Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5229
ORDINANCE NO. 5229 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington adopting the updated Shoreline Master Program and repealing resolutions and ordinances relating to the Shoreline Master Program WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90 58 RCW) by a vote of the people in 1971; and WHEREAS, RCW 90 58 020 directs local governments developing shoreline master programs to give preference to uses in the shorelines in the following order of preference which 1) recognize and protect the State -wide interest over local interest, 2) preserve the natural character of the shoreline, 3) result in long -term over short-term benefit, 4) protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines, 5) increase public access to publicly -owned areas of the shorelines, 6) increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline, and 7) provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90 58 100 deemed appropriate or necessary, and WHEREAS, in 2003, The Department of Ecology adopted new rules, pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, which gave procedural and substantive direction to local ,jurisdictions for updating shoreline uses and regulations, which became effective January 17, 2004, and WHEREAS, The Growth Management ACT (RCW 36 70A 480) adds the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90 58 020 as one of the goals of the Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a comprehensive inventory of the ecological functions and conditions within its shoreline, jurisdiction in 2009 to provide a scientific foundation for application of the shoreline environment criteria and assignment of the appropriate shoreline designations, and WHEREAS, the results of this comprehensive inventory are contained in the document entitled, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, most recently updated in May 2012, and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173 -26- 186(8)( d), the City conducted an analysis of potential cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the policy goals of the Shoreline Management Act This analysis is contained in the document entitled, "Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis" most recently updated in February 2012, and, WHEREAS, the City has utilized the scientific information from the Inventory and the Cumulative Impact Analysis to draft the City's proposed Shoreline Master Program Update, and 1 SMP Amendments WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173 -26-224(4)(c), the City has conducted a public access analysis entitled, "Shoreline Public Access Inventory ", most recently updated in April 2012 This plan establishes an integrated shoreline public access system that identifies public needs and opportunities to provide public access, and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173- 26- 186(8)(c) and 173- 26-20 1 (2)(f), a document entitled "Restoration Plan" most recently updated in February 2012 has been formulated so that the City's Shoreline Master Program includes goals, policies and actions for restoration of unpaired shoreline ecological functions, and WHEREAS, over the past three years, the City's Planning Commission has reviewed and revised a number of documents, including the Shoreline Inventory, proposed revisions to shoreline regulations, the Restoration Plan, the Public Access Plan, the Cumulative Effects Analysis, and responded to both governmental agency and public comments, and WHEREAS, the City developed a public participation plan that provided widespread public notice throughout the Shoreline Master Program Update process The City has made a concerted effort to generate public involvement, including holding a public open house, having a booth at the Bremerton Blackberry Festival, sending notice in all residents' utility bills, creating a Citizen Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, attending monthly coordination meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee, creating a comprehensive and regularly- updated web page devoted to the Shoreline Master Program Update, maintaining a large mailing list in order to keep interested parties informed, holding over fourteen (14) workshops and a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and a series of four televised workshops at the City Council, and WHEREAS, The City issued a complete Planning Commission Draft of the Shoreline Master Program in May of 2012 and considered and responded to government, agency, and public comments and prepared and issued revised Draft Shoreline Master Program or elements thereof in June 2012, and WHEREAS, the City's Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsigmficance on the proposed Shoreline Master Program on May 14, 2012 with an appeal deadline of May 29, 2012 No appeals were filed, and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2012, a draft Shoreline Master Program was circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60 -day review and comment period No comments were received, and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Planning Commission considered staff's recommendations, received testimony, and formulated a recommendation to forward the amendments for City Council at a duly advertised public hearing on May 29, 2012, and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2012 the public was notified by legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council; and 2 SMP Amendments WHEREAS, City Council took public testimony from interested parties and considered all written and oral arguments at a duly advertised public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program update on October 3, 2012, and WHEREAS, The Bremerton City Council held a Public Hearing on October 3, 2012 to collect comments and testimony concerning the Draft Shoreline Master Program document and adopted Resolution Number 3180 directing staff to forward the documents to the Department of Ecology for approval, and WHEREAS, on November,&, 2013 the Department of Ecology approved the draft Shoreline Master Program subject to certain required changes, and WHEREAS, at the City Council directed staff to make the changes to the Draft Shoreline Master Program document required and recommended by the Department of Ecology, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth herein in full SECTION 2. Resolution numbers 1736, 1746, 1765, 1769, 1770 and ordinance numbers 4183, 4365, 4634, 4797 and 4829, adopting and amending the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program are hereby repealed SECTION 3. The City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program with appendices, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted SECTION 4. Severabihty If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentence of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect, and SECTION 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law PASSED by the City Council the I day of ( 2 0 —r , 2013 W GREG WH LER, Council President Approved thi day of 2eew*t L ear- , 2013 3 SMP Amendments PATTY LE Aayo ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk R ER A LUBOVIC PUBLISHED the h day of , 2013 EFFECTIVE the day of M , 2013 ORDINANCE NO R \Legal\Legal \Ordinances \Community Development\2013 SMP Amendments -Final doc 4 SMP Amendments BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Approved Dec. 4, 2013 by Ordinance Number 5229 Page left blank intentionally CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION, AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE: ......................................................... 5 CHAPTER2 - GOALS ................................................................................................. ............................... 7 2.010 INTENT :.................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 2.020 MASTER GOAL: ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.030 GENERAL GOALS: .................................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 3 - DEFINITIONS: ................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 4 - SHORELINE MAPS AND DESIGNATIONS ................................ ............................... 23 4.010 INTENT :................................................................................................................ ............................... 23 4.020 MAPS: .................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.030 DESIGNATIONS: ................................................................................................................................... 37 4.040 SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE: ........................................................................................ 42 CHAPTER 5 - PERMIT ADMINISTRATION ........................................................ ............................... 45 5.010 APPLICABILITY :.................................................................................................... ............................... 45 5.020 PERMIT APPLICATION TYPES: .............................................................................................................. 52 5.030 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS :.................................................................................. ............................... 53 5.040 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL: ..................................................................................................................... 54 5.050 APPEALS: ............................................................................................................................................. 56 5.060 TIME PERIODS: .................................................................................................................................... 57 5.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: ............................................................................................................. 58 5.080 SHORELINE MORATORIUM: ................................................................................................................. 59 5.090 RESTORATION PROJECT RELOCATION OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: ........................................ 59 CHAPTER 6 - NONCONFORMING PROVISIONS .............................................. ............................... 61 6.010 INTENT :................................................................................................................ ............................... 61 6.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY AND APPLICABILITY :................ ............................... 61 6.030 ANNEXATION: ...................................................................................................... ............................... 61 6.040 DEFINITIONS :........................................................................................................ ............................... 61 6.050 NONCONFORMING LOTS: ..................................................................................................................... 62 6.060 NONCONFORMING USES: ...................................................................................................................... 62 6.070 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: ......................................................................................................... 64 6.080 UNSUITABLE STRUCTURES FOR USES: ................................................................................................. 66 6.090 UNLAWFUL USES AND STRUCTURES: .................................................................................................. 66 CHAPTER 7 - GENERAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS ........................ ............................... 67 7.010 BUFFERS AND SETBACKS: .................................................................................................................... 67 7.020 VEGETATION CONSERVATION: ............................................................................................................ 71 7.030 MITIGATION SEQUENCING FOR NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS: ....................................... 73 7.040 PUBLIC ACCESS: .................................................................................................................................. 74 7.050 WATER QUALITY, STORMWATER, AND NON -POINT POLLUTION: ........................................................ 77 7.060 ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: ............................................................................................ 78 7.070 LIGHTING: ........................................................................................................................................... 78 7.080 PARKING: ............................................................................................................................................ 79 7.090 USE MATRIX AND HEIGHT TABLE: ...................................................................................................... 80 FIGURE 7.090 (B) HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: ..................................................................................................... 82 CHAPTER 8 - SHORELINE USE REGULATIONS .............................................. ............................... 85 8 .010 INTENT :................................................................................................................ ............................... 85 8 .020 AQUACULTURE :.................................................................................................... ............................... 85 8.030 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: ............................................................................................................ 87 8.040 FOREST PRACTICES: ............................................................................................................................ 89 8.050 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: ............................................................................................................... 89 8.060 MARINAS AND BOATING FACILITIES: .................................................................................................. 91 8.070 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: ......................................................................................................... 94 8.080 RESIDENTIAL: ...................................................................................................................................... 96 8.090 ROADS, RAILWAYS, AND UTILITIES: .................................................................................................... 98 CHAPTER 9 — SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS ...................... ............................... ............................103 9.010 INTENT :................................................................................... ............................... ............................103 9.020 CLEARING AND GRADING :....................................................... ............................... ............................103 9.030 DOCKS, PIERS, AND OTHER IN -WATER STRUCTURES: ........................................................................ 104 9.040 DREDGING: ......................................................................................................................................... 107 9.050 FLOOD HAzARD REDUCTION :.................................................. ............................... ............................109 9.060 LANDFILL: .......................................................................................................................................... 110 9.070 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION: .................................................................................................. 112 9.080 SHORE STABILIZATION: ...................................................................................................................... 113 9.090 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: ......................................................................................... 119 Appendices: Appendix I: Public Access Plan Appendix II: Restoration Plan Appendix III: Designation Boundary & Resource Table Accompanying Documents L Shoreline Inventory & Analysis 11: Cumulative Effects Analysis III: Critical Area Ordinance in Chapter I - Introduction, Authority and Purpose: The City of Bremerton recognizes the intent of the legislature of the State of Washington in adopting the "Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971" and adopts by reference the findings therein including, but not limited to, the intent to protect shorelines of statewide significance, their associated natural resources, and providing opportunities for the general public to have access to generally enjoy shorelines. The Shoreline Management Act is incorporated into the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program and, thereby, those direct federal agency activities affecting the use or resources subject to the Act must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable provisions of the Act, regulations adopted pursuant to the Act and this local Master Program. The State legislature has established that shorelines of the State are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources (such as Puget Sound) and there is great concern throughout the State relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition, ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the State. The legislature has determined that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are not necessarily being utilized in a way that is in the best interest of the public. This conclusion was drawn by evaluating the public and private development which has taken place on or adjacent to shorelines of Statewide Significance. Due to this, the legislature has determined that coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal state and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in uncoordinated and piecemeal development along such shorelines. In drafting this latest version of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program the City has followed the State mandates and guidelines established in the WAC and RCW. These requirements have had a significant impact on the goals, policies, and regulations within this document. In order to better understand the programs objectives the portions of RCW 90.58.020 are provided as follows: It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that interest of all people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department (of Ecology) in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Result in long -term over short -term benefit; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. The Shoreline Management Act's paramount objectives are to protect and restore the valuable natural resources that shorelines represent and to plan for and foster all "reasonable and appropriate uses" that are dependent upon a waterfront location or which will offer the opportunities for the public to enjoy the State's shorelines. With this clear mandate, the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act established a planning and regulatory permit program, which is initiated at the City and county level under State guidance through the local Shoreline Master Program. This cooperative effort balances local and State wide interests in the management and development of shoreline areas. Local governments are required to plan for shoreline development by developing local shoreline master programs (SMPs). They are also required to regulate such development through a shoreline permit system for Substantial Development projects. Local government actions are monitored by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), which approves new or amended SMPs, reviews Substantial Development permits, and approves conditional use permits and variances. The local Shoreline Master Program is essentially a shoreline Comprehensive Plan with a distinct environmental orientation applicable to shoreline areas customized to local circumstances. Collectively, all the local master programs comprise the State Shoreline Master Program. Chapter 2 - Goals 2.010 Intent: The goals of the Shoreline Master Program are intended to be comprehensive goal statements. The goals state the broadest principals that establish the intent behind Master Program requirements. These goal statements are intended to ensure consistency as Master Program policies and regulations are applied to various shoreline uses. The following wheel depicts how all the goals are interconnected. Each primary goal group is integrally tied to a master goal. While each goal group is a separate concept, many of the principles within each group are interrelated. It is the intent of the goal wheel to depict this relationship. Conservation & Restoration Recreation Historical, Cultural, & Educational 2.020 Master Goal: Economic Public Access The overall focus of this plan is to protect and restore shoreline resources and ecological functions, increase public access to the shoreline, promote economic development, and accommodate water dependent uses. In order to achieve rational, balanced, and responsible use of our irreplaceable shorelines: uses need to be coordinated to ensure that long term over short term benefits result. 2.030 General Goals: Each primary goal is listed in alphabetical order followed by the supporting goals for each group. (a) Circulation Goal: Enhance the overall mobility of Bremerton residents and visitors to and around shorelines without detracting from habitat function or public access. 7 (1) Generally avoid locating new roads, railroads, and bridges within shoreline jurisdiction. When such features must be in shoreline jurisdiction locate them where routes will have the least adverse effect on shoreline function. Great effort should be taken to ensure such facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses. (2) Where permitted, roads, railroads, and bridges should cross the shoreline area by the shortest most direct route, unless such a route would cause a net loss in shoreline ecological functions. (3) Improve facilities such as trails and bicycle lanes for safe pedestrian and non - motorized travel along public roadways in scenic areas. (4) Make use of rights of way for public access by encouraging rest areas, view turnout points, and picnic areas. Encourage the improvement of appropriate street ends abutting water bodies for public access. (5) Maximize opportunities to jointly use rights of way for roads, utilities, and non - motorized access to ensure the most beneficial use of public spaces. (b) Conservation and Restoration Goal: Emphasize activities that restore and enhance ecological functions and environmental qualities in order to achieve no net loss of ecological function on both a reach and watershed scale. (1) Conserve existing natural resources through regulatory and non - regulatory means such as development standards, ensuring ecologically sound designs, creating restoration programs, and encouraging education programs. (2) Critical areas within the shoreline should be managed to achieve protection or restoration of existing and degraded ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes. In protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City can integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures. (3) Ensure that uses and activities retain native vegetation, or replace existing non- native vegetation with native species in order to achieve no net loss of ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes performed by native vegetation. (4) Encourage developments to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into projects through non - regulatory means. (5) Prevent and minimize pollution, sedimentation, and soil erosion through regulatory and non - regulatory means such as surface water management. (6) Conservation efforts should focus on protecting and sustaining existing ecological functions for long term success; such protection may be ensured through the use of conservation easements. (7) Recognize and monitor the potential effects of sea level rise as additional scientific information becomes available. At the next major update of the Shoreline Master Program consider additional specific policies and regulations based on additional scientific projections. (c) Economic Development Goal: Encourage development, redevelopment, and infill that will improve ecological functions, restore riparian buffers, and benefit the community. Priority should be given to single family residences, however commercial uses should be developed in the following order of preference: water dependent, water related, water enjoyment, and shoreline mixed uses. (1) Plan for reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses, while ensuring that new, redeveloping, and existing use of facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) Classify areas based on use and ecological function. Focus attention on community benefit, ecosystem processes and functions to determine conservation strategies and restoration priorities. (3) Reserve areas for future water dependent and water related uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives. (4) Non -water oriented activities should be located upland, away from the shoreline except where access to the water is not provided or where the non -water oriented use provides for ecological restoration and public access. Locations where there is a bluff or a topographic break the non -water oriented use should be landward of the top of the bluff. (5) Elements of a development that do not require location water access such as parking, circulation, or similar elements should be located inland and away from the immediate water's edge and /or from recreational beaches so as not to interfere with access to the shoreline. (6) Over -water and in -water uses should be prioritized to provide for public access, multiple use, and expansion of existing facilities rather than the addition of new facilities. Preference should be given to the expansion of existing marinas, shared docks, etc. in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources. (7) All shoreline policies, regulations and development standards should recognize and protect private rights and, to the extent possible, should be designed to protect the rights of adjacent property owners. (d) Historical, Cultural, & Educational Goal: To protect the public's interest in the conservation, preservation, and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historical, cultural, scientific, or educational value. (1) Protect and restore shoreline areas having historical and/or cultural significance especially those shorelines that are historically supported by the Suquamish Tribe. (2) Encourage cooperation among public and private groups in the research and study of historical or cultural sites within the City. (3) Acknowledge the value to be gained from research of shorelines having historical and /or cultural significance. Support the continuation and expansion of such uses to improve the overall educational value of our shorelines. (4) Coordinate with existing organizations and local shoreline programs to ensure availability of ongoing educational programs for residents, landowners, and recreational users. W (e) Public Access Goal: Improve public access to the shorelines wherever feasible, provided it will not adversely impact ecological functions. (1) Ensure shoreline access and recreational areas are designed to provide safe and abundant access to marine environments for all citizens. (2) Encourage water oriented shoreline uses and activities that provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the public to enjoy City shorelines. (3) Incorporate public access into developments (including land division) where possible. Design public access to be as close as possible to the water's edge without impacting safety or habitat function. (4) Control development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline so as not to impair or detract from the public's access to the water. (5) Preserve and enhance public views from the shoreline. Enhancement of views will not be construed to mean removal of vegetation. (6) Ensure publicly owned shorelines include water dependent uses, public recreational uses, or protected open space. (7) Maintain, enhance, and preserve physical and visual public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights -of -way. (8) Link public access points with pathway systems for pedestrians and bicyclists. Provide linkages between pathway systems, public transit routes, and activity centers. (9) Encourage landowners to maintain existing public access as is protected by RCW 4.24.210 -220 which limits liability. (f) Recreation Goal: Protect and improve recreational opportunities consistent with community needs through the development of publicly owned shorelines. (1) Encourage developments to provide recreational uses and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines. Locate and design recreational developments to preserve, enhance or create scenic views and vistas. (2) Identify shoreline areas with a potential for recreation or public access. Consider acquiring these areas by lease or purchase for incorporation into the Public Park and open space system. (3) Ensure recreational development is designed to be consistent with the desired character reflected in the purpose of the designation in which they are located in. Assure maximum recreational opportunities while achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and maintaining ecosystem wide processes. (4) Encourage linkage of shoreline parks, recreation areas and public access points with linear systems such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements and /or scenic drives. (5) Encourage public access to boat launches and other facilities that can improve access to the marine environment. 10 Chapter 3 - Definitions: The following shall be deemed definitions for the Shoreline Master Program. Where these definitions conflict with other definitions in the Bremerton Municipal Code, these definitions shall prevail for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction. Where they conflict with definitions in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) or the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) the RCW or WAC provisions shall prevail. This list of definitions is not exhaustive; all definitions in RCW 90.58.030, WAC 173 -26 -020, BMC 20.42 and BMC 20.14.200 shall be deemed definitions for this title. Words not defined within any of these codes shall be as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, latest edition. Accessory Use: A use that is demonstrably subordinate and incidental to the principal use and which functionally supports its activity. Act: The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW. [WAC 173 -27- 030(1)] Adjacent Lands: Property which is immediately bordering or abutting lands under shoreline permit jurisdiction. (RCW90.58.340) Agriculture: Agricultural uses and practices include, but are not limited to: Producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and changing agricultural crops; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and tilled but left unseeded; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant; conducting agricultural operations; and maintaining agricultural lands under production or cultivation as defined in WAC 173 -27 -020. This excludes activities typically associated with single family residences, such as gardening and does not include fish hatcheries which are listed under aquaculture. Alteration: Any human activity which results or is likely to result in a significant impact upon the existing condition of a site. Alterations include, but are not limited to grading, filling, dredging, draining, channelizing, applying any hazardous substance, discharging pollutants except stormwater, paving, constructing, applying gravel, modifying surface water management purposes, cutting, pruning, topping, trimming, relocating or removing vegetation or any other human activity which results or is likely to result in a significant impact to existing vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, or wildlife habitat. Alterations do not include walking, fishing, or any other passive recreation or other similar activities. Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under this Title and who is either the owner of the land on which the proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the authorized agent of such person. Appurtenance: Development necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single family residence and located landward of the perimeter of an associated wetland and landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Normal appurtenances include a garage, deck, driveway, utilities solely servicing a subject single family residence, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards. 11 Aquaculture: The culture, or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals. Activities include, but are not limited to the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising, harvesting, and processing of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings and growing areas. Cultivation methods include, but are not limited to fish pens, fish hatcheries, shellfish rafts, racks and long lines, seaweed floats and nets and the culture of clams and oysters on tidelands and sub -tidal areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck associated with a state managed wild stock geoduck fishery. Associated Wetlands: Those wetlands which are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the Shoreline Management Act. Average Grade Level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure: In the case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. [WAC 173 -27- 030(3)] Beach: The zone of unconsolidated material that is moved by waves, wind, and tidal currents, extending landward to the coastline. Bluff: A steep headland, promontory, broad faced bank, or cliff running adjacent to and rising up from the shoreline. For the purpose of measuring buffers and setbacks from the top of a bluff the following shall apply: A bluff rises up from the OHWM to the first significant break in slope. The first significant break in slope is a bench at least thirty (30) feet wide. The top of a bluff is the point where the first significant break in slope occurs. Boat Ramp: Graded slopes, slabs, pads, planks, or rails used for launching boats by means of a trailer, hand, or mechanical device. Buffer: An area that is contiguous to and protects a critical area which is required for the continued maintenance, functioning, and or structural stability of a critical area. Bulkhead: A solid or open pile wall erected generally parallel to and near the ordinary high water mark for the purposes of protecting adjacent uplands from waves or current action. City: The City of Bremerton. Clearing: The removal of vegetation. Conditional Use: A use or development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the Master Program, or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. Conservation Easement: A legal agreement that the property owner enters into a restricted use of the land. Such restrictions can include, but are not limited to passive recreation uses such as trails or scientific uses and fences or other barriers to protect habitat. The easement is recorded on a property deed, runs with the land, and is legally binding on all present and future owners of the property, therefore providing permanent or long -term protection. 12 Critical Areas: Any of the following areas or ecosystems: aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and wetlands as defined in RCW 36.70A and BMC 20.14. Critical saltwater habitat: Means all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt and sandlance; subsistence, commercial, and recreational shellfish beds; mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants, and areas with which priority species have a primary association. Development: A use, consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling, dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this program at any state of water level. [RCW 90.58.030(3d)] Docks: A fixed structure in the water or a structure floating upon the water that provides moorage for vessels, or for transfer of materials between a vessel and the shore, or for other services to a vessel such as fueling, maintenance and repair. Dredging: The removal of earth, sand, sludge or other materials from the bottom of a stream, river, lake, bay or other water body. Drift Cell, drift sector, or littoral cell: A particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift. Ecology: The State of Washington Department of Ecology. Ecological Function or Shoreline Functions: The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. (WAC 173 -26- 020(13)). Ecological Restoration: An intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability. Restoration attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory. Frequently, the ecosystem that requires restoration has been degraded, damaged, transformed or entirely destroyed as the direct or indirect result of human activities. In some cases, these impacts to ecosystems have been caused or aggravated by natural agencies, such as wildfire, floods, storms, or volcanic eruption, to the point at which the ecosystem cannot recover its pre - disturbance state or its historic developmental trajectory. In cases where a historic trajectory cannot be determined one should use a combination of knowledge of the damaged ecosystem's pre- existing structure, composition and functions rather than the historic trajectory. Emergency: An unanticipated and /or imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with the Master Program. Emergency construction is defined as that necessary to protect property and facilities from the elements. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the SMA and the Master Program (see RCW 90.58.030(3eiii)). 13 Enhancement: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a feature to heighten, intensify, or improve specific ecological function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a positive change in ecological function but does not result in an increase in the area of the feature. Examples are planting vegetation, controlling non - native or invasive species, and modifying site elevations to alter hydro - periods. Erosion: The process whereby wind, rain, water, and other natural agents mobilize and transport particles. Estuary: The zone or area of water in which freshwater and saltwater mingle and water is usually brackish due to daily mixing and layering of fresh and saltwater. Exempt development: Development listed in WAC 173 -27 -040 as exempt from the definition of "Substantial Development," and, therefore, exempt from the Substantial Development permit process of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from the substantial development provisions of the SMA must still be carried out in compliance with policies and standards of the SMA and the Master Program. Conditional use and /or variance permits may still be required even though the activity does not need a Substantial Development permit (RCW 90.58.030(3e)). Extreme Low Tide: The lowest line on the land reached by a receding tide. [RCW 90.58.030(2a)] Fair Market Value: The expected price at which the development can be sold to a willing buyer. For developments which involve nonstructural operations, such as dredging, drilling, dumping, or filling, the fair market value is the expected cost of hiring a contractor to perform the operation, or where no such value can be calculated, the total of labor, equipment use, transportation, and other costs incurred for the duration of the permitted project. [WAC 173 -27- 030(8)] Feasible: Actions that meet all of the following conditions: (a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; (b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and (c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended legal use. In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in short- and long -term time frames. Fill: The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area that increases the natural surface elevation. For wetlands this includes 14 areas waterward of the OHWM, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Floating Home: A structure designed and operated substantially as a permanently based structure and not as a vessel and is typically characterized by permanent utilities, a semi- permanent anchorage /moorage design, and by the lack of adequate self - propulsion to operate as a vessel. Floats (Rafts): Floating structures that are moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in the water that are not directly connected to the shoreline. Floodway: For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program in conjunction with the definition of "shoreland," "floodway" means the area, as identified in a Master Program, that either: (i) Has been established in federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps; or (ii) consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually. Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway, the floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state. (RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173 -26- 020(18)) Forage fish: Small, schooling fish which serve as an important source of food for other fish species, birds, and marine mammals. Examples of forage fish species are herring, smelt, anchovies, and sardines. Geotechnical Report: A scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified professional that includes a description of ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down - current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by a qualified professional engineer or geologist who has professional expertise about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes. Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. Grubbing: The removal of vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs or other debris, and shall include the incidental removal of topsoil and earth. 15 Houseboat: A vessel used for living quarters but licensed and designed substantially as a mobile structure by means of detachable utilities or facilities, anchoring, and the presence of adequate self - propulsion to operate as a vessel. Height: The distance measured from the average grade level to the highest point of a structure: Television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA): A permit issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for modifications to waters of the State in accordance with RCW 77.55.011. Invasive: A vegetative or animal species not native to a region and marked by a tendency to spread, especially with proclivity to replace healthy native species. In -Water Structure: A structure located waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Littoral drift: The mud, sand, or gravel materials moved parallel to the shoreline in the nearshore zone by waves and currents. Marina: A water dependent facility that provides wet and /or dry moorage for over ten (10) boats, and related accessory boat launching facilities and supplies and services for small commercial and /or pleasure craft. Marinas may be designated for temporary day -use only or for permanent (long -term) moorage. May: The action is acceptable provided it conforms to the provisions of the Program. (WAC 173 -26- 03(21)) Mean Higher High Water (MHHW): The tidal elevation obtained by averaging each day's highest tide at a particular location over a period of nineteen years. It is measured from the mean lower low water = 0.0 tidal elevation. Mooring Buoy: A floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up capabilities for vessels. Mooring Buoys are regulated separately from docks and piers. Mixed -Use Commercial: Mixed -use commercial developments are shoreline developments which combine more than one separate but related activity into a coordinated package. Activities usually include one or more water - dependent uses with non -water dependent uses, and feature high amenity public access or recreational uses. The public benefit will be evaluated and weighed against the impact of the project in review of a mixed -use commercial development proposal. Modification: An action that modifies the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a breakwater, dock, boat launch ramp, or other shoreline structures. A shoreline modification also can consist of other activities such as dredging and filling. Nonconforming Development: A shoreline use, site, or structure which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the Master Program or policies of the Act. [WAC 173- 14- 040(lb)] 16 No Net Loss: No Net Loss of ecological functions is the maintenance of existing shoreline ecological processes and functions at the level that existed at the time of approval of the major update to the shoreline master program in 2012 and reflected in the shoreline inventory and characterization dated December of, 2010, or for a development project, the conditions that existed prior to initiation of use or alterations of the shoreline that result in adverse impacts on ecological processes and functions. On a Citywide basis No Net Loss means that the ecological processes and functions are maintained within a watershed or other functional catchment area. Regulations may result in localized cumulative impacts or loss of some localized ecological processes and functions, as long as the ecological processes and functions of the system are maintained. Maintenance of system ecological processes and functions may require compensating measures that offset localized degradation. On a project basis, no net loss means that a permitted use or alteration of a shoreline will not result in deterioration of the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions. No net loss is achieved both through avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts as well as compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Compensation may include on -site or off -site restoration of ecological functions to compensate for localized degradation. Non -Water Oriented Use: A use which does not require or depend on a location on or near the waterfront, and which is neither a water - dependent, water - related, or water- enjoyment use as defined herein. Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): The mark on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters which will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation, as that condition exists on June 1 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department: Provided that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high watermark adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high watermark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. (RCW 90.58.030) Photic Zone: The upper layer of a body of water delineated by the depth to which enough sunlight can penetrate to permit photosynthesis. Pier: A fixed, pile - supported structures extending over the water. Primary Structure: Any permanent building, road, bridge or utility requiring a permit or approval which is necessary to support the primary use of a site. Public Access, Limited (physical or visual): Access with restrictions that are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public OR to protect and maintain a particular site. Restrictions may limit times of use, or allow access only to certain users. [A limitation to restrict access may not be based on race, sex, color, creed, age or physical disability.] For example, such restrictions may limit public use to daylight hours, limit use to residents of a private community, or restrict use of tidelands used for shellfish production. 17 Public Access, Physical: Unobstructed access with public use improvements which are available to the general public extending from the public right -of -way to the OHWM or to the wetland directly abutting the OHWM. This includes access to the navigable waters of any water body and to tidelands in marine waters. Public Access, Visual: Access with public use improvements available to the general public which provide a view of the shoreline or water but do not allow physical public access to the shoreline. Qualified Professional: A person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline whose expertise is appropriate for the relevant critical area and meets the following criteria: 1) A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, or related field, and five (5) years of related work experience applicable to the scope of the project. AND 2) A qualified professional proposing a structural solution, such as a bulkhead or retaining wall, must be a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or geologist with experience in the field and must be licensed in the State of Washington. RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goals of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influences to a wetland. Restore, Restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to re- vegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre- European settlement conditions. Setback: For the purposes of this chapter, the setback is the horizontal distance required between the finished exterior wall of a structure and the buffer line. Setbacks are also defined in BMC 20.42 Shall: A mandate; an action that must be done. Should: A particular action that is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this program against taking the action. Shorelands or Shoreland Areas: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the Ordinary High Water Mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feed from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the Department of Ecology. M Shoreline jurisdiction: All shorelines of the state and shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030; in Bremerton this includes shorelands and water bodies waterward of OHWM out to the middle of Sinclair Inlet and Port Orchard Bay, all of Port Washington Narrows, Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay and Mud Bay, the portion of Kitsap Lake within the Bremerton City limits, Union Reservoir, Twin Lakes, one mile of Gorst Creek and one mile of Union River. Shoreline Environment Designations: The categories of shorelines established by the City's Master Program in order to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within physically distinct shoreline areas. The City's Shoreline Master Program classifies shorelines into the following environment designations: Aquatic, aquatic conservancy, commercial, downtown waterfront, industrial, isolated, multi - family residential, recreation, single family residential and urban conservancy. Shoreline Jurisdiction: Those lands extending landward for 200' in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and 100 year floodplains; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, tidal waters and all other areas as defined by RCW 90.58.030. In Bremerton these include shorelands and water bodies waterward of the OHWM out to the middle of Sinclair inlet and Port Orchard Bay, all of Port Washington Narrows, Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay and Mud Bay, the portion of Kitsap Lake within the City limits, Union Reservoir, Twin Lakes, one mile of Gorst Creek and one mile of Union River. Shoreline Master Program: The general term for shoreline comprehensive plans and regulations prepared under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. Shoreline Permit: A Substantial Development, conditional use, revision, or variance permit or any combination thereof. [WAC 173- 27 -13) Shorelines: All of the water areas of the State, including reservoirs and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them, except: (a) Shorelines of state -wide significance (sub -tidal Puget Sound); (b)Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less, and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (c) Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size, and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Shorelines designated by the State of Washington that are major resources from which all people in the state derive benefit. Shoreline areas in the City that are designated as shorelines of statewide significance are portions of the Puget Sound adjacent to the city limits. Shoreline Substantial Development: Any development of which the total cost, or fair market value, whichever is higher, exceeds $5,000, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. State Master Program: The cumulative total of all Shoreline Master Programs approved or adopted by the Department of Ecology. 19 Structure: A permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels. (WAC 173 -27 -030) Tidelands: Land on the shore of marine water bodies between the line of ordinary high tide and the line of extreme low tide. Topography, Natural or Existing: The surface including the relief and position of natural or manmade features of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property immediately prior to any site preparation or grading, including excavation or filling. Upland: Generally the area above and landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Variance: A permit for the limited purposes of granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Program. Vessel: A ship, boat, barge, or any other floating craft which is designed and used for navigation and does not interfere with the normal public use of the water. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Water Dependent Use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water - dependent uses may include cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, marinas, and sewer outfalls. Water - Related Use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose operation cannot occur economically without a shoreline location. Examples of water - related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, or log storage. (Also see Non - water - oriented Use.) Water- Enjoyment Use: A recreational use such as a park, pier, or other use facilitating public access as a primary character of the use; or, a use that provides for passive and active interaction of a large number of people with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment as a general character of the use and which, through location, design and operation, assure the public's ability to interact with the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water - enjoyment use, the use must be open to the public and most if not all of the shoreline oriented space in the facility must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline interaction. Water- enjoyment uses include, but are not limited to restaurants, museums, and mixed -use commercial, provided that such use conforms to the above requirements and the provisions of the Master Program. Water Oriented Use: Any combination of water dependent, water related, and /or water enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the shoreline. Examples of non -water oriented uses include professional office, automobile sales or repair shops, mini storage facilities, multifamily residential development, department stores, and gas stations. Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, 20 but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from non - wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this program. Will: Used to express a command and or an inevitability. 21 Page left blank intentionally 22 Chapter 4 — Shoreline Maps and Designations 4.010 — Intent 4.020 — Maps 4.030 — Designations 4.040 — Shorelines of Statewide Significance 4.010 Intent: City shorelines are classified into specific environment designations. These designations are based on existing physical, biological and development characteristics of the shorelines. These are separate from the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning code in Title 20. Properties within any shoreline designation are required to comply with all applicable standards including provisions from both the more general zoning regulations and the shoreline specific requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. The local Shoreline Master Program is a function of the Shoreline Management Act, which represents statewide concerns and protects the rights of the people of the State of Washington. Therefore, in the case of a discrepancy between the local Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code or other development standard and the Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Master Program shall take precedence. 4.020 Maps: The following maps are the official maps of the Shoreline Master Program. 23 Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated Erlands Point Rocky Point Elwood Point �A [T Po Os trich G: 3 -= =: N 0 0.25 Miles May 7, 2012 Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Cffiffi Sources: Kitsap Counly, Clly cF timmgrton, Parametra, Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnenl of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI National Wetlands Inventory (NW I) Note: She mline ju risd ict on beundan es depicted on this map are approximate 01 and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- spedfic a aluation t7� msy hg nggdgd to cant mvvedly information shown on this map. V Map A L Mud 'Bay �i, Bass Point r r ■ Phinn @y Buy Legend Elwood Point UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential PO Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated Madrona Point _ Ostrich Bay W 3 a m Q� =.r 4 G7 C Z Mud r Bay Phinney + Bay X S06- ; �- i.� Oyster Bay 7l K17SAP WAY 310 —4� T Data Sources: Kitsap County, CNy of tirc m morton, Paraetra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnent of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI 0 0.25 National Wellands Inventory (NW II Map B Note: She mline jurisdiction beundan es depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific aealuation pq� May 7, 2012 may hg ngodgd to cons mvvedly info afiw shown on this map. V csrema.ererre imnsnc: m�esrurennemseraro,,. Legend DGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated Bass Point — NW RIDDELL RD NE RIDDELL RD w z G fr w A in e ac w x SYLVAN WAY 4 �9 � D �D �9 SHERIDAN RD — rp gG 2 e it � r���l�t 1 E l � ` � M �� i �-1 0 Bremerton Shoreline Master Program l�ffi Sources: ISitsap County, City of Bremerton, m Pareetra, Washington 0epartm ant of Ecology, Washington 0eparlrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0opartrn ant of Fish and Wildlife (W❑FW) 125 National Wetlands Inventory [NW I] Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate 01 Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- spaomaZevaluation p� May 7, 2012 may hg nggdgd to cant rnvvedly infwmafiw shown on this map. V . ,' md•erem n5AO; [� ShomllneWsl m'-. Map C � 0, 4 t� Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation MuOFFamily Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated �o �� v� W a z Q 0 z U) 3 ILf z ILf a N RD ¢� T w z a --L—� a z 0 F z ILf ,. � fll MTTf LU a Kr w a LU a a z 0 z w Point Herron E 11TH ST O -.0 Y I t� �a t4 Bremerton Shoreline Master Program � []affi 3oureas: Kitsap County, City of 9remartcn, Parematra, Wsshi ngton Departme nt of Ecology, Washington Departrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington Depanme nt of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0 025 Nations! Wetlands lmontory (NW II Map D Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundanes depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are imendod for planning purposes only. Additional site- spedfic evaluation p� May 7, 2012 may he needed to confimWeriltr irrlarmalicn shown on this map. V oaeesroraineoee�na.... NE SY Q re _. Legend UGA Boundary - City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy T 04, Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial d Downtown Waterfront u Q I C ! l Industrial Z W G elf Isolated r= Q 3 303 d� 11TH ST W Q rya F_ 0 r 6TH ST BUR WELL ST 304 l�let +t'��tr Bremerton Shoreline Master Program morton, Paraetra, Data Sources: Kitsap County, CNy of tirc m N Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent 0 a25 of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnent of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI Nations! Wetlands Invontary (NW II Map E Note: She mline ju risd ict on beundan es depicted on this map are ap prox imata A[� Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific valuation n� May 7, 2012 may bg ngodgd to cant mvvodly info afiw shown on this map. V 13 Legend M UCA Boundary 0 - City Boundary Designations J Urban Conservancy Recreation C] Multi - Family Residential Rl X Single Family Residential W Commercial 3G4 Downtown Waterfront Industrial . Isolated G� 0� 3 .L r s� co Sinclair Inlet co x W a &AY ST 166 i Port Orchard 16 Bremerton Shoreline Master Program marton, Paraetra, Data Sources: Kitsap County, CNy of 9rc m N Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Departrnent of Natural 0 a25 Resources, Washington 0oparlm ant of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI National Wetlands Inventory INWIj Map F Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate 01 Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional sito-spedfic evaluation n� May 7, 2012 may Ig ngodgd to cant mvvodly infoanafiw shown on this map. V Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated J - I A Sy l' AY - $ T 16 16 — – I Data Sources: Kitsap County, CNy of tirc m morton, Paraetra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnent of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI 0 a25 National Wetlands Inventory (NW II Map G Note: She mline ju risd ict on beundan es depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific valuation n� May 7, 2012 may hg ngodgd to cant mvvodly info afiw shown on this map. V Legend a UGA Boundary City Boundary ` Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential NOR Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated i Kl tsap Lake _ � U i ■� ST 9 3 / �� KITSAA WAY n wr Data Sources: Kitsap County, CNy of tirc m mgrton, Paraetra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnent of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI 0 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory (NW II Map H Note: Shomline ju risd ict on boundan es depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- spedfic e'aluation pq� May 7, 2012 may hg nggdgd to cant mvvedly information shown on this map. V csrema.ererre imnsnc: m�esrurennemseraro,,. Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated Lake Union Reservoir . 4 i i W 13ELPAIR VALL15v +?n Data Sources: Kitsap County, CNy of tirc m morton, Paraetra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnent of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI 0 a25 National Wetlands Inventory (NW II Map Note: She mline ju risd ict on beundan es depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific valuation May 7, 2012 may hg ngodgd to cant mvvodly info afiw shown on this map. Legend UCA Boundary L- City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi - Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated v 0 Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Cffiffi Sources: Kitsap Counly, Clly cF tiramgrton, Pwa7m ' Washington Depwtm ant of Ecology, Washngton Departrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparhnenl of Fish and Wildlife [W DFWI a25 National Wetlands Inventory (NW II Note: She re line ju risd ict on beundan es depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - speci fic aealuation p� May 7, 2012 may hg nggdgd to cant mvvedly information shown on this map. V c srema.ererre imnsnc: .m�esrurennemseraro,. Map J '' I.n�7 Twin Lakes Elwood Point L C r i Q: Dock Pro hio"'on See Map M Madrona Point _ Ostrich Bay Oyster Bay1 A CA Y' Legend ® Aquatic Conservancy Parcels onwhich water access, moo raga and in water structures are prohibited _ within the adjacent waters below the OFMM in the channel between Ostr ich Bay and Oyster Bay t1GA Boundary City Boundary i�V` Phinney � Bay //" A Ufa Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Mud Bay, l Washington Cepartm ant of Ecology, Washington Department N of Natural Resources, Washington 0opartrn ant of Fish and Wildlife IW❑FW] Nations! Wetlands Imontory(NWI Aquatic Conservancy Designations a25 Note: Shoreline jurisdicti on boundaries depicted on this map are approximate � Map K Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- spedfic evaluation May 7, 2012 may ba needed to cunSmJverify information shown on this map. Q ✓ ®� Cstnl ere �nonsnorenn� c•. ..9..d:ALYdlii _ Mud Bay, l r y �1 , I c_ ii� 0Y — Legend ® Aquatic Conservancy Pamela onwhich water access, moorage and in water structures are prohibited within the adjacent waters below the 01-MM in the chap" between Ostr ich Bay and Oyster Bay t1GA Boundary City Boundary i�V` 60, : W'F 1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bracnerlan, Parametra, Washington Departm ant of Ecology, Washington Cepartrnent N of Natural Resources, Washington 0oparlm enl of Rsh and Wildlife IW CFWI National Wetlands Imontory tNWlt i} a25 Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Mies and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- spedfic oval uatior may be needed to conlimYverify information shown on this map. Way 7, 2012 � Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Aquatic Conservancy Designations Map L c� rn Parcels on which uworage and inwder =cbues are prohibitedwiLmthe adjacerlwaters below the OHWMinthe cha me lb etwe en Ostrich Bay and Oy5ter B NF d — UGABumdary M adrona Point City Brnmdary I z z `a � a { z a� O r R INE VIEW PL af ur O d � � w C? ur 13 V- in 13 .d.S K. 1-pLumlY Bremerton Shoreline Master Program N %%% hinplon Lloprlmml Ill of trobpY Wyyl�n Rlm Llopudmonl �+�� In PmhlbrtiarLs d NuluMI kmnunay %. hinliun U.pudmod ul hnh and Mklliu 15Y1]hW i - meter JLL41 L�7re 0 oils 0,1 NJinnJ Wollund.1 -1.� (NWIi See Chapter 9 Sec 030 Ndu Sh—k.. huun d,..dnpidud m lh..mupurouppmxmulo Map M Yl p s and um idund.d 1v pYnnnp A ddle ul puryo�oy only n yb- �pool� owludion —V m nuu dud 1. lh.. mup 4.030 Designations: Shoreline designations are listed in alphabetical order. (a) Aquatic Purpose: The Aquatic designation is intended to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. This designation applies to those area waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark of all shorelines of the state, (which may include; streams, marine water bodies, and lakes) together with their underlying lands and their water column, other than those lands designated Aquatic Conservancy. This environment does not include associated wetlands and other shorelands shoreward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Aquatic environment: (1) Allowed uses are those within the adjacent upland shoreline designation limited to water dependent use or public access. (2) New uses and over water structures should be allowed only for water dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration and only when no net loss of ecological functions will result. (3) The size of new over water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structures intended use. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple use of over water facilities is encouraged. (4) All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should be located and designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration. (5) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality, minimize alteration of natural conditions and processes, and result in no net loss of ecological functions. (6) Uses and modification of public aquatic land should incorporate public access and ecological enhancement, except where inconsistent with the operation of water dependent uses. (7) Fish and wildlife resource enhancement, including aquaculture related to fish propagation should be allowed and encouraged. (b) Aquatic Conservancy Purpose: The Aquatic Conservancy designation is intended to preserve marine tidelands and waters whose existing natural state is relatively free of human influence, or whose resources, biological diversity, or other features are particularly sensitive to human activity. The Aquatic Conservancy designation should be applied to those areas of marine water bodies, waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark such as tidal lagoons, salt marshes and mudflats, as well as marine vegetation areas that support a significant community of kelp, eelgrass and /or other vegetation that provides special marine habitat value. 37 Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Aquatic Conservancy designation: (1) Uses and activities which would potentially degrade or significantly alter the natural character of the shoreline should be severely restricted or prohibited. (2) Access should be limited to scientific, historical, educational, and low intensity recreational purposes, provided that no significant, adverse impact on the areas will result. (3) Physical alterations should be considered only when they serve to protect significant, unique, or highly valued features which might otherwise be degraded or destroyed. (4) Uses and activities adjacent to shorelines designated Aquatic Conservancy should be compatible with and not compromise the integrity of the Aquatic Conservancy environment. (5) Native vegetation zones should be preserved, enhanced or established to protect the functions and characteristics of the areas. (c) Commercial Purpose: This Commercial designation is intended to accommodate high intensity business districts, light industry, and various commercial operations located in the shoreline jurisdiction. The designation is suitable for existing and future high intensity water oriented uses and water oriented commercial uses. The designation encourages commercial development that could enhance visual and physical public access to the shoreline. A primary goal is to provide a setting for commercial operations that will be of economic benefit while protecting and /or restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Commercial environment: (1) Priority should be given to water dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water related and water enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented uses should not be allowed except in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline and where public access and ecological restoration are provided. (2) Policies and regulations should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development shall include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline in accordance with any relevant State and Federal laws. (3) Visual and /or physical public access should be required as a condition of development. (4) Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. (d) Downtown Waterfront Purpose: The Downtown Waterfront designation is a commercial designation for the downtown shoreline area that is subject to the Downtown Sub Area Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage development of the downtown waterfront into a vital, attractive water oriented area that maximizes opportunities for large numbers of people to interact passively and actively with the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment uses. The designation provides for an array of uses related to the water, multimodal transportation facilities, residential, mixed uses, increased building height, and pedestrian orientation, while maintaining view corridors and encouraging public access to the water. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Downtown Waterfront environment: (1) First priority should be given to water dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water related and water enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented uses should be permitted only when they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline and where public access and ecological restoration are provided. (2) Policies and regulations should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline in accordance with any relevant State and Federal laws. (3) Visual and /or physical public access should be required as a condition of development. (4) Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. (e) Industrial Purpose: This Industrial designation is intended to provide for efficient utilization of suitable shoreline areas for water dependent commerce and industry consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The Industrial designation is appropriate for high intensity uses related to manufacturing, transportation, or navigation, or suitable and planned for high intensity water oriented uses. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Industrial environment: (1) Priority should be given to water dependent industrial uses. Second priority should be given to water related and water enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented uses should not be allowed except in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline and where public access and ecological restoration are provided. (2) Policies and regulations should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline in accordance with any relevant State and Federal laws. (3) Visual and /or physical public access should be required as a condition of development. (4) Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development locations, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. 39 (f) Isolated Purpose: The objective of the Shoreline Isolated designation is to recognize that there are areas that are within 200' of the shoreline, but are isolated from the shoreline by intervening elements such as roads. In these areas the development standards outlined in the SMP, such as buffers, are not appropriate. This designation is appropriate for lands that are inherently isolated from the shoreline, however should the obstruction be removed so that the area is no longer isolated, the designation of isolated should also be removed. Policies: In these specific areas, the development standards of the SMP shall not be applied; however mandatory permit requirements of the Shoreline Management Act do apply. It is the intent that this area will be governed by underlying provisions of the zoning code, Critical Area Ordinance, Subdivision standards and stormwater requirements. Local, State and Federal regulations are applicable. (g) Multi Family Residential Purpose: This Multi- Family Residential designation is intended for areas which are currently primarily multi - family residential or intended for multi - family residential use. These areas are to maintain existing character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use within the guidelines of the zoning code. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses for public enjoyment. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Multi - Family Residential environment: (1) Standards for density, minimum width, setbacks, building bulk, lot coverage, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be set to maintain no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) New multi - family residential developments should provide public access and joint use community recreational facilities where appropriate. (3) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and /or planned future development. (h) Recreation Purpose: The Recreation designation is intended to provide recreational and public access opportunities along Bremerton's shorelines. It is an appropriate designation for areas occupied by recreational purposes such as parks and marinas. An additional purpose is to maintain and restore ecological functions to the area and preserve open space within the City. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Recreation designation: (1) Both to the goal of recreational use and the goal of ecological stewardship ensuring no net loss of ecological function should be implemented in all development. (2) Development should be related primarily to expanding recreational opportunities in the area. These activities include but are not limited to boating, swimming, walking, hiking, and recreational sports. Priority should be given to those developments related to a water dependent activity such as swimming or boating. M (3) Recreational opportunities should be accessible to all demographic populations in the City. (4) Park management should encourage ecological stewardship as outlined in the Restoration Plan. This includes, but is not limited to such measures as setting picnic areas away from the water's edge, planting and maintaining native vegetation buffers along the water, and making floodplain connections where feasible. (i) Single Family Residential Purpose: The Single Family Residential designation is intended for areas which are currently primarily single family residential, are planned, or are platted for single family residential use. These areas are to maintain existing character and be consistent with that character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use within the guidelines of the zoning code. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses for public enjoyment. Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Single Family Residential environment: (1) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be set to maintain no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) New single family residential developments should provide public access and joint use community recreational facilities where appropriate. (3) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs and /or planned future development. (j) Urban Conservancy Purpose: The Urban Conservancy designation is intended to protect and restore ecological functions of lands within the shoreline jurisdiction. These areas are identified as having biological or physical limitations or other unique or hazardous characteristics that are incompatible with intense development. Activities permitted in these areas are intended to have minimal adverse impacts upon the shoreline. These areas are not generally suitable for intensive water dependent uses. Policies: The following management polices apply to all shorelines in the Urban Conservancy environment: (1) Primary allowed uses and their associated development standards should preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, either directly or over the long term. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. (2) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the urban conservancy designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. 41 (3) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and where significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 4.040 Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Purpose: The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as "Shorelines of Statewide Significance ". These shorelines are important to the entire state because they are a major resource from which all people in the state derive benefit. This Master Program gives preference to uses which favor public and long -range goals. In the City of Bremerton, the portions of Puget Sound, lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide, are Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Accordingly, this Master Program shall give preference to uses which meet the principles outlined below in order of preference for these locations: (a) Recognize and protect the Statewide interest over local interest through the use of the following measures: (1) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing statewide interests by circulating the Master Program, Master Program amendments and requests for Substantial Development permits on Shorelines of Statewide significance to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and applicable interest groups. (2) Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs, and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. (b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline through the following measures: (1) Designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to minimize manmade intrusions on shorelines; (2) Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development already exists in order to reduce their adverse impact on the environment and to accommodate future growth, rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or underdeveloped areas. (c) Ensure long -term over short -term benefits through the following measures: (1) Preserve the shorelines for future generations. For example, actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shorelines of statewide significance should be severely limited; (2) Evaluate the short -term economic gain or convenience of developments in relationship to long -term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environment; (3) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new development, redevelopment of existing facilities or for the general enhancement of shoreline areas. (d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines through the following measures: (1) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain a unique or fragile resource; (2) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter the natural function of the water system. In areas where erosion and sediment control practices will not be effective, severely limit excavations or other activities which increase erosion; (3) Restrict public access onto areas which cannot be maintained in a natural condition under human uses. 42 (e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines through the following measures: (1) Preserve the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state consistent with the overall best interest of the people of the state; (2) Plan for a system of public access facilities that recognize exiting facilities, constraints, and opportunities. Identify appropriate public access provisions for specific shoreline reaches; (3) Improve pedestrian access to the shoreline through paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access along the shorelines, and by developing connections to other trails and facilities; (4) Develop upland parking to serve public access areas where appropriate; (5) Design development to provide opportunities for public access compatible with other uses; (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines through the following measures: (1) Plan for and encourage development of public facilities for recreational use of the shorelines; (2) Integrate water - dependent recreation uses wherever possible as part of multiple use of private shoreline development. 43 Page left blank intentionally .. Chapter 5 - Permit Administration 5.0 10 — Applicability 5.020 — Permit Application Types 5.030 — Noticing Requirements 5.040 — Criteria of Approval 5.050 — Appeals 5.060 — Time Periods 5.070— Violations and Penalties 5.080 — Shoreline Moratorium 5.090 — Restoration Project Relocation of OHWM 5.010 Applicability: (a) Liberal Construction: All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master Program policies establish intent for the shoreline regulations in addition to RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington Administrative Code 173 -26 and 173 -27. (b) Burden of Proof. The applicants for any permit shall have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria as set out in the Shoreline Management Act. (c) Development Permit Compliance: (1) For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the responsible official shall not issue a development or construction permit or an exemption for such development until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any development permit for work within the shoreline jurisdiction (200' from the OHWM) shall be subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit. (2) Critical Areas in the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ordinance 4965 2008), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: (i) BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; (ii) BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right- of -Way; (iii)BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; (iv)BMC 20.14.200 Definition of "Wetlands ". (v) BMC 20.14.330(f)(1) Standard Wetland Buffer Widths; (vi)BMC 20.14.340(f) & (g) Mitigation Replacement and enhancement Ratios; (vii) BMC 20.14.730(d) Table 1: Water Type Buffer Standard. (viii) BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction; 'R (ix)BMC 20.14.730 (d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers; (d) Constitutional limitations: Regulation of private property to implement any Program goals, such as public access and protection of ecological functions, must be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to, property rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, applicable federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328 and 43.21C.060. (e) Agency coordination: The city will coordinate on issues relating to ecological conditions, functions and processes and on wetland and ordinary high water delineations with the Department of Ecology, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Suquamish Tribe, as well as other agencies with permit authority over a project to the extent that agencies are timely in their response and coordination does not interfere with meeting timelines for permit review. (f) Compliance with other regulatory requirements: Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, , Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification (Section 401) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. (Ord. 1164 § 4, 2004). (g) Permit Revisions: An application for a permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms, or conditions of a project that has an approved permit. The City may approve a revision, rather than requiring a separate shoreline permit provided the revision is within the scope and intent of the original permit, and is consistent with all applicable standards within the SMP and SMA. Should the revision be found to be within the scope and intent of the original permit the City may approve the revision and submit it to the Department of Ecology. Pursuant to WAC 173 -27 -100 "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following: (1) No additional overwater construction is involved except that pier, dock or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent (10 %) from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less: (2) Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent (10 %) from the provisions of the original permit; (3) The revised permit does not authorize development toe exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the SMP except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof, (4) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with the SMP; (5) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and (6) No adverse environmental impacts will be caused by the project revision. M (h) Exemptions A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be required for all proposed use and development within the shoreline jurisdiction unless the proposal is specifically exempt from permit requirements pursuant to WAC 173 -27 -040. The City issues exemptions for all work that does not meet the threshold for a shoreline permit to be required. The following list of exemptions is an exact copy from the WAC, and is located here as a courtesy to the reader. Any exemptions adopted subsequently by the legislature shall apply without amendment to this program. An exemption from a shoreline permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. Exemptions are as follows: (1) Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed five thousand dollars, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. "Consumer price index" means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The office of financial management must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials; (2) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment; (3) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single - family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the 47 sole purpose of protecting an existing single - family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. (4) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency; (5) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels: Provided, That a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and /or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations; (6) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; (7) Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single - family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty -five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other .• than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single- family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single - family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark; (8) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single - family and multiple - family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either: (i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a Substantial Development for the purpose of this chapter. (iii) For purposes of this section salt water shall include the tidally influenced marine and estuarine water areas of the state including the Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound and all bays and inlets associated with any of the above; (9) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater from the irrigation of lands; (10) The marking of property lines or corners on state -owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water; (11) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system; (12) Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW; (13) Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, i£ .. (i) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; (ii) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; (iii) The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; (iv) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and(v) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550; (14) The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21 C RCW; (15) Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local government shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty -five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. (i) "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (A) A project that involves less than ten miles of stream reach, in which less than twenty -five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings; (B) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or (C) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in- stream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. (ii) "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the department of natural resources, the 50 department of transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county, or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re- creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21 C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; (16) A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: (i) The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; (ii) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and (iii) The local government has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. (iv) Fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181 are determined to be consistent with local shoreline master programs, as follows: (A) In order to receive the permit review and approval process created in this section, a fish habitat enhancement project must meet the following and (II) of this subsection: (I) A fish habitat enhancement project must be a project to accomplish one or more of the following tasks: Elimination of human -made fish passage barriers, including culvert repair and replacement; or restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank employing the principle of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or Placement of woody debris or other in- stream structures that benefit naturally reproducing fish stocks. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall develop size or scale threshold tests to determine if projects accomplishing any of these tasks should be evaluated under the process created in this section or under other project review and approval processes. A project proposal shall not be reviewed under the process created in this section if the department determines that the scale of the project raises concerns regarding public health and safety; and (II) A fish habitat enhancement project must be approved in one of the following ways: By the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.95 or 77.100 RCW; or By the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan as provided in chapter 89.08 RCW; or • By the department as a Department of Fish and Wildlife- sponsored fish habitat enhancement or restoration project; • Through the review and approval process for the jobs for the environment program; 51 • Through the review and approval process for conservation district- sponsored projects, where the project complies with design standards established by the conservation commission through interagency agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the natural resource conservation service; • Through a formal grant program established by the legislature or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish habitat enhancement or restoration; and • Through other formal review and approval processes established by the legislature. (B) Fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection are expected to result in beneficial impacts to the environment. Decisions pertaining to fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and being reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). (C)(I) A hydraulic project approval permit is required for projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and are being reviewed and approved under this section. An applicant shall use a joint aquatic resource permit application form developed by the Office of Regulatory Assistance to apply for approval. On the same day, the applicant shall provide copies of the completed application form to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and to each appropriate local government. Local governments shall accept the application as notice of the proposed project. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall provide a fifteen -day comment period during which it will receive comments regarding environmental impacts. Within forty-five days, the department shall either, issue a permit, with or without conditions, deny approval, or make a determination that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project. The department shall base this determination on identification during the comment period of adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the conditioning of a permit. If the department determines that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project, the department shall notify the applicant and the appropriate local governments of its determination. The applicant may reapply for approval of the project under other review and approval processes. (C)(II) Any person aggrieved by the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of a permit under this section may formally appeal the decision to the hydraulic appeals board pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (D) No local government may require permits or charge fees for fish habitat enhancement projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and that are reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section. 5.020 Permit Application Types: (a) A permit for any action in shoreline jurisdiction not requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance will be processed as a Type I permit pursuant to BMC 20.02, Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173 -27 WAC. A Shoreline Exemption issued by the City is required for all such exempt activities. All uses and developments within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be carried out in a 52 manner that is consistent with this Program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a permit, exemption, variance, or conditional use permit is required. The policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW, including the permit system, shall apply statewide to all nonfederal developments and uses undertaken on federal lands and on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease, or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. (b) All permits shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and shall comply with the submittal requirements of BMC 20.02. (c) A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application shall be processed as a Type II permit pursuant BMC 20.02 and as otherwise required by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173 -27. Permits may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Director. (d) A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as either a Type II or Type III permit depending on project scope. Permits shall be processed pursuant to BMC 20.02 or as otherwise required by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173 -27 WAC. Permits may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Director or Administrative Hearing Examiner respectively. (e) A Variance permit shall be processed as a Type III permit pursuant to BMC 20.02 and as otherwise required by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173 -27 WAC. Permits may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Administrative Hearing Examiner. 5.030 Noticing Requirements: When a notice of application is required, the following shall apply: (a) Timeline: The notice shall be provided within fourteen (14) days after the determination of completeness is issued. (b) Content: The notice of application shall include the following: (1) The file number assigned; (2) The date of application, date of the notice of completeness, and the date of the notice of application; (3) A description of the proposed project action and a list of permits included with the application and, if applicable, a list of requested studies; (4) Identification of known permits not included with the application; (5) Identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposal; (6) The location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (7) A statement of the public comment period and which shall not be less than thirty (30) days; (8) A statement of the rights of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision and any appeal rights; (9) Any other information determined appropriate by the City. 53 (c) Legal Notice: Notice shall be provided in the following manner as applicable: (1) Mail. The notice shall be sent by email, first class or higher mail to the following: (i) The applicant; (ii) Affected City Departments; (iii)State, federal, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction; (iv)For Type III Permits mailed notice shall also be sent to all property owners of real property (as shown by the records of the Kitsap County Assessor's Office) within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Where any portion of a property abutting the subject property is owned, controlled, or under the option of purchase by the applicant, all property owners within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be notified; and (v) Any person who requests such notice in writing to the Department. (2) Posting of the Property: Notice shall be posted according to the following: (i) At least one (1) location on or adjacent to the subject property and that shall be clearly visible and legible from an adjacent street or public area; (ii) The Director shall determine the specifications to the construction and installation of the notice boards. (3) Publishing Notice: A published notice in the City's official newspaper of general circulation within the City boundaries is required. The content shall include the following: (i) Project location; (ii) Project description; (iii)Type of permit(s) required; (iv)Comment period and dates; (v) Location where the complete application may be viewed. (d) Integration of Notices: The City will integrate the notice of application with SEPA review whenever possible. Notification for a notice of application should be combined with the notification for threshold determination and the scoping for a determination of significance whenever possible. (e) Issuance of Decisions: Except for a threshold determination, the City may not issue a decision or a recommendation on a permit until the expiration of the public comment period. (f) Public Comments: Comments shall be as specific as possible. Comments shall be received by the last day of the comment period specified in the notice. If no comments are received by the date specified it is presumed that those notified have no comments. 5.040 Criteria of Approval: (a) Shoreline Substantial Development Permits: (1) A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: 54 (i) The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58; and the provisions of the Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173 -26 and WAC 173- 27, and (ii) This Shoreline Master Program, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, to the extent that they are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. (2) The City may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and this Shoreline Master Program. (3) Any ruling on an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed concurrently with Ecology and the Attorney General by the Director. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173 -27 -130. (b) Conditional Use Permits: (1) Conditional Use Permits are issued for proposed Substantial Development activities when the activity is classified as a Conditional Use or is an unlisted use in the Shoreline Use/ Activity Matrix (Table 20.16.690). The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow greater flexibility in the application of the Shoreline Master Program. Conditional Use Permits are processed as an Administrative Type II Director's decision, but can at any point in the permit process be elevated to a Nonadministrative Type III Hearings Examiner decision when the Director determines: (i) The use or project has a significant impact beyond the immediate site; (ii) The use or project is of a neighborhood or community wide interest; or (iii) The use or project is of a controversial nature. (2) Development activity considered a Conditional Use may be authorized if all of the criteria in WAC 173 -27 -160 are met. The criteria include: (i) The proposed use is consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program; (ii) The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; (iii) The proposed use of the site and design are compatible with other permitted uses in the area; (iv) The proposed use will cause no net loss of ecological function to the shoreline environment; and (v) The public interest will not suffer a detrimental effect. (vi) When considering the application, consideration must be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for similar actions in the area. After the City makes a final decision on a Conditional Use Permit, the permit and application must be reviewed and approved by Ecology and the Attorney General. 55 (c) Variance: Relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards in the Shoreline Master Program can be granted only when there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that strict implementation of the Shoreline Master Program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Development activities considered a Variance may be authorized if all of the criteria in WAC 173 -27 -170 are met. The criteria include: (i) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards would preclude or significantly interfere with the reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program; (ii) The hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as lot shape, size or natural features, and the application of the Shoreline Master Program; (iii) The project design is compatible with other permitted uses in the area, and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; (iv) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief, (v) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; and (vi) If the development is waterward of the ordinary high -water mark, the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. (2) After the City makes a final decision on a variance permit, the permit and application must be reviewed and approved by Ecology. 5.050 Appeals: (a) Applicability: Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.21B RCW, seek review from the Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a petition for review within twenty -one days of the decision as provided for in RCW 90.58.140(6). (b) Type II Decisions: Type II decisions on Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, and revisions to shoreline permits may be appealed to the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.02 BMC within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision, provided that the applicant agrees to this local appeal. In the case of a Conditional Use Permit the Director may request that Ecology delay action in the approval until the local appeal process has been completed. In lieu of an appeal to the Administrative Hearing Examiner, or in the case where the applicant does not agree to a local appeal, an appeal of the local shoreline permit decision shall be heard by the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). Any person may file a Petition for Review to the SHB within twenty -one (21) calendar days of the date of filing of the decision with Ecology and the Attorney General pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(l). 56 (c) Type III Decisions and Decisions on Appeals: Type III decisions, and decisions on appeal of Type II decisions may be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a Petition for Review within twenty -one (21) calendar days of the date of filing of the decision with Ecology and the Attorney General pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1). (d) Ecology Approval: An appeal of a Conditional Use Permit or Variance by Ecology shall be filed with the Shoreline Hearings Board within twenty one (2 1) calendar days of notice of the Ecology Decision, pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1). (e) Shoreline Master Program Adoption and Amendments. The decision of Ecology pertaining to the adoption of, or amendment to, the Shoreline Master Program may be appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board per Chapter 36.70A RCW. 5.060 Time Periods: (a) Type II Permits: No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until 21 days from the date a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was filed with Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173 -27 -130. (b) Type III Permits or Type II Conditional Use Permits: No permits and construction shall begin or be authorized until 21 days from the date of notification of approval by Ecology, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173 -27 -130. (c) Expiration: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143, construction activities, or a use or activity for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program, must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Director may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors if a request for extension has been filed with the City before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and Ecology. Construction activities or commencement of construction means that construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be approved and completed. (d) Extensions: A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline permit, unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143, or as authorized above. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to expiration of the shoreline permit, the Director shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed permit extension shall be given to 57 parties of record and Ecology. To maintain the validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain valid construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes. (e) Reductions: If it is determined that standard time requirements of subsections c and d should not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause, may establish shorter time limits, provided that as a part of action on a conditional use or variance permit the approval of Ecology shall be required. "Good cause" means that the time limits established are reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development on the ground and complete the project that is being permitted. (f) Timing: For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of appeals or legal actions, or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed. (g) Responsibility: It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the director of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the City and of any related administrative or legal actions on any permit or approval. (h) If an appeal is filed, construction may not commence until disposition of the appeal unless otherwise established by the Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(5)(b). 5.070 Violations and Penalties: (a) Any person who fails to conform to the terms of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, conditional use permit, variance or other permit issued under the Shoreline Master Program, or who undertakes a development or use on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit, or violates any other provision of the Shoreline Master Program, or who fails to comply with a cease and desist order or notice of violation issued under Chapter 1.04 BMC may be subject to enforcement and penalties as follows: (b) Any violation, as noted above, constitutes a civil violation under Chapter 1.04 BMC, as currently enacted or hereinafter amended, for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and enforcement may be required, as provided therein. (c) In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided herein or by law, any person who commits a violation, as noted above, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor pursuant to RCW 90.58.220. (d) In lieu of or in addition to the above, the City may utilize the enforcement procedures and remedies, including requiring appropriate correction action, contained in WAC 173 -27 -240 through 173 -27 -300. (e) Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant W thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. If a suit is pursued the City Attorney shall bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation the Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. 5.080 Shoreline Moratorium: The City Council may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate to implement the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act as outlined in RCW 90.58.590. 5.090 Restoration Project Relocation of Ordinary High Water Mark: The City may grant relief from Shoreline Master Program development standards and use regulations when the following apply: (a) A shoreline restoration project causes, or would cause, a landward shift in the ordinary high water mark, resulting in the following: (1) Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of the restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or (2) Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in required shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable Shoreline Master Program; and (3) Application of Shoreline Master Program regulations would preclude or interfere with use of the property permitted by local development regulations, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent. (b) The proposed relief meets all of the following criteria: (1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship; and (2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration project; and (3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration project and consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; and (4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under this section. (c) If approved by the city, the application for relief must be submitted to Ecology for written approval or disapproval. (1) This review must occur during Ecology's normal review of a shoreline Substantial Development Permit, conditional use permit, or variance. If no such permit is required, then the department shall conduct its review when the local government 59 provides a copy of a complete application and all supporting information necessary to conduct the review. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection d of this section, Ecology shall provide at least 20 -day notice to parties that have indicated interest to the department in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post the notice on to their website. (3) The Department shall act within 30 calendar days of close of the Public Notice period, or within 30 days of receipt of the proposal from the local government if additional public notice is not required. (d) The public notice requirements of subsection c of this section do not apply if the relevant shoreline restoration project was included in a Shoreline Master Program or shoreline restoration plan as defined in WAC 173 -26 -201, as follows: The restoration plan has been approved by the department under applicable Shoreline Master Program guidelines; and the shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from shoreline regulations; and the Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan includes policies addressing the nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied. •1 Chapter 6 - Nonconforming Provisions 6.010 — Intent 6.020 — Establishment of a Legal Nonconformity and Applicability 6.030 — Annexations 6.040 — Definitions 6.050 —Nonconforming Lots 6.060 — Nonconforming Structures 6.070 — Unsuitable Structure for Uses 6.80 — Unlawful Uses and Structures 6.010 Intent: (a) To avoid undue hardship to property owners whose existing lots, structures, or uses were lawful at the time of their establishment, but are prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code. (b) To set forth conditions under which these nonconformities may continue to exist until such a time they are discontinued as prescribed by law. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction or designated use of any building or site legally established. 6.020 Establishment of a Legal Nonconformity and Applicability: (a) A party asserting the existence of a lawfully established nonconforming lot, use or structure has the burden of proof that the lot, use or structure was not substandard in meeting the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code that were in effect at its creation. (b) The rules of this chapter are applied by first reviewing which provisions are applicable to the nonconformity. When a combination of nonconforming lot, structure or use exists, each segment of the nonconformity is reviewed independently of the others. 6.030 Annexation: (a) Lots, structures, uses of land, and structures that were legally in existence prior to annexation to the City, but that do not conform to the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code following the date of annexation, shall become a legal nonconformity subject to the requirements of this chapter. 6.040 Definitions: (a) Nonconforming Lots: A lot that does not meet the lot area, width or street frontage requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, but was lawfully created prior to the effective date of the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program and /or Zoning Code or subsequent amendments thereto. (b) Nonconforming Use: Any activity, development or condition that is not permitted outright or as an accessory use, or is not permitted by a Conditional Use Permit or other special permitting process by the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code; but was lawfully created prior to the effective date of the Shoreline 61 Master Program or Zoning Code, or subsequent amendments thereto, and was continually maintained as defined in this chapter. A nonconforming use may or may not involve buildings or structures and may involve part of or all of a building or property. (c) Nonconforming Structure: A building or structure that does not comply with the required setbacks, height, lot coverage and other development requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, but was lawfully constructed prior to the effective date of the Zoning Code and /or Shoreline Master Program or subsequent amendments thereto, and was continually maintained as defined in this chapter. (d) Substantial Destruction: For the purpose of this chapter, "substantial destruction" means the repair or replacement of a building or structure which exceeds one of the following: (1) Seventy five percent (75 %) of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the Kitsap County Assessor. An appraised value may be substituted for the assessed value at the request of the applicant and as deemed appropriate by the Director. (2) For accessory structures which are typically not assessed (such as decks, sheds, garages, bulkheads, docks, and retaining walls) and the value cannot be determined, substantial destruction will occur at the point that seventy five percent (75 %) or more of the structure is replaced. This does not include in -water structures as they are addressed in section 6.70(d) of the SMP. (3) For both 1 and 2 above, all repair and maintenance work conducted within a five (5) year period on the structure shall be included in the calculation. 6.050 Nonconforming Lots: (a) Continuation and Development: A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code provided the development meets, through design or by an approved variance the applicable development standards within. (b) Illegal Lot Modifications or Split: The following is applicable to all lots: (1) No lot may be modified, divided or adjusted in a manner that would violate the dimensional or area requirements of the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code. (2) A government agency may lawfully modify a lot in a manner that would result in nonconformity, if portions of a lot are acquired for a public use or purpose, or is allowed otherwise by law. 6.060 Nonconforming uses: (a) Continuation: Any legally established nonconforming use may be continued until such time that it is discontinued as prescribed in subsection (d) or (e) of this section. (b) Change of Use: A structure or property containing a nonconforming use may be changed to the following: 62 (1) A use that conforms to the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code; or (2) Another nonconforming use; provided, that all of the following criteria are met: (i) A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to Chapter 5, and (ii) The existing nonconforming use was not discontinued as prescribed in subsection (d) or (e) of this section (see below under discontinuation / damage and destruction); and (iii)The new use is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity and intensity of the existing nonconforming use; and (iv)There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the change in use. (c) Use Expansion: A nonconforming use may be expanded or enlarged only in the following circumstances: (1) If the existing nonconformity is not utilizing the entire structure, it may be expanded to other portions of the structure provided the enlargement is within the existing physical space of the building or use and all of the following criteria are met: (i) There is no increase outside the building walls of noise, light and glare and other proximity impacts that may adversely affect adjacent uses or elements of the natural environment; and (ii) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the alteration; and (iii) The expansion or enlargement does not restore the structure from substantial destruction. (2) Residential dwellings may have the building area expanded if all of the following criteria are met: (i) The number of dwelling units is not increased; and (ii) There is no decrease in the number of off - street parking spaces below the minimum requirements of the current code and the addition complies with all applicable development standards; and (iii) There is no expansion into an area designated as a critical area or shoreline buffer or building setback; and (iv) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the expansion. (3) Acquisition of additional accessory off - street parking may be allowed provided the additional parking is not located in the shoreline buffer. (d) Discontinuation: A nonconforming use that is discontinued shall have its legal nonconforming status terminated and any subsequent use of the property or building shall be that of a use that conforms to all applicable development standards. A nonconforming use is determined to be discontinued if any of the following circumstances apply: 63 (1) The nonconforming use is changed to a conforming use; or (2) Another nonconforming use is approved pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section; or (3) The nonconforming use has ceased for a period of more than one (1) year. (4) Aquaculture occurring on nonconforming aquaculture sites is not considered discontinued until the use has ceased for a period of more than 5 years. (e) Damage or Destruction: If a structure containing a nonconforming use experiences substantial destruction, it shall constitute a discontinuation of the nonconforming use, except the nonconforming use may be allowed to continue under either of the following circumstances: (1) The structure has suffered substantial destruction as a result of fire or other casualty not intentionally caused by the owner and a complete building permit application is filed within one (1) year of such fire or other casualty; or (2) The nonconforming use is a detached or attached single - family dwelling located in a zone in which they are prohibited. The use may be re- established provided a complete building permit application is filed within one (1) year of substantial destruction. (f) Repair and Maintenance: A building or structure containing a nonconforming use may be repaired and maintained, if the work does not restore it from substantial destruction. 6.070 Nonconforming Structures: (a) Continuation: Any legally established nonconforming structure may be continued until such time that it experiences substantial destruction. If a structure experiences substantial destruction it shall constitute a discontinuation of the nonconforming structure and have its nonconforming status terminated. Any repair or reconstruction of the structure shall comply with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program and the Zoning Code, except as follows: (1) The nonconforming structure may be allowed to be rebuilt within the same footprint and size if the structure has suffered substantial destruction as a result of fire or other casualty not intentionally caused by the owner, and a complete building permit application is filed within one (1) year of such fire or other casualty. (b) Expansion: A nonconforming structure may be enlarged or extended, provided the enlargement complies with the applicable setback, height, lot coverage, and other site development requirements of the Shoreline Master Program and the Zoning Code, and provided that such work does not restore the structure from substantial destruction. Such expansions shall comply with the following: (1) Expansions located outside of the setback and or buffer, but within the shoreline jurisdiction, may have a footprint expansion of up to five hundred (500) square feet without being required to provide vegetation enhancement. Such an addition must comply with all applicable development standards. .E (2) Expansions located outside of the setback and or buffer but within the shoreline jurisdiction with a footprint larger than five hundred (500) square feet may be permitted provided the existing buffer is densely vegetated with a native plant community. Should the vegetation within the buffer not be a dense community of native vegetation, enhancement shall be provided as follows. (These provisions are not applicable to that portion of a water dependent use which requires direct access to the shoreline.) (i) A native community of vegetation shall be provided on the waterward twenty five percent (25 %) of the required buffers width, with a minimum required width of ten feet (10'). (ii) The area to be planted shall comply with the vegetation management plan requirements of the SMP section 7.20. (iii)There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the alteration. (3) Expansions located within the setback/buffer may be permitted provided: (i) Such expansion is located no further waterward than the existing foundation. In the case that no foundation exists, the expansion shall not exceed the existing building line. (ii) The expansion shall be limited to a footprint of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet. (iii)At least fifty percent (50 %) of the required buffer shall be restored with natural vegetation per the requirements of Chapter 7 section 020; if the buffer is not currently characterized by a dense community of native vegetation. The Director may approve the natural vegetation as required in SMP 7.020 of 50% of the distance between the structure and the shoreline. All proposed vegetation shall be located as close to the shoreline as possible. (iv)Natural vegetation to be planted must comply with the requirements for vegetation management plans as established in SMP 7.020 for the portion of the buffer to be planted. (v) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the alteration. (c) Repair and Maintenance: Normal repair and maintenance of a nonconforming structure may be performed that maintains continued safe and sanitary conditions, provided such work does not restore the structure from substantial destruction as defined above in section 6.40. (d) Repair and Maintenance of in -water structures: (1) When repairing and maintaining in -water structures, each component type (decking, pilings, or structural members) shall be reviewed independently for compliance with the "substantial destruction" criteria, as the replacement of each component must comply with current regulations when replacing more than 75% of that component. For example, the replacement of more than 75% of the 65 decking on a dock requires that the new decking material provide light penetration as outlined in section 8.060. (2) The use of creosote, arsenic and pentachlorophenol treated materials commonly used for in -water structures shall be prohibited. All new or replaced boards, piers, structural members etc. must comply with this prohibition regardless of the total percent of the structure being replaced, due to the long term impacts to water quality. 6.080 Unsuitable Structures for Uses: (a) An existing structure constructed for a use no longer allowed by the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, which has lost its legal nonconforming status, and is not suited for other uses permitted by the Shoreline Master Program or Zoning Code, may have its use re- established if a shoreline Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to Chapter 5; provided the applicant demonstrates that: (1) The remaining life of the structure is adequate to warrant the proposed use of the structure; and (2) An use that is allowed in the zone and shoreline designation cannot be established; and (3) There is a demand for the use in the community or region that provides a public benefit; and (4) The use and renovation to the structure is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan; and (5) The Critical Area/Shoreline buffers are restored with native vegetation to the extent feasible, as established by a qualified professional, as provided in vegetation management plan requirements (see section 7.20); and (6) There is no net loss of ecological processes and functions resulting from the use. 6.090 Unlawful Uses and Structures: (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to be authorization for, or approval of, the continuation of the use of a structure that is in violation of any ordinance in effect at the time of the passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The intermittent, temporary, or illegal use of land or structures shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use and /or structure. (b) Any use, structure or lot which did not comply with the all applicable development standards at the time it was established or constructed and does not comply with the current development standards is illegal and shall be brought into compliance with all applicable development standards. .. Chapter 7 - GENERAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS 7.010 — Buffers and Setbacks 7.20 — Vegetation Conservation 7.030 — Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Habitat Function 7.040 — Public Access 7.050 — Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution 7.060 — Archaeologically Sensitive Areas 7.070 — Lighting Requirements 7.080 — Parking Requirements 7.090 — Use Matrix and Height Table 7.010 Buffers and Setbacks: Upland areas adjacent to the shoreline perform essential functions necessary to sustain habitat and ecological processes. It is for this reason that development must be set back from the water's edge and that natural buffers must be created and or preserved. The City currently regulates such areas through the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance 4965 codified in BMC 20.14), however in areas regulated by this document within the shoreline jurisdiction, the following policies and regulations will supersede those within the Critical Area Regulations: Policies: (a) The critical areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are to be protected and managed in such a manner that the result of any use, activity, or development is no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) The City should protect critical areas and their existing shoreline ecological functions so they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem wide processes. (c) The City should promote uses and values that are compatible with other objectives of this section, such as public access and native vegetation management, provided there is no significant adverse impact to shoreline ecological functions. Regulations: (a) Critical Area Ordinance Applicability: Critical Areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ordinance 4965 2008), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: • BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; • BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right -of -Way; • BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; • BMC 20.14.200 Definition of "Wetlands ". • BMC 20.14.330(f)(1) Standard Wetland Buffer Widths; • BMC 20.14.340(f) & (g) Mitigation Replacement and enhancement Ratios; • BMC 20.14.730(d) Table 1: Water Type Buffer Standard. • BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction; • BMC 20.14.730 (d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers; 67 (b) Wetland Buffers: For wetlands within the shoreline jurisdiction the following provisions supersede those established within the Critical Areas Ordinance specifically relating to buffers as follows: Wetland Category Standard Moderate Moderate- High Function Re- establishment Buffer Wildlife High Wildlife (30 -36 6:1 Width Function (21- Function wildlife 3.1 6:1 25 Points) (26 -29 points) 2.1 4:1 8:1 p oints ) 1.5:1 Category L Based 75' 105' 165' 225' on Score Category L 150' N/A 165' 225' Coastal Lagoons Category L 75' 105' 165' 225' Forested Category L 150' N/A N/A N/A Estuarine Category IL All 75' 105' 165' 225' Category III: All 60' 105' 165' N/A Category IV: All 40' N/A N/A N/A (c) Wetland Mitigation: For wetlands within the Shoreline Jurisdiction the following mitigation standards shall supersede those established in the Critical Area Ordinance (BMC 20.14.340(f & g)): (1) Wetland Mitigation Ratios: These apply to creation or restoration that is in kind, is onsite, is the same category, is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater rations will apply in those cases. These ratios do not apply to the use or credits from state certified wetland mitigation banks. When credits from a certified bank are used, replacement ratios should be consistent with the requirements of the bank's certification. (2) Within the shoreline jurisdiction, compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall .S Wetland Miti ation Type and Replacement Ratio* Wetland Category Creation Re- establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Onl Category I 6:1 6:1 12:1 Not allowed Category 11 3:1 3.1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 2.1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 (1) Wetland Mitigation Ratios: These apply to creation or restoration that is in kind, is onsite, is the same category, is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater rations will apply in those cases. These ratios do not apply to the use or credits from state certified wetland mitigation banks. When credits from a certified bank are used, replacement ratios should be consistent with the requirements of the bank's certification. (2) Within the shoreline jurisdiction, compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall .S include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers. (d) Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks: (1) The following table supersedes the buffers and setbacks established for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas in (BMC 20.14.730(d)) as follows: DESIGNATION Minimum Building Buffer Width Setback Standard URBAN CONSERVANCY 15 feet beyond 175 feet buffer SINGLE FAMILY & MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Lot depth less than 125' 5 feet beyond 20% of lot buffer depth Lot depth 125' to 199" 10 feet beyond 20% of lot buffer depth Lot depth greater than 200' 30% of lot 15 feet beyond depth buffer (Maximum of 100' RECREATIONAL 15 feet beyond 100 feet buffer COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ DOWNTOWN 15 feet beyond I buffer 50 feet WATERFRONT ISOLATED I None None 1. Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall apply: 2. Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on Commercial or Recreational lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. 3. In no case shall a buffer be less than 10' or greater than 100' in the Shoreline Residential Designation. 4. Buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. (2) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas: The distance of the buffer shall be measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department. Buffers shall be maintained along the perimeter of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, as outlined in the table above. Refuse, garbage, or debris shall not be placed in the buffers or on the beach. (3) Determining Lot Depth: Areas inundated with water are not included in the calculation for lot depth, therefore the measurement may be taken from the OHWM. For lots with varying lot depth, the average depth may be used. (4) Habitat Management Plans: The provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance (BMC 20.14.740) relating to Habitat Management Plans may reduce the width of a shoreline buffer to no less than ten (10) feet provided enhancement features are .• installed that will provide a greater habitat function than the prescribed buffer would. (5) Setback and Buffer Averaging: The Director may grant modifications to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer and setbacks required provided: (i) Sixty (60 %) percent or more of like structures along the shoreline within the same numbered block as the subject property are setback less than the required buffer /setback required by the SMP. The average of the like structures may be used as a modified buffer for the proposal; and (ii) In addition to the buffer, a minimum of a 5' setback shall be required for the structure; and (iii) No new structure may have a buffer of less than ten (10') feet. (6) Fences: Fences are allowed to be erected in the side yard abutting the fish and wildlife conservation area buffer, but are prohibited within the buffer. Fences may also be erected upland of the buffer including within the shoreline setback area. General development standards for fences are located in BMC 20.44.020. Guardrails may be erected in association with pedestrian access areas provided they do not function as a fence and comply with the International Building Code. (f) Stormwater: The provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance (BMC 20.14.730(d)(6)) relating to Stormwater Management shall apply within shoreline jurisdiction only to buffers of 100 feet or greater width. (g) Exemptions: The following development activities are not subject to fish and wildlife habitat area buffers and setbacks, provided they are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and further provided that they comply with all the applicable regulations in BMC Title 20 and this Program: (1) Those portions of an approved water - oriented development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high water mark, and /or within their associated buffers and setbacks; (2) Development activities on lots that are physically and functionally separated from shoreline by an improved paved public or private road or railroad or similar facility and /or by one or more existing developed lots under separate ownership such that the ecological functions provided by buffers do not occur. This provision shall not apply to such a facility within a development proposal or contiguous ownership that can be feasibly relocated to accommodate buffers. (3) Underground utilities; (4) Modifications to existing development that are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any agency when otherwise consistent with this Program, provided that the City determines that: (i) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and (ii) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and 70 (iii) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non - conforming development and uses. (5) Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water - dependent development uses are subject to development standards in Chapter 8, section 090. (6) Stairs, ADA ramps, and walkways not greater than 5 feet in width or 18 inches in height above grade, not including railings. (7) Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility. 7.020 Vegetation Conservation: Policies: (a) The City should protect, conserve and establish native vegetation near shorelines in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes performed within riparian and near shore areas which include but are not limited to: • Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats; • Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species in the form of various insects and benthic macro invertebrates; • Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures for salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota; • Protecting and increasing stability of banks and bluffs; • Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion; • Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures; • Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; • Protecting and improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants; • Providing habitat corridors parallel and perpendicular to the water body. Regulations: (a) Vegetation Management Plan: A plan shall be submitted for all new development and redevelopment within the shoreline jurisdiction that provides for substantial enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and provides the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with the following: (1) The plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the entire specified critical area buffer. Vegetation management plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the maximum extent feasible. (2) The Plan shall provide for planting of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to a sufficient density to provide effective canopy cover and erosion control purposes throughout the buffer. The Director may allow for the trees and shrubs to be placed in natural groups to allow for view preservation and a shoreline access trail. 71 (3) The Plan shall specify the predevelopment quantity, species type, distribution, approximate height of native vegetation, tree diameter at four (4) feet in height, successional stage of overall vegetative cover, potential native vegetation types, soil type / characteristics, and any existing hazard trees on the entire site. Said information shall be indicated and represented on a site plan drawn to scale and shall be reflected on an accompanying species and count matrix. (4) Identification of native vegetation to be removed and protected as a result of the proposal must be shown on the site plan, as well as any noxious vegetation onsite. (5) At least 25% of new trees shall be a minimum height of four (4) feet. Shrubs shall be of at least four different varieties. (6) Methodology shall be identified for removal of noxious vegetation and for long term maintenance. (7) A financial surety (an assignment of funds or surety bond with no expiration date) shall be provided that accounts for 150% of the cost for improvements such as installation of plantings or other features identified in the plan. The financial surety is intended to ensure implementation of a five year maintenance and monitoring plan that ensures a survival rate of 100% for trees and 85% for all other vegetation. The five year maintenance and monitoring period shall begin at the time the required native vegetation has been installed, and verified by a representative from the Department of Community Development. Monitoring shall consist of surveys and photographs taken by the applicant yearly to indicate the continued survival of the plants. Said surveys and photos shall be submitted at the end of the 5 years to the Department of Community Development for release of the financial surety. (8) Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and /or development. In order to ensure such maintenance a recorded conservation easement or a Notice to Title shall be placed on the deed of the property identifying the buffer area and required plantings so that a record of the plan is available to all future property owners. The Notice to Title shall be recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor's Office prior to issuance of the permit. (9) Repair, maintenance, and minor expansions of existing development may not be required to provide a vegetation management plan dependent upon the scope of the project. Please review section 6.70 to evaluate the requirements for expanding a nonconforming structure. (10) Removal of or alteration of native vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is strictly prohibited unless such activity is required for a permitted use or is determined to be hazardous by a qualified professional. Removal of trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at four (4) feet in height shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 with native species and shall be re- established within any required buffer on the project site. (b) Existing Landscaping: In the absence of a development proposal requiring a permit, existing landscaping and gardens within the buffer may be maintained in their existing condition including but not limited to mowing lawns, weeding, removal of 72 noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning and replacement planting of ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and appearance of such areas as they existed prior to adoption of this code. 7.030 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: Policy: For all developments, applicants must demonstrate that all alternatives have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions. Regulations: (a) Shoreline use, development, and re- development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all developments and uses. Permitted uses shall be designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment. Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation /maintenance. (b) An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (1) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action outside the shoreline area; (2) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts; (3) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the adverse impact by following the mitigation sequence outlined herein; (6) Monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. (c) Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Act, including demonstrating that all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. 73 7.040 Public Access: Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Policies: (a) Public access, in its variety of forms, should be promoted whenever feasible provided the result is no net loss of the shoreline's ecological function. (b) Public access should be provided to the shoreline as a primary use or as development occurs, while protecting private property rights and public safety. (c) Public access should not compromise the rights of navigation and space necessary for water - dependent and water - related uses. (d) To the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state should be protected. (e) Property owners should implement a variety of techniques including acquisition, leases, easements, and design and development innovations to achieve public access goals and to provide diverse public access opportunities Regulations: (a) Applicability: Public Access shall be incorporated into a development in all of the following circumstances: (1) New development that will generate a demand for one or more forms of public access, (2) Water- dependent uses and developments that: (i) Increase public use of the shorelines and public aquatic lands, or (ii) Impair existing legal access opportunities, or (iii) Utilize public harbor or aquatic lands, or (iv) Are developed with public funding or other public resources. (3) Non - water - oriented commercial and industrial uses, (4) Non - single family development or use, or more than four (4) single - family residential lots or single - family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned parcel, (5) Any development located on public aquatic lands, except as related to single - family residential use of the shoreline, (6) Publicly financed or subsidized flood control and shoreline stabilization facilities or measures. (b) Location and Design Criteria: Required public access shall incorporate the following location and design criteria: (1) Proximity to water's edge: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, view, and enjoy the water's edge and shall 74 be as close to the shoreline's edge as feasible; provided that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions. (2) Public access inside the buffer: Public access may be located inside the buffer provided the applicant demonstrates compliance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established above in section 7.30. Walkways shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing no taller than four (4) feet in height may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to six (6) feet in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. (3) Public access locations outside of buffers shall include: (i) Not less than ten (10) percent of the developed area within the shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand (3,000) square feet, whichever is greater. Water dependent uses are exempt from this requirement; and (ii) Public access shall extend along the entire water frontage, unless such access will interfere with the functions of water - dependent uses. The minimum width of public access facilities shall be ten (10) feet and shall be constructed of materials consistent with the design of the development. (4) General Design Criteria: The entire public access area shall be: (i) Landscaped, preserving and enhancing native vegetation where feasible, and maintained by the property owner; (ii) Connected to a nearby public street, an adjacent existing public walkway, or a future walkway; and (iii) Compliant with the requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act and other applicable standards for barrier free for the physically disabled, where feasible. (iv) The dedicated area shall generally be open to public access 24 hours a day unless specific exceptions are granted. If an exception is granted, access hours shall not be restricted from 10:00 a.m. to dusk (one -half hour after sunset) each day. Changes in access hours must meet the criteria of SMP Chapter 7 Section 040(c). (v) A submittal shall include specific design features of the walkway, landscaping, signs and other features as applicable. (7) Access Requirements for Overwater Structures: Public access is required on over -water structures that are located on public aquatic lands. Access shall include common use of walkway areas in accordance with all applicable requirements within this section. (f) Modification of Public Access: Public access requirements may be modified only when one or more of the following criteria are met: 75 (1) Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public will occur which cannot be prevented by any practical means; (2) Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other reasonable solutions; (3) Unacceptable environmental harm will result from the public access that cannot be mitigated; (4) Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use and /or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated; (5) Significant unavoidable environmental impacts will result from the public access. (6) Should any one of the above mentioned criteria impede the ability to provide public access the applicant must demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been pursued, including but not limited to: (i) Providing "limited public access" to protect specific identified features or limiting hours of use; (ii) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g. terracing, use of one -way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.) to provide security for and protect adjacent sites from unreasonable intrusions into their privacy; and (iii) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access, including viewing platforms that may be physically separated from the water's edge. Viewing platforms shall be utilized only if access adjacent to the water is not possible. (g) Public Access Easements: Access easements are required for all developments requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance and shall meet the following standards: (1) Size and Design: Public access easements along shorelines are to be waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to allow for improved lateral beach access and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width. (2) Easements: Public access easements should connect to the nearest right -of -way through an easement of no less than ten (10) feet. (3) Minimum Width Exception: When the applicant demonstrates that undue hardship would result from minimum width standards, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary to relieve the hardship. (4) Recording: Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title. Recording with the Kitsap County Auditor's Office shall occur prior to permit approval. (5) Signs: The sign(s) that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the property owner in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at the nearest connection to an off -site public right of way. These sign(s) shall identify the public right of access and hours of access. 76 (6) Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use prior to occupancy of the use or activity. (7) No diminution: Future actions by the applicant or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided. (h) View Corridor Requirements: View corridors shall apply to proposals within the shoreline environment for multi - family and commercial development between Evergreen Park and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and shall include the following: (1) View Corridors are applicable only on sites with over 100 feet in width as measured parallel to the shoreline. (2) The View Corridor shall be no less than 20% of the building site width for buildings equal to or less than 40 feet in height. (3) The View Corridor shall be no less than 30% of the building site width for building greater than 40 feet in height. (4) View Corridors may contain structures no higher than 10 feet and may include parking areas and landscaping, if topography permits. (5) The view corridor must be in one continuous piece. 7.050 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution: Policies: (a) Prevent impacts to water quality and stormwater quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities. (b) Ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality and stormwater quantity, including public health, stormwater, and water discharge standards. (c) Protect aquatic resources from non -point pollution, such as water runoff from contaminated surfaces, contaminated groundwater, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and petrochemicals, including, but not limited to discharge from failing onsite septic systems. Regulations: (a) Development within the City's shoreline shall conform to all requirements of the most current version of the Bremerton Stormwater Management Plan and the most current Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. (b) The construction of new outfalls into water bodies and improvements to existing facilities shall comply with all appropriate Federal, State, and City regulations for water quality. (c) Pesticides applied using aerial spraying techniques within the shoreline jurisdiction, including over water bodies or wetlands, shall be prohibited unless specifically permitted under the Washington Departments of Agriculture and Ecology. 77 7.060 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas: Policies: (a) Prevent the destruction of or damage to any cultural resources and any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities, including The Suquamish Tribe, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (b) Land owners should provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property. Regulations: (a) The City will work with tribal, state, federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant cultural resources and local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites, in observance of applicable state and federal laws protecting such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. (b) Owners of property containing identified historical, cultural, or archaeological sites should coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Suquamish Tribe Archaeology and Historic Preservation program, and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources. (c) Upon receipt of an application for a development in an area of known cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Suquamish Tribe Archaeology and Historic Preservation Program. (d) If historical, cultural, or archaeological materials, sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as possible to the City. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Suquamish Tribe Archaeology and Historic Preservation Program. The reviewing official shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies. 7.070 Lighting: Policies: (a) Lighting within shorelines and lands adjacent to shorelines if not properly managed can have an adverse impact on the ecological function, most notably the migration patterns of salmonids and terrestrial species. W (b) Lighting should be minimized within shorelines, especially within close proximity to the water. (c) Development should implement site lighting techniques that minimize the amount of spill -over into riparian and aquatic environments. These techniques should include but are not limited to reduction of pole heights, pole locations, and fixture designs including shading / shielding devices, bulb types and reduced wattages. Regulations: (a) Development proposals requiring a permit within shorelines shall include a lighting plan that provides and or meets the following standards: (1) The location of all outdoor lighting and building security lighting and associated wattages; (2) Pole heights shall not exceed 20 feet in height; (3) Fixture designs for all outdoor lighting shall shield the source or bulb of the light; and (4) A Photometric plan is required and shall not exceed a strength of I foot - candle at the property lines or OHWM. (b) Where lighting is required for new streets, driveways or public access features, the lowest level lighting possible shall be used. (c) The lighting plan is required with the permit application and shall be reviewed as a component of the shoreline permit. 7.080 Parking: Policies: (a) Parking includes private on -site, public lots /structures and loading areas. Parking within shorelines is a low priority. Converting land within shorelines for the sole use of vehicles is not an efficient land use. (b) Parking as a primary use (stand -alone use) within the shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited. (c) Parking should not be allowed between development and the adjacent water body. (d) Where surface parking is developed within the shoreline jurisdiction, Low Impact Development techniques should be implemented. (e) Lighting for parking areas should be minimized. Regulations: (a) Parking as a primary or stand -alone use shall not be permitted within the shorelines jurisdiction of a property. (b) Parking shall not be located between shorelines and development unless no other location is feasible and it can be demonstrated that it will have no negative impact on ecological functions. 79 (c) Parking facilities shall minimize the amount of impervious surface within the shoreline jurisdiction and should not disrupt planned public access or habitat restoration objectives. (d) Required parking for a permitted use on shorelines shall not be permitted between the development and the adjacent shoreline with the exception of parking that is required for water - dependent uses. Loading and unloading zones that are an inherent element of a water - dependent or a water - related use are allowed between the shoreline and the use area when it is adjacent to the shoreline but, when feasible, should not be adjacent to a required buffer. (e) Parking ratios for all uses within the shoreline shall follow BMC 20.48 parking standards. The applicant may provide a parking analysis that demonstrates the parking need for the use. This analysis shall include examples of other existing similar uses and how the parking demand has been met in those locations and /or in other jurisdiction. (f) When surface parking areas for permitted uses are designed and constructed, they shall achieve the following objectives: (1) Landscape screening around the perimeter and within the parking area to soften edges and break up large parking areas; (2) Implementation of Low Impact Development techniques for stormwater management; and (3) Located as far from a required shoreline or critical area buffer as possible. 7.090 Use Matrix and Height Table: (a) Use Matrix: The table determines which shoreline modifications and shoreline uses are allowed or prohibited in each Shoreline Designation. (1) Except for the land uses prohibited in this table, land uses allowed in the underlying zoning are allowed in the Master Program, subject to the preference for water - oriented uses and subject to specific criteria for uses included in these regulations. This chart is not exhaustive of all uses addressed in the zoning code. When referring to unlisted uses, the code is referring neither to uses listed here nor in the zoning code. If a use is prohibited in the underlying zoning district, it is also prohibited within the shoreline. (2) Aquatic Uses are determined by the adjacent Designation and are limited to water - dependent uses and public access. (3) Land uses in the underlying zoning that require a Conditional Use Permit, require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (4) Land uses are defined in BMC 20.42 the definitions section of the zoning code. Shoreline activities are defined in the definitions section of this code. (5) A use located within the "Isolated" designation shall not be governed by the performance standards within SMP Chapter 7, General Standards and Regulations; Chapter 8, Shoreline Use Regulations, or Chapter 9 Shoreline Modifications, however the Director may determine the proposed development or 1 use is clearly contrary to the intent of this program, and relevant elements of this program may be applied. Development and land use within this designation shall be governed by all other regulations of BMC Title 20 Land Use. The mandatory permit and procedural requirements of this program contained in Chapter 5, Permit Administration, shall apply to said development or uses. KEY: CG _CG X= Prohibited o P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use C�j CA O U C�j w � �O �." o CG Cj � w CA Unlisted Uses: CU CU CU CU CU CU CU UPLAND USES Boat Sales, Storage and Repair X X X CU P P P Commercial uses such as but not limited to: general retail, general office, clinics, restaurants, drinking places, personal services, athletic fields, restaurants, community X X X X P P P facilities, and entertainment uses. (See Zoning Code forspecific allowed uses by zone Community, Cultural, Educational Facilities CU P P P P P X Golf Courses X CU CU X X X X Hotels and Lodging X X X X P P X Industrial X X X X X X P Worship and Religious Facilities X CU P CU P P X PARKING & UTILITIES Parking Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction P P P P P P P Parking Not Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction X X X X CU CU CU Transportation facilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P Utilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P RESIDENTIAL Adult Family Homes, Daycare, & Bed and Breakfasts CU P P X P P X Commercial /Residential mixed X X X X P P X Multi-Family Residential X X P X P P X Single Family Residential P P P X X P X SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS (All uses must meet applicable code criteria see Ch. 9) Boat Launch ICU ICU ICU ICUICU ICU I CU KEY: ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION CG _CG 35 feet Downtown Waterfront 175 feet Industrial X= Prohibited Multi - Family Residential 40 feet Over -Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation o Single Family Residential P= Permitted Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building p hysically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. CU= Conditional Use Cj a� O � � O v U w j ; o � j �. o o CA v� U Aquaculture (including commercial, non- CU X X CU CU CU CU commercial, and eoduck Ecological Restoration / Enhancement P P P P P P P Docks, Piers and Other In -Water Structures P P P P P P P Dredging P P P P P P P Flood Hazard Reduction P P P P P P P Mooring Buoys P P P P P P P Marinas CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Stabilization - New and Replacement P P P P P P P Stormwater Management Facilities P P P P P P P RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS Recreation, Non - Water- Oriented CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Recreation, Water- Oriented P P P P P P P Trails, public pedestrian and bicycle not including overwater trails P P P P P P P OUTRIGHTLY PROHIBITED USES Adult Entertainment X X X X X X X Agriculture X X X X X X X Automobile Sales Service & Repair X X X X X X X Figure 7.090 (b) Height Restrictions: This table establishes the allowable height in each designation based on the type of use. All the applicable City standards still apply. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of other regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Height measurement is defined in Chapter 3. (a) Heights in the commercial & industrial districts may be increased to the zoning district height limit through a Conditional Use Permit provided: (1) The increase does not substantially block views from upland residential Table 7.090(b) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION HEIGHT Commercial 35 feet Downtown Waterfront 175 feet Industrial 35 feet Multi - Family Residential 40 feet Over -Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation 35 feet Single Family Residential 30 -35' feet Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building p hysically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. properties; (2) Greater height is demonstrated to be needed for an essential element of an allowed use. (3) The project may be required to include compensating elements that substantially enhance the visual and physical public access to the shoreline. (4) It is demonstrated that No Net Loss of habitat function will be achieved. (b) Single Family Residential heights may be increased to 35' with the employment of a pitched roof when: (1) The pitch of the roof is not less than 6:12 (2) The pitched roof is oriented perpendicular to the shoreline. Minor gables or other roof features parallel to the shoreline may be permitted on a case by case basis provided such features do not extend past the pitched roof where views are intended to be preserved. (3) The pitched roof covers the entire structure. N Page left blank intentionally I. Chapter 8 — Shoreline Use Regulations 8.010 — Intent 8.020 — Aquaculture 8.030 — Commercial Development 8.040 — Forest Practices 8.050 — Industrial Development 8.060 — Marinas and Boating Facilities 8.070 — Recreational Development 8.080 — Residential Development 8.090 — Roads, Railways, and Utilities 8.010 Intent: The policies and regulations within this chapter shall apply to the specific common uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction. These policies and regulations are intended to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. Each use or development type includes a brief explanation and examples of the subject use, policies which are intended to guide and interpret the accompanying regulations, and then the regulations themselves. 8.020 Aquaculture: Aquaculture is the culture, or farming of fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals. Activities include, but are not limited to the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising, harvesting, and processing of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings, and growing areas. Cultivation methods include, but are not limited to fish pens, fish hatcheries, shellfish rafts, racks and long lines, seaweed floats, and nets and the culture of clams and oysters on tidelands and sub -tidal areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wild geoduck associated with a state managed wild stock geoduck fishery. Aquaculture is a preferred water - dependent use. It should be encouraged to locate where it will not significantly conflict with navigation and other water dependent uses, and /or result in a net loss of ecological functions, and /or adversely impact eelgrass and microalgae. Harvest of wild stock free swimming fish, and /or harvest of wild stock geoducks on state owned aquatic lands do not require a shoreline Substantial Development permit. Policies: (a) Aquaculture should not be located in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions. Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would significantly conflict with navigation and other water - dependent uses. Regulations: (a) Aquaculture shall not be located in areas where it would result in the net loss of ecological functions., especially in near -shore areas where water quality, aquatic vegetation and co- occupying species habitats and migration corridors could be impacted. FOM (b) Aquaculture shall meet all applicable State and Federal requirements including, but not limited to: Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48), local health codes and the applicable requirements of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for said facilities. (c) Aquaculture shall not be detrimental to visual access of the water body. Aquaculture shall not significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. (d) Aquaculture shall not significantly conflict with navigation. (e) The proponent shall demonstrate that the proposed location is suitable for aquaculture with little or no modification to the shoreline environment. Aquaculture shall not displace native plant or animal communities important to the food chain, particularly surf smelt spawning beaches, or areas important to the rearing of threatened or endangered species. (f) Aquaculture sites may be required to be separated from other aquaculture sites to prevent cumulative impacts upon shoreline processes. Appropriate separation shall be determined by the City in consultation with State and federal agencies, and tribal interests, based upon attributes such as water body characteristics, drift cell patterns, and upland development patterns. (g) Harvest activities shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes turbidity and the risk of impacts to aquatic vegetation and the intertidal bed by complying with State water quality standards and permit requirements. If a State water quality permit is not required, harvest activities must utilize the following methods: (1) Where water pumps are used, they must be placed on floating rafts and shall only be temporarily anchored to ensure water depths that avoid grounding. (2) Pump intakes shall be screened to minimize the capture of marine organisms. (3) Harvest activities within fine- grained beaches that are susceptible to sediment transport may be required to utilize sediment containment methods such as fencing or cloth tubes. (h) The installation of submerged or intertidal structures, or over -water structures shall be allowed only when the applicant demonstrates that no alternative method of operation is feasible and must comply with the view protection requirements below in Chapter 8, Section 020. (i) Navigational access must be guaranteed for floating or submerged aquaculture structures. The applicant must provide evidence that the proposal will not interfere with general navigation lanes and traffic and that all structures remain shoreward of principal navigation channels. (j) View Protection: Aquaculture structures and equipment, EXCEPT navigation aids, shall be designed, operated, and maintained to blend into their surroundings through the use of appropriate colors and materials. (1) Over -water aquaculture structures shall be constructed of materials that blend in with the shoreline environment. M (2) Storage of necessary tools and apparatus seaward of the OHWM shall be limited to containers of not more than three feet in height, as measured from the surface of the raft or dock; except as permitted through a variance. (3) Materials which are not necessary for the immediate and regular operation of the facility shall not be stored seaward of the OHWM. (4) The applicant shall submit a visual impact analysis assessing the aesthetic, light, and glare impacts on adjacent uses and may condition a project to mitigate impacts or may deny a project if adverse impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated. (k) Aquaculture development shall control nuisance factors, such as noise and odor, and shall comply with all applicable regulations. No garbage, wastes or debris shall be allowed to accumulate at the site of any aquaculture operation. (1) Structures or activities associated with aquaculture that are not water - dependent, such as an office, shall be located upland, away from the shoreline and shall comply with all buffers and setback requirements. (m)Equipment, structures, and material shall not be abandoned in the shoreline or wetland area. The City may require that a bond be posted to help to ensure that this regulation is implemented. (n) All commercial aquaculture requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. All new commercial geoduck aquaculture or conversions from existing non - geoduck aquaculture to geoduck aquaculture requires a Conditional Use Permit and will be administered consistent with WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(b)(ii), (iii), and (iv). Included with the CUP application, a complete baseline description of existing conditions, including characteristics of the water, substrate, vegetation and aquatic species, shall be provided by the applicant. This analysis shall include a monitoring plan establishing how the proposal will not negatively impact existing ecological functions. (o) All aquaculture proposals shall comply with the public access requirements found in Chapter 7 Section 040. (p) The applicant shall coordinate with the Suquamish Tribe regarding treaty rights to ensure the proposal does not negatively impact the tribes Usual and Accustomed areas. 8.030 Commercial Development: Commercial development on the shorelines should be designed to bring large numbers of citizens to the shoreline. Policies: (a) Commercial development should be designed and constructed in such a manner as to result in no net loss of ecological functions. including implementation of Low Impact Development techniques, to the maximum extent feasible. (b) Public access should be provided in all locations, except where it is demonstrated to conflict with the intended use for reasons of safety, or security; or if it adversely impact the ecological function of the shoreline. M (c) Non - water - oriented commercial uses within the shoreline jurisdiction should be allowed to locate and operate within existing structures. Regulations: (a) Priority of uses shall be in the following order: Water- dependent uses, water - related uses, water - enjoyment uses, and non -water related uses. (b) Water- dependent commercial development shall not interfere with or compromise the operation of existing adjacent water - oriented development or decrease opportunities for the general public to access adjacent shorelines. (c) Water - related uses shall not be approved if they displace existing water - dependent uses and must comply with the following: (1) All water - related uses shall be reviewed to ensure that the use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location, or the use provides a necessary service supportive of the water - dependent uses, and /or the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and /or more convenient. (2) Mixed use development within 100 feet of the OHWM that incorporates water - dependent use may not include non - water - oriented uses at the ground level within 100 feet of the OHWM. (3) Allowed water - related commercial uses shall be evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates a community wide interest, including increasing public access and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline. (d) Water- enjoyment uses may not be approved if they displace existing water - dependent or water - related use. The applicant must demonstrate that the use will provide for the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the proposal and must include the following: (1) The water - enjoyment use must be open to the general public. (2) The shoreline- oriented space within the project must be devoted to specifically foster shoreline enjoyment for a substantial number of people. (3) Development within 100 feet of the OHWM that incorporates water - enjoyment use may not include non - water - oriented uses on the ground floor within 100' of the OHWM. (e) Non - water - oriented uses can be located in the shoreline jurisdiction when: (1) The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another private property or a public right -of -way such that access for water - oriented use is precluded. Such conditions must be lawfully established prior to the effective date of this Program. (2) A site where navigability is severely limited. (3) The developable portion of the site is physically separated from the shoreline in such a way access is infeasible, or (4) The use is part of a mixed -use project that includes water - dependent uses; and (5) In cases (2), (3 or (4) directly above, when the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act by: (i) Restoring the ecological functions both in aquatic and upland environments that provide native vegetation buffers as specified in section 20.16.6 10 and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan. (ii) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and associated buffers shall be provided as public access where feasible. (f) All development shall provide opportunities for the public to access the shoreline adjacent to the subject use. Where public access has already been provided as part of a prior project or action, the said use shall be designed and constructed to be oriented towards the shoreline. (`Oriented towards the shoreline' means that the active space for customers and passersby is facing or directed towards the shoreline. Active space does not include service entries or load / unload areas.) Where physical access is unfeasible, visual access is required. (g) Parking shall be upland of the associated use whenever possible, and located, designed and screened so as to have minimum visual impact. (h) When parking or circulation elements must be located adjacent to the shoreline, they shall be designed to enable pedestrian access to and along the shoreline. (i) All development shall implement a range of Low Impact Development techniques as feasible to minimize the impacts on riparian, near -shore and upland areas. 8.040 Forest Practices: Forest practices within the City along shorelines would occur as a conversion of forested areas to a certain level of urban development (Class IV — General per the Forest Practices Act, RCW 76.09). Policy: Forested areas within shorelines should be preserved and protected where feasible. Regulations: (a) Conversion of forested areas to urban development shall implement the mitigation sequencing as specified in Chapter 7, section 040. (b) Forest practices for the sole purpose of timber harvesting shall not be allowed in the shoreline jurisdiction. (c) Any forest practice activity on shorelines of statewide significance shall comply with RCW 90.58.150. 8.050 Industrial Development: Water- dependent industrial uses are preferred and encouraged within shoreline areas. FIM Policies: (a) Where necessary depth for industrial uses is adjacent, water - dependent industrial development should be given priority over water - related industrial uses provided, however, that in both instances, they do not conflict with planned or existing public access and habitat restoration. (b) Redevelopment of water - dependent industrial facilities and areas should be encouraged, provided it will not create a net loss of shoreline ecological function and processes. (c) New water - dependent industrial development should incorporate physical and /or visual public access to the water except when such access causes significant interference with operations or hazards to life or property. (d) On upland industrial sites, environmental cleanup and /or remediation should be implemented to serve a variety of future land uses. (e) Water- dependent and water - related industrial redevelopment is encouraged. (f) Priorities of uses are to be in the following order: Water- dependent uses, water - related uses, and water - enjoyment uses. Regulations: (a) Water - dependent and water - related industrial development shall not degrade the ecological function of the shorelines or disrupt existing or proposed public access amenities. (b) Water- dependent development shall not interfere with or compromise the operation of existing adjacent water - oriented development or decrease opportunities for the general public to access adjacent shorelines. (c) Industrial uses proposed over the water shall be limited to water - dependent uses, limited to the smallest feasible dimensions and shall require a Conditional Use Permit. (d) Non - water - oriented uses may be located in the shoreline jurisdiction when: (1) The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another private property or a public right -of -way such that access for water - oriented use is precluded. Such conditions must be lawfully established prior to the effective date of this Program. (2) A site where navigability is severely limited. (3) The developable portion of the site is physically separated from the shoreline in such a way access is infeasible or (4) The use is part of a mixed -use project that includes water - dependent uses; and (5) In all cases (2), (3) and (4) directly above, when the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act by: a (i) Restoring the ecological functions both in aquatic and upland environments that provide native vegetation buffers as specified in section 20.16.6 10 and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan. (ii) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and associated buffers shall be provided as public access where feasible. (e) Water - dependent and water - related industrial uses shall provide public access to the shoreline per the standards in Chapter 7, Section 060 provided said access does not compromise the integrity or operation of the use, does not threaten the safety and welfare of the general public, does not interfere with an existing adjacent use and does not compromise existing ecological functions. (f) Any type of industrial development on shorelines shall implement a range of Low Impact Development techniques to minimize the impacts on riparian and near -shore environments and upland areas. (g) Areas between industrial development and adjacent land uses and public access areas shall be located and landscaped so as to provide a transitional area as required for visual landscaped screening in BMC 20.50.050. (h) Ports with water - dependent and /or water - related uses shall also comply with the sections in this Master Program including, but not limited to: Transportation Facilities; Utilities; Water Access and Moorage Facilities. (i) Only water - dependent features shall be located on the shoreline within the buffer. All other features associated to an industrial use including, but not limited to waste treatment facilities, utilities, and transportation facilities not associated with water dependent elements of industrial shall be located as far away from the water's edge and recreational beaches as practical and must meet setbacks and buffers. 0) Outdoor storage is prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit. The applicant must demonstrate that the exterior storage is essential to the use and will not significantly impact shoreline views. (k) All proposed uses shall demonstrate that no spill or discharge to surface waters will result. The application must include a specific program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the activity. (1) Offshore log storage shall be allowed only to serve a processing use and shall be located where: (1) Water depth is sufficient without dredging; and (2) Water circulation is adequate to disperse polluting wastes; and (3) Log storage will not provide habitat for salmonid predators. 8.060 Marinas and Boating Facilities: Marinas and boating facilities are water - dependent uses and are a preferred use on shorelines. Bremerton has a variety of such facilities that are both privately owned commercial and industrial facilities and those that are available to the general public. Boating facilities can include uses such as marinas, shipping and ferry terminals, transient mooring facilities, boat - ramps, upland dry -stack storage, boat construction, and boat maintenance facilities. 91 Policies: (a) New or expanded boating facilities should include restoration of ecological functions within the riparian and near -shore environment, especially for migrating salmonids and other aquatic species. (b) New or expanded boating facilities should be designed, constructed and managed such that there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (c) New or expanded boating facilities should provide the maximum amount of public access in a variety of forms. (Trail, view overlooks, transient and hand -carry craft moorage.) (d) New boating facilities should be located in areas where other water - oriented uses presently exist or could be established within close proximity. (e) New or expanded boating facilities should minimize the amount of associated parking and impervious surface within the shoreline jurisdiction. (f) New boating facilities should not include covered moorage and boathouses. (g) New boating facilities that require dredging for proper depth and /or removal of contaminated sediments should be consistent with all federal and state requirements for management of contaminated sediments and (h) Existing boating facilities, when retrofitted or as upgrades are necessary, should improve the existing ecological function by minimizing impacts to water quality, restoring hydrologic function and maintaining the viability of aquatic organisms. Regulations: (a) Boating facilities shall be designed to provide opportunities for aquatic ecological functions to establish and succeed. In order to do so, boating facilities shall be designed and located in areas that are previously disturbed or where impacts to existing ecological function can be avoided or minimized. (b) Boating facilities should be managed consistent with the Department of Ecology document titled "Resource Manual for Pollution Prevention in Marinas," May 1998, Revised August 2009, Publication 99811. (c) Dry upland boat storage is preferred rather than over -water facilities in order to protect shoreline ecological functions, efficiently use shoreline space, and minimize consumption of public water surface areas unless: (1) No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities, or (2) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to ecological functions, or (3) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the shoreline. (d) New or expanded marinas shall be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists and there is not adequate supply in current facilities, permitted facilities, or facilities planned by public agencies, including Port Districts. Consideration of facilities shall include boat launching facilities and upland boat storage for smaller boats. 92 (e) Marinas shall be permitted only on sites where it is demonstrated that: (1) That they will not result in a net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural geomorphic processes including delta formation, water quality; water circulation and flushing or adversely affect native and anadromous fish. (2) Shoreline armoring is not required. (3) Future dredging is not required to accommodate navigability. (4) Shallow water embayments with poor flushing action or areas with extensive tidelands should not be considered. (f) Breakwaters constructed for protection of boating facilities shall be designed to allow public access along the top, where feasible. Pile or floating breakwater designs shall be used unless the proponent demonstrates that there are specific safety considerations that warrant alternative approaches. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any boating facility that utilizes any construction other than piles or floating breakwaters. (g) Accessory uses at boating facilities shall be limited to those which are water - dependent, necessary for operation, or which provide physical or visual shoreline access to substantial numbers of the general public. Accessory uses shall be consistent in scale and intensity with surrounding boating uses. (h) New covered moorage is prohibited. Removal of existing covered moorage may be required as a condition of expansion or reconstruction of existing boating facilities. (i) Extended moorage is restricted on waters of the State except as allowed by applicable State regulations and unless a lease or permission is obtained from the State. (j) Boating facilities shall be permitted only when it is demonstrated that: (1) A specific need exists and there is not adequate supply in current facilities, permitted facilities, or facilities planned by public agencies, including Port Districts. (2) They will not result in a net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural geomorphic processes including processes including erosion, transport, and deposition of materials, water quality and adverse impacts on aquatic species. Areas with extensive tidelands should not be considered (3) They are served by adequate access over a public road that will not adversely impact residential uses; shall provide adequate on -site parking, including trailer parking, to assure that parking spillover does not occur on adjacent streets and uses; and shall be served by adequate utilities and public facilities, including restrooms. (4) Over water facilities, such as docks, shall be limited to the size and configuration needed to serve the boat launch function. (k) Application Materials: The following must be adequately addressed with the permit application submittal for a boating facility: 93 (1) Provide adequate onsite parking as provided in BMC 20.48 and Chapter 6, Section 080. (2) Provide adequate Utilities, (3) Address existing adjacent water - oriented uses, ensure new structures will not impact such uses. (4) Provide documentation showing that the use will not impair block or introduce a hazard to existing or potential public access along beaches. (5) Ensure the use will not unreasonably impair shoreline views from upland residences and adjacent uses. (6) Include multiple uses such as dock fishing, boat lunching, and wet dry boat storage, and hand carry craft storage, as applicable for the boating facilities size and scope. (7) For marinas over forty (40) slips pump -out, holding, and waste treatment facilities and services shall be provided. (8) Provide public access as outlined in Chapter 6, Section 040. A public access plan is required and must address both visual and physical access and may be required to provide the following: (i) All marinas using public aquatic lands shall provide public access over at least twenty (20) percent of structures over aquatic lands, not including individual slips. (ii) Public restroom facilities shall be provided on marinas with more than 40 slips. (9) Address operational procedures for fuel handling and storage in order to minimize accidental spillage and to provide satisfactory means for handling spills that may occur. 8.070 Recreational Development: Water- oriented recreational development can include but is not limited to parks, trails, open spaces, beaches, boat or other watercraft rentals, fishing piers, aquariums, view platforms and over -water boardwalks. Policies: (a) Water - oriented recreational development is encouraged on shorelines provided it results in no net loss of ecological function and is a preferred use along shorelines of statewide significance. (b) Water- oriented recreational development on the shorelines should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City of Bremerton Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan in terms of satisfying future demand and design. (c) Water- oriented recreational development should take precedence over non- water- oriented recreational uses. (d) Wherever possible, shoreline recreational facilities should be linked to other adjacent recreational attractions by pedestrian and /or bicycle trails. (e) Recreational development, where applicable, should include interpretive displays describing cultural, historical and scientific information. (f) Non - water - oriented recreational development uses should not be located on shorelines. Regulations: (a) Water- oriented recreation facilities shall be located and designed such that there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (b) Recreation activities are allowed when they do not displace water - dependent uses and are consistent with existing water - related and water - enjoyment uses. State -owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational uses for the public in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4). (c) Development of water - oriented recreation facilities shall comply with the mitigation sequencing specified in Chapter 7, Section 030. (d) Development of recreation facilities shall implement, where applicable, the elements within the City of Bremerton Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. (e) Recreational development shall be oriented towards the shoreline and shall provide the maximum possible amount of public access to the shoreline as follows: (1) Water- dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be located on the shoreline. (2) Water - related recreation as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the shoreline. (3) Non - water - related recreation facilities shall be located inland. Recreational facilities with large grass areas, such as golf courses and playing fields, and facilities with extensive impervious surfaces shall observe critical area buffers and vegetation conservation standards providing for native vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline. (f) New over -water structures for recreation use shall be allowed only when: (1) They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. (2) They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional ecological sensitivity, especially aquatic and wildlife habitat areas. (3) They are integrated with other public access features, particularly when they provide limited opportunities to approach the water's edge in areas where public access is set back to protect sensitive ecological features at the water's edge. (4) No net loss of ecological functions will be achieved. (5) The specific location and design is approved as a Shoreline Conditional Use. (g) Location and design of recreation facilities shall meet the following criteria: 95 (1) The development shall provide parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed public use. (2) Accessory facilities, such as restrooms, recreational halls and gymnasiums, commercial services, access roads and parking areas, shall be set back from the OHWM and shall meet Critical Area buffers unless it can be shown that such facilities are shoreline dependent. These areas may be linked to the shoreline by pedestrian walkways. (3) The development shall be located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on existing and planned use of nearby property. (4) The proposal will not create a net loss of ecological functions. (h) Street -end parks, where developed to serve community needs, shall be limited to walking on the beach, carry craft boat launching, waterfront viewing, swimming, or fishing, and shall be designed so as not to interfere with privacy of adjacent residential uses. (i) Private recreation uses and facilities that exclude the public from public aquatic lands are permitted only when the following additional criteria are met: (1) Reasonable public access shall be provided to the shoreline at no fee for sites providing recreational uses that are fee supported, including access along the water's edge where appropriate. In the case of facilities on public aquatic lands, no -fee access shall be provided to the public in common with any private use. (2) The development is located and designed to have no substantial detrimental impact on existing and planned use of nearby property. (j) Motorized vehicular access including the use of all- terrain and off -road vehicles in the shoreline area is prohibited, EXCEPT for boat launching and maintenance activities and EXCEPT where specific areas for such use are set aside and controlled, and then only when it can be demonstrated that demand is sufficient to warrant such activity. Provided that the exceptions above shall not apply to beaches, bars, spits, and streambeds. (k) Signs indicating the public's right of access to shoreline areas shall be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the entrance. 8.080 Residential: Residential development includes subdivisions of large parcels, multi - family housing, condominiums, and single - family residences. Under the Shoreline Management Act, owner occupied single - family residences are a preferred use on the shorelines. Residential uses, however, can cause significant damage to the shoreline area through cumulative impacts resulting from vegetation loss, shoreline armoring, increased amount of impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater runoff, septic system failure, and additional vehicular trips. Policies: (a) Development of residential units should result in no net loss of ecological function. a (b) Any residential development along the shoreline should be set back from steep slopes and eroding shoreline areas so that the shoreline is not further eroded nor structural improvements required to protect property. (c) In cases where either large tracts are subdivided into single - family residential parcels or where contiguous individual building sites are developed for single family residences, common public access areas and one joint -use dock, rather than single family docks, should be developed for the use of residents of the subject subdivision. (d) Design of residential development should include preservation of existing native vegetation to the greatest extent possible. (e) Residential development should be designed to minimize the amount of impervious area and should utilize Low Impact Development techniques to the greatest extent practicable (e.g., permeable pavers, stormwater infiltration and filtration). (f) New multi -unit residential development and the subdivision of land into more than five parcels should incorporate into the overall design planned public access amenities whenever feasible. Regulations: (a) Single Family Use Priority: Single family residential development is a priority use on the shoreline when developed in a manner consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment (b) Multi - Family Use Priority: Multi- family residential use is not a priority for location on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act and is subject to the preference for water - dependent and water - oriented use and must provide for meeting the requirements for ecological productivity and public access. (c) Water- Dependent Use Priority: Multi- family development may not be approved if it displaces existing water - dependent uses. Multi- family development is preferred as part of mixed used development including water - dependent, water - related and water - enjoyment use. Multi- family development uses may be permitted only where it provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act by: (1) Restoration of ecological functions, both in aquatic and upland environments, shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards provided for critical areas or in accordance with the Restoration Element of this document. (2) Provision of public access in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 040 - Public Access. (d) Over -Water Homes: Over -water residences and floating homes are prohibited (e) Shore Stabilization: New residential development shall not require shoreline stabilization. Prior to approval, a qualified professional must provide a site analysis establishing that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot to support intended development during the life of the development. (f) Fills: New residential development shall meet all critical area provisions of this program. Filling of, or into, water bodies or their associated wetlands for the purpose of subdivision or multi - family construction shall not be permitted. 97 (g) Public Access: Residential developments, including subdivisions, and planned unit developments, of five (5) or more lots /units shall provide "improved public access" for all residents of the development and the general public, in compliance with public access standards contained in Chapter 7, Section 040 - Public Access. (h) Private Docks: All new subdivisions shall record a prohibition on new private individual docks on the face of the plat in accordance with Chapter 9, Section 030 - Docks, Piers, and In -Water Structures. An area reserved for shared moorage may be designated if it meets all requirements of this Program. (i) Low Impact Development: Residential development shall be designed to minimize the amount of impervious area and shall utilize Low Impact Development techniques to the greatest extent feasible (e.g., permeable pavers, stormwater infiltration and filtration). (j) Application Requirements: Applications for development of subdivisions and multi- family developments shall include the following information (at minimum) in addition to other submittal requirements: (1) Details (graphic and textual) of any proposed alteration in the natural character of the shoreline; (2) Provisions for lot owner or occupant access to the water body; (3) Provisions for public access to the water body. 8.090 Roads, Railways, and Utilities: Roads, railways and utilities are necessary to provide efficient public circulation and the shipment of goods and services. These transportation circuits can include but are not limited to roads, highways and interstates, rail lines and spurs, public service water and sewer mains, power generation, transmission and distribution facilities, and wireless communication facilities. Policies: (a) All new roadways, arterials, utilities and railways, including expansions of these systems, should be located and designed to avoid shorelands, unless no feasible alternative is feasible, and should minimize impacts to shoreline ecological functions (b) Location and design of new roadways including arterials should not compromise existing and planned shoreline public access or existing and planned habitat restoration and enhancement. (c) New roadways, when necessary within shorelines, should be located and designed in such a manner that the minimum width and length of travel -way for vehicles is provided and appropriate provision made for pedestrian and multi -modal forms of transportation. (d) New roadways should be designed and constructed to implement a range of available Low Impact Development techniques. WV (e) New utilities for the delivery of services and products such as, but not limited to public sewer, water and storm mains and services, pipelines, power and transmission facilities should be located outside of shorelines, critical areas and their associated buffers unless intended specifically for a permitted use. (f) Whenever feasible, utilities should be co- located within existing right -of -way corridors. (g) Installation of utilities, including maintenance and expansion of existing utilities, should improve the project area from its original condition by native vegetation installation and management. (h) Utilities should provide public access to the shoreline when practical. Regulations: (a) Ecological Function: New roadways, utilities and railways shall mitigate their impacts such that the result is a no net loss of shoreline ecological function. (b) Location Priority: New or substantially expanded roads, railroads and bridges may be located within shoreline jurisdiction only if: (1) The facility is needed within the shoreline jurisdiction to support permitted shoreline activities. (2) No feasible upland alternative exists based on analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back further from the land /water interface. (c) Transportation Facilities: Transportation facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historic, archaeological or cultural sites to the maximum extent feasible, and mitigate unavoidable impacts to result in no net loss of ecological processes and functions. (d) Design Criteria: Where permitted, transportation facilities shall meet the following design criteria: (1) Roads, railroads, and bridges shall cross the shoreline area by the shortest most direct route, unless such route would cause substantial environmental damage. (2) The project shall be located and designed to fit the existing topography as much as possible, thus minimizing alterations to the natural environment. (3) Facilities located within critical areas, particularly in wetlands areas, should be designed to avoid the resource and may be permitted only if in compliance with standards for those areas. (4) Construction of facilities shall be designed to protect the shoreline against erosion, uncontrolled or polluting drainage and other factors detrimental to the environment, both during and after construction. (5) All debris, cut and fill material, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage into any water body. .. (6) Facilities shall provide for passage of high flows, flood waters, debris, fish passage, and wildlife movement by providing bridges with the longest span feasible and the greatest height feasible. When bridges are not feasible, culverts or other features shall be utilized that are large enough to provide for these functions. (7) The project shall provide the minimum width and length of travel -way for vehicles and provide facilities for safe pedestrian and other non - motorized travel along all public integrated with trail and bicycle systems along shorelines to the maximum extent feasible. When public roads will afford scenic vistas, viewpoint areas shall be provided. (8) New roadways should be designed and constructed to implement Low Impact Development techniques. (9) Landscape planting is required along all shoreline roads, parking, and turnout facilities to: (i) Provide buffers between pedestrian and auto users; (ii) Enhance the shoreline driving experience; and (iii) Enhance and complement potential views of shoreline areas. (e) Unused ROW: In order to improve public access to the shoreline the City should acquire and /or retain abandoned or unused road or railroad rights -of -way for public access to and /or along the water. (f) Road Ends: Road ends abutting water bodies shall be reviewed for potential use and development for public access to the water, and be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Public Access Plan as appropriate. (g) Vacations: The City shall not vacate any public right -of -way in a shoreline location until adopting a Comprehensive Public Access plan for the area showing that the subject right -of -way cannot be used as a contributing element in that plan. The City shall vacate public right -of -way abutting a body of salt or fresh water only in compliance with RCW 35.79.035 which allows vacations of streets abutting bodies of water only when: (1) The vacation will enable acquisition of the property for public purposes; (2) The street or alley is not suitable for certain purposes (e.g. port, park, education); or (3) The vacation will enable implementation of a public access plan. (h) Utility Location Criteria: New or substantially expanded utilities may be located within shoreline jurisdiction only if (1) The facility is needed within the shoreline jurisdiction to support permitted shoreline activities; (2) No feasible upland alternative exists based on analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or is set back further from the land /water interface; and 100 (3) Facilities will not degrade or obstruct scenic views. (i) Utilities: Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historic, archaeological or cultural sites to the maximum extent feasible, and mitigate unavoidable impacts to result in no net loss of ecological processes and functions. (j) Utility Design Criteria: Utilities, where permitted, shall meet the following design criteria: (1) Facilities should occupy as little of the shoreline as feasible. Utility installation parallel to the shoreline should be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Utilities shall cross the shoreline area by the shortest most direct route, unless such route would cause substantial environmental damage. (2) Utilities shall be located and designed to fit the existing topography as much as possible, thus minimizing alterations to the natural environment. (3) Facilities shall be located and designed to minimize obstruction of scenic views. (4) Utility crossings of water bodies shall be attached to bridges or located in other existing facilities, if feasible. If new installations are required to cross water bodies or wetlands, they should avoid disturbing banks and streambeds and shall be designed to avoid the need for shoreline stabilization. Crossings shall be tunneled or bored where feasible. Installations shall be deep enough to avoid failures or need for protection due to exposure due to stream bed mobilization, aggregation or lateral migration. Underwater utilities shall be placed in a sleeve if feasible to avoid the need for excavation in the event of the need for maintenance or replacement. (k) Architectural Compatibility: Facilities involving buildings, such as pump stations, electrical substation, or other facilities, shall be architecturally compatible and landscaped to assure compatibility with natural features, public access facilities, and adjacent uses. (1) Construction Practices: Construction shall be designed to protect the shoreline against erosion, uncontrolled or polluting drainage and other factors detrimental to the environment, both during and after construction. (m)Easements: Access easements to utility installations shall be no wider than needed to construct, maintain, or repair the utility. (n) Public Access: Utility development shall provide for compatible, multiple use of sites and rights -of -way through coordination with local government agencies. Such uses include shoreline access points, trail systems, and other forms of recreation and transportation, providing that public access will not unduly interfere with utility operations, endangers public health and safety, or create a significant and disproportionate liability for the owner. (o) Maintenance Projects: Upon completion of installation of projects on shorelines, disturbed non - impervious areas shall be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted with native species, and provided maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established. A landscape restoration plan is required. 101 (p) Storm Drainage /Sewer Outfalls: Storm drainage and sewer outfalls shall be located beyond the extreme low tide line. (q) Applications: All applications for installation of utility facilities shall include the following information prepared by a qualified professional: (1) Reason why facility must be located in a shoreline area; (2) Alternative locations considered, including the feasibility of location within existing utility right -of -way, and reasons for their rejection; (3) Location of other facilities near the proposed project and if the location is to include other types of facilities; (4) Proposed method of construction and plans to control erosion and turbidity during construction; (5) Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed during construction; (6) Any other information deemed necessary. 102 Chapter 9 — Shoreline Modifications 9.010 — Intent 9.020 — Clearing and Grading 9.030 — Docks, Piers, and In -Water structures 9.040 — Dredging 9.050 — Flood Hazard Reduction 9.060 — Landfills 9.070 — Restoration 9.080 — Shoreline Stabilization 9.090 — Stormwater Control Facilities 9.010 Intent: These policies and regulations relate to land use proposals that are typically accessory and in support of primary land uses. Shoreline modifications should ensure no net loss of ecological functions and should be as natural as feasible. 9.020 Clearing and Grading: Clearing and grading are permitted as an element of development or re- development for an authorized activity or as otherwise allowed in this Title. Policies: (a) Disturbance to and removal of native soils should be minimized within shorelines. (b) Uses and site design should incorporate protection or reestablishment of the maximum amount of native vegetation on a particular site. (c) Vegetation that is removed as part of a permitted use should be reestablished within a required buffer. Regulations: (a) Clearing, grading, and shoreline native vegetation protection and removal shall comply with the standards in the general policies section (Chapter 7). (b) Disturbance to soils shall adhere to the following standards: (1) Land clearing, filling, and grading activities that are associated with a permitted use that shall be allowed only between May I and October I unless the City extends or shortens the time window on a case -by -case basis based on actual weather conditions as applied in BMC 20.14.700, which requires erosion control and a qualified professionals report. (2) Filling or grading including excavation within or modification to a critical area is permitted only as part of an approved activity subject to the applicable requirements within this Title. (3) The soil duff layer (the matted, partly decomposed organic surface layer of forest soils) shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project site. 103 (4) The moisture holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or reestablishing natural soil structure and infiltration capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces. (5) Erosion control shall comply with the requirements in BMC 15.04. 9.030 Docks, Piers, and Other In -Water Structures: In -water (marine and freshwater) structures include but are not limited to jetties, pilings, fish ladders, mooring buoys, docks, piers, breakwaters, groins, marine railways, weirs, baffles, and similar structures . Policies: (a) In -water structures should be designed to minimize impacts to ecological functions of the water body including, but not limited to water quality, anadromous and forage fish habitat, spawning and rearing areas, migration, and passage. (b) In -water structures should not adversely affect hydrologic function including light penetration within the photic zone, sediment transport, and current and water circulation patterns. (c) The location and planning of in -water structures should give due consideration to the full range of public interests and environmental concerns. (d) Analysis of cumulative impacts of in -water structures should be conducted such that the connectivity between habitats for migrating salmonids is maintained and restored where feasible. Regulations: (a) Ecological Function: (1) New in -water structures shall be designed and constructed such that the result is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. New in -water structures shall not adversely affect hydrologic function, ability for light to penetrate within the photic zone, sediment transport and water - circulation patterns. (2) Piers and docks, including those accessory to single - family residences, shall be designed and constructed to avoid, or if that is not possible, to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions, critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as currents and littoral drift. (3) Creosote, arsenic and pentachlorophenol treated materials used for in -water structures shall be prohibited. (b) Light Penetration: All piers and docks must achieve light penetration by grating or other means unless it would pose a public safety or environmental risk, as follows: (1) Grating must be provided over at least (40 %) forty percent of the pier or float area and must be provided over at least 60 percent of the structure(s) within 30 feet of the OHWM. Areas blocked by objects underneath, such as floatation devices shall not be counted toward the 40% forty percent total. 104 (2) Grating must have at least 60 percent open area. The grating must be oriented to maximize the amount of light passage. This can be accomplished by orienting the lengthwise direction of the grate openings in the east -west direction. (3) To ensure that light transmission is not impeded, grating must not be covered or blocked (on the surface or underneath) with any objects, such as, but not limited to buildings, planters, storage sheds or boxes, nets, carpets, boards, tables, lawn furniture, traction devices or other items that will block sunlight. (c) Navigation: (1) In -water structures shall not impair or obstruct existing navigation channels or the public's use of surface water or shoreline areas as required by the Coast Guard. (2) Piers, docks and moorage shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay, as depicted in Chapter 4, Section 420 map M. In addition, to protect sensitive aquatic environment, docks and piers are prohibited within the Aquatic Conservancy designation (mooring buoys are not prohibited). (3) Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. When State harbor lines have been designated, piers and docks shall be located shoreward of the outer harbor line. (d) Use Priority: New in water structures shall be allowed only for water - dependent uses, and public access. Water - related and water - enjoyment uses may be allowed as part of mixed -use development on over -water structures where they are clearly auxiliary to and in support of water - dependent uses, provided the minimum size requirement needed to meet the water - dependent use is not violated. (e) Joint Use: Joint -use facilities are preferred over new single use piers, docks and floats. Easements ensuring adequate access for all users of the joint -use facility shall be required and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor. In order to develop new moorage, an applicant must demonstrate that existing facilities (public and private marinas or shared moorage) are not reasonably available to meet demand. In cases where new moorage is approved, multiple use and /or expansion of existing piers, wharfs and docks may be required (in lieu of the proliferation of new facilities) in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources and cumulative impacts on ecological resources. (f) Subdivisions: New subdivisions with shoreline frontage shall provide community or shared docks if any docks are proposed. New subdivisions shall contain a restriction on the face of the plat prohibiting individual docks. A site for community or shared moorage shall be designated on the plat and owned in undivided interest by property owners within the subdivision. Shared moorage facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision for community access and may be required to provide public access depending on the scale of the facility. Approval shall be subject to the following criteria: 105 (1) The applicant shall demonstrate that there is no reasonably available public or private moorage that can serve the moorage needs of the subdivision. (2) Shared moorage to serve new development shall be limited to the amount of moorage needed to serve lots with water frontage. One moorage space per lot may not be presumed. (3) Development of more than one dock shall include documentation that a single dock would not accommodate the need or that adverse impacts on ecological functions would result from the size of dock required. (4) The size of a dock must consider the use of mooring buoys for some or all moorage needs and the use of all or part of the dock to allow tender access to mooring buoys. (5) Public access shall be provided in association with all shared docks utilizing public aquatic lands that accommodate five (5) or more vessels. (6) If a community or shared dock is not developed at the time of subdivision, a community association shall be established with the authority to levy assessments within the subdivision to construct and maintain a community dock in the future. The failure of a subdivision to develop a community or shared dock shall not affect the prohibition on individual docks. (g) Commercial & Industrial Docks: Permits for docks or piers serving single commercial or industrial enterprises shall not be granted unless it is demonstrated that the facility serves a water - dependent use and adjacent commercial and /or industrial enterprises are not willing to cooperatively develop a joint -use facility. (1) Non - Residential Piers and Docks shall be the minimum size feasible to serve the proposed water - dependent use. (h) Multi- Family & Commercial Moorage: Multi- family residences, hotels, motels, and other commercial developments proposing to provide moorage facilities shall meet the criteria for a marina. Use of the moorage must be open to the general public on the same basis as residents or occupants and shall provide public access. If approved, no more than one joint -use moorage facility may be provided. (i) Single Family Docks: No more than one (1) private noncommercial single -use dock is permitted per platted shoreline lot or un- platted shoreline tract on a residentially designated area (this does not apply to subdivisions approved on or after the adoption date of this code; for such subdivisions see subsection f, above). The dock must be designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft. An applicant shall demonstrate that: (1) A mooring buoy is not feasible to provide moorage. A mooring buoy may be approved in conjunction with an individual or shared tender dock to provide small boat access to the buoy. (2) There is no shared moorage available, and there is no homeowners association or other corporate entity capable of developing shared moorage. (j) Single Family Dock Size Limitations: Residential piers and /or docks shall be limited to the minimum necessary to meet the need for moorage and are limited to the following sizes: 106 (1) Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of ten (10) feet of water as measured at Mean Lower Low Water Line (MLLW) in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water (OHWM) in fresh water shorelines. Any dock proposed to be sixty (60) feet in length or greater must demonstrate that a mooring buoy in conjunction with a shorter tender dock to provide small boat access to the buoy is not feasible. (2) Width: (i) The Landing area, particularly over shallower areas, should be built in the north -south direction, if at all possible to avoid shading effects that would occur with east -west orientation. (ii) The float shall have a maximum width of eight (8) feet. Single Use floats shall be no longer than thirty (30) feet. Joint Use floats shall be no longer than sixty (60) feet. (iii) Pier or walkway maximum width: Four (4) feet; (k) Community Piers and Docks Size Limitations: (1) Maximum Width and Length: To be determined by the City on a case -by -case basis based on the minimum dimensions feasible. (2) Density: No more than one (1) forty foot (40') moorage space per dwelling unit or lot with direct shoreline frontage. (1) Side Yard Setbacks: Docks shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from side property lines. Exception: Community piers and docks may be located adjacent to or upon a side property line when mutually agreed to by contract /covenant with the owners of the adjacent property, a copy of which must be recorded with the County Auditor and filed with the application for permit. (m)Floats & Buoys: Recreation floats and mooring buoys shall be located no further seaward than existing floats and mooring buoys or no further seaward than necessary to achieve minimum feasible depths and shall be readily discernible under normal conditions to the unaided eye at a minimum distance of 100 yards. The size and design must comply with the following: (1) Floats must be built so that the deck surface is no more than two (2) feet above the water's surface and must have reflectors for nighttime visibility. (2) Single property owner recreational floats shall be no larger than sixty -four (64) square feet. (3) Joint -use floats shall be no larger than ninety -six (96) square feet. (n) Marine Rails: Boat launching ramps and marine railways shall be designed as to not obstruct longshore drift. Residential launch ramps or marine railways are prohibited. 9.040 Dredging: Dredging is the removal of material from a water body. The purposes for dredging might include navigation, remediation of contaminated materials, or material mining. Materials 107 generated from navigational and remedial dredging may be suitable for beneficial reuse (e.g., construction of habitat features or construction of uplands) or may require disposal at appropriate disposal facilities. Policies: (a) Dredging should be allowed only to accommodate existing navigational uses, remediation of contaminated materials, or approved water - dependent uses and then only when ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided. (b) Deposition of dredge spoils waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark should be allowed only when necessary to support allowed water dependent use, public access, beach restoration or Model Toxics Control act or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and other water dependent uses that are consistent with this master program or consistent with locations approved by the State Departments of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife where the alternatives of depositing materials on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing it in water areas. (c) Dredging within aquatic areas for the primary purpose of acquisition of fill material should not be allowed. (d) Where dredging occurs within marine waters the result should be suitable for establishment of a variety of aquatic organisms including, where appropriate, salmonids and forage fish. Regulations: (a) Dredging and dredge material disposal shall be done in a manner which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. When impacts cannot be avoided they should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. (c) Dredging for the purpose of establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins shall be allowed where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses, and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be permitted only to the limits originally allowed. (d) Dredging waterward of the ordinary high -water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall be prohibited, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. In this case the project must be either associated with a Model Toxics Control Act or a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act remediation project, or a habitat restoration project approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (e) Dredging spoils shall be deposited upland if feasible, and measures taken to prevent erosion of the deposited material. If the deposit area is on the shoreline, a vegetation IS inventory and restoration shall be required, consistent with the vegetation conservation and critical areas regulations of the Master Program. (f) Spoil deposit sites in water areas shall be identified with the cooperation of the State Departments of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and Suquamish Tribe. Depositing of dredge materials in water areas shall be allowed only for habitat improvement, to correct existing problems of material distribution adversely affecting fish and shellfish resources, or where the alternatives of depositing materials on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing it in water areas. (g) Disposal of dredge material on shorelands or wetlands within a river's channel migration zone shall be discouraged. In the limited instances where it is allowed, such disposal shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (h) All applications for dredging shall provide the following information prepared by a qualified professional and any other information deemed necessary: (1) An analysis of material to be dredged; (2) Time of dredging; (3) Method of dredging and disposal; (4) Location and stability of bedlands adjacent to proposed dredging area; (5) Ecological processes and functions affected by the proposed dredging; (6) Location, size, capacity, physical and ecologic characteristics of spoils disposal area. 9.050 Flood Hazard Reduction: Policies: (a) The City should recognize that seasonal flooding is an essential natural process and minimize alteration of such processes where feasible. (b) Flood hazard reduction measures should not result in a net loss of ecological functions associated with the rivers and streams. (c) Flood hazard reduction measures should be consistent with comprehensive strategies that recognize the natural hydro - geological and biological processes of water - bodies and should seek to restore ecological functions within frequently flooded areas. (d) Development in frequently flooded areas should be prevented or existing development removed when feasible and to maintain or restore a stream system's natural hydrological and geo- morphological processes. (e) Bioengineered flood hazard reduction techniques are preferred and should be examined and implemented where feasible rather than structural measures. Regulations: (a) Flood control works shall be permitted only when it is demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluation by qualified professionals that: 109 (1) They are necessary to protect health /safety and /or existing development; (2) Non - structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and (3) Measures are consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed or coastal reach. (b) New or expanding development or uses in the shoreline, including subdivision of land that would likely require new structural flood control works within a stream, channel migration zone, or floodway, should not be allowed. (c) New or expanded flood control works and in- stream structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with appropriate multiple uses of stream resources over the long term, especially in shorelines of statewide significance. (d) Flood control works should incorporate native vegetation to the extent feasible to enhance ecological functions, create a more natural appearance, improve ecological functions, and provide more flexibility for long term shoreline management. (e) To minimize flood damages and to maintain natural resources associated with streams, overflow corridors and other alternatives to traditional bank levees, revetments and /or dams should be considered. Setback levees and similar measures should be employed where they will result in lower flood peaks and velocities, and more effective conservation of ecological resources than with bank levees. (f) Non - structural and non - regulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline resources should be encouraged as an alternative to structural flood control works. Non - regulatory and non - structural methods may include public facility and resource planning, land or easement acquisition, education, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, or incentive programs. Removal of materials from the creek, stream, or river channel for flood management purposes may be allowed only as part of an adopted integrated flood control management program that demonstrates that other flood hazard reduction strategies would not be effective in the absence of gravel removal. (g) Flood management diking shall be located landward of the floodway base (100 -year frequency) flood, and landward any wetlands associated or directly interrelated and interdependent with the water body. (h) Linear public access shall be provided whenever possible as outlined in the public access requirements in Chapter 7, section 40, unless it is demonstrated that public access would cause unavoidable public health and safety hazards, or security problems, or unmitigatable ecological impacts, or unavoidable conflicts with proposed uses, or unreasonable cost. Improved trail systems are preferred. At a minimum, flood control works should not decrease existing or potential public access to shorelines. 9.060 Landfill: Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the placement or deposition of sand, soil, gravel or contaminated sediments into a water body. 110 Policies: (a) Landfills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support, public access, beach restoration, or MTCA / CERCLA restoration projects and other water dependent uses that are consistent with this master program. (b) Landfills should be limited in the shoreline and should be the minimum necessary. Regulations: (a) Landfills within shorelines shall be permitted only through a Conditional Use Permit and shall be allowed only when necessary to support: (1) Water- dependent use, or; (2) Public access, or; (3) Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean -up plan, or; (4) Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with the dredged material management program of the Department of Natural Resources, or; (5) Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline, and then only upon a demonstration that alternatives to fill are not feasible, or; (6) Mitigation action, approved environmental restoration, beach nourishment, or an approved enhancement project. (a) Shoreline fills or cuts shall be designed and located so that there will be no significant change to natural shoreline topography or damage to existing ecological systems or natural resources, and no alteration of local currents which would result in a hazard to adjacent life, property, or natural resources systems. (b) Landfills shall include restoration and /or enhancement of ecological functions within the shoreline consistent with the restoration objectives within the Restoration Plan and shall provide public access where feasible. (c) Applications which include landfills shall include the following information prepared by a qualified professional: (1) Physical, chemical and biological character of landfill material; (2) Proposed use of fill area; (3) Source of landfill material; (4) Method of placement and compaction; (5) Type of proposed surfacing or vegetation cover; (6) Method of perimeter erosion control; and (7) Any other information deemed necessary. 111 9.070 Restoration and Conservation: Restoration is the improvement or reestablishment of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to: amending soils, planting native vegetation, removing derelict shoreline structures, removing or treating toxic materials, and restoring the natural configuration of banks within near -shore or riparian areas. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre- European settlement conditions (WAC 173 -26). The citywide objective of restoration is to achieve a net gain in ecological function within the watershed. Policies: (a) The primary objectives of restoration projects should be to protect and restore natural processes controlling environmental factors. (b) The Suquamish Tribe, Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate resource agencies should be included at the beginning of the design and development stages of a restoration project or plan. (c) The goals of the Restoration Plan should be considered for all restoration and conservation projects. (d) Restoration and conservation may take place as a stand -alone project or as a required element of a larger development proposal. In either case the following should be achieved, as feasible: (1) Non - native vegetative species should be controlled and native vegetation established (soil amendments, including mulching, may be required to support native vegetation); (2) Installation of native vegetation should be an appropriate mix of deciduous, conifer, under -story and groundcover species that are capable of achieving substantial water body shading, provide food sources for a variety of species, enhance and connect to habitat corridors and slow movement of groundwater and sheet -flow towards the water body; (3) Introduction of large woody debris to the water body should not adversely impact fish passage or hydrologic function; and (4) Design and implementation of restoration projects that alter the location of the OHWM should not negatively impact abutting or proximate (third party) property owners, compromise the integrity or threaten the loss of existing structures, transportation routes, public access areas or cause significant additional erosion. Regulations: (a) Restoration projects that are within critical areas, or their required buffers are permitted subject to the applicable requirements within this Title. (b) Restoration projects that achieve the objectives within the Restoration Plan shall have priority over other restoration projects. 112 (c) Restoration projects that include structural modification or stabilization shall first consider preferred techniques as specified in Chapter 9, Section 080 Shoreline Stabilization. (d) Restoration projects shall be designed and implemented such that there are no adverse impacts on ecological resources or functions. (e) Restoration projects shall include a maintenance and monitoring plan and financial surety as outlined in Chapter 7, section 030 (vegetation plan) that includes a guarantee and /or contingency plan when said project does not achieve its intended obj ective. (f) Restoration projects shall take into consideration existing and lawfully erected structures and developments such that their safety is not compromised. (g) Restoration projects shall not conflict with existing utilities, roadways and public access points unless those functions can be relocated such that the public benefit remains the same or is improved. 9.080 Shore Stabilization: Shoreline stabilization measures are those mechanisms used to prevent erosion and deterioration of shoreline areas as a result of waves, wind, tidal action, or flooding. Shoreline stabilization measures can include a wide range of works varying from hard armoring to vegetation conservation and anchoring of trees. Policies: (a) New development should be managed and designed to eliminate the need for shoreline modification or stabilization. (b) Replacement of rigid structurally engineered stabilization measures with the same new measures should not occur unless it is associated with a water - dependent use or there is a demonstrated need based on potential loss of a legally permitted primary structure or there is a threat to the viability of an existing water - dependent use. (c) Whenever feasible, bioengineered and soft -shore shoreline modifications and stabilization should be explored and implemented before reverting to structurally engineered techniques. Regulations: (a) Hierarchy of Alternatives: Alternatives for shoreline stabilization shall be based on the following hierarchy of preference: (1) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks, and relocate structures. (2) Provide flexible stabilization constructed of natural materials incorporating measures such as soft shore protection and bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization. (3) Provide flexible stabilization, as described above, with rigid works, as described below, constructed as a protective measure. 113 (4) Construct rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete. (b) Stabilization Necessity: New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed for existing developments except when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner: (1) To protect existing primary structures: New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a qualified professional, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific and geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. Site analysis, at a minimum, must include the following to demonstrate the need of a structural solution: (i) On -site drainage issues. The report(s) must clearly evaluate and resolve existing drainage problems before considering structural shore stabilization. (ii) The report(s) must clearly evaluate supplementary beach nourishment and /or soft -shore measures and such measures must be shown to be impractical or non - effective, as demonstrated through a geotechnical report. (iii) The report(s) must clearly establish that the stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (iv) The report(s) must clearly establish the lack of structural integrity of the existing structure due to ongoing wave action. (2) To protect a new water - dependent development, or new single - family residences, when all of the conditions below apply and are documented by a qualified professional: (i) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. (ii) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (iii) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes such as currents, and waves. (iv) Supplementary beach nourishment must be shown to be impractical or non- effective, as demonstrated through a geotechnical report. (v) To protect an existing non - water - dependent development, when all of the conditions below apply and are documented by a qualified professional: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions such as the loss of vegetation and drainage; (vi) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible; 114 (vii) Stabilization structures are needed to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion; (viii) Supplementary beach nourishment is shown to be impractical and ineffective; (ix) The affected structure cannot be feasibly located or relocated outside of the area affected by natural shoreline erosion processes; (x) The stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (3) To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW. All of the conditions below apply and are documented by a qualified professional: (i) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on -site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (ii) The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (c) Creeks and Streams: Creeks and streams shall be maintained in their natural state, free of shoreline modification, where they are not now influenced by urban growth and channelization. Where natural processes and functions have been substantially altered, shoreline stabilization shall avoid substantial channel direction modifications, realignment and straightening as a consequence of shore stabilization and flood management. (d) Bulkhead/Seawall Location: (1) On all shorelines, bulkheads /seawalls shall be located landward of the OHWM, landward of existing protective berms (artificial or natural), and shall be located generally parallel to the natural shoreline. (2) On Marine Accretion Beaches, bulkheads /seawalls shall be set back a minimum of twenty -five (25) feet landward of the OHWM, and shall parallel the natural shoreline; except on sloping or bluff /cliff shores where said setback is not feasible, in which case bulkheads shall be placed as far landward of the OHWM as is feasible. In no case shall the bulkhead be waterward of the OHWM. (3) On driftways and lake shores that are subject to erosion bulkheads /seawalls shall be located within one (1) foot of the bank toe and shall generally parallel the natural shoreline. (4) On bluff or bank shorelines with no adjacent bulkheads /seawalls the bulkheads /seawalls shall be as close to the bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than three (3) feet from the toe of the natural bank. (5) A bulkhead /seawall for a permitted landfill shall be located at the toe of the fill. (6) Replacement bulkheads /seawalls shall be located no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings 115 (e) Design: new and replacement bulkheads /seawalls shall comply with the following design and construction criteria: (1) Bulkheads /seawalls shall be sited and designed consistent with appropriate engineering principles. Professional geologic site studies or design may be required for any proposed bulkhead if the City determines sufficient uncertainties exist. Grounds for such determination shall be inadequate information or expertise on local physical features; and /or the evidence of potential damage to other shoreline properties and features. (2) Bulkheads /seawalls shall be the minimum dimensions necessary to adequately protect the development. (3) Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a bulkhead, but shall not extend waterward of it. (4) Bulkheads /seawalls shall be designed to permit the passage of surface or ground water without causing ponding or saturation of retained soil /materials. (5) Adequate toe protection (i.e. proper footings and a fine retention mesh, etc.) shall be provided to ensure bulkhead stability without relying on additional riprap. (6) Sheet piling and precast concrete slabs with vertical waterward faces shall include adequate tiebacks and toe protection. (7) Bulkheads /seawalls shall utilize stable, non - erodible, homogeneous materials (e.g. concrete, wood, rock riprap or other suitable materials) which will accomplish the desired end with the maximum preservation of natural shoreline characteristics. (8) Beach materials shall not be used for fill behind bulkheads /seawalls except clean dredge spoil from a permitted off site dredge and fill operation. (9) Bulkheads /seawalls may tie in flush with existing bulkheads /seawalls on adjoining properties to ensure there is no gap between the two except when: (i) An adjoining bulkhead /seawall extends waterward of the OHWM or the toe of the bank or permitted landfill; in which the location requirements of Regulation of Subsection D criteria 1,2, and 3 above shall apply. (ii) If there is an existing bulkhead /seawall on only one of the adjacent properties, the proposed bulkhead /seawall may tie in flush with the adjacent bulkhead /seawall at or landward of the OHWM in order to minimize the land area waterward of the required setback. The required setback, however, shall be met on the side not abutting an existing bulkhead /seawall. (f) Beach Enhancement: Beach enhancement/restoration should be employed on upland, tidal and /or submerged shorelines to restore, enhance or create recreational beaches, aquatic habitat, and /or to control erosion where geotechnical analysis confirms that it is practical and effective and specifically in cases where: (1) Beach restoration/enhancement will accomplish the following objectives: (i) Recreate or enhance natural shore conditions; (ii) Create or enhance natural habitat; 116 (iii) Reverse otherwise erosional conditions; and (iv) Enhance access to the shore, especially to public shores. (2) Beach enhancement is prohibited where: (i) Littoral drift of the enhancement materials will adversely affect adjacent spawning grounds or other areas of biological significance; or (ii) It will interfere with the normal public use of the navigable waters of the state. (3) Beach enhancement projects shall be designed so that the project avoids: (i) Detrimental interruption of littoral drift, or redirection of waves, current or sediments to other shorelines that may adversely affect adjacent properties or habitat; (ii) Any exposed groin -like structures; EXCEPT: Small drift cell or littoral cell groins may be used as a means of stabilizing restored sediment where part of a federally and /or state approved beach enhancement program; (iii) Extending waterward more than the minimum amount necessary to achieve the desired stabilization; (iv) Creating contours sufficiently steep to impede easy pedestrian passage, or trap drifting sediments (a 5:1 slope is generally recommended; a 4:1 slope is a minimum); (v) Creation of "additional dry land mass "; and (vi) Disturbance to significant amounts of valuable shallow water fish /wildlife habitat, unless such habitat is immediately replaced by new habitat that is comparable or better. (4) The size and /or mix of new materials to be added to a beach shall be adjusted to the local wave climate for maximum percolation and stability (generally similar to that of the natural beach sediment, but large enough to resist normal current, wake or wave action at the site). (5) The restored beach shall approximate the natural beach width, height, bulk or profile. Exceedance of these features shall be limited, and shall not create substantial additional dry land mass. (g) Breakwaters: Breakwaters shall be permitted only by Conditional Use Permit for navigational purposes, industrial activities and marinas and shall be approved only as integral components of a harbor, marina or port, where water - dependent uses are located seaward of the existing shoreline or shore protection from strong wave action is essential. The location of a breakwater shall not render the remaining open water surface unusable by the public. Open -pile or floating breakwaters shall be the only type allowed unless it can be shown that solid breakwaters will have no adverse effect on the aquatic biology and shore processes. (h) Jetties, Weirs & Groins: Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groins are allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit only for navigational purposes, industrial 117 activity, marinas, erosion control, fisheries or habitat enhancement, and public beach management and shall be approved only as integral components of an overall resource management plan. (1) The effect of proposed breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs, and groins on sand movement shall be evaluated during permit review. The beneficiaries and /or owners of large scale shore modification works which substantially alter, reduce or block littoral drift and cause new erosion of downdrift shores shall be required to establish and maintain an adequate long term beach feeding program as follows: (i) Breakwaters, Rock Weirs and Groins shall incorporate artificial beach feeding. (ii) Jetties shall artificially transport sand to the downdrift side of the structure. (i) Vegetation Management: (1) All disturbed shore areas shall be restored or enhanced to provide the maximum benefits of non - structural measures, even if structural measures are approved and shall use native plant materials with a similar diversity and structure as the native climax community. (2) Vegetation shall be planted and maintained on shore modification structures in a manner that will reduce the visual impact of such structures. (j) Maintenance: Maintenance of shore modification activities shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. (k) Liability: liability for any impact to neighboring properties caused by shore modification activities is the sole responsibility of the property owner providing such shore modification. (1) State & Federal Code Compliance: Construction and operation of shore modification works shall demonstrate approval of and compliance with all applicable federal and state permits. (m)Application Requirements: Proposals for shore modification shall include the following information, or as otherwise determined by the Director: (1) Purpose of Project (2) Description of Proposal: • Location of project; • Construction materials (e.g. materials used, dimensions of, design); • Method of construction (e.g. source of backfill, erosion controls); • Characteristics of the Site: • Toe and crest of uplands; • Existing buildings; • Existing shore stabilization and flood protection devices; • Ordinary, low, and high water elevations; • Net direction of littoral drift changes and tidal currents (if any); • General direction and speed of prevailing winds; 118 • Beach type, slope and material; • Uplands type, slope and material; • Soil types (Soil Conservation Service); • Physical or geologic stability of uplands; • Profile of beach and uplands; (3) Extent of Impact Area: • Marine shores: Within drift sector; • Lakes and streams: Three hundred feet (300') on each side of proposed proj ect; (4) Existing characteristics: • Physical, geological and /or soil characteristics; • Existing shore stabilization and flood management devices; • Presence of fish /wildlife vital to the aquatic food chain, or their habitat; (5) Analysis shall include: • Potential impact upon area shoreline processes and functions, hydraulic processes, upland stability, natural habitat, adjacent properties, shoreline and water uses, and public access; and • Alternative measures (including non - structural measures) which will achieve the same purpose. Design alternatives shall include the best available technology, including, but not limited to beach enhancement where appropriate. (n) Professional Design: The City shall require professional design of the proposed project if it is determined there are sufficient uncertainties such as: (1) Inadequate data on local geophysical conditions; (2) Inadequate data on stream flow, velocity, and /or flood capacity; and /or (3) Effects on adjacent properties. 9.090 Stormwater Management Facilities: Stormwater management (detention and treatment) facilities are necessary elements of development. If designed correctly and managed properly they can produce multiple benefits within the shoreline jurisdiction. Policies: (a) Stormwater facilities should not be located in areas where there would be an adverse impact to existing shoreline ecological functions. (b) Stormwater management facilities should be designed to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques. (c) All Shoreline Designations must comply with these requirements including the shoreline isolated locations. 119 Regulations: (a) Stormwater management facilities shall be located outside of critical areas and their required buffers, except as specified in Chapter 7, section 010. (b) Stormwater management facilities shall provide a minimum of enhanced treatment as defined by the latest version of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington and must comply with BMC 20.15 (stormwater). (c) New stormwater conveyance facilities (outfalls) shall not be constructed within required shoreline or critical area buffers, unless no other feasible alternative exists. 120 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan Prepared for City of Bremerton Community Development 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 -1873 This report was funded in part through a grant from The Washington State Department of Ecology. i m I10 ECGL0GV Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004 -5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 (02/2.2) CITATION City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. February 2012. City Council Approval October 2012 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... ............................1 -1 1 .1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................... ............................ -1 1.2 SMP RESTORATION PLAN GOALS ........................................ ............................1 -1 1.3 ROLE OF RESTORATION IN THE SMP UPDATE .................. ............................1 -2 1.4 ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION ............................................... ............................ -3 1.5 RESTORATION AND NO NET LOSS ....................................... ............................1 -4 2 . BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ............................2 -1 2 .1 PLANNING AREA ....................................................................... ............................ -1 2.2 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS ................................. ............................2 -4 3. IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AND PROGRAMS WITH RESTORATION POTENTIAL ........................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 MARINE PROJECT REFERENCES ........................................... ............................3 -2 3.2 FRESHWATER PROJECT REFERENCES ................................ ............................3 -2 3.3 IDENTIFIED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS .........................3 -3 3.4 PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION ACTIONS .................... ............................... 3 -5 4. EXISTING PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES ............ ............................4 -1 4.1 GOVERNMENT AND NON - GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS.............................................................................. ............................ -1 4.2 CITY OF BREMERTON PROGRAMS ....................................... ............................4 -4 5. RESTORATION PRIORITIES ................................................ ............................5 -1 5.1 RESTORATION STRATEGY ..................................................... ............................ -1 5.2 RESTORATION STRATEGY BY WATER BODY ................... ............................5 -1 5.2.1 Dyes Inlet ............................................................................ ............................ -1 5.2.2 Port Washington Narrows ................................................... ............................ -6 5.2.3 Sinclair Inlet ....................................................................... ........................... -10 5.2.4 Port Orchard Bay ................................................................ ........................... -12 5.2.5 Kitsap Lake ......................................................................... ........................... -13 5.2.6 Union River and Union River Reservoir ........................ ............................... 5 -14 5.2.7 Twin Lakes ......................................................................... ........................... -14 5.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND REVIEW .....................5 -15 5.4 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING ...................................... ...........................5 -15 5 .5 SMP REVIEW ............................................................................. ...........................5 -15 6 . REFERENCES ....................................................................... ............................6 -1 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 iii Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF FIGURES 1 -1 Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update ....................... ............................1 -3 2 -1 Puget Sound Context of Bremerton Shorelines .......................... ............................2 -1 2 -2 Study Area for the Ecosystem Characterization of Bremerton Shorelines .............2 -2 3 -1 Rating of Priority Areas for Process -based Protection and Restoration .................3 -1 LIST OF TABLES 2 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area ............................... ............................2 -2 3 -1 Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Projects .................................... ............................3 -3 3 -2 Freshwater Shoreline/Watershed Projects .................................. ............................3 -4 4 -1 Existing Governmental Restoration Programs ........................... ............................4 -1 4 -2 Private and Non - Governmental Organization Restoration Programs ....................4 -3 4 -3 Potential Funding Sources .......................................................... ............................ -4 iv February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ALEA Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account BMC Bremerton Municipal Code BMP best management practice cfs cubic feet per second City City of Bremerton Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ESRP Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program HWS Habitat Work Schedule LID low impact development LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund LWD large woody debris NNL no net loss PAA Potential Annexation Area PHS Priority Habitats and Species PIC Pollution Identification and Correction Plan Shoreline Restoration Plan PSNERP Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project PSRF Puget Sound Restoration Fund RCW Revised Code of Washington SMA Shoreline Management Act SNIP Shoreline Master Program SR State Route SSWM Surface and Stormwater Management UGA Urban Growth Area WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 v Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Bremerton (City) is conducting a comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update with the assistance of a grant administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Shoreline Management Act [SMA] Grant No. G 1000007). Cities and counties are required to update their SMPs to be consistent with the state SMA, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58 and its implementing guidelines, and the shoreline management guidelines under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -26. Washington's SMA was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a referendum in 1972. The SMA was created in response to growing concerns about the effects of unplanned and unregulated development on the state's shoreline resources. The overall goal of the SMA is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." The SMP Shoreline Restoration Plan (Plan) is intended to be coordinated with other existing plans in the area. This Plan evaluates additional potential projects based on opportunities identified in the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 20 10) and coordinated with SMP policies and regulations. 1.2 SMP RESTORATION PLAN GOALS The goals of this Plan are: • Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 to implement the Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy. • Use the scientific foundation and the identification of opportunities and constraints in the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, together with other watershed, fish, and flood control plans, as resources to identify restoration strategies and projects. • Use the comprehensive list of projects and other actions consistent with the Salmon Habitat Protection and other programs as sources of potential site - specific projects. • Coordinate land use decisions, particularly mitigation required of development projects, with the comprehensive list of project actions for coordinated implementation of the most effective restoration strategy. • Encourage voluntary restoration by homeowners and other shoreline property owners, in addition to agency - funded and project - related actions, as well as resource - friendly daily actions such as vegetation selection and management, pesticide/herbicide use, car washing, and other activities. • Provide for management of City -owned parks and other facilities to provide for ecological restoration, along with recreation, flood control, and other goals. • Seek funding for restoration actions and programs from a variety of sources and by working with other WRIA 15 stakeholders to obtain federal, state, grant, and other funding opportunities. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -1 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 1.3 ROLE OF RESTORATION IN THE SMP UPDATE The City of Bremerton's SMP applies to activities and uses within its area of SMA jurisdiction. Activities that produce adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions must have associated mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. By law, development within the area of SMA jurisdiction is not required to improve the affected shoreline beyond the baseline condition at the time the activity takes place. How then can shoreline ecological functions be improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is marginally, or even severely, degraded? The provisions of WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f) address restoration as follows: Master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded non - regulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non - regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards. Degraded shorelines are not exclusively a result of pre -SMP activities, but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new shoreline guidelines also require that, "Local master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline" (WAC 173 - 26-186(8)(b)(ii)). While some actions within shoreline jurisdictions are exempt from a permit, the SMP should require that such developments must still comply with the SMA or the local master program. Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities taking place outside of a specific local master program's jurisdiction (e.g., shoreline areas upstream of the city and otherwise outside of city limits), assembly of interlocal agreements, forums, programs, and policies can be essential for understanding how the city fits into the larger watershed framework. Watershed -wide goals and objectives are critical for the improvement of highly interconnected regional environments. Based on the shoreline management guidelines, this Plan summarizes existing or baseline shoreline conditions, lists restoration objectives both regionally and locally, evaluates ongoing programs and restoration projects, provides potential restoration opportunities within the city of Bremerton, and sets standards and goals for implementation and monitoring. This Plan is also intended to support grant funding of restoration projects by the City and /or non- governmental organizations. Additionally, it can provide resources for public and /or non- governmental organizations interested in engaging in restoration activities with the City. Regulatory programs and non - regulatory programs, such as voluntary restoration activities, contribute to environmental protection. However, regulatory programs are designed simply to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Restoration activities undertaken by the public, private, and non - profit organizations are expected to be the primary sources of improvements to shoreline ecological functions. Many of the restoration opportunities noted in this Plan affect private property. This Plan does not require restoration on private property or to commit privately -owned land for restoration purposes without the willing cooperation and participation of the affected landowners. In addition, private landowners who are required to 1 -2 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton provide mitigation for development - related impacts may wish to implement actions noted in this plan to meet their mitigation obligations on their own land or arrange with others to purchase rights for off -site mitigation. The difference between the role of regulatory and non - regulatory programs in achieving no net loss and restoration of ecological functions is illustrated below in Figure 1 -1. MP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function kil {Ji18r MP Update Mo Nei doss - Cumerrt 8asefine SMP Restoration i On-going degradatl an — From existing dewtlopmW D 4 opporwniltaz "-" Unavoidable Impaers from new + EnvtronrrrentUeslgn* develop me nP Lower . DevelopmentPallcle# Oft -airs mlhgatlnn Shorelina Wokelion■ Source: Washington State Department of Ecology Figure 1 -1. Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update 1.4 ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION WAC 173 -26- 020(27) defines restoration as "the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre - European settlement conditions." These guidelines require that "provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program." These definitions emphasize the repair of past damage to natural resources and habitats, but not necessarily re- creating pristine or historic conditions. In addition, addressing the ecosystem processes and functions —not simply recreating the habitat or structure—is important for successful restoration. Therefore, this Plan emphasizes restoring impaired processes and protecting those that are currently functioning. In general, the restoration effort tends to exceed the requirements of the current regulations by taking steps to improve the existing conditions and resources of the shoreline. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -3 MP Update SMP Restoration i Pl FranvwmA - t o 9chfave Voluntary resraratlon • inventory S opporwniltaz Ch araCte dzall Dt1 + EnvtronrrrentUeslgn* .................. . DevelopmentPallcle# Oft -airs mlhgatlnn Standards opportunities + Recommended Acd 4Hs�rtin�l mrtl{larian outside SMA authority + Gompilaiice Strateyy Avoid and tiingate Impacts + Curnulative Imp ac Analysis • Restor Source: Washington State Department of Ecology Figure 1 -1. Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update 1.4 ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION WAC 173 -26- 020(27) defines restoration as "the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre - European settlement conditions." These guidelines require that "provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program." These definitions emphasize the repair of past damage to natural resources and habitats, but not necessarily re- creating pristine or historic conditions. In addition, addressing the ecosystem processes and functions —not simply recreating the habitat or structure—is important for successful restoration. Therefore, this Plan emphasizes restoring impaired processes and protecting those that are currently functioning. In general, the restoration effort tends to exceed the requirements of the current regulations by taking steps to improve the existing conditions and resources of the shoreline. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -3 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Restoration may be non - regulatory, voluntary, and undertaken by public agencies, environmental stewardship groups, or local governments often in partnership with private landowners. The same actions may also be undertaken as mitigation required as part of a permit to achieve no net loss of ecological functions for new shoreline development. There are a number of potential strategies for restoration (involving protection, preservation, and accompanying mitigation) in the SMP as outlined below. Protection and Preservation is achieved through: • Urban Conservancy- designated shorelines that are provided increased protection for existing ecological processes and functions. Performance standards for mitigation (SMP 20.16.730) that provide for protection and preservation as the first priority in mitigation of any adverse impacts. Restoration and Mitigation is achieved through: • Policies and development standards applied to individual, permitted projects. Mitigation, which is typically a required sequence of actions to offset impacts on ecological functions by taking steps to avoid and minimize project impacts prior to compensating for unavoidable losses. • Compensatory mitigation projects, in which restoration is generally a component. 1.5 RESTORATION AND NO NET LOSS WAC 173 -26- 186(8) directs SMPs to "include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions." No net loss means that, over time, the existing condition of the shoreline ecological functions should remain the same as when the SMP update was adopted. The major component in achieving no net loss is through regulatory compliance. Restoration planning is a separate mandate, which involves improving ecological conditions, and is designed to correct and compensate for past actions that have led to current levels of environmental degradation. Restoration is also needed to compensate for ongoing degradation from existing development or past actions. 1 -4 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 PLANNING AREA The city of Bremerton is located on the western side of Puget Sound, in the central portion of Kitsap County, about 15 miles west of Seattle as indicated in Figure 2 -1. Jurisdictional shorelines in the city lie within Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 15, which encompasses all of Kitsap County and portions of Mason, Pierce, and King counties (Vashon Island). Bremerton is located in the eastern portion of WRIA 15, or the East Kitsap watershed, and most of the area consists of numerous small drainages flowing directly into Puget Sound. The study area for freshwater shorelines includes drainage areas or sub - basins for the major streams and lakes, such as Gorst Creek, Kitsap Lake, and the Union Reservoir (Figure 2 -2). Portions of the study area to the west and southwest of Gorst drain into the Union River and ultimately into Hood Canal. — Magyar kwen IRPU€ ltwedo — 54hW €in Boundary a ld Bremerton SMP Study r '' ! Area Approximate Boundaries Georgia Strait` Y North :Central r - - Pr�ge[Sound x - ' 1 I �hidbey Strait ai _ t Juan de Fuca U S z ._ .. $6llttl '•.. Ce Rt t P e ugt Sau ntl Fli.l } � r .SOUII7 Puget sourta R ortl and Figure 2 -1. Puget Sound Context of Bremerton Shorelines February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -1 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Chun B By Dye node kild —{ �EdwAs Pmd- Er.—M Ea it UG It A � 1 ffi,vo Potrd ..¢¢ Tf "?R 7 B9mef6n E81t uG ay ` f o Makmdr - t K=dr oy-,f,., yy z _ l y a amt 04 04 'h ' AB It VG pz Bremerton U,ii nr i, /JI r F •�t'' -} 166 I ' I �1� - 1f I ♦� �Gc A - GOrIt uGA 1,P.Fl Orchar w l4 PGA / 60 w. t ' 41 QL ;o v v Bremerton �B ainbridge Island ` r f d a �I f ti; ! I Figure 2 -2. Study Area for the Ecosystem Characterization of Bremerton Shorelines The marine waters of Puget Sound have been divided into sub - basins based on geography, oceanographic conditions (circulation, bathymetry, wave exposure), and common socio- economic issues and interests. Sub - basins, however, are classified differently by other studies. For this ecosystem -wide characterization, the study area for marine shorelines encompasses Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, and the Port Washington Narrows, which connects both inlets and a portion of Port Orchard Bay north of Sinclair Inlet. Table 2 -1 provides additional details on the freshwater and marine shorelines in this planning area. Table 2 -1. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area East NA Entire lake 54 2 Kitsap East Kitsap Approximate Approximate Inventory Inventory Size in acres Percentage of City's Shoreline Reach Unit ID (shoreline Shoreline (including Water Body Numbers' Numbers General Description length in feet) PAA) NA FRESHWATER SHORELINES 64 2 Kitsap Lake All NA Entire lake 54 2 (14,000) NA Twin Lakes shoreline 21 Twin Lakes All <1 (3,800) Union All NA Entire Union Reservoir 64 2 2 -2 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Chico Bay All Shoreline Master Program Chico Bay 188 Draft Restoration Plan Reach of the Union River 51, 89, 52, City of Bremerton Table 2 -1. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area (continued) East Ostrich Bay 424, 426, 427, Kitsap East Kitsap Approximate Approximate Inventory Inventory Size in acres Percentage of City's Shoreline Reach Unit ID (shoreline Shoreline (including Water Body Numbers Numbers General Description length in feet) PAA) Chico Bay All 430, 431, 432, Chico Bay 188 In study area but Reach of the Union River 51, 89, 52, 433,434 outside city and PAA (9 outside city and PAA Ostrich Bay 424, 426, 427, From embaymentto 211 Erlands Point Erlands 53 428, 429, Erland's Point and into east (7,270) upstream of the estuary to Point ALL Shipyard side of Chico Bay Western shore of Ostrich 242 6 Ostrich Bay 417, 419, East 383 421, 422, F 42 Bay to embayment north of (11,766) Naval MARINE SHORELINES Dyes Inlet Elwood Point Naval Shipyard Ostrich Bay 87 391, 392, 393, Marine Drive Peninsula 113 4 Marine Drive 394 Phinney Bay (6,473) Phinney Bay Ostrich Bay 86,44 386, 387, 388, Tip of Marine Drive 99 2 Marine Drive (14,889) 389 Peninsula (between Mud (4,156) North Bay and Ostrich Bay) Ostrich Bay 87 391, 392, 393, Marine Drive Peninsula 113 4 Marine Drive 394 (6,473) Oyster Bay All 396, 399, 400, Inner portion of Oyster Bay 227 8 401, 403, 408, to Madrona Point (14,725) 409, 411, 412, 413, 414 Mud Bay 42,43 380, 382, 383, Mud Bay 86 4 385 (7,385) Reservoir All NA shoreline (14,0 17 <1 Union River Reach of the Union River Creek east of Gorst Creek (14,752) outside city and PAA downstream of the reservoir (3,800) Gorst Estuary Sinclair Inlet/Gorst Estuary 605 to McKenna Falls 24 <1 Lower Gorst All NA Reach of Gorst Creek Creek upstream of the estuary to (5,250) Shipyard the point upstream where Puget Puget flows are below 20 cfs Puget Sound Naval 383 12 (within shoreline jurisdiction) Sound Naval MARINE SHORELINES Dyes Inlet Sinclair Inlet Blackjack Blackjack Blackjack South side of Sinclair Inlet 303 In study area but Creek Creek Creek east of Gorst Creek (14,752) outside city and PAA Gorst Gorst Gorst Estuary Sinclair Inlet/Gorst Estuary 605 16 Estuary Estuary to the Puget Sound Naval (28,605) 360, 361, 362, Phinney Bay Shipyard Puget Puget Puget Sound Puget Sound Naval 383 12 Sound Naval Sound Naval Shipyard (32,914) Shipyard Naval Shipyard Shipyard Phinney Bay Phinney Phinney Bay Phinney Bay 266 8 Bay (14,889) Port Washington Narrows _ Port 35, 149, 351, 352, 353, West side of Port 315 9 Washington 151, 150, 354, 355, 356, Washington Narrows, (14,263) Narrows 36 357, 358, 359, Bremerton Waterfront to West 360, 361, 362, Phinney Bay 363, 364, 509 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -3 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 2 -1. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area (continued) East 37, 38, 85, 365, 366, 367, Phinney Bay 266 8 Kitsap East Kitsap Approximate Approximate Inventory Inventory Size in acres Percentage of City's Shoreline Reach Unit ID (shoreline Shoreline (including Water Body Numbers Numbers General Description length in feet) PAA) Port 37, 38, 85, 365, 366, 367, Phinney Bay 266 8 Washington 39 368, 369, 370, (14,889) Narrows 371,372 Phinney Bay 34A 221, 222, 223, 634 17 Port 137, 108, 459, 460, 461, Windy Point to Point Herron Washington 135,107 462, 463, 464, on east shore of Port (29,250) Narrows 465,466 467, Washington Narrows East 34B 468,470 Sinclair Inlet / Gorst Estuary 605 16 Estuary 471, 472, 473, 208,209 1, 210, to the Puget Sound Naval (28,605) 474, 475, 476, 211, 212, 213, Shipyard 477, 478, 479, 506, 214, 215, 480, 481, 482, 216, 217, 218, 483, 484, 485, 228 Port Orchard 55,56A 229,230 Point Herron to current city 140 2 Bay, Creek limits (4,388) (14,752) Point Herron 205,503 Port Orchard 56B 231, 232, 507, Shorelines along Bremerton 247 6 Bay 233, 234, side of Port Orchard Bay (8,704) 235 236, 237, 239, 240 Sinclair Inlet Downtown 35 200, 202, 203, South side of Sinclair Inlet 303 9 Bremerton 502, 204, 504, east of Puget Sound Naval (14,752) 205,503 Shipyard Puget 34A 221, 222, 223, Puget Sound Naval 383 18 Sound Naval 224,225 Shipyard (32,914) Shipyard Gorst 34B 206, 505 207, Sinclair Inlet / Gorst Estuary 605 16 Estuary 208,209 1, 210, to the Puget Sound Naval (28,605) 211, 212, 213, Shipyard 506, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,220 Blackjack 34C 200, 202, 203, South side of Sinclair Inlet 303 In study area but Creek 502, 204, 504, east of Gorst Creek (14,752) outside city and PAA 205,503 a Reach numbers for marine shorelines correspond to drift cell numbers used in the East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment. b Nearshore areas based on assessment units defined in the East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment. These areas are larger than the area within shoreline jurisdiction. The freshwater area includes floodways and floodplains within 200 feet of floodways based on existing mapping sources. C Northern limit of planning area. d Start of planning area limit. e End of planning area limit. f Approximate eastern limit of planning area; just to west of Anderson Creek. PAA = Potential Annexation Area; cfs = cubic feet per second 2.2 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS The following is a summary from the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis; see this document for additional details and the sources referenced in the discussion (City of Bremerton 2010). 2 -4 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Climate Bremerton's climate is influenced by the temperate maritime patterns that define the overall climate of the Puget Sound lowlands (Mass 2009). In general, the climate is characterized by mild, wet winters, and warm, dry summers. Precipitation is strongly seasonal, with about two- thirds of the precipitation falling as rain between November and March. Precipitation typically occurs as frequent, low- intensity, and long- duration storms. Annual precipitation in the Puget Sound lowlands typically ranges from 32 to 37 inches. Bremerton precipitation averages about 39 inches per year, with higher precipitation (about 50 inches per year) falling at Green Mountain (Haring 2000). Snow is rare at the relatively low elevations within the study area. Geology The East Kitsap watershed is geologically and topographically similar to other areas in the Puget Sound region, reflecting the influences of mountain building and glacial activity. During the Eocene Epoch (approximately 38 to 55 million years ago), the East Kitsap watershed was located at the western edge of the North American continent. Sediments were deposited in the coastal environment to the west of North America. The Pleistocene Epoch (or Ice Age), which began about 2 million years ago, formed most of the geologic features present in the watershed today. Cordilleran ice sheets, which originated in the coast and insular mountains of British Columbia, moved south to the southern end of the Puget Sound basin near Olympia. Up to 3,500 feet of glacial ice covered the Kitsap Peninsula. Geologic units from at least five major and several minor glacial advances have been identified in the Puget Sound basin, although only three are exposed (visible) in Kitsap County. Surface geology in the study area is a complex mix of glacial deposits, which include unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels and typically cover a hardpan lying just below the surface. In the study area watersheds (Chico Creek, Gorst Creek, Union River), bedrock underlies the upper sections of watershed tributaries whereas the lower areas are underlain by glacial till, recessional outwash, and advance outwash deposited during the last ice -sheet advance. Following the final retreat of the Fraser Glaciation, more recent alluvial deposits from weathering, erosion, and sedimentation have continued to shape the landscape (Sossa 2003). Bluffs along the Puget Sound are being eroded and re- deposited as beaches and spits. Streams are eroding their banks and then depositing sediments in floodplains, wetlands, and bays. Soils in the region were formed from the complex deposits of the most recent glaciation and are relatively young. Seismic Activity The Puget Sound region as a whole is in an area of active plate tectonics and seismic activity. Puget Sound is part of the Cascadia subduction zone, where the Juan de Fuca plate is moving under the North American plate. Several fault lines cross Puget Sound and are associated with seismic activity. Movement along the quaternary fault lines that cross Bremerton or other seismic events could cause liquefaction of the relatively loose soils that are commonly present along river and stream channels, lakes, stream deltas, and some marine shorelines. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which pore pressure in loose, saturated, granular soils increases during ground shaking resulting in a reduction of shear strength of the soil (a quicksand -like condition). Topoaraphv. Bathymetry, and Geomorphology Most of the upland and freshwater portions of the study area consist of low, rolling hills with moderate slopes. Higher areas occur in the upper watershed of Sinclair Inlet to the west of Bremerton with some steep slopes ( >50 percent slopes). The highest point is Green Mountain at about 1,500 feet. The most dramatic feature of the study area is the long marine shoreline of Puget Sound, formed by several inlets and many smaller bays. Puget Sound itself is a large, fjord -like estuary where freshwater from numerous rivers mixes with saltwater from the Pacific Ocean. The Sound contains many sub - estuaries where larger February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -5 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton rivers and small streams enter the Sound and create a mix of tidal freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh wetlands. As is typical of fjord -like estuaries elsewhere, Puget Sound is characterized by relatively deep basins that drop off steeply from a narrow fringe of shallow nearshore areas adjacent to the shoreline. Most of the Puget Sound shoreline in the study area has moderate to low banks, although higher, steep sloping bluffs occur along Port Washington Narrows. Major upland and freshwater landforms in the study area include (Montgomery and Buffington 1998; Buffington et al. 2003): • Rolling uplands; • Stream valleys with typical pool -riffle morphology, channel migration zones, and small floodplains; • Wetlands in topographic depressions, on lakeshores, and on slopes; and • Lakes with deeper open water and shallow littoral zones. Hydrology The East Kitsap watershed lies between the backbones of the Kitsap Peninsula and Bainbridge Island, resulting in a narrow strip of land with many short streams that drain to the west side of Central Puget Sound. Streams in the study area are typical lowland type streams with generally moderate gradients. Upper reaches of streams are typical Puget Sound lowland headwater streams with low gradients that originate with perched groundwater in lakes and wetlands on upland plateaus and hills. Numerous wetlands occur in the study area. Considerable deciduous growth, interspersed with stands of conifers, farmland, and urban /suburban development, is common on all streams. None of the streams is supported by snow runoff, because the maximum elevation in the East Kitsap watershed is less than 1,650 feet. Stream power is generally low, limiting the ability of streams to transport sediment. Where streams flow off the higher rolling hills and plateaus down to the shore of the Sound, steeper ravines can create confined channels with greater sediment transport capacity. Because of the small size of most streams, large, extensive floodplains are not found in the study area. Water can be transported to storage areas via hyporheic (i.e., flow through streambeds and soils near stream channels) and overbank flow. Alternatively, precipitation can infiltrate the soil to recharge groundwater. Water is lost by flowing out of the watershed into the adjacent watershed or marine waters, as well as through evapotranspiration. In addition, water directly evaporates from the surface of lakes and marine waters. Plants pull water up from the soil through their roots and transpire large amounts of water vapor back into the atmosphere during photosynthesis. 2 -6 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 3. IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AND PROGRAMS WITH RESTORATION POTENTIAL In general, evaluating the functional importance of protection and restoration depends on land use and the degree to which the area supports ecosystem -wide processes (Figure 3 -1). These two criteria for rating ecological functions result in three general categories: 1. Suitability for Protection: Areas with a moderate to high importance for processes and moderate to low levels of alteration —These areas have the highest priority for protection and preservation, as well as allowing the processes to continue with minimal change in existing conditions. 2. Suitability for Restoration: Areas for restoration with a range of importance for processes and a range for alteration— Figure 3 -1 indicates that priority is generally based on the importance of the process rather than the extent of alteration. Some areas of high alteration may have high potential for restoration if the affected processes are important. 3. Suitability for Development: Areas with low importance for processes and high levels of alteration —These areas generally have the greatest suitability for human use development, which typically entails loss of ecological processes. High U V D R4 Mad x v 0� D v u c m ti D a . E Law Low Lawd of Allcmtion of Watcr lwd Proccsscs Figure 3 -1. Rating of Priority Areas for Process -based Protection and Restoration Sections 3.1 to 3.3 list the resources that have been used for identifying restoration opportunities in this Plan, and which may be used to identify and prioritize future restoration projects. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -1 Moderate High Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 3.1 MARINE PROJECT REFERENCES Primary sources that could be used to identify degraded areas and areas with restoration and protection potential for the marine and estuarine shorelines include: • East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment and Restoration Prioritization Framework and West Kitsap Addendum (Battelle 2009). Nearshore Assessment Units (sub -drift cell units of shoreline) were scored as being best suited for Protection, Restoration, Enhancement, Creation, or Restoration of site processes, depending on the likelihood of success based on current ecosystem processes and functions. • Priority Habitats and Species (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDF . This dataset is updated periodically to identify where important and unique habitats are located and where species of federal, state, and local importance may be found. These areas should be restored and protected to the greatest extent feasible. • Priority Shoreline Conservation Areas, Kitsap Alternative Futures (2011). This document, which includes the most ecologically intact or important areas, is a compilation of regional assessments, Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, nearshore assessment scores, and other local studies. These areas should be restored and protected to the greatest extent feasible. • Habitat Work Schedule (HWS ). This is an online database, organized according to Lead Entity Region (West Sound and Hood Canal), which includes identified, proposed, and ongoing restoration and protection projects. Projects seeking salmon restoration funds will often first need to be identified in HWS. Projects on the Lead Entity's state - mandated Three -Year Work Plan, which are reviewed and scored by a Technical Advisory Group, are also listed in HWS. • Kitsap Coun Transportation Improvement Plan and Stormwater Improvement Plans. These annually updated improvement plans identify and prioritize projects such as replacement or repair of undersized culverts or fish - passage barriers, implementation of low impact development (LID) retrofits, or restoration of floodplains for storage and habitat improvements. 3.2 FRESHWATER PROJECT REFERENCES Primary sources that could be used to identify degraded areas and areas with restoration /protection potential for the freshwater shoreline include: • PSNERP Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project: Water Flow Processes (Ecology 2010). This assessment produces a "watershed management" map showing where protection and restoration actions are more likely to succeed and would most benefit the water flow processes of the watershed. Habitat and other scored elements will be included in future updates. Priority Habitats and Species (WDFW). This dataset is updated periodically to identify where important and unique habitats are located and where species of federal, state, and local importance may be found. These areas should be restored and protected to the greatest extent feasible. Habitat Limiting Factors Analyses (Haring 2000; Kuttel 2003). These reports, done for each WRIA, identified the current riparian conditions, health, biological attributes, and the factors limiting the proper functioning of each mapped stream. 3 -2 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Habitat Work Schedule (HWS) This is an online database, organized according to Lead Entity Region (West Sound and Hood Canal), which includes identified, proposed, and ongoing restoration and protection projects. The projects seeking salmon restoration funds will often need to be identified in HWS. Projects on the Lead Entity's state - mandated Three -Year Work Plan, which are reviewed and scored by a Technical Advisory Group, are also listed in HWS. • Kitsap County Transportation Improvement Plan and Stormwater Improvement Plan. These annually updated improvement plans identify and prioritize items such as replacement or repair of undersized culverts or fish - passage barriers, implementation of LID retrofits, or restoration of floodplains for storage and habitat improvements. 3.3 IDENTIFIED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS Tables 3 -1 and 3 -2 list specific restoration and protection projects, which have been identified in one of the above resources within the Bremerton SMP, or within water bodies that would contribute to overall ecologic functions in Dyes Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Sinclair Inlet, Port Orchard Bay, and related water bodies, including upstream watersheds. These tables identify the general location, primary affected processes, functions or species; describe the identified project(s) addressing those impacts; and list the current plan for that project. The marine and estuarine shoreline projects are a subset of projects identified on a WRIA 15 basis that relate to water bodies within or affected by Bremerton shorelines. Chapter 5 provides greater detail in identifying restoration strategies within specific watersheds and reach areas in Bremerton. Table 3 -1. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Projects Project Affected Location Process /Function /Species Project Description Status /Priority Chico Bay Tidal erosion and fluvial Remove bulkhead at "Place Kittyhawk Drive, 2012; (Drift Cell 90) deposition affected by pilings, of Salmon" park; remove Enhance armoring, and groins; Chinook, invasive species /re- chum, coho, steelhead establish native vegetation; abandon /remove Kittyhawk Drive culvert; conduct estuary acquisitions Anna Smith Park Sediment source and transport Remove bulkhead; restore Parks; Enhance, Create (Drift Cell 137) affected by pilings and armoring shoreline and access and Restore site ` process Mosher Creek Fluvial deposition Replace /remove culvert at Not planned; Enhance (Drift Cell 137) Mosher Creek crossing Gorst Estuary Tidal erosion, fluvial deposition, Acquisitions /easements Enhance, Create, and (Drift Cell 34) sediment transport, water quality; Restore site process forage fish, Chinook, chum, coho, steelhead, waterfowl /shorebirds, shellfish Retsil Wave deposition affected by Replace undersized culvert; Enhance, Create and (Drift Cell 34) pilings, armoring, and marinas; restore natural shoreline Restore site process Sinclair Inlet water quality; chum, coho, surf processes near boat ramp smelt, sand lance February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -3 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 3 -1. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Projects (continued) Project Affected Location Process /Function /Species Project Description Status /Priority Beach Drive Fluvial deposition (Nearshore (Drift Cell 84) Assessment Unit 486) affected by Sinclair Inlet armoring; wave deposition /energy (Nearshore Assessment Unit 188) affected by armoring, pilings; chum, coho, surf smelt, sand lance, waterfowl concentrations Illahee Fluvial and wave deposition; (Drift Cell 56) critical aquifer recharge Illahee State Sediment source and transport Park /Enetai affected by pilings and armoring (Drift Cell 56) Illahee Fluvial and wave deposition; (Drift Cell 56) critical aquifer recharge Replace culvert at Sacco Lane; fix Waterman dock and restore shoreline; evaluate culvert size at Waterman Point Protect remaining salt marsh; implement Illahee regional stormwater treatment facility Investigate soft -bank armoring alternatives Conserve and Restore site process Stormwater, 2016; Enhance 4 Not planned; Create and Restore site process Protect remaining salt Stormwater, 2016; marsh; implement regional Enhance stormwater treatment facility An additional project in Oyster Bay implemented by the Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF) was designed to augment the existing native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) population and habitat on State and privately owned tideland property. The project involved installing additional seasoned Pacific oyster shell to increase the footprint of the existing native oyster habitat area with the objective of increasing the abundance of the native oyster population in Oyster Bay. The freshwater projects listed in Table 3 -2 are a subset of projects identified on a WRIA 15 basis that relate to water bodies within or affected by Bremerton shorelines. Many of these projects relate to marine water bodies because freshwater inputs are a critical element of marine ecology. Chapter 5 provides greater detail in identifying restoration strategies within Bremerton. Table 3 -2. Freshwater Shoreline/Watershed Projects Affected Project Location Process /Function /Species Project Description Lower Chico Creek High impairment of surface water storage, groundwater recharge and discharge; culverts are velocity barriers; weirs are low flow barriers Upper Chico Creek and Wetland - Implement LID - Replace culverts at Kittyhawk Drive, State Route (SR) 3, and Golf Club Hill Road - Remove U.S. Department of Transportation trash rack after bridges in place - Improve riparian and channel conditions, especially at Erlands Point Park - Continue creating off - channel habitat for salmonid rearing and nesting - Implement other recommendations of the Chico Creek Alternative Futures Plan (including at Time Oil site) - Continue to monitor and remove knotweed and other invasive plants - Protect existing functions - -Assess impacts of Seabeck Highway culverts and 3 -4 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Affected Project Location Process /Function /Species Project Description replace where needed Kitsap Lake and Wetland Union River - Decommission trails in sensitive areas at Newberry Heritage Park; add or improve other trails - Remove invasive plants /replant appropriate wetland shrubs or trees - Implement LID retrofits - Maintain riparian forest buffers and improve large woody debris (LWD) abundance - Re- establish natural cover - Retrofit existing structures with permeable pavement and rain gardens 3.4 PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION ACTIONS Certain restoration actions should be broadly and comprehensively implemented on a programmatic basis to help achieve restoration goals. The following programmatic actions are recommended for shorelines within Kitsap County as funding permits. The entities that will take the lead on these actions will be determined in the future. Kitsap County and its current and potential partners will continue to coordinate with each other on restoration activities. The funding mechanism for many of these actions has not yet been identified. Education and Incentives • Continue to educate shoreline property owners about shoreline processes, alternatives to armoring, benefits of native plants, etc. through various methods, including workshops, newsletters, websites and Beach Watchers /Stream Stewards classes. Identify feeder bluff locations and prioritize outreach on bulkhead removal or alternatives; provide support and incentives such as faster permitting or cost sharing. Planning • Develop and implement a planning -by- watershed approach, incorporating land use, LID, restoration, protection, and public access. • Use the Kitsap Alternative Futures model to support decisions on code modifications, policy, and prioritization of protection, restoration, and development locations. Infrastructure Continue to identify and replace undersized culverts or bridges for the passage of 100 -year flood events, fish and wildlife, and nutrients, including LWD (average size tree from that watershed). • Continue to identify and conduct LID stormwater retrofits. • Remove and restore locations with state- identified leaking underground storage tanks, etc. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -5 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 4. EXISTING PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES 4.1 GOVERNMENT AND NON - GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS There are many existing government and private non - governmental organization programs and funding sources, which implement the Restoration and Enhancement goals and policies of this SMP update. Most restoration efforts are implemented because citizens, tribes, and non - governmental entities; and local, state, and federal resource agencies collaborate to solve problems and achieve shared goals. Continued collaboration at all levels is needed if the goals of this Plan are to be achieved. Table 4 -1 identifies existing governmental restoration programs; Table 4 -2 identifies private and non - governmental organization restoration programs; and Table 4 -3 identifies potential funding resources. Table 4 -1. Existing Governmental Restoration Programs Organization and Mission and Scope Role in Future Example of Program Restoration Efforts Restoration Projects Kitsap County • To enable the development of • Grant administration • Chico Creek In- Department of I quality, affordable, structurally • Planning and stream Restoration Community f safe, and environmentally prioritizing restoration and Development sound communities and enhancement Mainstem /Estuary • Environmental Programs I acquisitions Division combines permit f Kitsap Nearshore review with long -range Assessment and environmental planning and Restoration restoration grant administration Prioritization Framework • Kitsap Regional Shoreline Restoration Demonstration _ Project Kitsap County • Striving to make Kitsap County • Coordinate • Dyes Inlet Health District the healthiest place on the restoration projects Restoration Project (partial Surface and planet to live, work and play with PIC priority areas • Other PIC projects Stormwater • Environmental Health Division: to enhance public (Liberty Bay, Hood Management identifies and prioritizes awareness and [SSWM] funds) cleanup of surface water participation (marine and fresh) • Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program • Review of appropriate on -site sewage system placement • Stream, lake, and marine (shellfish) health monitoring and reports Kitsap Conservation • Farm Plans (best management • Coordinate rain District (partial practices [BMPs]) garden SSWM funds) • Rain Garden Program implementation wit • Backyard Habitat Grants priority watershedE (Stream and shoreline and projects restoration funds for • Prioritize habitat communities) grants based on th priorities of this PIE February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 4 -1 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 4 -1. Existing Governmental Restoration Programs (continued) Organization and Mission and Scope Role in Future Example of Program Restoration Efforts Restoration Projects Washington State • Beach Watchers /Stream • Provide outreach to University Kitsap ' Stewards shoreline property Extension • Noxious Weed Control owners that is non - Program regulatory • Provide project monitoring • Provide technical support to landowners University of Washington Sea Grant U.S. Navy • Research and education • ENWEST West Sound • East Kitsap Lead Entity for Watersheds Council Salmon Recovery (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office) • 3 -Year Work Plan for Salmon Recovery Washington • Habitat Work Schedule Department of Fish • Permitting and Wildlife Washington State Grants Department of • Permitting Ecology • Washington Conservation Corps Suquamish Tribe It is the mission of the Suquamish Fisheries Department to preserve, protect and enhance treaty reserved resources within the Tribal usual and accustomed grounds and stations for subsistence, cultural and commercial benefits for present and future generations of Suquamish Tribal Members. • Assist local jurisdictions in identifying local priority species • Geoduck aquaculture research • Public beach walks • State of the Oyster (shellfish sample analysis) • Educational materials ' • U.S. Navy, Sinclair and Dyes Inlet studies to identify and demonstrate alternative, long- term, cost - effective strategies for protecting these water bodies • Prioritizes state - funded salmon recovery and restoration projects carried out by other entities • PHS mapping and data collection • Conservation plans • Provide technical assistance in project identification and prioritization • Project lead or team for projects on Dogfish, Gorst, Salmonberry, Barker, Chico, Carpenter, and Cowling creeks 4 -2 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 4 -1. Existing Governmental Restoration Programs (continued) Organization and Program Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Mission and Scope Role in Future Restoration Efforts Example of Restoration Projects Stewardship of shoreline easements and owner of acquisitions, including Indianola Waterfront Preserve and Clear Creek Trail Conserved over 5,700 acres of land • Riparian Vegetation Study (2010) Manage protection and restoration easements and acquisitions Work with communities to identify restoration or protection projects in their neighborhood • Preservation of thousands of acres of Chico Creek watershed • Education through Salmon Safari for youth outdoor programs Point No Point Treaty Council The Hood Canal Coordinating Council prioritizes and disperses over $2 million dollars annually for salmon restoration across their planning area. Note: Italics indicates direct quotations. Table 4 -2. Private and Non - Governmental Organization Restoration Programs Organization and Mission and Scope Role in Future Example of Program Restoration Efforts Restoration Projects Great Peninsula The Conservancy works in Conservancy partnership with landowners, community groups and local governments, providing the tools and expertise to enable landowners to preserve forever the special landscapes of the Great Peninsula region. The Conservancy conserves land through donations of conservation easements or gifts of land, or by purchase with donated funds, and counsels property owners on preservation techniques available to them. The Mountaineers The premier Northwest outdoor recreation club, dedicated to the responsible enjoyment and protection of natural places Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Fish America Foundation Wild Fish Conservancy Host classes and field trips for Stream Stewards or other workshops /training Partner in future acquisitions in Chico Creek watershed West Sound fish - typing surveys (North Kitsap) Note: Italics indicate direct quotations The conservation and research foundation of the American Sporlfishing Association — keeping our nation's fish and waters healthy. FishAmenba provides grants to non - profits, conservation minded groups to enhance fish populations, restore fisheries habitat, improve water quality and advance fisheries research to improve sportfishing opportunities and success. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 4 -3 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Table 4 -3. Potential Funding Sources Agency Grant or Fee Name Washington State Recreation and Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Grants Conservation Office/WDFW Washington State Recreation and Salmon Recovery Funding Board Grants Conservation Office Washington State Recreation and Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Conservation Office Washington State Recreation and Washington Wildlife Recreation Program Conservation Office National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Community Salmon Fund Grants Washington Department of Fish and Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Grants Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Family Forest Fish Passage Program Resources Kitsap Conservation District/SSWM Backyard Habitat Grants /SSWM Fee Coastal Protection Fund/Terry Husseman Grants Washington State Department of Ecology Shellfish Protection District Fee Burley Lagoon Shellfish Protection District Kitsap County Public Works —Roads Property Tax ( -13% to Roads), and State Gas Tax U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Program 4.2 CITY OF BREMERTON PROGRAMS The City participates in West Sound Watersheds (East Kitsap), which covers the entire eastern portion of WRIA 15 and is the lead entity for salmon recovery. Other agencies involved in the project include Kitsap County, tribes, non - profit groups, and the Cities of Poulsbo, Bainbridge Island, Gig Harbor, and Port Orchard. In addition, the City has a variety of programs administered by various departments that contribute to salmon recovery, which are further described below. Public Works and Utilities Department, Surface and Stormwater Management Program This program includes a variety of efforts that assist with restoration including: The City, along with its regional partner, the Kitsap Peninsula Clean Runoff Collaborative, has a regional education and outreach program that provides education and focuses on proper pet waste disposal, promotion of water quality hot lines, and promotion of the regional "Puget Sound Starts Here" campaign. • The City participates in the Kitsap County Stormwater Management Advisory Committee, which consists of 18 members representing citizens, water - related public agencies, tribal governments, and the four Kitsap County cities. The committee advises on program direction and implementation to address stormwater control and quality issues, and to promote interagency and interjurisdictional coordination. 4 -4 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton • The City has regulations and monitoring programs to prevent illegal discharge into the stormwater system. • The City regulates stormwater in new development through adoption of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington —the latest edition serves as the guiding criteria for the planning, design, and construction of stormwater facilities. • The City encourages LID efforts through the Low Impact Development (LID) Guidance Manual - A Practical Guide to LID Implementation in Kitsap County —the guiding criteria for the planning, design, and construction of low impact development. • The City reduces stormwater impacts associated with runoff from streets through participating in the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program. • The City addresses application of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides through nutrient management and integrated pest management plans for all parks and other facilities. The City's Public Works and Utilities Forestry and Natural Resources Division manages 8,300 acres of Water Utility forest lands for watershed protection, timber harvest, reforestation, biosolids utilization, and salmon restoration. The division also coordinates fishery and other environmental issues on Water Utility forest lands and provides education such as an annual salmon viewing and Kids' Fishing Day. Park and Recreation Department The City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan includes a specific recommendation regarding the department's role in preservation and restoration of important natural areas: It is highly recommended that Bremerton identify potential natural area acquisitions and locate funding sources to help purchase additional natural area properties. Priority for natural land acquisitions may include undeveloped marine shoreline, second growth conifer forests (known habitat for eagles, osprey, great blue heron, harbor seals and harlequin ducks), parcels offering connectivity between protected upland habitat and bodies of water, and parcels that enlarge intact riparian buffer zones along creeks and streams to increase water quality for salmon. This proactive stance will ensure that additional natural areas are preserved to accommodate or offset partial development at the existing undeveloped parks and that the current ratio of natural areas and undeveloped parkland acres to population is kept intact as the number of people residing in the City increases. Other relevant policies of the plan include: Goal 3: Protect and manage the City's natural resources, scenic areas, and environmentally sensitive lands to highlight their unique attributes. 3.1 Identify and inventory the City's scenic, natural resource and environmentally sensitive lands. 3.2 Develop a prioritized plan to protect and /or acquire the most valuable properties to provide access and passive recreation, as appropriate. 3.3 Manage vegetation in natural areas to enhance or maintain native plant species, habitat function and other ecological values. Remove and control nonnative or invasive plants as appropriate. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 4 -5 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 3.4 Develop management and restoration plans for significant community greenspaces and facilitate community -based volunteer restoration. 3.5 Develop forest management plans and contract with an arborist to improve the tree health in NAD, Forest Ridge, Sheridan, Stephenson Canyon, East Park and other forested parks. Gorst Creek A variety of programs have been implemented by the City in cooperation with other agencies for salmon recovery. In 2001, the Gorst Creek Restoration Project replaced 750 feet of concrete channel with 1,000 feet of channel that replicates a more natural stream system and provides spawning, rearing, and riparian habitat for salmonid species, as well as other wildlife. In 2010, the Comprehensive Watershed Plan for Sustainable Development and Restoration of the Gorst Creek Watershed was initiated with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant funding, as well as local funding. Project participants included the City and Kitsap County, with assistance from Ecology, WDFW, the Kitsap County Health District, and other stakeholders. The project consisted of the following major tasks: • Watershed Characterization Study and Comprehensive Watershed Plan; • Land Use Plan and Development Regulations; • Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement; • Stormwater Plan; • Capital Improvement and Corrective Action Plan, including an Engineering Evaluation /Cost Analysis for correction of the private landfill within a major tributary of Gorst Creek; and • Outreach and Information Transfer program. The current study is expected to be completed in 2012. 4 -6 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5. RESTORATION PRIORITIES This Plan is intended to complement other plans, such as the salmon recovery plans, but not to replace them. The Plan is also designed to promote coordination efforts with other agencies through salmon recovery and other programs. 5.1 RESTORATION STRATEGY The City's overall restoration strategy is to pursue restoration projects with multiple stakeholders that provide multiple benefits. Such programs have the greatest potential for cost - effective and successful restoration of ecological functions. The City should pursue the following opportunities: • Pursue water quality and habitat restoration opportunities as part of acquisitions and capital improvements for stormwater utility, transportation, parks, and other projects. • Manage City assets such as the Union River and Reservoir, City parks, and other facilities for multiple uses, including restoration of ecologic functions where feasible. • Cooperate with Kitsap County and other agencies in watershed -based restoration programs in recognition that ecologic functions cross jurisdictional boundaries. • Partner with others in WRIA 15 to coordinate salmon recovery actions with mitigation efforts in future development when such development is required to incorporate ecologic enhancement as part of non - water- dependent development, or when development produces impacts that are most effectively addressed off -site. • Make minor improvements to buffer areas and vegetation as properties undergo remodeling and redevelopment to address ongoing adverse impacts, such as from runoff that carries herbicides and pesticides into water bodies. 5.2 RESTORATION STRATEGY BY WATER BODY This section summarizes potential restoration strategies by the individual water bodies identified in the SMP Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010). 5.2.1 Dyes Inlet Dyes Inlet is the marine embayment of west Puget Sound, which includes the northerly portion of the Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Dyes Inlet watershed drains an area of 30,289 acres, including the creeks that flow into the inlet. It has approximately 22 miles of marine shoreline and 90 stream miles that include ten named streams. Approximately 40 percent of the watershed is within the urban area (12,231 acres) designated by Kitsap County. Within the study area, about 16 miles of marine shoreline with contributing drainage areas occur in Dyes Inlet. Bremerton and Silverdale are the major urban areas, with smaller retail centers at Chico, Tracyton, and Kitsap Lake. The Jackson Park Naval Reservation, Camp Wesley Harris, and parts of the Bangor Naval Reservation are located within the watershed. The Kitsap County Health District conducted the Dyes Inlet Restoration Project from 2005 to 2009. This project addressed fecal coliform contamination, which resulted in a substantial improvement in biological water quality due to identification and elimination of sources from on -site sewage disposal, sewer systems, and stormwater. As a result of the program, the State February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -1 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Department of Health reclassified Chico Bay from "restricted" to "conditionally approved" for commercial shellfish harvest due to water quality improvements. Specific subareas considered in this Plan include: • Ostrich Bay (with several subareas), • Oyster Bay, and • Mud Bay. 5.2.1.1 Ostrich Bay Ostrich Bay is a large embayment in Dyes Inlet that supports coho and chum salmon, as well as cutthroat trout. A concentration of surf smelt spawning areas is mapped around Elwood Point. Patchy eelgrass and salt marsh occur at a few scattered locations in Ostrich Bay. Bald eagle nests and foraging areas are associated with much of the Ostrich Bay shoreline. Land cover use surrounding Ostrich Bay is a mix of high - intensity residential, low- intensity residential, mixed forest, evergreen and deciduous forest, urban grasses, and small areas of commercial /industrial. Land cover is mostly developed (66 to 80 percent) and impervious surface is relatively high; impervious surface is 30 percent or above over most of the contributing area. Shoreline modifications include tidal barriers (3 percent of shoreline length), armoring (57 percent of shoreline area, roads (13 percent of shoreline area), and nearshore fill (2 percent of shoreline area). Overwater structures are concentrated in a few locations and cover less than I percent of the shoreline area. Ecology maintains a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality impaired marine and fresh water bodies. Ostrich Bay is listed as having impaired water quality because of fecal coliform, mercury, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Most of Ostrich Bay is a Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area. 5.2.1.2 Ostrich Bay North Ostrich Bay North includes the small embayment north of Elwood Point and the east and north side of Erlands Point, just into Chico Bay. The southern half of the embayment is the limit of the City's planning area, but the entire reach is described here. Chico Creek is the most important source of freshwater inputs to this area, including the entire west and south portions of Ostrich Bay. The predominant land use in the area is single - family residential. There is U.S. Navy and public ownership of the south side of the Chico Creek Estuary. Restoration Strategy Chico Creek and estuary restoration activities are likely to contribute to a number of processes relative to the marine environment, including freshwater inputs and sediment inputs. Efforts that directly affect the marine shoreline include the Chico Estuary Restoration Project, which involves driveway and roadway culvert removal and channel restoration, as well as future acquisitions and restoration in the estuary. Other restoration activities would include improvement of riparian conditions, especially at Erlands Point Park. Kitsap County is the lead agency for Chico Creek restoration. Ownership of a large portion of this area by the U.S. Navy provides the potential for enhancement and successful restoration of much of the marine nearshore and upland areas. 5 -2 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5.2.1.3 Ostrich Bay South Ostrich Bay South includes the portion of the bay within the City. The primary land uses are the U.S. Navy Hospital, the Navy's Jackson Park residential community, the City's NAD Marine Park, and residential use. Ostrich Bay Creek enters at the south end of the bay. It has a watershed area of about 450 acres in developed urban land uses. There is a pocket estuary at the delta of the stream. This stream supports coho and chum salmon and cutthroat trout. Fish passage barriers occur at Kitsap Way, SR 3, and Price Road. The Kitsap Health District placed the stream on a Public Advisory informing the public to avoid contact with the waters due to the fecal coliform bacteria levels in the stream. A seal and sea lion haulout area, as well as a concentration of surf smelt spawning areas, is mapped at Elwood Point. Patchy eelgrass and salt marsh occur at a few scattered locations in Ostrich Bay. Bald eagle nests and foraging areas are associated with much of the Ostrich Bay shoreline. Restoration Strategy Chico Creek and estuary restoration activities are likely to contribute to a number of processes relative to the marine environment, including freshwater inputs and sediment inputs as the largest tributary on the west side of Dyes Inlet. The City may contribute to better water quality in the south Ostrich Bay area through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and by public education in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. This is especially the case for the tributary area of Oyster Bay Creek, which currently has bacterial and other contaminant issues. Efforts that directly affect the marine shoreline include improvement of riparian conditions, especially at Erlands Point Park. Ownership by the U.S. Navy and the City of a large portion of this area provides the potential for enhancement of the marine nearshore and upland areas. The City's NAD Marine Park is planned for largely passive use and would likely continue to provide a range of positive inputs to the nearshore. U.S. Navy lands can be enhanced primarily by expansion of the buffer areas and management responsibility to develop mature native vegetation along the marine frontage of the hospital, the park, and the residential area. Removal or reduction in size of the inactive munitions pier would reduce impacts of overwater structures. The developed area, with primarily single - family residences, has mostly lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. The runoff discharged from this area has ongoing adverse impacts because the discharge contains sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides. Public education is likely the most effective means of changing these existing practices. The addition of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore area, may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As individual properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Existing docks and moorage facilities are limited, but would require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration, and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -3 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5.2.1.4 'East Ostrich Bay East Ostrich Bay includes Madrona Point, Marine Drive Point, and the westerly portion of Rocky Point above Mud Bay. Rocky Point is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. This is a generally an older residential area. The areas not on city sewer were platted and developed prior to existing on -site sewage system regulations. The natural physical conditions of the area, primarily the surface, groundwater conditions, and the soil types and depths are not conducive for the utilization of "standard gravity" on -site sewage systems. Development patterns along the shoreline and adjacent uplands include land cover, which is about 40 to 48 percent natural and 55 to 60 percent developed, with some mixed forest, deciduous forest, and urban grasses. Impervious surfaces are mostly below 30 percent in the contributing drainage. Restoration Strategy The developed single - family areas on Madrona Point and along Marine Drive provide primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. The runoff discharged from this area has ongoing adverse impacts because the discharge contains sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides. Public education is likely the most effective means of changing these existing practices. The addition of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore area, may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As individual properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Existing docks and moorage facilities are limited in number, but would require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration, and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. The City may contribute to water quality in the bay through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and in public education in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.1.5 Oyster Bay Oyster Bay is a shallow protected embayment with a relatively narrow opening to Ostrich Bay. Oyster Bay has no significant tributary streams. The tributary area from which surface water flows into the bay is relatively small but also is highly urbanized. Most water is from runoff from a relatively narrow area surrounding the bay and from tidal flows. Oyster Bay has shallow habitat areas supporting high primary productivity for marine life and a diverse assemblage of benthic invertebrates and fish. The bay also provides the potential for habitats, such as for eelgrass. Oyster Bay has a low water exchange environment that is particularly vulnerable to alterations that affect water quality including excess nutrients, pathogens, and toxins that tend to accumulate or have longer residence times due to limited flushing. Oyster Bay is listed on Ecology's 303(d) list with impaired water quality due to fecal coliform, mercury, and low dissolved oxygen levels. All of Oyster Bay is a Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area. The majority of land in the bay is single - family residential with a small commercial area at the south end. Land cover is mostly developed urban area (about 70 percent developed and 30 percent natural), with most of the contributing area having high levels of impervious surface ( >50 percent impervious surface). The south shore of Oyster Bay has the highest level of development and impervious surface. Shoreline modifications include significant alteration to 5 -4 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton tidal action (11 percent of shoreline length with tidal barriers), moderate to high levels of armoring (50 percent of shoreline length), roads affecting the shoreline (13 percent of shoreline area), and relatively low levels of nearshore fill and overwater structures (less than 1 percent of shoreline area). Restoration Strategy The commercial area near the south end of the bay has the potential for some restoration of the shoreline as part of future non - water- dependent development, which requires shoreline restoration and public access. The existing development in this area is not water - dependent and it is doubtful that water - dependent uses would be appropriate given the shallow nature of the bay and the proposed "Aquatic Conservancy" designation. The developed area, with primarily single - family residences, has mostly lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline. The runoff discharged from this area has ongoing adverse impacts due to the runoff containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides. Public education is likely the most effective means of changing these existing practices. The addition of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore, may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As individual properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Although existing docks and moorage facilities are limited, they would require enhancement. Such actions would include grating for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. New overwater and inwater structures would be limited by the proposed "Aquatic Conservancy" designation. There is little public land in this reach and therefore little opportunity for public enhancement projects on the shoreline. The Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF) has augmented the existing native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) population and habitat on State and privately owned tideland property by installing additional seasoned Pacific oyster shell to increase the footprint of the existing native oyster habitat area. The objective is to increase the abundance of the native oyster population in Oyster Bay. Such efforts should be monitored and possibly expanded if effective. Redevelopment of the 83 -acre Bay Vista site (the Bremerton Housing Authority Westpark Community) is likely to result in improved water quality discharge to Oyster Bay through current stormwater management practices; however, the redevelopment area is only a part of the tributary watershed draining into the bay. The City may contribute to improved water quality in the bay by incrementally upgrading the storm drainage system, as well as educating the public, in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.1.6 Mud Bay The east side of Mud Bay is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. It is surrounded by relatively large residential lots. Mud Bay completely empties at lower tides and supports a mud flat with high primary productivity for marine life that contributes a diverse assemblage of benthic invertebrates to the food chain. It is a low water exchange environment that is particularly vulnerable to February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -5 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton alterations that affect water quality, including excess nutrients, pathogens, and toxins that tend to accumulate or have longer residence times due to limited flushing. Most parcels were platted and developed prior to existing on -site sewage system regulations. The natural physical conditions of the area, primarily the surface and groundwater conditions, soil types, and depths, are not conducive for implementing "standard gravity" on -site sewage systems leading to potential high nutrient levels. Land cover use is about 40 to 50 percent natural and 50 to 60 percent developed, with some mixed forest, deciduous forest, and urban grasses. The contributing drainage area is very small. Shoreline modifications are limited, as one would expect in a low energy environment. The area has a moderate to high amount of shoreline armoring (55 percent of shoreline length), some barriers to tidal flow (2 percent of shoreline length), and roads (8 percent of the shoreline area). In addition, numerous overhanging docks and piers, including pilings, are scattered along the shoreline. However, this reach lacks large overwater structures and the low energy areas in Mud Bay are generally not armored. Riparian vegetation is lacking for most of the shoreline, but areas along the eastern shore of Mud Bay and some areas along Rocky Point have intact riparian vegetation. Restoration Strategy The developed single - family area provides a variety of buffer conditions varying from wide buffers of native trees to lawn and ornamental vegetation. Where ornamental vegetation predominate, the adverse impacts from runoff discharge containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides, which are likely to be most effectively addressed by public education. Many lots have the potential for subdivisions to be developed when urban services such as sewers are provided. The SMP buffer requirements are likely to preserve existing buffers and enhance those buffers that are not currently maintained. In addition, the City will require detention and treatment of stormwater that would where certain criteria are met. Larger developments would be encouraged to use low- impact development techniques. The addition or enhancement of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water (to provide filtering and uptake of pollutants and provide shading to reduce desiccation of the nearshore) may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As non - subdividable properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat. Existing docks and moorage facilities are limited in number and size, but would require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. New overwater and inwater structures are limited by the proposed "Aquatic Conservancy" designation. 5.2.2 Port Washington Narrows Port Washington Narrows is a tidal strait connecting Port Orchard Bay with Dyes Inlet. Tidal currents attain velocities in excess of 4 knots at times. The formal boundaries are Rocky Point to the northeast, Point Turner to the southwest, and Point Herron to the southeast. For the purpose of this discussion, the Tracyton Beach area is considered within Dyes Inlet, and will be included in the discussion of the east side of the Narrows. 5 -6 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5.2.2.1 Phinney Bay Phinney Bay is a large embayment at the western end of Port Washington Narrows and eastern end of Dyes Inlet and extends from Rocky Point to North Lafayette Avenue. Phinney Bay has some high bank areas on the eastern shore, but it mostly consists of low bank and /or marsh lagoon shoreforms dominated by mud, sand, and gravel substrates. One surf smelt spawning location is mapped on the northeast side of Phinney Bay. Non - floating kelp occurs along the northeastern side, with continuous eelgrass habitat along most of the bay shoreline. Patchy salt marsh occurs at the southern end and in the lagoon on the western side of the bay. Eelgrass also is mapped in continuous distribution along the south and west shores of Phinney Bay. Some oyster beds occur at the north end of the bay, although Phinney Bay is currently classified as a Prohibited Shellfish Growing area. Water quality issues include fecal coliform and possibly low dissolved oxygen. The Kitsap Health District listed Phinney Creek on a Public Advisory alerting the public to avoid contact with the waters. The bay has a large number of stormwater outfalls, especially on the western side. The eastern side of Phinney Bay (to Corbet Drive NW) is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. The primary land use is single - family residential, but there is one marina, the Bremerton Yacht Club, on the eastern shore. About 30 percent of the drainage area contributing to Phinney Bay has impervious surfaces greater than 50 percent, but a relatively large portion of the drainage area (55 percent) is covered by less than 10 percent impervious surface. This is due to the mostly natural land cover, low- intensity residential use, and the mixed forest. Shoreline modifications include moderately high levels of shoreline armoring (64 percent of shoreline length), roads affecting the shoreline (8 percent of shoreline area), and overwater structures (5 percent of shoreline area). The Bremerton Yacht Club marina comprises most of the overwater structure in the area. Restoration Strategy The east side of the bay (currently unincorporated Kitsap County) contains large single - family lots with a variety of buffer conditions varying from wide buffers of native trees to lawn and ornamental vegetation. On the west side of the bay, smaller urban lots generally have a limited buffer although lawn and ornamental vegetation predominates. Where non- native vegetation predominates, adverse impacts from runoff discharge containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides can likely be most effectively addressed by public education. Many lots on the east side have the potential for subdivision development when urban services such as sewers are provided. The SMP buffer requirements would likely preserve the existing buffers and provide enhancement where buffers are not currently present. For existing lots, the addition or enhancement of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water may be addressed by educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As non - subdividable properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing filtering and uptake of pollutants, as well as providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. New overwater and inwater structures in the far south end of the bay are limited by the proposed "Aquatic Conservancy" designation. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -7 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton The City may contribute to improved water quality in the bay by incrementally upgrading the storm drainage system and educating the public in order to reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.2.2 Port Washington Narrows West This area extends from North Lafayette Avenue to Point Turner (which for convenience will be considered at 6th Street in downtown Bremerton). This area has complex urban land uses including single - family and multi - family residential, industrial, and parkland. A few locations for surf smelt spawning are mapped along this reach. Continuous non - floating kelp is distributed along most of the shoreline, but no eelgrass or marsh vegetation is found here. Hardshell clam areas occur along the Narrows, but are mostly associated with the eastern shore. Waterfowl concentrations occur at the entrance to the Narrows, between the ferry docks and Evergreen Park. High waterfowl concentrations also occur opposite Lions Park. There is a large pelagic cormorant roost under the Warren Avenue Bridge, as well as a peregrine falcon nest. Shoreline modifications include heavily armored shorelines (80 percent shoreline length), numerous roads (12 percent of shoreline area), and fill within the nearshore (2 percent of the area). In addition, numerous overhanging structures; piers, docks, and floats; and old pilings occur along the Narrows shoreline. Impervious surfaces along the shoreline are mostly above 50 percent, with 90 to 100 percent at some locations including along the Bremerton waterfront, where the Warren Avenue Bridge crosses the Narrows, and just east of Anderson Cove. Land cover is predominantly high - intensity residential or commercial/industrial, with small areas of low- intensity residential. Restoration Strategy Single - family lots in this area generally have little or no native vegetation buffer. Public education is the primary means of influencing individuals to change vegetation management to include more native vegetation along the shoreline and it has the potential to influence a much greater proportion of the shoreline. As single - family properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, education and regulatory requirements are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing native vegetation that contributes filtering and uptake of pollutants and providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. There are very limited areas of industrial and multi - family zoning, which may provide opportunities for enhancement of the shoreline upon redevelopment. The industrial area near Pennsylvania Avenue has the potential for some restoration of the shoreline as part of future non - water- dependent development, which requires shoreline restoration and public access. The extent of restoration required would depend on the extent of water- dependent development and the extent that mitigation may be required to meet the criteria for no net loss of ecological functions. The multi - family area within the downtown subarea will be redeveloped with medium- to high - density residential with a strong relationship to the street. The high bank waterfront limits other than visual access to the water in most cases. As part of redevelopment, buffer areas will be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. 5 -8 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton Public parks provide a variety of opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation depending on topography and other conditions implemented as part of ongoing park management. Enhancement opportunities, however, must be balanced with the goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline. The City may contribute to better water quality in the bay through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.2.3 Port Washington Narrows East The far north easterly portion of Port Washington Narrows is characterized by large -lot rural development in the area north of Sheridan Road, which is in unincorporated Kitsap County and within the UGA. The remainder of the reach is single - family, multi - family, commercial, and park use. For convenience, the area south of Manette Bridge on Point Herron is considered in the discussion of Port Orchard Bay. Three streams discharge into this area, but most of the natural conveyances have been covered and are contained in culverts. Parmann and Moser creeks north of Tracyton Beach Road still have continuous vegetation along much of the riparian area. A few locations for surf smelt spawning are mapped along this reach. Continuous non - floating kelp is distributed along most of the shoreline, but no eelgrass or marsh vegetation is found here. Hardshell clam areas occur along the eastern shore; however, the area is closed to shellfish harvest. Waterfowl concentrations occur at the entrance to the Narrows. Sheridan Park, Lions Park, and East Park occur along this reach. Shoreline modifications include heavily armored shorelines (80 percent shoreline length), numerous roads (12 percent of shoreline area), and fill within the nearshore (2 percent of the area). In addition, numerous overhanging structures such as piers, docks, and floats, and old pilings occur along the Narrows shoreline. Impervious surfaces along the shoreline are mostly above 50 percent, with 90 to 100 percent at some locations including where the Warren Avenue Bridge crosses the Narrows. Land cover is predominantly high - intensity residential or commercial/industrial, with small areas of low- intensity residential. Restoration Strategy Single - family lots with shoreline frontage predominate only in the currently unincorporated area north of Tracyton Beach Road. Most lots have no native vegetation at the shoreline with lawns and ornamental vegetation the primary ground cover. Many of these lots have the potential for subdivision development when urban services such as sewers are provided. The SMP buffer requirements implemented at subdivision are likely to result in provision and enhancement of native vegetation buffers. In addition, the City will require detention and treatment of any stormwater that would be discharged. Larger developments would be encouraged to use low- impact development techniques. In the interim, and for properties not subdividable, educational efforts may result in some changes in vegetation management leading to voluntary establishment of limited buffers. Cumulatively, education and regulatory requirements are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing native vegetation that contributes filtering and uptake of pollutants and providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. There are extensive areas of commercial and multi - family zoning in this reach, which are likely to provide opportunities for enhancement of the shoreline upon redevelopment. The most extensive potential redevelopment area is the Bremerton Gardens multi - family February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -9 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton community between Magnuson Way and 16th Street, which would provide the opportunity for setbacks and buffers to allow feeder bluffs and adjacent areas to function more naturally. The commercial area along Campbell and Wheaton Way south of the Warren Avenue Bridge would likely redevelop incrementally. Because non - water- dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas would be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as adding grating to docks and piers for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. Public parks provide a variety of opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation depending on topography and other conditions implemented as part of ongoing park management. Enhancement opportunities, however, must be balanced with the goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline. The extensive, but narrow corridor between the shoreline and Tracyton Beach Road may be enhanced by augmenting native vegetation. The City may contribute to improved water quality by incrementally improving the storm drainage system and educating the public in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.3 Sinclair Inlet Sinclair Inlet is the arm of Port Orchard Bay west of Port Washington Narrows. It includes downtown Bremerton, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Gorst Estuary, and the city of Port Orchard on its south side. The Sinclair Inlet watershed drains an area of 27,492 acres, including the creeks that flow into Sinclair Inlet (primarily along the southern shore) and the Beaver Creek watershed to the east. The watershed includes 57 miles of saltwater frontage, approximately 46 lakes with 9.7 miles of shoreline, and about 62 miles of streams. The watershed is characterized by many small streams that drain relatively small areas. Gorst and Blackjack creeks are the main dischargers of freshwater into the inlet. Estimates of freshwater runoff into Sinclair Inlet range from 335 cfs in January to 5 cfs in August. The contribution of groundwater flow to the inlet is unknown but thought to be substantial. The currents of Sinclair Inlet are relatively weak, at only 0.8 knots. The estimated total flushing time is approximately 14 days. 5.2.3.1 Downtown Bremerton Most of the area from 6th Street to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard within the downtown subarea has been redeveloped with an array of residential, office, and mixed uses with strong connections and views to the waterfront and only a few additional lots are available for development. This area has high bluffs along the waterfront that precludes water - dependent use. Because non - water- dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas will be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. Restoration Strategy Restoration potential in this reach is limited due to intense urban development. Future development in the downtown will preserve and enhance steep slopes resulting in augmentation of vegetation and feeder bluff functions. The City may contribute to water quality by incrementally improving the upstream storm drainage system and educating the public in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5 -10 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton 5.2.3.2 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard This reach is heavily modified by the development of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Impervious surface along the shoreline is more than 80 percent and frequently more than 90 percent along the entire shoreline. More than 90 percent of the shoreline length is armored and overwater structures affect approximately 50 percent of the shoreline area. Restoration Strategy Restoration potential in this reach is limited due to intense development. The major opportunity for enhancement is continuing efforts by the U.S. Navy to improve water quality through improvements in treating their process water and stormwater runoff. 5.2.3.3 Gorst Estuary and Gorst Creek Gorst Estuary is the largest estuary in the planning area and provides significant shoreline functions to Sinclair Inlet and Puget Sound. The estuary receives freshwater flows from Gorst Creek, as well as several small independent drainages nearby. Wright Creek is about 1.2 miles long and enters Sinclair Inlet between Gorst and Bremerton. Tributary streams support a variety of species including coho, chum, cutthroat, and steelhead. Gorst Estuary itself is shallow, with fringing marshes and mud flats that provide excellent production of prey for salmonids. Biological resources in the estuary include waterfowl concentrations at the mouth and along the north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet, and shorebird concentrations along the north shore. Continuous mixed marsh and patchy salt marsh occurs along the inner estuary and north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet. Patchy eelgrass occurs between the edge of the marsh vegetation and adjacent mud and sand flats. Surf smelt spawning areas are mapped along the north and south shore of Sinclair Inlet just east of the estuary. Bald eagle nests are associated with the estuary along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet with nest management and foraging areas within the entire estuary. Shoreline modifications include significant alteration to tidal processes, with tidal barriers affecting 6 percent of the shoreline length. Shoreline armoring affects 88 percent of shoreline length, road density is high (18 percent of shoreline area), overwater structures affect 4 percent of the shoreline area, and nearshore fill affects 20 percent of the shoreline area. These modifications are reflected in the loss of habitats. Estimates of the loss of historic shoreforms include 100 percent of former barrier estuaries, 65 percent of coastal inlets, and more than 80 percent of tidal wetlands. About 1,500 feet of estuarine shoreline on the north side of the inlet were rehabilitated in the early 2000s through grants from the Salmon Recovery Board and funding by local sources. Restoration Strategy The City is in the process of developing the Gorst Creek Watershed Comprehensive Plan, which will outline development, preservation, and enhancement opportunities. The plan is not yet final, but generally will: • Identify portions of the watershed which should be conserved and managed to protect the City's water supply; • Identify areas that should be preserved for enhancement of water supply to the watershed and estuary, including wetlands and other areas; • Identify areas that should be preserved and enhanced for habitat value score and as salmon refugia; and February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -11 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton • Identify areas more appropriate for higher density development based on identification of areas with lower water resource and habitat value. There are extensive areas of commercial development south of Gorst Creek that could be redeveloped in the future. Because non - water- dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas will be augmented and proximity impacts to the estuary reduced. The City may contribute to water quality through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system in developed portions of the estuary and in public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.4 Port Orchard Bay 5.2.4.1 Point Herron /Shore Drive For purposes of this analysis, this reach extends from the Manette Bridge to the northeasterly end of Shore Drive. The northerly end of this reach is occupied by the Boat House Restaurant and multi - family development. The remainder of the reach comprises single - family lots about 50 feet wide and between 70 and 100 feet deep. The shoreline is more than 50 percent impervious surface. There is a large pier at the Boat House Restaurant and six marine `railways' at single - family residences, although not all are currently functioning. Almost the entire shoreline is armored with riprap and concrete bulkheads. There are no trees along the shoreline, but in many places there are very narrow lawns or ornamental plantings. Restoration Strategy There are few opportunities for restoration in the reach. The Boat Shed Restaurant is likely to retain its existing non - conforming status, even if other tenants occupy it. In the long term, the existing pier would be reconstructed, when major repair or replacement was required, to include adding grates for light penetration and less surface coverage, which would enhance nearshore ecological functions. If the multi - family development were to be redeveloped, very minor buffers might be included. The proposed provisions of the SNIP to provide minimal buffers when residences undergo major renovation and replacement may reduce the discharge of nutrients and toxins from fertilizers and herbicides /pesticides, but the SNIP would not require residents to provide trees for shading thus there would be no improvement to existing upper beach desiccation. The City may contribute to better water quality through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system and in public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. 5.2.4.2 Port Orchard Bay East The area east of Shore Drive in Bremerton is characterized by large single - family lots with extensive forested uplands. Portions of the areas are within the city; the remainder is in the UGA. Percent impervious surface within 200 feet of the marine shoreline ranges from 8 to 17 percent, while forest cover within the 200 -foot shoreline area averages less than 2 percent. Over 50 percent of the shoreline is armored, with 6 percent of the shoreline affected by roads. A small independent creek (Dee/Enetai) enters Port Orchard Bay approximately 1 mile northeast of Point Herron. The creek currently supports chum, coho, and cutthroat in the lower reaches. There are a number of fish passage barriers in this watershed. The riparian condition upstream of Trenton Avenue is poor, with little remaining riparian vegetation, 5 -12 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton while the riparian condition in the steep ravine reach downstream of Trenton Avenue is considered to be generally good. Flows are very flashy, likely the result of the intense development in the watershed with no stormwater controls. This creek also has fecal bacterial contamination. The eastern part of this reach in the UGA is largely undeveloped within the UGA, but with development above the steep bluff that begins at the shoreline. Restoration Strategy The preservation of existing undeveloped shoreline in the eastern part of the reach is likely to be accomplished by the proposed "Urban Conservancy" designation with likely future development concentrated at the top of the slope. Large lots in this area have a variety of buffer conditions varying from wide buffers of native trees to lawn and ornamental vegetation. Where non - native vegetation predominates, adverse impacts from runoff discharge containing sediment and toxins from pesticides and herbicides are likely to be most effectively addressed by the addition or enhancement of native vegetation buffers adjacent to the water through educational efforts and voluntary planting of buffers. As non - subdividable properties undergo major remodeling or redevelopment, minimal buffers on the shoreline would be required. Cumulatively, these efforts are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing filtering and uptake of pollutants and providing shade to reduce desiccation of the nearshore. The City may contribute to water quality in the bay through incremental improvements in the storm drainage system that discharges into Dee /Enetai Creek and in public education in order to reduce discharge of nutrients and toxins into the system. Installation of a public sewer system, as recommended by the Kitsap Health District in areas served by failing on -site sewage systems, would address the major source of fecal contamination. 5.2.5 Kitsap Lake Kitsap Lake is within the Chico Creek drainage. The lake is approximately 238 acres and the shoreline includes land within the city of Bremerton, as well as land within unincorporated Kitsap County. Most of the lake shoreline comprises single - family residential lots, with numerous docks, large areas of modified shoreline, and very little riparian vegetation. There is a large wetland on the south side of the lake, a City park, and a U.S. Navy park on the west side of the lake. The lake supports resident cutthroat, coho, steelhead, and pink salmon. There is one bald eagle nest and foraging area along the shoreline. Restoration Strategy The major restoration activity that will contribute to improved water quality in the lake is protection and restoration of the upstream tributaries, which are addressed in the Chico Creek Management Strategy. Public parks owned by the City, the county, and the U.S. Navy provide a variety of opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation depending on topography and other conditions implemented as part of ongoing park management. Enhancement opportunities, however, must be balanced with the goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline. Single - family lots with shoreline frontage predominate on the shoreline; these lots are relatively small and narrow. Most lots have no native vegetation at the shoreline, with lawns and ornamental vegetation the primary ground cover. Few of these lots have the potential for subdivision. Educational efforts may cause some changes in vegetation management leading February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -13 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton to voluntary establishment of limited buffers. Where substantial remodeling or replacement occurs, minimal buffers would be required. Cumulatively, education and regulations are likely to benefit both water quality and nearshore habitat by providing native vegetation that contributes filtering and uptake of pollutants. It is doubtful that such minimal buffers would provide much shade or woody debris. The majority of the lake shoreline is armored. As bulkheads need replacement in the future, regulations will require consideration of softer armoring, which may lead to more natural shoreline conditions supporting a more productive food web and other functions. Existing docks and moorage facilities will require enhancement such as grating for light penetration and less surface coverage as they reach the end of their useful life, which would require major repair or replacement. 5.2.6 Union River and Union River Reservoir The Union River watershed flows into Hood Canal; it is 24 square miles with 10 miles of mainstem and 30 miles of tributaries. The stream originates on the south and eastern sides of Gold Mountain. It flows through managed but undeveloped forest area to the City of Bremerton Union River Reservoir (the City's major water supply). The Union River Reservoir has a surface area of about 40 acres. Shoreline reaches include the entire lake shoreline, as well as the Union River below the reservoir from McKenna Falls to the lake. The combined lake and river shoreline area is approximately 98 acres. The upper watershed and the reservoir are within the City's protected watershed area with deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest as the predominant land cover. The Union River system supports chinook, pink, coho, fall - winter chum, summer chum, steelhead, and cutthroat. The Union River is the only basin on the Kitsap Peninsula to currently have a viable native population of summer chum salmon. The lake and river reaches within shoreline jurisdiction support resident cutthroat with the potential presence of coho and steelhead. The Kitsap Refugia report rated the instream habitat and riparian conditions for the river as a whole as generally fair to good. Riparian conditions in the lake and river reaches within shoreline jurisdiction are in good condition, with forested riparian zones on both sides of the river and around the lakeshore. The upper watershed has numerous headwater wetland complexes, providing extensive rearing habitat for salmonids. McKenna Falls is a natural barrier to fish passage upstream, and is located just downstream of the Union Reservoir dam. Water quality impairments include low dissolved oxygen and pH in the shoreline reaches downstream of the reservoir. The reservoir and river reach within shoreline jurisdiction are surrounded by the City's 3,000 - acre protected watershed area. The Public Works and Utilities Department, Forestry & Natural Resources Division manages the utility -owned forest lands for watershed protection, timber harvest, reforestation, biosolids utilization, and salmon restoration. Restoration Strategy No restoration needs have been identified in the City -owned portion of the Union River. There are numerous downstream restoration programs included in the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's Habitat Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, version 09 -2005. 5.2.7 Twin Lakes Twin Lakes together are approximately 21.7 acres and lie within the City's utility area. Twin Lakes are maintained by a diversion of water from the Union River Reservoir. The lakes are 5 -14 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton on the hydrologic boundary between the Union River and Gorst Creek watersheds. There is no surface drainage out of the Twin Lakes. Studies by the City indicate that approximately half of the groundwater flow out of the Twin Lakes is to the Union River watershed and half to the Gorst Creek watershed. Twin Lakes is located towards the western end of the Gorst Creek Aquifer Recharge area. In recognition of the importance of the lake to groundwater recharge, Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.14.430(6)(b)(8 ) prohibits use of pesticides and fertilizers above agronomic rates within 1,600 feet of Twin Lakes. The area around Twin Lakes is zoned primarily as utility lands, with some areas of low- density residential zoning immediately to the east; the industrially zoned South Kitsap Industrial Area is immediately to the south. The Twin Lakes shorelines are currently designated as "Urban Conservancy." Restoration Strategy No restoration needs have been identified in the Twin Lakes watershed. 5.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND REVIEW To remain consistent with the restoration framework and guidance for SMP development, project implementation and monitoring will survey available funding sources, guide development of project timelines and benchmarks, and document the progress of restoration projects. 5.4 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING Under WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f)(vi), the development of a jurisdiction's SMP must, "Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will be implemented... in meeting the overall restoration goals." A restoration framework developed in part by Palmer et al. (2005) provides several tasks for assessing restoration actions and revising the planning process to meet restoration goals. The following actions include: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Summarize restoration progress including grant applications and funds secured; • Monitor post- restoration conditions; • Revise the planning process to reflect changes in objectives and policy re- evaluation; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. To document progress toward restoration goals regionally within WRIA 15 and locally within the City, annual assessments should be performed to determine how well restoration criteria are met and how effectively the goals of this Plan are achieved. 5.5 SMP REVIEW To ensure that restoration goals are being met, it is important for the City to evaluate the effectiveness of this Plan and to adapt to changing conditions. To establish the SMP benchmark for implementation effectiveness, the State Legislature provided a timeframe for jurisdiction amendments to the SMP. This was amended in 2011 to provide an 8 -year update schedule. February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 5 -15 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton The 8 -year period starts once the City of Bremerton amends its SNIP (RCW 90.58.080 (4)(a)). While the review period is taking place, an ongoing assessment of project successes and limitations must still occur as restorations are planned and implemented within the city. 5 -16 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Draft Restoration Plan City of Bremerton C. REFERENCES City of Bremerton. 2010. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. December 2010. Accessed at: http: / /www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/ forms/ communitydev /smp /Shorelinelnventory Analysis.pdf February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 6 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Prepared for City of Bremerton Community Development 345 6th Street Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 -1873 qw3w ,.. This report was funded in part through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. fmm� u 8'A r. 1:NCT SrJld EC0L0CY Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004 -5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com May 2012 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) CITATION Parametrix. 2012. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. May 2012 May 2012 1 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... ............................1 -1 1 .1 PURPOSE .................................................................................. ............................ -1 1.2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ................................................... ............................ -1 1.3 SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND DEFINITIONS .............. ............................1 -2 1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ..................................... ............................1 -3 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ..................................... ............................1 -4 2. DATA SOURCES AND APPROACH .................................... ............................2 -1 2 .1 DATA SOURCES ...................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.2 SHORELINE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ......................... ............................2 -2 2.3 DETERMINING SHORELINE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES .................2 -2 2.4 APPROACH TO ECOSYSTEM -WIDE CHARACTERIZATION .......................2 -6 2.5 APPROACH TO REACH SCALE ANALYSIS ........................ ............................2 -1 2.6 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ..................................................... ............................ -2 2.7 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ............................... ............................2 -2 3. STUDY AREA: GENERAL CONDITIONS AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 STUDY AREA ........................................................................... ............................ -1 3. 1.1 Climate ............................................................................. ............................ -2 3.1.2 Geology and Topography ................................................. ............................ -3 3.1.3 Land Conversion, Development, and Management ......... ............................3 -9 3.2 HABITATS AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................... ...........................3 -11 3.2.1 Terrestrial Habitats — Contributing Watersheds .......... ............................... 3 -11 3.2.2 Freshwater Systems ......................................................... ........................... -12 4. ECOSYSTEM -WIDE CHARACTERIZATION ........................ ............................4 -1 4.1 ECOSYSTEM -WIDE PROCESSES .......................................... ............................4 -1 4.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................... ............................ -2 4.1.2 Regional Processes/Biophysical Drivers .......................... ............................4 -6 4.1.3 Broad Physiographic or Landscape Processes .................. ............................4 -8 4.2 PROCESS IMPAIRMENTS ..................................................... ...........................4 -22 4.2.1 Nearshore Process Important Areas ................................ ...........................4 -23 4.2.2 Freshwater Process Important areas and Alterations ....... ...........................4 -25 5. WATERSHED ANALYSES .................................................... ............................5 -1 5.1.1 South Central Puget Sound Action Area (as defined by PSNERP) ..............5 -1 5.1.2 Sinclair Inlet Watersheds and Shorelines ...................... ............................... 5 -2 5.1.3 Dyes Inlet Watershed ....................................................... ............................ -6 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) i City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS ......................... ............................6 -1 6.1 KITSAP LAKE .......................................................................... ............................ -1 6.2 UNION RESERVOIR AND UNION RIVER ......................... ............................... 6 -1 6.3 TWIN LAKES ............................................................................ ............................ -2 6.4 GORST CREEK UPSTREAM OF ESTUARY ...................... ............................... 6 -2 6.5 PUGET SOUND SHORELINES ............................................ ............................... 6 -3 6 .5.1 Gorst estuary ..................................................................... ............................ -3 6.5.2 Puget Sound Naval Shipyar d ............................................ ............................ -5 6.5.3 Port Washington Narrows West .................................... ............................... 6 -5 6 .5.4 Phinney Bay ..................................................................... ............................ -5 6.5.5 Rocky Point/Mud Bay ................................................... ............................... 6 -6 6.5.6 Ostrich Bay Peninsula and East Ostrich Bay .................... ............................6 -6 6 .5.7 Oyster Bay ..................................................................... ............................... 6 -7 6 .5.8 Ostrich Bay ....................................................................... ............................ -7 6 .5.9 Ostrich Bay North ............................................................ ............................ -7 6.5.10 Port Washington Narrows East ..................................... ............................... 6 -8 6 .5.11 Point Herron .................................................................. ............................... 6 -8 6.5.12 Bremerton East UGA ....................................................... ............................ -8 6.6 SUMMARY OF REACHES ...................................................... ............................6 -9 7. ECOLOGIC MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION TOOLS .. ............................7 -1 7.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................ ............................... 7 -1 7.2 DESIGNATION, RATING, AND CLASSIFICATION ............ ............................7 -1 7.2.1 Washington DNR Stream Typing System ........................ ............................7 -1 7.2.2 Fish Species and Lifestage Stream Classification System ...........................7 -1 7.2.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Based Classification System ..... ............................7 -2 7.2.4 Functional Assessment Options ....................................... ............................7 -2 7.3 BUFFER OPTIONS ................................................................ ............................... 7 -3 7.3.2 "No Harm" Regulatory System ..................................... ............................... 7 -7 8. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS .... ............................8 -1 9. REFERENCES ....................................................................... ............................9 -1 LIST OF FIGURES 1 -1 Graphic Depiction of the SMA Shoreline Jurisdiction ............ ............................... 1 -3 3 -1 Study area for the ecosystem -wide characterization of Bremerton shorelines; adaptedfrom PSNERP . .......................................................................................... 3-2 3 -2 Rocky shoreform at Bass Point (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas) ..................3 -5 3 -3 Bluff- backed beaches along Port Washington Narrows (Ecology, Washington CoastalAtlas) .......................................................................... ............................... 3 -6 ii May 2012 1 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3 -4 Barrier estuary in Phinney Bay; spit has been developed and a channel cut across the spit (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas) ................. ............................3 -6 3 -5 Artificial shoreforms associated with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard include overwater structures, fill, and armoring (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas)..... 3-7 3 -6 Recent slide areas on coastal bluffs contributing sediment to Bremerton's nearshore along Port Washington Narrows (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas) ....................................................................................... ............................... 3-9 4 -1 Relationship between biophysical drivers, processes, structures, and functions LIST OF TABLES 2 -1 Shoreline Map List ..................................................................... ............................ -1 3 -1 Upland and freshwater landforms, habitat components, and biological communities. ........................................................................................................ 3-12 3 -2 Nearshore landforms, habitat components and biological communities in .......... 3 -17 4 -1 Ecosystem process definitions ................................................... ...........................4 -10 4 -2 Nearshore Processes, Process Important Areas, and Process Alterations ............4 -23 4 -3 Freshwater process important areas and alterations . ............................................ 4 -25 5 -1 Nearshore Stressors Affecting Major Shoreforms in the South Central Puget SoundBasin ................................................................................ ............................ -1 5 -2 Sinclair Inlet Watershed Characteristics ..................................... ............................5 -2 5 -3 Watershed Conditions in Sinclair Inlet Shorelines ..................... ............................5 -3 5 -4 Existing stressors in upland drainage are in Sinclair Inlet shorelines . ................... 5-4 5 -5 Existing stressors in nearshore zone ........................................... ............................5 -4 5 -6 Estimated percent loss of historic shoreforms in the nearshore zone of Sinclair Inletshorelines ........................................................................... ............................ -5 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) iii (adapted from Fuerstendberg 1998) . ...................................................................... 4-2 4 -2 Processes affecting shorelines operate at a range of spatial and temporal scales; processes at higher levels create the conditions and structure that influence processes at lower scales . ....................................................................... 4-3 4 -3 Conceptual model of relationship between biophysical drivers, ecosystem processes, structures, and functions, ecosystem services, human well- being, and human- produced stressors that affect ecosystem processes . ............................4 -5 4 -4 Biophysical drivers, processes, habitat structures, ecological functions and ecosystem services (adapted from Williams et al. 2001, Simenstad et al. 2006, Ruckelshaus and McClure 2007) ................................................ ............................4 -6 4 -5 Riparian Vegetation Function in an Urban Setting ................... ...........................4 -22 6 -1 Gorst Estuary at the mouth of Gorst Creek (Ecology Coastal Atlas Photo 060624 -1275) ............................................................................. ............................6 -4 LIST OF TABLES 2 -1 Shoreline Map List ..................................................................... ............................ -1 3 -1 Upland and freshwater landforms, habitat components, and biological communities. ........................................................................................................ 3-12 3 -2 Nearshore landforms, habitat components and biological communities in .......... 3 -17 4 -1 Ecosystem process definitions ................................................... ...........................4 -10 4 -2 Nearshore Processes, Process Important Areas, and Process Alterations ............4 -23 4 -3 Freshwater process important areas and alterations . ............................................ 4 -25 5 -1 Nearshore Stressors Affecting Major Shoreforms in the South Central Puget SoundBasin ................................................................................ ............................ -1 5 -2 Sinclair Inlet Watershed Characteristics ..................................... ............................5 -2 5 -3 Watershed Conditions in Sinclair Inlet Shorelines ..................... ............................5 -3 5 -4 Existing stressors in upland drainage are in Sinclair Inlet shorelines . ................... 5-4 5 -5 Existing stressors in nearshore zone ........................................... ............................5 -4 5 -6 Estimated percent loss of historic shoreforms in the nearshore zone of Sinclair Inletshorelines ........................................................................... ............................ -5 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) iii City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shorelinelnventory and Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 5 -7 303(d) Water and Sediment Quality Impairments in Sinclair Inlet Waterbodies ... 5-6 5 -8 Dyes Inlet Watershed Characteristics ......................................... ............................5 -7 5 -9 Watershed land cover, impervious surface, and ownership status .........................5 -8 5 -10 Existing stressors in upland drainage area of Dyes Inlet shorelines .......................5 -9 5 -11 Existing stressors in nearshore zone of Dyes Inlet . .............................................. 5 -10 5 -12 Estimated percent loss of historic shoreforms in the nearshore zone of ............... 5 -10 6 -1 Summary of Shoreline Modifications by Reach ........................ ...........................6 -10 7 -1 Comparison of Functions of Stream and Lake Buffer Widths ............................... 7 -6 APPENDICES Appendix A Shoreline Photographs Appendix B Matrix of Process Alterations Maps Map No. Map Title 1 Shoreline Planning Area 2 Regional Context 3A Topography 3B Waterbodies and Wetlands 4A Surficial Geology 4B Landslide and Seismic Hazard Areas 4C Soils 4D Hydric Soils 4E Drift Cells 4F Analysis Reaches 4G Shoreforms 4H Substrate Type 41 FEMA Floodplains 5 Groundwater Resources — Aquifer Recharge Areas 6A Wildlife Occurrences — Bald Eagle, Murrelet, Seabird Colonies 6B Wildlife — Marine Mammals and Shellfish 7A Fish Usage - Distribution 7B Fish Usage — Salmonid Stock Status 7C Fish Usage — Marine Fish /Forage Fish 8A Nearshore Vegetation — Marsh 8B Nearshore Vegetation — Kelp 8C Nearshore Vegetation — Sargassum iv May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Masten Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Map No. Map Title 8D Nearshore Vegetation — Eelgrass 9 Priority Habitats and Species 10 Land Cover 11 Impervious Surfaces 12 Water Quality Impairment and Sediment Contamination 13 Parks, Open Space, and Public Lands 14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Zoning 15 Current Shoreline Designations 16A Shoreline Modifications - Armoring 16B Shoreline Modifications — Piers /Docks 16C Shoreline Modifications — Pilings 17 Reach Rankings — Ecological Function and Restoration Potential May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) v City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BMC Bremerton Municipal Code BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BP before present City City of Bremerton DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DDT dichloro - diphenyl - trichloroethane DO dissolved oxygen Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EKNHA East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment and Inventory EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionarily significant unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act HCP Habitat Conservation Plan LWD large woody debris NCDC National Climate Data Center NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWAA Northwest Archaeological Associates NWI National Wetlands Inventory OHWM ordinary high water mark PAA Potential Annexation Area PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PSBRT Puget Sound Biological Review Team PSNERP Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project RCW Revised Code of Washington RM river mile ROW right -of -way May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) vii City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory SKIA South Kitsap Industrial Area SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program TMDL total maximum daily load UGA Urban Growth Area USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of National Resources WHR Washington Historic Register WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation viii May 2012 1 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Bremerton (City) is conducting a comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update with the assistance of a grant administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Shoreline Master Act [SMA] Grant No. G1000007). Cities and counties are required to update their SMPs to be consistent with the state SMA, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58 and its implementing guidelines, the Shoreline Management Guidelines, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -26. Early steps in the comprehensive SMP update process include the inventory and characterization of shoreline conditions. The inventory and characterization (IC) provides a basis for updating the City's goals, policies, and regulations for shoreline management. The term `shorelines' in this report refers to areas that meet the criteria for `shorelines of the state' as defined by the SMA (see Section 1.3 — Shoreline Jurisdiction and Definitions). As shown in Map 1, the shorelines in the City are: • Puget Sound • Kitsap Lake • Union River Reservoir and Union River between McKenna Falls and the Reservoir • Twin Lakes • Gorst Creek (lower portion) Marine areas of Puget Sound are designated as a `shoreline of statewide significance'. As such, additional policies apply to this shoreline since it is a statewide as well as local resource' (see Section 1.3 — Shoreline Jurisdiction and Definitions below). This report describes the initial results of the shoreline inventory and characterization in accordance with Task 2.2 of the City's grant agreement with Ecology. It includes a general discussion of the ecosystem -wide processes that influence the City's shorelines and provides a detailed account of the ecological functions and land use patterns along each shoreline segment or reach. This draft report will be revised and finalized based on comments from Ecology and the public. The final report will be used to guide other elements of the City's SMP update process including the development of shoreline policies, regulations, environment designations, and restoration strategies. 1.2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW Washington's SMA was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a referendum. The SMA was created in response to growing concerns about the effects of unplanned and unregulated development on the state's shoreline resources. As a result, the central goal of the SMA is `to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines' . 2 ' RCW 90.58.030(2)(e) 2 RCW 90.58.020 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 1 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis The SMA is a joint state /local program. Local governments responsible for administration are charged with developing SMPs in accordance with state guidelines developed by Ecology. The guidelines give local governments discretion to adopt SMPs that reflect local circumstances and to develop other local regulatory and non - regulatory programs that relate to the goals of shoreline management. The City developed its first SMP in 1992. Shoreline policies and regulations were reviewed in 2006. This IC report will provide the foundation for SMP policies and regulations under the current SMP update. The SMP will be maintained as a separate document that contains both policies and regulations. 1.3 SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND DEFINITIONS According to the SMA, the City's SMP regulations apply to all `shorelines of statewide significance', `shorelines', and their adjacent `shorelands ": `Shorelines of statewide significance' include portions of Puget Sound and other marine water bodies, rivers west of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a surface area of 1,000 acres or more.' `Shorelines' are defined as streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater and lakes with a surface area of 20 acres or greater.' ` Shorelands' are defined as the upland area within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of any shoreline or shoreline of statewide significance; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all associated wetlands and river deltas.' `Associated wetlands' means those wetlands that are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by waters subject to the SMA4 (Figure 1 -1). These are typically wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, or wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline jurisdiction through surface water connection and /or other factors.' In any given area, the landward extent of shoreline jurisdiction is identified based on site specific factors such as the location of the OHWM. However, for planning purposes, shoreline jurisdiction can be assumed to include shorelands as generally depicted in Figure 1- 1. 3 RCW 90.5 8.030 4 WAC 173 -22- 030(1) 1 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis f � {POZfHTLBLLY x 4b5GG1�5rE01 � x 8. rk ;IATfry ' WCf4 J4Nf7 xs50CaATEO PrETL.WIE�_ � T 1 � 1 } LEGEND S"Olt 4INE Tua CHET"J - �— 4ADINARY HiCH WATER MARK OWOWO �L 706 FT FMOM OFhM 8M4 FL00DWAY -- 200 FEET FROM:B*A FLODMAY 10p YEAR n.OD6 ALA14 Figure 1 -1. Graphic Depiction of the SMA Shoreline Jurisdiction The area under the City's jurisdiction includes incorporated areas; the South Kitsap Industrial Area UGA (SKIA) was annexed by the City on April 1, 2009 and is included within the City boundaries (Map 1). The City of Bremerton has also identified several areas for potential annexation into the City: Bremerton East UGA, Bremerton West UGA, and Gorst UGA (Map 1). All of these Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) would become part of the incorporated area under the City's jurisdiction. Shoreline areas are present in all three PAAs and the three PAAs are included in this report. The Shoreline Management Guidelines allow a city to pre- designate shoreline regulations within adopted UGAs. Thus, adopted SMP regulations will be applicable to these areas upon annexation without requiring future amendment of the SMP. 1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS The City's SMP works in concert with the City's Comprehensive Plan and a variety of other regulatory plans and programs to manage shoreline resources and regulate development near the shoreline. The Comprehensive Plan and associated Sub -Area Plans establish the general land -use pattern providing an overall vision for growth and development for City areas inside and outside shoreline jurisdiction. The SMA requires local governments to review any plans, regulations, and ordinances that apply to areas adjacent to shoreline jurisdiction. Those plans, regulations, and ordinances need to `achieve a consistent use policy' in conformance with the SMA and the SMP. This s WAC 173 -26 -150 6 RCW 90.58.340 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 1 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis means that the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations of the City's municipal code must be consistent with the SMP. One of the most important areas for consistency is between the SMP and critical areas development standards and use regulations. Environmentally critical areas including streams, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, fish and wildlife conservation, and geologic hazard areas are found throughout the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Although critical areas are to be identified and designated under the GMA, they must also be protected under SMA when located within the shoreline jurisdiction. The Washington State Legislature and the Growth Management Hearings Board have determined that local governments must adopt SMPs that protect critical areas within the shoreline to achieve no net loss of ecological function.' The GMA also calls for coordination and consistency of comprehensive plans among local jurisdictions. Because SMP goals and policies are an element of the local comprehensive plan, the requirement for internal and intergovernmental plan consistency may be satisfied by watershed -wide or regional planning. Consistent with this provision, the City of Bremerton is coordinating with Kitsap County; the neighboring cities of Poulsbo, Port Orchard, Bainbridge Island, and the Suquamish Indian Tribe during the SMP update process. 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report includes the following information: Section 2 describes the data sources used and general approach to the inventory and characterization. Section 3 describes the study area and important biological resources. Section 4 details the characterization of ecosystem -wide processes and process alterations. Section 5 includes an analysis of conditions by watershed. Section 6 describes the reach inventory and analysis. Section 7 describes in general the management options for addressing protection or restoration of ecological functions. Section 8 provides a summary of the functional analysis and a general description of restoration, protection and public access opportunities. References are provided in Section 9. House Bill 1653 1 -4 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 2. DATA SOURCES AND APPROACH 2.1 DATA SOURCES A number of local, regional, state and federal agency data sources, maps, and technical reports were reviewed to compile this inventory and characterization report. This includes information pertaining to watershed conditions and ecosystem -wide processes, as well as data on local land -use patterns and ecological conditions of Bremerton's shorelines. Assessing conditions at these two distinct geographic scales, the watershed scale and the shoreline reach scale, is a key requirement of the SNIP update process.' A series of maps depicting shoreline and watershed attributes accompanies this report (as summarized in Table 2 -1). Important data sources include geospatial data from the City of Bremerton, the Kitsap County Geographic Information System (GIS) database, the East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment and Inventory (EKNHA), and the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Partnership (PSNERP) change analysis study. A complete list of data sources used to compile this IC report is included in Section 9. Table 2 -1. Shoreline Map List Map No. Map Title 1 Shoreline Planning Area 2 Regional Context 3A Topography 3B Waterbodies and Wetlands 4A Surficial Geology 4B Landslide and Seismic Hazard Areas 4C Soils 4D Hydric Soils 4E Drift Cells 4F Analysis Reaches 4G Shoreforms 4H Substrate Type 41 FEMA Floodplains 5 Groundwater Resources — Aquifer Recharge Areas 6A Wildlife Occurrences — Bald Eagle, Murrelet, Seabird Colonies 6B Wildlife — Marine Mammals and Shellfish 7A Fish Usage - Distribution 7B Fish Usage — Salmonid Stock Status 7C Fish Usage — Marine Fish /Forage Fish 8A Nearshore Vegetation — Marsh 8B Nearshore Vegetation — Kelp 8C Nearshore Vegetation — Sargassum 8D Nearshore Vegetation — Eelgrass 9 Priority Habitats and Species 10 Land Cover s WAC 173 -26 -201 May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 2 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Map No. Map Title 11 Impervious Surfaces 12 Water Quality Impairment and Sediment Contamination 13 Parks, Open Space, and Public Lands 14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Zoning 15 Current Shoreline Designations 16A Shoreline Modifications - Armoring 16B Shoreline Modifications — Piers /Docks 16C Shoreline Modifications — Pilings 17 Reach Rankings — Ecological Function and Restoration Potential 2.2 SHORELINE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES This IC report includes both a watershed or ecosystem scale, and a local scale, of analysis. The area included within the landscape or ecosystem -wide characterization extends outside of those areas that are subject to shoreline jurisdiction by the City, but includes surrounding areas that influence shoreline condition and function. In this report, the larger watershed or ecosystem -wide area is referred to as the study area. The study area is located entirely within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15. The study area generally includes Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, and Port Washington Narrows in Puget Sound, their contributing watersheds (watersheds for streams entering these areas of the Sound), and the Union River watershed which drains to Hood Canal (Map 2). 2.3 DETERMINING SHORELINE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES The approximate extent of shoreline jurisdiction within the municipal limits of the City and its designated PAA is shown in Map 1, and is referred to as the `shoreline planning area.' In general this extent represents: • Marine areas and tidal waters of Puget Sound within the City's municipal limits and PAAs, out to mid -bay; • Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Puget Sound within the City's municipal limits (Note: The mapped edge of Puget Sound is only marginally different than the OWHM); • Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Puget Sound within the designated PAA of the City; • Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of the Union Reservoir, and Union River between McKenna Falls and the Reservoir; • Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Kitsap Lake; • Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Twin Lakes; • All wetlands associated with the above areas; • All floodways associated with the areas above; and • Those portions of the 100 -year floodplains currently mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which are within 200 feet of the mapped floodway. This area covers a total of approximately 53 linear miles, II linear miles within the designated PAAs, and less than one linear mile in Kitsap County, outside the PAA. Of those, 2 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis approximately 46 miles are along Puget Sound; about one mile are along the Gorst Creek; less than one mile is along the Union River; about 2.3 miles along the Union Reservoir; 2.7 miles are along Kitsap Lake; and less than one mile are along Twin Lakes. The shoreline planning area encompasses approximately 858 acres. Planning area boundaries were derived using existing information from the Kitsap County GIS database. The location of the 20 cfs flow point on streams was confirmed using best available information (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1998). For purposes of this report, the mapped edges of Puget Sound, lake, and stream shorelines are assumed to correspond to the approximate location of the OHWM. Field inspection is required to identify the actual OHWM location on a specific property to determine jurisdiction limits, regulatory setbacks and /or buffers. Likewise, shoreline jurisdiction may include `associated' wetlands. Generally, a wetland's relationship to the shoreline must be determined in the field by on -site inspection. The maps outlined in Section 2.1 above indicate all mapped wetlands as potentially associated wetlands and likely include some wetlands that do not meet the criteria of "associated" wetlands. The shoreline planning area is intended for planning purposes only. As a result, the actual regulated boundaries of shoreline jurisdiction may differ from the area shown on Map 1, depending on information gathered on the ground at any specific location. For purposes of the shoreline inventory and characterization, the shoreline planning area was divided into segments, called reaches. Reach designations were determined based on natural boundaries such as drift cells for marine shorelines or stream reaches, and similarity of landforms or shoreforms, as well as adjacent land cover or land uses. Drift cell boundaries and reaches were defined to be consistent with assessment units evaluated by the EKNHA and PSNERP nearshore studies. The extent and general description of individual shoreline reaches that comprise the City's shoreline planning area are summarized in Table 2 -2 (see Map 4F). 9 USGS data regarding upstream boundaries for SMA streams and rivers (USGS, Water - Resources Investigations Report 96 -4208) to confirm SMP jurisdictional boundaries. 10 Additional associated wetlands may be present that are not depicted on the available maps. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 2 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 2 -2. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area 2 -4 Creek 203, 502, east of Gorst (14,752) but outside 204, 504, Approximate City & PAA 205,503 Size in acres' City's Gorst 34B 206, 505, Sinclair Inlet Gorst Estuary 605 16 Estuary Reach 207, 208, to the PSNS (28,605) (including Name Numbers" 209 210, General Description feet) PAA) 211, 212, Kitsap 1 NA 213, 506, 48 1 Lake North 214, 215, (10,500) 216, 217, Kitsap 2 NA 218, 219, 16 <1 Lake South I 220 (3,500) Puget 34A 221, 222, Puget Sound Naval 383 18 Sound 223, 224, Shipyard (32,914) Twin Lakes Naval NA 225 17 <1 Shipyard (3,800) Union (PSNS) NA Entire Union Reservoir 64 2 Reservoir Phinney 37, 38, 85, 365, 366, Phinney Bay 266 8 Bay 39 367, 368, 17 (14,889) River 369, 370, (3,800) 371,372 Lower Dyes Inlet RE EL Rocky 40,41 1 373, 374, _ Bass Point, Rocky Point, 164 3 " Reach numbers for marine shorelines correspond to drift cell numbers used in the East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment. 12 Approximate eastern limit of planning area; just to west of Anderson Creek. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) Approximate East Approximate Percentage of Kitsap Size in acres' City's Shoreline Inventory (Shoreline Shoreline Reach Reach Unit ID Length in (including Name Numbers" Numbers General Description feet) PAA) FRESHWATER SHORELINES Kitsap 1 NA North, east, and 48 1 Lake North northwestern shoreline of (10,500) the lake. Kitsap 2 NA South and southwest 16 <1 Lake South I shoreline of the lake; (3,500) including large wetland that extends to the south. Twin Lakes 3 NA Twin Lakes shoreline. 17 <1 (3,800) Union 4 NA Entire Union Reservoir 64 2 Reservoir shoreline. (14,000) Union 5 NA Reach of the Union River 17 <1 River downstream of the reservoir (3,800) to McKenna Falls. Lower 6 NA Reach of Gorst Creek 24 <1 Gorst upstream of the estuary to (5,250) Creek point upstream where flows are below 20 cfs (within shoreline jurisdiction). MARINE SHORELINES Sinclair Inlet Blackjack 34C 200, 202, South side of Sinclair Inlet 303 In study area Dyes Inlet RE EL Rocky 40,41 1 373, 374, _ Bass Point, Rocky Point, 164 3 " Reach numbers for marine shorelines correspond to drift cell numbers used in the East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment. 12 Approximate eastern limit of planning area; just to west of Anderson Creek. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 2 -2. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area Point 375, 376, and Mud Bay (6,128) Approximate East Approximate Percentage of Kitsap Size in acres' City's Shoreline Inventory (Shoreline Shoreline Reach Reach Unit ID Length in (including Name Numbers" Numbers General Description feet) PAA) Point 375, 376, and Mud Bay (6,128) 315 (14,263) 377, 378, Port 379 Mud Bay 42,43 380, 382, Mud Bay 86 4 135, 107 383,385 (7,385) Marine 86, 44 386, 387, Tip of Marine Drive 99 2 Drive North 388, 389 peninsula (between Mud (4,156) Bay and Ostrich Bay) Marine 87 391, 392, Marine Drive Peninsula 113 4 Drive 393,394 472, 473, (6,473) Oyster Bay 48, 88, 49, 396, 399, Inner portion of Oyster Bay 227 8 50 400, 401, to small peninsula (14,725) 476, 477, 403, 408, separating Oyster Bay from 409, 411, Ostrich Bay 412, 413, 480, 481, 414 482, 483, Ostrich Bay 140 416, 417, Western shore of Ostrich 242 6 419, 420, Bay to embayment north of (11,766) 421, 422, Elwood Point 229,230 Point Herron to current city 140 2 423 13 limits (4,388) Erlands 51, 89, 52, 424, 426, From embaymentto 211 4 Point 53 427, 428, Erland's Point and into east (7,270) 429, side of Chico Bay Chico Bay 138,90 430, 431, Chico Bay 188 In study area 432, 433, (9 but outside 434 City & PAA Port Washington Narrows Port Washingto n Narrows West 35, 149, 351, 352, West side of Port 151, 150, 353, 354, Washington Narrows, 36 355, 356, Bremerton Waterfront to 357, 358, Phinney Bay 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 509 315 (14,263) 8 Port 137, 108, 459, 460, Windy Point to Point Herron 634 11 Washingto 135, 107 461, 462, on east shore of Port (29,250) n Narrows 463, 464, Washington Narrows East 465, 466, 467, 468, 470 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 228 Point 55, 56A 229,230 Point Herron to current city 140 2 Herron limits (4,388) 13 Northern limit of planning area. 14 Start of planning area limit. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 2 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 2 -2. City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area a Nearshore areas based on assessment units defined in the East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment and is larger than the area within shoreline jurisdiction; freshwater area Includes floodways, and floodplains within 200 feet of floodways based on existing mapping sources (see Map 1). 2.4 APPROACH TO ECOSYSTEM -WIDE CHARACTERIZATION SMA guidelines require local jurisdictions to evaluate ecosystem -wide processes and their relationship to shoreline ecological functions. 16 Ecosystem processes generally refer to the dynamic interactions among physical, chemical, and biological components of an ecosystem that form and maintain aquatic resources at the watershed scale. Ecosystem processes interact with ecosystem structure to result in the functions of ecosystems. Ecosystem processes important in ecosystem function in the Puget Sound region include the movement of water (freshwater surface and groundwater, and marine currents and tides), sediment (through rivers and along marine shorelines), nutrients, pollutants and pathogens, organic matter (large woody debris as well as leaf litter and detritus), and organisms (dispersal or migration of plants and animals), and light energy or solar incidence. In this report, ecosystem processes were characterized for marine and freshwater shorelines in the planning area by adapting approaches developed for Puget Sound watersheds. Ecosystem wide processes affecting freshwater shorelines were evaluating using an approach similar to that described in Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes (Stanley et al., 2005) and Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characterization (Gersib et al. 2004, updated in 2009). Ecosystem wide processes affecting marine shorelines were evaluated by adapting several current approaches developed specifically for nearshore planning in Puget Sound, including the studies of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Partnership (PSNERP), Bainbridge Island nearshore processes (Williams et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2003, Fresh et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2004, Simenstad et al. 2006, Ruckelshaus and McClure 2007, Simenstad et al. 2009, Schlenger et al. 2010), and recent nearshore habitat assessments for Kitsap County (Borde et al. 2009, Judd 2009). 15 End of planning area limit. 16 WAC 173 -26 -201 (2)(c) 2 -6 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) Approximate East Approximate Percentage of Kitsap Size in acres City's Shoreline Inventory (Shoreline Shoreline Reach Reach Unit ID Length in (including Name Numbers" Numbers General Description feet) PAA) Port 56B 231, 232, Shorelines along Bremerton 247 5 Orchard 507, 233, side of Port Orchard Bay (8704) Bay 234, 235 236, 237, 239,240 a Nearshore areas based on assessment units defined in the East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment and is larger than the area within shoreline jurisdiction; freshwater area Includes floodways, and floodplains within 200 feet of floodways based on existing mapping sources (see Map 1). 2.4 APPROACH TO ECOSYSTEM -WIDE CHARACTERIZATION SMA guidelines require local jurisdictions to evaluate ecosystem -wide processes and their relationship to shoreline ecological functions. 16 Ecosystem processes generally refer to the dynamic interactions among physical, chemical, and biological components of an ecosystem that form and maintain aquatic resources at the watershed scale. Ecosystem processes interact with ecosystem structure to result in the functions of ecosystems. Ecosystem processes important in ecosystem function in the Puget Sound region include the movement of water (freshwater surface and groundwater, and marine currents and tides), sediment (through rivers and along marine shorelines), nutrients, pollutants and pathogens, organic matter (large woody debris as well as leaf litter and detritus), and organisms (dispersal or migration of plants and animals), and light energy or solar incidence. In this report, ecosystem processes were characterized for marine and freshwater shorelines in the planning area by adapting approaches developed for Puget Sound watersheds. Ecosystem wide processes affecting freshwater shorelines were evaluating using an approach similar to that described in Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes (Stanley et al., 2005) and Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characterization (Gersib et al. 2004, updated in 2009). Ecosystem wide processes affecting marine shorelines were evaluated by adapting several current approaches developed specifically for nearshore planning in Puget Sound, including the studies of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Partnership (PSNERP), Bainbridge Island nearshore processes (Williams et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2003, Fresh et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2004, Simenstad et al. 2006, Ruckelshaus and McClure 2007, Simenstad et al. 2009, Schlenger et al. 2010), and recent nearshore habitat assessments for Kitsap County (Borde et al. 2009, Judd 2009). 15 End of planning area limit. 16 WAC 173 -26 -201 (2)(c) 2 -6 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis The purposes of the ecosystem -scale analysis are to highlight the relationship between key processes and aquatic resource functions, and to describe the effects of land -use on those key processes. The information from the ecosystem -wide characterization will inform the reach analysis, and the discussions of management options and opportunities /constraints for protecting or restoring shoreline function. Steps in the ecosystem -wide characterization include: • Use existing models and Best Available Science (BAS) to identify key ecosystem - wide processes affecting shoreline resources and functions in Bremerton; • Use BAS and existing data to identify major stressors affecting processes and describe how processes are altered by these stressors; • Use BAS and existing data to identify those areas on the landscape that are most important for ecological processes and shoreline resources in Bremerton; • Use existing data to determine the relative extent to which those important areas and their processes have been altered; and • Based on this evaluation, assess the current condition of processes and shoreline resources within the study area. 2.5 APPROACH TO REACH SCALE ANALYSIS The inventory and characterization at the reach scale is intended to characterize in -water conditions for each of the SMA- regulated water bodies, as well as characterizing conditions adjacent to each water body. The reach scale analysis includes up -to -date information on land -use, zoning, public access, impervious surface, water quality, priority habitats and species, and shoreline modifications for each reach. The reach analysis for marine shorelines relies heavily on two recent, detailed assessments of shorelines in the planning area: the East Kitsap Nearshore Habitat Assessment and the PSNERP change analysis for Puget Sound. The reach analysis for freshwater shorelines relies heavily on watershed planning documents and salmon recovery plans for WRIA 15. Information developed in the reach scale analysis will be used with the ecosystem -wide characterization to identify management options, as well as opportunities and constraints for shoreline development, protection, and restoration. Steps in the reach -scale analysis include: • Use existing data to identify number and type of stressors affecting processes and shoreline conditions along each reach; • Use existing data, and stakeholder, and Technical Advisory Committee input to identify the presence and condition of biological resources along each reach; • Use existing data to identify existing and planned land uses, presence of infrastructure, and public access areas along each reach; and • Assess the relative condition and process impairment of all reaches to develop a relative ranking or scoring of shoreline condition for each reach. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 2 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 2.6 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Based on the watershed and reach characterizations, BAS, and existing information on the types of management options that exist for protecting and restoring shoreline functions in Puget Sound, important management options are identified and discussed. 2.7 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Based on the results of the ecosystem -wide and reach characterizations, areas in each reach where opportunities exist for protection, restoration, or enhancement of shoreline function, or enhancement of public access, were identified. Recent studies of Kitsap County and Central Puget Sound nearshore areas were also reviewed for opportunities and constraints. More detailed restoration actions will be developed under the next phase of the SMP update with development of the restoration plan. 2 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 3. STUDY AREA: GENERAL CONDITIONS AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.1 STUDY AREA The City of Bremerton is located on the western side of Puget Sound, in the central portion of Kitsap County, about 15 miles west of Seattle. Jurisdictional shorelines in the City lie within Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 15, which encompasses all of Kitsap County and portions of Mason, Pierce, and King Counties (Vashon Island). Bremerton is located in the eastern portion of WRIA 15, or the East Kitsap Watershed, and most of the area is comprised of numerous small drainages flowing directly into Puget Sound. The study area for freshwater shorelines includes drainage areas or sub - basins for the major streams and lakes, such as Gorst Creek, Kitsap Lake, and the Union Reservoir (Figure 3 -1; Map 1). Portions of the study area to the west and southwest of Gorst drain into the Union River and ultimately into Hood Canal (Map 2). The marine waters of Puget Sound have been divided into sub - basins based on geography, oceanographic conditions (circulation, bathymetry, wave exposure), and common socio- economic issues and interests. Sub - basins are classified somewhat differently by different studies, however. The Bremerton area falls within the South Central Puget Sound (SCPS) basin as defined by PSNERP (Figure 3 -1), and within the North Central Action Area as defined by the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). For this ecosystem -wide characterization, the study area for marine shorelines is defined as roughly equivalent to the North Central Action (see red box in Figure 3 -1, and Map 1), and encompasses Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, as well as the Port Washington Narrows, which connects Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, and a portion of Port Orchard Bay north of Sinclair Inlet. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Figure 3 -1. Study area for the ecosystem -wide characterization of Bremerton shorelines; adapted from PSNERP. Conditions within the study area that may affect ecosystem -wide processes and local conditions include climate, geology, hydrology and oceanographic processes, land use and development, and potentially the effects of climate change. 3.1.1 Climate Bremerton's climate is influenced by the temperate maritime patterns that define the overall climate of the Puget Sound lowlands (Mass 2009). In general, the climate is characterized by mild, wet winters, and warm, dry summers. Temperatures do not vary dramatically between winter and summer. Winter temperatures typically range from 30 — 50° F, and summer temperatures typically range from lows around 50° F to highs around 80° F (National Climatic Data Center Summary [NCDC] for Washington State). Precipitation is strongly seasonal, with about two thirds of the rain falling between November and March. Precipitation typically occurs as frequent, low- intensity, and long- duration storms. Annual precipitation in the Puget Sound Lowlands typically ranges from 32 to 37 inches. Bremerton precipitation averages about 39 inches per year, with higher precipitation (about 50 inches per year) falling at Green Mountain (Haring 2000). Snow is rare at the relatively low elevations within the study area. Strong winter storms can be associated with high winds; prevailing winter winds are from the south/southwest. Wind storms can produce storm surges in low -lying coastal areas, especially 3 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis when storm winds align with flood tides. Saturated soils and long- duration storms during the winter can also result in flooding of low -lying areas adjacent to streams and rivers. 3.1.2 Geology and Topography 3.1.2.1 Geology The East Kitsap Watershed is geologically and topographically similar to other areas in the Puget Sound region, reflecting the influences of mountain building and glacial activity. During the Eocene Epoch (approximately 38 -55 million years ago), the East Kitsap Watershed was located at the western edge of the North American continent. Sediments were deposited in the coastal environment to the west of North America. Plate tectonic movement of the oceanic plate under the North America plate caused ocean and continental shelf rocks and sediment to be scraped off. These attached onto North America approximately 7 -12 million years ago. Continued eastward movement uplifted these rocks and formed the hills and mountains of the Olympic Peninsula and underlying the Kitsap Peninsula. The underlying volcanic bedrock is overlaid with several thousand feet of marine sedimentary rocks. Green and Gold mountains, located west of Bremerton, are composed of these ocean floor rocks. The Pleistocene Epoch (or Ice Age), which began about 2 million years ago, formed most of the geologic features present in the watershed today. Cordilleran Ice Sheets, which originated in the coast and insular mountains of British Columbia, moved south to the southern end of the Puget Sound basin near Olympia. Up to 3,500 feet of glacial ice covered the Kitsap Peninsula. Geologic units from at least five major and several minor glacial advances have been identified in the Puget Sound basin, although only three are exposed (visible) in Kitsap County. Each glacial advance is characterized by a similar set of geologic events. Advancing ice blocked rivers, which normally drained to the north and formed lakes in the southern portion of the Puget Sound basin. Widespread, fine- grained, lacustrine sediments were deposited by meltwater streams. Glacial till (a compact unsorted mix of clay, sand, and gravel, looking much like concrete) was then deposited directly under the glacier as it overrode the outwash sediments. Local recessional outwash sand and gravel deposits later formed from melt water as the front of the ice sheet receded to the north. Non - glacial intervals between the advances are characterized by fluvial (stream) sediments and peat. The Fraser Glaciation, which occurred from 15,000 to 13,500 years ago, was the last glacial advance in the central Puget Sound basin (Deeter 1979). It eroded or covered much of the previous deposits. Deposits from the Fraser Glaciation in the area are characterized by silt and clay overlain by thick advance outwash sand, abundant till cover, and only local recessional outwash. Recessional meltwater outwash streams, much larger than present day streams, eroded and formed the larger valleys in the area. Valleys with "underfit" streams and estuaries or drowned river mouths were formed by the greater flow rates of outwash streams and a lower sea level during the Fraser Glaciation. Surface geology in the study area is a complex mix of these glacial deposits, which include unconsolidated silts, sands and gravels and typically cover a hardpan lying just below the surface (PSCRB 1989). In the study area watersheds (Chico Creek, Gorst Creek, Union River), bedrock underlies the upper sections of watershed tributaries whereas the lower areas are underlain by glacial till, recessional outwash, and advance outwash deposited during the last ice -sheet advance. Following the final retreat of the Fraser Glaciation, more recent alluvial deposits from weathering, erosion and sedimentation have continued to shape the landscape (Sossa 2003). Bluffs along the Puget Sound are being eroded and re- deposited as beaches and spits. Streams are eroding their banks and then depositing sediments in May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis floodplains, wetlands, and bays. Soils in the region were formed from the complex deposits of the most recent glaciation and are relatively young. The complex mixture of surficial deposits is reflected in the diversity of substrates found along marine shorelines. Most beaches in Puget Sound are a mix of sand and gravel sediments from glacial till and outwash eroded from coastal bluffs (Finlayson 2006). Sediments eroded from upland areas and carried to the Sound by rivers and streams tend to be finer sands and muds that form deltas and extensive mud flats in sheltered bays. Seismic Activity The Puget Sound region as a whole is in an area of active plate tectonics and seismic activity. Puget Sound is part of the Cascadia subduction zone, where the Juan de Fuca plate is moving under the North American plate. Several fault lines cross Puget Sound and are associated with seismic activity (Map 413). Movement along the quaternary fault lines that cross Bremerton, or other seismic events could cause liquefaction of the relatively loose soils that are commonly present along river and stream channels, lakes, and stream deltas and some marine shorelines. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which pore pressure in loose, saturated, granular soils increases during ground shaking resulting in a reduction of shear strength of the soil (a quicksand -like condition). As a result of this reduction in shear strength, ground movement during earthquakes can be severe and results in increased damage compared to other types of soils. Soils susceptible to liquefaction include non - engineered fills and loose alluvium such as present in the head of Sinclair Inlet, the shores of Kitsap Lake, and locally along small streams (Map 413). 3.1.2.2 Topography, Bathymetry, Geomorphology Most of the upland and freshwater portions of the study area consist of low, rolling hills with moderate slopes. Higher areas occur in the upper watershed of Sinclair Inlet to the west of Bremerton with some steep slopes ( >50% slopes). The highest point is Green Mountain at about 1,500 feet. The most dramatic feature of the study area is the long marine shoreline of Puget Sound, formed by several inlets and many smaller bays. Puget Sound itself is a large, fjord -like estuary where freshwater from numerous rivers mixes with saltwater from the Pacific Ocean. The Sound contains many sub - estuaries where larger rivers and small streams enter the Sound and create a mix of tidal freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh wetlands. As is typical of fjord -like estuaries elsewhere, Puget Sound is characterized by relatively deep basins that drop off steeply from a narrow fringe of shallow nearshore areas adjacent to the shoreline. Most of the Puget Sound shoreline in the study area has moderate to low banks, or areas with no appreciable bank — bays and estuaries, although higher, steep sloping bluffs occur along Port Washington Narrows. Bremerton lies within the Central Basin of Puget Sound, which includes the area between the southern tip of Whidbey Island and Commencement Bay (Ebbesmeyer 1984, Burns 1990). The study area is relatively more sheltered and shallow than most of the Central Basin. Two small sub - basins occur in the study area: Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet (Map 2). The main basin of Dyes Inlet is deepest near the center, at about 150 feet, but the many bays are generally shallow ( <35 feet). Sinclair Inlet is deepest at the eastern end (about 130 feet) while the head of the bay is <10 feet deep. 3 -4 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Geomorphology: Landforms and Shoreforms The diversity of substrates resulting from the complex geologic history creates a wide range of landforms and shoreforms (or coastal landforms) that support the area's diversity of habitats and biological communities. Landforms and shoreforms that are important to shoreline ecological functions are categorized into three general types: upland areas of contributing watersheds; freshwater systems (groundwater, streams, lakes, wetlands); and nearshore or coastal. Uplands, freshwater, and nearshore areas form a connected mosaic of habitats that is important in maintaining the biological communities and ecological functions of the City's shorelines. Major upland and freshwater landforms in the study area include (Montgomery and Buffington 1998, Buffington et al. 2003) • rolling uplands; • stream valleys with typical pool -riffle morphology, channel migration zones, and small floodplains; • wetlands in topographic depressions, on lakeshores, and on slopes; and • lakes with deeper open water and shallow littoral zones. Due to the City's extensive area of marine shorelines, coastal landforms or shoreforms have an important influence on shoreline ecological functions along Bremerton's shorelines (Shipman 2008; PSNERP 2010). Coastal landforms in the study area include very small areas of rocky shoreline (Figure 3 -2); bluff - backed beaches with a relatively narrow beach backed by high bluffs to low banks (Figure 3 -3); relatively wide barrier beaches; stream deltas; several types of embayments such as open coastal inlets, barrier estuaries (Figure 3 -4), barrier lagoons, and closed lagoons /marshes; and artificial shoreforms such as filled areas, structures, or armoring (Figure 3 -5). Figure 3 -2. Rocky shoreform at Bass Point (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Masten Program Shoreline Inventory andAnalvsis C 1` Figure 3 -3. Bluff- backed beaches along Port Washington Narrows (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). Figure 3 -4. Barrier estuary in Phinney Bay; spit has been developed and a channel cut across the spit (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). 3 -6 May 20121 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis • f f ir '' ����, ,••� ; I r. Figure 3 -5. Artificial shoreforms associated with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard include overwater structures, fill, and armoring (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). 3.1.2.3 Hydrology The East Kitsap Watershed lies between the backbones of the Kitsap Peninsula and Bainbridge Island, resulting in a narrow strip of land with many short streams that drain to the west side of Central Puget Sound. Streams in the study area are typical lowland type streams with generally moderate gradients. Upper reaches of streams are typical Puget Lowland headwater streams with low gradients that originate with perched groundwater in lakes and wetlands on upland plateaus and hills (Williams et al. 1975, Buffington et al. 2003). Numerous wetlands occur in the study area (Map 313). Considerable deciduous growth, interspersed with stands of conifers, farmland, and urban/suburban development is common on all streams. None of the streams are supported by snow runoff, as the maximum elevation in East Kitsap is less than 500 meters. Stream profile characteristics are, for the most part, pool -riffle in nature with water quality and aquatic insect production highly conducive to anadromous fish production (Williams et al. 1975, May and Peterson 2003). Stream power is generally low, limiting the ability of streams to transport sediment. Where streams flow off the higher rolling hills and plateaus down to the shore of the Sound, steeper ravines can create confined channels with greater sediment transport capacity Due to the small size of most streams, large, extensive floodplains are not found in the study area. Flood zones defined by the 100 -year flood elevations and flood hazard factors occur along almost the entire marine shoreline and the Kitsap Lake shoreline; FEMA defines the floodplain elevation as 13 feet NAVD (FEMA Flood Hazard Maps; Flood Zone A, Map 4I). The glacial deposits described above create a complex mix of layers of permeable deposits that rapidly infiltrate water (aquifers), with impermeable deposits such as compacted till, silts and clays that limit or prevent the infiltration of water ( aquitards). Large areas of permeable deposits can be important aquifer recharge areas (Map 4A and Map 5). As a result of this complex mix of deposits, the study area contains several aquifers and aquitards within the subsurface. When impermeable deposits lie below permeable deposits, water infiltrating through permeable layers will be stopped at the aquitard and flow along this layer. Springs May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis and seeps occur where this water discharges at the ground surface. This mix of layers therefore controls subsurface water movement from the upland to the lowland, as well as water movement to the streams and creeks that occupy former glacial outwash channels (Deeter et al. 1979). Groundwater flow into Sinclair and Dyes Inlets has not been documented but is thought to be `substantial' (Lincoln and Collias 1975, PSCRBT 1990). The headwaters of the Union River are impounded for Bremerton's main water supply. About 65% of the City's potable water comes from the Union River, with additional water supply from wells located near Anderson and Gorst Creeks, and north of east Bremerton (CDM 2005). 3.1.2.4 Oceanographic Processes The marine nearshore area of the study area is irregular and composed of numerous bays, harbors, and lagoons, with varied topography and slope. Combined, there are approximately 53 miles of marine shoreline in the study area. The majority of the shoreline within the study area is relatively protected from severe weather conditions and experiences only moderate- to low- energy wind and wave conditions. The protected nature of the study area marine waters and lake of large freshwater inputs from large rivers means that tidal currents and flows are important in driving local circulation patterns and water exchange. Low tides expose numerous small to moderate -sized tide flats in the bays and at the head of the inlet. Currents are generally weak except for in the Port Washington Narrows (about 4 knots; NOAA 1988). Flushing time for marine waters is about four days. Tideflats at the head of the inlet are exposed during low tides. Currents in Sinclair Inlet are relatively weak — about 0.8 knots, resulting in a low flushing rate with an estimated flushing time of about 14 days. The low flushing rates in both Dyes and Sinclair Inlets means that contaminants entering the inlets are not flushed out but can remain in place and become concentrated, degrading water quality and habitat. 3.1.2.5 Sediment Streams in the study area are relatively small with moderate gradients and do not move large amounts of sediments compared to the larger river systems in Puget Sound. Steep slopes in the upper watersheds west of Gorst are moderately erosive and contribute sediment to floodplains, stream channels, and stream mouth estuaries (Map 3A and Map 413). Tidal currents erode and deposit sediment in flats, marshes, and estuaries, creating complex channel networks. These channel networks redistribute organic matter, influence salinity gradients in estuaries, and provide access and refugia for fish and invertebrates. The sediment that forms beaches and other shoreforms throughout Puget Sound, and in the study area, is predominantly from eroding coastal bluffs. Some areas of the steep coastal bluffs along Port Washington Narrows and in Bremerton East are highly erodible and are important sources contributing sediment to the nearshore (Figure 3 -6). Sediment is eroded, moved, and deposited in a series of littoral drift cells. In areas where shorelines are protected from wave energy, streams entering the nearshore deposit fine sediments such as muds and sands. The large, relatively enclosed area of Sinclair Inlet has no appreciable net transport of sediment due to weak currents and limited wave action. 3 -8 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) Figure 3 -6. Recent slide areas on coastal bluffs contributing sediment to Bremerton's nearshore along Port Washington Narrows (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). 3.1.3 Land Conversion, Development, and Management The study area has undergone a series of changes in land cover and development over the past two hundred years that have altered marine and freshwater shorelines. The study area is within the traditional territory of the Suquamish Tribe, Salish- speaking people who occupied lands between present -day Gig Harbor, Bainbridge Island and Whidbey Island (Spier 1936, Suttles and Lane 1990). The Suquamish Tribe's traditional area included Puget Sound roughly from Vashon Island north to the Fraser River. The study area includes locations where the Tribe hunted for waterfowl, game, and marine mammals, fished for salmon and other fmfish, gathered shellfish, gathered food plants, and practiced plant food horticulture ( Suttles and Lane 1990, Ruby and Brown, 1992, Larson and Lewarch 1995, Waterman 2001). Pre - European contact settlements were often located along major waterways, and heads of bays and inlets. Wetlands provided a number of food or medicinal plants, and larger streams such as Chico Creek, Union River, and Gorst Creek were important sources of salmon and other fish. The Kitsap Lake area supported hunting, being noted for a large deer population (Snyder 1968). Settlement of Puget Sound by non - indigenous peoples began in the 1850s. Subsequent to the Treaty of Elliott Point in 1855, tribes were relegated to reservations, and rapid development and resource consumption ensued. In addition to the creation of settlements and small towns, early land -use activities included dredging for harbors to improve navigation, constructing rail corridors, and land clearing associated with agriculture and forestry. Logging expanded rapidly with European settlement and several mills were established, including the early William Renton mill at Port Orchard (Perry 1977). In the early 20 th century, century, the Kitsap Lake Development Association began construction of a water system to serve residences on the northwestern shores of the lake (cited in Berger and Hartmann 2007). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -9 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis As population in the area grew, land -uses in lowland areas transitioned from forestry and agriculture to urban development, including medium- and high - density residential, commercial, and industrial development. Industrial land -use was established at various locations, including along the Bremerton and Port Orchard waterfronts. Development in the Bremerton area throughout the 20"' century was linked to the Naval facilities in the area, such as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, built in 1891 (Perry 2002), the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport constructed before World Work I, and the Trident Submarine Base at Bangor, established in 1944 (Perry 1997). Navy -built railroads are located along Sinclair Inlet and connecting Shelton, Bangor, and Bremerton. Recent development along the marine shorelines includes the Washington State Ferry Terminal and the Bremerton marina. 3.1.3.1 Existing Land Use Land uses in the study area include relatively concentrated industrial, commercial, military, and residential land uses in urban areas along the marine shorelines, with largely forested and undeveloped lands in the interior. Relatively undeveloped areas occur in the upper Gorst watershed, the South Kitsap Industrial Area, and the area around Union Reservoir. The military /industrial development of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) occupies an area along the north shore of Sinclair Inlet. Commercial land uses dominate in the Gorst area just west of the mouth of Gorst Creek. Between the PSNS and Ostrich Bay, land uses are primarily dense to moderately dense residential, with some commercial areas along the Bremerton waterfront. The WSDOT ferry terminal and Port of Bremerton marina are located at the Bremerton waterfront just north of the PSNS. Recreational, commercial, and tribal harvest of salmon, other finfish, and shellfish are significant activities. The largest fishery is tribal harvest of chum and Chinook salmon in Sinclair Inlet. The Suquamish Tribe operates a Chinook hatchery on Gorst Creek in cooperation with the City, WDFW, and the Poggie Club (Haring 2000). Sinclair and Dyes Inlets, as well as the adjacent waters of Puget Sound, are part of the Suquamish Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing area (UA). 3.1.3.2 Climate Change Changes in climate can have dramatic consequences for ecosystem processes and ecological functions. Fluctuations in climate occur naturally at a range of temporal scales from thousands of years (ice ages), to decades (El Nino - Southern Oscillation: ENSO), to daily changes in temperatures. These fluctuations in climate have, in large part, shaped the landscape through fluvial, glacial, and nearshore processes. Although there is much uncertainty surrounding the type and extent of climate change that is anticipated to occur due to increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), some general predictions suggest that global climate change will affect Bremerton's shorelines. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published several reports that indicate that there is an overall warming climate trend (for example, see the Technical Summary IPCC, 2007 http:// ipcc- wa1.ucar.edu /wa1 /Report/AR4WG1 Pub TS.pd The exact implications of this trend for specific regions, such as the Puget Sound, are unclear. The climate impacts Group at the University of Washington (cses.washington.edu) has used climate models to identify some possible climate impacts in the Puget Sound: • Continued warming on the order of 0.2 to 1.0 °F; • Possible decrease in summer precipitation and increase in winter precipitation with little change in the annual mean ( http:// cses. washington .edu /cig /pnwc /cc.shtml) Taken together, these factors have the potential to influence the functioning of Puget Sound ecosystems. Warmer temperatures could result in higher summer water temperatures, having 3 -10 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis the potential to negatively impact several water quality parameters. Additional winter rainfall has the potential influence flow regimes. For Bremerton's shorelines, one of the most important anticipated effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest is sea -level rise. Sea level rise will likely change coastal processes and habitats, if water elevations increase as predicted. A recent study has been published by the National Wildlife Federation (NWT) on sea level rise and coastal habitats in the Pacific Northwest (National Wildlife Federation, July 2007). This study evaluated the Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon coasts specifically, and identified II different sites within the Puget Sound for sea -level modeling. The model used a range of sea - level rise scenarios as predicted by the IPCC from 0.08 meter (3.0 inch) increase in global sea levels by 2025 to a 0.69 meter (27.3 inches) increase to 2100. Sea -level rise within this range is anticipated to affect water dependent uses and infrastructure, as well as coastal habitats and fish and wildlife dependent upon the coastal areas of the Puget Sound. Predicted habitat changes in the Puget Sound, including coastal areas in the study area, are loss of estuarine beach and tidal flat areas, reduction in tidal marshes, saltwater intrusion into freshwater wetlands and brackish marshes, and increased shoreline erosion (NWT, 2007). 3.2 HABITATS AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Habitat units are local scale features and are defined as the biological and physical features of the environment that are critical sites for biological and ecosystem health, and ecological function on a local scale. Habitats and biological resources are affected by ecosystem -wide processes and process alterations. Habitats are also defined by environmental factors that modify or influence physical and biological structure. In freshwater systems, the most important of these are inundation or flow regime, substrate type, water depth and velocity, light, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. In the nearshore, the most important of these are energy regime /exposure, substrate type, water depth (includes light), tidal regime /tidal range, and salinity. Habitat units that can be defined for the study area are listed in Table 3 -1 and 3- 2, with major landforms, constituent components, and biological communities defined following Dethier (1990), Kunze (1994), Montgomery and Buffington (1998), Buffington et al. (2003), Madden et al. (2008), and Shipman (2008). Biological resources that play a critical role in ecological function and /or provide important benefits to people are sometimes referred to as `valued ecosystem components' (VEC) (Leschine and Peterson 2007). The following section discusses some of the key VECs in the study area that are influenced by ecosystem -wide processes and perform valued ecological functions. 3.2.1 Terrestrial Habitats — Contributing Watersheds Terrestrial habitat resources within the study area influence adjacent freshwater and marine shorelines and include terrestrial forests, steep slopes and ravines above streams, and riparian areas. Lowland forests are dominated by western hemlock, Douglasfir, and western redcedar. Forests provide breeding, feeding, and migration areas for a wide range of wildlife including large and small mammals, reptiles, songbirds and raptors, and insects and other invertebrates (Kruckeberg, 1991). Notable species in the Bremerton study area or region include: black - tailed deer, elk, black bear, bats, cougars, beavers, raccoons, and many rodents. Forested areas support a diverse array of bird species including songbirds, crows, and raptors. Many of these terrestrial wildlife species rely on shoreline habitats (lakes, rivers and marine shores) for at least some of their life stage requirements. Forested areas are also important areas for ecosystem -wide processes that affect adjacent shorelines, including movement of water, sediment, and large woody debris. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -11 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 3.2.2 Freshwater Systems Major landforms, habitats, and biological communities are listed in Table 3 -1. 3.2.2.1 Streams and Riparian Areas Stream ecosystems are complex and influenced by a suite of landscape processes including surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, sediment supply, nutrient supply, and riparian zone structure and condition. Changes in surface water processes have a major impact on ecological function and floodplain and hyporheic habitat conditions (Poff and Ward 1989). Changes in surface flow regimes can transform sediment supply and water quality, and can directly influence the patchwork mosaic of instream habitat resulting from natural fluvial processes (Leopold, Wolman & Miller 1964). This diversity of habitats in stream channels supports a rich macroinvertebrate community, as well as anadromous and resident fish. Research has shown that coastal rivers of the Pacific Northwest link temperate forests with adjacent marine ecosystems and serve as transport pathways for nutrients in both directions (McClain et al. 2003). According to McClain et al. (2003), streams and river accumulate nutrients from groundwater and terrestrial sources and transport them downstream, during which time numerous chemical and biological interactions repeatedly cycle the nutrients between organic and inorganic forms. This process is known as nutrient spiraling (Webster and Patten 1979). Table 3 -1. Upland and freshwater landforms, habitat components, and biological communities. Hydrogeomorphic System Major Landforms Habitat Componen is Habitats / Biological Communities • Puget Lowland Headwater Stream channel Pool /riffle Resident fish Channels migration zone Hyporheic Anadromous fish • Moderate to low gradient zone Benthic macro invertebrates channels originating on Riparian forests rolling uplands, frequently Flats Wetland Shrub /emergent wetlands from headwater lakes or Slopes depression vegetation wetlands. Depressions Seeps and Amphibians • Puget Lowland Confined Stream channel Step pool Resident fish Channels Anadromous fish • Moderate to high gradient Benthic macro invertebrates confined channels in steep Riparian forests ravines; transition from uplands to coastal deltas or estuaries • Puget Lowland Unconfined Stream channel Pool /riffle Resident fish Alluvial Channels Channel Floodplain Anadromous fish • Low gradient channels in migration zone Hyporheic Benthic macro invertebrates relatively broad valleys zone Riparian forests Shrub /emergent wetlands • Depressional and Slope Flats Wetland Emergent, shrub, and forested wetland Wetlands Slopes depression vegetation • Precipitation influenced Depressions Seeps and Amphibians wetlands occurring in low springs Reptiles points or depressions in the Small mammals landscape; seasonally Raptors and songbirds fluctuating water levels. • Groundwater discharge influenced wetlands on 3 -12 May 20121 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 3 -1. Upland and freshwater landforms, habitat components, and biological communities. Major Hydrogeomorphic System Landforms Habitat Componen is Habitats / Biological Communities slopes where seeps or Armoring Revetments springs from groundwater Tires Roads discharge provide perennial Overwater Railroads source of water. Jetties Fill • Lakes /Lacustrine Wetlands Depressions Open water Resident fish • Precipitation or groundwater Littoral zone Phytoplankton and zooplankton influenced areas of Fringing Benthic macro invertebrates permanent open water. wetlands Freshwater bivalves Fill /structures Submerged, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation Emergent, shrub, and forested wetland vegetation Amphibians Reptiles Songbirds and Raptors Small mammals Artificial /Anthropogenic Shoreline Bulkheads/ Modification: seawalls Armoring Revetments Causeways/ Tires Roads Roadways Overwater Railroads structures Jetties Fill Docks Dredged Piers Channels Pilings Boat ramps Log booms Fill /structures in littoral Typically lack vegetation Can be colonized by native and non- native biofouling communities Riparian vegetation contributes to a wide range of ecological functions within shoreline areas. Vegetation contributes to habitat functions for a range of fish and wildlife species. Healthy environments for aquatic species are linked with the surrounding terrestrial ecosystem including vegetation cover. Riparian zones contribute to healthy streams by dissipating energy and inhibiting sediment input, regulating the erosional processes that move sediment, and mechanically filtering and /or storing upland sediments before they can enter stream channels (Knutson and Naef, 1997). Riparian vegetation also performs water quality functions related to pollutant removal, primarily through denitrification, and trapping or storing of phosphates and heavy metals that are adsorbed to fine sediments. One of the most crucial roles that riparian areas play in the ecosystem is creating habitat. Riparian zones are a major source of large woody debris (LWD) input to streams. Approximately 70 percent of the structural complexity within streams is derived from root wads, trees, and limbs that fall into the stream as a result of bank undercutting, mass slope movement, normal tree mortality, or windthrow. LWD creates complex hydraulic patterns that allow pools and side channels to form. It also creates waterfalls, enhances channel sinuosity, and instigates other physical and biochemical channel changes. The in- channel structural diversity created by LWD is essential to aquatic species in deep, low velocity areas May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -13 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis for hiding, overwintering habitat, and juvenile rearing, in all sizes of streams and rivers (Knutson and Naef, 1997). Commonly recognized functions of the shoreline vegetation include: • Providing shade necessary to maintain the cool temperatures required by salmonids, spawning forage fish, and other aquatic biota. • Providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life. • Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates. Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the occurrence of landslides. The roots of trees and other riparian vegetation provide the bulk of this function. • Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment through storm water retention and vegetative filtering. • Filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from groundwater and surface runoff. • Providing a source of LWD into the aquatic system. LWD is the primary structural element that functions in streams to provide hydraulic roughness element to moderate flows. LWD also serves a pool - forming function in streams, providing critical salmonid rearing and refuge habitat. Abundant LWD increases aquatic diversity and stabilization, and provides cover for juvenile salmonids from birds, fish and other predators. • Regulating of microclimate in the stream - riparian corridors. • Providing critical wildlife habitat, including migration corridors and feeding, watering, rearing, and refugia areas. Stream and wetland riparian vegetation is largely intact in the upper Gorst watershed, around the Union Reservoir, Anderson Creek, unnamed stream entering Port Washington Narrows opposite Rocky Point, and along unnamed stream in East Bremerton UGA. Riparian vegetation is somewhat intact in portions of Chico Creek downstream of Kitsap Lake, and along unnamed short stream entering Sinclair Inlet south of where SR 3 and Navy Yard Way join. Anadromous and Resident Fish Streams in the study area support a number of salmonids and resident fish, the most common species being coho, fall chum, resident cutthroat, and winter steelhead. There are no native runs of Chinook salmon in streams draining to Puget Sound from the east side of the Kitsap Peninsula, including Sinclair Inlet and tributaries. Fall -run Chinook salmon in Sinclair Inlet are supported entirely by Gorst Creek hatchery production, operated by the Suquamish Tribe in cooperation with the Poggie Club and City of Bremerton. Ocean -type Chinook salmon occur in several stream basins in Sinclair Inlet (Blackjack and Gorst Creeks), with an estimated 10,000 adult Chinook salmon typically returning to Gorst Creek (WDFW 2007). Juvenile Chinook salmon are known to occupy shallow water habitat throughout Sinclair and Dyes Inlets (Fresh et al. 2006). Migratory adults returning to natal area streams would also be present within the marine waters of Sinclair Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, and Dyes Inlet in late summer and early fall. Both fall and summer chum occur in the study area, with most of the streams in the area supporting fall chum (see Map 7A). Hood Canal chum salmon occur in the lower reaches of the Union River system and are presumed to migrate west through Admiralty Inlet on leaving Hood Canal, although it is possible that some juveniles may move into Puget Sound and forage along the shorelines, potentially including the SMP study area, before migrating to sea. Chum salmon on spawning migrations may enter rivers from June to March. Adults will move into rivers when river flows increase after a period of rain. Chum salmon spawn in a 3 -14 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis wide variety of locations. In general, chum salmon are reported to spawn in shallower, slower - running streams and side channels more frequently than do other salmonid species (Salo 1991). They usually spawn at the head of riffles and in areas of upwelling groundwater, but may also spawn in intertidal zones of streams at low tide (Salo 1991). Hood Canal summer chum spawn from early September to late October, and late fall chum spawn from mid - November to mid - January (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). Chum salmon are capable of adapting to saltwater soon after emerging from gravel, and rear in freshwater for a few days to several weeks before migrating downstream to saltwater (Salo 1991). Downstream migration may take only a few hours or days in rivers where spawning sites are close to the mouth of the river, or it may take several months if the migration distance is long. In Washington, downstream migration occurs from late January through May (Johnson et al. 1997). In the Hood Canal river systems, out - migration starts in March and continues through April. Chum salmon spend 3 to 5 years at sea before returning to their native stream to spawn, die, and regenerate the cycle. Chum salmon juveniles, like other anadromous salmonids, use estuaries to feed before beginning long - distance oceanic migrations. However, chum and ocean -type Chinook salmon usually have longer residence times in estuaries than do other anadromous salmonids (Salo 1991). Migration of chum salmon juveniles out of estuaries appears to be closely correlated with prey availability, and larger individuals move offshore earlier. Although several area streams support winter -run steelhead, juveniles apparently rarely occur in the nearshore marine habitat in the study area vicinity (Fresh et al. 2006). Salmonid stock status is rated as `Healthy' or `Unknown' in most streams in the study area. Healthy segments include tributaries in the Union River system, one tributary on Gorst Creek and several small tributaries on Chico Creek (Map 713). Listed status under the ESA is `Threatened' for most streams in the study area. 3.2.2.2 Freshwater Wetlands The state of Washington (WAC 173 -22 -030) defines wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands are known to play a vital role in the landscape by performing: • Biogeochemical functions related to trapping and transforming chemicals and improving water quality in the watershed; • Hydrologic functions related to maintaining the water regime in a watershed and reducing flooding; and • Food web and habitat functions (Granger et al., 2005). Wetlands are comparable to rain forests and coral reefs in productivity (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000, Sipple 2002). They support extensive ecological function because they are structurally diverse, providing an array of unique niches that increase biodiversity (Knutson and Naef 1997), and provide breeding and rearing habitat for invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles (Sipple 2002). In fact, over 67 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species in Washington are either wetland- dependent or use wetlands (Kauffmann et al. 2001). Wetlands also indirectly impact other aquatic resources by facilitating landscape processes. Wetlands improve water quality by acting as a sink for sediment, nutrients, and metals and toxic compounds and help maintain watershed hydrology by storing surface water and recharging groundwater (Hruby 1999, 2000, 2003). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -15 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis The patterns of hydrology in a landscape determine the presence, structure, and function of wetlands. Hydroperiods, inundation depth, and water source all influence wetland function (Mitsch and Gosslink 2000). Wetland hydrology is similar to streams (Booth and Reinelt 1993), and development can decrease the amount of water available to a wetland through drainage or decreases in groundwater inputs, increase inputs via overland flow or runoff into wetlands, which may also increase fluctuation in water levels (Euliss and Mushet 1999). Drier wetlands are also destroyed more frequently on urban fringes (Holland et al. 1995). Changes in hydrology can also influence sediment dynamics through erosion, deposition and vegetation burial. In addition, agriculture (Baker 1992) and urbanization (Booth 1991) increase sediment loading in wetlands. Agriculture and urbanization also increase nutrient inputs, which can increase BOD and reduce species diversity. Mapped locations for freshwater wetlands are concentrated in the area to the south and west of Kitsap Lake, in the headwaters of Chico Creek and Gorst Creek, headwaters of Anderson Creek, in the Union River system, and in the area to the south of the South Kitsap Industrial Area. Wetlands associated with shorelines include the large wetland along the south shoreline of Kitsap Lake, small wetlands along the shore of the Union Reservoir, wetlands in the Gorst estuary, and small wetlands along the shore of Oyster Bay, Ostrich Bay, Mud Bay and Phinney Bay. 3.2.2.3 Lakes Lakes are deeper areas of open fresh water with wave -swept shores (Fuller 1997). Lakes store surface water and are a source of groundwater inputs. Thus they attenuate flood flows and are important sources of water for domestic consumption and irrigation. Lake shore and lake view properties are also highly valued for their aesthetic appeal and recreational value. Lakes are biologically diverse and provide habitat for numerous aquatic and terrestrial species that live along or near a natural lakeshore (Henderson et al. 1999). Aquatic plants and plankton (tiny plants and animals) form the base of a very productive food web that supports fish and other wildlife. Submergent and emergent aquatic plants provide cover for fish, amphibians, insects, birds, and numerous other organisms. Aquatic plants also provide important substrate for algae and bacteria that filter pollutants such as nutrients and toxins. Shoreline and upland plants provide food and cover for insects, birds, amphibians, and mammals; protect soils from surface and lakeshore erosion; and are an important factor for protecting water quality. The biological, chemical, and physical processes and functions of lakes are changed as a result of modifications to contributing watershed or riparian shoreline vegetation. Removal of vegetation can increase shoreline erosion, sedimentation from the watershed, inputs of nutrients to the lake, and reduce shading and inputs of leaf litter, insects and other organic matter to the lake. Boat generated waves can increase shoreline erosion and sedimentation, increasing turbidity and contributing nutrients. Phosphorous is typically the limiting nutrient in most lakes and the supply of phosphorous limits plant growth and primary production (Henderson et al. 1999). Dissolved oxygen enters via diffusion from the air and as a product of photosynthesis, and is vital for aquatic plants and animals. An increase in nutrients to lakes (eutrophication) affects water quality by enhancing the growth of algae and other aquatic plants, increasing turbidity, contributing to harmful algal blooms, increasing decomposition and biological oxygen demand and reducing the amount of oxygen available to fish and other animals (Odum 1963). Nutrient rich lakes tend to have high amounts of aquatic vegetation, large amounts of oxygen consumed by decomposition of 3 -16 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis the organic matter from these plants, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Excessive nutrients or inputs of fine sediment from surface erosion in the watershed or along the shoreline reduces transparency of the water and reduces the depth to which light can penetrate, reducing plant growth. Lakes are not common in the study area. Kitsap Lake is the major natural lake in the study area; Kitsap Lake is fed by a series of headwater wetlands to the south of the lake, and discharges to the north into the Chico Creek drainage. Union Reservoir is the second largest lake in the study area and was created by damming the Union River to supply drinking water to the City. Twin Lakes, two small lakes to the southwest of the Union Reservoir, occupies a small depressional area and does not have an outlet. Wetlands associated with Kitsap Lake at the far south end of the lake provide substantial water quality benefits for tributaries flowing into the lake as well as substantial habitat for a variety of species. Nearshore geomorphic systems, habitats, and biological communities are summarized in Table 3 -2. 3.2.2.4 Coastal Forests (Marine Riparian Vegetation) Marine riparian zones occur at the interface between upland and marine aquatic systems ( Culverwell and Brennan 2003; Brennan and Culverwell 2004, Brennan et al. 2009). Marine riparian zones occur above the area subject to tidal inundation, but may be in the area influenced by salt spray or storm waves. The type of marine riparian vegetation that occurs along the shoreline is influenced by a number of factors. The underlying geology, that influences the type of shoreform, whether feeder bluff, rocky shore, or beach backshore, will also influence the type of riparian vegetation present. In addition to underlying shoreform, the types of soils, steepness and height of the shoreline or bluff, annual precipitation, adjacent land uses, and surface and hillslope runoff processes, can all affect what type of vegetation is present. For example, adjacent land uses may result in presence of invasive species, or the replacement of forested riparian vegetation with ornamental landscaping, lawns, or impervious surfaces. Shorelines comprised of very steep or unstable slopes may not support Table 3 -2. Nearshore landforms, habitat components and biological communities in Habitats / Biological Geomorphic System Major Landforms Habitat Components Communities Rocky shores Platform Wave- eroded Resistant bedrock with limited platform /ramp, but no erosion beach Pocket Beaches Isolated beaches contained by rocky headlands Cliff, ramp /platform Kelp — intertidal, subtidal (floating canopy) Kelp — non - floating Cliff, backshore, beach canopy face, low tide terrace Rockweed — intertidal, subtidal Rockfish /Bottomfish Beaches Bluff- backed beaches Formed by landward Shorelines consisting of loose retreat of the shoreline sediment and influenced by wave action Bluff face, Marine riparian berm, vegetation (Coastal beach face, Forests) low tide terrace Coastal bluff May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -17 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 3 -2. Nearshore landforms, habitat components and biological communities in Geomorphic System Major Landforms Habitat Com ponents Habitats / Biological Communities and lagoons Barriers tide flats, Also referred to as accretion Formed where salt marsh, tidal channels Forage fish spawning shoreforms (Johanessen and sediment accumulates Berm, MacLennan 2007) seaward of earlier beach face, Sand /mud flats configuration shoreline (spits, recurved spits, stream low tide terrace mouth spits, bay Shellfish aggregations barriers, bay -mouth barriers, bay -head Benthic barriers, looped spits, Stream delta, macroinvertebrates tombolos, and cuspate tide flats, forelands) stream or upland salt marsh, Backshore (dunes, plant drainage channels, community ?) Bars depositional tidal delta features that are Tide flats, covered by high tides; salt marsh, Shorebird foraging transverse bars parallel channels, to net shore -drift tidal delta Small embayments: estuaries Open coastal Inlets Stream delta, Eelgrass beds and lagoons Small inlets protected tide flats, from wave action by salt marsh, tidal channels Salt marshes Protected from wave action by their small size or small size and sheltered shape, but not extensively enclosed Shellfish aggregations configuration by a barrier beach Barrier estuaries Sand /mud flat Tidal inlet largely isolated by a barrier Shorebirds beach and with a Stream delta, considerable input of tide flats, freshwater from a stream or upland salt marsh, drainage channels, tidal delta Tide flats, Barrier lagoons salt marsh, Tidal inlet largely channels, isolated by a barrier tidal delta beach and with no significant input of freshwater Salt marsh, pond or lake, tidal channels Closed lagoons and marshes Back - barrier wetlands with no surface connection to the Sound Salt marsh Deltas Tide - dominated deltas Alluvial floodplain Tidal freshwater Deltas at heads of bays (freshwater tidal, brackish wetland (forest, shrub, Long term deposition of fluvial where tidal influence is tidal marshes /wetlands), emergent) sediment at river mouths much more significant salt marsh, than fluvial factors, tide flats, Tidal brackish wetland typically with wedge- subtidal flats, (forest, shrub, shaped estuary distributary channels, emergent) tidal channels Tidal salt marsh wetland 3 -18 May 20121 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 3 -2. Nearshore landforms, habitat components and biological communities in Habitats / Biological Geomorphic System Major Landforms Habitat Com ponents Communities (emergent) Eelgrass beds Shellfish aggregations Sand /mud flats Riparian forests adjacent to stream channels Artificial /Anthropogenic Shoreline Modification: Armoring Causeways Groins /jetties Overwater structures Fill Dredged Channels Pilings Aquaculture Boat ramps Log booms Fill /structures in intertidal Po rts Bulkheads /seawalls Revetments Tires Roadways Railroads Groins Jetties Docks Piers Marinas Ferry terminals vegetation except at the very top of the slope. In contrast, small bluffs or shorelines may support dense riparian vegetation that overhangs into the upper beach zone. Healthy marine riparian areas provide a range of essential functions, including water quality protection, sediment stabilization and control, wildlife habitat, nutrient retention, microclimate regulation, insect food sources for juvenile fish, shade /cover, and woody debris to provide complex habitat structure and stabilize beaches (Brennan and Culverwell 2004, Brennan et al. 2009). Areas with intact riparian vegetation can also help protect slopes and bluffs from erosion hazards, mitigate storm damage, and stabilize slopes. Plant root masses provide stability by holding the soil in place. In addition, evapotranspiration removes moisture from the soil and can prevent high soil moisture or saturated soil conditions, which can lead to landslides or erosion hazards (Brennan and Culverwell 2004). The extent to which riparian zones perform these functions is dependent on vegetation composition, vegetation density, and the area continuously covered with vegetation (e.g., width of buffer and length of shoreline with buffer) (Knutson and Naef 1997). Brennan and Culverwell (2004) and Brennan et al. (2009) note the following characteristics of healthy nearshore riparian systems: • Long linear shapes • High edge -to -area ratios; May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -19 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis • Microclimates distinct from those of adjacent uplands; • Standing or flowing water present all or much of the year, or a capacity to convey or retain water; • Periodic flooding, which results in greater natural vegetation diversity; • Composition of native vegetation differing from upland (inland) systems (e.g., different species composition, abundance, diversity, and structure), and • Complex physical structure that provides support for terrestrial and aquatic biota. Relatively intact marine riparian vegetation is found at the following locations: NAD Marine Park, western side of Madrona Point (east shore of Ostrich Bay), portions of Oyster Bay, portions (northern portion) of Mud Bay, portions of the eastern side of Rocky Point, portions of point to east of Phinney Bay, Port Washington Narrows west just north of Warren Ave. Bridge and a very narrow fringe around Manette Bridge, very small isolated patch east of Gorst on south side of Sinclair Inlet, most of the shoreline along Bremerton East UGA, Port Washington Narrows east to either side of Warren Avenue Bridge, and Port Washington Narrows opposite Rocky Point (but mostly separated from nearshore by roadway). 3.2.2.5 Eelgrass Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a native marine seagrass that forms extensive meadows or beds on gravel, fine sands or mud substrates in the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones of protected or semi - protected shorelines (Bulthuis 1994; Thom et al. 1998). Typical locations for eelgrass have medium to fine sands, adequate light, relatively high levels of organic matter and nutrients (Simenstad 2000). Typical eelgrass locations are shallow tideflats, along channels in tideflats or estuaries, and in the shallow subtidal fringe. The eelgrass zone in Puget Sound is typically confined to areas between tidal elevations of +1 meter to -2 meters relative to mean lower low water (MLLW) (Thom et al. 2001, Simenstad 2000). In undisturbed areas with optimal conditions, eelgrass can grow to a height of 2 meters, forming a tall, dense canopy. Eelgrass beds can be dense and continuous along a stretch of shoreline, or occur in small, discontinuous patches. On the shallow flats typical of the southern Puget Sound, eelgrass beds can form wide expanses. Eelgrass beds form narrow corridors along the shoreline in areas with steeper beaches, or where light penetration is limited by turbidity (Simenstad 2000). Eelgrass ecosystems are highly productive, providing a source of organic matter to intertidal and shallow subtidal food webs. Eelgrass plants produce large amounts of organic carbon that is consumed directly by grazers, as well as forming the basis for complex detrital food webs (Williams and Thom 2001). Organic carbon produced by eelgrass is broken down by microbial decomposition. Particulate organic matter is also processed and consumed by a number of invertebrates, including harpaticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and isopods, which in turn, are important prey items for juvenile salmon and other fish (Simenstad et al. 1991). Juvenile salmon, as well as a number of other animals depend on eelgrass habitat structure for refuge from predators. Eelgrass leaves provide physical attachment sites for epiphytic algae and other organisms, and physical structure which absorbs and dampens the energy of waves and currents, providing some buffering for adjacent habitats. Pacific herring use eelgrass for spawning substrate and for protection while eggs and juveniles mature (Williams and Thom 2001). Eelgrass is found in patchy distribution north of Erlands Point, south of Elwood Point, in the southern point of Ostrich Bay and on the east shore of Ostrich Bay, in Oyster Bay near Madrona Point, in Mud Bay, along Port Washington Narrows at Lions Park, on both shores of Sinclair Inlet adjacent to Gorst Estuary, and north of the planning area near Illahee State 3 -20 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Park. Eelgrass is mapped in continuous distribution along the south and west shores of Phinney Bay (Map 8D). 3.2.2.6 Macroalgae /Kelp Kelp and other macrophytic brown algae can form dense, highly productive undersea forests that support many species of fish and marine mammals. Juvenile salmon and forage fish may preferentially use kelp stands in nearshore habitats (Shaffer 2003). Dense kelp forests also dissipate wave energy and provide sheltered habitat for resting /rafting seabirds and other animals within the kelp forest or adjacent surface waters. Kelp forests are comprised primarily of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) and other large brown algae, including the introduced Sargassum ( Sargassum muticum). These plants are attached to the marine bottom with holdfasts and require rocky or coarse substrates. Distribution is limited to areas with appropriate substrates, light penetration to the bottom and moderate wave /current energy. Continuous beds of non - floating kelp are mapped along both shores of Port Washington Narrows, and around Rocky Point. Patchy distribution of non - floating kelp is mapped along Bremerton East UGA shorelines north of Herron Point and opposite Rocky Point, Madrona Point, and Erlands Point. The non - native Sargassum is mapped as patchy distribution near Erlands Point, at Rocky Point, and along the Bremerton East UGA shoreline north of Herron Point. An area of continuous Sargassum is mapped around Herron Point (Map 8C). No areas of floating kelp are mapped by WDNR, WDFW, or the EKNHA. 3.2.2.7 Beaches and Bluffs Coastal bluffs are the primary source of beach sediments in the PNW, being particularly important in Puget Sound and along portions of the Washington and Oregon coasts. Natural erosion of coastal bluffs is essential for the maintenance of beaches and other associated nearshore habitats. Nearshore habitats and biological communities that are particularly dependent on the functioning of the bluff/beach system include coastal forests, dunes /dune systems, estuarine spits, lagoons and coastal marshes, forage fish (e.g., surf smelt, Pacific sand lance spawning beaches), juvenile salmon, shorebirds /waterfowl, and eelgrass beds. Coastal bluffs are treated as a separate habitat unit here, but most bluff - backed beaches include the following sub -units or features: Backshore - includes bluff face, colluvium at toe of bluff, berms and beach scarp on the upper part of the beach generally above MHHW; • High tide beach - steep beach face and transition to low tide terrace; • Low tide terrace — the flatter portion of lower beach which can also contain troughs and longshore bars parallel to the shoreline. Beach types include bluff - backed beaches, depositional beaches, barrier beaches and spits. The most common type of beach in Puget Sound are bluff - backed beaches - relatively narrow, thin beach deposits of sand and gravel underlain by a relatively flat erosional platform in most areas of the Sound. Along the Washington and Oregon coasts, beaches predominantly sand and gravel beaches and are one of the most shoreforms, particularly along the southern portion of Washington and Oregon coasts. Ecological processes that affect beaches and bluffs include sediment erosion and delivery, sediment transport and deposition, tidal flows, freshwater input, and exchange of organisms. Beaches and bluffs contribute to numerous ecological functions, including energy dissipation, forage fish spawning, habitat formation, shellfish support, waterfowl foraging, eelgrass habitat, and juvenile salmon rearing and migration. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -21 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Forage Fish In Puget Sound, forage fish species constitute a significant part of the marine food web, being particularly important as prey for fish species, including salmonids, and for marine mammals and seabirds (Fresh et al. 1981; Pentilla 1995; Bargmann 1998). Three species comprise the main forage fish species: surf smelt (Hypomesius pretiosus), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus). Forage fish species use a range of nearshore and estuarine habitats for feeding, rearing, and spawning, Surf smelt and Pacific sand lance both spawn within a limited range of tidal elevations in the upper intertidal zones of beaches, and have specific habitat requirements including substrate size and type (Pentilla 1978, 1995). Surf smelt spawn on coarse sand or pea gravel; gravels ranging in size from I to 7 millimeters. Surf smelt spawning occurs during high tides, most typically during afternoons or early evening (WDFW 2004). Pacific sand lance spawn over a wider range of substrate sizes than surf smelt, ranging from fine sand beaches to beaches with gravel up to 30 millimeters in size (Pentilla 1995; Lemberg et al. 1997). Pacific herring spawn in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, depositing eggs on marine vegetation at elevations between 0 and -10 feet MLLW (WDFW 2000). Eelgrass beds are important spawning substrate for Pacific herring; adhesive eggs are deposited on leaf blades of eelgrass and to a lesser extent on a variety of marine algae (Lemberg et al. 1997; Pentilla 1995). Due to the spawning requirements of these species, suitable spawning habitat for forage fish is limited, and these species are particularly vulnerable to changes in beach morphology (relative depth, exposure), beach sediment characteristics (substrate size - sediment sources, transport, or deposition), and nearshore riparian vegetation cover (WDFW 2000, 2004). Forage fish spawning areas in the study area include: • A herring holding area off the tip of Bainbridge Island east of the Bremerton East UGA shoreline, but no mapped herring spawning in the study area. • Sand lance spawning areas are mapped just west of the Warren Ave. Bridge on Port Washington Narrows, on Rocky Point, east side of Ostrich Bay near Madrona Point, near Elwood Point, and the south shore of Sinclair Inlet near Port Orchard. Surf smelt spawning habitat has been mapped on the north tip of Erlands Point, at Elwood Point, along Madrona Point and the east shore of Ostrich Bay, around Rocky Point, west Bremerton (small inlet near Taft Avenue), on either side of Port Washington Narrows near the Manette Bridge, Bremerton East UGA shoreline north of Herron Point, on the north side of Sinclair Inlet east of Gorst, and along the south side of Sinclair Inlet near Port Orchard (Map 7C). 3.2.2.8 Sand /Mud Flats Tidal flats are gently sloping, intertidal or shallow subtidal areas with unconsolidated sandy or muddy substrates. Mud flats are predominantly silts and clays and are high in organic content, often experiencing anaerobic conditions below the surface (Simenstad et al. 1991). Sandflats are comprised of larger particles ranging from fine sands to gravels. Sand and mud flats are not necessarily featureless — they frequently contain a number of channels formed by hydrologic processes that transport and distribute water, sediments and organic material, and provide some refuge for fish and invertebrates, especially during low tides. Sand and mud flats typically occur at mouths of rivers and streams where relatively large supplies of sediment are deposited as currents slow, also in embayments and depositional areas where wave and current energies are low. Because these are depositional areas where sediments are retained or build up over time, toxins (e.g., heavy metals) and /or pathogens associated with sediments also are retained and can build up over time. 3 -22 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis The shallow flats and inlets of the study area, especially in Sinclair Inlet, Phinney, Ostrich, and Oyster bays, are highly productive habitats, supporting high primary productivity and a diverse assemblage of benthic invertebrates and fish (Redman et al. 2005). Algal production on the surface of tide flats is an important source of food for prey items of salmonids and other fish. Light levels increase earlier in shallow tidal flats than in some deeper water habitats, such as eelgrass, and algal production on tide flats is important in the production of prey items used by juvenile salmon entering the nearshore in early spring (Redman et al. 2005). The shallow flats in the Kitsap County nearshore become productive earlier in the season than flats further north, due to higher light levels and warmer temperatures. Nutrient cycling on tidal flats and particularly the exchange of inorganic nutrients between benthic sediments/benthic infauna can be an important source of nutrients for algal growth and algal based food webs (Simenstad et al. 1991). Channels in tidal flats provide habitat and refuge for fish and invertebrates, including chironomids, amphipods (both important prey for juvenile salmon), polychaetes, clams, shorecrabs, tanaids, and mysids (Dethier 1990). Tidal flats also provide habitat and foraging areas for a number of fish, including juvenile Chinook and chum salmon, as well as English sole, starry flounder, sand sole, speckled sanddab, and staghorn sculpin (Simenstad et al. 1991). Sand and mud flats are found in Sinclair Inlet, Chico Bay, Mud Bay, Ostrich Bay, Phinney Bay, and Oyster Bay. Mud flats are most extensive in Sinclair Inlet and Mud Bay (Map 4H). Shellfish /Benthic Macroinvertebrates Cobble to fine sand beaches and sand and mud flats are important habitat for many shellfish species. Intertidal and subtidal areas that support the native Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) occur more abundantly in the northern portions of Puget Sound, but also occur in the South Sound, often associated with estuaries and eelgrass beds (Stevens and Armstrong 1984). Geoducks (Panopea abrupta) occur offshore in fine substrates of mud or soft sand, and typically burrow up to 2 -3 feet deep into the substrate. A number of hardshell clams, including butter clams (Saxidomus gigantean), native littleneck (Protothaca staminea), manila clams (Venelupis philippinarum), and horse clams (Tresus capax and T. nutallii) also inhabit the intertidal shorelines. Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila) and non - native Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) are common in the South Sound. Other nearshore shellfish include a number of filter feeders that remove plankton from the water column - cockles (Clinocardium nutallii), softshell clams (Mya arenaria) and detritivores that feed on organic detritus on the surface of sediments — clams (Macoma spp.). Shellfish resources in Kitsap County are important as the basis for commercial, recreational, and tribal harvesting, particularly for hardshell clams, oysters, and geoducks. Shellfish beds perform a number of important ecological functions including nutrient cycling, stabilizing substrate, enhancing water quality (filtering and retention), creating and maintaining habitat structure (e.g., oyster reefs), and providing food for a wide variety of marine invertebrates, birds, fish and mammals. As filter feeders, shellfish consume large quantities of plankton and particulate organic matter, cleaning the water column of organic matter (and any pathogens or pollutants that are present). Shellfish species occupy a range of substrate types from mud to gravels, with each species having a preferred or optimal substrate size for larval settling and adult growth (Dethier 2006). Siltation can negatively impact larval shellfish by smothering, and adult shellfish through interfering with filter feeding. Shellfish are therefore sensitive to changes in sediment dynamics, especially increased erosion and inputs of fine sediments or changes in substrate type or size (Dethier 2006). Because shellfish filter the water column, they retain and concentrate pathogens and pollutants in the water — although this helps improve water quality, contaminated shellfish can negatively impact people and other animals that eat shellfish. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -23 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Mapped locations for shellfish concentrations occur in Phinney Bay and Port Washington Narrows (geoduck) and Port Washington Narrows from Phinney Bay to Herron Point (hardshell clams), the shoreline of Bremerton East UGA north of Herron Point (hardshell clams), and the south shore of Sinclair Inlet near Port Orchard (hardshell clams)(Map 613). 3.2.2.9 Estuaries and Coastal Marshes Estuaries Estuaries are embayments (bays) or semi - enclosed inland waters with freshwater inputs that serve as transition zones between marine and freshwater environments. Estuaries include the zone at the mouth of a river or stream dominated by the discharge of freshwater, and generally extend from the head of tidal influence seaward to the point where fluvial influences no longer dominate. Within the larger Puget Sound estuary, there are many river estuaries (e.g., Skagit, Stillaguamish, Nisqually), numerous smaller estuaries associated with streams or bays (e.g., Chambers Bay, Rocky Bay), and localized small embayments that sometimes have freshwater discharge from either surface or groundwater sources (Beamer 2003). These smallest estuaries are sometimes referred to as `pocket estuaries'. Pocket estuaries usually contain emergent marsh, sand or mudflats, a channel structure, uplands and open water in close proximity. They may or may not contain surface freshwater inputs. Estuarine areas, and tidal channels in estuaries, can be particularly important for physiological adjustment for juvenile salmon transitioning from freshwater to saltwater (Pess et al. in Montgomery et al. 2003). Estuaries and large areas of habitat open to tidal exchange contain a wide variety of salinity levels and salinity gradients, which allow juvenile salmon to gradually adjust to saltwater. Complex tidal channel networks also provide a range of depths and velocities, which provide habitats suitable for a wide range of juvenile salmon sizes and life history types (Redman et al. 2005). Small, shallower tidal channels provide habitat suitable for fry which spend little time in freshwater and enter the estuary at small sizes, while deeper, larger channels provide habitat suitable for larger juveniles entering the estuary after some time rearing in freshwater or larger juveniles transitioning to pelagic habitats. Estuaries also provide large amounts of organic matter to support macro - detritus based food webs, which are particularly important for salmon prey items (Bottom et al. 1991). Estuaries in natal streams, such as Gorst or Chico Creeks, are critical habitats for juveniles originating in those rivers and can support large numbers of juvenile salmon. However, small estuaries, or pocket estuaries, in streams without salmon runs may also be critical to supporting juvenile salmon, especially when pocket estuaries occur in close proximity to larger estuaries (Beamer et al 2003). The primary ecological functions of estuarine shorelines include: • Flood attenuation; • Tidal exchange /organic matter exchange; • Stream base -flow and groundwater support; • Water quality improvement (nutrient retention, nutrient cycling); • Erosion /shoreline protection; and • Biological support and wildlife habitat including: • Food web support • Habitat structure • Habitat connectivity • Salinity gradients • Refugia — from predators (i.e., turbid waters of tidal channels and salmon) Estuarine wetlands are mapped in Chico Bay, the embayment south of Erlands Point, Ostrich and Oyster Bays, Mud Bay and Phinney Bay, and the Gorst Estuary (Map 313). Pocket 3 -24 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis estuaries are mapped at Chico Bay (3), Ostrich Bay, the small inlet in West Bremerton near Taft Avenue, on the south shore of the Gorst Estuary, and at Anderson Creek (Map 4G). Salt Marshes Salt marshes and brackish marshes are habitats that occur in areas with tidal inundation. Salt marshes typically occur at elevations at and above MHHW in areas where sediment supply and accumulation are relatively high. Therefore, salt marshes can occur in bays, along sand spits sheltered from waves and currents and most commonly on river and stream deltas. Salt marsh vegetation, especially the root mats and dense stems, trap and stabilize sediments and marshes tend to grow outwards over time as sediments entering the delta from rivers are captured and retained by salt marsh vegetation. Marshes provide complex, branching networks of tidal channels where juvenile salmonids feed and take refuge from predators, as well as providing habitat connections to riverine and marine environments (Hood 2005). Ecological processes that are important for creating and maintaining salt marsh habitat include sediment transport and deposition and tidal exchange. Sediment transport and deposition forms the coastal landforms subject to periodic tidal inundation and exposure, which support salt marsh vegetation. Tidal exchange provides the sediment required for building marsh surfaces that are substrate for saltmarsh vegetation, and in addition, provides twice daily flushing of organic matter, nutrients, and pollutants. Organic matter from salt marsh vegetation supports macro - detritus based food webs that provide food items for forage fish and salmonids in nearshore habitats adjacent to salt marshes. Maintenance of salt marsh habitats depends in part on the balance between marsh aggradation due to the buildup of organic matter and sediment trapped in the marsh and sea level rise (Bottom et al. 2005). The ecological functions and biological resources of salt marshes include: • Detrital based food webs; • In -situ production of invertebrate prey items of importance to nearshore fish and birds (e.g., salmonid prey); • Tidal channels provide refugia and foraging areas for fish and invertebrates; and • Primary production— salt marshes are highly productive. Mixed marsh areas are mapped as continuous distribution around Chico Bay, the embayment south of Erlands Point, southern end of Mud Bay and the eastern shore of Mud Bay south of Rocky Point, the barrier estuary in Phinney Bay, and the Gorst Estuary. Mixed marsh is patchy along Erlands Point, Oyster Bay, portions of Madrona Point, Phinney Bay south of Rocky Point, small area of Port Washington Narrows East to the west of Warren Ave. Bridge, and the south shore of Sinclair Inlet near Anderson Creek. Salt marshes have been mapped Elwood Point, south end of Ostrich Bay, scattered in Oyster Bay, Mud Bay, a small area near Rocky Point and on the Port Washington Narrows shore opposite the point and near Lions Park, in Phinney Bay, and along the north and south shores of Sinclair Inlet east of the Gorst Estuary (Map 8A). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -25 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 3.2.2.10 Marine Mammals, Bald Eagles, and Shorebirds Marine Mammals A number of marine mammals can occur in the nearshore and marine waters of the study area including harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and Southern Resident killer whales, or Orcas (Orcinus orca). Steller sea lions (Eumatopias jubatus) may also occasionally occur, although their occurrence in Puget Sound is transient. While sea lion rookeries typically occur on beaches along the outer coast, haulout areas are more diverse, including offshore islands, reefs, rocks, and buoys. Steller sea lions prefer relatively remote rookery and haulout areas, where human access and mammalian predation are difficult (NMFS 1992). Although, they are occasionally found on navigation buoys in Puget Sound, they are most frequently observed north of Admiralty Inlet (Jefferies 2006). There are no known Steller sea lion haulout sites within the study area. Although harbor seals and California sea lions are occasionally observed at haulout sites in Dyes Inlet (at the head end of Port Washington Narrows) and in Rich Passage (east of the project area), there are no known Steller sea lion haulout sites within the study area (Jeffries et al. 2000). Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) are infrequently observed in the Bremerton area. Resident killer whales occur at various locations in central Puget Sound each summer, typically for short periods of a few days, but they may remain in the area for more than a month. From late spring to fall, most whales can be found in the inland waters around the San Juan Islands, including Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, and the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Ford et al. 2000; Krahn et al. 2004). Less time is generally spent elsewhere, including other sections of the Georgia Strait, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, Admiralty Inlet west of Whidbey Island, Puget Sound, and the outer coast. Southern resident killer whales differ from transient killer whales in that they rely exclusively on fish as a food source. Fish are the major dietary component of resident killer whales in the northeastern Pacific (Wiles 2004), with 22 species of fish and one species of squid (Gonatopsis borealis) known to be eaten (Ford et al. 1998, 2000; Saulitis et al. 2000). Observations from northern Puget Sound indicate that salmon are a preferred prey of killer whales, representing over 96 percent of the prey during the summer and fall (Ford and Ellis 2005). This study also indicated that Chinook salmon comprise over 70 percent of the identified salmonids taken in the summer and fall, although extensive feeding on chum salmon was also observed in the fall. Species such as rockfish (Sebastes spp.), Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), a number of flatfish, lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), and greenling (Hexagrammos spp.) are also likely consumed regularly by SRKWs (Ford et al. 1998). Although SRKWs have apparently never been abundant — estimated numbers ranged between 100 and 200 before 1960 — recent reviews identified a decline in the population of about 15.5 percent from 1996 to 2001. Although the factors limiting SRKW numbers have not been clearly defined by scientific investigations, likely causes include the capture and removal for display in aquaria, the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals (e.g., organochlorine compounds), and declines of Chinook salmon stocks, which serve as the main food source for the SRKW ( Krahn et al. 2004). There has been at least one occurrence of members of one of the SRKW pods in the study area; the pod was identified entering Dyes Inlet in September 1997, presumably to feed on the chum salmon returning to Chico Creek (Kitsap Sun 2007; NMFS 2006b). This group of 19 killer whales remained in Dyes Inlet for about 2 months before returning to Puget Sound, and there was some speculation that they were being stressed by the extensive boat traffic of curious observers in the inlet. The whales also appeared to resist exiting the inlet through the Port Washington Narrows, making a number of excursions down to near the Warren Street Bridge 3 -26 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis before returning to the inlet. The whales apparently passed through the waterway relatively quickly on a strong outgoing tide on November 19, 1997. The only other recent observation of killer whales in the study area occurred in May 2004, when a pod of transient whales (not affiliated with the three SRKW pods) passed through Port Washington Narrows into Dyes Inlet, purportedly preying on seals. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -27 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Seabird and Waterfowl Concentration Areas Both resident and migratory seabirds and waterfowl are associated with shorelines in the study area. Commonly occurring seabirds or waterfowl include loons (Gavia spp.), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), mergansers (Mergus spp.), grebes (Aechmophorus spp.), herons and egrets (Ardeidae), geese (Branta), brants (Branta bernicla), gulls (Larinae), sandpipers (Scolopacidae), and ducks (dabbling and diving) (Buchanan 2006). In addition, a number of bird species identified as state priority wildlife species are associated with and forage along shorelines of the study area, including bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), marbled murrelet, and great blue heron ( Areea herodias) (WDFW 2007). Waterfowl concentration areas are mapped in the Gorst estuary and along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet from Gorst to Port Orchard, in Port Washington Narrows to the northwest of Point Herron and opposite Rocky Point, and on the northwest shore of Phinney Bay. Shorebird concentrations are mapped on the north shore of Sinclair Inlet just east of Gorst. Two seabird colonies are mapped on the north shore of Sinclair Inlet near the PSNS (Map 9 and Map 6A). Numerous bald eagle nest sites and nest management areas are mapped by WDFW in the study area. Nest sites are mapped at Kitsap Lake, Ostrich Bay and Phinney Bay, Gorst Estuary and the Sinclair Inlet shoreline near Port Orchard, as well as several sites along the Bremerton East UGA shoreline north of Herron Point. Associated nest management areas extend along the shores of Kitsap Lake, most of Ostrich Bay, Mud Bay, Rocky Point and Phinney Bay, Port Washington Narrows, Bremerton East UGA, and Gorst Estuary and the southern shore of Sinclair Inlet (Map 6A). 3.2.2.11 Marine Fish (Rockfish) The three species of Puget Sound rockfish are currently listed under the ESA. The Georgia Basin distinct population segment (DPS) of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) is listed as endangered; yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), and canary rockfish (S. pinniger) are listed as threatened ( hM2:// www .nwr.noaa.gov /Publications/FR- Notices /2010 /upload /75FR 22276. pd . All three species are rare and declining in Puget Sound. Rockfish are long -lived species with relatively slow population growth rates. These species are also typically associated with deeper habitats as adults and frequently with rocky substrates. Although little information exists on their occurrence in the vicinity, all three species could potentially occur in nearshore habitats within the shoreline planning area. Boccacio are found from Baja California to Alaska but are most common from Oregon to northern Baja California, and are most frequently found at depths between 160 and 820 feet (Love et al. 2001, Orr et al., 2000). Larvae and juveniles are associated with floating kelp mats, while adults are found in deeper waters and most frequently associated with rocky reef habitats or hard substrates. Yelloweye rockfish also range from Baja California to Alaska, but are most common from northern California to Alaska. Yelloweye rockfish also are found in deep waters ranging from 50 feet to 1,560 feet and are associated with rocky habitats with high relief such as rocky reefs, crevices, and sponge gardens. Typical prey of adult yelloweye rockfishes include sand lance, gadids, flatfishes, shrimps, crabs, and gastropods (Love et al., 2002; Yamanaka et al., 2006). Predators of yelloweye rockfish include salmon and orcas (Ford et al., 1998; Love et al., 2002). Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska (Boehlert, 1980; Mecklenburg et al., 2002). Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon 3 -28 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (Richardson and Laroche, 1979). Canary rockfish primarily inhabit waters 160 to 820 feet deep (Orr et al., 2000), but may be found up to 1,400 feet depth (Boehlert, 1980). They can live to be 84 years old (Drake et al., 2008). Canary rockfish were once considered fairly common in the greater Puget Sound area (Holmberg, 1967). Nearshore habitat association of juvenile rockfish are associated largely with larval and juvenile stages. Nearshore vegetated habitats are particularly important for common species of rockfish and serve as nursery areas for juveniles and later provide connecting pathways for movement to adult habitats. (Palson 2009) Threats to bocaccio include areas of low dissolved oxygen within their range, the potential for continued losses as by -catch in recreational and commercial harvest, and the reduction of kelp habitat necessary for juvenile recruitment. Yelloweye and canary rockfish, are threatened by low reproduction rates, and continuing threats from by -catch in commercial and recreational harvest, loss of nearshore habitat, chemical contamination, and areas of low dissolved oxygen. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 3 -29 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 4. ECOSYSTEM -WIDE CHARACTERIZATION This chapter describes how ecosystem -wide processes affect the function of the City's shorelines as required under the shoreline guidelines outlined in WAC 173- 26- 210(3)(d). Information is presented at a watershed -scale and provides a basis for understanding shoreline management in relation to the broader landscape context. This watershed -scale overview is intended to provide context for the reach -scale discussions provided in Section 5. To conduct the landscape analysis we used existing approaches developed for the Puget Sound region, and adapted them for use with Bremerton's shorelines. For freshwater shorelines, the approach to understanding and analyzing watershed processes developed by Stanley et al. (2005) and Gersib et al. (2004) were the primary references used. For nearshore systems, the landscape analysis approach of Stanley et al. (2005) was adapted to marine environments using conceptual models and assessments developed for the Puget Sound nearshore by), Schlenger et al. (2010), Borde et al. (2009), Simenstad et al. (2009), Ruckelshaus and McClure (2007), Simenstad et al. (2006), Fresh et al. (2004), Williams et al. (2004), Williams et al. (2001). Although many of the processes that affect ecological function in the City's shorelines occur outside the city and are outside the City's control, an understanding of their impact is important when considering the potential for management actions that may be undertaken by the City. For this reason, SMA guidelines require local jurisdictions to look beyond shorelines and `assess the ecosystem -wide processes to determine their relationship to ecological functions present within the jurisdiction'. The following ecosystem characterization defines the area contributing to shoreline functions in the City, identifies the physical, biological, and chemical processes that occur, and characterizes changes to processes resulting from land -use. The ecosystem characterization includes the following: • Define spatial scales for the ecosystem wide characterization — drift cells, basins or contributing watersheds (i.e., assessment areas and then assessment units — reaches) • Identify key ecological processes occurring, key drivers of those processes • Identify landscape areas most sensitive to process alteration • Characterize the general ecological process condition within the selected spatial scales • Describe the extent of process alteration and the potential for process maintenance /restoration The remainder of this chapter first describes the general setting for the Bremerton SMP planning area, then discusses ecosystem -wide processes, process - important areas and alterations to processes, and then concludes with a general assessment of ecosystem conditions and process impairments within the planning area. 4.1 ECOSYSTEM -WIDE PROCESSES The physical and biological processes that occur within the region's watersheds deliver, transport, store, and remove materials from the ecosystem, thereby affecting the structure and biological functions of marine nearshore, river, and lake shorelines. The movement of water, " WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(d)(i) May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis sediment, chemicals, organic material, and plants and animals, occurs throughout the landscape, and with varying intensities, depending on local geologic and climate conditions. The following section describes ecosystem processes, identifies areas most important for supporting those processes, and factors contributing to the alteration or impairment of processes. This section also summarizes conditions broadly across the entire study area. 4.1.1 Introduction Ecosystem -wide processes are the physical, chemical and biological interactions that form and maintain landforms (or shoreforms) and ecosystems. Processes create the physical form of the landscape, and maintain the structures (e.g. habitats) and conditions (e.g., substrate, depth, flow velocities, water temperature, and salinity) that support biological communities. Ecosystem processes create a diversity of habitat types that support ecological functions important to the maintenance of ecosystem health, as well as providing benefits to people (Figure 4 -1). For example, the diversity of habitats/biological communities created by ecosystem processes provide ecological functions such as primary production; carbon sequestration; local climate regulation (temperature and moisture); nutrient management; breeding, feeding, and refugia habitat for salmon and forage fishes; nursery habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrates (in eelgrass beds, salt marshes); and energy dissipation and flood storage in coastal marshes, floodplains, and wetlands. Figure 4 -1. Relationship between biophysical drivers, processes, structures, and functions (adapted from Fuerstendberg 1998). 4.1.1.1 Processes Occur at Multiple Scales Ecological structure and function in freshwater and marine shorelines are driven by physical and biological processes occurring at varying spatial scales across the entire ecosystem. 4 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis PSNERP (Simenstad et al. 2009), defines three broad scales that are important in nearshore processes (Figure 4 -2): • regional (large -scale and long - term); • broad physiographic processes (landscape /seascape level in Figure 4 -2); and • local processes (site conditions in Figure 4 -2) Large -scale and long -term processes such as regional geology and tectonic activity, climate, sea level history, disturbance regime (e.g., episodic fires, landslides or flooding), and tidal regime can be thought of as providing the geoclimatic setting or drivers that create the physical structure within which ecosystem processes at lower scales operate (Figure 3 -4). Biophysical drivers set the stage for, and determine the type of, processes, habitats and biological communities that occur in a particular region. For example, regional climate (e.g., amount and type of precipitation), topography (e.g., steep or low gradient), and geology /soils (e.g., permeable or impermeable deposits) act together to influence the hydrologic processes (e.g., surface and groundwater movement and storage) and type of vegetation within a watershed. In turn, hydrologic processes influence the natural variability of flows in rivers and streams in terms of the timing of high flows and floods, timing and extent of inundation in floodplains and associated wetlands, habitat features such as pools and riffles, substrate types and flow velocities. The flow regime in rivers and streams in turn influences habitat suitability and conditions for aquatic biota. The presence of species and biological communities is affected by these conditions — for example, flow regimes that are suitable for the specific life history requirements of Pacific salmonids for spawning, migration, and rearing. Processes at the landscape and local level are important in determining the ecological functions that will be present along the City's shorelines. These scales are also most likely to be affected by disturbance and stressors associated with human actions, such as increases in impervious surfaces or shoreline armoring. Figure 4 -2. Processes affecting shorelines operate at a range of spatial and temporal scales; processes at higher levels create the conditions and structure that influence processes at lower scales. May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 4.1.1.2 Landscape Ecology The complex mix of habitats found in the study area is formed and maintained by the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring throughout watersheds and marine basins (Roni et al. 2002, Stanley et al. 2005, Simenstad et al. 2006). Habitats formed by these processes are dynamic and change over time in terms of their condition, size or area, and availability at a particular location. The cumulative result of multiple processes acting across broad areas is a complex landscape supporting a diverse set of habitats performing a wide variety of functions. Changes in a single process, such as sediment transport, can therefore affect numerous habitat types and impact more than one function. In addition, the landscape pattern — the location, spatial extent, and connectivity of habitat elements — also affects the flow of energy, materials, and organisms through the landscape. Human actions frequently fragment habitats or create barriers to flows between habitats, for example by placing dams or shoreline armoring that interrupts sediment movement and impacts habitat forming processes. In addition, many organisms, but especially salmonids, need to be able to move freely among different parts of the landscape during different life stages. The entire `landscape mosaic' — the distribution and connectivity of critical landscape features such as tidal freshwater areas, brackish or salt marsh rearing areas, tidal channel refugia, and eelgrass foraging areas — is important in providing opportunities for salmon (and other fish and wildlife) to find and use suitable habitat (Cederhohn et al. 2000, Simenstad et al. 2000). 4 -4 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 4.1.1.3 Process Impairments and Ecological Function The functions performed by ecosystems provide many benefits, or ecosystem services, that people value, such as fish and wildlife populations, clean drinking water, flood mitigation, and aesthetic and spiritual values (Figure 4 -3). Threats and stressors created by human actions, such as increases in nutrients, presence of dams, shoreline armoring, habitat alteration or fragmentation, changes in land use, harvest of fish or shellfish populations, or pollution, can also alter processes and structures. Threats and stressors can therefore impact ecological function and result in the loss of benefits or ecosystem services. Changes in land use patterns and development across the landscape, not solely at the water's edge, may affect these processes and change shoreline functions. Figure 4 -3. Conceptual model of relationship between biophysical drivers, ecosystem processes, structures, and functions, ecosystem services, human well- being, and human - produced stressors that affect ecosystem processes. In summary, biophysical drivers or regional controlling factors establish the building blocks and environmental conditions that control local habitat structure (e.g., substrate, depth, vegetation density) and the composition of ecological communities (e.g., vegetation composition), including where habitat types occur and the amount of habitat that is present. Habitat structure and composition are linked to local ecological processes and functions that maintain biological communities and provide benefits to people. Actions that affect processes or controlling factors will change habitat structures and ultimately be reflected in changes to ecological functions. The actions that affect processes and controlling factors act as stressors to the system; cumulative stressors can affect the viability of healthy ecosystems, communities, and individual species populations (Figure 4 -4). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Biophysical Drivers or Process Controls Stressors/ Process Alterations (geology, climate) Landscape/Watershed Processes (wave /wind energy, circulation, fluvial influences, sediment supply /transport, tidal regime, light energy) Habitat Structure • substrate type • salinity gradients • temperature • LWD • light levels • depth • eelgrass density, biomass • connectivity • tidal channel geometry • riparian vegetation structure and composition Ecological Functions & Ecosystem Services • Primary production • Secondary production • Carbon sequestration • Nutrient management (nitrogen removal) • Temperature regulation (e.g. shade, groundwater inputs) • Forage fish habitat/production • Salmonid support/production • Eelgrass production • Nursery habitat support • Substrate stabilization/erosion mitigation • Water supply (water cycle regulation) • Water storage /flood mitigation Figure 4 -4. Biophysical drivers, processes, habitat structures, ecological functions and ecosystem services (adapted from Williams et al. 2001, Simenstad et al. 2006, Ruckelshaus and McClure 2007). 4.1.2 Regional Processes /Biophysical Drivers Processes acting at large scales constitute regional influences or controlling factors that determine the physical and biological conditions for ecosystems across wide regions. Regional scale processes in Puget Sound such as climate, geology, plate tectonics, volcanism, establish large -scale controls on other processes and set the stage for, and affect, processes acting at landscape and local scales. Changes to regional influences — such as changes in overall precipitation patterns — will affect a suite of processes over wide geographic scales (see Figure 4 -2). Regional influences are rarely affected by management or restoration actions, but they can constrain the effectiveness or feasibility of particular management or restoration actions. Regional climate will be affected by global climate change, and in turn 4 -6 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis will change some of the regional and landscape processes that influence habitats and ecological functions. Climate change will potentially affect some of the key regional influences that affect Puget Sound shorelines — energy inputs (air and water temperatures) and winds, precipitation patterns and intensity. Large scale, regional processes that are important in the study area include: • Regional Climate — winds and atmospheric circulation patterns, precipitation patterns — seasonality, intensity, and duration of storms, and multi -year weather cycles (Pacific Decadal Oscillation - PDO, El Nino Southern Oscillation — ENSO); • Geology /Tectonic — movement of tectonic plates and earthquakes, inherited topography or bathymetry, and surficial geology from glacial processes; • Tidal, Current, and Wave Energy — tidal regime, dominant wind driven currents, estuarine circulation and mixing, and wave energy; • Freshwater Flows/Flow Regime — driven largely by precipitation patterns, regional geology, and land cover, freshwater flows influence the hydrologic regime and movement of water, as well as salinity patterns and circulation in Puget Sound; • Historic Sea -level Change — history of relative sea level in response to melting of glaciers and rebound of the land surface after the last glaciation, as well as tectonic activity that may affect relative sea level; and • Biogeography — geographic patterns in the distribution of biological communities (dominant vegetation and characteristic animals). Regional climate, geology, and hydrology were described above in Section 3.1). Additional regional controlling factors are described briefly in this section. 4.1.2.1 Tidal Regime Tides in Puget Sound occur twice each day, with significantly higher and lower tides occurring about each fortnight (Mofjeld and Larsen 1984). These are classified as mixed semi - diurnal tides, with one of the daily tides having a greater range than the other. Puget Sound intertidal shorelines are therefore exposed to two cycles of alternating inundation and exposure to sun, rain or air during each 24 hour period. The mean tidal range in the study area is about 7.66 feet and tends to be higher at the ends of inlets (e.g., Sinclair Inlet) (Mofjeld et al. 2002, Finlayson 2006). Kitsap bays and inlets are characterized moderate tidal ranges (Shipman 2008). 4.1.2.2 Estuarine Circulation and Currents Circulation and mixing of marine waters in the study area are driven primarily by estuarine circulation. The dense and saline waters of the Pacific Ocean flow into Puget Sound and towards the land along the bottom or deeper waters of the Sound. The less dense, freshwater inputs from the region's rivers flow out of the Sound along the surface. A number of shallow sills in the Sound that separate the deeper basins (e.g., Admiralty Inlet and Tacoma Narrows) disrupt the movement of water and promote mixing of the water layers. 4.1.2.3 Wind and Wave Energy The Kitsap bays and inlets of the study area are relatively sheltered from the region's predominant winds and are characterized by limited wave action (Shipman (2008). In Puget is Biogeography — large scale patterns in the geographic distribution of plants and animals based on ecological conditions and evolutionary history; ecoregions have characteristic biological communities, such as boreal forests, temperate grasslands, temperate coastal rainforests, or temperate salt marshes. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Sound, wave energy is primarily limited by fetch, or the distance over water that the wind blows (Downing 1983). Prevailing winter winds are from the southwest, with the strongest winds being from the south during winter storms (Mass 2002). The large land masses to the southwest of the study area, including the Olympic Mountains and the Kitsap peninsula provide some shelter from prevailing winter winds. This results in waves with small to moderate wave heights and short periods, and the study area has a relatively low wave - energy environment. 4.1.2.4 Natural Flow Regime Compared to the large rivers of Puget Sound, the small, low gradient streams within the study area contribute relatively small amounts of freshwater to the Sound and move small to moderate amounts of sediment. These are rain -driven streams that experience prolonged periods of high flows during the rainy winter months, with gradually receding flows during late spring and low summer and early fall flows (Booth 2002). The characteristic flow regimes of these small streams are important in determining the physical structure and habitat features of channels, floodplains, and deltas. The natural variation in flow regimes also influences the characteristic aquatic animals that occur in the study area as salmonid and aquatic invertebrate life histories are adapted to the seasonal and annual variations in flow regimes. Freshwater flows from streams and groundwater seepage also locally influence salinity regimes in the nearshore. 4.1.2.5 History of Sea Level Rise Historical sea level rise is the result of two general and opposing forces: the melting of glaciers since the end of the last glaciation and the uplift of the land surface as the weight of the glaciers was removed (isostatic rebound). In some areas, sea levels have risen faster than the land surface, resulting in an increase in sea level relative to the land. In other areas, the land surface has risen fast enough to keep pace with or outpace the rise in sea level, resulting in a stable or lower sea level relative to the land surface. In the mid -Sound region near Bremerton, the vertical land movement is near zero and historic sea level rise has been about 0.08 inches per year. These historic rates of sea level rise can be modified by climate change, which is expected to accelerate sea level rise in Puget Sound. In addition, some land use actions, such as draining estuarine wetlands, can result in land subsidence or the sinking of the land elevation relative to sea level, also resulting in greater rates of sea level rise. 4.1.2.6 Biogeography The characteristic plants and animals in a region form distinct biological communities — the composition of species (e.g., eelgrass communities, coastal forests) is likely determined by the past evolutionary history and presence of a distinct suite of climatic, oceanographic or topographic features. The study area occurs within the Cold Temperate Northeast Pacific /Puget Trough- Georgia Basin marine ecoregion and the Temperate Coniferous Forests /Puget Lowland Forests terrestrial ecoregion (Ricketts et al. 1999, Spalding et al. 2007). 4.1.3 Broad Physiographic or Landscape Processes Landscape processes, or broad physiographic processes of importance in the region include the following categories: • Hydrology (freshwater flows and tidal flows) • Sediment Processes 4 -8 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis • Geomorphic Processes (Habitat Formation and Connectivity) • Light Energy • Biogeochemical Processes • Movement/Exchange of Organisms • Disturbance Regime • Native Vegetation Establishment • Invasive Species Colonization /Establishment Component processes within these categories are defined in Table 3 -1 and discussed in more detail in the following sections. 4.1.3.1 Hydrology and Tidal Flows (Delivery, Movement, Storage, and Loss of Water) Hydrologic processes include elements of the hydrologic cycle that result in the delivery and movement of water across the landscape. Hydrologic processes influence freshwater flow regimes, or the natural variability in the magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, and rate of change of flow in the region's rivers and streams; as well as local and regional groundwater flows. Water processes in the marine environment include circulation patterns and mixing at the basin scale within the Sound, local tidal flows and currents, and wind -driven currents. Movement of water forms channels and floodplains, moves sediment and wood, and affects the circulation and mixing of marine waters and seasonally modifies salinity regimes in Puget Sound. Hydrologic Processes in Freshwater Environments The cycling of water through the ecosystem is dependent on geologic and climate controls such as slope, elevation, precipitation type and amount, soil permeability, storage potential on the surface (landform), and underground (soil porosity). Water is input to the watershed in the study area predominantly as rain. At elevations below 1,500 feet, precipitation occurs mostly in the form of frequent but low intensity rainfall that infiltrates the soil to recharge groundwater, or is delivered to surface water bodies via shallow subsurface flow. During intense winter storms that cause flooding, storm flow can be attenuated through temporary storage in floodplains, coastal marshes, freshwater wetlands, lakes, and in- channel features that add roughness and decrease flow velocities. Typically, storage areas occur near low gradient streams and in lowland areas where physical relief is very low, coarse glacial outwash stores high volumes of water, and subsurface flow velocities are rapid. Water can be 19 Rainfall rates can also exceed soil infiltration capacity, causing overland flow, which combined with shallow subsurface flow and groundwater discharges augments streamflows and sometimes causes flooding. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -9 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -1. Ecosystem process definitions. Important SysteM Freshwater , Upland, Ecosystem Process Nearshore Process Description Hydrology Delivery, movement, storage, and loss of water from a watershed or drift cell. Water Supply and Delivery F, U Process by which water (in form of rain, snow, or fog) reaches the watershed. Controlled by regional climate (type, quantity, and timing of precipitation) and vegetation (interception, infiltration). Freshwater Input (Delivery of Water to Nearshore) N Freshwater inflow from surface (streams, rivers) and groundwater (seepage) to nearshore (bluffs, beaches, estuaries and embayments). Timing and amount of input; influences water chemistry (salinity, oxygen), temperature of water and substrates, and moisture content of substrates. Water Movement (Freshwater) F, U Movement of water once precipitation sinks into or infiltrates the soil. Includes, infiltration, overland flow, shallow subsurface flow, deep subsurface flows (recharge), return flow (groundwater discharge). Tidal Flow (Water Movement Nearshore) N Localized tidal effects on currents, depth and duration of inundation, or elevation of water surface (beaches, estuaries, embayments, tidally influenced freshwater). Rise and fall of tides regularly floods and wets and dries the beach face, transports and repositions living organisms and organic material and sediments, influences sediment porewater and water table fluctuations within the beach, and creates complex salinity gradients where there is freshwater input. Regionally, tidal flows drive some larger currents (e.g., Port Washington Narrows, Rich Passage, Agate Passage). Water Storage F, N, U Short or long -term storage of water on the surface (interception by forest canopy, lakes, streams, wetlands, floodplains, side or distributary channels) or subsurface (soils /substrate, hyporheic zones, shallow and deep groundwater). Water Loss All Water is lost from a watershed by flowing out of the basin as surface or groundwater (into another basin or marine waters), or through evapotranspiration. Sediment/ Geomorphic Delivery, transport, and deposition /storage of sediment and geomorphic processes 20 Important system(s) includes those systems (freshwater, upland, or nearshore) that are important for the process. For example, water supply and delivery is influenced by all three systems through precipitation (all), tidal flow (nearshore), infiltration (upland), and recharge (freshwater). 4 -10 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -1. Ecosystem process definitions. Ecosystem Process Important System 20 : Freshwater , Upland, Nearshore Process Description influenced by sediment movement. Sediment Supply and Delivery (Erosion) / Sediment All Delivery or erosion of sediment from coastal bluffs and shorelines, beaches, steep slopes, and stream Input banks; depending on the location or landscape setting, delivery can occur in rare, large events (mass wasting, bluff failures, landslides), to more common, moderate or small events such as erosion of stream banks, erosion and retreat of coastal bluffs, or movement of gravel in rivers. Sediment Transport F, N Movement of sediment as bedload or suspended sediment by water (primarily) and wind; in rivers movement can be downstream or by overbank/channel migration; in nearshore movement can be along (parallel or longshore transport) or across (perpendicular or cross - shore) the shoreline. Types of sediment transport: Fluvial — by streamflow to downstream stream segments or to shorelines and across beaches; Tidal — rise and fall of tides and tidal currents that transport and reposition sediment; Longshore — redistribution of sediment along and parallel to a coastline (shore drift or littoral drift); Cross -shore — transport perpendicular to shoreline by wave action that moves sediment towards and away from shoreline. Accretion, Deposition, and Storage of Sediments F, N Deposition and storage occurs with settling of bedload (non- suspended sediments) in channel bars, (including organic sediments) channel meanders, floodplains, deltas or alluvial fans, beach dunes, offshore spits, etc., after being moved by wind or water. Accretion and storage occurs with the settling of fine particles from suspended sediment (typically in vegetation) and /or the accumulation of organic matter in riparian areas, wetlands, coastal marshes, and submerged aquatic vegetation (eelgrass). Creates barrier beaches, tidal wetlands, floodplains, and off - channel wetlands. Builds marsh surfaces relative to sea level; long -term burial of organic matter /carbon sequestration in sediments and soils. Distributary Channel Migration N Geomorphic processes that create and maintain dynamic distributary channel form and location by combined freshwater and tidal flows. Distributes alluvial material across stream deltas. Tidal Channel Formation and Maintenance N Geomorphic processes that form and maintain tidal channel morphology and natural levee formation. Channel Migration F Geomorphic processes that create and maintain dynamic river /stream channel form, location, and movement within the channel migration zone. May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -11 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -1. Ecosystem process definitions. Ecosystem Process Important SysteM Freshwater , Upland, Nearshore Process Description Floodplain/ Hyporheic Connectivity F Geomorphic processes that maintain flows of water, sediment, nutrients, and organisms between river channels and hyporheic zones and river channels and floodplains. Important sites for processing /cycling nutrients, maintaining chemical balances in surface and groundwater. Habitat Connectivity All Geomorphic and biological processes that maintain the connectivity between areas of similar habitat on the landscape. Nearshore Connectivity F, N Geomorphic and biological processes that maintain the connectivity between fresh and marine waters in tidal systems, and along shoreline segments within drift cells and larger landscape units (e.g., basins and sub - basins of Puget Sound). Biogeochemical (Water Quality) Input, movement, retention /cycling, and loss of nutrients, pollutants /toxins, and pathogens in a watershed. Nitrogen Delivery All Sources of dissolved or adsorbed inorganic N and organic N (from plants and animals); via atmospheric deposition or transport with water and sediments from stormwater runoff, agricultural fertilizers, septic /wastewater. Salmon carcasses were significant natural source historically. Nitrogen Cycling /Retention All Uptake, removal, and /or transformation of nitrogen from one form to another by plants and microbial communities in soils and sediments; alternating aerobic and anaerobic sediment conditions facilitate nitrogen cycling. Phosphorous Delivery F, U Chemical weathering of soil and bedrock; transport of sediments /soil into surface waters. Natural sources from weathering of rocks and erosion; anthropogenic sources from stormwater runoff, agricultural /residential fertilizers, septic /wastewater. Phosphorous Cycling /Retention F, U Retention and /or long term adsorption or burial with sediments. Facilitated by soil retention and stabilization from vegetation cover, rootbiomass. Pathogens and Toxins All Inputs and processing of toxins (heavy metals, petroleum products, PCBs) and pathogens (E. coli, vibrio) that enter shorelines from atmospheric deposition, stormwater runoff, septic /wastewater. Carbon Cycle All Regulation of carbon and sequestration in coastal marshes and submerged aquatic vegetation; forests; terrestrial soils. Other Processes Interacting biological and physical processes that influence habitat structure and 4 -12 May 20121 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -1. Ecosystem process definitions. Important System 20 : Freshwater , Upland, Ecosystem Process Nearshore Process Description condition. Large Woody Debris (LWD) F, N Delivery, movement, and storage of large wood in rivers /streams, lake shores, and the nearshore. LWD provides flow obstructions in rivers that store sediment, provide flow refugia and cover for fish and aquatic invertebrates, create hydraulic heterogeneity and moderate flow disturbances, and create habitat (e.g., bar and island formation, establishment of vegetation). Organic Matter Import and Export All Processes that contribute to soil formation (accumulation of organic matter); export, import and deposition of organic matter (export of detritus from eelgrass beds or salt marsh; export of detritus from riparian areas into streams); recruitment and export of large wood from riparian forests to streams /rivers and nearshore habitats. Influences detritus based food webs, forms habitat, provides refugia, and stabilizes substrates. Exchange of Organisms All Passive transport (plankton, larvae, eggs) and movement (spawning migrations, movement from juvenile to adult habitats) of organisms, predominantly by water (tides, rivers /streams) and habitat connectivity. Includes processes by which invasive species colonize and become established in new areas. Disturbance Regime All Maintenance of habitat structure and biological communities by the natural or typical physical disturbance regime. Important disturbance agents in Pacific Northwest forests, streams, and nearshore include: wildfire, windthrow, landslides, bluff erosion from wind /wave energy during storms, movement of large wood /large wood jams, and scour and movement of sediment during winter high flow in rivers and winter storms on beaches. Typical or 'natural' disturbance regimes maintain habitat and biota. Native Vegetation Establishment All Processes of colonization, growth, reproduction, and competition resulting in the distribution, abundance, and community composition of native plant communities across the landscape. Influences the physical structure of vegetation that creates habitat for wildlife, and the performance of numerous functions such as substrate stabilization, sediment retention, infiltration and runoff regulation, shade /temperature regulation, productivity, organic matter production and LWD sources, and nutrient management. Invasive Species Establishment All Processes of colonization, growth, reproduction, and competition resulting in the establishment and spread of non - native invasive species across the landscape, and the displacement of native species. Establishment of invasive species can affect native plant and animal communities from competition, changes in food web dynamics, and predator -prey interactions, and can affect the performance of functions such as productivity and production of organic matter. May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -13 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -1. Ecosystem process definitions. Important System Freshwater , Upland, Ecosystem Process Nearshore Process Description Solar Incidence /Light Energy All The exposure, absorption, and reflectance of solar radiation (light and radiant heat). Influences numerous local processes such as photosynthesis and plant growth, soil /water /air temperatures, microbial processes and nutrient cycling, humidity /water content of air and soil /substrates, as well as movement and behavior of animals. 4 -14 May 20121 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis transported to storage areas via hyporheic (i.e., flow through streambeds and soils near stream channels) and overbank flow. Alternatively, precipitation can infiltrate the soil to recharge groundwater. Areas with coarse outwash, deposited by receding glaciers, are important areas for groundwater recharge. Where coarse outwash overlays fine - grained till and creates a soil with a high infiltration rate, there is a very high potential to recharge groundwater. However, till underlying coarse deposits can also act as an aquitard, preventing infiltrated water from percolating to recharge deep, underlying aquifers. Instead, water is confined and creates wetlands or moves laterally above confining till layers to discharge to streams. Deeper aquifers are also confined by layers of till interspersed with coarse deposits. Groundwater moves laterally and eventually discharges in lowland areas to support baseflow in lakes and rivers. Vegetation has a critical role in the hydrologic cycle by affecting the rate at which water reaches the surface by providing a physical barrier that reduces the force of raindrops hitting the surface and also by intercepting, storing, and releasing water at a reduced rate. Intercepted precipitation may be stored on leaves, branches, or stems, and may evaporate back into the atmosphere, largely depending on seasonal temperatures. The amount that is intercepted depends on the water storage capacity of the vegetation, which depends on leaf size and shape, and the surface area of the canopy, which varies with tree age and density of stems. Some precipitation that passes through the tree canopy drips from the canopy and reaches the ground at a reduced rate, which facilitates infiltration into the soil. An additional component runs down stems. This stemflow is influenced by a number of factors including canopy shape that is related to the species mix. Stemflow tends to deposit water deeper into the soil than does throughfall. Thus, vegetation is extremely important for protecting and restoring aquatic resources. The ability of vegetation to perform these functions varies with vegetation type (forest, meadow, shrub wetland). Urban mowed grass landcover has runoff rates generally 68 to 90 percent of impervious areas depending partially on soils. Unmowed grass meadow areas and pasture have runoff in the range of 38 to 85 percent of impervious areas. (USDA 1986) In addition Toxins from fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides can be washed into surface waters by rainfall. If applied in a volatized form, fertilizers may drift into the water during application (May 1997). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS2009 ) has determined that carbaryl and carbofuran, common chemicals in lawn care products jeopardize salmon due to effects on the central nervous system (NMFS 2009). Location of lawns or ornamental vegetation adjacent to the shoreline also limits the potential for native vegetation to provide shade, cover, and food resources for aquatic species (Collins 1995). Water is lost by flowing out of the watershed into the adjacent watershed or marine waters, and through evapotranspiration. Water directly evaporates from the surface of lakes and marine waters. Plants pull water up from the soil through their roots and transpire large amounts of water vapor back into the atmosphere during photosynthesis. Tidal Flows in Nearshore Environments Tidal flow processes are the twice daily ebb /flood of tidal currents that moves water, sediments, organisms /propagules, nutrients, and organic matter between the seaward limit of low tides and the landward limit of high tides. Tidal flows contribute to habitat formation, nutrient cycling, organic matter export, dispersal of organisms, species support (e.g., maintenance of salinity gradients) and connectivity. Local tidal flows are influenced May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -15 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis by the regional tidal regime, local topography, and connectivity between marine /nearshore waters and shoreline or inland habitats. Tidal exchange/hydrology is a vital process structuring estuarine and nearshore communities (physically and biogeochemically), and influences the formation of habitat structure in tidally influenced wetlands, estuaries, mudflats, and beaches. Tidal currents transport and rework sediment in estuaries and nearshore habitats (mudflats, eelgrass) forming complex channel networks that provide a range of flow conditions, temperature regimes, and refuge from predators. Tidal exchange maintains the balance of freshwater and saltwater in estuaries and tidal marshes, which is critical to the distribution of plant species and communities within marshes, as well as utilization of habitats by animals. Tidal mixing and freshwater inflows in estuaries are critical for maintaining a wide range of salinities supporting a diversity of species, including eelgrass, shellfish, and juvenile salmonids. Local tidal flows, in combination with local topography, also influence the depth of inundation during high tides, the extent of intertidal habitat, and the amount of habitat exposed to high temperatures and desiccation during low tides. These tidal inundation patterns in turn determine the suitability of intertidal areas for foraging fish spawning, eelgrass growth, shellfish communities, and rearing areas for juvenile salmonids. Tidal flows can be altered by barriers to water movement (e.g., tide gates, fill, culverts or road crossings) and loss of connectivity. Maintenance of connectivity allows water movement throughout a tidal channel network without impediments to longitudinal (freshwater to saltwater), horizontal (overbank; between channel and marsh surface or off - channel sloughs, wetlands), and /or vertical (e.g., groundwater connectivity in closed lagoon systems) connectivity. 4.1.3.2 Sediment Dynamics (Delivery, Transport, and Storage /Deposition of Sediment) The cycling of sediment through an ecosystem is dependent on geologic features such as slope, land cover, soil or substrate cohesion, and storage potential determined by landform, and climate features such as wind and wave energy, precipitation duration and intensity. Also important are interactions (including impairments) with the hydrologic process, which is a vehicle for sediment delivery and transport. Therefore, many of the alterations to hydrologic processes also directly and indirectly affect the sediment processes. Freshwater Systems The primary mechanisms for sediment delivery to aquatic systems are mass wasting and soil erosion. Mass wasting in the form of shallow landslides typically occurs on steep slopes. The vast majority of moderate landslide hazard areas occur in the steeper, higher elevation areas to the south and west of the Gorst area. These areas are underlain by volcanic deposits, which contribute valuable gravel and cobble to streams. Landslides occur along the steep slopes and in the ravines of tributary streams as they cut through these deposits. Soil erosion is a function of soil erosivity, slope, and vegetation cover. Steep slopes with erosive soils also contribute fine sediment to water bodies, not high quality gravel and cobble substrate. Erosive soils are most commonly associated with alluvium and outwash. Erosivity is low or moderate in most of the study area, with some areas of 4 -16 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis moderate erosion hazard in the higher elevations around the Union Reservoir west of Gorst. Important areas for sediment storage are the same as those described for water. Depressional areas such as lakes, wetlands, and floodplains allow for the settling out of suspended sediment in slack water. Additionally, larger streams with low gradients, such as the lower portion of Gorst Creek, cycle sediment through periods of transport and storage as they migrate laterally across the floodplain. Therefore, alluvial deposits in floodplains are an important sediment storage area. Processes for sediment delivery to lakes include the delivery of sediment via tributaries and bank erosion. Inputs remain localized, and mechanisms for transport are limited. Nearshore Sediment Processes Sediment processes in the nearshore are comprised of sediment delivery, transport, and deposition or accretion components. Sediment processes are dynamic, but the consistent and long -term net movement of sediment in the nearshore occurs in generally well - defined littoral or drift cells that include a sediment source, active transport zone, and zone of deposition. Erosion and Sediment Delivery Coastal bluffs are the primary source of sediment for most Puget Sound beaches (Downing 1983). Mass wasting (landslides) and more gradual erosion and retreat of these bluffs deliver sediment to the beach in large quantities. A secondary sediment source is rivers and streams, but these are thought to contribute only on the order of 10% of beach sediment (Downing 1983). The majority of coastal landslides occur during and following prolonged high precipitation periods in the winter (Gerstel et al. 1997, Shipman 2004). Landslides typical occur on bluffs with a combination of characteristics that make the bluff more vulnerable to slope failure. These characteristics include the underlying geology of a bluff or bank, its level of exposure to wave energy (fetch), and the local hydrology (groundwater and surface water). As a result, the exposed high gradient bluffs and banks of the Port Washington Narrows and east Bremerton are more susceptible to coastal landslides compared to lower banks and protected embayments in Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet. Landslides are more likely to occur in areas where there is a history of landslides or where the lower bluff strata is comprised of an unconsolidated, permeable layer (sand), overlain by a (more) consolidated impermeable layer (such as dense silt or clay) (Gerstel et al. 1997). As water seeps through the permeable layer and collects above the impermeable layer a zone of weakness or "slip - plane" is created. This pattern of permeable layers above impermeable is a typical initiator of mass movement throughout the Puget Sound. Bluff failures also occur when wind - generated wave action gradually erodes beaches and the toe of coastal bluffs, leading to collapse of the bluff. The majority of coastal erosion in the region occurs when high wind events coincide with high tides and act directly on the backshore and bluffs (Downing 1983). Bluff composition and wave energy influence the composition of beach sediment. Waves sort coarse and fine sediment and large waves can transport cobbles that small waves cannot. Additionally beaches supplied by the erosion of coarse gravel bluffs will differ in composition from those fed by the erosion of sandy material. The exposed strata of the eroding bluffs in the study area are largely composed of mixed coarse sands and gravels, with some areas of cobble and silts /mud (EKNHA 2009, WDNR 2001, Ecology 1979). May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -17 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis These same materials dominate sediment found on the beaches, with the exception of silt (and clay), that is winnowed from the beachface and deposited in deeper water. Sediment Transport and Deposition Wind - generated waves typically approach the shore at an angle, creating beach drift and longshore currents and transporting sediment by a process called littoral drift. Net shore - drift refers to the long -term, net result of littoral drift. Net shore -drift cells represent a sediment transport sector from source to deposition along a portion of coast. Each drift cell acts as a system consisting of three components: a sediment source (erosive feature) and origin of a drift cell; a transport zone where materials are moved alongshore by wave action with minimal sediment input; and an area of deposition that acts as the drift cell terminus. Deposition of sediment occurs where wave energy is no longer sufficient to transport the sediment in the drift cell. Drift cells in the Puget Sound region range in length from 5 or more miles to just a few hundred feet. Drift cells in the study area have been mapped in the late 1970s as part of the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington (Ecology 1974). Drift cells were most recently revised as part of the East Kitsap Nearshore Inventory ( EKNHA); drift cell boundaries used in this inventory and characterization are those as defined in the EKNHA report (Borde et al. 2009; Johannessen and MacLennan 2007). Most drift cells in the study area are between 1,000 and 3,500 feet in length (Map 4E). Much smaller drift cells occur in areas where the shoreline orientation changes rapidly. One large area with no appreciable net shore - drift is in the enclosed and protected waters at the head of Sinclair Inlet. The general pattern of littoral transport in the region largely reflects the shore orientation relative to the predominant (strongest) wind and wave conditions. Shores that are exposed to the south typically have northward net shore -drift due to predominant southerly winds. Shores exposed only to the north are within the wind and wave shadow of strong southerly wind conditions, but are exposed to lighter northerly winds, resulting in southward transport. Shores oriented east and west are similarly influenced by their shore orientation relative to direction from which the greatest fetch is derived. No appreciable net shore -drift occurs along rocky shores or in enclosed shorelines such as the inner shores of lagoons and small estuaries. 4.1.3.3 Nutrients, Pathogens, and Toxins The delivery of elements and compounds to water bodies is highly dependent on water and sediment processes that provide a vehicle for dissolved and adsorbed materials transportation. Estuarine circulation, vegetation, and the atmosphere also play a role in the delivery of certain compounds /elements. Nutrients, Pathogens, and Toxins in Freshwater Storage of materials that affect water quality is similar to those for sediment, where adsorbed compounds, including phosphorus, nitrogen, and toxins can be deposited and potentially removed via biotic uptake. Wetlands with mineral soils are important areas where dissolved phosphorus can undergo adsorption and storage. Toxin storage, however, is better facilitated by wetlands with clay or organic soils where adsorption and biotic uptake is better catalyzed (Stanley et al. 2005). Nitrogen cycling is augmented by wetlands with non- organic soils (denitrification) and pH- neutral or alkaline soils (nitrification; Stanley et al. 2005). 4 -18 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Areas with flatter topography and peat or clay soils have concentrations of wetlands (Map 3B and Map 4D). These are important areas for toxin storage, denitrification, and adsorption and deposition of dissolved contaminants. Lowland wetlands are more likely to be either fine grained, where floodplain deposition has occurred, or mineral, where coarse - grained alluvium is present. These depositional areas also support deposition of adsorbed contaminants. Like wetlands, lakes are depositional areas that have a high potential for storage of adsorbed materials. Streams, deltas, shallow water areas, and lacustrine wetlands, such as the wetlands around Kitsap Lake and the Union Reservoir, are all depositional areas near lakeshores where contaminants may be stored. If nutrient/contaminant loading increases, sediment quality can be impaired. Destruction or disturbance of these sinks can render a lake more susceptible to eutrophication (a state of high algal productivity that decreases dissolved oxygen [DO] levels) or ecological responses to water quality impairment. Nutrients, Pathogens, and Toxins in Marine Waters The nearshore and marine waters of the study area receive inputs of nutrients and organic matter from deeper ocean waters via estuarine circulation and mixing, from nearshore bottom sediments, and from adjacent uplands, streams, rivers, and groundwater seeps. In general, inputs from natural sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in Puget Sound are several orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic sources (Harrison et al. 1994). However, a number of factors that characterize the study area can lead to a greater contribution from terrestrial and anthropogenic sources of nutrients compared to oceanic influences. These include numerous shallow, enclosed bays with low flushing rates, high shoreline to volume ratio, and high impervious surface area in contributing watersheds, and numerous outfalls on the shoreline, which result in a relatively high sensitivity to eutrophication and low dissolved oxygen related to anthropogenic sources of increased nutrient inputs (Newton and Reynolds 2002, in Albertson et al. 2002). The study area is characterized by areas of protected bays and narrow inlets, relatively shallow depths, stratification of the water column, slow flushing times, and a high shoreline to water surface -area ratio. Under these conditions, nutrients entering the nearshore from adjacent uplands, rivers, and streams are not diluted by mixing or flushing. The shallow nature of the bays and inlets results in high productivity — given abundant nutrients and light, plankton and other algae have high growth rates. Excess nutrients entering these areas can lead to water quality problems associated with eutrophication — algal blooms and low levels of dissolved oxygen (hypoxia), which can be detrimental to marine organisms. Eutrophication can also lead to contamination of shellfish beds from the harmful bacteria associated with some nutrient sources, and from harmful algal blooms, which are thought to contribute to Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) and Amnesiac Shellfish Poisoning (ASP) (WADOH 2005). Nutrient loads from streams and rivers are affected by the magnitude of river discharge and by watershed land uses. Major human sources of nutrients from upland areas include agricultural operations (animal manure, fertilizers), wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, and stormwater runoff from residential/urban landscapes (Embrey and Inkpen 1998). 4.1.3.4 Organic Matter and Carbon Cycling Organic materials include living organisms and the carbon -based material they leave behind after dying, including coarse woody debris, finer woody debris, and detritus. Organic matter import and export provides the basis for detrital food webs, which are important elements of both freshwater and marine food webs (Simenstad et al. 2006). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -19 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Detrital food webs are particularly important to salmonids in both fresh and saltwater, because detrital food webs support many of the prey items salmonids rely on. In addition, riparian forests, estuaries and coastal wetlands, and submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g., eelgrass) are important sinks for carbon and perform important climate regulation functions by sequestering carbon in vegetation and /or soils. Large woody debris (LWD) is generally recognized as an important element of the natural marine and freshwater shorelines of Puget Sound. These elements are important for the cycles of energy and nutrients in aquatic ecosystems, including storage, transport, and chemical transformation (Naiman 2001). Downed trees play a significant role in the aquatic ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. Large woody debris (LWD) significantly influences the geomorphic form and ecological functioning of riverine ecosystems (Maser et al. 1988; Nakamura and Swanson 1993; Collins and Montgomery 2002; Abbe and Montgomery 1996; Collins et al. 2002; Montgomery et al. 2003a; Montgomery et al. 2003b). In a natural system, LWD provides organic material to aquatic ecosystems and is considered a principal factor in forming stream structure and associated habitat characteristics (e.g., pools and riffles). Riparian vegetation is the key source of LWD. LWD is primarily delivered to rivers, streams, or wetlands by mass wasting (landslide events that carry trees and vegetation along with sediment), windthrow (trees, branches, or vegetation blown into a stream or river), and bank erosion (Stanley et al. 2005). Thus, riparian areas, steep forested slopes adjacent to streams, and channel migration zones are important areas for LWD recruitment. Although best understood in freshwater systems such as large rivers, large woody debris (LWD) is an important habitat forming element and source of organic material in nearshore environments (Maser 1987). Under natural conditions it provides shoreline complexity that may have a role in providing refuge area for juvenile salmon and other species. It is also an important organic input and is important to the overall function of the food chain. Sustaining different individual functions (e.g., water quality vs. habitat structure) requires different widths, densities, and compositions of riparian vegetation. The importance of the different functions varies with the character of shoreline setting. Factors affecting the ecological functions provided by LWD include whether there is a source of LWD (i.e., primarily from riparian forests), hydrological connectivity affecting the transport and movement of large wood, and water and sediment transport processes that influence erosion and inputs of LWD into aquatic systems (e.g., bluff landslides, storm surges, river floods). In the marine environment, major sources of LWD are non - accretion shoreforms (Shipman 2004) and large river estuaries (Naiman et al. 1992). Bluff landslides in areas with trees and shrubs adjacent to the shoreline provide LWD inputs to the nearshore and accretion shoreforms (e.g., lagoons, spits, small embayments, marshes) are areas of LWD storage. Removal of riparian vegetation and shoreline armoring are the major factors altering the delivery and accumulation of LWD in the nearshore. Sources of LWD to the nearshore in the study area include eroding bluffs, and shoreline areas with intact coastal forests in the riparian zone. Areas with the potential to accumulate or store LWD include estuaries and pocket estuaries. 4.1.3.5 Light Energy Light entering both freshwater and marine nearshore environments is a key factor controlling biological processes such as primary production, the growth of plants, 4 -20 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis reproductive cycles of aquatic animals, and migratory movements and predator -prey interactions of aquatic animals (Carrasquero 2001, Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). For example, the growth of eelgrass is highly dependent on adequate light levels, and the foraging success of juvenile fish (or their predators) depends on adequate light levels for locating and capturing prey. Juvenile salmonid movements are affected by areas of deep shade and this in turn may affect vulnerability to predators and timing of migration from the nearshore to deeper waters ( Simenstad et al. 1999, Thom and Albright 1990). Light levels also affect water temperatures in ways that directly affect the growth and productivity of aquatic plants. For example, light levels influence the rate at which water temperatures warm during the spring and the timing of plankton blooms. Finally, light levels affect temperatures and therefore the degree of desiccation and heat stress in upper beach areas which are important habitats for forage fish spawning. Three types of light alteration are particularly important in aquatic systems — a decrease in daytime light levels due to artificial shading; an increase in daytime light levels (and heat/desiccation stress) due to loss of natural shade (i.e., removal of riparian vegetation and /or shoreline armoring); and an increase in nighttime light levels due to artificial lighting from buildings, docks, marinas, or roadways. 4.1.3.6 Other Processes In addition to the processes detailed above, a number of other processes are closely linked with water, sediment, organic matter, and nutrient processes and strongly affect ecological function. These include connectivity processes, disturbance regime processes, exchange and movement of organisms, and native vegetation establishment processes. Habitat connectivity and disturbance regimes strongly influence the composition and location of biological communities by influencing habitat quality, migration and access to habitats, and determining which species and biological communities can occur in a particular area. Habitat connectivity, which may be limited by natural barriers such as waterfalls, can also limit community or population productivity by limiting availability to valuable habitat. Disturbance regimes are closely associated with movement of water, sediment and wood and in the study area important disturbance regimes include coastal bluff landslides and erosion, debris flows and landslides on steep slopes and higher gradient streams, windthrow which contributes woody debris to streams and nearshore, and to a lesser extent wildlife. The introduction of invasive plants and animals can have a significant influence on community productivity through competition, food web dynamics, and predator -prey interactions, among others. Processes contributing to the establishment of native vegetation are difficult to capture. These processes are very important in influencing other key ecological processes because of the central role that vegetation plays in creating habitat structure for animals; affecting the delivery, movement, and storage of water and sediment; providing the source of LWD; influencing organic matter production and import/export processes; contributing to water quality through sediment retention and nutrient management; and strongly influencing local temperature and moisture regimes. Figure 4 -5 provides an illustration of the functions of riparian vegetation in an urban setting. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -21 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Trees planted along side property lines at Sufficient width and diversity can provide wildlife habitat and corridors to the water, Lawn areas produce - - runoff, fertilizer and pesticides, Mobility depends on slope and other factors. Environmentally N sensitive lawn rare practices can reduce impacts. 1 50 feet or greater 0 -30 feet X10 -15 feet A shoreline buffer area of 10 to 15 feet wide planted in native groundcover and shrubs can eliminate application of chemicals normally used for lawn care and can intercept some sediments, chemicals and nutrients carried by runoff_ The same buffer area with additional plantings of low trees Such as willows or vine maple will provide some limited food resources for the shoreline dependent species. A shoreline buffer area of 50 feet wide or greater planted in native groundcover, shrubs and a variety of native deciduous and coniferous trees will provide substantial shading and a Habitat area usable by a wader range of species as well as provide leaf and litter, a variety Of food supplies and over time, potential for large woody debris. Ashoreline buffer area of 20 to 30 feet wide planted in native groundcover and shrubs will normally intercept most overland transport of sediments, chemicals and nutrients carried by runoff on law to moderate slopes. The same buffer planted with additional plantings of low trees will provide some shading and enhanced habitat and a somewhat more vaned food supply. Figure 4 -5. Riparian Vegetation Function in an Urban Setting 4.2 PROCESS IMPAIRMENTS Activities or factors that alter important ecosystem processes or habitat structure can act as stressors that impair the performance of ecological functions and lead to the loss of species and ecosystem benefits to people. Important stressors that have been identified for the Puget Sound region and apply to the study area include (Williams et al. 2003, Schlenger et al. 2010; Clancy et al. 2009; Stanley et al. 2005): • Loss of Forests • Land Cover Changes /Alteration • Impervious Surfaces • Dams • Stream Crossings • Culverts • Channel Confinement/Disconnection of Floodplains • Water Quality — increased inputs of nutrients, pollutants, pathogens • Fill — filling of wetlands /floodplains/ estuaries /marshes/beaches /nearshore • Tidal barriers • Shoreline Armoring • Overwater structures 4 -22 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis • Marinas • Jetties/Breakwaters/Groins • Water Diversions/Withdrawals • Roads (esp. nearshore and adjacent to rivers /streams) • Railroad • Invasive Species Ecosystem functioning is not evenly distributed throughout watersheds, leading to the concept of `Important Areas' where greater storage and /or flux of water, nutrients, sediment, and/or pathogens occurs. When stressors affect areas that are particularly important for ecosystem processes, impacts to ecological processes, habitat structures, and ecological functions can be significant. 4.2.1 Nearshore Process Important Areas Process important areas were identified using the linkages and relationships identified in conceptual models of nearshore function, and process alterations were identified by evaluating which stressors influence key processes and functions (Williams et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2004, Simenstad et al. 2006, Ruckelshaus and McClure 2007). Following the identification of key nearshore processes (described above in Section 3.2), we used the following steps in evaluating process intensive areas and process alterations for the nearshore: • Identify important areas on the landscape (both in contributing upland watersheds and the nearshore environment itself) for each process, • Identify important alterations affecting key processes, • Select appropriate indicators of process alterations developed for East Kitsap, and • Identify key locations in the study area for these process alterations. Many of the process alterations that are important in the nearshore affect more than one process; process important areas and process alterations are listed in Table 4 -2. The primary process alterations affecting the nearshore environment are discussed in the next sections. Table 4 -2. Nearshore Processes, Process Important Areas, and Process Alterations Process Important Process Areas Alterations May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -23 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -2. Nearshore Processes, Process Important Areas, and Process Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations Freshwater Inputs Streams and estuaries Changes in flow regime from dams, diversions, channels Contributing watershed for withdrawals, increased impervious areas (changed stream or shoreline magnitudes, timing, frequency, duration) Habitat Connectivity Seepage zones in bluffs or Increase in impervious area in watershed (increased peak and banks flows, change in timing of peak flows) Movement/Exchange Marine riparian vegetation Stormwater outfalls in nearshore of Organisms Constrictions of river flows or encroachment into estuary /delta (e.g., road crossings /culverts at river mouths, filling of floodplains and estuarine wetlands) Armoring or fill in nearshore that cuts off movement of groundwater into beach sediments Tidal Flows Rocky shores Shoreline armoring /alteration of beach profile (nutrients, Beaches Tidal constrictions — tide gates, culverts, bridges, weirs pathogens, toxins) Stream deltas Tidal encroachment — filling of tidal wetlands, dikes /levees, Estuaries and pocket roads within tidal wetlands estuaries (barrier Increased impervious surfaces in watershed — increased estuaries) flashiness /peak flows, higher river flows during winter Barrier lagoons /marshes (changes extent of tidal salt wedge intrusion into estuarine Open coastal inlets habitats and distribution of salt, brackish, and freshwater habitats) Water Storage Tidal and distributary Tidal encroachment — filling of tidal wetlands, dikes /levees, channels loss of tidal channels, roads within tidal wetlands Estuaries Shoreline armoring /alteration of estuarine /marsh profile Coastal marshes Tidal constrictions — tide gates, culverts, bridges, weirs Sediment Supply Coastal bluffs Armoring of shorelines Streams Dams Filling of estuaries, floodplains Tidal restrictions — dikes, tide gates, roads Sediment Transport Beaches in transport zones Armoring, jetties /groins Estuaries (tidal and Fill in intertidal or upper shoreline distributary channels) Overwater structures (associated piers, pilings, seawalls) Tidal restrictions — dikes, tide gates, roads Sediment Accretion Barrier beaches Armoring & Deposition Stream deltas Estuaries and coastal marshes Habitat Formation — Estuaries Shoreline armoring /alteration of beach profile distributary and tidal Barrier lagoons /marshes Tidal constrictions — tide gates, culverts, bridges, weirs channels Open Coastal inlets Tidal encroachment — filling of tidal wetlands, dikes /levees, roads within tidal wetlands Habitat Connectivity Estuaries Fill in intertidal, estuaries, coastal marshes and Beaches /bluffs Shoreline armoring, jetties, groins Movement/Exchange Marine riparian vegetation Overwater structures, piers, pilings of Organisms Impervious surfaces on bluffs; removal of riparian vegetation Tidal restrictions — tide gates, dikes /levees, culverts, road /railroad fill Water Quality Land uses /land cover Removal of forest cover in contributing watershed (nutrients, adjacent to surface waters Agricultural land uses — dairy, pasture, feed lots, manure pathogens, toxins) discharging to marine sources shorelines Impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff from roads, Wetlands adjacent to residential lawns marine shorelines 4 -24 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 4 -2. Nearshore Processes, Process Important Areas, and Process Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations Water Delivery Semi - enclosed bays /heads Wildlife /domestic animal concentrations of bays with low flushing Failing septic systems Water Movement rates Filling of wetlands adjacent to surface waters discharging to (infiltration /recharge, surface runoff, Marine riparian vegetation marine environment; peak flows, groundwater Floodplains Filling of wetlands adjacent to marine shorelines flow /discharge) Removal of riparian vegetation Aquifer recharge areas Contaminated sediments; point discharges of toxins Light Energy Marine riparian Removal of riparian vegetation Water Storage Upper beach /shallow Shoreline armoring intertidal areas Overwater structures (docks, marinas) Eelgrass beds Nighttime lighting adjacent to shore (marinas, terminals, roadways) Organic Marine riparian Removal of riparian vegetation Imports /Exports, Feeder bluffs Removal of marsh vegetation Carbon Cycling, Accretion shoreforms Fill in coastal wetlands LWD Steep slopes Removal of vegetation cover /loss of Estuaries and coastal Shoreline armoring marshes Constrictions in estuaries or pocket estuaries — presence of Channel migration zones culverts, tide gates, bridges, or piers 4.2.2 Freshwater Process Important areas and Alterations Important areas for several freshwater processes or process groups are often collocated, and occur at junctions between upland and aquatic habitats, and along streams and rivers. Table 4 -3 lists typically associated processes, important areas, and alterations. Table 4 -3. Freshwater process important areas and alterations. Process Important Areas Alterations Water Delivery Forested uplands Removal forest cover Vegetated uplands Impervious surfaces Water Movement Forested /vegetated uplands Impervious surfaces (infiltration /recharge, surface runoff, Channel migration zones Removal of forest cover peak flows, groundwater Floodplains Channel confinement flow /discharge) Aquifer recharge areas Filling of floodplains Levees Water Storage Floodplains Levees Wetlands Channel confinement Lakes Filling or draining wetlands, floodplains, or lakes Water Loss Lakes Removal of vegetation Vegetated areas /forest cover Impervious surfaces Deep groundwater flows Sediment Supply /Delivery Steep slopes Removal of vegetation cover /loss of Bare ground /early seral stage forest vegetation vegetation Impervious surfaces Channel migration zones Bank armoring May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -25 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Sediment Transport Sediment Storage Channel Migration Floodplain /hyporheic Connectivity Habitat Connectivity and Movement/Exchange of Organisms Nutrient Management/Nitrogen and Phosphorous Retention and Cycling Pathogen and Toxin Removal /Processing Carbon Cycling /Sequestration Organic Matter Export and Import/LWD Solar Incidence /Light Energy Disturbance Regime Establishment Native Vegetation River /stream channels Floodplains Channel migration zones Floodplains Channel migration zones Lakes Wetlands Channel Migration Zone Floodplain Floodplain Channel Migration Zone Forested Contributing Watershed Streams /floodplains Riparian zones Channel migration zones Hyporheic zones /floodplains Lakes Wetlands Riparian zones Hyporheic zones /floodplains Wetlands Forested /vegetated uplands Vegetated riparian zones Soils /organic soils Steep slopes /landslide prone areas Riparian forests Floodplains /hyporheic zones Wetlands Riparian forests Lakes Wetlands River channels Steep slopes Channel migration zones Floodplains Forested contributing watersheds Riparian forests Wetlands Upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats Riparian zones Bank Armoring Dams Filling of floodplains and wetlands Channel confinement Bank armoring Fill in floodplain Altered flow regime (water diversion, dams, impervious surface) Channel incision Channel confinement Bank armoring Fill in floodplain Altered flow regime (water diversion, dams, impervious surface) Dams Roads Culverts Channel confinement/levees Removal of vegetation /loss of native vegetation cover Removal of forest cover /riparian vegetation Channel confinement Filling or draining of wetlands Removal of vegetation /loss forest cover Channel confinement/levees Fill in floodplains and wetlands Bank armoring Removal of vegetation /loss of forests Loss of LWD Overwater structures Artificial nighttime light sources Removal of vegetation /loss forest cover Channel confinement/levees Bank armoring Fill in floodplains Alteration in flow regimes — water diversion, dams, impervious surfaces Alteration of water processes Alteration of sediment processes Removal of native vegetation Introduction of non - native 4 -26 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis vegetation Impervious surfaces Habitat fragmentation /loss of connectivity Increased inputs of nutrients, toxins Establishment of Invasive Species Disturbed or bare ground Removal of vegetation cover /loss of forests Increased nutrient inputs Altered flow regimes Filling or draining wetlands Impervious surfaces 4.2.2.1 Tidal Barriers Tidal barriers are structures that impede tidal flows and can include dikes and levees, tide gates, and roads or railroads constructed across tidal wetlands. Tidal barriers are used to prevent saltwater flows into diked agricultural lands, facilitate drainage and conversion of tidal wetlands for development or agriculture, and to support infrastructure in tidal wetlands (e.g., roads, railroads, buildings). Tidal barriers alter processes associated with the movement of water, sediment, organic matter, and organisms and result in significant changes to habitat conditions and biotic communities (Thom 1992, Hood 2004). A lack of tidal flow prevents water and sediment from reaching tidally influenced wetlands — salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes. Restriction of water and sediment movement changes habitat structure by eliminating tidal channels, and habitat conditions by changing the freshwater /saltwater balance typical of estuaries and coastal marshes. Changes to sediment transport processes from stream deltas or tidal wetlands can affect the sediment supply and substrate quality for eelgrass beds that occur adjacent to estuaries and tidal marshes (Mumford 2007). Salt - tolerant vegetation is replaced by freshwater or upland vegetation on the landward side of tidal barriers. Former marsh elevations subside as sediment and organic matter no longer build up with tidal flows and inundation. On the seaward side of dikes or tide gates, channel complexity is typically reduced, impacting the amount and quality of habitat for juvenile salmon and other tidal marsh invertebrates and fish (Hood 2004). Tidal barriers reduce the overall extent of tidal marshes and channel networks, reducing foraging and refuge areas for fish, invertebrates, and birds. In addition, organic matter and nutrients that are exported from coastal marshes to nearby marine waters and support productive, detritus based food webs are no longer transported out of the marsh once tidal barriers prevent or reduce tidal flows (Williams and Thom, 2000; Simenstad et al. 2000; Fresh 2006). Tidal wetlands are important areas for carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling, performing important functions for mitigation of GHG emissions and climate change. Tidal wetlands also influence water quality in adjacent nearshore areas through prevention of eutrophication by nitrogen removal, and retention of pathogens and pollutants. Tidal wetlands also store large amounts of water from floods and storm surges, dissipate energy and slow movement of water — hazard mitigation that is lost when tidal flows are restricted. In addition tidal wetlands support: • Access to a mosaic of habitats for feeding, refuge, physiological /ontogenetic transitions, rearing, and /or reproduction is critical for species that use different habitats May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -27 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis at different life stages or that have a diversity of life history strategies. For example, access to marsh areas and tidal channels during high tides for juvenile salmon and access to freshwater spawning reaches for adult salmonids (Simenstad et al. 2000; Fresh 2006). Nutrient and material cycles depend on movement of matter and nutrients among habitats and transformation from one form to another. Biological processes that support reproduction and population viability depend on the movement of individual organisms — migration of anadromous fish, seed dispersal by biological dispersal agents, pollination, emigration /immigration that supports metapopulations (source /sink dynamics) and gene flow, dispersal of juveniles from nursery to adult habitats, or ontogenetic habitat shifts between different life history stages. Export/transport of nutrients and organic matter between habitats supports secondary production and biological diversity — e.g., salmon transporting marine- derived C, N, and P to freshwater streams and riparian forests; benthic filter feeders (shellfish) that move carbon /nutrients from water column to support diverse benthic faunas. Tidal barriers alter the following processes: • Tidal flow • Sediment transport • Movement of LWD • Erosion /accretion of sediment and organic matter • Tidal channel formation and maintenance • Distributary channel migration • Nutrient cycling • Carbon cycling • Organic matter import and export • Exchange /movement of aquatic organisms The effects of tidal barriers on ecological processes results in impacts to the following functions: • Foraging, refugia, physiological adjustment, and rearing habitat support for juvenile salmonids • Access to estuarine areas by juvenile salmonids • Support for detritus based food webs in marshes and adjacent nearshore • Nursery habitat for native fish, shellfish and other invertebrates (Dethier 2006) • Foraging habitat for shorebirds (e.g., dunlin) (Buchanan 2006) • Maintenance of suitable substrates for eelgrass • Carbon sequestration in marsh soils (accumulation and burial of organic matter) • Productivity of eelgrass and marsh areas (reduced prey availability for forage fish, juvenile salmonids) • Maintenance of water quality (temperature reduction, nutrient inputs, toxin /pathogen retention) in adjacent nearshore 4.2.2.2 Dredging and Filling Dredging and filling result in the direct loss of habitat, loss of connectivity and fragmentation of habitat, changes in water movement, sediment transport, LWD movement, and loss of shade /organic matter inputs from riparian vegetation. 4 -28 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Dredging and filling are primarily conducted to maintain boat access and create channels for mooring and navigation, and to create new upland areas for development. Dredging has the potential to redistribute and resuspend contaminated sediments and is regulated through both Federal and State permits. Dredging results in direct physical disturbance to benthic organisms and loss of habitat, although re- colonization may occur within a few years of disturbance (Williams et al. 2001). Temporary impacts from dredging include an increase in turbidity and potential resuspension of contaminants. Some of the same impacts occur as a result of boat scour in areas where propeller wash or high boat traffic disturbs benthic sediments. Filling also directly impacts upland and wetland habitats adjacent to the shoreline and has been responsible for much of the loss of freshwater and estuarine wetlands in the study area, particularly in the Gorst estuary (Redman et al. 2005). Direct burial of wetlands or intertidal areas by filling results in a loss of habitat area for wetland or intertidal associated vegetation, fish, and wildlife (Dethier 2006, Fresh 2006, Pentilla 2007). Fill that is associated with shoreline armoring will also reduce inputs of sediment and LWD to streams and nearshore areas, as well as reducing freshwater inputs to beaches. Sediment transport can also be disrupted by fill in channels, floodplains or nearshore areas. In nearshore areas where fill occurs along bluff - backed beaches or barrier beaches, fill can trap sediment, prevent further transport and resulting in loss of sediment supply to down -drift habitats. Fill that extends into the intertidal can also result in the loss of nearshore habitats, including forage fish spawning and eelgrass beds through changing elevations, water depths, current patterns, and substrate size and type (Williams et al. 2001, Buchanan 2006, Eissinger 2007). Fill in tidally influenced shorelines reduces the volume of water flowing in and out of an area during each tidal cycle, and also reduces mixing, salinity patterns, organic matter exchange, sediment transport, movement of organisms, and habitat formation processes. Alteration of these processes results in the loss or reduced area of tidal channels, loss of tidal marsh vegetation, reduced accretion of sediments and organic matter, reduced carbon sequestration, and a lowering of marsh elevations relative to sea level. Because fill is frequently associated with development and impervious surfaces, fill adjacent to streams, wetlands, or nearshore areas can result in increased nutrient, pathogen, and toxin inputs from stormwater runoff or septic system. These changes affect nutrient processing, access to habitat, habitat area and quality for fish and wildlife, resilience to sea level rise, and connectivity between habitats. 4.2.2.3 Shoreline /Bank Armoring Freshwater — channel confinement, downstream flooding, loss of connectivity between channel and floodplain, altered sediment processes, reduction in habitat complexity, loss of LWD recruitment, usually associated with some loss of riparian vegetation (see below). Nearshore — primarily associated with bluffs and barrier beaches, but can also impact other areas (embayments, marshes, estuaries) where armoring is associated with fill below OHWM/MBHW). Impacts are greater where structures extend below M 11W. Impacts sediment supply (Canning and Shipman 1995) and sediment available for down - drift beaches (Johannesen and MacClennan 2007), reduces accumulation of beach wrack and LWD on upper beaches or berms Tonnes 2008), reduces or eliminates input of LWD and freshwater into beach /nearshore areas. Usually associated with loss of wetland and riparian vegetation (increased light, temperatures, desiccation of beach /nearshore, loss of May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -29 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis shoreline stabilization, decreased retention of sediment and nutrients /toxins, decreased inputs of organic matter). Also results in increased wave energy (wave reflection) and increased erosion waterward of structures (MacDonald et al. 1994), leading to a coarsening of substrate which impacts suitability for forage fish spawning, increases desiccation, etc. Also, reduces sediment transport and deposition processes in tidal marshes and deltas, reducing tidal channel formation and maintenance, migration of distributary channels, reduced or eliminated marsh accretion and resistance to sea level rise and degraded habitat quality and access for fish and wildlife. Armoring can function as a tidal barrier or change tidal flows in ways that increase erosion and /or restrict movement of LWD. Impacts to sediment processes will affect beach, sand /mud flat, shellfish, shorebirds, eelgrass, and tidal marsh habitats (Griggs 2005, Buchanan 2006, Dethier 2006, Mumford 2007). Forage fish spawning beaches, eelgrass, shellfish, and shorebird foraging areas, can be directly impacted by elimination of upper intertidal areas and indirectly impacted by changes in depth, wave energy, substrate composition, substrate moisture, riparian shade and organic matter inputs. Changes in sediment processes and habitat structure will also indirectly affect quality of nearshore migration corridors and rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids by effects of armoring on shallow intertidal, eelgrass and forage fish spawning habitats, as well as increased wave energy, loss of shallow intertidal areas, and loss of overhanging riparian vegetation. 4.2.2.4 Overwater Structures /Marinas Overwater structures occur on lakes, along streams /wetlands, and in the nearshore. They can include larger areas of overwater structure from marinas and ports, but also individual docks, piers, floats/buoys, and bridges. Overwater structures (esp. marinas) frequently are associated with pilings, armoring, breakwaters or jetties, and /or shoreline structures such as buildings and parking lots. Effects of overwater structures include the following: • Decreased light and reduced productivity, growth, and survival of aquatic vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, freshwater macrophytes, plankton), • Indirect effects on food webs, substrate stabilization, nutrient management, energy dissipation, and fish and wildlife populations from impacts on native vegetation, • Changes in sediment supply and transport (deepening of beach profiles, changes in channel migration, changes in substrate composition), • Fill in lake, stream, or nearshore habitat and direct impacts to habitat, • Removal of riparian vegetation and reduced or eliminated shade, organic matter inputs, sediment retention, and nutrient management functions, • Armoring and associated impacts, • Increase in pathogens, toxins, and nutrients from stormwater runoff, boats, septic systems, creosote pilings or anti- fouling compounds, • Altered wave and current energy around support structures (pilings) which can alter sediment transport and increase deposition under or near the structure; sediment supplies down stream or down -drift are reduced leading to coarsening of substrates, 4 -30 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis • Changes in movement and behavior of fish, especially juveniles, when encountering areas of deeper shade (changes in migration patterns, greater exposure to predators, increased expenditure of energy), • Changes in movement and behavior of fish and wildlife from artificial lighting at night. 4.2.2.5 Breakwaters and Jetties Breakwaters and jetties are usually associated with marinas and harbors. Effects on processes and structures include: • Reducing wave energy, which also reduces erosion and sediment supply from bluffs, which affects habitat forming processes, • Reducing or altering sediment transport and reducing sediment availability to downstream or down -drift reaches, leading to a coarsening and steepening of beaches with loss of intertidal habitat (impacting shorebirds, shellfish, forage fish, eelgrass, and kelp), • Altering sediment deposition patterns and location and extent of beach habitat, and • Disrupting connectivity along shorelines by physically blocking the movement of organic matter and organisms, resulting in impacts on detrital food webs, loss of access to the mosaic of shoreline habitats needed by aquatic organisms (e.g., movement of juvenile salmon between estuaries or salt marsh edges to eelgrass or movement along nearshore between sheltered areas such as pocket estuaries) and fragmentation and isolation of habitat and populations. 4.2.2.6 Roads /Railroads Roads and railroads are examples of stressors that affect multiple processes and therefore can change multiple habitat structures and affect many ecological functions. Effects of roads and railroads include: • Fill and direct loss of habitat, • Loss of connectivity (between habitats, nearshore and adjacent terrestrial systems, freshwater and adjacent terrestrial systems), • Loss of riparian vegetation associated with clearing for road corridors, • Interruption of bluff or bank sediment and transport processes, • Barriers to tidal flows (movement of sediment, organic matter, water, LWD, organisms), • Interruption of distributary channel migration and tidal channel formation, • Barriers to surface /groundwater flows in wetlands or floodplains; • Barriers to freshwater inputs from upland to nearshore areas, • Passage barriers in streams (barriers to sediment, LWD, organic matter, water movement and organisms), • Habitat fragmentation, May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -31 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis • Armoring and impacts to sediment processes, • Overwater structures — increased shade, artificial light, • Increase in pollutants (aerial deposition and stormwater runoff, • Increase in impervious surfaces and changes to flow regimes..... Stream Crossings and Culverts Stream crossings are typically associated with roads and the density of stream crossings in a watershed has been correlated with impairment to aquatic ecosystem health (May et al. 1998, Booth et al. 2002). Effects of stream crossings are similar to culverts and include: • Loss of connectivity and reducing the movement of water, wood, organic detritus, sediment, and organisms downstream of the crossing or culvert, • Flow restrictions and associated flooding upstream of culverts, or reduced freshwater inputs to nearshore areas, • Altered water flows and sediment transport, • Shade and reductions in light available for plant growth and primary productivity, • Passage barriers to fish migration, • Increased inputs of nutrients and toxins from stormwater runoff, and • Restriction of tidal flows, reduction in tidal prism (timing and volume of inundation), changes in sediment transport and loss or reduction in tidal and distributary channel habitat. 4.2.2.7 Dams Dams create barriers that block the flow of water in stream or river. Impacts depend on the type and operation of the dam, whether for water supply (irrigation or drinking water), flood control, or generation of hydroelectric power. Flood control and hydroelectric dams can dramatically alter the flow regime of rivers and streams, changing the natural timing, magnitude, frequency, duration, and rate of change of flows that characterize a particular river. Aquatic organisms are adapted to the typical or natural flow regime of rivers in a particular area (Poff et al. 1996). Altering the flow regime can therefore disrupt critical life history stages, such as seed dispersal and recruitment for plants; migration, spawning, and egg incubation for fish; and adult emergence for macroinvertebrates. Flood control or water storage dams can eliminate high seasonal flows that are important in maintaining sediment movement, channel migration, floodplain connectivity, and habitat formation in channels. Dams also create barriers to the movement of water, sediment, organisms, organic matter, and LWD. River reaches below dams lack a supply of sediment and LWD, affecting the formation of habitat in lower reaches and nearshore areas, as well as resulting in changes in substrate composition (coarsening). Nearshore habitat formation in stream deltas and estuaries can be significantly reduced over time by the trapping of sediment behind dams. Dams create passage barriers to fish and invertebrates, eliminating access to large areas of habitat upstream of dams for anadromous species and isolating populations of resident 4 -32 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis species. Releases of water from dams can alter the temperature in downstream areas, by either releasing very cold bottom water or warm surface water from reservoirs. Finally, dams directly impact stream and associated wetland and riparian habitat when these areas are flooded by reservoirs; flowing water, wetland, and terrestrial habitats are converted to lake and lakeshore habitats. Impacts of dams will depend on the proportion of the drainage basin that is impounded, the size of the dam, and operation of the dam. 4.2.2.8 Impervious Surfaces (and Loss of Forest Cover) Loss of forest vegetation and the creation of impervious surfaces is one of the most important stressors with the greatest number of effects on freshwater and nearshore environments. Multiple processes and most habitat types are affected by impervious surfaces. Effects include: • Altered flow regimes — increased magnitude and frequency of peak flows, decreased base flows (Booth et al. 2002), reduced recharge of groundwater, • Decreased base flows and reduced recharge of groundwater can reduce freshwater inputs to nearshore via seeps and small streams, • Increased stream channel erosion and sediment transport to downstream or nearshore areas, resulting in siltation, smothering of downstream habitats and biota such as spawning gravels, shellfish beds, and eelgrass beds, • Scouring of spawning gravels and alteration of channel morphology by high flows, • Channel incision and disconnection from floodplains and off - channel wetlands, • Impervious surfaces can concentrate runoff and result in higher volumes of freshwater reaching nearshore, changing salinity gradients in estuaries, • Impervious surfaces increase and concentrate contaminants from runoff reaching streams, lakes, and nearshore waters, resulting in altered nutrient, toxin and pathogen inputs, • Increased nutrient inputs can result in eutrophication, harmful algal blooms and increased incidence of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), greater incidence of low dissolved oxygen, and reduced light available for eelgrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation, • Vegetation (including riparian) is removed for impervious surfaces, eliminating or reducing infiltration, sediment retention, shade, organic matter inputs, substrate stabilization, carbon sequestration, nutrient and pollutant retention, and LWD supplies to adjacent waters, and • Large areas of impervious surface and removal of vegetation increase the amount of light reaching the ground and increases air temperatures, as well as creating warmer temperatures in water running off the surface, which can alter temperatures in receiving waters. 4.2.2.9 Removal of Riparian Vegetation The marine riparian zone is an important area for several nearshore processes, including water quality processes, light energy, sediment processes, and as a source of LWD and organic matter. Removal of riparian vegetation occurs as a result of shoreline armoring, May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -33 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis construction of overwater structures, construction of roads or railroads adjacent to the shoreline, and commercial or residential development. Removal of riparian vegetation results in the following process alterations and impacts to nearshore functions (Pentilla 2001, Williams et al. 2004, Brennan and Culverwell 2004): • Loss of sediment retention and bank stabilization functions provided by vegetation (particularly root masses), increased sediment inputs and /or erosion, and higher rates of bank or bluff failure; • Loss of nutrient cycling and pollutant retention functions and increased nutrient and pollutant inputs to the nearshore; • Replacement of riparian vegetation with impervious surfaces (e.g., including residential lawns) results in increased stormwater runoff, and inputs of pollutants (including metals, pesticides, and fertilizers); • Loss of wildlife habitat; • Loss of inputs of LWD and other organic matter (e.g., leaf litter, insects) that are important components of nearshore food webs; • Increased heat and drying stresses in the upper beach /intertidal area due to loss of riparian shade, decreased suitability for forage fish spawning, changes in beach faunal communities; Increases in light levels, and the associated desiccation and temperature stress, is most commonly associated with the removal of riparian vegetation from the shoreline and the loss of shade to the beach from overhanging vegetation (Brennan and Culverwell 2004, Brennan et al. 2009). The upper limit of many intertidal animals is controlled by temperature and moisture /desiccation stress associated with exposure during low tides. Removal of riparian vegetation can result in a loss of these animals from upper beach areas that are no longer shaded. The success of forage fish spawning and egg survival is also tied to suitable temperature and moisture conditions within sands and gravels in the upper beach — these conditions are negatively affected by higher light levels and reduced shade following removal of riparian vegetation (WDFW 2000). 4.2.2.10 Land Cover Development Land cover is the type of dominant feature present on the surface at any particular area, and includes categories such as open water, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, grassland, developed low intensity, developed high intensity, pasture, cultivated crops, and woody wetlands (National Land Cover Data — MRLC 2001). Development occurs when one type of land cover is replaced by another. Because each land cover has different kinds of effects on ecosystem processes, changes in land cover can alter processes and impact ecological functions. For example, replacing an evergreen forest with developed, low intensity land cover will increase impervious surface, alter hydrologic and sediment processes, affect temperatures and light levels and change local climate, change the species composition of vegetation, affect habitat quality of the area for wildlife (e.g., by removing nest trees or food plants), fragment habitat, and change nutrient and pollutant inputs. Process alterations and effects of developed land cover types are very similar to those for impervious surfaces, and removal of forest and /or riparian vegetation (See Sections 3.3.2.9 and 3.3.2.9). 4 -34 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 4.2.2.11 Increased Nutrient, Pathogen, Toxin Inputs Increased inputs of nutrients result in increased plant production which can lead to increased biological oxygen demand, increased turbidity and lower light levels, and low or extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO). Low DO levels impact fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in both fresh and marine waters. High levels of nutrients can result in harmful algal blooms which impact water quality in terms of appearance and odors, as well as contributing to toxins that affect human and animal health. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is linked to harmful algal blooms. Increased inputs of pathogens /toxins adversely impact shellfish populations and recreational /commercial harvests. Pollution, thermal stress, and desiccation increase mortality of forage fish on beaches (egg and larval) (Emmett et al. 1991). Low energy, semi - enclosed habitats with significant inputs from upland areas such as river or stream deltas, and sand and mud flats are particularly vulnerable to alterations that affect water quality. Inputs may be higher in these areas, and excess nutrients, pathogens, and toxins tend to accumulate or have longer residence times in these areas. Particularly during periods of increased water stratification, nutrients or pollutants can increase to levels that impact marine organisms. Because they are sedentary and filter feeders, shellfish are particularly vulnerable to deteriorating water quality and excess nutrients or pollutants. Shellfish contaminated with fecal coliforms and /or algal toxins can pose problems for people, as well as for other animals that feed on shellfish. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 4 -35 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis J. WATERSHED ANALYSES 5.1.1 South Central Puget Sound Action Area (as defined by PSNERP) The regional context for the Bremerton SMP study area includes South Central Puget Sound (see Figure 3 -1). Existing conditions in the study area for Bremerton's shorelines are influenced by process alterations and the health of ecological functions in the larger region. South Central Puget Sound has a relatively high level of development, with moderate to large urban centers, including Tacoma, Seattle, and Bremerton. As a result, this area of the Sound has relatively high levels of impervious surface in contributing watersheds and high levels of modification (e.g., armoring, fill, removal of riparian vegetation) along both freshwater and nearshore shorelines (Table 4 -1). Results of PSNERP studies (Schlenger et al. 2010, Simenstad et al. in review) indicate that this basin has lost significant areas of tidal wetlands and coastal shoreforms compared to historic conditions, including: • 42% of barrier estuaries; • 78% of barrier lagoons; • 89% of closed lagoon /marsh; 52% of open coastal inlet; and • 45% of tidal wetlands within embayments. Table 5 -1. Nearshore Stressors Affecting Major Shoreforms in the South Central Puget Sound Basin 21 Percent of Current Shoreforms Affected by Stressor Stressors Bluff- Barrier Barrier Barrier Open Rocky Pocket Artificial backed beach estuary lagoon coastal platform beach beach inlet Armoring 98% 48% 21% 19% 49% 49% 53% 86% Overwater 4% 4% 5% 10% 10% 2% 4% 44% structures Fill 8% 14% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 11% Roads/ 10% 11% 37% 2% 8% 29% 7% 38% railroads Tidal 0% 0% 45% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% barriers 21 Regional stressors compiled from Schlenger et al. 2010, Borde et al. 2009, PSP 2009, Kitsap County GIS 2010. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 5.1.2 Sinclair Inlet Watersheds and Shorelines The Sinclair Inlet watershed drains an area of 27,492 acres, including the creeks that flow into Sinclair Inlet (primarily along the southern shore) and the Beaver Creek watershed to the east. The watershed includes 57 miles of saltwater frontage, approximately 46 lakes with 9.7 miles of shoreline, and >62 miles of streams. The watershed is characterized by many small streams that drain relatively small areas. Gorst and Blackjack creeks are the main dischargers of freshwater into the Inlet (WADNR 2009, Ecology 2009). Estimates of freshwater runoff into Sinclair Inlet have ranged from 335 cfs in January to 5 cfs in August. The contribution of groundwater flow to the inlet is unknown but thought to be substantial (Lincoln and Collias 1975, as cited in PSCRBT 1990). Sinclair Inlet and Rich Passage have a combined surface area of 4,668 acres and about 36 miles of marine shoreline in the study area (Table 5 -2). The main basin of Sinclair Inlet is deepest near the eastern end (130 feet) south of Point Herron, but the head of the bay is <10 feet deep. Tideflats present at the head of the inlet are exposed during low tides. The currents of Sinclair Inlet are relatively weak, at only 0.8 knots (Determan 1980, as cited in PSCRBT 1990). The estimated total flushing time is approximately 14 days for Sinclair Inlet (Lincoln and Collias 1975, as cited in PSCRBT 1990), assuming that none of the waters leaving the inlet on ebb tides returns on flood tides. In reality, some waters do return and waters from Sinclair and Dyes inlets mix in an area off Annapolis. The volume that mixes and returns on flood tides to Sinclair Inlet is unknown (TetraTech 1988, as cited in PSCRBT 1990). Table 5 -2. Sinclair Inlet Watershed Characteristics Upland Drainage Nearshore Zone Area Shoreline Area Area in Acres in Acres (square Shoreline Length in Name /ID (square miles) miles) Miles Blackjack Creek 10,374 494 4.9 (4044) (16.2) (0.8) Gorst Estuary to 12,844 1,729 16.7 Phinney Bay (4046)24 (20) (2.7) Port Washington 3,705 494 8.3 Narrows East (4061) (5.8) (0.8) Point Herron (4062) 494 49 1 (0.8) (0.07) Bremerton East UGA 988 454 4.9 (4062) (1.5) (0.7) Forest land covers 7,626 acres or about 28% of the watershed (20% is in public ownership, 68% in private woodlots, 12% in commercial forest land) ( PSCRBT 1990). Rural/agricultural areas cover 10,627 acres, or about 37% of the watershed (35% covered with grass /shrubs, 65% covered with trees). Most of the watershed consists of low, rolling hill topography. 22 PSNERP Process Unit Number. 23 Based on PSNERP and EKNHA nearshore assessment areas. 24 Includes Port Washington Narrows West 5 -2 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Slopes in the upper watershed are moderate, with some steep slopes ( >50 %) occurring in the City of Bremerton watershed. Bremerton and Port Orchard are the major urban areas with additional retail centers at Gorst, Manchester, and Annapolis. Kitsap County designates approximately 6,658 acres (24 %) of this watershed as urban. The remainder of the watershed is characterized by large parcels of pasture, forest, single - family homes, small farms, and low- intensity commercial uses. Impervious areas are moderate to high in the urban centers, most of the watershed is in developed land cover, but in some areas much of the contributing watershed is still forested (Table 5 -3). Most of the land is in private ownership. Table 5 -3. Watershed Conditions in Sinclair Inlet Shorelines Bremerton 62 38 49 24 17 10 9 91 0 <1 East DPU 21 SPU = Shoreline Process Unit or Nearshore Zone; DPU = Drainage Process Unit for Upland contributing area. 26 Dev = Developed land cover. 27 P= Protected land status. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -3 Land Cover (% area) Impervious Surface (% area) Ownership Status (% area) Reach 25 De V21, Natural 0 -10% 10 -30% 30 -50% 50- Public Private Tribal Pro t27 100% Black -jack 49 51 55 13 10 22 2 98 0 0 -SPU Black- 41 59 70 16 7 6 3 97 0 0 jack DPU Gorst to 78 22 28 18 13 41 17 83 0 16 Phinney Bay SPU Gorst to 37 64 71 10 6 14 33 67 27 0 Phinney Bay DPU Port 65 35 46 26 12 16 3 97 0 0 Washingt on Narrows East SPU Port 66 34 46 23 14 17 14 86 0 2 Washingt on Narrows East DPU Point 63 37 44 28 10 18 3 97 0 <1 Herron SPU Point 66 34 40 32 15 15 2 98 0 0 Herron DPU Bremerton 51 49 59 21 13 7 5 95 0 0 East UGA SPU Bremerton 62 38 49 24 17 10 9 91 0 <1 East DPU 21 SPU = Shoreline Process Unit or Nearshore Zone; DPU = Drainage Process Unit for Upland contributing area. 26 Dev = Developed land cover. 27 P= Protected land status. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis At a watershed level, a number of stressors are present that impair freshwater ecosystem processes, including a small number of dams, large number of road crossings of streams, and the existence of barriers in streams (Table 5 -4). The most important stressors in the nearshore are shoreline armoring, roads, and fill, although some important estuarine areas have a high level of construction and barriers affecting tidal flows (Table 5 -5). Table 5 -4. Existing stressors in upland drainage are in Sinclair Inlet shorelines. Estimates by PSNERP suggest that a significant amount of nearshore habitat has been lost through filling or conversion to artificial shoreforms (Table 5 -6). 5 -4 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) Number Stream Fish Passage Reach Number Dams Crossings Barriers Roads (% area) Blackjack Creek 0 90 6 6 (4044) Gorst Estuary to 4 136 25 8 Phinney Bay (4046) Port Washington 0 37 7 8 Narrows East (4061) Point Herron 0 0 0 8 (4062) Bremerton East 0 9 0 6 UGA (4062) Table 5 -5. Existing stressors in nearshore zone. Roads/ Overwater Tidal Barriers Armoring (% Railroads (% Structures (% Nearshore Fill Reach (% length) length) area) area) (% area) Blackjack Creek 26 85 21 14 8 (4044) Gorst Estuary to 6 88 18 4 20 Phinney Bay (4046) Port Washington 6 80 12 <1 2 Narrows East (4061) Point Herron 0 77 5 2 2 (4062) Bremerton East 0 54 6 <1 <1 UGA (4062) Estimates by PSNERP suggest that a significant amount of nearshore habitat has been lost through filling or conversion to artificial shoreforms (Table 5 -6). 5 -4 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -6. Estimated percent loss of historic shoreforms in the nearshore zone of Sinclair Inlet shorelines Bluff- Closed Open backed Barrier Barrier Barrier Lagoon Coastal Rocky Pocket Reach Beach Beach Estuary Lagoon Marsh Inlet Shore Beach Blackjack 77 74 100 - 100 - - - Creek (4044 ) Gorst 45 100 100 - - 65 82 9 Estuary to Phinney Bay (4046 ) Port 12 36 41 44 10 - 22 - Washington Narrows East (4061) Point Herron 9 10 - - - - - - (4062 ) Bremerton 10 10 57 - 100 - - - East UGA (4062 ) The USFWS has classified 5,012 acres of wetlands in the Sinclair Inlet watershed, with 17% being freshwater, and 83% being marine; an additional 57 acres of freshwater wetlands (ponded water and hydrophytic vegetation) were identified using aerial photography, and an additional 1,560 acres of hydric soils using soils interpretation (PSBRT 1990). Although estimates of the loss of freshwater wetlands in the study area are not available, loss of wetlands in most areas of Puget Sound has been significant (e.g., >50% loss; Bortleson 1980). Water quality impairment in the watershed is the result of both water and sediment contamination (Table 5 -7). Pollution in Sinclair Inlet is the result of a combination of agricultural, urban, and industrial sources. The Naval Shipyard has been a major contributor to water and sediment quality in Bremerton. Category 5 listings include dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, temperature, mercury, fecal coliform, and PCBs (Table 4 -2). Category 2 listings include fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, pH, 31 temperature, PAHs, zinc, and pesticides (TODD, or Agent Orange). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -7. 303(d) Water and Sediment Quality Impairments in Sinclair Inlet Waterbodies pH Sites Sinclair Inlet Area of Concern Compound Medium Impaired ( Catebory 5) (Category 2) Fecal Coliform Water Parish Creek Wright Creek Sinclair Inlet Sinclair Inlet Anderson Creek Temperature Water Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Sinclair Inlet Dissolved Oxygen Water Union River Sinclair Inlet Sinclair Inlet Sinclair Inlet Anderson Creek Sinclair Inlet Gorst Creek Other Anderson Creek Enetai Creek pH Water Sinclair Inlet Union River Enetai Creek Sediment Bioassay Sediment Sinclair Inlet Polycyclic Aromatic Sediment Sinclair Inlet Hydrocarbons (PAHs) PCBs Sediment Sinclair Inlet Zinc Sediment Sinclair Inlet Bioassessment Other Anderson Creek 5.1.3 Dyes Inlet Watershed The Dyes Inlet watersheds drain an area of 30,289 acres, including the creeks that flow into Dyes Inlet and Port Washington Narrows. Approximately 40% of the watershed is within the urban area (12,231 acres) designated by Kitsap County. Within the study area, about 16 miles of marine shoreline with contributing drainage areas occur in Dyes Inlet (Table 5 -8). Bremerton and Silverdale are the major urban areas, with smaller retail centers at Chico, Tracyton, and Kitsap Lake. The Jackson Park Navel Reservation, Camp Wesley Harris, and parts of the Bangor Naval Reservation are located within the watershed. The remainder of the watershed is characterized by large parcels of land used for pasture, forest, wetlands, single - family homes, small farms, and low- intensity commercial uses. 5 -6 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -8. Dyes Inlet Watershed Characteristics Upland Drainage Nearshore Zone Area Shoreline Area Area in Acres in Acres (square Shoreline Length in Name /113 28 (square miles) miles) Miles Phinney Bay (4047 741 247 2.5 (1.2) (0.4) Rocky Point & Mud 494 494 3 Bay(4048) (0.8) (0.8) Ostrich Bay 247 247 2 Peninsula (0.4) (0.4) (4049/4050) East Shore Ostrich 247 247 1 Bay (4051) (0.4) (0.4) Oyster Bay (4052- 988 494 5 4054) (1.5) (0.8) Ostrich Bay (4055) 1,235 247 2.5 (2) (0.4) Ostrich Bay North 494 247 2 (4056/4057) (0.8) (0.4) Chico Bay (4058) 11,609 494 2.5 (18) (0.8) Most of the watershed consists of low, rolling -hill topography. Slopes in the upper watershed are moderate, with the steepest slopes ( >60 %) occurring in the Lost Creek drainage. The highest point in the watershed is on Green Mountain (1,500 feet). Agricultural areas in the Clear Creek drainage are nearly flat. Steep, sloping sea cliffs and bluffs dominate the Port Washington Narrows shoreline. The Dyes Inlet watershed is characterized by many small streams that drain relatively small areas. Clear, Barker, and Chico creeks are the main dischargers of freshwater into Dyes Inlet. Freshwater runoff into Dyes Inlet varies considerably throughout the year. The contribution of groundwater flow to the inlet is unknown, but thought to be substantial (Lincoln and Collias 1975, as cited in PSCRBT 1990). The Dyes Inlet watershed contains a diverse array of land uses. Land use in the watershed was estimated to be 25% forested, 29% rural/agricultural, 40% urban, and 6% other (lakes, wetlands, military, parks, etc.) ( PSCRBT 1989). There has been extensive conversion of rural /agricultural/forest land to urban (residential and commercial) area since 1989, particularly in the Clear Creek and Barker Creek watersheds. Shorelines and contributing basins have moderate to high levels of impervious surfaces, are mostly in developed land cover, and in private ownership (Table 5 -9). The USFWS classified 5,785 acres of wetlands in the Dyes Inlet watershed, with 20% freshwater, and 80% saltwater. Because of inventory methods, this does not constitute a complete list of existing wetlands. The PSCRBT identified and additional 78 acres of freshwater wetlands, and an additional 1,207 acres of hydric soils. 28 PSNERP Process Unit Number. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -9. Watershed land cover, impervious surface, and ownership status Land Cover (% area) Impervious Surface (% area) Ownership Status (% area) Reach 29 Dev 30 Natural 0 -10% 10 -30% 30 -50% 50- Public Private Tribal Prot 100% Phinney 49 51 55 13 10 22 2 98 0 0 Bay(4047) Rocky Point 41 59 70 16 7 6 3 97 0 0 & Mud Bay (4048) SPU Rocky Point 58 42 49 29 17 4 <1 99 0 0 & Mud Bay (4048) DPU Ostrich Bay 42 58 60 22 14 5 0 100 0 0 Peninsula (4049/4050) SPU Ostrich Bay 48 55 57 22 17 6 0 100 0 0 Peninsula (4049/4050) DPU East Shore 36 64 65 25 8 2 <1 99 0 0 Ostrich Bay (4051) SPU East Shore 37 64 65 25 8 2 <1 99 0 0 Ostrich Bay (4051) DPU Oyster Bay 58 41 43 21 14 23 5 95 0 0 (4052- 4054) SPU Oyster Bay 70 30 32 25 19 25 4 96 0 0 (4052- 4054) DPU Ostrich Bay 66 34 41 25 19 15 35 65 0 29 (4055) SPU Ostrich Bay 80 20 35 27 18 20 26 74 0 20 (4055) DPU Ostrich Bay 47 54 56 28 13 5 7 94 0 7 North (4056, 4057) SPU Ostrich Bay 52 49 57 25 13 6 6 93 0 6 North (4056, 4057) DPU Chico Bay 73 27 39 38 18 6 0 100 0 0 29 SPU = Shoreline Process Unit or Nearshore Zone; DPU = Drainage Process Unit for Upland contributing area. so Dev = Developed land cover. 31 P= Protected land status. 5 -8 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -9. Watershed land cover, impervious surface, and ownership status Land Cover (% area) Impervious Surface (% area) Ownership Status (% area) (4058) SPU Chico Bay 14 86 89 7 3 2 31 69 0 7 (4058) DPU Stressors affecting freshwater shorelines are primarily stream crossings, barriers, and roads associated with the more developed areas (Table 5 -10). Table 5 -10. Existing stressors in upland drainage area of Dyes Inlet shorelines. Number Stream Fish Passage Reach Number Dams Crossings Barriers Roads (% area) Phinney Bay 0 0 0 11 (4047 Rocky Point & 0 0 0 9 Mud Bay (4048) Ostrich Bay 0 0 0 11 Peninsula (4049/4050) East Shore 0 0 0 9 Ostrich Bay (4051) Oyster Bay 0 0 0 12 (4052 -4054) Ostrich Bay 0 26 14 14 (4055) Ostrich Bay North 0 1 0 8 (4056/4057) Chico Bay (4058) 1 135 46 4 Dyes Inlet and the Port Washington Narrows have a surface area of 4,642 acres. The main basin of Dyes Inlet is deepest near the center (150 feet), but the adjacent bays are typically <35 feet deep ( PSCRBT 1989). Tideflats present in the small bays and at the head of the inlet are exposed during low tides. The currents of Dyes inlet are relatively weak, but those of Port Washington Narrows are strong (4 knots)(NOAA 1988, as cited in PSCRBT 1989). The estimated total flushing time is approximately four days for Dyes Inlet (Lincoln and Colias 1975, as cited in PSCRBT 1989), assuming none of the waters leaving the Inlet on ebb tides returns on flood tides. In reality, some waters do return and waters from Sinclair and Dyes inlets mix in an area off Annapolis. The volume that mixes and returns on flood tides to Dyes Inlet is unknown (Tetra Tech 1988, as cited in PSCRBT 1989). Stressors in the nearshore are primarily the extent of shoreline armoring, tidal barriers, and roads affecting the nearshore (Table 5 -11). Although there are numerous small overwater structures and areas of fill, these affect a small percentage of shoreline due to their small size, with the exception of a few reaches (e.g., Phinney Bay; Table 5 -11). PSNERP has estimates a May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -9 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis significant amount of habitat loss in the nearshore, associated with the history of development (Table 5 -12). Table 5 -11. Existing stressors in nearshore zone of Dyes Inlet. Phinney 8 9 Roads/ Overwater Bay (4047 Tidal Barriers Armoring (% Railroads (% Structures (% Nearshore Fill Reach (% length) length) area) area) (% area) Phinney Bay 0 64 8 5 <1 (4047 (4048) Rocky Point 2 41 8 <1 <1 & Mud Bay Peninsula (4048) (4049/ Ostrich Bay <1 65 5 <1 <1 Peninsula East Shore 6 13 - 100 - - - - (4049/4050) Bay (4051) East Shore <1 63 9 <1 <1 Ostrich Bay - - 100 14 - - (4052- (4051) 4054) Oyster Bay 11 50 13 <1 <1 (4052 -4054) Ostrich Bay 3 57 13 <1 2 (4055) Ostrich Bay 5 50 10 <1 <1 North (4056/4057) Chico Bay 2 35 14 <1 <1 (4058) Table 5 -12. Estimated percent loss of historic shoreforms in the nearshore zone of Bluff- Closed Open backed Barrier Barrier Barrier Lagoon Coastal Rocky Pocket Reach Beach Beach Estuary Lagoon Marsh Inlet Shore Beach Phinney 8 9 - - 100 24 - - Bay (4047 Rocky 5 28 - 100 100 13 24 20 Point & Mud Bay (4048) Ostrich 8 13 - 100 - 13 - - Bay Peninsula (4049/ 4050) East Shore 6 13 - 100 - - - - Ostrich Bay (4051) Oyster Bay 4 9 - - 100 14 - - (4052- 4054) Ostrich 10 47 100 - 100 11 - - 5 -10 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City ofBr emerton Shot - eline Masten Pr - ogram Shot - eline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -12. Estimated percent loss of historic shoreforms in the nearshore zone of Bluff- Closed Open backed Barrier Barrier Barrier Lagoon Coastal Rocky Pocket Reach Beach Beach Estuary Lagoon Marsh Inlet Shore Beach Bay (4055) Ostrich 6 94 - 100 - 15 - - Bay North (4056/ 4057) Chico Bay 13 - - - - 27 - - (4058) Water quality impairments in Dyes Inlet are associated primarily with agricultural, urban /commercial and some industrial runoff (Table 5 -13). Fecal coliform levels are impaired in numerous streams and nearshore areas. Ostrich Bay, Oyster Bay and Phinney Bay are classified as `Prohibited' for shellfish growing areas (Map 12). Table 5 -13. Water and Sediment Quality Impairments in Dyes Inlet 21 2008 303(d) listing from May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -11 Number of Sites Compound Medium Impaired (Category 5) Area of Concern (Category 2) Phosphorous Water Kitsap Lake Fecal Colifom Water Kitsap Lake Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows Ostrich Bay Creek Tributary to Kitsap Lake Phinney Creek Chico Creek Kitsap Creek Mercury Water Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows Ostrich Bay Dissolved Oxygen Water Chico Creek Dyes Inlet/Port Ostrich Bay Creek Washington Narrows Kitsap Creek Temperature Water Chico Creek Dyes Inlet/Port Kitsap Creek Washington Narrows PCB Tissue Kitsap Lake 2,3,7,8 -TCDD TEQ Tissue Kitsap Lake Bioassessment Other Chico Creek Sediment Bioassay Sediment Dyes Inlet /Port Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows Washington Narrows 21 2008 303(d) listing from May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 5 -11 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 5 -13. Water and Sediment Quality Impairments in Dyes Inlet Number of Sites Compound Medium Impaired (Category 5) Area of Concern (Category 2) Ecology 5 -12 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis G. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS The detailed inventory in this section will include only those reaches within the City's shoreline planning area (see Map 1 and Map 4F). 6.1 KITSAP LAKE The Kitsap Lake is approximately 238 acres in size and the shoreline includes land currently within the city of Bremerton, as well as land within unincorporated Kitsap County. A large wetland is mapped at the south end of Kitsap Lake and is associated with the shoreline of the lake. Most of the lake shoreline is developed residential, with numerous docks, large areas of modified shoreline, and very little riparian vegetation (see Appendix C; Reach Maps). The lake supports resident cutthroat, coho, steelhead, and pink salmon, with stock status mapped as unknown upstream and in the lake (WDFW 2009, Map 7A and Map 713). The lake is associated with at least one bald eagle nest and foraging area along the shoreline (Map 6A). An extensive wetland at the sound end of the lake along inlet streams supports forested, scrub - shrub, and emergent wetland vegetation. Land cover around the lake is predominantly urban grasses, high intensity residential, and low intensity residential on the north and eastern sides of the lake (Reach 1) (Map 10). The western and southern shores are less developed but still dominated by low intensity residential and mixed forest and grasslands (Reach 2). Impervious surfaces are relatively low around the west and south sides of the lake but greater than 50% with some areas above 80% on the eastern and northern shores (Map 11). About 90% of the lake shoreline is affected by shoreline armoring, overwater structures, removal of riparian vegetation, and impervious surfaces within 200 feet of the lake shore. Kitsap Lake is on the 303(d) list as a Category 5 for phosphorous, fecal coliform, and PCBs (see Table 4 -8, Map 12). Stormwater runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces, including residential lawns and landscaping contribute to water quality impairment in the lake (Ecology 2009). The lake shoreline is mostly in private ownership. Kitsap Lake Park is on the south shore within City of Bremerton jurisdiction, and an open space corridor designated to the south connecting the lake shore wetlands with the City's watershed lands (Map 13). 6.2 UNION RESERVOIR AND UNION RIVER The Union Rive reservoir has a surface area of about 40 acres. Shoreline reaches include the entire lake shoreline, as well as the Union River below the reservoir from McKenna Falls to the lake. The combined lake and river shoreline area is approximately 98 acres. The reservoir lies behind the Casad Dam and provides drinking water for the City of Bremerton. The upper watershed and the reservoir are within the City's protected watershed area with deciduous, evergreen and mixed forest as the predominant land cover. The Union River system supports chinook, pink, coho, fall - winter chum, summer chum, steelhead, and cutthroat. The Union River is the only basin on the Kitsap Peninsula to currently have a viable native population of summer chum salmon. The lake and river reaches within shoreline jurisdiction support resident cutthroat, although coho, and steelhead could be present (WDFW 2009, Map 7A). The Kitsap Refugia report rated the instream habitat and riparian conditions are generally fair to good (May and Peterson 2003). Riparian conditions in the lake and river reaches within shoreline jurisdiction are in good condition, with forested riparian zones on both sides of the river and around the lakeshore. The upper watershed has May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 6 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis numerous headwater wetland complexes, providing extensive rearing habitat for salmonids. McKenna Falls is a natural barrier to fish passage upstream, and is located just downstream of the Union Reservoir dam. Stock status is `unknown' or `healthy' in the reservoir and reaches just downstream (WDFW 2009, Map 713). Water quality impairments include low dissolved oxygen and pH in the shoreline reaches downstream of the reservoir (see Table 4 -2 and Map 12). The reservoir and river reach within shoreline jurisdiction are surrounded by the City's 3,000 acre protected watershed area where only water supply and forest management activities are allowed (Map 14, http: / /www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/ forms /publicworks /waterresources /CCR_ annualreportl0.pdf) Just to the east of the reservoir, land is zoned as Utility and Low Density Residential. Land cover is predominantly forested, with deciduous and mixed forest, and some areas of grasslands and shrublands. Impervious surface is less than 10 %. The shoreline of Union Reservoir is currently designated as Urban Conservancy (Map 15). 6.3 TWIN LAKES Twin Lakes together are approximately 21.7 acres in size and lie within the City's utility area. Twin Lakes, which are on the hydrologic boundary between the Union River and Gorst Creek watersheds, and there are no surface drainage channels out of the Twin Lakes. Studies by the City of Bremerton indicate that approximately half of the groundwater flow out of the Twin Lakes is to the Union River watershed and half to the Gorst Creek watershed (Kuttel 2003, Haring 2000). Twin Lakes is located towards the western end of the Gorst Creek Aquifer Recharge area (Map 5). There are no identified water quality issues. The area around Twin Lakes is zoned primarily as utility lands, with some area of low density residential zoning immediately to the east, and the industrially zoned South Kitsap Industrial Area is immediately to the south (Map 14). Twin Lakes shorelines are currently designated as Urban Conservancy (Map 15). 6.4 GORST CREEK UPSTREAM OF ESTUARY The conditions in the upper Gorst Creek watershed are largely undeveloped, with low levels of impervious surfaces, and wetland complexes in the headwaters that provide moderate to high functions and values, including floodwater retention, water quality, and habitat functions. Floodwater retention is a critical function, due to the history of flooding within the Gorst Creek Drainage Basin (Parametrix 2006). The watershed covers approximately 7,000 acres in the southwestern portion of Kitsap County. Approximately 3,000 acres are forest resource land owned by the City of Bremerton, and approximately three percent of the remaining 4,000 acres include commercial, industrial and residential zoned land developed with buildings and other impervious surfaces. Gorst Creek supports Chinook, chum, coho, steelhead and cutthroat (WDFW 2009, Map 7A). Gorst Creek is classified by Kitsap County as a Type F (fish- bearing) stream (WDNR 2009). Thirteen Type F tributary streams including Parish Creek, Heins Creek, and an unnamed stream (LMK 122) are located within the watershed. The upper reaches of these tributaries are of high ecological function and generally undisturbed by development; with the exception of one major tributary immediately south of Highway 3. This stream channel was destroyed in the 1960's when the stream was put in a culvert and the area over the culvert was filled as a landfill. The lower reaches of Gorst are significantly altered by development and highways, with fill in the lower channel, estuary and nearshore, impervious surfaces, water and soil contamination, channel confinement, and tidal restrictions. The floodplain in lower Gorst Creek is mostly hardened and confined (although there are on -going restoration projects in 6 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis the estuary). The lower reaches lack of riparian vegetation and LWD. A number of culverts /passage barriers affect the lower reaches — including under SR3 and Old Belfair Highway. Above SR 3, the channel may have no flow during summer months. Navy railroad crossing of Jarstad Creek is passage barrier. The City's Gorst Creek Salmon Rearing Facility, jointly operated with the Suquamish Tribe, WDFW, and Kitsap Poggie Club, is located in the watershed. The facility includes two Chinook rearing ponds and two yearling fall Chinook raceways about 0.75 miles upstream from the mouth. All returning adult Chinook are thought to be hatchery fish and not the result of natural production. Gorst Creek is currently one of the largest producers of salmon in Kitsap streams. The facility releases two million Chinook salmon smolts into Gorst Creek, and raises 300,000 Coho salmon smolts for release into Agate Pass annually. Gorst Creek is on the 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform (Ecology 2009, Map 12). The lower reach of the stream is within the Gorst Creek Aquifer Recharge Area (Map 5). Land cover is forested in the upper watershed, but mixed forest, grasslands, urban residential, or commercial industrial in the lower reaches. Impervious surfaces are high near the lower reaches and mouth of Gorst Creek — mostly greater than 80 to 90% impervious (Map 11). The area is currently zoned low density residential and utility lands around the western end of the jurisdictional reach (Map 14). However, the area within the Gorst UGA is not yet zoned by the City. 6.5 PUGET SOUND SHORELINES 6.5.1 Gorst estuary Gorst Estuary is the largest estuary in the planning area and provides significant shoreline functions to Sinclair Inlet and Puget Sound. The estuary receives freshwater flows from Gorst Creek, as well as several small independent drainages nearby. Wright Creek is about 1.2 miles long and enters Sinclair Inlet between Gorst and Bremerton. The stream supports summer chum spawning in the intertidal, and cutthroat to a dam at RM 0.8. A small unnamed stream just east of Gorst enters Sinclair Inlet through a steep ravine, with a passage barrier at SR 16 (Kuttel 2003). This stream supports coho and may be associated with a small pocket estuary (Map 7A, Map 4G). Anderson Creek enters Sinclair Inlet just east of the planning area boundary (Map 1) and supports coho, chum, cutthroat, and steelhead (Kuttel 2003, May and Peterson 2003, WDFW 2009). About half of the drainage area for Anderson Creek lies within the City's water supply protected area, which is managed primarily for municipal water supply and commercial forestry. A culvert at SR 16 may be passage barrier at low and high flows. Channel and floodplain constriction results from the 300 -foot long concrete flume and pump station about 1 /4 mile upstream from SR 16. Upstream of the flume, the channel is moderately confined with moderate sinuosity, with marginal pool habitat, optimal riffle habitat, and sub - optimal LWD (May and Peterson 2003). Riparian zones are in relatively good condition along Anderson with most being rated in a natural condition and more than 30 meters wide (May and Peterson 2003). The estuary has been impacted by fill and tidal restrictions associated with SR 16/166 and culverts under the roadways, with virtually no saltwater influence upstream of the highway. Highway culverts may be passage barriers during times of receding tides. Gorst estuary itself is shallow, with fringing marshes and mud flats that provide excellent production of prey for salmonids (May and Peterson 2003). Estuarine area upstream of the May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 6 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis k _ i?, J Figure 6 -1. Gorst Estuary at the mouth of Gorst Creek (Ecology Coastal Atlas Photo 060624 -1275) Biological resources in the estuary include waterfowl concentrations at the mouth and along the north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet, and shorebird concentrations along the north shore (Map 9). Continuous mixed marsh and patchy salt marsh occurs along the inner estuary and north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet (Map 8A). Patchy eelgrass occurs between the edge of the marsh vegetation and adjacent mud and sand flats (Map 8D). Surf smelt spawning areas are mapped along the north and south shore if Sinclair Inlet just east of the estuary (map 7C). Bald eagle nests are associated with the estuary along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet with nest management and foraging areas within the entire estuary (Map 6A). Shoreline modifications include significant alteration to tidal processes, with tidal barriers affecting 6% of shoreline length. Shoreline armoring affects 88% of shoreline length, road density is high (18% shoreline area), overwater structures affect 4% of shoreline area, and nearshore fill affects 20% of shoreline area. These modifications are reflected in the loss of habitats. Estimates of the loss of historic shoreforms include 100% of former barrier estuaries, 65% of coastal inlets, and more than 80% of tidal wetlands (Schlenger et al, in review). Although public access is limited, urban trails (part of the Mosquito Fleet trail) and a shellfish beach are located along the shores of the estuary (Map 13). 6 -4 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) highway has been virtually eliminated through fill and development in the estuary. Good estuarine conditions occur at the mouth, but north of mouth, the shoreline is heavily modified and armored (highway and railroad, then PSNS). To the east of the mouth, the estuary has been filled with commercial and industrial buildings. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 6.5.2 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard This reach is heavily modified by the development of the Naval Shipyard. Impervious surface along shoreline is more than 80% and frequently more than 90% along the entire shoreline (Map 11). More than 90% of the shoreline length is armored and overwater structures affect approximately 50% of the shoreline area (Map 16A). 6.5.3 Port Washington Narrows West Port Washington Narrows provide the connection between Dyes and Sinclair Inlets and are characterized by a relatively narrow, deep channel with strong currents and bluff - backed beaches. All small streams north of Wright Creek have been covered and are contained in culverts (11 miles shoreline without natural streams). A few locations for surf smelt spawning are mapped along this reach (Map 7C). Most of the shoreline is mapped with continuous non - floating kelp, but no eelgrass or marsh vegetation is mapped here (Map 8A, Map 813, Map 8C, and Map 8D). Hardshell clam areas occur along the Narrows, but mostly associated with the eastern shore (Map 613). Waterfowl concentrations occur at the entrance to the Narrows, between the ferry docks and Evergreen Park (Map 9). Shoreline modifications include heavily armored shorelines (80% shoreline length), numerous roads (12% of shoreline area), and fill within the nearshore (2% of the area) (see Table 4 -6). In addition, numerous overhanging structures; piers, docks, and floats; and old pilings occur along the Narrows shoreline (Map 16B and Map 16C). Impervious surfaces along shoreline are mostly above 50% and mostly 90 -100% at some locations including along the Bremerton waterfront, where the Warren Avenue Bridge crosses the Narrows, and just east of Anderson Cove (Map 11). Land cover is predominantly high intensity residential or commercial industrial, with small areas of low intensity residential (Map 10). 6.5.4 Phinney Bay Phinney Bay is a large embayment at the western end of Port Washington Narrows and eastern end of Dyes Inlet. Phinney Bay has some high bank areas on the eastern shore, but is mostly low bank and /or marsh lagoon shoreforms, with mud, sand, and gravel substrates dominating (Map 4G and Map 4H). One surf smelt spawning location is mapped on the northeast side of Phinney Bay. Non - floating kelp occurs along the northeastern side, with continuous eelgrass along most of the Bay shoreline, and patchy salt marsh at the southern end and in the lagoon in the western side of the Bay (Map 813, Map 8D, and Map 8A). Some oyster beds occur at the north end of the Bay, although Phinney Bay is currently classified as a Prohibited Shellfish Growing area (Map 12). Water quality issues include fecal coliform, and possibly dissolved oxygen (see Table 4 -8, Map 12). Phinney Bay has a large number of outfalls, especially on the western side of the Bay, as well as a highly developed shoreline (Map 12). About 30% of the drainage area contributing to Phinney Bay has impervious surfaces greater than 50 %, but a relatively large portion of the drainage area (55 %) is covered by less than 10% impervious surface (Map I I and see Table 4 -12). This is due to the mostly natural land cover (see Table 4 -12) and cover is mostly low intensity residential but with some mixed forest (Map 10). Phinney Bay is currently zoned low density residential or not currently zoned in the Bremerton West UGA (Map 14). May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 6 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Shoreline modifications include moderately high levels of shoreline armoring (64% of shoreline length), roads affecting the shoreline (8% of shoreline area), and overwater structures (5% of shoreline area) (see Table 4 -12, Map 16A and Map 16B). Most of the overwater structure area is contributed by the single large marina (Map 16B). 6.5.5 Rocky Point/Mud Bay Rocky Point and Mud Bay reaches are less intensively developed than the Bremerton waterfront and portions of the Narrows shorelines. Contributing drainage area is predominantly mixed forest, grasses, or low intensity residential (Map 10). Natural land cover is about 58 %, with 42% classified as developed. Most of the contributing drainage is less than 30% impervious surface, but there are small areas with more than 50% impervious (see Table 4 -13, Map 11). Within 200 feet of the marine shoreline, impervious surface is approximately 8% (EKNHA 2009). Rocky Point/Mud Bay is currently not zoned (Bremerton West UGA), although adjacent areas are zoned low density residential. Non - floating kelp is continuous around Rocky Point, with areas of mixed marsh and salt marsh concentrated in Mud Bay (Map 8B and Map 8A). Oyster beds occur off Rocky Point, although this is in a Prohibited Shellfish Growing area (Map 613). Surf smelt spawning areas occur on both sides of Rocky Point (Map 7C). A bald eagle nest is mapped south of Rocky Point, and foraging areas cover most of the Rocky Point/Mud Bay reach (Map 6A). In addition, a waterfowl concentration area occurs just south of Rocky Point (Map 9). Shoreline modifications include a moderate to high amount of shoreline armoring (55% of shoreline length), some barriers to tidal flow (2% of shoreline length), and roads (8% shoreline area) (see Table 4 -12). In addition, numerous overhanging docks and piers, and pilings are scattered along the shoreline (Map 16B and Map 16C). However, this reach lacks large overwater structures and the low energy areas in Mud Bay are generally not armored. Riparian vegetation is lacking for most of the shoreline, but areas along the eastern shore of Mud Bay and some areas along Rocky Point have intact riparian vegetation. 6.5.6 Ostrich Bay Peninsula and East Ostrich Bay The Ostrich Bay Peninsula and East Ostrich Bay are similar to Rocky Point/Mud Bay in overall level of development patterns along the shoreline and adjacent uplands. Drainage unit land cover is about 40 to 48% natural and 60 to 55% developed, with some mixed forest, deciduous forest, and urban grasses (Map 10). Impervious surfaces are mostly below 30% in the contributing drainage (Map 11). Percent total impervious surface within 200 feet of the shoreline is less than 10% (EKNHA 2009). Shoreline vegetation is patchy salt marsh on the shores of Mud Bay, with mixed marsh and patch eelgrass (Map 8A and Map 8D). The peninsula and the eastern shore of Ostrich Bay include a concentration of surf smelt and Pacific sand lance spawning areas (Map 7C) Shoreline modifications include relatively high levels of armoring (63 to 65% shoreline length), roads (5 to 9% shoreline area), and low levels of tidal barrier, overwater structure, and nearshore fill (all less than 1% of shoreline area) (see Table 4 -12, Map 16A and Map 16B). 6 -6 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 6.5.7 Oyster Bay Oyster Bay is a shallow protected embayment with a relatively narrow opening to Ostrich Bay. Surrounding land cover is mostly developed (about 70% developed and 30% natural), with most of the contributing area with high levels of impervious surface ( >50% impervious surface) (Map 10, Map 11). The south shore of Oyster Bay has the highest level of development and impervious surface (Map 10). Shoreline modifications include significant alteration to tidal action (11% of shoreline length with tidal barriers), moderate to high levels of armoring (50% of shoreline length), roads affecting the shoreline (13% of shoreline area), and relatively low levels of nearshore fill and overwater structures (less than 1% shoreline area) (see Table 4 -12, Map 16A and Map 16B). Oyster Bay is classified as a Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area (Map 12). 6.5.8 Ostrich Bay Ostrich Bay is a large embayment in Dyes Inlet with one small stream mapped entering the Bay at its south end. This small independent drainage (Ostrich Bay Creek or Unnamed Creek 15.0226) enters the south end of Ostrich Bay and is associated with a pocket estuary (Map 4G). Ostrich Bay Creek supports coho, chum, and cutthroat; stock status unknown (Map 7A, Map 713). The stream is in a ravine from about Shorewood Drive to SR 3 and has a fair (about 50 feet) riparian buffer. Upstream of SR 3 riparian condition is poor to fair. Fish passage barriers occur at Kitsap Way, SR 3, and Price Road. Seal and sea lion haulout area is mapped at Elwood Point (Map 613). A concentration of surf smelt spawning areas is mapped around Elwood Point. Patchy eelgrass and salt marsh occur at a few scattered locations in Ostrich Bay (Map 8D and Map 8A). Bald eagle nests and foraging areas are associated with much of the Ostrich Bay shoreline (Map 6A). Land cover surrounding Ostrich Bay is a mix of high intensity residential, low intensity residential, mixed forest, evergreen and deciduous forest, urban grasses, and small areas of commercial /industrial (Map 10). Land cover is mostly developed (66 to 80% developed) and impervious surface is relatively high; impervious surface is 30% or above over most of the contributing area (see Table 4 -13 and Map 11). Shoreline modifications include tidal barriers (3% of shoreline length), armoring (57% of shoreline area, roads (13% of shoreline area), and nearshore fill (2% of shoreline area) (see Table 4 -12 and Map 16A). Overwater structures are concentrated in a few locations and cover less than 1% of shoreline area (Map 16B). Water quality impairments include fecal coliform, mercury, and dissolved oxygen listings for 303(d) list Category 5 (Ecology 2009, Map 12). In addition, all of Ostrich Bay is a Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area. 6.5.9 Ostrich Bay North Ostrich Bay North includes the small embayment north of Elwood Point and the east and north side of Erlands Point, just into Chico Bay. The southern half of the embayment is the limit of the City's planning area, but the entire reach is described here. A small stream less than one mile long (Unnamed Creek 15.0226 and 15.0227) enters the west side of Ostrich Bay in the embayment to the south of Erlands Point. This stream is not known to support salmonids but provides estuarine habitat and marsh vegetation. The May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 6 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis embayment contains continuous mixed marsh, with patchy mixed marsh, salt marsh, and eelgrass north of the embayment (Map 8A and Map 8D). Surrounding land cover is predominantly urban grasses, low intensity residential, and some deciduous forest, mixed forest, and grasses (Map 10). Impervious surfaces are generally low, most of the area is less than 10% impervious, but the south shore of the embayment has area with more than 80% impervious surface (see Table 4 -13, Map 11). Shoreline modifications include significant tidal barriers (5% of shoreline length), armoring (50% of shoreline length), roads (10% of shoreline area), and numerous small boat ramps, overhanging docks, piers, floats, and areas of pilings (see Table 4 -12, Map 16A, Map 16B, and Map 16C). The U.S. Navy owns a large area of the western shoreline of Ostrich Bay and much of this shoreline is undeveloped, with relatively intact riparian vegetation. 6.5.10 Port Washington Narrows East Port Washington Narrows provide the connection between Dyes and Sinclair Inlets and are characterized by a relatively narrow, deep channel with strong currents and bluff - backed beaches. Some small streams have been covered and are contained in culverts, however, some small streams still have relatively good riparian areas (Map 10). A few locations for surf smelt spawning are mapped along this reach (Map 7C). Most of the shoreline is mapped with continuous non - floating kelp, but no eelgrass or marsh vegetation is mapped here (Map 8A, Map 813, and Map 8D). Hardshell clam areas occur along the Narrows, but mostly associated with the eastern shore (Map 613). Waterfowl concentrations occur at the entrance to the Narrows (Map 9). Sheridan Park, Lyons Park, and East Park occur along this reach. Shoreline modifications include heavily armored shorelines (80% shoreline length), numerous roads (12% of shoreline area), and fill within the nearshore (2% of the area) (see Table 4 -6, Map 16A). In addition, numerous overhanging structures; piers, docks, and floats; and old pilings occur along the Narrows shoreline (Map 16B and Map 16C). Impervious surfaces along shoreline are mostly above 50% and mostly 90 -100% at some locations including where the Warren Avenue Bridge crosses the Narrows (Map 11). Land cover is predominantly high intensity residential or commercial industrial, with small areas of low intensity residential (Map 10). 6.5.11 Point Herron Point Herron is characterized by predominantly developed land cover, both in the drainage basins contributing to the shoreline reach and within the shoreline reach itself. Impervious area in the drainage unit and along the shoreline is generally greater than 10% and in some areas greater than 50 %. Forest cover within the 200 foot shoreline area is less than 4 %. Nearshore stressors are primarily shoreline armoring, with more than 70% of the shoreline armored. In addition, 5% of the shoreline reach is affected by roads, with 2% affected by overwater structures and fill. 6.5.12 Bremerton East UGA Land cover in reach 56B (Bremerton East UGA) is predominantly developed in the contributing drainage basins and along the shoreline, with a little more than 40% of the area having greater than 10% impervious surface. In addition to removal of forest cover, stream crossings /culverts and roads affect the upland drainage areas. Percent impervious within 200 6 -8 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis feet of the marine shoreline ranges from 8% to 17 %, while forest cover within the 200 foot shoreline area averages less than 2 %. Over 50% of the shoreline is armored, with 6% of the shoreline affected by roads. A small independent creek (Dee Enetai) enters Port Orchard Bay approximately 1.0 mile northeast of Point Heron. The creek currently supports chum, coho, and cutthroat in the lower reaches. There are a number of fish passage barriers in this watershed (Dorn). Anadromous salmonids are currently able to pass upstream to the second culvert under Enetai Beach/Jacobsen Boulevard, which is a total fish passage barrier. Additional culverts under Trenton Avenue and Helm Street are also identified as fish passage barriers. These culverts should be removed and replaced with small bridges. The natural floodplain of Dee Creek is constrained at several culvert crossings. Most of the culverts are undersized, creating sediment deposition areas upstream. From the mouth to Trenton Avenue, the channel is located in a steep ravine with good LWD presence. Upstream of Trenton Avenue, channel conditions are considered to be poor. The upper watershed is intensely developed with no stormwater protection. Habitat upstream of Trenton Avenue is generally poor, and the primary identified concern downstream of Trenton Avenue is gravel scour, likely resulting from altered creek hydrology in the headwaters. Riparian condition upstream of Trenton Avenue is poor, with little remaining riparian vegetation due to intense development in the headwaters. Riparian condition in the steep ravine reach downstream of Trenton Avenue is considered to be generally good. Flows in Dee Creek are very flashy, likely the result of the intense development in the watershed with no stormwater controls. This increases surface flows during storm events, decreases base flows, and contributes to poor water quality conditions in the stream. The Bremerton- Kitsap Health District has been collecting water quality information at one location in Dee Creek since 1996. Identified water quality concerns include consistent high fecal coliform counts (Mean =183 fc /100ml, three observations of 1600 fc /100ml). Although not identified as a water quality concern, there were some observations of dissolved oxygen levels <10 mg /1., and two observations of elevated turbidity. Dee Creek has a small estuary; both banks are armored. Effects of bank armoring to estuarine function should be evaluated. 6.6 SUMMARY OF REACHES Shoreline modifications affecting nearshore processes are summarized in Table 6 -1 for all shoreline reaches in the planning area. Table 6 -1 shows a standardized number for stressors for all reaches to allow comparison of the reaches — the number of stressors present per 100 feet of shoreline is used to standard the stressor measure. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 6 -9 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 6 -1. Summary of Shoreline Modifications by Reach Reach Name Reach Stairs / Unit' Outfalls / Unit Non - Culvert Outfalls /Unit Culverts / Unit Boat Launches / Unit Groins / Unit Overhanging Structures / Unit Piers /Docks and Floats Number/ Unit Floats/ Unit Pilings / Unit Kitsap Lake 1 K1 0 10 5 1 3 2 12 18 6 34 Kitsap Lake 2 K2 0 6 2 1 1 1 10 14 4 28 Twin Lakes TL3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Union Reservoir URES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Union River UR5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gorst Creek GC6 Puget Sound 34A 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 Navel Shipyard Gorst Estuary 34B 4 10 2 6 5 0 1 2 2 100 Blackjack Creek 34C 7 27 9 12 3 1 20 6 3 429 Port Washington 35 5 5 5 0 3 0 1 2 1 34 Narrows West 36 4 10 8 3 0 0 2 2 0 91 149 9 6 6 0 3 2 1 3 1 20 150 6 0 0 0 2 0 1 4 4 56 151 3 5 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 59 Phinney Bay 37 11 3 3 0 3 1 1 4 4 38 38 6 4 3 1 1 0 0 5 5 21 6 -10 May 20121 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 6 -1. Summary of Shoreline Modifications by Reach Reach Name Reach Stairs / Unit' Outfalls / Unit Non - Culvert Outfalls /Unit Culverts / Unit Boat Launches / Unit Groins / Unit Overhanging Structures / Unit Piers /Docks and Floats Number/ Unit Floats/ Unit Pilings / Unit 39 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 14 85 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 19 Rocky Point 40 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 41 42 4 4 0 13 1 1 8 6 43 Mud Bay 42 12 6 6 0 5 1 3 7 6 9 43 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 30 Ostrich Bay 44 7 0 0 0 9 7 0 10 8 11 Peninsula 86 9 3 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 11 East Shore Ostrich 87 31 1 1 0 10 4 1 12 12 17 Bay Oyster Bay 48 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 48 11 11 0 13 0 4 26 23 47 50 43 2 2 0 8 5 5 5 5 2 88 8 1 1 0 5 1 2 4 4 18 Ostrich Bay 140 11 14 12 1 1 0 1 2 1 53 Ostrich Bay North 51 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 52 13 1 1 0 5 1 0 6 4 24 53 8 0 0 0 3 0 2 4 4 3 89 8 1 1 0 4 0 1 1 1 42 Chico Bay 90 25 1 0 1 1 8 3 1 1 13 138 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 May 2012 1 553 - 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 6 -11 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 6 -1. Summary of Shoreline Modifications by Reach Reach Name Reach Stairs / Unit' Outfalls / Unit Non - Culvert Outfalls /Unit Culverts / Unit Boat Launches / Unit Groins / Unit Overhanging Structures / Unit Piers /Docks and Floats Number/ Unit Floats/ Unit Pilings / Unit Port Washington 107 13 19 16 4 3 1 2 8 3 184 Narrows East 108 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 28 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 77 18 17 1 19 7 6 29 25 212 Point Herron 55 9 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 16 56A 15 1 1 0 10 0 0 3 2 12 Bremerton East 56B 32 6 6 0 10 4 3 6 4 155 UGA 6 -12 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 7. ECOLOGIC MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION TOOLS 7.1 OVERVIEW A wide range of options are available for management and protection of ecological functions in shorelines. The discussion below covers several topics including: Designation, rating and classification systems Functional assessment options Classification based buffers No harm regulations 7.2 DESIGNATION, RATING, AND CLASSIFICATION There is no universally accepted method for classifying rivers, streams, and lakes or related habitat areas for regulatory purposes. In the State of Washington, there are a variety of classification systems used by different agencies based on specific regulatory needs. For example, Ecology classifies water types for the purposes of meeting water quality standards and employs a system that emphasizes the use of the water and the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, while DNR employs a system based on forest practices needs. 7.2.1 Washington DNR Stream Typing System The DNR classification system was developed for forest practices and generally is based on the presence or absence of fish. The designation of shorelines of the state as a separate classification is based primarily on the statutory limitations on forest practices within shorelines of statewide significance in RCW 90.58.150 which allows only selective timber cutting. In general, the designation of streams over 20 csf as a separate category may be relevant because of the wider range of processes provided in streams with higher flows, but the DNR designation is not based on the presence or absence of particular geomorphic processes or ecological functions. 7.2.2 Fish Species and Lifestage Stream Classification System The specific biological and ecological functions provided by individual streams differ substantially. Therefore, one potential classification system classifies stream reaches according to the fish species and lifestages present within the reach. The presence of salmonids in various life stages within a stream or river reach can indicate or infer information on the habitat quality and quantity of that specific reach. For example, if a headwater stream reach supports bull trout, it may indicate that riparian buffer conditions within that reach are relatively intact, and the buffers are of adequate size to provide for adequate moderation of water temperature and sediment filtration capability, because spawning bull trout require cool water and clean gravel. Likewise, a reach known to be occupied by spawning chum salmon can be assumed to be accessible to all other salmon species, because chum salmon are the least powerful swimmer of the salmon species. This approach would use the WDFW Priority Habitat Species (PHS) database to assign fish presence or life stage information. The database covers streams in the Bremerton study area that have been identified as having anadromous species and classifies stream reaches as spawning, rearing, or migration habitat for each individual salmonid species. Other reaches of stream, where site - specific information is lacking, could be classified based on current May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 7 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis knowledge as presumed or historical habitat for a species with the option that more detailed analysis could be done at the project review stage to confirm or change the presumption. The primary advantages of this system are in its biological and ecological relevance, coupled with a relatively complete, easily accessible database. However, there are several potential drawbacks to such a classification system. First, the link between fish presence and the quality or type of aquatic habitat is not complete. Dams, for example, can completely block anadromous fish access to high - quality, productive, instream habitat, which may not be occupied for these reasons. Second, the quality of fish presence/life stage information is currently incomplete, and may be biased toward easily accessed valley -bottom reaches as compared to more isolated headwater tributary reaches. In Bremerton, this option is not particularly valuable because most streams and lakes provide habitat for a variety of fish species, however specific reaches vary greatly in the character of the stream and adjacent uplands and the ecological functions provided. 7.2.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Based Classification System A third type of classification system is based on ecological functions using known differences in habitat quality and limiting factors to classify streams. The relative quality and quantity of individual geophysical or habitat parameters have direct correlation to the ecological functions that a particular stream reach or subbasin provides. The presence of particular species in various life stages within a stream or river reach can indicate or imply information on the habitat quality and quantity of that specific reach. For example, if a headwater stream reach supports bull trout, it may indicate that riparian buffer conditions within that reach are relatively intact, and the buffers are of adequate size to provide for adequate moderation of water temperature and sediment filtration capability, because spawning bull trout require cool water and clean gravel. Likewise, a reach known to be occupied by spawning chum salmon can be assumed to be accessible to all other salmon species, because chum salmon are the least powerful swimmer of the salmon species. This approach would rely on review of available reports on habitat conditions and limiting factors (e.g., LCFRB 2002) to assign a classification system based on the relative ecological condition of a stream reach or subbasin. The primary advantage of such a classification system is that ecological relevance is built into the system. However, several major disadvantages are also present. For example, detailed, high - quality information on habitat quality is not available for many stream and lake reaches within the Bremerton study area, and because different sources of information have used different methods for habitat evaluation. Available information, therefore, is not directly comparable. Furthermore, in many cases this approach would require reliance on best professional judgment to combine information on multiple ecological functions in order to classify a particular stream or subbasin. Most likely, the approach would be most practical to apply at a larger spatial scale, such as the subbasin or subwatershed level, which could potentially negate the benefits by blending ecological function. 7.2.4 Functional Assessment Options The current practice in assessing ecological functions provided by streams and other aquatic systems is to use a classification and rating system. Such systems focus on identifiable features and use rating systems to characterize factors such as sensitivity, significance, rarity, functions, and opportunities for replacement. While the use of the current WDFW /DNR stream rating system is understood as common practice, it presents limitations that an ecosystem perspective can remedy. The current rating 7 -2 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis system focuses on discrete identifiable features of streams that are roughly related to functions important to aquatic species. An alternative approach is to focus on the variety of functions provided by the landscape. The rationale for focusing on functions rather than the stream classification is to shift emphasis from a discrete element of the ecosystem, such as a stream, to a system of indicators that are integrated with other aquatic resource and habitat evaluations. Further, the current methodology relies on discrete stream evaluations. The alternative functional analysis would utilize structural components rather than particular features, such as streams, as the basis for units within sites. This also allows for a broader view of stream values that provides opportunities for including other functions, such as flood management functions, and evaluating water supply functions such as seeps and springs that have an integral part in aquatic ecological functions. This functional approach allows for a detailed understanding of the ecosystem services provided by a natural or impacted site. Quantitative values can be developed for existing conditions in a natural or altered state, and alternatives can be compared in both restoration and impact scenarios. These values, or scores, allow for a clearer understanding of tradeoffs under site selection, design, or mitigation analysis. The analysis of specific stream reaches in this report provides a qualitative assessment of these factors. It is not converted into a rating or other system because that intermediate step is not necessary in an area as small as the City. The approach used in the Draft SMP Policies and Regulations is to use all the relevant information about each reach in developing regulations that specify the application of the Shoreline Management Act's competing priorities for water dependent use, public access and preserving or enhancing ecological functions. 7.3 BUFFER OPTIONS For protection of ecological functions in streams and lakes, wetlands and habitat areas, a relatively narrow range of options have been used in Washington State. Most of the regulations developed in Washington State have been related to Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements to protect Critical Areas. The predominant means of regulating uplands adjacent to water bodies and areas adjacent to wetlands and critical wildlife habitat has been through buffers. The Shoreline Management Act makes reference to buffers in RCW 90.58(2)(f)(ii) which allows inclusion of buffers for critical areas in SMP jurisdiction References to buffers in the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173 -36) are numerous and include the following: WAC 173- 26- 186(2)(c)(i)(D) Buffers. Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the ecological functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors. WAC 173- 26- 186(2)(5)(b) Local governments may implement these objectives through a variety of measures, where consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, including clearing and grading regulations, setback and buffer standards, critical area regulations, conditional use requirements for specific uses or areas, mitigation requirements, incentives and nonregulatory programs. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 7 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis WAC 173- 26- 211(4)(f)(ii)(A) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations. WAC 173 - 241(3)0) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations. A wide range of buffer widths have been analyzed for a variety of functions. Variation in recommendations or buffer effectiveness is frequently due to variation in site conditions such as side -slope angle, stream type, geology, climate, etc. Design of riparian buffers must consider the ecological, cultural, and economic values of the resource, land use characteristics, and existing riparian quality throughout watersheds in order to address the cumulative impacts on stream functions and the resources being protected (Johnson and Ryba 1992; Castelle et al. 1994; 2000; Wenger 1999). Appropriate buffer sizes will depend on the area necessary to maintain the desired riparian or stream functions for the given suite of land -use activities. A wider buffer may be desired to protect streams from impacts resulting from high - intensity land use while narrower buffers may suffice in areas of low- intensity land use (May 2000). It should be noted though that opportunities for protection or improvement of buffer conditions in areas of high - intensity land use are often effectively foreclosed by existing development, or the existing habitat conditions are already highly altered. Under such conditions, establishing buffers wide enough to provide an effective full -range of riparian functions is likely unattainable; other actions may be required to improve habitat conditions beyond what riparian buffers are able to provide. In addition, buffer vegetation type, diversity, condition, and maturity are equally as important as buffer width, and the best approach to providing high - quality buffers is to strive for establishing and maintaining mature native vegetation communities (May 2000). Potential riparian, lake wetland and habitat buffer frameworks include the following types, which are discussed in greater detail below: 1. Standard Single -Zone Buffers — Fixed - distance stream buffers based on the maintenance of individual aquatic functions. The buffer widths may be further divided by land use (e.g., urban versus rural) or by other variables. 2. Dual -Zone Buffers — This approach employs two smaller adjacent buffer zones, which, when combined, make up the overall riparian buffer. An inner "core" zone, directly adjacent to the aquatic feature, consisting of an area where uses are prohibited or severely restricted, and an outer riparian zone, adjacent to the core zone, where uses are still restricted, but to a lesser degree. 3. Reach Based Buffers — This approach is most relevant to streams and lakes that have been altered by human use. The approach focuses on "no net loss" of existing functions as they currently exist. All of the above approaches could potentially incorporate buffer averaging techniques, in cases where the overall buffer area will be equal to un- averaged conditions, and it can be clearly demonstrated that averaging will result in no net loss of aquatic functions. 7 -4 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 7.3.1.1 Standard Single -Zone Stream Buffers Single -zone buffers are the most common type of riparian buffer, with a designated minimum buffer for each class or type of stream/habitat as defined by the applicable stream classification scheme. The advantages of single -zone stream buffers are that they are the most common buffer type and have had extensive best available science (BAS) and legal review; are relatively simple to understand from a public standpoint and lend themselves to straightforward and efficient administrative processing; and allow for buffer averaging. One disadvantage of such a system is that riparian buffers are not uniform in the functions they provide relative to the width of the buffer, as discussed further below. Table 7 -1 developed by Parametrix scientists summarizes this information in relation to the specific aquatic functions that are of greatest importance in maintaining conditions suitable to support fish and other aquatic life (e.g., LWD recruitment, stream temperature, sediment filtration). For each buffer width, the suitability of the buffer is rated by its ability to maintain these aquatic functions. Although this evaluation is qualitative, it is firmly based on BAS regarding ecological functions. An example of a buffer recommendation based on a choice of a critical factor is the recommendation by Pollack and Kennard (1998) of a minimum buffer width of 250 feet on all perennial streams based on LWD recruitment and the height at maturity of trees in Pacific Northwest forests. These buffer widths of one SPTH would reasonably provide for a full range of riparian functions, and therefore, not contribute significantly to the loss of salmonid habitat. May (2000) and other extensive reviews provide detailed summaries of buffer width sizes necessary to achieve stream and riparian functions (Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993). As mentioned above, the disadvantage of uniform buffers is that a single buffer is designed to provide multiple functions. Depending on the stream and the adjacent use, some functions may continue to be provided on adjacent land outside of the buffer with appropriate management practices. For example, the riparian functions of bank stability and litter fall are primarily provided for within a relatively short distance of a waterbody (10 to 50 feet). Also, along highly managed streams such as in agricultural, residential, or commercial areas, some functions normally provided (at least in part) by riparian buffers, such as flow attenuation or filtration of pollutants, can be provided by application of appropriate BMPs in combination with smaller buffers. In addition, uniform buffers do not take into consideration the extent to which different vegetation communities in different parts of the buffer contribute to specific riparian functions. For example, impacts to the outer 25 feet of a 100 - foot -wide buffer would likely have much less impact to bank stability and litter fall functions than would identically scaled impacts directly adjacent to the stream. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 7 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Table 7 -1. Comparison of Functions of Stream and Lake Buffer Widths Buffer Width Stream Function 15 Feet 50 Feet 150 Feet 300 Feet 600 Feet Microclimate X X N P F Wildlife Habitat X N P P F LWD Recruitment X N P F F Pollutant Removal N N P P F Sediment Filtration X N P F F Water Temperature X N F F F Organic Litter X P F F F Bank Stability X F F F F KEY F = Buffer width fully supportstmaintains stream function. P = Buffer width partially supports /maintains stream function. N = Buffer width nominally supports /maintains stream function. X = Buffer does not adequately support/maintain stream function. In an urban setting, the range of activities adjacent to a resource may affect the size or character of a buffer. Degradation of wildlife by domestic animals is difficult to address by buffer size, no matter how extensive. Buffers also may become habitat for feral domestic animals. In such a case, controls on domestic animals, such as fencing, may be needed in addition to buffers. Buffer enhancement, particularly at the margins, protection from invasive species and other vegetation management is critical for effective buffers in areas dominated by human influence. 7.3.1.2 Dual -Zone Stream Buffers This approach, commonly used in forestry applications, is similar to the single -zone stream buffer (see above). However, the overall stream buffer is composed of two smaller adjacent buffer zones, which when combined make up the overall riparian buffer. The two zones are: An inner "core" buffer zone, located directly adjacent to the aquatic feature. In this area land uses are prohibited or severely restricted. An outer riparian zone, landward and adjacent to the core zone, where land uses are still restricted, but to a lesser degree than within the core area. Dual -zone buffers are not as common as single -zone buffers and are more complex from a public understanding and City administrative standpoint, although buffer averaging could still occur within the outer riparian zone. The primary advantage of this type of buffer system is that the dual -zone system incorporates BAS indicating that riparian buffers are not uniform in the functions they provide relative to the width of the buffer. For example, for a relatively small stream that supports salmonid rearing and has a mixed forest riparian buffer, a continuous buffer width of 75 to 100 feet may be adequate to support the aquatic functions of LWD recruitment, temperature regulation, and the provision of detritus and nutrients to the stream. The segment of the buffer from 100 to 150 feet still supports important ecological functions such as pollutant filtration and microclimate regulation, but in this outer area a solid homogeneous buffer may not be 7 -6 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis required to support these functions to a high degree. In summary, as compared to a single - zone buffer, a dual -zone buffer may allow for different impact types within different parts of the buffer. Examples of specific ecologically relevant provisions that could be applied to the outer buffer zone include: • limit to the amount of clearing allowed within the outer buffer zone. • minimum amount of forest required to be retained within the outer buffer zone. • limit to the amount of impervious surface allowed within the outer buffer zone. • limit to the development density allowed within the outer buffer zone. In this system, the overall buffer width for the combined dual -zone buffers would be wider than for the single -zone buffer, because more uses are allowed within the outer portion of the dual -zone buffer. This approach has the advantage that it is adaptable to a wide range of land use activities, and gives the applicant choice on which approach is best suited to their particular situation, while still maintaining equal levels of aquatic habitat functions for the overall system. A disadvantage of the system is that it may be more difficult to administer, as compared to a single -zone buffer approach. Dual zone systems are implicitly recognized in the 211(4)(c)(ii) in reference "parallel environments" that divide shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature such as a bluff or railroad right of way. Such environments may be useful, for example, to accommodate resource protection near the shoreline and existing development further from the shoreline. 7.3.1.3 Specific Stream or Lake Reach Buffers An additional approach to stream buffers that combines some of the advantages of both the classification -based buffer system and a "no harm" approach are applying specific buffers for specific reaches based on assessment of the functions currently being provided by those reaches. This approach is particularly applicable to streams in areas of existing high - intensity land use where parcels are small and few remain undeveloped, and there is little practical opportunity to achieve buffers that will provide the full range of desired riparian functions. In this case, the objective of the management approach is to preserve the existing functions and to improve, if possible, a limited range of functions such as improving temperature and water quality. Improving temperature through providing effective overhead shade can be achieved to varying degrees with intensive management of smaller buffers. Water quality improvements can be achieved by stormwater management and control of fertilizer and other chemical applications near streams. 7.3.2 "No Harm" Regulatory System This type of regulatory system is best known in Washington State in its application to agricultural use in Skagit County. The approach was endorsed in challenges heard by the Growth Management Hearings Board for Western Washington and the Washington State Supreme Court (Swinomish v Skagit 2006). The "no harm" approach may be regarded as an "adaptive management" approach to protecting critical areas. The most succinct overview of a no -harm system is provided in a Growth Management Hearings Board decision. Although not directly related to Shoreline Master Programs developed under RCW 90.58, the rationale can be considered applicable. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 7 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis "After careful consideration of all the arguments, and the entire record, we are no longer convinced that the Act requires the County to mandate that regulation of critical areas provide for all the functions in every watercourse that contains or contributes to watercourses that contain anadromous fish in ongoing commercially significant agricultural lands where some of those functions have been missing for many years and where these functions are not required for a particular life stage of anadromous fish. By reaching the above conclusion, we are not saying that farmers do not need to alter their practices if they are continuing activities which will further degrade the streams. Those activities must stop and practices must be implemented which ensure no additional harm or further loss of function (Swinomish Indian Tribal Community et al. v. Skagit County; 02- 2- 0012c)." Essential elements for such a program are adequate monitoring, benchmarks, and the ability to require changes to the program if benchmarks are not achieved. In assessing the difference between a prescriptive approach such as buffers and a "no harm" approach, both the hearings board and the court have held that local governments must either be certain that their critical areas regulations will prevent harm, or be prepared to recognize and respond effectively to any unforeseen harm that arises. Implementation of a "no harm" approach in Bremerton is not likely to be effective in regulating future development. Application to urban development is substantially different than application to agriculture where changes in farming practices may be developed. It would be difficult to meet a "no harm" standard if monitoring of a specific buffer area determined that a functional criterion was not being met. If, for example, a particular buffer dimension was not effective, the presence of physical improvements such as roads or buildings would generally preclude its expansion. In addition, developing performance standards, implementing a monitoring system, and taking action to correct deficiencies would be very resource demanding both for property owners and the City. To be practical, additional areas would likely need to be reserved from development or land alteration to provide the opportunity for future change as well as requiring substantial security deposits for monitoring and reporting and corrective measures. A "no harm" system also is likely to be much more difficult and expensive to implement, especially the monitoring component, and provides little certainty to applicants of the standards likely to be imposed on their development. It also introduces an element of uncertainty to land owners in the continued use of facilities initially allowed, but subject to adaptive management requirements. 7 -8 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 8. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS Watershed -scale processes that have been altered by land -use degrade ecological function in shorelines. This section summarizes the conditions within each shoreline and assesses the potential for restoring ecosystem processes and improving shoreline ecological function. The City is highly urbanized, with most shoreline parcels in private ownership, and a relatively high level of development on the shoreline, as well as in contributing drainage basins. Combined with degraded ecological function, extensive development (expressed by lack of forest cover, large impervious areas, and armored shorelines) generally limits the potential for the City to implement projects within the City limits to restore processes at the watershed - scale. Exploring other avenues to enhance ecological function within the shoreline, the City could: 1. Pursue restoration opportunities as properties redevelop along the shoreline — particularly in the Gorst Estuary. 2. Partner with others in WRIA 15 to implement salmon recovery actions that were identified within the City. Opportunities should be sought to restore gently sloping beach area with native vegetation along Puget Sound shorelines for juvenile Chinook salmon, and to remove or modify docks and in water structures to reduce shading and potential effects on juvenile Chinook. 3. The City could also adopt stringent stormwater standards and rules that implement LID to reduce stormwater quality /quantity that routes to rivers and streams and adversely affects shoreline functions. 4. Evaluate how LID and other stormwater management options can address the large number of outfalls along marine shorelines. 5. Initiate a program, with incentives, to encourage removal of derelict structures and pilings (esp. creosote pilings). 6. Establish an incentive program for landowners to replace existing hard armoring with softer or bioengineered alternatives where armoring is necessary, and for removal of armoring and restoring natural beach profiles where armoring is not necessary to protect life or property. 7. Encourage water conservation and the use of native plants in all landscaping applications to reduce water use. 8. Aggressively control invasive plants on all City -owned properties in the shorelines and other areas and work with adjacent property owners to control these species on their properties to reduce spread. 9. Work with shoreline parcel owners along Kitsap Lake and Puget Sound to encourage and provide incentives for native revegetation and /or vegetation management to reduce impervious surfaces and reduce or eliminate the use of fertilizers or pesticides adjacent to the water. 10. Work with Kitsap County to obtain a reduction in property tax for property owners that voluntarily improve their shoreline (not required as mitigation) to improve shoreline functions. There are technical resources available to help property owners make improvements to their shorelines that would improve functions. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 8 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 11. Launch a database that includes the number /type /location of shoreline restoration actions and degradation actions within the City to determine if shoreline functions are improving over time. In addition, the City can implement projects outside the City limits either individually or jointly with other government agencies. The City can also implement projects and /or management actions within jurisdictional shoreline focused on enhancing specific functions in areas where the functional benefits will be greatest — these areas could be used as mitigation banks. Generally, restoration actions should be prioritized where multiple processes can be enhanced (to be developed in the restoration plan). 8 -2 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Notes Number Functions I I High Medium Medium Low to Low 1 North Kitsap Lake Dense residential development; armoring; docks; water quality X issues (phosphorus); does have bald eagle foraging and nesting habitat 2 South Kitsap Lake Some armoring and residential development; large wetland X complex to south provides water quality (nutrient removal, sediment) and water storage/water supply functions 3 Twin Lakes Largely undeveloped; forested watershed provides water X supply and water quality functions; small wetland complexes associated with shoreline provide water quality functions 4 Lake Union Reservoir Largely undeveloped; forested watershed provides water X supply and water quality functions; small wetland complexes associated with shoreline provide water quality functions 5 Upper Union River Forested watershed provides habitat, water quality and water X supply functions; protected watershed; riparian buffers provide habitat and water quality functions 6 Lower Gorst Creek Protected upper watershed with low levels of impervious X surface and largely forested — water supply, water quality, and habitat functions. Lower stream se ment/flood lain provides May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 8 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Number Functions High Medium Medium Low to Low some water storage /flood protection functions, although floodplain filling and hardening impacts function in the lowermost reaches. Lowermost reaches of the stream near the mouth are highly altered with a lack of riparian vegetation, armoring, impervious surfaces, and water quality impairments (DO, fecal). Culverts in lower reaches are passage barriers, including at SR3, Old Belfair Highway, and Navy railroad. Gorst Creek does support fish hatchery for Chinook and Gorst and tributaries 7 Sinclair Inlet — X Not in City Blackjack Creek 8 Sinclair Inlet — Gorst Biological resources include eelgrass, fringing salt marsh, Estuary mudflats, surf smelting spawning, shorebird and waterfowl concentrations, shallow nearshore areas that support juvenile X salmonids and shellfish concentrations. Impairments include large areas of fill in the estuary mouth, large areas of shoreline armoring and highways in the estuary and adjacent to the shoreline, tidal barriers, lack of riparian vegetation, and water quality/sediment impairments. 9 Sinclair Inlet — Puget X Highly altered and modified shoreline from presence of the Sound Naval Shipyard Naval Shipyard — armoring, overwater structures, fill in 8 -2 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Notes Number Functions High Medium Medium Low to Low nearshore, lack of riparian vegetation, and sediment/water q uality impairment. 10 Port Washington Biological resources include patchy kelp, some surf smelt Narrows West spawning, hardshell clam, waterfowl concentrations, and bald eagle nesting and foraging. High intensity residential and commercial development has resulted in impairments to water X and sediment processes (shoreline armoring, fill in nearshore, culverts /covered streams include culverts and filling /covering of small streams entering the nearshore. Numerous piers, docks, pilings, and overhanging structures, including the Bremerton Marina, alter light levels and contribute to sediment/water quality issues (old creosote pilings). I I Phinney Bay Biological resources include eelgrass, marsh, surf smelt spawning, oyster beds, kelp, and shallow mud and sand flats. The contributing drainage basin has relatively low impervious surface and forested land cover due to the low density X residential development. Some areas of unarmored high bank shorelines maintain sediment processes. Impairments include numerous outfalls, water quality (DO, fecal coliform, prohibited shellfish growing area). Shoreline armoring is moderately high, but lower than in many other parts of the May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 8 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Notes Number Functions 1 High Medium Medium Low to Low City. Few overhanging structures — primarily one moderately large marina. 12 Rocky Point Biological resources include kelp, mixed and salt marsh, oyster beds off Rocky Point (but prohibited shellfish growing area), surf smelt spawning, some areas of intact riparian vegetation, shallow mud and sand flats, waterfowl concentrations, and X bald eagle nesting and foraging areas. Contributing drainage areas are mostly forested or low intensity residential with relatively low impervious surface area ( <30 %). Impairments include moderate shoreline armoring (about 50 %), some tidal barriers, numerous small overhanging structures and docks, but a low overall percentage of area with overwater structures. 13 Mud Bay Biological resources include kelp, mixed and salt marsh, some areas of intact riparian vegetation, shallow mud and sand flats, waterfowl concentrations, and bald eagle nesting and foraging areas. Contributing drainage areas are mostly forested or low X intensity residential with relatively low impervious surface area ( <30 %). Impairments include moderate shoreline armoring (about 50 %), some tidal barriers, numerous small overhanging structures and docks, but a low overall percentage of area with overwater structures. 8 -4 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Number Functions High Medium Medium Low to Low 14 Marine Drive North Biological resources include several areas of mapped surf smelt and sand lance spawning, bald eagle foraging, patchy eelgrass, kelp, and salt marsh. Impairments include high levels X of shoreline armoring ( >65 %), roads adjacent to the shoreline with some impact to riparian vegetation. However, overall impervious surface in the contributing basins and adjacent to the shoreline are moderate to low. Impairment from nearshore fill, overwater structures, and tidal barriers is relatively low. 15 Marine Drive Biological resources include areas of mapped surf smelt spawning, bald eagle foraging, patchy kelp, and salt marsh. Impairments include high levels of shoreline armoring ( >65 %), X lack of riparian vegetation, numerous piers /docks /floats, pilings, boat launches and tidal construction. However, overall impervious surface in the contributing basins and adjacent to the shoreline are moderate to low. 16 Oyster Bay Biological resources include areas of salt marsh, eelgrass, and shallow sand and mud flats. Impairments include significant X numbers of tidal barriers, moderately high shoreline armoring, roads along the shoreline, and water quality issues (prohibited shellfish growing area). Impairments from nearshore fill and overwater structures is relatively low. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 8 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Notes :::I Number Functions High Medium Medium Low to Low 17 Ostrich Bay Biological resources include coho, chum and cutthroat in Ostrich Bay Creek and associated pocket estuary, seal and sea lion haulout area, surf smelt spawning, patchy eelgrass and salt marsh, and bald eagle nesting and foraging. Contributing basins are largely forested with low intensity residential, but X with some areas of high intensity residential and commercial. Impairments include some passage barriers in Ostrich Bay Creek, fair to poor riparian vegetation, moderate shoreline armoring, and low amounts of fill, overwater structures, or roads along the shoreline. Water quality impairments are moderate, with fecal coliform, mercury, and DO listings; p rohibited shellfish growing area. 18 Erlands Point Biological resources include a small marsh and associated pocket estuary, patchy eelgrass and salt marsh, and bald eagle foraging. Contributing basins are largely mixed forest and grasses with low intensity residential. A large area of shoreline X is owned by the Navy (including some park area) with relatively intact riparian vegetation and forested cover. Impervious surface is relatively low. Impairments include fair to poor riparian vegetation in some areas, moderate shoreline armoring, numerous tidal barriers, and numerous small docks, 8 -6 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Number Functions High Medium Medium Low to Low ilin s, boat ramps, and piers. 19 Chico Bay X Not in the Ci 20 Port Washington Biological resources include surf smelt spawning, kelp, Narrows East hardshell clam, waterfowl concentrations, and bald eagle nesting and foraging areas. This reach is important for sediment source and transport, with numerous areas of high bank/eroding bluffs and strong currents. Contributing basins X have high levels of impervious surface, and are mostly high intensity residential and commercial. Impairments are significant with heavily armored shorelines ( >80 %), numerous roads adjacent to the shoreline and a lack of riparian vegetation, some areas of fill in the nearshore, and numerous overhan in structures, piers, docks, and pilings. 21 Point Herron Biological resources include areas of kelp, but also continuous and patchy areas of the non - native Sargassum. No forage fish spawning, eelgrass, or marsh areas occur here, although there X is a herring holding area just offshore. Portions of the reach are important in sediment processes (sediment source and transport from high banks/bluffs). These processes have been altered however, by heavy shoreline armoring ( >70 %), roads adjacent to the shoreline, a lack of riparian vegetation, May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 8 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Reach Reach Name Condition Ranking — Ecological Number Functions i 11 High Medium Medium Low to Low overwater structures, and fill in the nearshore. Contributing basins have high levels of impervious surface, and are mostly high intensity residential and commercial development. 22 Port Orchard Bay Biological resources include Dee Enetai Creek with a small pocket estuary, which supports chum, coho, and cutthroat in the lower reaches. The lower reaches are in a steep ravine with relatively good riparian buffer and in- stream habitat conditions. The nearshore reach is important in sediment supply and transport. Much of the shoreline has relatively intact riparian vegetation, some unarmored bluffs, patchy kelp, X some surf smelt spawning, and bald eagle nesting and foraging. Contributing basins are low intensity to high intensity residential, with large areas of intact forest cover; areas with intact riparian vegetation, and relatively moderate amounts of impervious surfaces. Impairments include moderate shoreline armoring, culverts and passage barriers in Enetai Creek, and roads adjacent to the shoreline. There are relatively few overwater structures or pilings in this reach. , shoreline armoring and overwater structures. 8 -8 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis 9. REFERENCES Abbe, T. B. and D. R. Montgomery. 1996. Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics, and habitat formation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 12: 201- 221. Adamus, P.R. 2005. Rapid Assessment Method for Tidal Wetlands of the Oregon Coast: Volume 1 of a Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Guidebook. Operational Draft. Coos Watershed Association, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem. Adamus, P.R. 2005. Science Review and Data Analysis for Tidal Wetlands of the Oregon Coast: Part 2 of a Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Guidebook. Report to Coos Watershed Association, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem. Addy, K.L., A.J. Gold, P.M. Groffman, and P.A. Jacinthe. 1999. Ground water nitrate removal in subsoil of forested and mowed riparian buffer zones. Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 28, n. 3, p. 962 -970. Alberti, M. and M. Bidwell. 2005. Assessing the impacts of urbanization on shellfish growing areas of Puget Sound. Final Report. Urban Ecology Research Lab, University of Washington. Prepared for the Puget Sound Action Team and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Anchor QEA. 2009. Geospatial methodology used in the PSNERP comprehensive change analysis of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. May 2009. Albertson, S.L., K. Erickson, J.A. Newton, G. Pelletier, R.A. Reynolds, and M.L. Roberts, 2002. South Puget Sound Water Quality Study, Phase 1. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 02 -03 -021. www. ecy.wa.gov/biblio /020302I.html. Atwater, T.M. 1989. Plate tectonic history of the northeast Pacific and western North America. Pp. 21 -72 in The geology of North America v. N; The northeastern Pacific Ocean and Hawaii, E.L. Winterer, D.M. Hussong, and R.W. Decker (eds.). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Bauer, H.H. and M.C. Mastin. 1997. Water- Resources Investigations Report Number 96- 4219: Recharge from precipitation in three small glacial - till - mantled catchments in the Puget Sound Lowland, Washington. Beamer, E., Mcbride, A., Greene, C., Henderson, R., Hood, G., Wolf, K., Larsen, K., Rice, C., and Fresh, K. 2005. Delta and Nearshore Restoration for the Recovery of Wild Skagit River Chinook Salmon: Linking Estuary Restoration to Wild Chinook Salmon Populations. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, Washington. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -1 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Beamer, E., Mcbride, A., Henderson, R., and Wolf, K. 2003. The Importance of Non -Natal Pocket Estuaries in Skagit Bay to Wild Chinook Salmon: An Emerging Priority for Restoration. Skagit System Cooperative Research Department, La Conner. Beamer, E.M., Mcbride, A., Henderson, R., Griffith, J., Fresh, K.L., Zackey, T., Barsh, R., Wyllie- Echeverria, T., and Wolf, K.. 2006. Habitat and Fish Use of Pocket Estuaries in the Whidbey Basin and North Skagit County Bays, 2004 and 2005. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, Washington. Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, present, and future. Pp. 143 -190 in: Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy (eds.), Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 57. Booth, D.B. 1994. Glaciofluvial infilling and scour of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during ice -sheet glaciation: Geology, v. 22, n. 8, p. 695 -698. Booth, D. B., D. H. Harley, and R. B. Jackson. 2002. Forest cover, impervious surface area, and stormwater impacts. Journal of American Water Resources, 38(3): 835 -947. Borde, Amy B., Judd, C., Sather, N. K., and Thom, R. M. 2009. East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment and Restoration Prioritization Framework. Prepare for Kitsap County. Battelle marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. Marh 2009. Bottom, D.L., Simenstad, C.A., Burke, J., Baptista, A.M., Jay, D.A., Jones, K.K., Casillas, E., and Schiewe, M.H. 2005. Salmon at River's End: The Role of the Estuary in the Decline and Recovery of Columbia River Salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NWFSC -68, 246p. Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine Riparian Vegetation Communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007 -02. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Brennan, J.S. and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program. Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents. Seattle, Washington. Brennan, J. S., H. Culverwell, R. Gregg, and P. Granger. 2009. Protection of marine riparian functions in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW Agreement 08- 1185). Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, WA. Buchanan, J.B. 2006. Nearshore Birds in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report number 2006 -05. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Canning, Douglas J. and Hugh Shipman. 1995. Coastal erosion management studies in Puget Sound, Washington: Executive summary. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, Volume 1. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. 9 -2 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A.M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber, E.L. Greda, M. D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C. A. Simenstad, and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife: Ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Pages 628 -685, In D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (eds), Wildlife- Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Clancy, M., L Logan, J. Lowe, J. Johannessen, A. MacLennan, F.B. Van Cleve, J. Dillon, B. Lyons, R. Carman, P. Cereghino, B. Barnard, C. Tanner, D. Myers, R. Clark, J. White, C. A. Simenstad, M. Gilmer, and N. Chin. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009 -01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Collins, B.D., D.R. Montgomery, and A.J. Sheikh. 2003. Reconstructing the historical riverine landscape of the Puget Lowland. Pp. 79 — 128 in Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, D.R. Montgomery, S.M. Bolton, D.B. Booth, and L. Wall (eds.), Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Collins, B.D. and D.R. Montgomery. 2002. Forest Development, Wood Jams, and Restoration of Floodplain Rivers in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Restoration Ecology, v. 10, n. 2, p. 237 247. Collins, B.D. and A.J. Sheikh. 2005. Historic reconstruction, classification, and change analysis of Puget Sound tidal marshes. Project Completion Report to Washington Department of Natural Resources, Aquatic Resources Division, Olympia, Washington. Available: http:/ /riverhistory.ess.washington.edu /research /tidal marshes.php Puget Sound T- Sheets. Undated. Available: http:// riverhistoly .ess.washington.edu /tshects/ framedex.htm Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the Coastal Zone: a summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center, Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island. ISBN 0 -938 412 -37 -x. 71 pp. Dethier, M.N. 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of natural Resources. 56 pp. Olympia, Washington. Dethier, M.N. 2006. Native Shellfish in Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006 -04. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Diefenderfer HL, KL Sobocinski, RM Thom, CW May, SS Southard, AB Borde, C Judd, J Vavrinec, III, and NK Sather. 2006. Multi -Scale Restoration Prioritization for Local and Regional Shoreline Master Programs: A Case Study from Jefferson County, Washington. PNWD -3762, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -3 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Diefenderfer, H.L., R.M. Thom, and K.D. Hofseth. 2005. A framework for risk analysis in ecological restoration projects. In R.J.F. Bruins, and M.T. Heberling. Eds, Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment: Applications to Watershed Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Diefenderfer, HL, KL Sobocinski, RM Thom, CW May, AB Borde, SS Southard, J Vavrinec, NK Sather. In Press. Multi -Scale Analysis of Restoration Priorities for Marine Shoreline Planning. Environmental Management. Downing, J. 1983. The Coast of Puget Sound. Its Processes and Development, University of Washington,Washington Sea Grant Publication, 126p. Easterbrook, D. 1986. Stratigraphy and chronology of quaternary deposits of the Puget Lowland and Olympic Mountains of Washington and the Cascade Mountains of Washington and Oregon. Quaternary Science Reviews, pp. 145 -159. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. Seasonal Patterns and Controlling Factors of Primary Production in Puget Sound's Central Basin and Possession Sound. Available: http:// www .ecy.wa.gov/biblio /wrialO.html Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2009. Water Quality Assessment for Washington: 2007/2008 Candidate List. Available: hllp://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wg/303d/2008-index.html Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2009. 2008 Water Quality Assessment (Final) — Category 5 Listings for WRIA 15. Available: http: / /www.ecy.wa.goy /programs /wq /303d /2008_documents /wria pdfs-5final/kk- active- 5- wrial5.pdf Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). Digital Coastal Atlas. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Available: http:Hgpps.ecy.wa.gov/ website /coastal_atlas /viewer.htm EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound: an interim guide. Prepared for WDFW, WDNR, Ecology, WSDOT, CTED, RCO, and the PSP. October 2007. Evans NR, RM Thom, GD Williams, J Vavrinec, III, KL Sobocinski, LM Miller, AB Borde, VI Cullinan, JA Ward, CW May, and C Allen. 2006. Lower Columbia River Restoration Prioritization Framework. PNWD -3652, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. Finlayson, D. 2006. The geomorphology of Puget Sound beaches. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Technical Report 2006 -02. Forman, R.T.T and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dymess. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 9 -4 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Fresh, K., C. Simenstad, J. Brennan, M. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, F. Goetz, M. Logsdon, D. Myers, T. Mumford, J. Newton, H. Shipman, and C. Tanner. 2004. Guidance for protection and restoration of the nearshore ecosystems of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2004 -02. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at http: / /pugetsoundnearshore.org Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006 -06. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Fresh, K.L., Small, D.J., Kim, H., Waldbillig, C., Mizell, M., Carr, M.I., and Stamatiou, L. 2006. Juvenile Salmon Use of Sinclair Inlet, Washington, in 2001 and 2002. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Gersib, R. A., B. Aberle, L. Driscoll, J. Franklin, B. Haddaway, T., Hilliard, K. Lautz, J. Neugebauer -Rex, J. Park, A. Perez, R. Schanz, L. Van Natta, A. Wald, and B. Wood. 2004. Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characterization. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. Gerstel, W.J. and J.F. Brown. 2006. Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Evaluation Project Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Action Team. Available: http: / /www.psat.wa.gov /Programs /shoreline s /FinalPSAT9_15_06withphotos.pdf Gerstel, W.J. et al. 1997. Puget Sound Bluffs: The Where, Why, and When of Landslides Following the Holiday 1996/97 Storms. Washington Geology, v. 25, n. 1. Greenway, D. R. 1987. Vegetation and Slope Stability. In Slope Stability, M. F. Anderson and K. S. Richards (eds.), New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. Gregory, S.V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience, v. 41, p. 540 -551. Griggs, G. B. 2005. The impacts of coastal armoring. Shore and Beach, v. 73, n. 1, p. 13- 22 Groffman, P. M., A. J. Gold, and R. C. Simmons. 1992. Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: micro - ecosystems and their relationships to multi -use natural resource management. Pp. 80 -92 in: Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. Proceedings of the Symposium, Dec. 11 -13, 1978, Callaway Gardens, GA. Washington, D.C.: USDA and USFS. Gustafson, R.G., W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, C.C. Schmitt, W.S. Grant, T.L. Builder, nd R.D. Methot. 2000. Status Review of Pacific Hake, Pacific Cod, and Walley Pllock from Puget Sound, Wahington. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Mmo. NMFS- NWFSC- 44, 275 p. Hampton, M., G. Griggs, T. Edil, D. Guy, J. Kelly, P. Komar, D. Mickleson, and H. Shipman. 2004. P. 7 -38 in Processes that Govern the Formation and Evolution of Coastal Cliffs: Formation, Evolution, and Stability of Coastal Cliffs—Status and Trends, Hampton, M.A. and Griggs, G.B. (eds.), USGS Professional Paper 1693. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -5 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Haring, 2000. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East) Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Estuaries: The Life Support System. In: Estuarine Comparisons. Edited by V.S. Kennedy. Academic Press, New York. pp. 315- 341. Higgins, K, P Schlenger, J Small, D Hennessy, and J Hall. 2005. Spatial relationships between beneficial and detrimental nearshore habitat parameters in WRIA 9 and the City of Seattle. Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, Seattle, Washington. Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007 -04. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Eastern Kitsap County Net Shore -drift Revisions. Coastal Geological Services, Inc. (CGS), Bellingham, Washington. Judd, C. 2009. West Kitsap Addendum to the East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment and Restoration Prioritization Framework. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim Washington. Prepared for Kitsap County Department of Community Development. PNWD- 4053 -ADD. November 2009. Judd C, DL Woodruff, RM Thom, MG Anderson, and AB Borde. 2007. Restoration Prioritization Toolset: Documentation and User's Guide. PNNL- 17054, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Kitsap County, Department of Community Development. 2004. A Summary of Best Available Science Review: Kitsap County Critical Areas. Kitsap County, Department of Emergency Management. 2008. Kitsap County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment. Revision October, 2008. Kitsap County Health District. 2008. Sinclair Inlet Watershed: 2008 Water quality monitoring report. Kuttell, M. 2003. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors: Water Resource Inventory Areas 15 (West), Kitsap Basin, and 14 (North), Kennedy - Goldsborough Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. Macdonald, Keith, David Simpson, Bradley Paulson, Jack Cox, and Jane Gendron. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on physical coastal processes in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, Volume 5. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. Maser, C., R. F. Tarrant, J. M. Trappe, and J. F. Franklin (eds.). 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. General Technical Report PNW- GTR -229. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service. 153 pp. 9 -6 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Mason, C. 2000. Bibliography and index of the Geology of Kitsap County, Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Olympia, Washington. May, C., R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, B. W. Mar, E. B. Welch. 1998. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(4): 483 -494. May, C.W. and G. Peterson. 2003. Kitsap Salmonid Refugia Report: Landscape assessment and conservation prioritization of freshwater and nearshore salmonid habitat in Kitsap County. Prepared for Kitsap County, Washington. 247 pp. Mofjeld, H.O., A.J. Venturato, V.V. Titov, F.I. Gonzalez and J.C. Newman. 2002. Tidal Datum Distributions in Puget Sound, Washington, Based on a Tidal Model. NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle. 35 p. Montgomery, D. R., S. Bolton, D. B. Booth, and L. Wall. 2003a. Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Montgomery, D. R., D. B. Booth, and S. Bolton. 2003b. Puget Sound Rivers and Salmon Recovery. In, Montgomery et al. (eds), Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, pages 1 — 13. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Morlan, JC. 1991. Ecological Status and Dynamics of a Salt Marsh Restoration in the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon. Masters thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Mumford, T.F. 2007. Kelp and Eelgrass in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007 -05. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Naiman, R. J., R. E. Bilby, and P. A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. BioScience, v. 50, p. 996 -1011. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for Management, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 428 pp. NMFS 2009 (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2009 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of Pesticides Containing Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112. April 20, 2009 http: / /www.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr /pdfs /carbamate.pdf National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater structures: marine issues. Prepared for: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Transportation. May 9, 2001. May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -7 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis O'Toole, M. 1995. Puget Sound Herring: A Review. Pp. 849 -854 in Proceedings of Puget Sound Research. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. Palsson, Wayne A, Tien -Shui Tsou, Greg G. Bargmann, Raymond M. Buckley, Jim E. West, Mary Lou Mills, Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E. Pacunski. 2009 The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Publication Number: FPT 09 -04 September 2009 Available at hM2: // wdfw .wa.gov /publications /pub.php ?id =00926 Pentilla, D. E. 2001. Effects of shading from upland vegetation on egg survival for summer - spawning surf smelt on upper intertidal beaches in Puget Sound. Proceedings of the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, February 12 -14, 2001. Puget Sound Action Team, Bellevue, WA. Penttila, D. 2007. Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007 -03. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Poff, N. LeRoy; J. David Allan; Mark B. Bain; James R. Karr; Karen L. Prestegaard; Brian D. Richter. 1996. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience Vol. 47, No. 11, pp. 769 -784. Richter; Richard E. Sparks; Julie C. Stromberg PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2008. Action Agenda for Puget Sound Recovery. Available at: http : / /www.psp.wa.gov /aa_action_a eg nda.php Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility Project ENVVEST. 2004. Fecal Coliform Model Verification Sampling Plan Winter 2004, Addendum To The Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Study Plan For Sinclair And Dyes Inlets. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Project ENVVEST Regulatory Working Group. 2002. Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Study Plan For Sinclair And Dyes Inlets. Ricketts, T. H., E. Dinerstein, D. M. Olson, C. J. Loucks. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North America — a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1 -20. Ruckelshaus, M. H and M. M. McClure. 2007. Sound Science: Synthesizing ecological and socioeconomic information about the Puget Sound ecosystem. 2007. Prepared in cooperation with the Sound Science collaborative team. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. Schlenger, P., A. MacLennan, E. Iverson, K. Fresh, C. Tanner, B. Lyons, S. Todd, R. Carman, D. Myers, S. Campbell, and A. Wick. 2010. Strategic Needs Assessment Report. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Technical Report 2010. 9 -8 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Schwartz ML, BD Harp, BE Taggart, and M Chrzastowski. 1991. Net shore drift in Washington State: Volume 3, Central Puget Sound region. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Schneider, L. 2003. Quality Assurance Project: 2003 Beach Pilot Project. Department of Ecology, 03 -03 -202. Shreffler, D.K. and R.M. Thom. 1993. Restoration of Urban Estuaries: New Approaches for Site Location and Design. Prepared for Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; 1993107. Shipman, H. 2004. Coastal bluffs and sea cliffs on Puget Sound, Washington. Pages 81 -94 in M.A. Hampton and G.B. Griggs (eds.), Formation, Evolution, and Stability of Coastal Cliffs — Status and Trends. Professional Paper 1693. U.S. Geological Survey. Shipman, H. 2008. A Geomorphic Classification of Puget Sound Nearshore Landforms. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2008 -01. Published by Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Available online at http: / /pugetsoundnearshore.org Simenstad, C.A. and J.R. Cordell. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering 15:283 -302. Simenstad, C.A. and R.M. Thom. 1992. Restoring wetland habitats in urbanized Pacific Northwest estuaries. In: Restoring the Nation's Environment. G. Thayer, editor. College Park, Maryland: Maryland Sea Grant, pp. 423 -472. Simenstad, C, D Reed, and M Ford. 2006 When is restoration not ?: Incorporating landscape - scale processes to restore self - sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 26(1): 27 -39. Simenstad, C. A., W. G. Hood, R. M. Thom, D. A. Levy, and D. L. Bottom. 2000. Landscape structure and scale constraints on restoring estuarine wetlands for Pacific Coast juvenile fishes. Pages 597 -632, In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Simenstad, C, M Logsdon, K. Fresh, H. Shipman, M. Dethier, and J. Newton. 2006. Conceptual Model for Assessing Restoration of Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystems. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006 -03. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available online at http: / /pugetsoundnearshore.org Simenstad, C., M. Ramirez, J. Burke, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, C. Davis, J. Fung, P. Bloch, K. Fresh, S. Campbell, D. Myers, E. Iverson, A. Bailey, P. Schlenger, C. Kiblinger, P. Myre, W. L Gertsel, and A. MacLennan. 2009. Historic Change and Impairment of Puget Sound Shorelines: Atlas and Interpretation of Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Change Analysis. Spalding, M. D., H. E. Fox, G. R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z. A. Ferdalia, M. Finlayson, May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -9 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis B. S. Halpern, M. A. Jorge, A Lombana, S. A. Lourie, K. D. Martin, E. Mcmanus, J. Molnar, C. A. Recchia, and J. Robertson . 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57(7): 373 — 583. Stanley, S., J. Brown, and S. Grigsby. 2005. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication 905 -06 -027. Olympia, WA. Taggart BE. 1984. Net shore -drift of Kitsap County, Washington. M.S. Thesis. Western Washington University. Bellingham, Washington. Tanner, CD, JR Cordell, J Rubey and L Tear. 2002. Restoration of freshwater intertidal habitat functions at Spencer Island, Everett, Washington. Restoration Ecology 10:564- 576. Thom RM, GD Williams, and HL Diefenderfer. 2005. Balancing the need to develop coastal areas with the desire for an ecologically functioning coastal environment: Is net ecosystem improvement possible? Restoration Ecology 13(1):193 -203. Thom, RM, R Ziegler and AB Borde. 2002. Floristic development patterns in a restored Elk River estuarine marsh, Grays Harbor, Washington. Restoration Ecology 10:487 -496. Thom, RM, Vavrinec, J, III, HL Diefenderfer, and AB Borde. In Review. Restoring resiliency: Case studies from Pacific Northwest estuarine eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) dominated systems. Ecological Restoration. Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrik, O. Odum, M. Koschak, A. McBride. 2008. SSHIAP Mapping of Puget Sound Shoreline Geomorphology: Applications and Next Steps. Presented at NWIFC Tribal Habitat Conference, May 22 2008. Available online www.habitatconference.org /2008 /download.php ?f= 10daeomop2hic_ mapping.pps USDA 1986 US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS)TR -55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical Release No. 55 , (210- VI- TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land use planners guide to salmon habitat protection & recovery htt2://wdfw.wa.gov/habitLt/plannersguide/index.html Washington Department of Health. 2009. Early warning system summary for growing areas in Kitsap County. Available at: http: / /www.doh.wa. og v /ehp /sf/Pubs /gareports/kitsap- ews.pdf Washington State Department of Health. 2009. Office of shellfish protection: annual growing area review — Dyes Inlet, Port Madison, Port Orchard Passage. Available at: http: / /www.doh.wa.gov /ehp /sf /Pubs /gareports /dyes.pdf WDFW. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Forage Fish. Available at: http: / /www.wa.gov /wdfw /fish /forage /forage/htm 9 -10 May 20121 553 -1896- 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis WDNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone Inventory. Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. Williams, G.D., and R.M. Thom. 2001. Development of Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat Protection and Restoration: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. PNWD- 3087. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Ecology, by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. Williams, G.D., Evans NR, and RM Thom 2004. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Habitat Assessment Management Strategy Prioritization, and Monitoring Recommendations. PNWD -3391. Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island, Bainbridge Island, Washington, by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. Available online at: http: / /www.ci.bainbridge- isl.wa.us /nearshore report.aspx Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, M.C. Miller, D.L. Woodruff, N.R. Evans, P.N. Best. 2003. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Assessment: Summary of the Best Available Science. PNWD -3233. Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island, Bainbridge Island, Washington, by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. Available online at: http:// kitsap. wsu. edu /shore_stewards/bas /index.htm Williams, G. D., R. M. Thom, J. E. Starkes, J. S. Brennan, J. P. Houghton, D. Woodruff, P. L. Striplin, M. Miller, M. Pedersen, A. Skillman, R. Kropp, A. Borde, C. Freeland, K. McArthur, V. Fagerness, S. Blanton, and L. Blackmore. 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Ed., J. S. Brennan. PNNL- 14055. Report prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. 353 pp. http: / /dnr.metrokc.gov /wlr/ watersheds /puget /nearshore /sonr.htm. Websites Public Access Trust for Public Land. Public Access Regional Maps. http:// www .ipl.org /tier3_cd.cfm ?content_ item_ id =19981 &folder _ id =262 Washington Department of Ecology BEACH Program. Public Access Information. hlt2://www.ecy.wa.gov/grograms/egp/beach/ Washington State Parks. 2006. Washington State Accessible Outdoor Recreation Guide North Puget Sound Region. Available: hlt2://www.parks.wa.gov/adarec/detail.asp?region=NPS#12 Cultural /Historical Resources Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation ( WDAHP). 2009a. Archeological and historic resources database. Available at WDAHP offices, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2009b. The Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). Available: hgp: // www. oahp .wa.gov /pages /wisaardlntro.htrn May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -11 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Washington Office of Financial Management. 2009. Historical Data. Available: http: / /www.ofm.wa.gov /pow/ Shoreline Management Act Geoengineers. 2005. Examples of Regulator Language for Nearshore and Marine Shoreline Protection, Prepared for the Puget Sound Action Team By GeoEngineers January 2005. http: // www .mrsc.org /govdocs /PugetSoundRe Eg x05.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. SMP Guidelines, Available at: http: // www. ecy. wa. gov /programs /sea/sma/laws_rules /173- 26 /SMP_Guidelines Final.pdf Washington State Departmetn of Ecology. 2009. SMP Handbook, Available at: http: / /www.ecy.wa..gov/programs/ sea /shorelines /smp/handbook/index.html Geospatial Databases PSNERP Change Analysis http: // www .nws.usace.anny.mil /PublicMenu/ Menu. cfm ?sitename= PSNERP &pagename =Cha nge Analysis East Kitsap County Nearshore Habitat Assessment: maps and data htt2: / /www.kitsapgov. com / dcd /nr /nearshore /nearshore2.htm individual features maps htt2: / /www.kitsapgov. com / dcd /nr /nearshore /nearshore3.htm main page http: / /www.kitsapgov. com / dcd /nr /nearshore /nearshore4.htm data (slip) http: / /www.kitsapgov .com /dcd /nr /nearshore /nearshore I.htm Ecology Digital Coastal Atlas http: / /www.ecy.wa..gov/programs /sea/SMA /atlas home.html Ecology Geospatial Data http: / /www.ecy.wa.gov /services /gis /data/data.htm Ecology Sediment Management, http: // www. ecy. wa. gov /programs /tcp /smu /sediment.html Ecology, Oblique Aerial Shoreline Photographs, 2005 -1006 Ecology — Puget Sound Landslides http: / /www.ecy.wa.. programs /sea/femaweb/kitsap.htm WDNR hM2:Hfortress.wa.gov /dnr /gppl /dataweb /dmmatrix.html (ShoreZone Inventory, WDNR Hydrography Data, WDNR Geology Data) SSHIAP (Salmon Steelhead Habitat Assessment Program) USGS Hydrology/Hydrography; Geology http: / /www.dnr.wa.gov /ResearchScience / Topics /GeosciencesData /Pages /gis data.aspx WA Department of Health http: / /ww4.doh.wa..gov/gis/gisdata.htm UWA http: / /wagda. lib. washington. edu /data/geography /wa_state /41clu USFWS Washington State Geospatial Data http: // www. fws .gov /data/statdata /wadata.html FEMA national flood hazards maps http: / /www.fws.gov /data /statdata/wadata.html Washington Seismic Hazards http: / /www.dnr.wa.gov/ ResearchScience / Topics /GeosciencesData/Pages /geology portal.aspx WA Natural Resources Information Portal http: / /www.swim.wa.gov/ Streamnet http: / /www.streamnet.org/ Seattle earthquake hazard maps hM2:Hearthquake.usgs.gov /re ig onal /pacnw/hazmap /wattle/ Pacific Northwest Seismic Network http: / /www.pnsn.org/ Geology - DNR http: / /www.dnr.wa.gov /AboutDNR /Divisions /GER/Pages/home.aWx 9 -12 May 20121 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Analysis USGS earthquake hazard htt2:// earthquake. usg s .aov /hazards /gfaults /aooale.12ho Kitsap County GIS http: / /www.kitsapaov.com /dcd/ ig s/Maps_Data /main.htm http: / /www.kitsapgov.com /dcd/ ig s/Maps Data/Data_downloads /sidmap.htm http: / /www.kitsapaov.com /dcd /ais/Maps Data/Data_downloads /topomap.htm West Sound Watersheds Council http : / /www.westsoundwatersheds.org/ NRCS, Kitsap Soil Survey, hl I &AV alue= I &QuickCouniy =Kit sap& QuickState= Washington &ExtentMinX =- 125. 808265306122 &ExtentMinY = 42.061857142857 I &ExtentMaxX =- 111.881734693 878& ExtentMaxY = 51.8104285714285 &HitTab =2 NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway http:// dataaatewU .nres.usda.aov /GatewayHome.html Kitsap kml formats http: / /www.kitsapaov.com /dcd/ isg /maps _ data /kml /main.htm Seismic site class definitions http:// www. conservationtech .com /FEMA- WEB/FEMA- subweb- EQ /02 -02- EARTHQUAKE/ 1- BUILDINGS /D2 -Geolo aical- screen.htm Land Cover - NOAA coastal change analysis program http: // www. csc. noaa. gov/ digitalcoast /data/ccapregional/ http: // www. csc. noaa .gov /crs /lcgZpacificcoast.html Land Cover — USGS Land Cover Institute http:// landcover .usgs.aov /usgslandcover.php Priority Habitat & Species documentation & data layers http : / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /` hspa e.htm Aquatic habitat guidelines http: / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /ahg /index.htm WDFW data http : / /wdfw.wa.aov/hab /release.htm (in particular, forage fish spawning habitat data is important for Bremerton shorelines Shellfish and Public Access; WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: http: / /www.wdfw.wa.gov /fishing/ National register historic places, WA: http: / /www.nationalre gisterofhistoricplaces .com/WA /Kitsap /state.html Maritime Heritage Network: http: / /www.maritimeheritage. net / attractions /attraction_ select.asp ?id =89 May 2012 1 553- 1896 - 088(02/2.2) 9 -13 MAPS APPENDIX A Shoreline Photos % ' 1 0 "IT 11 t Rocky shoreform and small inlet at Bass Point (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). Barrier estuary in Phinney Bay. Spit has been developed and a channel cut across the spit (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). Barrier lagoon /pocket estuary in Chico Bay. Sand spits partially enclose the inlet; tidal flows maintain salt marsh, flats, and distributary channels (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). Bluff- backed beaches with high bluffs, Port Washington Narrows. Unstable or eroding bluff faces (little or no vegetation where slides occur) provide sediment source for beach (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). Artificial shoreforms associated with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Fill, armoring, and overwater structures on the shoreline and within nearshore intertidal and subtidal areas (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). fi A F #I F tip_ t 1_ Embayment — coastal inlet with fringing marsh and mudflats — Ostrich Bay (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). �.�. ,.�.:� �: _����. - .r.a �-+ Y x — � ! R L:. .� N��y- �� ��} � � F �.+r� �%+� � �' I� -�, �� }YK �_ � -. ��.� �� �� 0 N W 0 0 �;. jt' [v + A r ' ._ w'#'/r: • 1 .ti ° y" + 7 �w - �t,r:; r'+ �''J{' - ■ . +• �a.� •r P A v * 101 V JL J e�i ti `- - ' �` +�,. �"� � '��' • -� '� � !''� Vii: ' x � ` �L + a'"'� "k 12A Y y 3 46 {. fay - a� . -� i 4 � �.i• � .�7i rr.ut �. -. `,� . - .••r7ri Depressional wetlands (Google Earth, 2009). f M" � :�0 Recent slide areas — bluffs along Port Washington Narrows (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). Ltt74k W At Shoreline ; bulkheads and fi| in the upper intertidal Coastal Atlas). /`w\• 44 77 ' ... � y! \ocrw&7 structures, and anno6n(ulkhcaK6pp)in the intertidal beach south ofMpec Bridge (Ec»g, Washington Coastal Atlas). Bluffs with recent slide areas, near Phinney Bay (Ecology, Washington Coastal Atlas). APPENDIX B Matrix of Processes and Stressors - noo ocn " v -n r cn Q O 7 O y C N 'a " 7 N Q' N j N 7 O• N 0 O C N .n_+, O C7 N M = = r O N N B N 7� N n N h 7 Water Delivery Water Movement Water Storage Water Loss Tidal Flows Freshwater Input Sediment Supply /Delivery Sediment Transport Sediment Accretion, Deposition, Storage Distributary Channel Migration Tidal Channel Formation & Maintenance Channel Migration r Flood lain Connectivity¢ V Nearshore Connectivity Habitat Connectivity c Nitrogen Delivery Nitrogen Cycling /Retention Phosphorous Delivery Phosphorous Cycling /Retention Pathogen /Toxin Retention or Processing Carbon Cycling LWD Delivery and Movement Organic Matter Import and Export D Exchange /Movement of Organisms Disturbance Regime Solar Incidence /Light Energy Invasive Species Establishment �O v < to s Q M2)X O < O - O am:E - n m U) to m O y M CL v = v y- r° = n l m N m a v Q o N aN N c m y s� :3 -h m m Q= y N O ,� m 7• m C Q mnN ys= y NNE' U) D O O �O 0 O (p ��-0 O m s m � m ( D N 7 N Water Delivery Water Movement Water Storage Water Loss Tidal Flows Freshwater Input Sediment Supply /Delivery Sediment Transport Sediment Accretion, Deposition, Storage Distributary Channel Migration Tidal Channel Formation & Maintenance Channel Migration r Flood lain Connectivity¢ V Nearshore Connectivity Habitat Connectivity c Nitrogen Delivery Nitrogen Cycling /Retention Phosphorous Delivery Phosphorous Cycling /Retention Pathogen /Toxin Retention or Processing Carbon Cycling � � � LWD Delivery and Movement t t t Organic Matter Import and Export t t t t Exchange /Movement of Organisms � � � Disturbance Regime � � � � Solar Incidence /Light Energy Invasive Species Establishment v C- y G 0 + O N_ G N 7 fD Ul Ul U) NO (n U) W N V) N 91 n N Q rt U1 N Water Delivery Water Movement Water Storage Water Loss Tidal Flows Freshwater Input Sediment Supply /Delivery Sediment Transport Sediment Accretion, Deposition, Storage Distributary Channel Migration Tidal Channel Formation & Maintenance Channel Migration r Flood lain Connectivity¢ V Nearshore Connectivity Habitat Connectivity c Nitrogen Delivery Nitrogen Cycling /Retention Phosphorous Delivery Phosphorous Cycling /Retention Pathogen /Toxin Retention or Processing Carbon Cycling LWD Delivery and Movement Organic Matter Import and Export Exchange /Movement of Organisms Disturbance Regime Solar Incidence /Light Energy Invasive Species Establishment City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, Washington 98337 This report was funded in part through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. WASAIAGIII SIIII I I I I I I N[ k i O F ECOLOGY Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004 -5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com November 2013 February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 CITATION Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. 2012. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . SUMMARY ............................................................................. ............................1 -1 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE ...................................................................... ............................ -3 1.2 APPROACH .................................................................................. ............................ -4 1.3 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS ......................................... ............................1 -5 1.3.1 Geology ................................................................................ ............................ -7 1.3.2 Topography, Bathymetry, and Geomorphology ................ ............................... 1-7 1.3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................. ............................ -7 1.3.4 Oceanographic Processes ..................................................... ............................ -8 1.3.5 Sediment and Substrate ........................................................ ............................ -8 1.4 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF -10 THE SHORELINE ..................................................................... ............................ -9 1.4.1 Methodology ........................................................................ ............................ -9 1.4.2 General Trends ..................................................................... ............................ -9 1.4.3 Shoreline Land Use Trends .................................................. ............................1 -9 1.5 BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF ANY ESTABLISHED REGULATORY -15 PROGRAMS UNDER OTHER LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS ....1 -10 1.6 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... ........................... -10 2 . METHODOLOGY ................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION ....................................... ............................2 -1 2. 1.1 General Framework and Conceptual Model ......................... ............................2 -1 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................ ............................ -5 2.3 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT . ............................2 -5 2.3.1 General Population Trends ................................................ ............................... 2 -5 2.3.2 Demand for Water — Dependent Uses .................................... ............................2 -6 2.4 WATER — RELATED AND MIXED USES ................................... ............................2 -9 2.5 SHORELINE USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............... ...........................2 -10 2.5.1 Dyes Inlet ............................................................................ ........................... -10 2.5.2 Port Washington Narrows ................................................... ........................... -12 2.5.3 Sinclair Inlet ........................................................................ ........................... -13 2.5.4 Port Orchard Bay ................................................................. ........................... -14 2.5.5 Kitsap Lake ..................................................................... ............................... 2 -15 2.5.6 Union River and Union River Reservoir ............................. ...........................2 -15 2.5.7 Twin Lakes ...................................................................... ............................... 2 -15 3. ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................... ............................3 -1 3.1 TYPICAL EFFECTS OF ALTERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USES.. 3-1 3.1.1 Lakes .................................................................................... ............................ -1 3.1.2 Streams .............................................................................. ............................... 3 -4 3.1.3 Marine Environment ............................................................. ............................ -6 3.2 EFFECTS OF CURRENT LOCAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS ........................3 -9 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 i Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3.2.1 Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Areas .......................... ............................3 -9 3.2.2 Zoning .................................................................................. ............................3 -9 3.2.3 Critical Areas ....................................................................... ........................... -10 3.2.4 Stormwater ...................................................................... ............................... 3-10 3.3 EFFECTS OF CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY Table 3 -1. PROGRAMS......................................................................... ............................... 3 -11 3.3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System .......... ............................... 3 -11 3.3.2 Section 404 Permit .............................................................. ...........................3 -12 3.3.3 Endangered Species Act ...................................................... ........................... -12 3.3.4 Washington State Department of Ecology .......................... ...........................3 -12 3.3.5 Washington State Department of Agriculture ..................... ...........................3 -13 3.3.6 Hydraulic Project Approval ................................................. ........................... -13 3.4 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................. ........................... -13 3.4.1 Salmon Recovery: East Kitsap Peninsula WRIA 15 ........... ...........................3 -13 3.4.2 Puget Sound Partnership ..................................................... ........................... -14 3.4.3 Washington State Department of Natural Resources .......... ...........................3 -14 3.4.4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................... ...........................3 -15 3.4.5 Suquamish Tribe .............................................................. ............................... 3 -15 3.4.6 U.S. Navy ............................................................................ ........................... -15 3.4.7 Kitsap County Health District ............................................. ...........................3 -15 3.4.8 Puget Sound Restoration Fund ( PSRF) ............................... ...........................3 -15 3.5 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM............................................................................... ........................... -15 3.6 MATRIX SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............. ...........................3 -17 4 . REFERENCES ....................................................................... ............................4 -1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -1. Achieving No Net Loss through Regulations and Restoration ..................... 1 -4 Figure 1 -2. Puget Sound Context of Bremerton Shorelines ............. ............................... 1 -5 Figure 1 -3. Study area for the Ecosystem Characterization of Bremerton Shorelines.... 1-6 LIST OF TABLES Table 2 -1. Marine Nearshore Process Important Areas and Process Alterations ............ 2 -2 Table 2 -2. Freshwater Process Important Areas and Alterations ........ ............................2 -3 Table 3 -4. SMP Standards for Building Setbacks and Buffers .......... ...........................3 -16 Table 3 -1. Lakes — Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Plan on Ecological Productivity .. ...........................3 -18 Table 3 -2. Streams — Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Plan on Ecological Productivity .. ...........................3 -22 Table 3- 3.Marine Shorelines — Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Plan on Ecological Productivity ............ 3 -26 ii DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BMC Bremerton Municipal Code CA critical areas CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation cfs cubic feet per second City City of Bremerton Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CZM Coastal Zone Management DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPWN East Port Washington Narrows ESA Endangered Species Act FWCA Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas GC Gorst Creek LK Lake Kitsap LWD large woody debris MB Mud Bay NNL No Net Loss (of ecologic functions) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OFM Office of Financial Management OHWM ordinary high water mark OstB Ostrich Bay OyB Oyster Bay PB Phinney Bay PIC Pollution Identification and Correction [program] POB Port Orchard Bay PSRF Puget Sound Restoration Fund RCW Revised Code of Washington SED Shoreline Environment Designation SI Sinclair Inlet SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Management Program SR State Route UGA Urban Growth Area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WPWN West Port Washington Narrows WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 iii Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 1. SUMMARY This report supports the City of Bremerton (City) Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update. The City's SMP, also known as Title 16 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), is being updated to comply with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 90.58), and the state's shoreline guidelines (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173 -26, Part III), which were adopted in 2003. The SMP update process involves the following steps: Reviewing and revising shoreline goals and policies; 2. Inventorying and analyzing shoreline conditions; Determining shoreline environment designations (SEDs); 4. Assessing cumulative impacts of shoreline development; and Preparing a restoration plan. This element assesses the cumulative impacts of shoreline development under the current proposed revisions to the SMP. This work was funded in part through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The key criterion addressed in this analysis of cumulative effects is avoidance of a net loss of ecological functions. Specific SMA guidance is as follows: Local master programs shall evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the policy goals of the act. To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and /or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities. (WAC 173- 26- 186(8)(d)) In general, the findings of this analysis, as applied to the Bremerton shorelines are: • Freshwater aquatic resources in Bremerton largely consist of relatively small watersheds that discharge directly into marine waters. In these watersheds, urbanization has led to changes in land use and vegetation cover that has substantially changed the character of freshwater being discharged to freshwater and marine systems —both in terms of hydrology and water quality. • Marine shorelines in Bremerton vary greatly in character. Some are protected inlets, such as Oyster Bay, that are shallow with little freshwater recharge and limited tidal flushing; others, such as Port Washington Narrows, experience substantial flows from tidal action. Marine shorelines in Bremerton are largely developed. In most cases, native vegetation has been removed and other components that support natural ecological processes altered. The full range of natural ecological functions does not take place in those areas. Important ecological functions, however, continue and support the general ecological productivity of the local and regional aquatic and marine ecosystems. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -1 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton There are three relatively undeveloped freshwater watersheds in Bremerton partially under SMA jurisdiction. Two of these, the Union River and Reservoir and Twin Lakes, have been protected for water supply. The third, Gorst Creek, is subject to future urban development. Currently, all of these have relatively intact native land cover and vegetation cover that preserve a natural hydrologic cycle emphasizing interflow and moderating peak flows, as well as preserving riparian corridor interactions between aquatic and upland resources. It is not known, at this time, whether general trends in ecological degradation from human disturbance are continuing to result in incremental degradation of ecological functions or whether localized ecosystems have reached a stable condition. There is no scientific consensus on appropriate indicators of ecological productivity and no comprehensive means of monitoring. Based on the continuing trends of declines in key aquatic species in Puget Sound over several decades, the most justifiable conclusion is that existing land use and practices within watersheds and along shorelines are continuing to degrade habitat and trends will continue unless substantial changes in practices are implemented in many areas. • Specific ongoing contributions to nearshore degradation that will likely continue, unless substantial changes are made to physical facilities, include: o Existing practices in managing ornamental vegetation, such as use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, adversely affect not only the nearshore food chain, but also have adverse impacts on the central nervous system functions of fish, including salmonids. o Shoreline bulkheads have negative impacts on substrate through interfering with natural recruitment sources, especially on feeder bluffs; in some cases, they produce a high energy environment because of reflective wave action and also contribute to the absence of shoreline vegetation. o The lack of native vegetation on the shoreline likely contributes to the absence of a nearshore food chain, and also results in higher nearshore temperatures due to the lack of shade. o Current docks and other moorage facilities contribute to predation and also may cause avoidance behavior in salmonids by forcing them out of nearshore environments and into environments where food and shelter are less available and where predation is increased. Actions in Bremerton, in conjunction with other jurisdictions, are likely to be important in slowing or reversing trends related to human— induced changes. These include: • Restoring water quality functions by providing buffer areas in which sediment, nutrients, pathogens, and other pollutants can be removed or entrained; • Providing urban stormwater management to address hydrologic functions such as peak flows and water quality; • Moderating temperature in intertidal and stream environments through restoring riparian vegetation; • Restoring the water quality and habitat functions of wetlands and estuaries; and • Restoring wetlands and estuaries displaced by other uses. 1 -2 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Such efforts, however, will be effective only if they are undertaken system —wide and address ongoing impacts of existing uses. Overall, the combined results of the SMP on properties immediately adjacent to shorelines, the critical area regulations that address upstream conditions in watersheds not under SNIP jurisdiction, and various restoration activities on shorelines and in watersheds are likely to result in no net loss of ecological functions on Bremerton shorelines. Over time, these actions are also likely to lead to improvements in the ecosystem. 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE The SMA guidelines (WAC 173- 26- 18683)(d)) require analysis of cumulative impacts "to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and /or uses. Shoreline regulations convey the principle that regulating development shall achieve no net loss of ecological functions. However, achieving this goal requires that master program policies and regulations address the cumulative impacts on shoreline ecological functions that would result from future shoreline development and uses that are reasonably foreseeable from proposed master programs. Specific guidance on the concept of no net loss and the relation between regulations and other programs is provided in WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(c): When based on the inventory and analysis requirements and completed consistent with the specific provisions of these guidelines, the master program should ensure that development will be protective of ecological functions necessary to sustain existing shoreline natural resources and meet the standard. The concept of "net" as used herein, recognizes that any development has potential or actual, short—term or long —term impacts and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020, master program provisions shall, to the greatest extent feasible, protect existing ecological functions and avoid new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Master programs shall also include policies that promote restoration of ecological functions, as provided in WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f), where such functions are found to have been impaired based on analysis described in WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(d)(i). It is intended that local government, through the master program, along with other regulatory and non — regulatory programs, contribute to restoration by planning for and fostering restoration and that such restoration occur through a combination of public and private programs and actions. Local government should identify restoration opportunities through the shoreline inventory process and authorize, coordinate, and facilitate appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects within their master programs. The goal of this effort is master programs which include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area of each city and county. This difference between the role of regulatory and non — regulatory programs is illustrated in conceptual form in Figure 1 -1, below. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -3 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton SNIP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function HPgher I SMP Restoration Plan Voluntary re stoiatlon - opporlufNi ies 0 C 3 LL LIJ U 0 ey Lower I No Biel doss - Currenr Eaeehne Unevaldehle Impacts from new development Shoreline violorrons 4vaid and tllrrgate Imp acts Source: Washington State Department of Ecology Sit P Update r- mme-wo'k-10 • inventory & Characterization I • EnvlrenmentDesignmic • l3evelopmentPallcles a Standards * Recommended Actloll outside GMA authority + Conipilance Strategy * Cumulative Impacts Analysis + Restof all 011PMii Figure 1 -1. Achieving No Net Loss through Regulations and Restoration 1.2 APPROACH When evaluating cumulative impacts, the guidance requires that the following factors be considered (WAC 173 -26- 186(8)): • Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes; • Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and • Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws. This cumulative impacts assessment uses these three considerations as a framework for evaluating the potential long—term impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes that may result from development or activities under the proposed SMP over time. The methodology used in this cumulative analysis is based on: • Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes, which are based on the findings outlined in the Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010); • Description of foreseeable future development as addressed in Section 2 of this report; and Oft -site mlligstlan opportunities Offs mit4jallon 1 -4 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton • Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws and this SMP as described and addressed in Section 2 of this report. Existing conditions are addressed in the landscape characterization provided in the Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010). A brief summary of the methodology is provided in Section 1.4 below; please refer to Part I of the Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis for more detail. 1.3 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City of Bremerton is located on the western side of Puget Sound, in the central portion of Kitsap County, about 15 miles west of Seattle as indicated in Figure 1 -2. Jurisdictional shorelines in the city lie within Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 15, which encompasses all of Kitsap County and portions of Mason, Pierce, and King counties (Vashon Island). Bremerton is located in the eastern portion of WRIA 15, or the East Kitsap watershed, and most of the area comprises numerous small drainages flowing directly into Puget Sound. Hood anal 3.. Figure 1 -2. Puget Sound Context of Bremerton Shorelines DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -5 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton t s Chan Ps Ayes ale£ " -- t � � Rocky =Ford Bemerkn Bit uGA JGA Bainbridge p Island Bass P it A' ! Haoo Poud fff g �4 .Gn Asti �aemertnE2 itu� 4 Cx t l a s r F' AF Ckiao � u l aftmwl N ti Gr ° �bt f f X�cp • cke ay�r •I 4 Y y a a m e " •f181t uG , Bremerton I Lcke PI�rvccr ! ire Siracks &ik a _ 7 = GOrlt UGA J nn LLaAes , r' ~ 4r1 Or V k� � S ti � �. J ya 8.' • � r} W uGA ,3 _r , P f 4 ,s ` A? ° 11 land co; C] C] l J C Q 09 r tot 0 s Bremerton [ F f r '✓ ;� -- . _ to Figure 1 -3. Study area for the Ecosystem Characterization of Bremerton Shorelines The study area for freshwater shorelines includes drainage areas or sub — basins for the major streams and lakes, such as Gorst Creek, Kitsap Lake, and the Union Reservoir (Figure 1 -3). Portions of the study area to the west and southwest of Gorst drain into the Union River and ultimately into Hood Canal. The marine waters of Puget Sound have been divided into sub — basins based on geography, oceanographic conditions (circulation, bathymetry, wave exposure), and common socio— economic issues and interests. Sub — basins, however, are classified differently by other studies. For this ecosystem —wide characterization, the study area for marine shorelines encompasses Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, and Port Washington Narrows, which connects both inlets, and a portion of Port Orchard Bay north of Sinclair Inlet. There are various local geologic, hydrologic, and oceanographic features that are important in understanding the context in which the SMP and other programs will operate; these features and processes are described below. 1 -6 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 1.3.1 Geology The East Kitsap watershed is geologically and topographically similar to other areas in the Puget Sound region, reflecting the influences of mountain building and glacial activity. The Pleistocene Epoch (or Ice Age), which began about 2 million years ago, formed most of the geologic features present in the watershed today. Cordilleran ice sheets, which originated in the coast and insular mountains of British Columbia, moved south to the southern end of the Puget Sound basin near Olympia. Up to 3,500 feet of glacial ice covered the Kitsap Peninsula. Geologic units from at least five major and several minor glacial advances have been identified in the Puget Sound basin, although only three are exposed (visible) in Kitsap County. Surface geology in the study area is a complex mix of these glacial deposits, which include unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels and typically cover a hardpan lying just below the surface. In the study area watersheds (Chico Creek, Gorst Creek, Union River), bedrock underlies the upper sections of watershed tributaries whereas the lower areas are underlain by glacial till, recessional outwash, and advance outwash deposited during the last ice —sheet advance (Sossa 2003). Bluffs along the Puget Sound are being eroded and redeposited as beaches and spits. Streams are eroding their banks and then depositing sediments in floodplains, wetlands, and bays. Soils in the region were formed from the complex deposits of the most recent glaciation and are relatively young. 1.3.2 Topography, Bathymetry, and Geomorphology Most of the upland and freshwater portions of the study area consist of low, rolling hills with moderate slopes. Higher areas occur in the upper watershed of Sinclair Inlet to the west of Bremerton with some steep slopes ( >50 percent slopes). The highest point is Green Mountain at about 1,500 feet. The most dramatic feature of the study area is the long marine shoreline of Puget Sound, formed by several inlets and many smaller bays. Puget Sound itself is a large, fjord —like estuary where freshwater from numerous rivers mixes with saltwater from the Pacific Ocean. The Sound contains many sub—estuaries where larger rivers and small streams enter the Sound and create a mix of tidal freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh wetlands. As is typical of fjord —like estuaries elsewhere, Puget Sound is characterized by relatively deep basins that drop off steeply from a narrow fringe of shallow nearshore areas adjacent to the shoreline. Most of the Puget Sound shoreline in the study area has moderate to low banks, or areas with no appreciable bank —bays and estuaries, although higher, steep — sloping bluffs occur along Port Washington Narrows. Bremerton lies within the Central Basin of Puget Sound, which includes the area between the southern tip of Whidbey Island and Commencement Bay. The study area is relatively more sheltered and shallow than most of the Central Basin. Two small sub — basins occur in the study area: Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet. The main basin of Dyes Inlet is deepest near the center, at about 150 feet, but the many bays are generally shallow ( <35 feet). Sinclair Inlet is deepest at the eastern end (about 130 feet) while the head of the bay is <10 feet deep. 1.3.3 Hydrology The East Kitsap watershed lies between the backbones of the Kitsap Peninsula and Bainbridge Island, resulting in a narrow strip of land with many short streams that drain to the west side of Central Puget Sound. Streams in the study area are typical lowland type streams with generally moderate gradients. Upper reaches of streams are typical Puget lowland headwater streams with low gradients that originate with perched groundwater in lakes and wetlands on upland plateaus and hills (Williams et al. 1975; Buffington et al. 2003). DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -7 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Stream power is generally low, limiting the ability of streams to transport sediment. Where streams flow off the higher rolling hills and plateaus down to the shore of the Sound, steeper ravines can create confined channels with greater sediment transport capacity. Because of the small size of most streams, large, extensive floodplains are not found in the study area. The glacial deposits described above create a complex mix of layers of permeable deposits that rapidly infiltrate water (aquifers), with impermeable deposits such as compacted till, silts, and clays that limit or prevent the infiltration of water ( aquitards). As a result of this complex mix of deposits, the study area contains several aquifers and aquitards within the subsurface. This mix of layers therefore controls subsurface water movement from the upland to the lowland, as well as water movement to the streams and creeks that occupy former glacial outwash channels (Deeter et al. 1979). Groundwater flow into Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet has not been documented but is thought to be `substantial' (Lincoln and Collias 1975; PSCRBT 1990). 1.3.4 Oceanographic Processes The marine nearshore area of the study area is irregular and composed of numerous bays, harbors, and lagoons, with varied topography and slope. Combined, there are approximately 53 miles of marine shoreline in SMA jurisdiction. The protected nature of the marine waters means that tidal currents and flows are important in driving local circulation patterns and water exchange. Low tides expose numerous small to moderate —sized tide flats in the bays and at the heads of inlets. Currents are generally weak except in the Port Washington Narrows (about 4 knots; NOAA 1988). Flushing time for marine waters is about 4 days. Tideflats are exposed during low tides. Currents in Sinclair Inlet are relatively weak —about 0.8 knots, resulting in a low flushing rate with an estimated flushing time of about 14 days. The low flushing rates in both Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet means that contaminants entering the inlets are not flushed out but can remain in place and become concentrated, degrading water quality and habitat. 1.3.5 Sediment and Substrate Streams in the study area are relatively small with moderate gradients and do not move large amounts of sediments compared to the larger river systems in Puget Sound. Steep slopes in the upper watersheds west of Gorst are moderately erosive and contribute sediment to floodplains, stream channels, and stream mouth estuaries. Tidal currents erode and deposit sediment in flats, marshes, and estuaries, creating complex channel networks. These channel networks redistribute organic matter, influence salinity gradients in estuaries, and provide access and refugia for fish and invertebrates. The sediment that forms beaches and other shoreforms throughout Puget Sound, and in the study area, is predominantly from eroding coastal bluffs. Some areas of the steep coastal bluffs along Port Washington Narrows and in east Bremerton are highly erodible and are important sources contributing sediment to the nearshore. Sediment is eroded, moved, and deposited in a series of littoral drift cells. In areas where shorelines are protected from wave energy, streams entering the nearshore deposit fine sediments such as muds and sands. The large, relatively enclosed areas of Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet have no appreciable net transport of sediment due to weak currents and limited wave action. 1 -8 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 1.4 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE SHORELINE 1.4.1 Methodology The following parameters are tools used to project foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline: • Projection of allowed uses, density, general character of uses, and number of units provided by existing zoning on a buildout basis; • Existing land use patterns affecting cultural and economic trends in response to the opportunities and constraints of the zoning regulations; • Projection of likely development within the affected area over a 20 —year planning horizon, based on the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) projections and the county's Comprehensive Plan; and • Projection of water—dependent, water —oriented, and non—water—dependent uses. These parameters are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2. 1.4.2 General Trends The OFM 2011 population estimate of the City of Bremerton was 37,729 persons whereas the 2010 Census indicated 38,790 persons. The OFM estimates included 17,044 housing units, of which 9,071 are single — family. The population in Bremerton between 2000 and 2011 has varied from 37,259 in 2000 to as low as 34,580 in 2005. The city population has reflected general trends in Kitsap County population, which is characterized by OFM as showing slow growth. This is partly associated with the loss of one aircraft carrier and several support vessels at the Bremerton Naval Installation resulting in a decline of approximately 2,000 "ashore" and "afloat" naval personnel. OFM indicates that the expected population growth in Kitsap County is subject to uncertainty due to transportation, military changes, and other issues. OFM projects Kitsap County growth of about 9 percent over the 20 —year period from 2010 to 2030. Based on these forecasts of population and employment growth, the City projects a 6— year increase of 2,778 housing units and 9,300 jobs for 2007 to 2012. 1.4.3 Shoreline Land Use Trends The following conclusions were drawn from the projection of land use trends on the Bremerton shoreline: Most shoreline use will continue to be stable, single — family residential neighborhoods. • Relatively little change in shoreline conditions will result from new development or redevelopment of existing sites. • Very minor improvements will occur at a slow pace as individual properties undergo substantial remodeling or as docks and other overwater structures reach the end of their life span and are replaced with new facilities that have relatively less impact. A more detailed assessment by watershed or marine area is included in Section 2. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -9 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 1.5 BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF ANY ESTABLISHED REGULATORY PROGRAMS UNDER OTHER LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS The beneficial effects of established regulatory programs consist of the following, which are described in more detail in Section 3 of this report: • Provisions of existing county land use and development regulations; • State and federal programs; • The beneficial effects of regulations in the SMP; and • The beneficial effects of conservation and restoration programs. 1.6 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS This assessment is based on the description of existing ecological functions in the Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010). Relatively small areas of the Bremerton shoreline are expected to redevelop in the near term. As they do, there will be marginal improvements based on the following provisions: No net loss criteria The most stringent provision of the SMP is the no net loss criteria in SMP 20.16.630. This provision subjects all shoreline use, development, and redevelopment to a performance standard in which all such activities prevent or mitigate adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. This establishes a performance standard that must be met in addition to any restriction or permission of a use, and in addition to performance standards for individual uses or for shoreline modification. Restoration requirements for non — water — dependent uses The SMA establishes a preference for water—dependent uses (SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4), which provides for ecological restoration of non—water—dependent commercial and industrial use. Because most new development is likely to be non—water—dependent, this provision will ensure at least some improvement to ecological conditions from major projects. Vegetation Conservation Native vegetation preservation on new lots and development is addressed in SMP 20.16.610 — Buffers and Setbacks, 20.16.620 — Vegetation Conservation, 20.16.650 — Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non —Point Pollution; however, these provisions have limited influence on the majority of shoreline that is already developed. Provisions for vegetation conservation for expansion or alteration of single — family development (SMP 20.16.620(2)) will provide a minimal buffer, which will have limited effect on ecological processes on an individual basis. Over the long term, education programs in conjunction with regulatory programs may lead to changes by land owners in how they maintain shoreline vegetation with beneficial consequences. Shoreline stabilization Hard shoreline armoring in the form of riprap, concrete, or wood structures are common throughout the Bremerton shoreline. Provisions encouraging softer solutions to shoreline stabilization are provided in SMP 20.16.870. These provisions, however, will apply only as existing structures fail or require major modification. Although it is unlikely that these provisions will lead to a substantial change in currently armored shorelines, they will prevent further degradation of relatively unaltered shorelines. 1 -10 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton • In —water facilities Adverse impacts of in —water structures are addressed by SMP 20.16.820 — Docks, Piers, and In —Water structures, 20.16.750 — Marinas and Boating Facilities, and 20.16.760 — Recreational Development. These provisions contain specific performance standards that will reduce impacts. Existing in —water facilities will be gradually upgraded over time as they need to be replaced. Overall, the combined results of the SMP on properties immediately adjacent to shorelines, the critical area regulations that address upstream conditions in watersheds not under SMP jurisdiction, and various restoration activities on shorelines and in watersheds are likely to result in no net loss of ecological functions on Bremerton shorelines. Over time, these actions would likely lead to improvements in the ecosystem. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 1 -11 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 2. METHODOLOGY The analysis of the cumulative effects of the SMP, together with other programs, is summarized in Tables 3 -1, 3 -2, and 3 -3 in Section 3 —Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Plan on Ecological Productivity. These tables consider the type of effects of various human activities on a cross section of ecological functions and assess the probable beneficial effects of • The SMP, • The critical area regulations adopted in December 2006, • Other state and federal regulatory programs, and • Non — regulatory enhancement efforts. This evaluation is based on the description of ecological functions in the Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010). The landscape analysis methodology used in that analysis involves a number of processes that are important for aquatic resource management. Because that analysis provides the basis of the assessment of cumulative effects, it is summarized below. 2.1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION The landscape characterization approach used in the Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis (City of Bremerton 2010) examines specific processes including the movement of water, sediment, nutrients, pathogens, toxicants, organic matter, and energy or heat that form and maintain the landscape over a large geographic scale. These processes interact with landscape features to create the structure and function of aquatic resources (Ecology 2005). The analysis uses a coarse— grained approach for integrating landscape processes into shoreline management, restoration planning, and other land use planning efforts (Ecology 2005). The purposes of the analysis are to highlight the relationship between key processes and aquatic resource functions and to describe the effects of land use on those key processes. This approach is not intended to quantify landscape processes and functions. Rather, the goal is to: 1) identify and map areas on the landscape important to processes that sustain shoreline resources; 2) determine their degree of alteration; and 3) identify the potential for protecting or restoring these areas. 2.1.1 General Framework and Conceptual Model The watershed analysis approach attempts to answer four questions: What are the key landscape processes that maintain aquatic /shoreline resources and their functions? 2. Which geographic areas within watersheds are most important for maintaining each key process? How have human activities/land use altered important process areas and to what extent have the key processes been impaired? 4. Which areas have potential for sustaining or improving resource function through protection and/or restoration? The processes that are most important for aquatic resource management are summarized in Tables 2 -1 and 2 -2. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -1 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Table 2 -1. Marine Nearshore Process Important Areas and Process Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations Freshwater Inputs Streams and estuaries Changes in flow regime from dams, diversions, Contributing watershed for withdrawals, increased impervious areas (changed stream or shoreline magnitudes, timing, frequency, duration) Seepage zones in bluffs or Increase in impervious area in watershed (increased peak banks flows, change in timing of peak flows) Stormwater outfalls in nearshore Constrictions of river flows or encroachment into estuary /delta (e.g., road crossings /culverts at river mouths, filling of floodplains and estuarine wetlands) Armoring or fill in nearshore that cuts off movement of groundwater into beach sediments Tidal Flows Rocky shores Shoreline armoring /alteration of beach profile Beaches Tidal constrictions —tide gates, culverts, bridges, weirs Stream deltas Tidal encroachment — filling of tidal wetlands, dikes /levees, Estuaries and pocket roads within tidal wetlands estuaries (barrier Increased impervious surfaces in watershed — increased estuaries) flashiness /peak flows, higher river flows during winter Barrier lagoons /marshes (changes extent of tidal salt wedge intrusion into estuarine Open coastal inlets habitats and distribution of salt, brackish, and freshwater habitats) Water Storage Tidal and distributary Tidal encroachment — filling of tidal wetlands, dikes /levees, channels loss of tidal channels, roads within tidal wetlands Estuaries Shoreline armoring /alteration of estuarine /marsh profile Coastal marshes Tidal constrictions —tide gates, culverts, bridges, weirs Sediment Supply Coastal bluffs Armoring of shorelines Streams Dams Filling of estuaries, floodplains Tidal restrictions — dikes, tide gates, roads Sediment Transport Beaches in transport zones Armoring, jetties /groins Estuaries (tidal and Fill in intertidal or upper shoreline distributary channels) Overwater structures (associated piers, pilings, seawalls) Tidal restrictions — dikes, tide gates, roads Sediment Accretion Barrier beaches Armoring and Deposition Stream deltas Estuaries and coastal marshes Habitat Formation— Estuaries Shoreline armoring /alteration of beach profile Distributary and Tidal Barrier lagoons /marshes Tidal constrictions —tide gates, culverts, bridges, weirs Channels Open coastal inlets Tidal encroachment — filling of tidal wetlands, dikes /levees, roads within tidal wetlands Habitat Connectivity Estuaries Fill in intertidal areas, estuaries, coastal marshes and Beaches /bluffs Shoreline armoring, jetties, groins Movement/Exchange Marine riparian vegetation Overwater structures, piers, pilings of Organisms Impervious surfaces on bluffs; removal of riparian vegetation Tidal restrictions —tide gates, dikes /levees, culverts, road /railroad fill 2 -2 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Table 2 -1. Marine Nearshore Process Important Areas and Process Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations Water Quality Land uses /land cover Removal of forest cover in contributing watershed (nutrients, adjacent to surface waters Agricultural land uses — dairy, pasture, feed lots, manure pathogens, toxins) discharging to marine sources shorelines Impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff from roads, Wetlands adjacent to residential lawns marine shorelines Wildlife /domestic animal concentrations Semi – enclosed Failing septic systems bays /heads of bays with low flushing rates Filling of wetlands adjacent to surface waters discharging to Marine riparian vegetation marine environment; Filling of wetlands adjacent to marine shorelines Removal of riparian vegetation Contaminated sediments; point discharges of toxins Light Energy Marine riparian Removal of riparian vegetation Upper beach /shallow Shoreline armoring intertidal areas Overwater structures (docks, marinas) Eelgrass beds Nighttime lighting adjacent to shore (marinas, terminals, roadways) Organic Marine riparian Removal of riparian vegetation Imports /Exports, Feeder bluffs Removal of marsh vegetation Carbon Cycling, Accretion shoreforms Fill in coastal wetlands Large Woody Debris Estuaries and coastal Shoreline armoring marshes Constrictions in estuaries or pocket estuaries — presence of culverts, tide gates, bridges, or piers Table 2 -2. Freshwater Process Important Areas and Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations Water Delivery Forested uplands Vegetated uplands Removal of forest cover Impervious surfaces Water Movement (infiltration /recharge, surface runoff peak flows, groundwater flow /discharge) Water Storage Water Loss Sediment Supply /Delivery Forested /vegetated uplands Channel migration zones Floodplains Aquifer recharge areas Impervious surfaces Removal of forest cover Channel confinement Filling of floodplains Levees Floodplains Levees Wetlands Channel confinement Lakes Filling or draining wetlands, floodplains, or lakes Lakes Vegetated areas /forest cover Deep groundwater flows Removal of vegetation Impervious surfaces Steep slopes Bare ground /early seral stage vegetation Channel migration zones Removal of vegetation cover /loss of forest vegetation Impervious surfaces Bank armoring DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -3 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Table 2 -2. Freshwater Process Important Areas and Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations Sediment Transport River /stream channels Bank armoring Floodplains Dams Channel migration zones Sediment Storage Floodplains Filling of floodplains and wetlands Channel migration zones Lakes Wetlands Channel Migration Channel migration zone Channel confinement Floodplain Bank armoring Fill in floodplain Altered flow regime (water diversion, dams, impervious surface) Flood plain /Hyporheic Connectivity Floodplain Channel migration zone Forested contributing watershed Habitat Connectivity and Streams /floodplains Movement/Exchange of Organisms Riparian zones Channel migration zones Nutrient Management/Nitrogen and Hyporheic zones /floodplains Phosphorous Retention and Lakes Cycling Wetlands Riparian zones Pathogen and Toxin Hyporheic zones /floodplains Removal /Processing Wetlands Channel incision Channel confinement Bank armoring Fill in floodplain Altered flow regime (water diversion, dams, impervious surface) Dams Roads Culverts Channel confinement/levees Removal of vegetation /loss of native vegetation cover Removal of forest cover /riparian vegetation Channel confinement Filling or draining of wetlands Carbon Cycling /Sequestration Forested /vegetated uplands Vegetated riparian zones Soils /organic soils Organic Matter Export and Steep slopes /landslide prone areas Removal of vegetation /loss of Import/Large Woody Debris Riparian forests forest cover Floodplains /hyporheic zones Channel confinement/levees Wetlands Fill in floodplains and wetlands Bank armoring Solar Incidence /Light Energy Riparian forests Removal of vegetation /loss of Lakes forests Wetlands Loss of large woody debris 2 -4 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Table 2 -2. Freshwater Process Important Areas and Alterations Process Process Important Areas Alterations River channels Disturbance Regime Steep slopes Channel migration zones Floodplains Forested contributing watersheds Riparian forests Wetlands Establishment of Native Vegetation Upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats Riparian zones Establishment of Invasive Species Disturbed or bare ground Overwater structures Artificial nighttime light sources Removal of vegetation /loss of forest cover Channel confinement/levees Bank armoring Fill in floodplains Alteration in flow regimes —water diversion, dams, impervious surfaces Alteration of water processes Alteration of sediment processes Removal of native vegetation Introduction of non – native vegetation Impervious surfaces Habitat fragmentation /loss of connectivity Increased inputs of nutrients, toxins Removal of vegetation cover /loss of forests Increased nutrient inputs Altered flow regimes Filling or draining wetlands Impervious surfaces 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Refer to the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis for a detailed description of existing conditions. 2.3 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT This section provides a general assessment of • General growth in population and employment projected to 2022, and • Shoreline use and development trends. 2.3.1 General Population Trends OFM identifies the military sector as the largest contributor to the economy of Kitsap County— specifically, the U.S. Navy. Naval facilities in the area include the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Naval Submarine Base (Bangor), and the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (Keyport). Much of the private employment in the county is related to military activities. The United States Department of Defense actually employs more civilians in Kitsap County than it does uniformed personnel. Approximately 10,500 military personnel are stationed throughout Kitsap County and nearly 13,000 civilians in various military installations —the majority represented by the nearly 8,000 civilians working at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in downtown Bremerton. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -5 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton More recently, there has been an increase in the number of people who live locally but work in Seattle, and who use the state ferry system connecting Bremerton to downtown Seattle. With Bremerton's less diversified job market but lower cost of living, the "bedroom community" phenomenon is recognizable. About 50 percent of the land in Bremerton is in residential zoning designations, with about 10 percent in commercial /industrial designations. There is about 9,240 acres of public lands, including federal lands (which overlaps land use designations). Bremerton projects an additional population increase of 13,000 by 2023 in a variety of single — family and multi — family settings. The City projects that it has sufficient properly zoned land area to accommodate the additional residents projected by the Comprehensive Plan, but it also recognizes the existing market constraints. Some of the constraints are regional or national economic conditions, including availability of financing for new construction and home ownership, weak "curb appeal" of available sites, availability of business— related financing, and strength of the job market, etc. Other constrains relate to the willingness of owners to convert lands. Many oversized lots and other vacant infill sites are enjoyed by their owners for yard areas, additional off —street parking, recreational vehicle storage, or to protect views and other amenities. These areas are not readily given up by many resident homeowners. Investors, however, may be more financially inclined and willing to maximize the development potential of these properties. 2.3.2 Demand for Water— Dependent Uses The demand for water—dependent use is affected by a wide variety of economic and social factors, which are described below. 2.3.2.1 Historic Market Demand for Waterfront Areas The historic need for industrial users to have water access, based on the easy access and reasonable cost of transporting cargo and raw materials, has undergone a transition in the past 30 to 50 years. In the past, central business districts and industrial areas in the Pacific Northwest tended to be co- located where the rail and water transportation system was linked. A number of trends have weakened the link between industrial centers and waterfronts, including globalization of manufacturing, off — shoring, containerization, telecommunications, the interstate highway system, and general improvements in the technology of transportation. At the same time, the attraction of waterfronts for access and location of non — industrial uses such as housing, tourism, and recreation has grown, including the interest in just being able to view water of any kind. Market demand for any real estate is a complex set of factors generally influenced by demographic, economic, and cultural preferences. An important dynamic of real estate markets is that once demand factors produce specific real estate development, it is resistant to change unless there are very strong market pressures that can overwhelm the costs and risks for redevelopment (ECS 2008). Industrial —commercial and other non — residential real estate or land uses tend primarily to be either location or price sensitive. Occasionally, other non —economic factors influence the demand for industrial —commercial real estate. For instance, business owners wanting to locate their firm close to their residences or yacht, or enjoy water — related views can overcome or influence the trade —offs between location and price sensitivity. Demand for these non — residential land uses is considered to be derived demand. Industrial —commercial land derives its value from how and what the land can be used for to generate income for businesses. The use of land to build shelter for households or facilities for recreation directly 2 -6 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton satisfies consumer demand. Private for — profit recreation businesses, including marinas, are also the result of derived demand. As a practical matter, the primary industrial —commercial land uses that are now water — dependent or water — related are those that still require transportation by ship, ship containers, barges, large outdoor facilities for processing, storing, lay—down assembling /manufacturing space, and typically need easy and ready access to rail facilities for overland shipment of goods and containers. Even uses long associated with waterfronts, such as fish processing and small boat manufacture and repair, can and do locate where land and buildings are cheaper, not necessarily on waterfront parcels. Water and waterfront areas for vessel moorage, haul —out, and dry storage are among those that remain water—dependent uses. 2.3.2.2 Marine Cargo Marine cargo use in the Puget Sound is dominated by the Port of Seattle and Tacoma Container Terminals. Both Seattle and Tacoma also have substantial bulk terminals for the movement of grain and products such as pulp and cement. The Ports of Olympia, Everett, and Bellingham have almost no container cargo use but serve a variety of specialty materials such as pulp, wood products, cement, and steel. (BST 2007a) Bremerton has no significant marine cargo use on its shoreline. Sufficient vacant or redevelopable shoreline areas currently are not available on the Bremerton shoreline to accommodate marine cargo. 2.3.2.3 Ship and Boat Building and Repair Ship and boat building and repair facilities in the Puget Sound area are concentrated in Seattle and Tacoma with smaller facilities in a variety of locations including Olympia, Everett, Bellingham, Port Townsend, and Whidbey Island where smaller vessels and barges are built. Ship building and repair in Bremerton is generally limited to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, which largely repairs ships for the U.S. Navy. There are no private commercial boat builders on the shoreline in Bremerton. Currently, there is a limited amount of vacant or redevelopable shoreline areas that could be available for non — federal boat building or repair on the Bremerton shoreline. The area could likely accommodate small facilities, but may not be able to compete with other areas where support infrastructure is in place. If portions of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard are underutilized in the future, portions of the site could be made available for private use through the Enhanced Use Leasing program. Such a transfer of use, however, would not change the amount of the shoreline devoted to this use. 2.3.2.4 Commercial Moorage Commercial moorage in Puget Sound is dominated by moorage for the fishing industry. The majority of fishing vessels homeported in Puget Sound is at commercial fishing ports located in Seattle, Bellingham Bay, and Blaine with smaller ports in Friday Harbor, Anacortes, La Conner, Everett, Tacoma, Olympia, and Shelton. About half of the fishing vessels in Puget Sound are oriented to the Alaska fishery (BST 2007b). There is very little moorage devoted to fishing vessels in Bremerton. The lack of related facilities for servicing and repair would likely limit moorage to fishing vessels owned by residents of the Kitsap Peninsula who have moorage berths in the area for convenience. Those vessels moored in the area are largely accommodated by existing marinas. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -7 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 2.3.2.5 Recreational Moorage Recreational moorage demand in Puget Sound has typically been characterized as a situation where demand is in excess of supply. The relative demand for in —water storage of vessels, however, is also affected by the supply, convenience, and cost of other alternatives, including self — launching of small boats and dry storage alternatives. The options for larger boats, however, are more limited because many large boats are impractical for self — launching or dry storage. Moorage space in Puget Sound tends to lag behind the growth of vessel registrations; therefore, waiting lists are typical. Large boats, over 30 feet, can expect to wait 5 to 7 years; smaller boats, typically a year or more (BST 2007b). Bremerton currently has a substantial supply of recreational moorage spaces and marinas. At the Port of Bremerton marina downtown, the supply of slips typically exceeds demand except at the peak summer boating season. This likely reflects current economic conditions rather than long —term trends. In the long term, the demand for marina space is likely to be related both to the total number of boats owned in the area, as well as the cost of in —water moorage as it compares to self — launching and dry storage. It is likely that the most consistent demand in the future will be moorage for larger boats, which have fewer alternatives and whose owners are likely to be more able to afford moorage, even if rates increase. Moorage demand in Bremerton also is likely to be affected by the supply in neighboring communities, such as Port Orchard, but also is affected by the willingness of owners to factor travel time into their choice of location. The supply, convenience, and cost of boat launches also affect the extent to which alternatives to moorage are available to smaller boats that are trailered and launched to the water, as well as by hand— launched small boats such as kayaks. 2.3.2.6 Boat Dry Storage As an alternative to wet moorage, dry storage facilities have been developed in several locations including Edmonds, Everett, Port of Everett's Port Gardner Wharf, Lake Union in Seattle, the Thea Foss Waterway in Tacoma, and at the Twin Bridges Marina near Anacortes. Such facilities generally accommodate boats of up to 30 feet in length (BST 2007a). Bremerton has no current dry storage facilities. Currently, there are limited vacant or redevelopable shoreline areas available to accommodate this use. The most likely potential site is the industrial area in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue. 2.3.2.7 Passenger Vessels The passenger vessel market is divided between very large vessels and a variety of markets served by smaller vessels. The large cruise ship market is differentiated between homeports and ports of call. A homeport refers to a vessel's home base when it is in a particular market area. Homeports are chosen for their ability to smoothly transfer passengers to the cruise ship that fly —in or drive — in. This generally requires a large local market with strong airport/highway capacity. For example, Vancouver, B.C. and Seattle are the homeports for vessels in the Alaska cruise market. A port of call is one of the ports that will be visited during a cruise itinerary or when the vessel is re positioning from one market to another. Cruise vessel ports of call for the Alaska market include Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, and other ports of call (BST 2007b). 2 -8 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton It is extremely unlikely that Bremerton would be able to compete with other large seaports for large cruise ships as either a homeport or a port of call. There is also a fleet of smaller cruise ships that serves the Pacific Northwest market including the Victoria Clipper high —speed service to Victoria and the San Juan Islands. Another example is the American West Steamboat Company operation of two modern paddlewheel vessels, the Empress of the North and the Queen of the West. Both vessels are homeported in Portland. Empress of the North spends the summer plying Alaskan waters, before returning to Portland for the winter. Queen of the West spends the entire year operating on the Columbia, Snake, and Willamette rivers, and is joined on this route by the Empress of the North during the winter. Charter boats, boats for excursions, and dinner boats comprise an additional sector of the passenger vessel market. Argosy Cruises has I I vessels ranging in size from 35 to 280 linear feet operating in Elliott Bay, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. They offer public and private sightseeing tours and host weddings, corporate events, and community activities. There also are a number of smaller specialty boats, including sailboat cruises. The Virginia V steam — powered historic vessel is owned by a foundation and provides charter service (BST 2007b). It is possible that such services could be provided out of Bremerton, but they likely would use existing marinas rather than develop new facilities. 2.4 WATER- RELATED AND MIXED USES The use of the terminology "mixed use" differs substantially between the SMA application and the general real estate market. The SMA usage refers to a mix of water—dependent and non—water—dependent uses. The real estate market usage refers to the mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. The typical real estate market characterization of mixed —use development in the Puget Sound area is some combination of residential over retail or office over retail in multi— storied buildings (vertical mixed use). This type of mixed —use development has become common throughout much of the metropolitan region. There are some combinations that occur in single— storied multi —use buildings called `flex —tech' buildings. These buildings can contain horizontal mixes of uses including office, retail, restaurant, commercial, small assembly /service /storage, and showrooms. These `flex tech' types of buildings /uses tend to occur in business and office parks in suburban areas. The growth in commercial space in the form of mixed use is a response to the growth in employment in the finance, insurance, real estate, business, professional, and medical—dental industries, as well as administrative offices of firms who are engaged in more industrial activities. One of the key determinants of where this type of vertical mixed use would be located is land values. Higher land values will support the vertical mixed use type of development. Typically, waterfront areas have higher land values. The mixed —use building developments generally have three components: office space with some retail or service to supplement office business; parking (surface, structured, or underground); and whatever landscaping and amenities are typical for the market area or required by local regulations. This type of development can be accommodated into waterfront locations where communities value access to and views of the water or waterfront. In order to comply with the SMA and shoreline guidelines, public access and water — related uses can be included with little adverse effect on the economic viability of the development. There is potential for complementary use of project elements such as parking to serve water— DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -9 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton related uses and public access in evenings and on weekends when office demand is reduced and most visitors are oriented to recreational use or amenities (ECS 2008). The Bremerton downtown waterfront has a large mixed —use development incorporating the ferry terminal and intermodal center, the marina, and the USS Turner Joy as water — dependent uses. A large area of public open space provides water —enjoyment uses, as well as some restaurants with water views. The remainder of the area includes hotels, offices, and other uses that relate to the amenities of the water. Residential developments north of Burwell Street are oriented to amenities of the waterfront, including views, but have no water — dependent or water —oriented uses and are isolated from the water by a steep bluff. They do provide public access and views of the water by a trail at the top of the bluff. Other locations in Bremerton that would allow for a mix of water—dependent and other uses are limited by topography and upland zoning. Most of the shoreline is designated for residential use, which provides little opportunity for water—dependent uses. Commercial areas along the water that provide some potential for a mix of water—dependent and other uses have a variety of limitations as described below. The small commercial area on Oyster Bay off Kitsap Way has upland zoning and a shoreline designation that would support water—dependent and other uses. The shallow character of Oyster Bay and its designation as an Aquatic Conservancy area are likely to substantially limit the potential for water—dependent uses. The commercial area along Wheaton Way east of the Warren Avenue Bridge is largely located along a bluff that isolates the upland from shoreline frontage. Critical area regulations designed to protect the area from landslides and also protect the feeder bluff likely preclude water access for most of this area. A small area along Campbell Way has existing commercial development adjacent to the water and may provide for a mix of water — dependent and other uses. The commercial area at the head of Sinclair Inlet has zoning that would allow a mix of water — dependent and other uses; however, the sensitivity of the Gorst Estuary likely would preclude water—dependent use at this location. 2.5 SHORELINE USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The uses allowed in each of the shoreline areas (shoreline environment designations) are provided in the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and provide the basis for future development trends. The projection of potential future use is also based on an overview of the existing uses and probable market conditions. The following section outlines presumed development trends in specific geographic areas. 2.5.1 Dyes Inlet Dyes Inlet is the marine embayment of west Puget Sound, which includes the northerly portion of the Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Dyes Inlet watershed drains an area of 30,289 acres, including the creeks that flow into the inlet. It has approximately 22 miles of marine shoreline and 90 stream miles that include 10 named streams. Approximately 40 percent of the watershed is within the urban area (12,231 acres) designated by Kitsap County. Within the study area, about 16 miles of marine shoreline with contributing drainage areas occur in Dyes Inlet. Bremerton and Silverdale are the major urban areas, with smaller retail centers at Chico, Tracyton, and Kitsap Lake. The 2 -10 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Jackson Park Naval Reservation, Camp Wesley Harris, and parts of the Bangor Naval Reservation are located within the watershed. Specific subareas considered in this analysis include: • Ostrich Bay (with several subareas), • Oyster Bay, and • Mud Bay. Ostrich Bay Ostrich Bay is a large embayment in Dyes Inlet. It supports coho and chum salmon and cutthroat trout. A concentration of surf smelt spawning areas is mapped around Elwood Point. Patchy eelgrass and salt marsh occur at a few scattered locations in Ostrich Bay. Bald eagle nests and foraging areas are associated with much of the Ostrich Bay shoreline. Land cover surrounding Ostrich Bay is a mix of high — intensity residential, low— intensity residential, mixed forest, evergreen and deciduous forest, urban grasses, and small areas of commercial /industrial. Land cover use is mostly developed (66 to 80 percent) and impervious surface is relatively high; impervious surface is 30 percent or above over most of the contributing area. Shoreline modifications include tidal barriers (3 percent of shoreline length), armoring (57 percent of shoreline area), roads (13 percent of shoreline area), and nearshore fill (2 percent of shoreline area). Overwater structures are concentrated in a few locations and cover less than 1 percent of the shoreline area. Ostrich Bav North` Ostrich Bay North includes the small embayment north of Elwood Point and Chico Bay. The area is outside of the City's planned annexation area but is important to ecological functions. Chico Creek is the most important source of freshwater inputs to this area, including the entire west and south portions of Ostrich Bay. The U.S. Navy and the public own the southerly portion of Chico Bay. No change in land use is expected in this area. It is likely to remain a Rural Residential area under the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. Ostrich Bav South Ostrich Bay South includes the portion of the bay within the city. The primary land uses are the U.S. Navy Hospital, the U.S. Navy's Jackson Park residential community, the City's NAD Marine Park, and residential use. Ostrich Bay Creek enters at the south end of the bay. It has a watershed area of about 450 acres in developed urban land uses. There is a pocket estuary at the delta of the stream. The Kitsap County Health District in a Public Advisory alerted the public to avoid contact with stream waters due to fecal coliform bacteria levels. The majority of land use is single — family residential. Lots are moderate in size but there is little potential for additional subdivision along the shoreline. It is presumed that the U.S. Navy will not change shoreline uses in their ownership and any future hospital expansion or residential development will take place in the upland outside of shoreline jurisdiction. East Ostrich Bay East Ostrich Bay includes Madrona Point, Marine Drive Point, and the westerly portion of Rocky Point above Mud Bay. Rocky Point is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -11 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton but in the UGA. These areas are generally older residential developments with moderate to large lot sizes. A few lots are in the range of 3 to 5 acres. Single — family land use in this area is not likely to change. There is some potential for subdivision of larger lots. Oyster Bay Oyster Bay is a shallow protected embayment with a relatively narrow opening to Ostrich Bay. Oyster Bay has no significant tributary streams, but has shallow habitat areas supporting high primary productivity for the food chain and a diverse assemblage of habitat. The majority of land in the bay is single— family residential with a small commercial area at the south end along Kitsap Way. The commercial area near the south end of the bay has the potential for redevelopment in the future. It is unlikely to consist of water—dependent use given the shallow nature of the bay and the proposed Aquatic Conservancy designation. Future non—water—dependent or mixed —use development would require shoreline restoration and public access. Redevelopment of the 83 —acre Bay Vista site (the Bremerton Housing Authority Westpark Community) is likely to result in improved water quality discharge to Oyster Bay through application of current stormwater management practices, although the redevelopment area is only a part of the tributary watershed draining into the bay. Mud Bay The east side of Mud Bay is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. It is surrounded by relatively large residential lots. Single — family land use in this area is not likely to change. There is some potential for subdivision of larger lots when sewer service is extended to the area. 2.5.2 Port Washington Narrows Port Washington Narrows is a tidal strait connecting Port Orchard Bay with Dyes Inlet. Tidal currents attain velocities in excess of 4 knots at times. The formal boundaries are Rocky Point to the northeast, Point Turner to the southwest, and Point Herron to the southeast. For the purpose of this discussion, the Tracyton Beach area is considered within Dyes Inlet and will be included in the discussion of the east side of the Narrows. Phinney Bay Phinney Bay is a large embayment at the western end of Port Washington Narrows and eastern end of Dyes Inlet and extends from Rocky Point to North Lafayette Avenue. The eastern side of Phinney Bay (to Corbet Drive NW) is currently outside of the Bremerton city limits but in the UGA. The primary land use is single — family residential, but there is one marina, the Bremerton Yacht Club, on the eastern shore. Single — family land use in this area is not likely to change. Expansion of the marina would require evaluation of impacts and must meet no net loss criteria, which likely would require on —site and /or off —site mitigation. Port Washington Narrows West This area extends from North Lafayette Avenue to Point Turner (which for convenience is considered at 6th Street in downtown Bremerton). This area has complex urban land uses comprising single — family and multi — family residential, industrial, and parkland including Evergreen Park. 2 -12 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton There is one marina. Single— family land use in this area is not likely to change. Expansion of the marina would require evaluation of impacts and must meet no net loss criteria, which likely would require on —site and /or off —site mitigation. Redevelopment of the shoreline in the industrial area in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue would be required to meet no net loss criteria, which likely would require on —site and /or off — site mitigation. The multi — family area within the downtown subarea will be redeveloped with medium— to high—density residential with a strong relationship to the street. The high bank waterfront limits other than visual access to the water in most cases. Future non—water—dependent or mixed —use development would require shoreline restoration, which likely would include buffer augmentation with feeder bluff functions enhanced. Port Washington Narrows East The far northerly portion of Port Washington Narrows is characterized by large —lot rural development in the area north of Sheridan Road, which is in unincorporated Kitsap County and within the UGA. The remainder of the reach is single — family, multi — family, commercial and park use. (For convenience, the area south of Manette Bridge on Point Herron is considered in the discussion of Port Orchard Bay.) Single — family land use in this area is not likely to change. There is some potential for subdivision of larger lots when sewer service is extended to the area. There are extensive areas of commercial and multi — family zoning in this reach, which are likely to provide opportunities for enhancement of the shoreline upon redevelopment. The most extensive potential redevelopment area is the Bremerton Gardens multi — family community between Magnuson Way and 16th Street, which will provide the opportunity for setbacks and buffers to allow feeder bluffs and adjacent areas to function more naturally. The commercial area along Campbell and Wheaton Way south of the Warren Avenue Bridge will likely redevelop incrementally. Because non—water—dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas can be expected to be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. 2.5.3 Sinclair Inlet Sinclair Inlet is the arm of Port Orchard Bay west of Port Washington Narrows. It includes downtown Bremerton, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Gorst Estuary, and the City of Port Orchard on its south side. Downtown Bremerton The area from 6th Street to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard within the downtown subarea will be redeveloped with an array of residential, office, and mixed uses with strong connections and views to the waterfront. Most of this area has been redeveloped with only a few additional lots available. This area has high bluffs along the waterfront that precludes water—dependent use. Because non—water—dependent development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas are likely to be augmented and feeder bluff functions enhanced. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard This reach is heavily modified by the development of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. It is not likely that there will be a substantial change in the character of this facility in the future. Restoration potential in this reach is limited due to intense development. Future development in the downtown will preserve and enhance steep slopes resulting in augmentation of DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -13 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton vegetation and feeder bluff functions. The major opportunity for enhancement is continuing efforts by the U.S. Navy to improve water quality through improvements to process water and runoff. Gorst Estuary and Gorst Creek Gorst Estuary is the largest estuary in the planning area and provides significant shoreline functions to Sinclair Inlet and Puget Sound. The estuary receives freshwater flows from Gorst Creek, as well as several small independent drainages nearby. Tributary streams support a variety of species including coho, chum, cutthroat, and steelhead. Gorst Estuary itself is shallow, with fringing marshes and mud flats that provide excellent production of prey for salmonids. Biological resources in the estuary include waterfowl concentrations at the mouth and along the north and south shorelines of Sinclair Inlet, as well as shorebird concentrations along the north shore. The majority of the north side of the inlet is bounded by State Route (SR) 2 and the U.S. Navy railroad and is not expected to change. There are extensive areas of commercial development generally south of Gorst Creek that are subject to redevelopment in the future. Because non—water—dependent development is likely, and such development requires shoreline restoration and public access, buffer areas are likely to be augmented. On Gorst Creek, the commercially zoned area between the inlet and Sam Christopherson Road are low intensity and is likely to be redeveloped in the future. This area could provide stream buffers and incorporate shoreline restoration as a non—water—dependent use. Between Sam Christopherson Road and West Belfair Valley Road, the residential and urban restricted area can be expected to experience more intensive future development and provide standard stream buffers. 2.5.4 Port Orchard Bay Point Herron and Shore Drive For purposes of this analysis, this reach extends from the Manette Bridge to the northeasterly end of shore Drive. The northerly end of this reach is occupied by the Boat Shed Restaurant and multi — family development. The remainder of the reach is single — family lots. The single — family residences in this area are not likely to change in use, although some remodeling may occur. The Boat Shed Restaurant is likely to retain its existing non —conforming status, even if other tenants occupy it. In the long term, the existing pier is likely to be reconstructed when it requires major repair or replacement, including grating for light penetration and less surface coverage, which would enhance nearshore ecological functions. Port Orchard Bay East The area east of Shore Drive in Bremerton is characterized by large single — family lots with extensive forested uplands. The eastern part of this reach in the UGA is largely undeveloped within the UGA with development above the steep bluff that begins at the shoreline. Single — family land use in this area is not likely to change. There is some potential for subdivision of larger lots when sewer service is extended to the area. The undeveloped 2 -14 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton shoreline in the eastern part of the reach is likely to feature future development concentrated at the top of the slope due to the proposed Urban Conservancy designation. 2.5.5 Kitsap Lake The Kitsap Lake shoreline is largely single — family residential, with numerous docks, large areas of modified shoreline, and very little riparian vegetation. There is a large publicly owned wetland on the south side of the lake, a City park, and a U.S. Navy park on the west side of the lake. Single — family lots are relatively small and narrow with little potential for additional subdivision. No substantive change in the public park, Navy park, or open space is expected. 2.5.6 Union River and Union River Reservoir The Union River Reservoir has a surface area of about 40 acres. Shoreline reaches include the entire lake shoreline, as well as the Union River below the reservoir from McKenna Falls to the lake. The combined lake and river shoreline area is approximately 98 acres. The upper watershed and the reservoir are within the City's protected watershed area with deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest as the predominant land cover. No change in use or status is expected. 2.5.7 Twin Lakes Twin Lakes together are approximately 21.7 acres and lie within the City's utility area. No change in use or status is expected. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 2 -15 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 3. ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.1 TYPICAL EFFECTS OF ALTERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USES It is important to recognize that the ecological processes and functions that occur within SMA jurisdiction are affected by processes within the entire watershed, not only those that occur within shorelines regulated by the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan. Tables 3 -1, 3 -2, and 3 -3 provide a summary in matrix format for lakes, streams, and marine environments, which outline the types of cumulative effects produced by the processes and functions addressed in the landscape analysis, and the extent to which the proposed revisions to the SMP addresses those potential effects (these tables are included at the end of this chapter in Section 3.6). 3.1.1 Lakes 3.1.1.1 Hydrology Hydrology typically affects surface runoff, peak flow, and groundwater flow, and is substantially affected by upstream watersheds. At the watershed level, peak flows are affected by the size of the watershed, which affects the structure and pattern of tributary discharge to the system. Larger systems with a greater geographical coverage tend to have tributaries that are affected differentially by precipitation patterns. The effect of single storm events on the system depends on the geographic extent of weather patterns. Natural lake systems experience high water levels in the winter and low water levels in the summer. Groundwater includes interflow, which is the shallow subsurface flow from shallow aquifers from precipitation that infiltrates into the soil surface and travels by means of gravity toward a lake or tributary stream. Interflow is often a substantial component of base flows in low precipitation periods. At both the watershed and the reach level, native vegetation influences the patterns by which precipitation reaches surface water. Vegetation cover affects the rate of runoff, infiltration, and the resistance of soils to erosion from a variety of sources. Each of these factors has an impact on stream morphology and stability. Native vegetation is adapted to regional weather, geologic and soil conditions, as well as habitat use by a variety of species; therefore, it will function as a complete system. Sources of human disturbance take the following forms: Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase runoff as compared to native forests. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways, and parking areas tend to produce much higher peak runoff and much lower base flows and result in lower levels of infiltration and loss of low temperature interflows. Reduction in wetlands can decrease storage resulting in larger peak flows and less base flow into the lake system. 3.1.1.2 Water Quality Water quality includes temperature, nutrient sources, and chemical pollutants. At the watershed level in natural systems, water quality is maintained by a range of processes including the following: DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -1 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Tree cover helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate near the shore. Riparian vegetation adjacent to lakes and streams reduces nutrients and pollutants through a variety of processes that intercept, filter, or biochemically immobilize substances. • Wetlands have a variety of beneficial impacts on the nutrients and pollutants: • Pollutants in the form of particulates are retained in a wetland with greater detention time. • Plants enhance sedimentation by acting like a filter and causing sediment particles to drop to the wetland surface. • Wetlands uptake dissolved phosphorus and toxic compounds through adsorption to soil particles. • Removal of nitrogen from the aquatic system (denitrification) is done by bacteria that live in the absence of oxygen. The same mechanisms as outlined above for wetlands are present within SMP jurisdiction. Sources of human disturbances to water quality take the following forms: • Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase nutrients from fertilizers, pollutants, and toxins through herbicides and pesticides. • Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways, and parking areas tend to accumulate hydrocarbon pollutants and heavy metals. • Loss of tree cover tends to reduce shade and increase water temperature, as well as reducing or eliminating positive water —quality contributions. • Loss or alteration of wetlands reduces functions or eliminates positive water —quality contributions. 3.1.1.3 Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat is addressed in terms of substrate structure and sediment size, as well as factors such as adjacent upland vegetation, nearshore conditions, and in —water structures. At the watershed level, upstream changes in hydrology that increase erosion and result in sedimentation change the substrate structure of the nearshore. This is largely related to the proportion of native vegetation in a watershed and the amount of impervious surface. Forest cover tends to control rates of runoff that otherwise lead to excessive erosion and sedimentation. Natural systems tend to produce high quality water with moderate levels of nutrients and few or no toxins. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas such as deltas alter the substrate supply. Structures also may interrupt the longitudinal flow of sediment. Upland vegetation helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate in the nearshore. Organic matter is important to the ecosystem in the form of leaves, branches, and terrestrial insects, and is an important element of the food chain in streams and nearshore habitat in lakes. 3 -2 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton At the reach level, a wide variety of species depend on lake nearshore habitat for important life cycle functions. The nearshore is an especially productive area for a variety of insect and larvae food sources. A variety of species depend on specific nearshore substrate structure for spawning. Juvenile salmonids, particularly Chinook salmon, rely on nearshore habitat during a critical rearing phase. Chinook use gently sloping, shallow shorelines for weeks to months. Deeper nearshore habitats with rocky substrates and without vegetation appear to be preferred by smallmouth and largemouth bass. Sources of human disturbances to aquatic habitat take the following forms: • Changes in sediment recruitment and transport tend to alter substrate structure of the nearshore and make it less suitable for spawning, larvae production, and a variety of habitat characteristics important to a range of species. • Bulkheads may reflect wave action and create a high energy environment in the nearshore that mobilize fine sediments, leaving the nearshore largely a gravel and cobble substrate unsuitable to many species, and particularly inhospitable to juvenile Chinook. • The loss of upland buffers through urbanization lead to a loss in shade and cooler temperature areas adjacent to streams and reduces the contribution of organic matter. • Loss of upland vegetation and nearshore woody debris changes habitat conditions and may lead to less refuge and more predation, particularly for juvenile salmon. • Docks and other in —water facilities contribute to providing habitat for some predators, particularly bass, and also may cause avoidance behavior in salmonids by forcing them out of nearshore environments and into environments where food and shelter are less available and where predation is increased. 3.1.1.4 Terrestrial Habitat Terrestrial habitat is affected by riparian vegetation, connectivity, and special habitat features such as wetlands. At the watershed level, continuity with habitat areas outside of the shoreline improves the productivity of habitat by providing links to larger areas and different types of riparian vegetation communities outside of the shoreline. The size of habitat areas is a primary factor in productivity, as well as complexity in habitat type. At the reach level, the area width and continuity of vegetation, as well as type and maturity, are all important to wildlife habitat productivity. Larger wider riparian communities tend to have more complex vegetation communities and a wider variety of habitat types. Continuity links different types of riparian vegetation communities and a variety of upland areas, which provides for access to greater habitat variety. A nearly continuous riparian zone is the typical natural condition in the Pacific Northwest. Wetlands adjacent to lakes also provide an important habitat niche for a variety of species, particularly amphibians. Sources of human disturbances to terrestrial habitat include: • Reduction in the size or width of riparian communities below the threshold to provide meaningful habitat. Fragmentation and isolation reduce the ability of wildlife to access otherwise productive habitat. • Species that are sensitive to proximity impacts such as noise or light may not occupy otherwise suitable habitat. The isolation of prey species in small areas with limited ability for refuge may increase predatory efficiency such that a balance between predation and replacement DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -3 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton may not be maintained. Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may increase the predator population beyond the natural balance. • Loss of wetlands eliminates a habitat type important to the life cycle of a variety of species. 3.1.2 Streams 3.1.2.1 Hydrology Hydrology typically affects surface runoff, peak flow, and groundwater flow, and is substantially affected by the condition of upstream watersheds. At the watershed level, peak flows are affected by the size of the watershed, which affects the structure and pattern of tributary discharge to the system. Larger systems with a greater geographical coverage tend to have tributaries that are affected differentially by precipitation. The effect of single storm events on the system depends on the geographic extent of weather patterns. Natural stream systems generally reach equilibrium in geomorphic processes that result in a stable bed and substrate. Streamflow also includes interflow, which is shallow subsurface flow from shallow aquifers from precipitation that infiltrates into the soil surface and travels by means of gravity toward a stream. Interflow is often a substantial component of base flows in low- precipitation periods. On both the watershed and reach level, native vegetation influences the patterns by which precipitation reaches surface water. Vegetation cover affects the rate of runoff, infiltration, and the resistance of soils to erosion from a variety of sources. Each of these factors has an impact on stream morphology and stability. Native vegetation is adapted to regional weather, geologic and soil conditions, as well as habitat use by a variety of species; therefore, it will function as a complete system. Sources of human disturbances to hydrology take the following forms: Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase runoff as compared to native forests. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways, and parking areas tend to produce much higher peak runoff and much lower base flows and result in higher erosion and sedimentation rates that affect substrate, resulting in lower levels of infiltration and loss of low temperature interflows. • Reduction in wetlands can decrease storage, resulting in larger peak flows and less base flow into the system. 3.1.2.2 Water Quality Water quality is affected by temperature, nutrient sources, and chemical pollutants. At the watershed level in natural systems, streams serve as transport pathways for nutrients in both directions. They accumulate nutrients from groundwater and terrestrial sources and transport them downstream, during which time numerous chemical and biological interactions repeatedly cycle the nutrients between organic and inorganic forms. Nutrient levels in natural environments are finely balanced and produce complex interactions with habitat for a variety of species. Natural systems tend to produce high quality water with moderate levels of nutrients and few or no toxins. Water quality is maintained by a range of processes: 3 -4 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Tree cover helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate near the shore. Riparian vegetation adjacent to lakes and streams reduces nutrients and pollutants through a variety of processes that intercept, filter, or biochemically immobilize substances. • Wetlands have a variety of beneficial impacts on the nutrients and pollutants: • Pollutants in the form of particulates are retained in a wetland with greater detention time. • Plants enhance sedimentation by acting like a filter and causing sediment particles to drop to the wetland surface. • Wetlands uptake dissolved phosphorus and toxic compounds through adsorption to soil particles. • Removal of nitrogen from the aquatic system (denitrification) is done by bacteria that live in the absence of oxygen. The same mechanisms as outlined above for wetlands are present within the SMP jurisdiction. Sources of human disturbance take the following forms: • Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase nutrients from fertilizers, pollutants, and toxins through herbicides and pesticides. • Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways, and parking areas tend to produce hydrocarbon pollutants and heavy metals. • Loss of tree cover tends to reduce shade and increase water temperature as well as reducing or eliminating positive water —quality contributions. • Loss or alteration of wetlands reduces functions or eliminates positive water —quality contributions. 3.1.2.3 Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat is addressed in terms of channel dynamics and stream structure, which includes substrate and pool structure, as well as factors such as adjacent upland vegetation and woody debris. At the watershed level, upstream changes in hydrology increase erosion and result in sedimentation that changes the substrate structure of the nearshore. This is largely related to the proportion of native vegetation in a watershed and the amount of impervious surface. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas such as deltas alter the substrate supply. Structures also may interrupt the longitudinal flow of sediment. At the reach level, the stream bottom substratum is critical habitat for a variety of species including food web species such as benthic macroinvertebrates. Substrate is critical for spawning for a variety of fish including salmon. Egg incubation and embryo development is affected by substrate quality. Large woody debris (LWD) performs several critical functions in forested lowland streams, including dissipation of flow energy, protection of streambanks, stabilization of streambeds, storage of sediment, and providing instream cover and habitat diversity. Many fish species, including salmon, rear primarily in pools with high habitat complexity and abundant cover. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -5 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Riparian vegetation helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate over the stream. Organic matter is important to the ecosystem in the form of leaves, branches, and terrestrial insects and is an important element of the food chain in streams and nearshore habitat in lakes. Many species, including some species of salmon, rely heavily on small lowland streams and associated off —channel wetland areas during their rearing phase. Sources of human disturbance to aquatic habitat take the following forms: Stream channel morphology can be affected by shifts in the hydrologic regime due to increases in impervious surfaces, which change the amount and patterns of runoff and streamflow. Higher flows generally lead to changes in channel character, higher stream erosion rates, increases in sedimentation, and disconnections from the floodplain with resulting loss of flood storage. In general, these changes compound each other in an urban environment. • Streambed quality can be degraded by scour and erosion deposition of fine sediment, as well as streambed instability due to high flows. A higher proportion of fine sediment can lead to conditions in which spawning and egg incubation is reduced or precluded and production of macroinvertebrates is reduced. • Changes in sediment recruitment and transport can be affected by dams and stream armoring that limit the sources of substrate and lead to downstream alteration of substrate structure. • LWD in streams and resulting functions are reduced by clearing for agriculture or urban development. Absent or immature forests lack the potential for mature trees to fall and provide woody vegetation. Channel clearing and channelization removes LWD that may be present. • In —water structures such as dams may block or retard (through increased velocity) the movement of fish and other species along a stream. Docks and other in —water facilities contribute to providing habitat for some predators, particularly bass. These structures may also cause avoidance behavior in juvenile salmonids forcing them into environments where food and shelter are less available and where predation is increased. 3.1.2.4 Terrestrial Habitat Terrestrial habitat is affected by riparian vegetation, connectivity, and special habitat features such as wetlands, as discussed for lakes above. Streams, however, are much more prevalent in the landscape and provide corridors for movement of a variety of species and connect to a wider diversity of habitat types. Sources of human disturbance include the same elements as outlined above for lakes. 3.1.3 Marine Environment 3.1.3.1 Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Freshwater inputs are most important in estuaries where water input and mixing create strong gradients in physical —chemical characteristics, biological activity and diversity, and the 3 -6 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton potential for major adverse impacts associated with human activities. Sources include streams estuaries, as well as seepage zones in bluffs or banks. Tidal flows move water, sediments, organisms , nutrients, and organic matter between the seaward limit of low tides and the landward limit of high tides. Tidal flows contribute to habitat formation, nutrient cycling, organic matter export, dispersal of organisms, species support (e.g., maintenance of salinity gradients) and connectivity. Local tidal flows are influenced by the regional tidal regime, local topography, and connectivity between marine /nearshore waters and shoreline or inland habitats. Sources of human disturbance take the following forms: • Changes in stream —flow regime from dams, diversions, and withdrawals. • Increased impervious surfaces alter the magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration of freshwater inputs. • Encroachment into the estuary or delta from road crossings and culverts at river mouths, as well as filling of floodplains and estuarine wetlands. • Armoring or fill in nearshore that cuts off movement of groundwater into beach sediments. • Elimination of wetlands adjacent to marine shorelines that reduces storage and inputs of freshwater. • Tidal flows reduced by barriers such as tide gates, fill, culverts, or road crossings. 3.1.3.2 Light Energy or Solar Incidence Light entering both freshwater and marine nearshore environments is a key factor controlling biological processes such as primary production, the growth of plants, reproductive cycles of aquatic animals, migratory movements, and predator —prey interactions. Shallow bays and inlets, estuaries, lagoons, and marshes have high productivity due to availability of light, as well as other factors. Eelgrass beds form narrow corridors where light penetration meets its specific needs. Light penetration can vary from site to site depending on many factors including turbidity, the abundance of algae and other factors. In Puget Sound eelgrass beds can be as shallow as 2.5 feet below the low tide line to greater than 30 feet deep. About half of the areas sampled in a recent monitoring program had eelgrass extending to depths greater than 10 feet below the low tide line. Kelp forest distribution is limited to areas with light penetration to the bottom, as well as appropriate substrates, and moderate wave /current energy. Algal production on the surface of tide flats is an important source of food for prey items of salmonids and other fish. Light levels affect water temperatures that, in turn, directly affect the growth and productivity of aquatic plants and the degree of desiccation and heat stress in upper beach areas, which are important habitats for forage fish spawning. Foraging success of juvenile fish (or their predators) depends on adequate light levels for locating and capturing prey. Sources of human disturbance take the following forms: • Decrease in daytime light levels due to artificial shading from docks and other in— water structures. • Increase in daytime light levels and heat /desiccation stress due to loss of natural shade from removal of riparian vegetation. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -7 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton • Increase in nighttime light levels due to artificial lighting from buildings, docks, marinas, or roadways that affect a variety of movement patterns and predatory relationships. 3.1.3.3 Sediment and Substrate Structure Sediment is a key structural constituent of many marine environments including: • Beaches that provide energy dissipation, forage fish spawning, habitat formation, shellfish support, waterfowl foraging, eelgrass habitat, and juvenile salmon rearing and migration. • Sand and mud flats that typically occur at mouths of rivers and streams where relatively large supplies of sediment are deposited. • Salt marshes and brackish marshes that occur in areas with tidal inundation typically at elevations at and above the mean higher high water mark. Process intensive areas for sediment supply include coastal bluffs and streams; for transport include streams and beaches in transport zones; for deposition include estuaries (tidal and distributary channels), barrier beaches, and stream deltas. Coastal bluffs are the primary source of beach sediments in Puget Sound; however, many marine environments in Bremerton are primarily supplied by streams. Sources of human disturbance take the following forms: • Changes in stream —flow regime (including runoff from impervious surfaces) which increases instream erosion and the fine sediment component of beaches, estuaries, and other depositional features. • Armoring of feeder bluffs that may remove sediment sources. • Nearshore structures such as jetties, groins, docks, dikes, and roads that limit the longitudinal movement of sediment. 3.1.3.4 Carbon Cycling and Water Quality Nearshore and marine waters receive inputs of nutrients and organic matter (carbon) from adjacent uplands, streams, rivers, and groundwater seeps and from nearshore bottom sediments and deeper ocean waters via estuarine circulation and mixing. Organic matter import and export provide the basis for detrital food webs, which are important elements of both freshwater and marine food webs. Detrital food webs support many of the prey items salmonids rely on. Process intensive areas include land uses and land cover adjacent to surface waters discharging to marine shorelines. Sources of human disturbance include a variety of uses that discharge materials into water including: • Agricultural land uses — dairy, pasture, feed lots, and manure sources; • Impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff from roads and residential lawns; • Wildlife and domestic animal concentrations; • Failing septic systems; 3 -8 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton • Contaminated sediments; and • Point discharges of toxins. Local features especially sensitive to inputs include numerous shallow, enclosed bays with low flushing rates and high shoreline to volume ratios. Elimination of wetlands in tributary streams and adjacent to marine shorelines removes a natural feature that tends to reduce nutrients, pathogens, and toxins. Removal of vegetation cover also eliminates natural processes that attenuate discharge of nutrients, pathogens, and toxins. 3.1.3.5 Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat All of the processes previously discussed contribute to the presence and quality of aquatic and terrestrial habitat including: • Estuaries, • Barrier lagoons and marshes, • Brackish marshes, • Open coastal inlets, • Eelgrass beds, • Kelp forests, • Beaches, • Upland wetlands, and • Adjacent marine riparian vegetation. The presence of these features indicates high quality marine habitat. Terrestrial habitat is affected by riparian vegetation, connectivity, and special habitat features such as wetlands, as discussed for lakes and streams above. 3.2 EFFECTS OF CURRENT LOCAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS 3.2.1 Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Areas The City has designated urban growth areas in cooperative planning efforts with Kitsap County. The Growth Management Act encourages growth within urban growth areas and discourages growth outside them. The Urban Growth Boundary divides urban areas with land that must remain rural. The policies for establishing urban growth boundaries include: • The need to ensure logical service boundaries; • The need to avoid isolated pockets of underserved urban development or abnormally irregular city boundaries; and • Consideration of land needs for residential, commercial, and industrial uses within urban areas. 3.2.2 Zoning BMC zoning regulations primarily address economic goals and compatibility with other human uses through a variety of mechanisms including: DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -9 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton • Specifying zoning categories with a specific range of allowed uses; • Establishing density regulations, generally minimum lot sizes; • Providing for development standards for specific features of development, including • Setbacks, • Open space, • Landscaping, • Parking, and • Stormwater. Zoning affects the intensity of urban uses and provides the context for many of the changes in functions of streams and shorelines, but generally does not address shoreline issues directly (except in provisions relating to the SMP). 3.2.3 Critical Areas The City has adopted critical area regulations that affect lands outside of the SMA jurisdiction and which address: • Geologically hazardous areas, • Frequently flooded areas, • Critical aquifer recharge areas, • Wetlands, and • Habitat conservation areas, including streams, lakes, and areas associated with priority species. Provisions in the regulations generally: • Provide for the prohibition of alteration in those critical areas with ecological importance such as wetlands, streams, lakes, marine shorelines, and wildlife habitat areas; • Restrict the range of allowed uses; and • Provide for buffers to either protect human health and safety (in the case of geological hazards) or preserve ecological functions. 3.2.4 Stormwater The City has approved use of the latest edition of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as the guiding criteria for the planning, design, and construction of stormwater facilities in Bremerton. This Stormwater Manual governs both public and private development projects within the city. To apply surface water design standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) minimum requirements, all new development regardless of size may be subject to stormwater requirements issued by the City. Site regulation under surface water design includes creation or replacement of impervious surfaces, flow control, and water quality. New developments that create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface trigger a drainage review including off —site analyses, erosion and runoff control, and 3 -10 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton conveyance system design. Runoff treatment for pollution — generating impervious surfaces greater than 5,000 square feet includes biofiltration designed for the 2 —year storm or an oversized wetpond if the project constructs more than 1 acre of pollution — generating impervious surface. The Peak Rate Flow Standard detains runoff from a developed site based on single —event hydrologic modeling. NPDES standards require continuous hydrologic modeling to match flow durations between the 2 —year flow and the 50 —year flow. To comply, the City requires projects generating more than 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of stormwater flow to apply duration —based standards for detention facilities. Duration standards seek to avoid potential disruption to the downstream channels by choosing a "threshold discharge," below which sediment transport in the receiving channel is presumed not to occur and so post—development flow durations can be increased without concern. This choice can be made by site — specific, but rather expensive, analysis based on stream hydraulics and sediment size or can be applied as a "generic" standard based on pre — development discharges. An additional issue that remains with a duration standard is the threshold discharge below which there are "no effects" of flow—duration increase. Problems with structural approaches to stormwater management include: Point discharge The consequences of converting a natural condition of dispersed overland flow into numerous headwaters into a point discharge at a surface —water outfall can result in locally severe erosion and disruption of riparian vegetation and instream habitat (Booth 1990). Groundwater Flow duration control will not address changes to groundwater recharge or discharge, because no constructed detention ponds, even the largest designed under this standard, can delay winter rainfall sufficiently for it to become a summer discharge. Individual storm hydrographs There is no attempt (or ability) to construct detention ponds that match durations for specific storm events or even an entire storm season. Thus, the aggregate flow—duration spectrum may be unchanged, but the timing and brevity of any single storm hydrograph may be quite different from the undisturbed condition (Booth 1997). 3.3 EFFECTS OF CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY PROGRAMS 3.3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The federal Clean Water Act requires states to set standards for the protection of water quality. The mandate of the federal Clean Water Act is administered by the state Department of Ecology in conjunction with state water quality laws. The program regulates activities that result in wastewater discharges to surface water from industrial facilities or municipal wastewater treatment plants, as well as non —point pollution. NPDES permits for stormwater discharges have two basic components. Stormwater discharge from construction sites are covered by a Statewide General Permit and require compliance for clearing sites of 5 or more acres. NPDES permit requirements for municipal stormwater systems are being phased in with the first phase affecting jurisdictions that serve populations of 100,000 or more. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -11 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 3.3.2 Section 404 Permit The federal Clean Water Act also regulates excavation and dredging in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Certain activities in Waters of the United States, including wetlands and streams, may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). This requirement is administered by the Corps in conjunction with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. As part of the program, Ecology is required to certify compliance with water quality standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 3.3.3 Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) addresses the protection and recovery of threatened and endangered listed species. The ESA is jointly administered by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Specific programs developed or under development in cooperation with the Corps include design standards for docks contained in the Corps' Regional Permit No. 3. This permit applies to Kitsap Lake and proposed restrictions on shoreline protection included in a Biological Opinion dated December 13, 2007 (NMFS 2007). Other programs with potential impacts on Bremerton include the NMFS Biological Opinions on flood control facilities (issued September 22, 2008) and certain pesticides (issued April 20, 2009). These programs will affect issuance of federal permits, most notably Section 404 Permits. 3.3.4 Washington State Department of Ecology Ecology has regulatory authority over a wide variety of programs that affect water quantity and quality in waters of the state. Some of these programs include: • Water pollution control (RCW 90.48), • Water pollution control facilities financing (RCW 70.146), • Underground petroleum storage tanks (RCW 70.148), • Hazardous materials (RCW 70.136), • Radioactive waste (RCW 70.99), • Hazardous waste management (RCW 70.105), • Hazardous waste fees (RCW 70.105A), • Hazardous waste cleanup, Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D), • Mixed radioactive and hazardous waste (RCW 70.105E), • Detergent phosphorus content (RCW 70.95L), • Water rights (RCW 90.03 -44), • Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58), • Dairy nutrient management (RCW 90.64), • Underground storage tanks (RCW 90.76), and • Watershed planning (RCW 90.82). Many of these programs are administered in coordination with other local regulatory entities to provide multiple benefits, including coordination with the SMA. 3 -12 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 3.3.5 Washington State Department of Agriculture Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has regulatory authority over programs that address the water quantity impacts of agricultural practices limited to: • The Dairy Nutrient Management Act of 1998 (RCW 90.64), and • The Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permit administered by Ecology. WSDA provides technical support to Ecology through inspection and technical expertise. The CAFO permit is a delegation of authority to Ecology by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the NPDES Program. Both of these programs are administered in coordination with Ecology and the local Conservation District. 3.3.6 Hydraulic Project Approval The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) regulates activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of the beds or banks of waters of the state, which may affect fish habitat. Projects in the shoreline jurisdiction requiring construction below the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound or streams in the city could require a Hydraulic Project Approval from WDFW. Projects creating new impervious surface that could substantially increase stormwater runoff to waters of the state may also require approval. 3.4 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS This section summarizes existing enhancement efforts by a variety of agencies including the East Kitsap Peninsula Salmon Habitat Restoration Lead Entity, the Puget Sound Parnership, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeWDFW, tribes and other agencies. 3.4.1 Salmon Recovery: East Kitsap Peninsula WRIA 15 The planning area for the East Kitsap Peninsula Salmon Habitat Restoration Strategy is the eastern portion of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 that drains toward central Puget Sound, with the exception of Vashon Island. This area includes the streams, nearshore and marine waters of the east side of the Kitsap Peninsula, the Key Peninsula, the Gig Harbor Peninsula, and Fox, McNeil, Anderson, and Bainbridge islands. The strategy is described in Chapter 6 of the Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan as follows: The mission of the East Kitsap Lead Entity is to ensure local salmon habitat is preserved and restored to support salmon populations and human communities. The goal of this strategy is to restore healthy self — sustaining wild populations of the salmon species native to the streams and shorelines of the Kitsap Peninsula. Four strategy objectives include: • Increase population levels; • Maintain geographically diverse populations; • Promote the preservation and restoration of healthy, functioning ecosystems; and • Increase public understanding and support for salmon recovery. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -13 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton This strategy addresses local habitat conditions and is therefore an integral part of the larger regional recovery effort. A complete list of near —term salmon recovery programs is available at: http:// www. sharedsalmonstrategy .org/RecoveryPlan.htm. 3.4.2 Puget Sound Partnership In response to the challenges facing Puget Sound, in 2007 the State Legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership to reverse Puget Sound's decline and restore it to health by 2020. This agency replaced the Puget Sound Action Team created in 1996 to protect and restore Puget Sound and its spectacular diversity of life now and for future generations. The Partnership has developed the following priorities in its Action Plan: Priority A: Protect the intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget Sound. Avoiding problems before they occur is the best and most cost— effective approach to ecosystem health. Priority B: Restore the ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget Sound. Protecting what we have left is not sufficient, and significant effort at an unprecedented scale is needed to undo past damage. Priority C: Prevent water pollution at its source. Many of our efforts have focused on cleaning up degraded waters and sediments, but insufficient resources have been devoted to stopping pollutants before they reach our rivers, beaches, and species. Priority D: Work together as a coordinated system to ensure that activities and funding are focused on the most urgent and important problems facing the region. Many of the programs and laws now used to regulate or support activities in Puget Sound were established on a piecemeal basis to address individual problems. Strategies that will help to address problems more effectively at an ecosystem scale include improved coordination of land use planning, water supply, ecosystem protection, transportation, and species recovery plans. The Action Agenda calls for the reform of environmental regulatory programs, as well as improvements to the capacity of local partners to implement actions and compliance efforts across Puget Sound. Priority E: Build an implementation, monitoring, and accountability management system. 3.4.3 Washington State Department of Natural Resources DNR manages state lands including forests, farms, commercial properties, and underwater lands under state ownership. Much of this land is dedicated to supporting trusts for specific public institutions such as schools and universities. DNR's aquatic lands are managed to provide access to the waters of the state rivers, lakes, streams, and Puget Sound. DNR also works to serve the continuation of navigation and commerce. Aquatic lands in Kitsap Lake include all lands beyond the inner harbor line. DNR issues leases for uses within harbor lands, including permits for docks and other overwater structures that extend beyond the Inner Harbor Line. 3 -14 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 3.4.4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW is a state leader in providing technical support services, as well as funding for salmon recovery efforts. A complete list of WDFW's activities is available at their website at hlt2://www.wdfw.wa.gov 3.4.5 Suquamish Tribe The Suquamish Fisheries Department implements programs to preserve, protect and enhance treaty reserved resources within the Tribal usual and accustomed grounds and stations for subsistence, cultural and commercial benefits for present and future generations of Suquamish Tribal Members. 3.4.6 U.S. Navy The U.S. Navy has undertaken numerous studies and participated in a variety of restoration efforts in water bodies in which past and present operations affect ecological resources. In Bremerton the Navy has participated in Sinclair and Dyes Inlet studies to identify and implement long -term, cost - effective strategies for protecting these water bodies. 3.4.7 Kitsap County Health District The Environmental Health Division: identifies and prioritizes cleanup of surface water (marine and fresh) including a Pollution Identification and Correction Program; review of appropriate on -site sewage system design and installation and stream, lake, and marine (shellfish) health monitoring and reports. 3.4.8 Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF) The PSRF implemented a project in Oyster Bay to augment the existing native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) population and habitat on state and privately owned tideland property. The project involved installing additional seasoned Pacific oyster shell to increase the footprint of the existing native oyster habitat area with the objective of increasing the abundance of the native oyster population. 3.5 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Effects of the proposed program are related to both specific bulk regulations and dimensional standards for buffers, setbacks, and other features, as well as performance standards for specific uses. Key performance standards are outlined below. No Net Loss Criteria The most stringent provision of the SMP is the no net loss criteria in SMP 20.16.630. This provision subjects all shoreline use, development, and redevelopment to a performance standard that all such activities prevent or mitigate adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. This provides a performance standard that must be met in addition to any restriction or permission of a use and in addition to performance standards for individual uses or for shoreline modification. Provisions for Non — Water — Dependent Uses: The SMA establishes a priority for water — dependent uses. Non — single— family uses that are not water dependent must, in effect, earn their way onto the shoreline by providing a net benefit to the public through ecological restoration and public access. The provisions that implement this requirement for commercial and industrial uses are found in SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4. Because most potential development within shoreline jurisdiction are expected to be non— water— dependent uses, it is likely that improvements in shoreline ecological functions will be DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -15 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton incorporated in most non — single — family projects. In most cases, this is likely to include on— site improvements such as provision or enhancement of buffers, but also may include off —site restoration in some cases. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards provide predictable elements that would be associated with specific shoreline environmental designation. The provisions that have the most impact on ecological functions include the provisions of SMP 20.16.610, which provide building setbacks and buffers. These provisions are reproduced in Table 3 -4. Table 3 -4. SMP Standards for Building Setbacks and Buffers These provisions, however, do not apply to water—dependent elements of a development, which necessarily must include elements at the land —water interface or on or over the water. These buffer areas primarily affect the following ecological functions on lakes, streams, and marine shorelines. Vegetation Conservation: These provisions are addressed in SMP 20.16.620 and generally serve to protect, conserve, and establish native vegetation near shorelines in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem —wide processes performed within riparian and nearshore areas, which include but are not limited to: • Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats; • Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species in the form of various insects and benthic macroinvertebrates; • Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures for salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota; • Protecting and increasing stability of banks and bluffs; • Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion; • Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures; • Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; 3 -16 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Minimum Building Designation Setback Buffer Width Standard Urban Conservancy 15 feet beyond bu ffer 1 175 feet Single Family and Multi — Family Residential Lot depth less than 125 feet 5 feet beyond buffer 20% of lot depth Lot depth 125 feet to 199 inches 10 feet beyond buffer 20% of lot depth Lot depth greater than 200 feet 30% of lot depth 15 feet beyond buffer (Maximum of 100 feet) Recreational 15 feet beyond buffer 100 feet Commercial /Industrial /Downtown 15 feet beyond buffer 50 feet Waterfront Isolated None None Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall apply. (1) Where buffersisetbacks for other critical areas are required, the most stringent buffer /setback shall be applied. (2) Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on Commercial or Recreational lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. 3 In no case shall a buffer be greater than 200 feet. These provisions, however, do not apply to water—dependent elements of a development, which necessarily must include elements at the land —water interface or on or over the water. These buffer areas primarily affect the following ecological functions on lakes, streams, and marine shorelines. Vegetation Conservation: These provisions are addressed in SMP 20.16.620 and generally serve to protect, conserve, and establish native vegetation near shorelines in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem —wide processes performed within riparian and nearshore areas, which include but are not limited to: • Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats; • Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species in the form of various insects and benthic macroinvertebrates; • Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures for salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota; • Protecting and increasing stability of banks and bluffs; • Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion; • Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures; • Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; 3 -16 DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton • Protecting and improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants; and • Providing habitat corridors parallel and perpendicular to the water body. These provisions are implemented when Vegetation Conservation Plans are required for new developments, or when existing developments undertake major alteration or expansion. Vegetation conservation provisions will have limited effect on existing single — family development, which is the predominant use in the shoreline and has highly variable conditions. In general, however, the higher density single — family areas have the least buffer and generally are characterized by lawn or ornamental vegetation that extends to or close to the edge of the water. Provisions in SMP 20.16.620(2) will provide a minimal buffer that will have positive influence on water quality by avoiding application of chemicals such as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides close to the water where overspray occurs. Such buffers also will have limited positive contribution by filtering and uptake of nutrients and toxins in overland runoff. The narrow buffer width and the lack of trees will not have a discernible effect on the microclimate, shading, temperature, and potential desiccation of freshwater or marine shorelines. Over time, however, these provisions and public education could lead to a substantial number of residential lots and other development incorporating buffers that will primarily reduce overland discharge of herbicides and pesticides from lawn areas. Shoreline Sediment Processes: The alteration of instream and marine recruitment processes, as well as sediment transport and deposition in streams or as marine nearshore substrate, will benefit by provisions in SMP 20.16.870 Shoreline Stabilization, 20.16.810 Clearing and Grading, 20.16.830 Dredging, and 20.16.850 Landfills —all of which encourage preservation of natural processes. In cases where natural processes have been altered, some replacement of hard armoring may occur on a case —by —case basis, which may improve some natural functions of recruitment and transport of sediment. This replacement is likely to occur, however, when existing hard armoring fails. In most cases where hard armoring is present in areas where softer solutions would be appropriate, the existing armoring will not be subject to failure and will persist. In areas where hard armoring fails because of natural processes, conditions are less likely to be conducive to softer solutions. In —water Structures: The adverse impacts from shading due to in —water structures are addressed by SMP 20.16.820 Docks, Piers, and In —water Structures; 20.16.750 Marinas and Boating Facilities; and 20.16.760 Recreational Development. These provisions contain specific performance standards that will reduce impacts from shading and fish — passage barriers. Existing in —water facilities will be gradually upgraded over time as they need to be replaced. 3.6 MATRIX SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The matrices in Tables 3 -1, 3 -2, and 3 -3 address lakes, streams, and the marine shoreline, respectively, and provide a more detailed assessment of potential cumulative effects of development. They also indicate the extent to which benefits of the proposed SMP and other programs would result in potential ecological changes. DRAFT February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 3 -17 Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Table 3 -1. Lakes — Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Plan Lake Environments Indicators Processes and Functions Hvdrolo Watershed Level: Peak Flows: The watershed size affects the structure and pattern of tributary discharge to the system. Larger systems with a greater geographical coverage tend to have tributaries that are affected differentially by precipitation patterns. The effect of single storm events on the system depends on the geographic extent of weather patterns. Natural lake systems experience high water levels in the winter and low water levels in the summer. Groundwater /Interflow: Water input includes interflow (shallow subsurface flow from shallow aquifers from precipitation that infiltrates into the soil surface and travels by means of gravity toward a lake or tributary stream). Interflow is often a substantial component of base flows in low— precipitation periods. Reach Level: Native vegetation influences the patterns by which precipitation reaches surface water. Vegetation cover affects the rate of runoff, infiltration, and the resistance of soils to erosion from a variety of sources. Each of these factors has an impact on stream morphology and stability. Native vegetation is adapted to regional weather, geologic, and soil conditions, as well as use as habitat by a variety of species and therefore will function as a complete system. Sources of human disturbance include: Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase runoff as compared to native forests. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways and parking areas tend to produce much higher peak runoff and much lower base flows and result in lower levels of infiltration and loss of low temperature interflows. Reduction in wetlands can decrease storage resulting in larger peak flows and less base flow into the lake system. Water Qualit Watershed Level: In natural systems, water quality is maintained by a range of processes Tree cover helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate near the shore. Riparian vegetation adjacent to lakes and streams reduces nutrients and pollutants through a variety of processes that intercept, filter or biochemically immobilize substances. Wetlands have a variety of beneficial impacts on the nutrients and pollutants: • Pollutants in the form of particulates are retained in a wetland with greater detention time. • Plants enhance sedimentation by acting like a filter and causing sediment particles to drop to the wetland surface. • Wetlands uptake dissolved phosphorus and toxic compounds through adsorption to soil particles. • Removal of nitrogen from the aquatic system (denitrification) is done by bacteria that live in the absence of oxygen. Reach Level: The same mechanisms as outlined above for wetlands are present within SMP jurisdiction. Riparian vegetation reduces nutrients and pollutants through a variety of processes. Wetlands on or near lakes have similar beneficial impacts on the nutrients and pollutants as on a watershed level. Sources of human disturbance include: Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase nutrients from fertilizers and pollutants and toxins throuah Aquatic Habitat /Substrate Watershed Level: Upstream changes in hydrology that increase erosion and result in sedimentation that changes the substrate structure of the nearshore. This is largely related to the proportion of native vegetation in a watershed and the amount of impervious surface. Forest cover tends to control rates of runoff that otherwise lead to excessive erosion and sedimentation. Natural systems tend to produce high quality water with moderate levels of nutrients and few or no toxins. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas such as deltas changes substrate supply. Structures may interrupt the longitudinal flow of sediment. Reach Level: A wide variety of species depend on lake nearshore habitat for important life cycle functions. The nearshore is an especially productive area for a variety of insect and larvae food sources. A variety of species depend on specific nearshore substrate structure for spawning. Juvenile salmonids, particularly Chinook, rely on nearshore habitat during a critical rearing phase. Chinook use gently sloping, shallow shorelines for weeks to months. Sources of human disturbance include: Changes in sediment tend to alter the substrate structure of the nearshore and make it less suitable for spawning, larvae production and a variety of habitat characteristics important to a range of species. Bulkheads may reflect wave action and create a high energy environment in the nearshore that mobilize fine sediments leaving the nearshore largely a gravel and cobble substrate unsuitable to many species and particularly inhospitable to juvenile Chinook. Lake Environments Indicators Effects of Programs Hvdrolo Watershed Level: Peak Flows: City and Kitsap County land use regulations primarily affect watershed vegetation and impervious surface and runoff patterns through zoning, and density regulations. The extent of large lot forest or rural zoning in a watershed is the primary factor that preserves native vegetation and natural hydrology. City and county Critical Areas (CA) regulations for wetlands, and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas (FWCA) preserve some land through buffers, but do not affect enough land area to affect the runoff patterns resulting from removal of native forests. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on peak runoff for new development, but the majority of existing impervious surface is not affected. Groundwater / Interflow: City and Kitsap County land use regulations affecting watershed vegetation and impervious surface are the primary factors affecting infiltration to the shallow aquifer and from there into tributary streams or directly into lakes. The extent of large lot forest or rural zoning in watersheds affects the scale of interflow. City and county stormwater regulations provide some incentives for infiltration, but do not affect the majority of largely developed land uses in watersheds. Reach Level: Native vegetation preservation on new lots and development is addressed in SMP 20.16.610 — Buffers and Setbacks, 20.16.620 — Vegetation Conservation, 20.16.650 — Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non —Point Pollution but has limited influence on the majority of lake shoreline which is already developed. Provisions for vegetation conservation for expansion or alteration of single — family development in 20.16.620(2) will provide a minimal buffer but will not have a discernible effect on hydrology. In cases where interflow is limited by hard shoreline armoring, provisions encouraging softer solution to shoreline stabilization are provided in SMP 20.16.870. Where shorelines are currently armored, 20.16.870.b.2 may result in improvements. Water Qualit contributions. Watershed Level: City and Kitsap County land use regulations affect lake water quality on a watershed level primarily through preservation of native forests on tributary stream watersheds. The effect on water quality is roughly proportional to the extent of large lot forest or rural zoning in a watershed. City and County CA regulations for wetlands, and FWCA preserve beneficial water quality functions of wetlands and buffers. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on water quality runoff for new development, but existing development, which is the majority of affected watersheds, is little affected. Reach Level: Native vegetation preservation on new lots and development is addressed in SM P 20.16.610 — Buffers and Setbacks, 20.16.620 — Vegetation Conservation. Provisions for vegetation conservation for expansion or alteration of single — family development in 20.16.620(2) will provide a minimal buffer, which will have a substantial effect on overland discharge of herbicides and pesticides from lawn. In the short term, these provisions will affect few lots. Over time, these provisions and public education could lead to a substantial number of residential lots and other development incorporating buffers that will reduce overland discharge of herbicides and pesticides from lawns. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and improvements to water quality through buffers and other measures by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Such improvements on the reach level are likely to affect little shoreline in the short term but may Aquatic Habitat /Substrate Watershed Level: Upstream changes in hydrology that increase erosion and result in sedimentation that changes the substrate structure of the nearshore are addressed by city and county land use regulations that affect vegetation preservation and impervious surface. The scale of the effect is related to the extent of large lot forest or rural zoning that protects forests. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on peak flows for new development, but existing development, which is the majority of affected watersheds, is little affected. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas are addressed by city and county CA regulations Reach Level: Nearshore substrate will be benefitted by provisions limiting hard armoring in SMP 20.16.870 — Shoreline Stabilization. Application to existing single — family development of 20.16.870.b.2 may result in minor improvements to current hard armoring in conjunction with 20.16.620(2), which provides a minimal vegetation buffer. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and improvements to water quality through buffers and other measures by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Such improvements on the reach level are likely to affect little shoreline in the short term but may cumulatively have a substantial beneficial effect through application of regulations and public education. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Lake Environments Indicators Hydrology non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Kitsap Lake Lake Kitsap (LK) 1 South side of lake to 1976 Price Road Lake Kitsap Park Shoreline SED: Shoreline Recreation Developed portion of park Lake Kitsap (LK) 2 Easterly portion of Lake Kitsap Park — Wetlands Proposed SED: Urban Conservancy Lake Kitsap (LK) 3 Platted Lake Kitsap Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lake Kitsap (LK) 4 1012 Kitsap Lake Road Navy — Camp McKean Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation Such improvements to hydrology on the reach level are likely to be minor compared to watershed level processes. Little change in the developed portion of the park is expected. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in preserved open space wetland area is expected. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change hydrologic conditions of surface water or groundwater interflow. No change in ecological functions. Little change in the developed portion of the park is expected. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Water Quality If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation to water quality and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in preserved open space wetland area is expected. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers, which may reduce nutrients and toxic discharge from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides with water quality benefits. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Aquatic Habitat /Substrate If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation to aquatic habitat /substrate and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in preserved open space wetland area is expected. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single— Little family development in shoreline is likely. famil A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer A fey solutions. provl Not likely to change sediment or substrate food substantially. If do No change or positive change in ecological pene functions. Not I solar No c funci If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological fi i nr.tin nc If Sul likely resin appli SegL Func G re and and c u rrE Lake Environments Indicators Hydrology No change in ecological functions. Water Quality No change in ecological functions. Aquatic Habitat /Substrate No change in ecological functions. Aqu No c Union Reservoir Union River and Reservoir Little or no change is projected on the shoreline Little or no change is projected on the shoreline Little or no change is projected on the shoreline Proposed SED: or within the watershed of this element of the or within the watershed of this element of the or within the watershed of this element of the Urban Conservancy City's protected watershed. City's protected watershed. City's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. No change in ecological functions. No change in ecological functions. Little or wi C ity': No c Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Table 3 -2. Streams — Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Plan Stream Environments Hydrology Water Quality Aquatic Habitat /Stream Structure Aqu; Watershed Level: Peak Flows: The watershed size affects the structure and pattern of tributary discharge to the system. Larger systems with a greater geographical coverage tend to have tributaries that are affected differentially by precipitation patterns. The effect of single storm events on the system depends on the geographic extent of weather patterns. Natural stream systems generally reach equilibrium in geomorphic processes that result in a stable bed and substrate. Groundwater /Interflow: Streamflow also includes interflow (shallow subsurface flow from shallow aquifers from precipitation that infiltrates into the soil surface and travels by means of gravity toward a stream). Interflow is often a substantial component of base flows in low — precipitation periods. Reach Level: Native vegetation influences the patterns by which precipitation reaches surface water. Vegetation cover affects the rate of runoff, infiltration, and the resistance of soils to erosion from a variety of sources. Each of these factors has an impact on stream morphology and stability. Native vegetation is adapted to regional weather, geologic, and soil conditions, as well as use as habitat by a variety of species and therefore will function as a complete system. Sources of human disturbance include: Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase runoff as compared to native forests. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways and parking areas tend to produce much higher peak runoff and much lower base flows and result in higher erosion and sedimentation rates that affect substrate result in lower levels of infiltration and loss of low temperature interflows. Reduction in wetlands can decrease storage resulting in larger peak flows and less base flow into the system. Watershed Level: Streams serve as transport pathways for nutrients in both directions. They accumulate nutrients from groundwater and terrestrial sources and transport them downstream, during which time numerous chemical and biological interactions repeatedly cycle the nutrients between organic and inorganic forms. Nutrient balance in natural environments is finely balanced and produces complex interactions with habitat for a variety of species. Natural systems tend to produce high quality water with moderate levels of nutrients and few or no toxins. Tree cover helps maintain cool water temperatures through provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate near the shore. Wetlands have a variety of beneficial impacts on the nutrients and pollutants: • Pollutants in the form of particulates are retained in a wetland with greater detention time. • Plants entrain sedimentation by acting like a filter and causing sediment particles to drop to the wetland surface. • Wetlands uptake dissolved phosphorus and toxic compounds through adsorption to soil particles. • Removal of nitrogen from the aquatic system (denitrification) is done by bacteria that live in the absence of oxygen. Reach Level: The same mechanisms as outlined above are present within SM P jurisdiction. Sources of human disturbance include: Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can substantially increase nutrients from fertilizers and pollutants and toxins through herbicides and pesticides. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways and parking areas tend to produce hydrocarbon pollutants and heavy metals. Watershed Level: Upstream changes in hydrology that increase erosion and result in sedimentation that alters the substrate structure is largely related to the proportion of native vegetation in a watershed and the amount of impervious surface. Forest cover tends to control rates of runoff that otherwise lead to excessive erosion and sedimentation. Natural systems tend to produce high quality water with moderate levels of nutrients and few or no toxins. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas such as deltas changes substrate supply. Structures may interrupt the longitudinal flow of sediment. Reach Level: The stream bottom substratum is critical habitat for a variety of species including food web species such as benthic macroinvertebrates. Substrate is critical for spawning for a variety of fish including salmon. Egg incubation and embryo development, is affected by substrate quality. LWD performs several critical functions in forested lowland streams, including dissipation of flow energy, protection of streambanks, stabilization of streambeds, storage of sediment, and providing in— stream cover and habitat diversity. Many fish species including salmon rear primarily in pools with high habitat complexity, with abundant cover. Many species, including some species of salmon rely heavily on small lowland streams and associated off — channel wetland areas during their rearing phase. Sources of human disturbance include: Stream channel morphology can be affected by shifts in the hydrologic regime due to increases in impervious surfaces, which changes the amount and patterns of runoff and streamflow. Higher flows generally lead to changes in channel character, higher stream erosion rates, increases in sedimentation, and disconnections from the floodplain with resulting loss of flood storage. In general, these changes compound Stream Environments Effects of Programs Hydrology Watershed Level: Peak Flows: City and Kitsap County land use regulations primarily affect watershed vegetation and impervious surface and runoff patterns through zoning, and density regulations. The extent of large lot forest or rural zoning in a watershed is the primary factor that preserves native vegetation and preserved natural hydrology. City and county CA regulations for wetlands, and FWCA preserve some land through buffers, but do not affect enough land area to affect the runoff patterns resulting from removal of native forests. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on peak runoff for new development, but the majority of existing impervious surface is not affected Groundwater / Interflow: City and Kitsap County land use regulations affecting watershed vegetation and impervious surface are the primary factors affecting infiltration to the shallow aquifer and from there into streams. The extent of large lot forest or rural zoning in watersheds affects the scale of interflow. City and county stormwater regulations provide some incentives for infiltration, but do not affect the majority of largely developed land uses in watersheds. Reach Level: Native vegetation preservation on new lots and development is addressed in SMP 20.16.610 — Buffers and Setbacks, 20.16.620 — Vegetation Conservation, 20.16.650 — Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non —Point Pollution. These provisions have the most effect on undeveloped land. Provisions for vegetation conservation for expansion or alteration of single — family development in 20.16.620(2) will Water Quality Watershed Level: City and Kitsap County land use regulations affect stream water quality on a watershed level primarily through preservation of native forests. The effect on water quality is roughly proportional to the extent of large lot forest or rural zoning in a watershed. City and CA regulations for wetlands and FWCA preserve beneficial water quality functions of wetlands and streams and their buffers. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on water quality runoff for new development, but existing development which is the majority of affected watersheds is little affected. Programs such as the Dairy Nutrient Management Act and the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permit address point pollution. These pollution sources, however, are not a major contributor to watersheds in Bremerton. Reach Level: Native vegetation preservation on new lots and development is addressed in SM P 20.16.610 — Buffers and Setbacks. Provisions for vegetation conservation for expansion or alteration of single — family development in 20.16.620(2) will provide a minimal buffer, which will have a substantial effect on overland discharge of herbicides and pesticides from lawn. In the short term, these provisions will affect few lots. Over time, these provisions and public education could lead to a substantial number of residential lots and other development incorporating buffers that will reduce overland discharge of herbicides and pesticides from lawns. Aquatic Habitat /Stream Structure and stream armoring that limit the source of substrate and lead to downstream alteration of substrate structure. LWD in streams, and resulting functions are reduced by clearing for agriculture or urban development. Absent or immature forests lack the potential for mature trees to fall and provide woody vegetation. Channel clearing and channelization removes LWD that may be present. Watershed Level: Upstream changes in hydrology that increase erosion and result in sedimentation that changes the substrate structure of the nearshore are addressed by city and county land use regulations that affect vegetation preservation and impervious surface The scale of the effect is related to the extent of large lot forest or rural zoning that protects forests. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on peak flows for new development, but existing development which is the majority of affected watersheds is little affected. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas are addressed by city and county CA regulations Reach Level: Nearshore substrate will be benefitted by provisions limiting hard armoring in SMP 20.16.870 — Shoreline Stabilization. SMP 20.16.630. Application to existing single — family development of 20.16.870.b.2 may result in minor improvements to current hard armoring in conjunction with 20.16.620(2), which provides a minimal vegetation buffer and will likely result in improvements to water quality through filtering and nutrient uptake. Large woody debris is provided only by mature native forests. Any beneficial effects of new buffers will likely be limited and occur only in the more distant future. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation where buffers and mature vegetation are present and will likely result in improvements to buffers and other measures by Aqu; Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Stream Environments Gorst Creek Gorst Creek (GC) 1 Sinclair Inlet to SR 3 Proposed SED: Left Bank (north) Urban Conservancy Right Bank (south) Parallel Designation: Waterward of Building setback — Urban Conservancy, Landward of Building Setback — Shoreline Commercial Shoreline length 233 feet Number of commercial lots — 2 Commercial lot acres — 1.84 Undeveloped lots -1 (0.14 acres) Lots range in depth from 93 to 133 feet Building setbacks 15 to 25 feet Gorst Creek (GC) 2 SR 3 to Sam Christopherson Avenue Proposed SED: Shoreline Commercial Shoreline length 1,666 feet Number of commercial lots — 9 Commercial lot acres — 6.98 Number of residential lots -11 Residential lot acres -8.72 Lots range in depth from 130 to 400 feet Hydrology Water Quality Aquatic Habitat /Stream Structure redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Such improvements to hydrology on the reach level are likely to be minor compared to watershed level processes. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback assures buffers; however, little change to hydrology would occur. No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and inrluctrial uca which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Such improvements on the reach level are likely to affect a small area of the shoreline in the short term but may cumulatively have a substantial beneficial effect through application of regulations and public education. Improvements on the reach level will have a substantial effect in those cases where contributing watersheds are small compared to the area of the shoreline. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor enhancement by application of: SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water— dependent commercial and industrial use Greater setbacks of buildings and vegetated buffers may reduce nutrients and toxic discharge from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides with water quality benefits. New development will meet current stormwater standards for treatment. No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor enhancement by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and inrluctrial uca Such improvements on the reach level are likely to affect little shoreline in the short term but may cumulatively have a substantial beneficial effect through application of regulations and public education. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor enhancement by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5, and 20.16.740.b.4 which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback ensures buffers, and might result in softer shoreline stabilization and increased sediment recruitment and transport No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor enhancement by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and inrluctrial uca Stream Environments Gorst Creek (GC) 3 Sam Christopherson Avenue to W Belfair Valley Road Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential (Note — designated Residential in Bremerton UGA zoning map) Shoreline length 1 ,000 feet Number of residential lots 5 M H —real property lots 1 Lots range in depth from 100 to 550 feet Gorst Creek (GC) 4 W Belfair Valley Road to power line easement (hatchery in Otto Jarstad Park) Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation City park and fish hatchery Gorst Creek (GC) 5 Power line easement in Otto Jarstad Park to end of shoreline jurisdiction Proposed SED: Urban Conservancy City —owned Watershed Union River and Reservoir Hydrology This area is likely to change substantially in the future from a rural area to an urban residential neighborhood. Residential development standards in SMP 20.16.770 will likely result in development clustered away from the shoreline with required buffers. New development will meet current stormwater management requirements. Hydrologic inputs from surface water and interflow are likely to be preserved to some extent. No change in ecological functions. Little change in the developed portion of the park is expected. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little or no change is projected on the shoreline or within the watershed of this element of the city's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. Little or no change is projected on the shoreline or within the watershed of this element of the city's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. Water Quality Residential development meeting SMP standards is likely to preserve the existing extensive tree cover and preserve water temperature, water quality and nutrient cycling that maintains water quality. New development will meet current stormwater treatment requirements. No change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to water quality by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Greater vegetated buffers may reduce nutrients and toxic discharge from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides and upgrade of parking to meet current stormwater treatment requirements may result in -water quality benefits. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little or no change is projected on the shoreline or within the watershed of this element of the city's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. Little or no change is projected on the shoreline or within the watershed of this element of the city's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. Aquatic Habitat /Stream Structure Residential development meeting SMP standards is likely to preserve the stream structure. No change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. The channelized stream reach in the park was previously replaced by a more functional naturalized channel and will be retained. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little or no change is projected on the shoreline or within the watershed of this element of the city's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. Little or no change is projected on the shoreline or within the watershed of this element of the city's protected watershed. No change in ecological functions. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Table 3 -3. Marine Shorelines — Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Management Marine Shorelines Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Freshwater inputs are most important in estuaries where water input and mixing create strong gradients in physical — chemical characteristics, biological activity and diversity, and the potential for major adverse impacts associated with human activities. Sources include streams and estuaries, as well as seepage zones in bluffs or banks. Tidal flows move water, sediments, organisms /propagules, nutrients, and organic matter between the seaward limit of low tides and the landward limit of high tides. Tidal flows contribute to habitat formation, nutrient cycling, organic matter export, dispersal of organisms, species support (e.g., maintenance of salinity gradients) and connectivity. Local tidal flows are influenced by the regional tidal regime, local topography, and connectivity between marine /nearshore waters and shoreline or inland habitats. Sources of human disturbance include: • Changes in stream —flow regime from dams, diversions, and withdrawals. • Increased impervious areas change the magnitudes, timing, frequency, and duration of freshwater inputs. • Encroachment into estuary /delta from road crossings /culverts at river mouths, filling of floodplains and estuarine wetlands. • Armoring or fill in nearshore that cuts off movement of groundwater into beach sediments. • Elimination of wetlands adjacent to marine shorelines that reduces storage and inputs of fresh water. Light Energy or Solar Incidence Light entering both freshwater and marine nearshore environments is a key factor controlling biological processes such as primary production, the growth of plants, reproductive cycles of aquatic animals, and migratory movements and predator —prey interactions. Shallow bays and inlets, estuaries, lagoons, and marshes have high productivity due to availability of light, as well as other factors. Eelgrass beds form narrow corridors where light penetration is limited by turbidity. Kelp forest distribution is limited to areas with light penetration to the bottom, as well as appropriate substrates, and moderate wave /current energy. Algal production on the surface of tide flats is an important source of food for prey items of salmonids and other fish. Light levels affect water temperatures that directly affect the growth and productivity of aquatic plants and the degree of desiccation and heat stress in upper beach areas which are important habitats for forage fish spawning. Foraging success of juvenile fish (or their predators) depends on adequate light levels for locating and capturing prey. Sources of human disturbance include: • Decrease in daytime light levels due to artificial shading from docks and other in —water structures. • Increase in daytime light levels and heat /desiccation stress due to loss of natural shade from removal of riparian vegetation. Sediment /Substrate Structure Sediment is a key structural constituent of many marine environments including: Beaches which provide energy dissipation, forage fish spawning, habitat formation, shellfish support, waterfowl foraging, eelgrass habitat, and juvenile salmon rearing and migration. • Sand and mud flats which typically occur at mouths of rivers and streams where relatively large supplies of sediment are deposited; salt marshes. • Brackish marshes that occur in areas with tidal inundation typically at elevations at and above MHHW. Process intensive areas for supply include coastal bluffs and streams; for transport include streams and beaches in transport zones; for deposition include estuaries (tidal and distributary channels), barrier beaches; stream deltas. Coastal bluffs are the primary source of beach sediments in the Puget Sound; however, many marine environments in Bremerton are primarily supplied by streams. Sources of human disturbance include: • Changes in stream —flow regime impervious surfaces, which increase instream erosion Loca and increase the fine sediment component inclu of beaches, estuaries and other low f depositional features. ratio: • Armoring of feeder bluffs which may remove sediment sources. • Nearshore structures such as jetties, groins, docks, dikes, and roads that limit the longitudinal movement of sediment. Eliml adja� natu path cove atte r toxin • Tidal flows may be reduced by • Increase in nighttime light levels due to barriers such as tide gates, fill, culverts artificial lighting from buildings, docks, or road crossings marinas, or roadways. Marine Shorelines Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows preserves native vegetation and preserved natural hydrology. City and county CA regulations for wetlands, and FWCA preserve some land through buffers, but do not affect enough land area to affect the runoff patterns resulting from removal of native forests. City and county stormwater regulations have a substantial effect on peak runoff for new development, but the majority of existing impervious surface is not affected. Forest cover also affects the scale at which upland watersheds are recharged and allow interflow into tributary streams or directly to marine environments. City and county stormwater regulations provide some incentives for infiltration, but do not affect the majority of largely developed land uses in watersheds. Reach Level: Some influence on freshwater inputs are provided by native vegetation preservation on new lots and development is addressed in SMP 20.16.610 — Buffers and Setbacks, 20.16.620 —Vegetation Conservation, 20.16.650 —Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non —Point Pollution. These provisions have the most effect on undeveloped land. Provisions for vegetation conservation for expansion or alteration of single — family development in 20.16.620(2) will provide a minimal buffer but will not have a discernible effect on freshwater inputs. Alteration of tidal processes is limited by provisions in SMP 20.16.810 Clearing and Grading, 20.16.820 Docks, Piers, and In— water Structures, 20.16.830 Dredging, 20.16.850 Landfills, and 20.16.870 — Shoreline Stabilization, all of which encourage preservation of natural processes. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of: n n n M nn A /? nnn R A:1:_ _1:_.. r%_ _.._.� _..�. Light Energy or Solar Incidence 20.16.620(2) will provide a minimal buffer which will have a limited effect on shading Adverse impacts of shading due to in —water structures is addressed by SMP 20.16.820 Docks, Piers, and In —water Structures, 20.16.750 Marinas and Boating Facilities, and 20.16.760 Recreational Development, which contain specific performance standards that will reduce impacts. Existing in —water facilities will be gradually upgraded over time as they need to be replaced. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in improvements to water quality through buffers and other measures by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function • SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Such improvements on the reach level are likely to have limited beneficial effect in the short term but may cumulatively have a substantial beneficial effect through application of regulations and public education. Sediment /Substrate Structure forests. Interruption of natural sediment sources from dams or dredging of depositional areas are addressed by city and county CA regulations Reach Level: Nearshore substrate will be benefitted by provisions limiting hard armoring in SMP 20.16.870 — Shoreline Stabilization. SMP 20.16.630. Application to existing single — family development of 20.16.870.b.2 may result in minor improvements to current hard armoring in conjunction with 20.16.620(2), which provides a minimal vegetation buffer. Adverse impacts of structures is addressed by SMP 20.16.820 Docks, Piers, and In —water Structures, which substantially limits jetties, weirs and groins. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in improvements by application of: SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use Such improvements on the reach level are likely to affect limited areas of degraded shoreline in the short term but may cumulatively have a substantial beneficial effect through application of regulations and public education. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines Proposed SED: Parallel Designations Urban Conservancy waterward of Boone Road Shoreline Commercial landward Includes Puget Sound Naval Complex, Naval Hospital Bremerton Medium bank Vegetation buffer between OHWM and Boone Drive Ostrich Bay (OstB) 2 South limit of Hospital to Myers Place Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation Includes Puget Sound Naval Complex, Park Medium bank Vegetation along shore is partially altered for shoreline access Ostrich Bay (OstB) 3 Myers Place to boundary of NAD Marine Park Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Medium bank Vegetation buffer between OHWM and Shore Drive One Naval dock in reach Ostrich Bay (OstB) 4 NAD Marine Park South boundary of Puget Sound Naval Complex to but not including 4126 Wakefield Loop Proposed SED: Urban Conservancy Shoreline linear feet 1 ,250 Park Shoreline is generally unaltered Ostrich Bay (OstB) 5 4126 Wakefield Loop to 2151 Madrona Pt Drive (Tip of Madrona Point) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 112 to 540 feet Building setbacks 0 to 50 feet Shoreline modifications mixed 25 -65% and 76 -100% 14 in —water structures Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate — extensive In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp, eelgrass Oyster Bay (OyB) 1 Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows as part of the CZM plan. Any major changes would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan. Any major changes would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan. Any major changes would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of park is likely within shoreline. City park plans emphasize passive use. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Light Energy or Solar Incidence part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Sediment /Substrate Structure part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of park is likely within shoreline. City park plans emphasize passive use. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single— Little change in present character of single— Little change in present character of park is Little likely within shoreline. likely City park plans emphasize passive use. City No change in ecological functions. No c Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little famil A fey provl redu fertili quali No c funci Little change in present character of single— Little Marine Shorelines Intertidal area moderate — extensive In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp, eelgrass Oyster Bay (OyB) 2 From but not including 924 Lower Oyster Bay Drive to and including 4320 Kitsap Way (Flagship Inn Motel) Proposed SED: Shoreline Commercial Lots range in depth from 15 to 280 feet Building setbacks 11.5 to 40 feet Shoreline modifications 76 -100% 2 in —water structures Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: none Oyster Bay (OyB) 3 4310 Kitsap Way to and including 1705 Marine Drive Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 60 to 240 feet Building setbacks 25 to 75 feet Shoreline modifications mix of 25 -65% and 76 -100% 8 in —water structures Upland vegetation limited— moderate Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh Oyster Bay (OyB) 4 North of 1705 Marine Drive (but not including) to (but not including) 1901 Marine Drive Proposed SED: Parallel designation Urban Conservancy waterward of road Upland beyond road: Shoreline Residential Urban Residential Area waterward of road and water undeveloped 933 linear feet Shoreline modification 25 -65% No in —water structures Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Conservancy designations would retain existing shoreline functions. New residential development on the upland side of the road would have few shoreline impacts with stormwater and other development standards. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Light Energy or Solar Incidence functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to buffers and minor increase in shoreline shading by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. Aquatic conservancy designation limits new in —water structures. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Conservancy designations would retain existing shoreline functions. New residential development on the upland side of the road would not be likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change in ecological functions. Sediment /Substrate Structure Carb New development and substantial New redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or rede no degradation and minor enhancement by no d application of: appli • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for • No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, • which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. Greater setbacks of buildings might result in softer shoreline stabilization and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Conservancy designations would retain existing shoreline functions. New residential development on the upland side of the road would not be likely to change sediment or substrate. No change in ecological functions. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh Oyster Bay (OyB) 6 3054 S Marine Drive 3042 Marine Drive (tip of Rocky Point) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 60 to 360 feet Building setbacks 10 to 100 feet Shoreline modification: mostly 76 -100 %, some 25 -65 %, small area in northern section 1 -24% 8 in —water structures Upland vegetation limited— moderate Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: eelgrass Mud Bay (MB) 1 3052 Marine Drive to 1910 Marine Drive (Bottom of Mud Bay) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 60 to 360 feet Building setbacks 33 to 233 feet Shoreline modifications: 25 -65% in northern section, most 1 -24 %, southern section none. 12 in —water structures Upland vegetation moderate Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp, eelgrass Mud Bay (MB) 2 4366 Kelley Drive to 1 385 NW Swiftshore Court (mouth of Mud Bay) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Existing: Semi —Rural (Kitsap County) Lots range in depth from 120 to 570 feet Building setbacks 50 to 185 feet Shoreline modifications: very limited 5 in —water structures Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp Ostrich Bay (OstB) 6 1385 NW Swiftshore Court to 3544 Mathews Drive NW (Tip of Rocky Point) Proposed SED: Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Light Energy or Solar Incidence Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. Aquatic Conservancy designation limits new in —water structures. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. Aquatic Conservancy designation limits new in —water structures. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. Aquatic Conservancy designation limits new in —water structures. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. Sediment /Substrate Structure functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers and retain existing shoreline or substitute bulkheads with softer solutions. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers and retain existing shoreline or substitute bulkheads with softer solutions. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers and retain existing shoreline or substitute bulkheads with softer solutions. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single— Little family development in shoreline is likely. famil A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer A fey solutions. provl Marine Shorelines Phinney Bay (PB) 1 3532 Mathews Drive NW to 2710 Yacht Haven Way Shoreline Residential Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Existing: Semi —Rural (Kitsap County) Lots range in depth from 240 to 1020 feet Building setbacks 0 to 233 feet Shoreline modifications: mixed -- mostly 76 -100 %, some areas with none 8 in —water structures Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp, sargassum, eelgrass Phinney Bay (PB) 2 2700 Yacht Haven Way (Bremerton Yacht Club) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Existing: Semi —Rural (Kitsap County) Shoreline linear feet 1000 Lots size 105,415 square feet, Lot depth 200 feet Building setbacks 0 feet Shoreline modifications: 76 -100% 157 slips, 2 additional in —water structures Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area west shore = extensive, east shore = limited In —water vegetation: marsh Phinney Bay (BP) 3 4105 NW Kennedy Drive to 3680 NW Phinney Bay Road (Include Shaw Island) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Existing: Semi —Rural (Kitsap County) Lot depth 60 to 540 feet Building setbacks 50 to 150 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 5 in —water structures Upland vegetation moderate — extensive Intertidal area north = extensive, south = moderate In —water vegetation: marsh, eelgrass Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of marina occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Light Energy or Solar Incidence Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Likely that SMP 20.16.820 Docks, Piers, and In —water Structures, 20.16.750 Marinas and Boating Facilities, and 20.16.760 Recreational Development would increase light penetration of existing and proposed facilities. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. Aquatic Conservancy designation limits new in —water structures. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Sediment /Substrate Structure Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers and retain existing shoreline or substitute bulkheads with softer solutions. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Phinney Bay (PB) 4 Little change in present character of single— Little change in present character of single— Little change in present character of single— Little 3432 NW Phinney Bay Road to NW 3317 family development in shoreline is likely. family development in shoreline is likely. family development in shoreline is likely. famil Phinney Bay Road A few lots may be subdividable and would A few lots may be subdividable and would A few lots may be subdividable and would Aquc, Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines Phinney Bay (PB) 5 3304 Phinney to 2715 N Lafayette Avenue Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 40 to 915 feet Building setbacks 25 to 150 feet Shoreline modification: west side =76- 100%, east side= 25 -65% and some lower 6 in —water structures Upland vegetation moderate Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp, eelgrass West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 1 2710 N Lafayette Avenue to 3200 19th Street (Lot 5, Block 4 Anderson Cove 1st Add) Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 40 to 915 feet Building setbacks 25 to 150 feet Shoreline modification: west side= 76- 100%, east side= 25 -65% and some lower 10 in —water structures Upland vegetation moderate Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: marsh, kelp, eelgrass West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 2 (Anderson Cove) 1900 Naval Avenue Port Washington Marina Proposed SED: Parallel Residential and Shoreline Recreation for marina Port Washington Marina Shoreline linear feet 600 Lots size 124,581.6 square feet, Lot ranges in depth from 112.5 to 37.5 feet Building setbacks 0 to 133 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% About 85 slips in —water structures Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: none West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 3 (Anderson Cove) 1805 Thompson Drive to High Avenue Proposed SED: Shoreline Industrial Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of marina occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of: Light Energy or Solar Incidence Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of marina occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Likely that SMP 20.16.820 Docks, Piers, and In —water Structures, 20.16.750 Marinas and Boating Facilities, and 20.16.760 Recreational Development would increase light penetration of existing and proposed facilities. It is unlikely that the upland multi — family development will change substantially No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to buffers and minor increase in shoreline shading by application Sediment /Substrate Structure Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of marina occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. It is unlikely that the upland multi — family development will change substantially No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial New redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or rede no degradation and minor enhancement by no d application of: enhe QRAD 00 19 9Q(1 hAi+inn+ inn Qnniicnrinn fnr Marine Shorelines Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Light Energy or Solar Incidence Sediment /Substrate Structure functions. West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 4 1731 High Avenue to Warren Avenue Bridge Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 80 to 330 feet Building setbacks 0 to 160 feet Shoreline modification: area with none, but mostly 25 -65% 1 in —water structure (not including Warren Ave Bridge) Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: kelp West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 5 Both sides Warren Bridge Roto —Vista Park Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation Roto —Vista Park West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 6 Warren Ave Bridge to 710 Park Drive Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential N umber of Lots 9 5.64 acres Lots range in depth from 60 to 690 feet Building setbacks 0 to 300 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 0 in —water structures (not including bridge) Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: kelp Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. This area of existing multi — family development has virtually no buffers and is heavily armored. It is unlikely that redevelopment will be proposed that loses existing non — conforming status. If new development or substantial redevelopment of sites occurs, it will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to buffers and minor increase in shoreline shading by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor enhancement by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for • No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, • which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use Greater setbacks of buildings might result in softer shoreline stabilization and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. G re b u ffe discr pesti No c funci Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines In —water vegetation: kelp West Port Washington Narrows WPWN) 8 Evergreen Park to Manette Bridge Proposed SED: Shoreline Multi—Family (upland zoning is Downtown Regional Center Subarea Zoning MR -1 Multi— Family Residential 1 ) Urban Commercial Lots range in depth from 100 to 180 feet Building setbacks 20 to 70 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 1 in —water structure (not including bridge) Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: kelp West Port Washington Narrows (WPWN) 9 Both sides of Manette Bridge Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation West Port Washington Narrows WPWN) 10 Manette Bridge to 608 Washington Avenue (6th Street) Proposed SED: Downtown Shoreline Multi— Family (upland zoning is Downtown Regional Center Subarea Zoning MR -1 Multi— Family Residential 1 ) Lots range in depth from 60 to 210 feet Building setbacks 0 to 114 feet Shoreline modification: 25 -65% 0 in —water structure (not including bridge) Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: kelp Sinclair Inlet (SI) 1 6th Street to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. It is likely that this area of mixed single —and multi — family development will be replaced by larger scale multi — family projects. It would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. The location on a high bank, however, would result in preservation of the bluffs and existing vegetation. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. It is likely that the few remaining developable lots will be replaced by larger Light Energy or Solar Incidence Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions. With replacement of this area of mixed single —and multi — family development by larger scale multi — family projects under the provisions of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. The location on a high bank, however, would result in preservation of the bluffs and existing vegetation. There would, however, likely be no change to light inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. With replacement of the few remaining developable lots by larger scale multi —use Sediment /Substrate Structure Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. With replacement of this area of mixed single — and multi — family development by larger scale multi — family projects under the provisions of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. With replacement of the few remaining developable lots by larger scale multi —use Marine Shorelines In —water vegetation: kelp Sinclair Inlet (S12) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Proposed SED: Shoreline Industrial Urban Industrial Parcel 397.47 acres 19,625 linear feet of shoreline (1 1 ,000 excluding docks) Shoreline modification: 100% Upland vegetation none Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: none Sinclair Inlet (SI) 3 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard boundary to, but not including 3958 SR 16 West Proposed SED: Parallel designations Waterward of Naval RR and SR 3, at point at which RR and SR 3 diverge, follows SR 3 — Urban Conservancy Upland of SR 3 — Shoreline Excluded Urban (Kitsap County) Shoreline linear feet 7,000 to 3015 SR 3, 11,500 to 3958 SIR 16 Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 0 in —water structures Upland vegetation (upland side) moderate Intertidal area limited most of the reach In —water vegetation: none identified Sinclair Inlet (SI) 4 3958 SR 16 West to 3650 SR 16 SW Proposed SED: Parallel designations Waterward of Building setback — Urban Conservancy, Landward of Building Setback — Commercial Urban (Kitsap County) Shoreline length 1 ,300 feet Num ber of commercial lots — 6 Commercial lot acres — 13.23 Lots range in depth from 35 to 300 feet Building setbacks 30 to 314 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 0 in —water structures Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan. Any major changes would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. The narrow shoreline area between SR 3 and the Navy RR and the shoreline is not likely to see development. Most of the area was subject to a previous restoration program and is protected. Any action in this area would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Impacts would be addressed and mitigated Upland of SR 3 future development is isolated from the shoreline by a major highway and railroad. Proximity impacts are unlikely. Development would meet applicable stormwater management requirements. No change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback ensures buffers; however, little change to freshwater inputs of tidal flows would occur. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Light Energy or Solar Incidence Little change in present character of development is likely within shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely given the narrow strip of shoreline and previous restoration activities. Any action would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor improvements to buffers and minor increase in shoreline shading by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback ensures buffers; however only minor change to solar incidence would be expected. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Sediment /Substrate Structure Little change in present character of development is likely within the shoreline. U.S. Navy actions must comply with SMP as part of the CZM plan including SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function which requires impacts to be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of development is likely given the narrow strip of shoreline and previous restoration activities. Any action would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor enhancement by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function and • SMP 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback ensures buffers, and might result in softer shoreline stabilization and increased sediment recruitment and transport No change or positive change in ecological functions. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines 2800 SR 16 SW Elandan Gardens Proposed SED: Parallel designations Waterward of Building setback— Urban Conservancy, Landward of Building Setback — Commercial Former landfill Shoreline length — 250 Parcel size — 1.53 acres Building setback 588 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 0 in —water structures Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh Sinclair Inlet (SI) 6 2800 SR 16 SW east of Elandan Gardens Proposed SED: Urban Conservancy East of former landfill Shoreline length — 500' Shoreline modification: 0% 0 in —water structures Upland vegetation narrow adjacent to road Intertidal area extensive In —water vegetation: marsh East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 1 Riddell Road to 3845 Tracy Beach Road Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Rural (Kitsap County) Lots range in depth from 180 to 615 feet Building setbacks 30 to 486 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 1 in —water structure Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: marsh East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 2 3765 Tracy Beach Road Sheridan Road Proposed SED: Parallel designation Waterward of Road — Urban Conservancy Upland of Road — Shoreline Residential Shoreline length 4,900 Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function and • SMP 20.16.720.b.5, and 20.16.740.b.4 which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback assures buffers, however little change to freshwater inputs of tidal flows would occur. No change or positive change in ecological functions. This narrow shoreline area adjacent to the roadway has little or no potential for change, unless the roads were widened. Any action in this area would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Impacts would be addressed and mitigated No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Urban Conservancy designation would retain existing shoreline functions. New residential development on the upland side of the road would have few shoreline impacts with stormwater and other development standards. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. Light Energy or Solar Incidence redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to buffers and minor increase in shoreline shading by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function and • SM P 20.16.720.b.5, and 20.16.740.b.4 which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback assures buffers, however only minor change to solar incidence would be expected. No change or positive change in ecological functions. This narrow shoreline area adjacent to the roadway has little or no potential for change, unless the roads were widened. Any action in this area would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Urban Conservancy designation would retain existing shoreline functions. New residential development on the upland side of the road would not be likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change in ecological functions. Sediment /Substrate Structure redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor enhancement by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function and • SM P 20.16.720.b.5, and 20.16.740.b.4 which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use The Urban Conservancy designation from the building setback assures buffers, and might result in softer shoreline stabilization and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. This narrow shoreline area adjacent to the roadway has little or no potential for change, unless the roads were widened. Any action in this area would be subject to SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Impacts would be addressed and mitigated. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may be subdividable and would provide buffers and retain existing shoreline or substitute bulkheads with softer solutions. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Urban Conservancy designation would retain existing shoreline functions. New residential development on the upland side of the road would not be likely to change sediment or substrate. No change in ecological functions. Marine Shorelines East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 3 Sheridan Road to 2475 Stephenson Avenue Lions Park Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation Park size 19.11 acres Waterfront 2,000 linear feet Building setbacks 10 to 570 feet Shoreline modification: limited 2 in —water structures Upland native vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: kelp East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 4 2506 Stephenson Avenue to Sheridan Park Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 171 to 371 feet Building setbacks 71 to 257 feet Shoreline modification: 25 -65% 0 in —water structure (not including bridge) Upland vegetation moderate — extensive Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: kelp East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 4 Sheridan Park Warren Bridge Theater Proposed SED: Parallel TOS Setback Upland Commercial below TOS is Urban Conservancy Park size 5.6 acres Waterfront 790 linear feet Building setback 228 feet Shoreline modification: 1 -25% 0 in —water structures Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: kelp East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 5 1 107 Campbell Way to 1921 Wheaton Way Proposed SED: Parallel Upland Shoreline Commercial Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. The theater and park /overlook at the top of the bluff are likely to remain. If substantial redevelopment of the park or theater occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Ciinr4inn Light Energy or Solar Incidence If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. If docks are replaced, grating or other light penetration will be provided. Not likely to substantially change light energy or solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. The theater and park /overlook at the top of the bluff are likely to remain. If substantial redevelopment of the park or theater occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and will likely result in minor improvements to buffers and minor increase in shoreline shading by application of: Sediment /Substrate Structure If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. The theater and park /overlook at the top of the bluff are likely to remain. If substantial redevelopment of the park or theater occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. New development and substantial redevelopment of sites will likely result in little or no degradation and minor enhancement by application of: SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for Mr, 1\1c4 I ncc of P:rnlnnirnl Ciinr4inn Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines Upland vegetation extensive Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: kelp East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 5 East of 1921 Wheaton to Manette Bridge (includes CCR — City Core Residential and Manette Subarea R -10 zoning) Proposed SED: Shoreline Multi — Family Residential Lots range in depth from 70 to 640 feet Building setbacks 0 to 486 feet Shoreline modification: mostly 76 -100% 0 in —water structure Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area limited In —water vegetation: kelp, sargassum East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 7 Manette Bridge both sides Proposed SED: Shoreline Recreation East Port Washington Narrows (EPWN) 8 Manette Bridge to 201 Shore Drive Proposed SED: Shoreline Commercial Manette Subarea NCC— Neighborhood Center Core) length 466 feet Number of commercial lots — 3 Commercial lot acres — 0.41 Number of residential lots— 1 Zoned Communications: 1 lot, 0.09 acres Zoned 370 -50+ units: 1 lot, 0.87 acres Lots about 100 feet deep Building setbacks about 0 feet Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows functions. The most extensive probable redevelopment area is the Bremerton Gardens multi — family community between Magnuson Way and 16th Street. Substantial redevelopment would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Buffers and a stormwater system that meets current standards may improve freshwater inputs from the stream that runs through the property and through LID approaches that increase infiltration and interflow. Other multi — family development in the reach is less likely to redevelop. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in this small park is expected. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements to hydrology by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Not likely to change freshwater inputs. No change or positive change in ecological functions. These commercial and multi — family buildings are directly adjacent to the shoreline with heavy shoreline armoring. It is likely that the buildings or shoreline features will change in the foreseeable future. If new development or substantial redevelopment were to occur, it likely would result in little or no degradation by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Light Energy or Solar Incidence incidence would be expected. No change or positive change in ecological functions. The redevelopment of Bremerton Gardens would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SM P 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function, but is unlikely to change solar incidence. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment of the park occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If new development or substantial redevelopment were to occur, it likely would result in little or no degradation by application of: • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5 and 20.16.740.b.4, which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. The existing pier in the reach likely would be reduced in size and incorporate grating or Sediment /Substrate Structure functions. The redevelopment of Bremerton Gardens would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function, but is unlikely to change solar incidence. Greater building setbacks and softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If substantial redevelopment occurs it would likely result in little or no degradation and may result in minor improvements by application of SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. Softer shoreline stabilization may be included as mitigation and increased sediment recruitment and transport. No change or positive change in ecological functions. If new development or substantial redevelopment were to occur, it likely would result in little or no degradation by application of • SMP 20.16.630 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Function. • SM P 20.16.720.b.5, and 20.16.740.b.4, • which provides for ecological restoration of non — water — dependent commercial and industrial use. It is, however, unlikely that substantial change Gree would be made to shoreline armoring, given the buffE high energy marine environment. with( Marine Shorelines Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Lots range in depth from 77 to 120 feet Building setbacks 0 to 60 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 1 in —water structure Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: sargassum Port Orchard Bay (POB) 2 805 Shore Drive to 1151 Shore Drive Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Average lot depth about 120 feet Building setbacks 0 to 30 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 1 in —water structure Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: sargassum Port Orchard Bay (POB) 3 1334 Jacobson Blvd to 1926 Jacobson Lane Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Semi —Rural (Kitsap County) Lots range in depth from 195 to 345 feet Building setbacks 0 to 215 feet Shoreline modification: 25 -65% 1 in —water structure Upland vegetation limited Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: sargassum Port Orchard Bay (POB) 4 1938 Jacobson Blvd to 2504 NE Enetai Beach Road Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Semi —Rural (Kitsap County) Lots range in depth from 300 to 1020 feet Building setbacks 5 to 86 feet Shoreline modification: 1 -24% 3 in —water structures Upland vegetation extensive, but not directly adjacent to shore Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: kelp, sargassum Port Orchard Bay (POB) 5 2700 NE Entai Beach Road to (but not including 3735) Bahia Vista Drive Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers; however, lots are so small and existing setbacks so small that very small buffers are practical. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers; however, lots are so small and existing setbacks so small that very small buffers are practical. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Lots in this area are large with a range of setbacks. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Lots in this area are large with a range of setbacks. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. This area is likely to subdivide in the future Density will likely depend on provision of water and sewer service. Urban Conservancy designation and residential Light Energy or Solar Incidence A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers but they are not likely to affect or resulting impacts on beach desiccation. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers but they are not likely to provide shade or change resulting impacts on beach desiccation. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. The lack of requirement for large trees would limit beneficial impacts of shade on beach desiccation. No change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. The lack of requirement for large trees would limit beneficial impacts of shade on beach desiccation. No change in ecological functions. Subdivision in the future with Urban Conservancy designation and development standards is likely to preserve the existing extensive tree cover and preserve shading Sediment /Substrate Structure A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions although the high energy wave environment limits this potential. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions although the high energy wave environment limits this potential. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions although the high energy wave environment limits this potential. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer solutions although the high energy wave environment limits this potential. Not likely to change sediment or substrate substantially. No change or positive change in ecological functions. Subdivision in the future with Urban Conservancy designation and development standards is likely to preserve the existing unarmored shoreline and continue natural Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anah City of Bremerton Marine Shorelines Port Orchard Bay (POB) 6 3735 Bahia Vista Drive to Illahee State Park Proposed SED: Shoreline Residential Rural (Kitsap County) Lots range in depth from 342 to 457 feet Building setbacks 5 to 143 feet Shoreline modification: 76 -100% 1 in —water structure Upland vegetation limited directly upland from shore, extensive upland from houses Intertidal area moderate In —water vegetation: kelp, sargassum Freshwater Inputs and Tidal Flows Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor vegetated buffers. Lots in this area are large with a range of setbacks. Not likely to change freshwater inputs of tidal flows. No change in ecological functions. Light Energy or Solar Incidence Little change in present character of single — family development in shoreline is likely. A few lots may redevelop or remodel and provide minor buffers. The lack of requirement for large trees would limit beneficial impacts of shade on beach desiccation. No change in ecological functions. Sediment /Substrate Structure Carb Little change in present character of single— Little family development in shoreline is likely. famil A few lots may replace bulkheads with softer A fey solutions although the high energy wave provl environment limits this potential. redu Not likely to change sediment or substrate fertili substantially. quali No change or positive change in ecological No c functions. funci Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton 4. REFERENCES See: City of Bremerton. 2010. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. December 2010. Accessed at: hlW: / /www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/ forms /communitydev /smp /Shorelinelnventory Analysis.pdf Additional References: BST Associates. 2007a. Bellingham Waterfront Lands Analysis Final Report. Prepared for Port of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA. January 23, 2007. Accessed at: http://www.cob.org/ documents / planning /newwhatcom/2007 -03- 22— ind —land— soply.pdf BST Associates. 2007b. Everett Waterfront Lands Analysis 2007. Update dated April 9, 2007. Clarification of BST Conclusions by Planning Staff. Accessed at: hgp: // www. everettwa.org /Get_PDF.aspx ?pdf D =626 City of Bremerton. 2010. City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, Revised Shoreline Inventory and Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, WA. December 2010. hltp:H22.ci.bremerton.wa.us /forms /communi , dev /smp /Shorelinelnventory Analysis.pdf. ECS (Economic Consulting Services). 2008. City of Renton, Shoreline Management Program Update: Economic Market for Shorelines Uses —Water Dependent Uses. October 15, 2008. Accessed at: hltp: / /rentonwa. goy /uploadedFiles/ Business /EDNSP /planning /Tech %20Memo %2ODema nd %20Shoreline %2ODependent %20 %2010- 15- 08.pdf Property Counselors. 2009. Seattle Shoreline Master Program Update, Comparison of Land Supply and Demand for Water — Dependent and Water — Related Uses. Prepared for the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. December 2009. Accessed at: hllp: / /www.sc attle.gov /dpd/cros/ groups / pan/kpan/kplan/kshorelinemastelprog /docume nts/ web_ informational/dpdp018454.pdf. Shorett, Peter K. and D. Chudzik. 2006. Rent Market Study, Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven, Port Townsend, Washington as of April 10, 2006. Prepared for Port of Port Townsend. Accessed at hllp://www.portof February 2012 1 553- 1896 -088 4 -1 Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area Map 1 DRAFT Legend parcels_09_nameaddr Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary Wate rbo dy Wetland City Boundary Urban Growth Area May 24, 2010 0 5,50 do 1. 0 0 U U J 4 o V Orr ti / in�L'akes , � a 63 V 0 IA !J A 0 3 Cl i" Dyes l !ay Irm Kits Lake „.r 1 o Bremerton "I r� ° - 'Go rst U G - 16 �i f } J' Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Regional Context Map 2 DRAFT Legend - Study Area Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Bremerton City Limits Urban Growth Area Waterbody ® Wetland Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Subbasin Hood Canal Kitsa p May 24, 2010 0 15,000 0 1 A Aw Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Topography Map 3 -A Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road - - Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary Wate rbo dy Urban Growth Area Wetland 3 Ch ico - Bay t Dyes l DRAFT °� , ostrich -� Bay w 4-,-- , .� r ' Kitsap Lake �S . u Bremerton .. - L s r -� Lake naon, servoir T 63 ice. Twin, ke`s IA b G A� Y r Y } } r rk,•, - 1 1 W d May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Waterbodies and Wetlands Map 3 -B Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy Wetland Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Subbasin Hood Canal r Kitsap DRAFT 3 Chico Dyes l Bay do Kitsap Lake r Ab L -ake ISM n Reservoir t Resource Inventory Area) G PAI, s May 24, 2010 0 5,500 0 r', CIA U G A c 4 c Bremerton s r� - UG / 11 I Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Surficial Geology Map 4 -A DRAFT Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary U rba n G rowth Are a Wate rbo dy Surficial Geology Wate r Quaternary alluvium, dune sand, loess, and artificail fill Quaternary alluvial fans, beach deposits, undifferentiated sedimentary deposits, lacustrine deposits, landslides, peat, terraced deposits, and talus Pleistocene continental glacial, glaciolacustrine, and outburst flood deposits, Fraser -age Oligocene to Oligocene- Eocene marine sedimentary rocks Oligocene to Paleocene intrusive igneous rocks Eocene volcanic rocks Tertiary continental sedimentary rocks May 24, 2010 0 5,500 1 A 11 s f 41 I _ � • 1 � 7 IA k_ _I I A r - - - I� II I L imh'Ld B re n I I I - � F i Gorst UG 16 3 Ch ico Dyes l 10 , Bay Ostricht fi{ Bay t� • t Kits L ake L Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Landslides and Seismic Hazard Areas Map 4-13 u RA FT Legend C Landslide Hazard Quaternary Fault Locations Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Wate rbo dy County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Seismic Hazard ® Liquefaction Hazard Erosion Hazard High Moderate Low to Very Low May 24, 2010 0 5,500 - - - -- _ ------------------- - - -- -- ti Ch ico .' -------- - - - - -- _— ► 0000' -� k ft ftftw OWN Bi w - Ostrich { Bay + 1 j Bremerton 0. -ft Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Soils Map 4 -C DRAFT Legend y l �I i i+•'r' �� Study Area GROVE, 3 RAGNAR, 15 MCKENNA, 6 - Rivers and Streams INDIANOLA, 6 GROVE, 30 Soil Name, Maximum Slope % _ ALDERWOOD, 15 MUKILTEO, 1 Road -` RAGNAR, 6 HARSTINE, 15 F NEILTON, 15 Waterbody HARSTINE, 30 NEILTON, 3 Shoreline Jurisdiction HARSTINE, 45 SHALCAR, 1 NEILTON, 30 Y 6..� . ae n• County Boundary HARSTINE, 6 NORMA, 3 City Boundary INDIANOLA, 15 PITS, 0 f - ;_ ___ _: Urban Growth Area INDIANOLA, 30 RAGNAR, 15 Soils INDIANOLA, 6 RAGNAR, 30 Soil Name, Maximum Slope % _ ALDERWOOD, 15 INDIANOLA- KITSAP, 70 -` RAGNAR, 6 ALDERWOOD, 30 F KAPOWSIN VARIANT, 5 SCHNEIDER, 70 SEMIAHMOO, 1 ALDERWOOD, 6 KAPOWSIN, 15 SHALCAR, 1 BEACHES, 0 KAPOWSIN, 6 SHELTON, 15 BELFAST, 2 KILCHIS, 30 SHELTON, 30 BELLINGHAM, 3 KILCHIS, 70 SHELTON, 45 CATHCART, 15 KILCHIS- SHELTON, 50 SHELTON, 6 _ CATHCART, 30 KITSAP, 15 TACOMA, 1 CATHCART, 8 DYSTRIC KITSAP, 30 URBANLAND- ALDERWOOD, 8 XERORTHENTS, 70 KITSAP, 45 _ GROVE, 15 KITSAP, 8 May 24, 2010 0 5,500 •et, - �- - Ch i c o � Bay I r • 6 r. 170, 71 Kitsap L rr (il� f ion 04 0 , Twin Dyes l 1 strich Bay 6j Bremerton 3- Shoreline Master Program Update City of B r e m e r t o n Marine Sediment Processes Drift Cells and Reaches Map 4 -D Legend Shoreline Study Area JU Blackjack Creek 34C Rivers and Streams C Bremerton East UGA 56B — Road F Chico Bay 138, 90 C Drift Cell Boundary E7 East Shore Ostrich Bay 87 Shoreline Jurisdiction 0 Gorst Estuary 34B Waterbody C Mud Bay 42, 43 City Boundary C Ostrich Bay 140 Urban Growth Area C Ostrich Bay North Ecology Drift Cell 51 , 52, 53, 89 C Ostrich Bay Peninsula 86, 44 Left to Right C Oyster Bay 48, 49, 50, 88 Right to Left Puget Sound Naval Shipyard No Appreciable Drift 34A Phinney Bay 37, 38, 39, 85 Point Herron to Bremerton 55, 56A C Port Washington Narrows East 107, 108, 135, 137 Port Washington Narrows West 35, 36, 149, 150, 151 Rocky Point 40, 41 May 21, 2010 0 3,50 I 52 h 89 Dyes Inlet ) 137 0 ay 138 � 41 - 51 10i ".40 42 13 44 -0 140 87 9 tr h + 50 1 Kitsap -- Lake 2 B !j\erton Eas#'UGA 9 low 3 Bremerton West UGA� 191 Bremerton clam I t 34C 1F Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Coastal Geomorphology Shoreforms Map 4 -E Legend Bank Type Study Area High Bank Rivers and Streams Low Bank Road Marsh or Lagoon City Boundary No Bank Urban Growth Area Rocky Waterbody Pocket Estuary g Pocket Estuary Substrate Type O Mixed Coarse 0 Clay Bank Type High Bank • Low Bank O Marsh or Lagoon • No Bank O Rocky i Varied DRAF v� Chico 0 Ba Q J me`rto East U�A AM Ostrich Bay C <Y t I C 11 F 3 0 C3, Cobble 0 I L Gravel `I Bremerton -8 L 0 West UGA �� Mud [ Sand Bremerton May 24, 2010 - Sin cla ir Inlet 0 3,500 / - - - -, - - - - -- - �� 16 Dyes Inlet o Op Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton FEMA Floodplain Map 4 -F � DRAFT N - Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road _ 100 Year Flood Zone Wate rbo dy Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area V May 24, 2010 C 0 5,500 V U C 1CL Ch ico Bay 1 0 Kitsap Lake r 4 !ke Union �Reservoi ,--( f ink kes 1 6 K IA A I f 0 V i Dyes l ISO Bremerton 4 � e r� ; orst UG `_ 3 _ _ Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Groundwater Resources Map 5 DRAFT N Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams i Road Critical Aquifer Recharge Area ' Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy May 24, 2010 0 5,500 VI!I 0 C Q / C C !ke Union,-Reservoir +t ti� Y kes Ch ico Bay Ostric Bay do t Kits L a'ke Dyes l j ,� / r �� I .� 4 Nh Bremerton " st Creek A echarge A North Lake Aquifer Recharge Area Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Wildlife Bald Eagle, Murrelet *, and Seabird Colonies Map 6 -A ur� AFT N Legend !ke Union�Reservoir in� L'akes 1 Ch ico Dyes l Bay Irm strich Bay_ Kits L ak i J - r J - Bremerton r� r rSt U K IA A i * Data sources do not indicate marbled murrelet in planning area. May 24, 2010 C 0 5,500 Q U 0 1 C CL 22r Bald Eagle Nest Q Seabird Colony Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Bald Eagle Wate rbo dy 1 - Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area !ke Union�Reservoir in� L'akes 1 Ch ico Dyes l Bay Irm strich Bay_ Kits L ak i J - r J - Bremerton r� r rSt U K IA A i * Data sources do not indicate marbled murrelet in planning area. May 24, 2010 C 0 5,500 Q U 0 1 C CL 22r Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Wildlife Marine Mammal Haulouts and Shellfish Map 6-13 DRAFT Legend �r Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites Study Area U U Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy Shellfish Geoduck Hardshell Clam Subtidal Hardshell Clam May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Ch ico Bay J 4 " in� L'akes i IA � A i -_ Ostric Bay Kits Lake 1 J — Bremerton ; r� ; orst UG 4 3 Lemke Union�Reservoir r7V Dyes l �r C p U U Lemke Union�Reservoir r7V Dyes l Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Fish Usage Fish Distribution Map 7 -A Legend Fall Chinook Fish Presence e f� Study Area Rivers and Streams Road � Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy Anadromous /Resident Fish Distribution Presence - Documented - - - -' Presence - Potential - - - - -- Presence - Presumed May 24, 2010 0 7,000 DRAFT Coho Salmon x w � � I 1!n i w i _ Fall Chum ; r , f� y} i I f J I V Rainbow Trout >b _ U U Q /U� U) � t r ak" Union Reservoir { t w I Resident Cutthroat in�akes 4 4 1 I- Fall Chinook e f� 1 � I 1!n i w i _ Fall Chum ; r , f� y} i I f J I V Rainbow Trout >b _ U U Q /U� U) � t r ak" Union Reservoir { t w I Resident Cutthroat in�akes 4 4 1 I- Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Fish Usage Salmonid Stock Status Map 7 -B Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams i Road F Wate rbo dy Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary _ —_ —� U rba n G rowth Are a Salmonid Stock Status Depressed Healthy Not Rated Unknown ESA Status Threatened May 24, 2010 0 5,500 DRAFT Chico Dyes l Bay Ostrich, Bay`s t � I• Kitsap Lake r L r ' L 6remert,on C p U U Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Fish Usage Marine Fish /Forage Fish Map 7 -C Legend DRAFT Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction Wate rbo dy City Boundary Urban Growth Area ® Herring Holding Area - - - - -- Documented Smelt Intertidal Habitat Documented Sand Lance Intertidal Habitat Documented Sand Lance and Smelt Intertidal Habitat Presence of Spawning Habitat Sand Lance Smelt 0 Sand Lance and Smelt May 24, 2010 0 3,500 Ch ico Bay Dyes Inlet Ostrich Bay d ap Lak 3. ' emerto ,Test U G 4 erton East UG k lam 1 0 3 Bremer on Bremerton West UGA Sinclair Inlet Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Nearshore Vegetation Map 8 DRAFT Legend Study Area Salt Marsh Rivers and Streams Continuous Salt Marsh Road - -- Patchy Salt Marsh Non - Floating Kelp City Boundary ____ Continuous Non - Floating Urban Growth Area Kelp Waterbody Patchy Non - Floating Kelp Sargassum Wetland Mixed Marsh � Continuous Sargassum Continuous Mixed ■■■■N Patchy Sargassum Marsh Eelgrass Patchy Mixed Marsh i Continuous Eelgrass Low Marsh ■ ■ ■ Patchy Eelgrass Continuous Low Marsh Patchy Low Marsh May 24, 2010 0 3,50 8 Chico Bay low Dyes Inlet At 4 * , , low �� t 'Brem erto n 4llest U G 1 Ostrich (1 r s . Bay st = 31 01 Brenner 3 Bremerton West UGA n r - _ __- -- •` - - -, ,fir erton East UG , 09 41 � 0 1V Sinclair Inlet Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Priority Habitats and Species Map 9 Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams i Road F Wate rbo dy Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Priority Habitats and Species Esturine Zone Shorebird Concentrations Waterfowl Concentrations ® Wetlands May 24, 2010 0 5,500 DRAFT { C�co D yes l Ostrich , S Bay y do Kitsap Lake r � i I Bremerton Lake Union ,Reservoir Jf - -~- L x �a �— � e UG 3 TwinL�akes i K IA N A N4 400 a C p U U C C Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Landcover Map 10 DRAFT Legend Study Area Bare rock, sand, quarry, Q strip mine, gravel pit, transitional barren Road Deciduous forest Shoreline Jurisdiction Evergreen forest Wate rbo dy Mixed forest County Boundary Scrub /Shrub City Boundary - - - - -- :Urban Growth Area Grasslands, herbaceous Open Water Pasture, hay Perennial Ice, snow Cultivated Crops Developed, Open Space r Developed, L Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity May 24, 2010 0 5,5 1 0 X� g^ Rib C; �" .� s�TN ,� . At AM "'III es Mar AL ... Chico r 4N Dyes l ,�- Bay } Ostrich Bay Kitsap Lake - A V . 4 Y G o rst 'Y 3 4 VdL Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Impervious Surface Map 11 DRAFT Legend Study Area Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy Percent Impervious 50 -60% 60 -70% 70 -80% 80 -90% 90 -100% May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Ch ico Dyes l Bay ` — Ostrich Ba y 1 Kits ap Lake 5 + Lake nion�Reservoir G • , G o r•st Twin SKIS UGA x k " Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Water Quality Impairment and Sediment Contamination Map 12 Legend o Stormwater Outfall 305b Waterbodies 2 Study Area 4A Rivers and Streams 4B Road Shoreline Jurisdiction � 4C Growing Areas C Shellfish County Boundary C� Conditional City Boundary - - - - - -, ® Prohibited Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy 303d Waterbodies Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform Mercury PCB _ Sediment Bioassay C � Temperature Total Phosphorus pH DRAFT 1' �1 7 y � V 1 6 0 !ke U.nion�Reservoir Y� in� L'akes �L W .0, V e Bremerton : r� , orst UG 3 0 IA A JO N ■ May 24, 2010 V C I 0 5,500 U I X/ - � r r V 0 1 A � I fa- r do AMS Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Parks, Open Space and Public Land Map 13 u RA FT i Legend ° Park - - - -' Urban Trail Shellfish Beach Study Area Rivers and Streams Road C County Boundary Wate rbo dy City Boundary Urban Growth Area Open Space Corridor ® DNR Owned Aquatic Land Non -DNR Major Public Land Owner City Government City or Municipal Government County Government US Federal Government Washington State May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Camp esley Harris NavaReservation J" 1 1 1 1� Penderga t Regi, Park 1 t0 _View P �r Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Landuse Map 14 DRAFT Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Wate rbo dy Commercial Corridor Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Limited Commercial Neighborhood Business _ Freeway Corridor Industrial Industrial Park Marine Industrial Higher Education Open Space Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Public Sector Redevelopment Site Watershed _ Employment Center City Utility Lands Low Density Residential Transportation, Utilities, and Public Facilities City Core Residential May 24, 2010 0 5,500 1 C p U U Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary U rba n G rowth Are a City Parcel Landuse Regional Center District Center Manufacturing/ Industrial Center Neighborhood Center Commercial Corridor Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Limited Commercial Neighborhood Business _ Freeway Corridor Industrial Industrial Park Marine Industrial Higher Education Open Space Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Public Sector Redevelopment Site Watershed _ Employment Center City Utility Lands Low Density Residential Transportation, Utilities, and Public Facilities City Core Residential May 24, 2010 0 5,500 1 C p U U Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Shoreline Designations Map 15 Legend - Study Area Rivers and Streams Road - - Shoreline Jurisdiction Wate rbo dy County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Bremerton Shoreline Designations Downtown Waterfront Urban Commercial Urban Conservancy Urban Industrial Urban Residential May 24, 2010 0 5,500 DRAFT do Ad Luke Union.*R servo'r 4 in Ch ico Bay s , f Y I< � .its Lake I Dyes l a Ostrich Bay 1 1 o � Bremerton Gorst uG 3 _ SKIA UGA I - C p U U Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Shoreline Modifications Map 16 Legend May 24, 2010 0 3,500 DRAFT E ffiAll Bremerton rIB' 6.erton East UGA Bremert< est UC p 30, o' 31 0 3 B re m e rtbin• West UGA r Sinclair In le - - - -- 16 yy Dyes Inlet stricl, Bay � p Overhanging Structure O Tidal Construction O Pilings O Piers, Docks and Floats O Boat Launches Armoring Study Area Rivers and Streams Road City Boundary Urban Growth Area Large Docks and Marinas Wate rbo dy May 24, 2010 0 3,500 DRAFT E ffiAll Bremerton rIB' 6.erton East UGA Bremert< est UC p 30, o' 31 0 3 B re m e rtbin• West UGA r Sinclair In le - - - -- 16 yy Dyes Inlet stricl, Bay � p Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Shoreline Planning Area Map 1 DRAFT Legend parcels_09_nameaddr Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary Wate rbo dy Wetland City Boundary Urban Growth Area May 24, 2010 0 5,50 do 1. 0 0 U U J 4 o V Orr ti / in�L'akes , � a 63 V 0 IA !J A 0 3 Cl i" Dyes l !ay Irm Kits Lake „.r 1 o Bremerton "I r� ° - 'Go rst U G - 16 �i f } J' Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Regional Context Map 2 DRAFT Legend - Study Area Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Bremerton City Limits Urban Growth Area Waterbody ® Wetland Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Subbasin Hood Canal Kitsa p May 24, 2010 0 15,000 0 1 A Aw Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Topography Map 3 -A Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road - - Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary Wate rbo dy Urban Growth Area Wetland 3 Ch ico - Bay t Dyes l DRAFT °� , ostrich -� Bay w 4-,-- , .� r ' Kitsap Lake �S . u Bremerton .. - L s r -� Lake naon, servoir T 63 ice. Twin, ke`s IA b G A� Y r Y } } r rk,•, - 1 1 W d May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Waterbodies and Wetlands Map 3 -B Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy Wetland Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Subbasin Hood Canal r Kitsap DRAFT 3 Chico Dyes l Bay do Kitsap Lake r Ab L -ake ISM n Reservoir t Resource Inventory Area) G PAI, s May 24, 2010 0 5,500 0 r', CIA U G A c 4 c Bremerton s r� - UG / 11 I Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Surficial Geology Map 4 -A DRAFT Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary U rba n G rowth Are a Wate rbo dy Surficial Geology Wate r Quaternary alluvium, dune sand, loess, and artificail fill Quaternary alluvial fans, beach deposits, undifferentiated sedimentary deposits, lacustrine deposits, landslides, peat, terraced deposits, and talus Pleistocene continental glacial, glaciolacustrine, and outburst flood deposits, Fraser -age Oligocene to Oligocene- Eocene marine sedimentary rocks Oligocene to Paleocene intrusive igneous rocks Eocene volcanic rocks Tertiary continental sedimentary rocks May 24, 2010 0 5,500 1 A 11 s f 41 I _ � • 1 � 7 IA k_ _I I A r - - - I� II I L imh'Ld B re n I I I - � F i Gorst UG 16 3 Ch ico Dyes l 10 , Bay Ostricht fi{ Bay t� • t Kits L ake L Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Landslides and Seismic Hazard Areas Map 4-13 u RA FT Legend C Landslide Hazard Quaternary Fault Locations Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Wate rbo dy County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Seismic Hazard ® Liquefaction Hazard Erosion Hazard High Moderate Low to Very Low May 24, 2010 0 5,500 - - - -- _ ------------------- - - -- -- ti Ch ico .' -------- - - - - -- _— ► 0000' -� k ft ftftw OWN Bi w - Ostrich { Bay + 1 j Bremerton 0. -ft Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Soils Map 4 -C DRAFT Legend y l �I i i+•'r' �� Study Area GROVE, 3 RAGNAR, 15 MCKENNA, 6 - Rivers and Streams INDIANOLA, 6 GROVE, 30 Soil Name, Maximum Slope % _ ALDERWOOD, 15 MUKILTEO, 1 Road -` RAGNAR, 6 HARSTINE, 15 F NEILTON, 15 Waterbody HARSTINE, 30 NEILTON, 3 Shoreline Jurisdiction HARSTINE, 45 SHALCAR, 1 NEILTON, 30 Y 6..� . ae n• County Boundary HARSTINE, 6 NORMA, 3 City Boundary INDIANOLA, 15 PITS, 0 f - ;_ ___ _: Urban Growth Area INDIANOLA, 30 RAGNAR, 15 Soils INDIANOLA, 6 RAGNAR, 30 Soil Name, Maximum Slope % _ ALDERWOOD, 15 INDIANOLA- KITSAP, 70 -` RAGNAR, 6 ALDERWOOD, 30 F KAPOWSIN VARIANT, 5 SCHNEIDER, 70 SEMIAHMOO, 1 ALDERWOOD, 6 KAPOWSIN, 15 SHALCAR, 1 BEACHES, 0 KAPOWSIN, 6 SHELTON, 15 BELFAST, 2 KILCHIS, 30 SHELTON, 30 BELLINGHAM, 3 KILCHIS, 70 SHELTON, 45 CATHCART, 15 KILCHIS- SHELTON, 50 SHELTON, 6 _ CATHCART, 30 KITSAP, 15 TACOMA, 1 CATHCART, 8 DYSTRIC KITSAP, 30 URBANLAND- ALDERWOOD, 8 XERORTHENTS, 70 KITSAP, 45 _ GROVE, 15 KITSAP, 8 May 24, 2010 0 5,500 •et, - �- - Ch i c o � Bay I r • 6 r. 170, 71 Kitsap L rr (il� f ion 04 0 , Twin Dyes l 1 strich Bay 6j Bremerton 3- Shoreline Master Program Update City of B r e m e r t o n Marine Sediment Processes Drift Cells and Reaches Map 4 -D Legend Shoreline Study Area JU Blackjack Creek 34C Rivers and Streams C Bremerton East UGA 56B — Road F Chico Bay 138, 90 C Drift Cell Boundary E7 East Shore Ostrich Bay 87 Shoreline Jurisdiction 0 Gorst Estuary 34B Waterbody C Mud Bay 42, 43 City Boundary C Ostrich Bay 140 Urban Growth Area C Ostrich Bay North Ecology Drift Cell 51 , 52, 53, 89 C Ostrich Bay Peninsula 86, 44 Left to Right C Oyster Bay 48, 49, 50, 88 Right to Left Puget Sound Naval Shipyard No Appreciable Drift 34A Phinney Bay 37, 38, 39, 85 Point Herron to Bremerton 55, 56A C Port Washington Narrows East 107, 108, 135, 137 Port Washington Narrows West 35, 36, 149, 150, 151 Rocky Point 40, 41 May 21, 2010 0 3,50 I 52 h 89 Dyes Inlet ) 137 0 ay 138 � 41 - 51 10i ".40 42 13 44 -0 140 87 9 tr h + 50 1 Kitsap -- Lake 2 B !j\erton Eas#'UGA 9 low 3 Bremerton West UGA� 191 Bremerton clam I t 34C 1F Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Coastal Geomorphology Shoreforms Map 4 -E Legend Bank Type Study Area High Bank Rivers and Streams Low Bank Road Marsh or Lagoon City Boundary No Bank Urban Growth Area Rocky Waterbody Pocket Estuary g Pocket Estuary Substrate Type O Mixed Coarse 0 Clay Bank Type High Bank • Low Bank O Marsh or Lagoon • No Bank O Rocky i Varied DRAF v� Chico 0 Ba Q J me`rto East U�A AM Ostrich Bay C <Y t I C 11 F 3 0 C3, Cobble 0 I L Gravel `I Bremerton -8 L 0 West UGA �� Mud [ Sand Bremerton May 24, 2010 - Sin cla ir Inlet 0 3,500 / - - - -, - - - - -- - �� 16 Dyes Inlet o Op Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton FEMA Floodplain Map 4 -F � DRAFT N - Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road _ 100 Year Flood Zone Wate rbo dy Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area V May 24, 2010 C 0 5,500 V U C 1CL Ch ico Bay 1 0 Kitsap Lake r 4 !ke Union �Reservoi ,--( f ink kes 1 6 K IA A I f 0 V i Dyes l ISO Bremerton 4 � e r� ; orst UG `_ 3 _ _ Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Groundwater Resources Map 5 DRAFT N Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams i Road Critical Aquifer Recharge Area ' Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy May 24, 2010 0 5,500 VI!I 0 C Q / C C !ke Union,-Reservoir +t ti� Y kes Ch ico Bay Ostric Bay do t Kits L a'ke Dyes l j ,� / r �� I .� 4 Nh Bremerton " st Creek A echarge A North Lake Aquifer Recharge Area Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Nearshore Vegetation Map 8 DRAFT Legend Study Area Salt Marsh Rivers and Streams Continuous Salt Marsh Road - -- Patchy Salt Marsh Non - Floating Kelp City Boundary ____ Continuous Non - Floating Urban Growth Area Kelp Waterbody Patchy Non - Floating Kelp Sargassum Wetland Mixed Marsh � Continuous Sargassum Continuous Mixed ■■■■N Patchy Sargassum Marsh Eelgrass Patchy Mixed Marsh i Continuous Eelgrass Low Marsh ■ ■ ■ Patchy Eelgrass Continuous Low Marsh Patchy Low Marsh May 24, 2010 0 3,50 8 Chico Bay low Dyes Inlet At 4 * , , low �� t 'Brem erto n 4llest U G 1 Ostrich (1 r s . Bay st = 31 01 Brenner 3 Bremerton West UGA n r - _ __- -- •` - - -, ,fir erton East UG , 09 41 � 0 1V Sinclair Inlet Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Priority Habitats and Species Map 9 Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams i Road F Wate rbo dy Shoreline Jurisdiction C County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Priority Habitats and Species Esturine Zone Shorebird Concentrations Waterfowl Concentrations ® Wetlands May 24, 2010 0 5,500 DRAFT { C�co D yes l Ostrich , S Bay y do Kitsap Lake r � i I Bremerton Lake Union ,Reservoir Jf - -~- L x �a �— � e UG 3 TwinL�akes i K IA N A N4 400 a C p U U C C Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Landcover Map 10 DRAFT Legend Study Area Bare rock, sand, quarry, Q strip mine, gravel pit, transitional barren Road Deciduous forest Shoreline Jurisdiction Evergreen forest Wate rbo dy Mixed forest County Boundary Scrub /Shrub City Boundary - - - - -- :Urban Growth Area Grasslands, herbaceous Open Water Pasture, hay Perennial Ice, snow Cultivated Crops Developed, Open Space r Developed, L Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity May 24, 2010 0 5,5 1 0 X� g^ Rib C; �" .� s�TN ,� . At AM "'III es Mar AL ... Chico r 4N Dyes l ,�- Bay } Ostrich Bay Kitsap Lake - A V . 4 Y G o rst 'Y 3 4 VdL Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Impervious Surface Map 11 DRAFT Legend Study Area Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy Percent Impervious 50 -60% 60 -70% 70 -80% 80 -90% 90 -100% May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Ch ico Dyes l Bay ` — Ostrich Ba y 1 Kits ap Lake 5 + Lake nion�Reservoir G • , G o r•st Twin SKIS UGA x k " Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Water Quality Impairment and Sediment Contamination Map 12 Legend o Stormwater Outfall 305b Waterbodies 2 Study Area 4A Rivers and Streams 4B Road Shoreline Jurisdiction � 4C Growing Areas C Shellfish County Boundary C� Conditional City Boundary - - - - - -, ® Prohibited Urban Growth Area Wate rbo dy 303d Waterbodies Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform Mercury PCB _ Sediment Bioassay C � Temperature Total Phosphorus pH DRAFT 1' �1 7 y � V 1 6 0 !ke U.nion�Reservoir Y� in� L'akes �L W .0, V e Bremerton : r� , orst UG 3 0 IA A JO N ■ May 24, 2010 V C I 0 5,500 U I X/ - � r r V 0 1 A � I fa- r do AMS Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Parks, Open Space and Public Land Map 13 u RA FT i Legend ° Park - - - -' Urban Trail Shellfish Beach Study Area Rivers and Streams Road C County Boundary Wate rbo dy City Boundary Urban Growth Area Open Space Corridor ® DNR Owned Aquatic Land Non -DNR Major Public Land Owner City Government City or Municipal Government County Government US Federal Government Washington State May 24, 2010 0 5,500 Camp esley Harris NavaReservation J" 1 1 1 1� Penderga t Regi, Park 1 t0 _View P �r Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Landuse Map 14 DRAFT Legend Study Area Rivers and Streams Road Wate rbo dy Commercial Corridor Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Limited Commercial Neighborhood Business _ Freeway Corridor Industrial Industrial Park Marine Industrial Higher Education Open Space Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Public Sector Redevelopment Site Watershed _ Employment Center City Utility Lands Low Density Residential Transportation, Utilities, and Public Facilities City Core Residential May 24, 2010 0 5,500 1 C p U U Shoreline Jurisdiction County Boundary City Boundary U rba n G rowth Are a City Parcel Landuse Regional Center District Center Manufacturing/ Industrial Center Neighborhood Center Commercial Corridor Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Limited Commercial Neighborhood Business _ Freeway Corridor Industrial Industrial Park Marine Industrial Higher Education Open Space Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Public Sector Redevelopment Site Watershed _ Employment Center City Utility Lands Low Density Residential Transportation, Utilities, and Public Facilities City Core Residential May 24, 2010 0 5,500 1 C p U U Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Shoreline Designations Map 15 Legend - Study Area Rivers and Streams Road - - Shoreline Jurisdiction Wate rbo dy County Boundary City Boundary Urban Growth Area Bremerton Shoreline Designations Downtown Waterfront Urban Commercial Urban Conservancy Urban Industrial Urban Residential May 24, 2010 0 5,500 DRAFT do Ad Luke Union.*R servo'r 4 in Ch ico Bay s , f Y I< � .its Lake I Dyes l a Ostrich Bay 1 1 o � Bremerton Gorst uG 3 _ SKIA UGA I - C p U U Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Shoreline Modifications Map 16 Legend May 24, 2010 0 3,500 DRAFT E ffiAll Bremerton rIB' 6.erton East UGA Bremert< est UC p 30, o' 31 0 3 B re m e rtbin• West UGA r Sinclair In le - - - -- 16 yy Dyes Inlet stricl, Bay � p Overhanging Structure O Tidal Construction O Pilings O Piers, Docks and Floats O Boat Launches Armoring Study Area Rivers and Streams Road City Boundary Urban Growth Area Large Docks and Marinas Wate rbo dy May 24, 2010 0 3,500 DRAFT E ffiAll Bremerton rIB' 6.erton East UGA Bremert< est UC p 30, o' 31 0 3 B re m e rtbin• West UGA r Sinclair In le - - - -- 16 yy Dyes Inlet stricl, Bay � p 0 800 Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. Bremerton East UGA Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend N Reach 0 800 = Parcels within Shoreline Area East Shore Ostrich Bay Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted Reach and Parcels on this map are approximate and are intended for © planning purposes only Additional site- specific Shoreline Master Program Update �- evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. City of Bremerton 2A Legend N Reach Legend 'A N Reach 0 800 E!si@ = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for ® planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Gorst Estuary Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton 0 800 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for ® planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Kitsap Lake 1 Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A N Reach 0 700 I Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for © planning purposes only. Additional site - specific t evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Kitsap Lake 2 Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A Reach N Parcels within Shoreline Area 0 800 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Lake Union Reservoir Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted Reach and Parcels on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- specific Shoreline Master Program Update t ! .del. L tCL ail 1. LILT evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify a information shown on this map. City of Bremerton Legend N Reach 0 750 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for ® planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Mud Bay Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A N Reach 810 Scale in Feet �A �7" pr = Parcels within Shoreline Area Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Ostrich Bay Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A N Reach 0 800 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for © planning purposes only. Additional site - specific ILIJAVIQ )X evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Ostrich Bay North Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton \ Legend N Reach 0 400 Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for ® planning purposes only. Additional site - specific 'lt.�, evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Ostrich Bay Peninsula Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A N Reach 0 700 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific I ® evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Oyster Bay Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend N Reach 800 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for © planning purposes only. Additional site - specific I I N ON evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Phinney Bay Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A N Reach 0 1,800 = Parcels within Shoreline Area Scale in Feet Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for © planning purposes only. Additional site - specific ILIJAVIQ )X evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Port Washington Narrows East Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend N Reach 0 1,500 Scale in Feet a� T -S.- - 7 2 7!! = Parcels within Shoreline Area Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Port Washington Narrows West Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend N Reach 0 1,500 Scale in Feet - = Parcels within Shoreline Area Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. PSNS Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton 2 Legend N Reach 700 Scale in Feet = Parcels within Shoreline Area Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Point Heron to Bremerton Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend 'A N Reach 650 Scale in Feet l� F IMP - = Parcels within Shoreline Area Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site - specific evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. Rocky Point Reach and Parcels Shoreline Master Program Update City of Bremerton Legend N Reach Y 1� Vw do yy� ti 1t �, �� • ti r �A N 0 400 Scale in Feet r•r � •'�, ® f L r. Al •q�r' � ti.'r� 4 q I MW r f V i + I• r. F ip Nearshore Inventory (EKNI), Parametnx Legend ® Wetland Reach Parcels within Shoreline Area Twin Lakes Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted Reach and Parcels on this map are approximate and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- specific Shoreline Master Program Update evaluation may be needed to confirm /verify information shown on this map. City of Bremerton AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Account #42742 AD#20138033 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KITSAP I, Christine Kendrick, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says That she is now, and at all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned was the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of KITSAP SUN, that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County of Kitsap, in which County it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, a weekly newspaper in Kitsap County, Washington and is now and during all of said time, was printed in an office maintained in the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper, that the following is a true text of an advertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form) of said newspaper on the following date, to wit And on Dec 9, 2013 such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period The full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $36 45 This amount has not been paid in full (Signature of Principal Clerk) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December 1 , 13 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Kitsap County CASSAND7CAPAS NotaState of My CommFebruar ORDINANCE NO 5229 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting the updated Shoreline Master Program and repealing resolutions and ordinances relating to the Shoreline Master Program PASSED by the City Council on the 4th day of December, 2013 The full text of this ordinance is available from the City Clerk's Office, 345 Sixth Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 December 9, 2013 AD# 20138033