampling. The highest coefficient value for this reporting year was recorded in the September 2016 sampling date (maximum of 0.50). The lowest coefficient value for this year was in March 2017 with a value of -0.17 K/m which may have been altered by shading from attached floats. In addition, Site 5

12755-01 August 31, 2017 Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | 5

West in June had a coefficient of zero and should be considered to be altered for the same reason. Excluding negative and zero values for lowest coefficient, March 2017 would still have the lowest value of 0.02 K/m. Attenuation coefficients during Year 5 surveys were all lower than a threshold value of 1.0 K/m, at which light availability is limiting for eelgrass and phytoplankton growth in estuaries deeper than 6 meters (Gallegos 2001; Vaudrey 2008). Accordingly, we do not believe that light attenuation caused by the log boom, nursery rafts, or trapped algae was high enough to significantly affect biological productivity of benthic photosynthetic organisms for all monitoring years.

Table 2 – Light Attenuation Coefficients (K) for Each Site by Direction and Date

Site 17-Jun 17-Mar 16-Dec 16-Sep 16-Jun 16-Mar 15-Dec 15-Sep 15-Jun 15-Mar 14-Dec 14-Sep 14-Jun 14-Mar 13-Dec 13-Sep 13-Jun 1 E 0.25 0.05 0.26 0.38 0.52 0.19 0.31 0.64 -0.81* 0.43 0.56 0.31 0.77 0.34 0.48 0.42 0.2 1 W 0.26 0.02 0.24 0.40 0.50 0.24 0.30 0.61 -0.29* 0.43 0.56 0.38 0.72 0.4 0.51 0.41 0.36 2 E 0.25 0.33 0.29 0.48 0.57 0.23 0.35 0.61 -0.23* 0.42 0.49 0.42 0.88 0.38 0.49 0.64 0.12 2 W 0.37 -0.17* 0.26 0.40 0.49 0.24 0.32 0.56 0.01 0.4 0.5 0.58 0.69 0.4 0.45 0.53 0.27 3 E 0.21 0.11 0.26 0.50 0.00** 0.11 0.41 0.61 0.22 0.46 0.55 0.43 0.77 0.36 0.31 0.42 0.19 3 W 0.46 0.11 0.25 0.40 0.33 0.26 0.33 0.62 0.51 0.48 0.55 0.5 0.83 0.39 0.27 0.38 0.23 4 E 0.42 0.03 0.23 0.43 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.60 0.22 0.31 0.46 0.41 0.64 0.32 0.5 0.43 0.22 4 W 0.44 0.11 0.26 0.40 0.12 0.16 0.29 0.55 0.28 0.36 0.49 0.49 0.61 0.35 0.51 0.45 0.38 5 E 0.39 0.30 0.23 0.36 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.64 0.09 0.3 0.47 0.36 0.68 0.27 0.41 0.3 0.25 5 W 0.36 0.00 0.26 0.33 0.20 0.15 0.24 0.31 0.14 0.34 0.46 0.36 0.67 0.29 0.53 0.28 0.3 Average 0.34 0.12 0.25 0.41 0.35 0.19 0.30 0.58 0.21 0.39 0.51 0.42 0.73 0.35 0.45 0.43 0.25

Notes: Values presented with most recent time periods on left-hand side of table. E: East; W: West * Light readings and attenuations may be altered by floating algae rafts (Hart Crowser 2015) ** Light readings and attenuation may be altered by dense kelp at surface

The only debris found in the water was organic material including leaves, pine needles, kelp, and other algae. No anthropogenic material was observed in the water around the log boom, nursery rafts, vessels, or other platforms.

3.2 Diver Surveys Observations recorded by the divers included fish and invertebrate species identifications, substrate type and condition, dominant algae species, depth, and general observations. Monitoring results for the fifth year of diver surveys are comparable to previous years. Depths remain similar, as do the flora and fauna seen during the dive surveys. The results below reports the findings of the 2017 annual dive survey in supplemet to the data found in Table 3 (attached). Select photographs are included in the Photo Log (Appendix A) and are described below.

Depths taken at 10-meter intervals were consistent with depth readings from the log boom in June 2016, with deeper depths recorded at the south end of the boom. Substrate type was generally 90 to 100 percent sand and silt (Photograph 8). There were also no visual impacts (e.g., areas of scour or fill) on the adjacent shoreline.

The dominant submerged marine vegetation included Ulva sp. (Photograph 7), Cryptosiphonia woodii, Gracilaria sp. and a large amount of periphyton throughout the site. Percent coverage for vegetation was generally less than 5 percent; however, Site 4 had 40 percent cover of Ulva and periphyton at a

12755-01 August 31, 2017 6 | Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery depth of -12 ft. Eelgrass was not observed in the study area, and has never been reported in Spencer Cove (Washington Department of Natural Resources, personal communication).

The only vertebrate species observed in the course of the dive survey were two unidentified juvenile soles, likely of family Solidae. Invertebrate species (Photographs 9–14) observed included crabs, sea stars, clams, anemones (Metridium sp.), and moon and their eggs (Euspira lewisii). Crab species included graceful crab (Metacarcinus gracilis), and an unidentified hermit crab (Pagurus sp.). Other invertebrate species included an unidentified piddock, several capax clams, mottled star (Evasterias troscheli), giant pink sea star ( brevispinus), and pacific geoduck (Panopea generosa). There were also multiple worm and ghost shrimp burrow holes observed at Site 5.

4.0 DISCUSSION The baseline monitoring survey (quarterly surface observations and annual diver surveys) supports the conclusion that Seattle Shellfish currently meets or exceeds the conditional requirements for the Mason County Shoreline Permit (No. SHR2008-00016). The permit requires the floating nursery rafts be suspended greater than 3 feet MLLW (approximately 1 meter) above the seafloor. Depth measurements taken at the surface found the floating platforms to be suspended at or below the required limit, with observed depths ranging from 2.6 to 6.4 meters (MLLW). There were also no visual impacts (e.g., areas of scour or fill) on the adjacent shoreline.

Light attenuation values greater than 1.0 K/m have been found to limit eelgrass and phytoplankton growth in estuaries beyond 6 meters in depth (Gallegos 2001; Vaudrey 2008). Regular attenuation from seawater and phytoplankton ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 K/m (Kelble et al. 2005). Attenuation values measured at the site (Table 2) ranged from 0.02 to 0.44 K/m in Year 5 but overall ranged from 0.02 to 0.88 K/m, the highest attenuation value of 0.88 K/m seen in the five years of monitoring occurred in June 2014. indicating that the biologically relevant threshold of 1.0 K/m is not exceeded at this site. In addition, attenuation values within sampling events were consistent between areas with no overhead platforms and under the nursery rafts, indicating limited shading effects from the structure. Differences in attenuation were attributed to seasonal angle of the sun, plankton blooms, floating algae mats, or natural causes of turbidity. For example, increased angle of the sun during winter months result in surface reflectance and scattering through the water column, which tends to decrease the attenuation coefficient, while dense spring or summer phytoplankton blooms increase the attenuation coefficient. Even during blooms attenuation values were relatively uniform across the length of the log boom. Water clarity was moderate to poor during the diver surveys that occurred during these phytoplankton blooms.

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) has not been observed during any of the diver surveys at either the reference transect or transects intersecting the log boom. The average depth for eelgrass in south is 5 feet (MLLW), and rarely extends below 10 feet (Selleck et al. 2005), so depth may be limiting eelgrass presence at the nursery site since the nursery site depth ranges from 10.2 to 17.4 ft.

Diver surveys found no indication of scour or sediment deposition around the pilings or elsewhere in the study area, and the substrate was consistent with observations made during the previous dive surveys in June in all five years. The seafloor was consistently composed of silt and sand, defined as

12755-01 August 31, 2017 Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | 7 mixed fines (Dethier 1990). There was no noticeable difference in algae cover or benthic invertebrates between transects. The diver surveys indicate the project area consists of submerged aquatic vegetation, some fish, and invertebrate species that are consistent with mixed fines sediment. This is habitat indicative of south Puget Sound and Case Inlet, and no differences were observed from the previous surveys.

Years 1-5 monitoring of surface and subtidal conditions has been concluded. The permanent surface stations and diver transects have allowed for a comparison of conditions underneath and outside of the nursery rafts and shellfish operations, and no differences were observed relative to the baseline monitoring and evaluation. At present, there appears to be minimal or no impact on fish or the subtidal or intertidal habitat as a result of the construction or operation of the Seattle Shellfish Geoduck Floating Nursery.

Submission of this report fulfills the shorleine permit requirements for Seattle Shellfish (Mason County Shoreline Permit No. SHR2008-00016) and concludes the final stage of the five-year monitoring plan to identify and assess impacts to species and habitat in close proximity to the floating nursery laid out in conditions of the Shoreline Substatial Development/ Conditional Use Permit held by Mason County.

5.0 REFERENCES Dethier, M.N. 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Dept. Natural Resources. 56 pp. Olympia, WA.

Dixon LK, Kirkpatrick G. 1995. Light attenuation with respect to seagrasses in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Mote Marine Laboratory Report no 407. 53 p. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library.

Environ 2010. Field Reconnaissance Studies for a Proposed Floating Geoduck Seed Nursery System in Mason County, Washington. Prepared for Seattle Shellfish, LLC by Environ International Corporation. April 26, 2010. Project Number: 3023902A.

Gallegos, C.L. 2001. Calculating optical water quality targets to restore and protect submersed aquatic vegetation: overcoming problems in partitioning the diffuse attenuation coefficient for photosynthetically active radiation. Estuaries, Vol. 24, No, 3, pp. 381–397.

Hart Crowser 2013. Geoduck Floating Nursery Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Seattle Shellfish, LLC. March 6, 2013.

Hart Crowser 2015. Year 3 Annual Report. Prepared for Seattle Shellfish, LLC. September 3, 2015.

Kelble, C.R., P.B. Ortner, G.L. Hitchcock, and J.N. Boyer. 2005. Attenuation of Photosynthetically Available Radiation (PAR) in Florida Bay: Potential for Light Limitation of Primary Producers. Estuaries, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 560–571.

USACE 2010. Public notice of application for permit: Seattle Shellfish, LLC, Reference Number NWS- 2010-258. US Army Corps of Engineers, March 17, 2010.

12755-01 August 31, 2017 8 | Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery

Selleck, J., H.D. Berry, and P. Dowty 2005. Depth Profiles of Zostera marina Throughout the Greater Puget Sound: Results From 2002-2004 Monitoring Data. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA.

Vaudrey, J.M.P. 2008. Establishing restoration objectives for eelgrass in long island sound; Part I: Review of the seagrass literature relevant to long island sound. University of Connecticut, FRS#542190.

\\edmsrv\data\NOTEBOOKS\1275501_Seattle Shellfish Monitoring\Deliverables\Reports\Annual Report 2017-07\1275501_Year 5 Monitoring Report_201707.docx

12755-01 August 31, 2017 Table 3 - Dive Survey Results

Transect 1 Observed MLLW Station Depth Substrate Vegetation Cover Incidental Species Notes depth Tide Depth 0 ‐10.2 Silt and sand Gracilaria <1% Moonsnail egg case (MS) Waypoint T1a 9 ‐1.2 ‐10.2 10 ‐10.2 Silt and sand Cryptosiphonia woodii, Gracilaria 5 Graceful crab (3) 9 ‐1.2 ‐10.2 20 ‐10.2 Silt and sand Gracilaria, Ulva 5 Graceful crab, juv. Sole 9 ‐1.2 ‐10.2 30 ‐9.2 Silt and sand Gracilaria, Ulva 10 Graceful crab 8 ‐1.2 ‐9.2 Graceful crab, MS eggs, Tresus 40 ‐9.2 Silt and sand Gracilaria <1% capax (1) 8 ‐1.2 ‐9.2 50 ‐7.2 Silt and sand <1% MS eggs 6 ‐1.2 ‐7.2

Transect 2 Observed MLLW Station Depth Substrate Vegetation Cover Incidental Species Notes depth Tide Depth 0 ‐11.2 Silt and sand Juv. Sole Waypoint 2a 10 ‐1.2 ‐11.2 10 ‐11.2 Silt and sand (2) MS eggs 10 ‐1.2 ‐11.2 20 ‐10.2 Silt and sand Tresus capax (3) Graceful crab (2) 9 ‐1.2 ‐10.2 30 ‐10.2 Silt and sand 9 ‐1.2 ‐10.2 40 ‐10.2 Silt and sand Ulva, & periphyton <1% MS eggs 9 ‐1.2 ‐10.2 50 ‐9.2 Silt and sand Ulva linza <1% Moonsnail 8 ‐1.2 ‐9.2

Transect 3 Observed MLLW Station Depth Substrate Vegetation Cover Incidental Species Notes depth Tide Depth Large hermit crab, juv. Sole, 0 Silt and sand Waypoint 3a ‐12 Tresus capax (2) 11 ‐1 ‐12 10 ‐11 Silt and sand periphyton <1% Graceful crab (20) 10 ‐1 ‐11 20 ‐11 Silt and sand Graceful crab (1) 10 ‐1 ‐11 30 ‐10 Silt and sand periphyton <1% Mottled sea star 9 ‐1 ‐10 40 ‐9.5 Silt and sand periphyton under dock 9 ‐0.5 ‐9.5 50 ‐9.5 Silt and sand periphyton <1% juv Geo shell (photo) Waypoint 3b 9 ‐0.5 ‐9.5

Transect 4 Observed MLLW Station Depth Substrate Vegetation Cover Incidental Species Notes depth Tide Depth 0 ‐13.0 Silt and sand Waypoint 4a 13 0 ‐13 10 ‐12.0 Silt and sand Ulva , periphyton <1% 12 0 ‐12 20 ‐12.0 Silt and sand 40 % Graceful crab (3) 12 0 ‐12 30 ‐11.0 Silt and sand periphyton <1% MS eggs, graceful crab (1) edge of dock 11 0 ‐11 Graceful crab (1), moonsnail, 40 ‐11.0 Silt and sand periphyton Tresus capax (1) 11 0 ‐11 juv Graceful crab (2), Tresus 50 ‐11.0 Silt and sand periphyton <1% capax (1) 11 0 ‐11 Transect 5 Observed MLLW Station Depth Substrate Vegetation Cover Incidental Species Notes depth Tide Depth 0 ‐15.5 Silt and sand shrimp/worm holes Waypoint 5a 16 0.5 ‐15.5 Piddock (3), Tresus capax (4) MS 10 ‐15.5 Silt and sand eggs 16 0.5 ‐15.5 20 ‐13.5 Silt and sand Piddock (5), graceful crab (4) 14 0.5 ‐13.5 30 ‐10.5 Silt and sand Piddock (1), moonsnail 11 0.5 ‐10.5 40 ‐6.5 Silt and sand Moonsnail 7 0.5 ‐6.5 50 ‐3.5 Silt and sand Mottled sea star 4 0.5 ‐3.5

Transect 6 Observed MLLW Station Depth Substrate Vegetation Cover Incidental Species Notes depth Tide Depth 0 ‐11 Silt and sand Shrimp/worm holes north end, Waypoint T‐1b 15 4 ‐11 10 ‐11 Silt and sand Ulva <1% MS eggs 15 4 ‐11 20 ‐11 Silt and sand MS eggs graceful crab 15 4 ‐11 30 ‐11 Silt and sand 1‐geoduck 15 4 ‐11 40 ‐11 Silt and sand under dock 15 4 ‐11 50 ‐10.5 Silt and sand periphyton 15 4.5 ‐10.5 60 ‐10.5 Silt and sand Metridium anemone 15 4.5 ‐10.5 70 ‐10.5 Silt and sand Graceful crab 15 4.5 ‐10.5 80 ‐11.5 Silt and sand periphyton 16 4.5 ‐11.5 90 ‐11.5 Silt and sand periphyton 16 4.5 ‐11.5 100 ‐12.5 Silt and sand 17 4.5 ‐12.5 110 ‐13.5 Silt and sand 18 4.5 ‐13.5 120 ‐14 Silt and sand 19 5 ‐14 130 ‐15 Silt and sand 20 5 ‐15 140 ‐14 Silt and sand Piddock (5) 19 5 ‐14 150 ‐10 Silt and sand MS eggs, Piddock (3) 15 5 ‐10 160 ‐5.0 Silt and sand Piddock (4) 10 5 ‐5

FIGURE

12755-01 August 31, 2017

Geoduck Floating Nursery Year 5 Annual Report Mason County, Washington

7/2017

12755-01 August 31, 2017

APPENDIX A

Photo Log

12755-01 August 31, 2017 Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-1

Photograph 1 – Site 3 in September 2016 facing South

Photograph 2 – Site 3 in September 2016 facing North Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-2

Photograph 3 – Site 1 in December 2016 facing South

Photograph 4 – Site 3 in March 2017 facing South Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-3

Photograph 5 – Site 3 in June 2017 facing North

Photograph 6 – Alga species and debris seen during surface survey in June 2017 at Site 2 facing West Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-4

Photograph 7 – Example of primary substrate sand with silt, scattered shell hash, and Ulva

Photograph 8 – Typical sand and silt substrate in the area with siphon holes Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-5

Photograph 9 – Tube worms (dark, left) and plumose anemones

Photograph 10 – Moon Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-6

Photograph 11 – Moon snail egg case

Photograph 12 – Graceful crab Year 5 Annual Report – Geoduck Floating Nursery | A-7

Photograph 13 – Hermit crab

Photograph 14 -- Piddock siphon