c?:
541
.
:C65
P58:
)9 9
4
PNCE
Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study
S
Tb
3
AYNUAL REPORT
w
gr-hel
gar'
April 2000
,r)11110 -
ormws
allt
AI MI
=11.19
No air or
'
4
I
N.
no so Am
I
Pacific Northwest Coast
=Mr
9
EP
ow
r
cosythems
la
I
NNE ma dimi
Apra
RE
Stut
Edited by Sara Breslow and Julia K. Parrish
Published by Sara Breslow
Citation:
Breslow, S. and J. K. Parrish, 2000. PNCERS 1999 Annual Report. Submitted to Coastal Ocean Programs, NOAA, April 2000.
Cover: Oregon Coast, 1984. Photo by Sara Breslow.
Title Page: Eelgrass on Washington coast, 1988. Photo by Sara Breslow.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE OF CON'TENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
HUMAN RESOURCES
V
Vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESEARCH PROJECT REPORTS
1
Coastal Ocean-Estuary Coupling
1
1
Barbara M. Hickey
2 Plankton Patches, Fish Schools and Environmental Conditions in the Nearshore Ocean
Environment
12
Gordon Swartzman
3 Seabird Indicators
18
Julia K. Parrish
4 Salmon Survival: Natural and Anthropogenic Impacts
23
Ray Hilbom and Arni Magnusson
5 Links Between Estuaries: Larval Transport and Recruitment
27
Curtis Roegner, Alan Shanks, and David Armstrong
6 Bioindicators in Coastal Estuaries: Dungeness Crab and English Sole
32
David Armstrong, Don Gunderson, Chris Rooper, and Kris Feldman
7 Habitat-Bioindicator Linkages and Retrospective Analysis
42
Ronald M. Thom and Steve Rumrill
8 Integrated Ecological-Economic Modeling: Spatial Modeling of Land Use and
Management Activities
48
Kathleen Bell and Daniel Huppert
9 Institutional Mapping and Analysis
54
Daniel Huppert, Courtland Smith, and The Research Group
10 Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values
58
Rebecca Johnson, Kathleen Bell, and Daniel Huppert
11 Environmental and Ecosystem Management
Tom Leschine, Andy Bennett, Michelle Pico, and Joel Kopp
63
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Social Frame Interactions and Integration
69
Kathleen Bell
RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
71
ALL-HANDS MEETING
74
iv
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
LIST OF MILES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 4.1
Table 6.1
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 10.1
Table 10.2
Table 11.1
Table 11.2
Table M.1
Table M.2
Table A.1
Table A.2
Time line for PNCERS oceanographic measurements
1
Time line for oceanographic data acquisition
2
Reproductive success of Common Murres on Tatoosh Island and Yaquina Head
19
Estimate of eagle kills on Tatoosh Island and Yaquina Head
20
Diet of Common Murre chicks on Tatoosh Island, 1996-1999
20
Overview statistics of the chinook and coho coded-wire-tag groups used in salmon survival analysis
23
Compilation of catch by species or group during PNCERS trawling in 1998 and 1999
33
Definitions of variables and descriptive statistics from the property value model
49
Results by functional form from the property value form
50
Summary of land use by county and county coastal areas of the PNCERS region
51
Importance of community characteristics in choosing to live in or move to a coastal community
59
Importance of potential threats to the estuarine environment
60
Hierarchy of "organizational learning" characteristics applicable to examination of environmental planning
management organizations affecting Grays Harbor, Washington
64
Preliminary assessment of the demography of respondents to the coastal practitioner survey
65
PNCERS Eat & Learn Seminar Series schedule
72
Metadatabase time-line
73
All-hands meeting attendees
74
All-hands meeting schedule
75
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
1
1999 PNCERS Collaborations
Wind-stress, currents, temperature, and salinity in Willapa Bay
Time series of salinity, riverflow and tidal amplitude in Willapa Bay
Timer series of lower water column sigma-t and temperature
Cross-shelf salinity sections from near Columbia River during downwelling conditions in May 1999
Salinity sections from Willapa Bay during winter storm conditions, 1998-1999
Baroclinic coupling schematic
Distribution of fish schools and plankton patches for several transects, 1995
Comparison of plankton and fish biomass density for 1995 and 1998
Distribution of fish shoal and plankton patch biomass in relation to bird rookeries in PNCERS region
Distribution of fish schools and plankton patches along a survey transect in 1995
Distribution of survey tracks and location of plankton patches near river mouths, WA and OR
Monthly West Coast sea surface temperature anomaly
Estimated number of Common Murres attending Tatoosh Island, post-laying, pre-fledging
Survival rate estimates of coho released from AK and WA, by brood year
Survival rate estimates of coho released from WA, by brood year
Survival rate estimates of fall chinook and coho released from Columbia River in OR, by brood year
Survival rate estimates of fall chinook and coho released from Columbia River in OR, by release year
Survival rate estimates of coho released from Coos Bay and Willapa Bay, by release year
Cruise tracks and mooring sites for the larval recruitment studies
Time series of megalopae abundance from the Charleston light trap site in Coos Bay, 1998 and 1999
Time series of various physical parameters and C. magister abundance near Coos Bay
Cross-shelf transects of temperature and chlorophyll a during downwelling conditions
Cross-shelf transects of temperature and chlorophyll a during upwelling conditions
Maps of the four estuaries sampled as part of the bioindicators project
Average English sole density and abundance in WA and OR estuaries, 1998 and 1999
ix
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
13
15
16
16
19
19
24
24
24
24
25
27
28
28
30
31
32
34
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Figure 6.3
Combined estimated abundance of English sole in four PNCERS estuaries, 1998 and 1999
Figure 6.4 English sole abundance based on subtidal trawl surveys during 1998 and 1999
Figure 6.5
Length frequency and estimated abundance of English sole in 2 OR estuaries, June 1998 and 1999
Figure 6.6 Length frequency and estimated abundance of English sole in 2 WA estuaries, June 1998 and 1999
Figure 6.7 0+ Dungeness crab density and abundance in the four PNCERS estuaries
Figure 6.8
1+ Dungeness crab density in the four PNCERS estuaries
Figure 6.9 1+ Dungeness crab abundance from retrospective analyses from the 1980's
Figure 6.10 Estimated densities of English sole at trawl survey stations in Willapa Bay in June and August, 1999
Figure 6.11 Density of 1+ Dungeness crab across the 5 sampling strata of Willapa Bay in June and August, 1999
Figure 6.12 Density of juvenile shrimp recruiting to open mud and various configurations of shell
35
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
39
39
Figure 6.13 Biomass and composition of soft-sediment prey as a function of predator treatment from intertidal experiments in Grays Harbor
39
Figure 7.1
Mean eelgrass and above ground biomass shoot density at 10 estuarine sites, 1998 and 1999
42
Figure 7.2 Mean eelgrass above and below ground biomass at 10 estuarine sites, 1998 and 1999
43
Figure 7.3 Flowering shoot density at 10 estuarine sites, 1998 and 1999
43
Figure 7.4 Mean percentage cover of Ulva spp. at 10 estuarine sites, 1998 and 1999
43
Figure 7.5 Depth versus eelgrass shoot density in Coos Bay and Willapa Bay, 1999
43
Figure 7.6 Mean shrimp burrow density at 10 estuarine sites, 1999
44
Figure 7.7
44
Shrimp burrow density versus eelgrass shoot density at 10 estuarine sites, 1999
Figure 7.8 Average daily temperature recorded at sites in Willapa Bay and Coos Bay
45
Figure 9.1
Washington state organizational chart
54
Figure 9.2 Typology of coastal ecosystem resource regulations
55
Figure 9.3 Institutional web for Willapa Bay oyster growers
56
VI
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
HUMAN RESOURCES
Principal Investigators
David Armstrong
Director/Professor, School of
Fisheries, University of Washington
daa@fish.washington.edu
crabs, estuarine biota, estuarine
processes, invertebrate fisheries
ecology
Don Gunderson
Professor, School of Fisheries,
University of Washington
dgun@u.washington.edu
biology of marine fishes, population
dynamics, fisheries oceanography
Barbara Hickey
Professor, School of Oceanography,
University of Washington
bhickey@u.washington.edu
physical oceanography, nearshore
and estuarine circulation, the
California current, river plumes,
submarine canyon circulation
Ray Hilborn
Professor, School of Fisheries,
University of Washington
rayh@u.washington.edu
salmon, population dynamics,
modelling
Dan Huppert
Associate Professor, School of Marine
Affairs, University of Washington
huppert@u.washington.edu
fisheries management, natural
resource economics, public values,
salmon recovery
Julia Parrish
Assistant Professor, Departments of
Fisheries and Zoology, University of
Washington
ivarrish@u.washington.edu
PNCERS research management,
common murre ecology, animal
aggregation, complexity theory
Tom Leschine
Associate Professor, School of Marine
Affairs, University of Washington
tml@u washington edu
ecosystem management
Steve Rumrill
Research Scientist/Program
Coordinator, South Slough National
Estuarine Research Reserve
srumrill @harborside com
estuarine ecology, estuarine habitats,
restoration, reproductive biology,
larval ecology, nearshore
oceanography, estuarine resource
management
Alan Shanks
Associate Professor, Oregon Institute
of Marine Biology, University of
Oregon
ashanks@oimb.uoregon.edu
larval transport and recruitment
Gordon Swartzman
Research Professor, Applied Physics
Lab, University of Washington
gordie@apl.washington.edu
nearshore plankton and fish
distribution and abundance
Rebecca Johnson
Ron Thom
Associate Professor, College of
Forestry, Oregon State University
Rebecca.Johnson@.orst.edu
economic valuation and impact
analysis, recreation/tourism
Staff Scientist, Battelle Marine
Sciences Laboratory,
ron.thom@pnl.gov
estuarine habitat, eelgrass
Post-doctoral Fellows
Kathleen Bell
School of Marine Affairs, University
of Washington
bellk@u.washington.edu
environmental economics, land use
modeling
Elizabeth Logerwell
School of Fisheries, University of
Washington
libby@fish.washington.edu
ecology, trophic interactions, marine
fish, salmon, seabirds
Curtis Roegner
School of Fisheries, University of
Washington
croegner@fish.washington.edu
invertebrate recruitment, larval
dispersal, estuarine ecology
Graduate Students
Neil Banas
School of Oceanography, University
of Washington
neil@ocean.washington.edu
physical oceanography, models,
estuarine circulation
Kristine Feldman
School of Fisheries, University of
Washington
kfeldman@fish.washington.edu
burrowing shrimp, crab ecology
John Field
School of Fisheries, University of
Washington
ifield@u.washington.edu
fisheries ecology, fisheries
management, marine ecosystem
management, climate variability,
climate change
vii
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Joel Kopp
School of Marine Affairs, University
of Washington
kopp@u.washington.edu
nonindigenous aquatic species,
ballast water, shipping issues
Arni Magnusson
School of Fisheries, University of
Washington
arnima@fish.washington.edu
coded wire tag salmon database,
salmon survival, ACCESS databases
Michelle Pico
School of Marine Affairs, University
of Washington
pico@u.washington.edu
institutional mapping
Amy Puls
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology,
University of Oregon
apuls @ oimb.uoregon.edu
larval dispersal and transport, larval
ecology, zooplankton identification,
estuarine ecology
Amy Borde
Scientist, Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory
amy.borde@pnl.gov
estuarine habitat, GIS
Nathalie Hamel
Research Technician, Department of
Zoology, University of Washington
nhamel@u.washington.edu
seabird conservation and ecology,
telemetry
Laurie Houston
Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon
State University, Department of Forest
Resources
houstonl@ccmail.orst.edu
environmental economics, land
economics, water economics
David Shreffler
Senior Scientist, Battelle Marine
Sciences Laboratory
lostmtnloft@olympus.net
fisheries biology, nearshore ecology,
ecological restoration
Chris Rooper
School of Fisheries, University of
Washington
rooper @ fish.washington.edu
English sole, marine fish ecology,
estuarine biota, data analysis
Dana Woodruff
Senior Research Scientist Battelle
Marine Sciences Laboratory
dana.woodruff@pnl.gov
remote sensing, benthic mapping,
ocean color interpretation
Technicians
Research Management
Liam Antrim
Senior Research Scientist, Battelle
Marine Sciences Laboratory
liam.antrim@pnl.gov
fisheries and estuarine sciences
Sara Breslow
Assistant Research Manager,
PNCERS, University of Washington
sbreslow @u.washington.edu
PNCERS metadatabase,
PNCERS
research management
Julia Parrish
Assistant Professor, Departments of
Fisheries and Zoology, University of
Washington
jparrish@u.washington.edu
PNCERS research management,
common murre ecology, animal
aggregation, complexity theory
Program Management Team
Robert Bailey
Ocean Program Administrator,
Oregon Coastal Management Program
bob.bailey@state.or.us
PNCERS PMT, PNCERS outreach,
state ocean policy and management,
coastal zone management
Andrea Copping
Assistant Director, Washington Sea
Grant Program, University of
Washington
acopping @u.washington.edu
PNCERS management, oceanography
John Stein
Director, Environmental Conservation
Division, NFSC, NMFS
john.e.stein@noaa.gov
fisheries conservation
Program Coordinator
Greg McMurray
Project Administrator, PNCERS
Program Office, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality,
mcmurray.gregory @deq.state.or.us
PNCERS administration, biological
oceanography
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
r_XECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Sara Breslow and Julia K. Parrish
Introduction
Since last year. PNCERS
has,11.2IIi.JLU
honed its geographic
and conSe, St
p! ?swim iel.1
ceptual focus, concentrating
*-1 in-depth under=trilb on
013 gaining
stia-ras an
Lbectstanding of human and eateain
natural interactions
within a -4%-mt
few to.
maarteciam-1t.,17
jor systems. The majority of our efforts are focused on three
main estuaries along the
Grays
ikt Oregon-Washington
,taLuntari coast:
cow' ,.kw::
Harbor, Willapa Bay. Ur::
and Coy*
Coos Bay: ,sc
as well
.641 as along
it._-LE the
length of the nearshore. Research
GAr.simt into the natural and
ia4 anthropogenic factors influencing ecosystem change
410=1:int^these
Law
areas takes place at several interacting ioc
levels, :Litt
from ticeed
detailed
t. --rr't of the
study on specific elements
dr' coastal
Ptaralsystem
t-rrn to broader,
rio
IL4_ .4_
_Jas a whole.
collaborative conceptualizations
of the system
rrkvqtrAty
t
(4.
Water
74,70;,tr
Properties
TTP,FIA.Ms2:
Nearehore
Foraging
Conditions
related to
Phi skid
Forcing
-Vaiaa
WATERSIIED
Residents
Surves
I
.
Jul enile
Distribution
Vaantr.:An
1
E. Sole
E.
Sole
Zeq2,..
r
/1111,j
Land Use
Patterns
Crosatruphk
Concordance
iD
Pr
IColonies
Managers
Survey
Lanai
Ilatqs1
Patches
I
altrintirnr*
research project will
ultimately
produce a related set of priill=rAlltitiLtett
Ar_sivit,47;it-J'aae
marily academic ;tarot
products, including graduate student theses
itizt17
and dissertations, peer-reviewed journal articles, and presen,11171
tations to dig
the .:74.11,fitc.=
scientific community.
Recruitment
Inxittatui
Plankton
Seabird
RcNIA9L
which have
PNCERS research.
411jitSN
o_ always been the
tit foundation
esciltioliofaft;
Tjc.eriki
Updates on all independent FreitZt7
projects "til
are reported
74.71 herein. Each
Crab
Crab
,:ede 4+1. c74,
Recrutanen:
/
projects. and arrows
ta-r--Wiiindicating
zAicadre the direction
&rAlbr of data flow.
Square tw_s
boxes represent
independent research
projects
rrzczr dethe-;:_nrenas.;
7
ESTUARY
NE A RS 110 RE
-
search,-;its
withsciArra
squares and circles
research
melt.
=MI representing
-
Dechions
Institutional
Mapping
OCEAN
The
Collaborations
Diagram
(Figure 1) offers one way to
ti Ce
ittg "itoccTlf,t"g!
visualize tc
thetallt.trAmtv;
collaborativedystri-ez
dynamics within PNCERS re-
'.*
Dio-Habilat
Linknge
Salmon
nee
Interachon
,
Deci tone
Lena liseai,
Awl
Predator-
Pal eh
Poet done
nd
Smolt
Surat. al
Habitat
L'UlarE;
Location
and
Impact. on
Estuarine
.11abitat
Demographics
Quality
Figure 1. 1999 PNCERS Collaborations. Blocks of color indicate geographic or thematic focus areas of PNCERS. Individual
research projects are shown as white squares. Collaborative projects are represented by circles, with arrows indicating the flow
of data transfer. Orange circles and arrows indicate ongoing collaborations, and blue circles and arrows indicate planned
collaborations.
ix
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Collaborative projects (represented by circles in the diagram)
are the emerging new backbone of PNCERS. In these
projects, groups of two to three Principal Investigators focus
on linkages between their individual projects. One small team
of researchers is investigating the physical and biological
factors controlling larval recruitment to estuaries, another is
characterizing nearshore foraging conditions and other factors involved in salmon smolt survival, and a third is assessing the values, perceptions and attitudes of various contin-
Researchers met in two groups based on these themes at the
All-Hands Meeting held in January. Discussion focused on
both details of data integration and ways to weave research
results into stories for outreach and educational purposes (see
All-Hands Meeting report, page 75). This highest level of
integration and interaction is most likely to produce mean-
ingful results relative to natural resource management in
coastal Oregon and Washington.
gents of the coastal community. Because collaborative
projects often take on a life of their own, PNCERS has hired
1999 Research Summary
three full-time postdoctoral fellows to spearhead these efforts in social, estuarine, and nearshore research, respectively.
It is these collaborative projects upon which PNCERS will
build our evolving broad scale conceptual models.
The independent and collaborative projects work together to
describe trends and processes within each primary geographic, or broad disciplinary, focus, i.e. social science,
nearshore, and estuaries (represented by large blocks of color
in the diagram). Finally, projects address linkages between
these disciplinary and regional focus areas, with questions
such as:
How do nearshore currents influence estuarine water
conditions?
How do land use patterns impact the estuarine habitat?
How do values and perceptions influence coastal
management decisions?
To facilitate data analysis at these levels, researchers are plan-
ning to combine spatial data in a PNCERS Geographic Information System, while the upcoming on-line PNCERS
metadatabase will allow researchers to search for
multidisciplinary data sources related to each of these categories (in addition to many other areas of interest). In addition to meeting in small research teams, PNCERS investigators have the opportunity to gather as a large group to explore these and many other integrative questions in detail at
the weekly PNCERS Eat & Learn Seminars (see Research
Program Management, page 71).
At the broadest level of interaction, PNCERS investigators
have begun formal discussion on two emerging themes of
PNCERS research:
1,
the broad-scale role and consequences of physical
forcing (with primary focus on the nearshore). and
2.
the more local interplay between human activities and
environmental change (with primary focus on
estuaries).
PNCERS' approach to understanding natural and anthropogenic change in the Pacific Northwest coastal region is to
focus attention on the major processes and key indicators
that most effectively illuminate this huge and complex region. Two of the most important processes impacting this
area are physical oceanographic cycles and human demographic change. Key indicators include those which primarily reflect the condition of the ecosystem (e.g. seabirds and
eelgrass), those which track economic trends (e.g. property
values and types of industry), and those which, perhaps most
importantly, relate to both the ecology and economy of the
region (e.g. the valued ecosystem components: salmon, oysters, crab, recreation and tourism).
Major Processes
Clearly, physical oceanographic processes are a major influence on coastal ecology. The PNCERS physical oceanographic team, led by Hickey, has been measuring and observing how upwelling and downwelling, riverflow, and seasonal and tidal cycles influence both currents and water properties near and within estuaries. In collaboration with many
of the other PNCERS projects, they are helping us understand how these physical processes influence biological aspects of the system, such as the distribution and abundance
of plankton patches and fish schools in the nearshore, the
movement of phytoplankton (including harmful algal blooms)
and larvae into and out of estuaries, and the survival of salmon
smolts in both regions.
At the same time, the social science team (Huppert, Leschine,
Johnson and Bell) has been documenting the human processes
impacting this region, including population trends, land use,
industry transitions, and the region's institutional and regulatory fabric. Bell has been hired to work with PNCERS
natural scientists to understand how these human activities
impact coastal ecology, primarily through an exploration of
land use and land value models. The social science team is
also working to explore how the coastal environment impacts
community values and the local economy. Estuarine ecology is significantly impacted by humans, for example, in the
form of development, invasive species, commercial oyster
growing, crab harvesting, and recreation. On the other hand,
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
the environment plays an important role in determining why
people choose to live on the coast, how property is valued,
and what kinds of industry develops (e.g. recreation and tour-
predators). These interactions will be used to build a series
of spatially explicit bioenergetics models of salmon smolt
survival. In addition, Magnusson will consider estuarine pa-
ism).
rameters that may impact salmon survival. As such, the
salmon serve as integrative indicators across several geo-
Indicators
graphic regions.
Influenced directly or indirectly by these major coastal processes are a number of species important for their ecological
and/or economic value. Researchers focusing on these organisms observe and document trends in individual survival
and reproductive output, and population distribution, abundance, and growth rate, as well as other factors which reflect
the general health of local populations.
Nearshore indicators
In the Pacific Northwest nearshore environment, PNCERS
researchers are examining links between three major biological elements of the ecosystem: common murres, fish schools,
and plankton patches. They are also looking at the relationship between this rudimentary food web and physical, bio-
logical and human-associated environmental variables.
Swartzman is comparing the spatial distributions of fish
schools and plankton patches. Swartzman and Parrish are
looking at spatial correlations between common murre colonies and prey sources, i.e. significant concentrations of schooling fish. Both are examining how population trends for these
organisms respond to both spatial and temporal variability in
climatological and oceanographic signals (e.g. El Nifio and
La Nina events, areas of upwelling and change in average
sea surface temperature).
Magnusson and Hilborn have assembled a coded wire tag
database with which to address questions of salmon smolt
survival as a function of environmental change In conjunction with Swartzman and Parrish, Logerwell has recently been
hired to use this database to examine correlations between
salmon smolt survival and plankton abundance (e.g. the prey),
and smolt survival and common murre abundance (e.g. the
Estuarine Indicators
PNCERS investigators conducting research in Pacific Northwest estuaries are interested in how estuarine ecosystems have
changed over time, and to what degree they respond to and
are impacted by both physical and anthropogenic factors.
Current focus is on understanding major sources of environmental variability in order to establish a framework for understanding possible human stressors. To track how habitat
and key species have changed over time, Thom and Rumrill
have been mapping estuarine habitat and comparing current
data to historical observations. They have also been studying eelgrass as an indicator of estuarine health, as it is responsive to changes in nearby land use, variations in water
properties and water quality in the estuary, and climatological signals. To understand variation in the distribution and
abundance of benthic biota, Roegner and Shanks are measuring the transport of larvae into and out of the estuaries.
The patterns of abundance are being related to oceanographic
variables indicative of regional water movements. Armstrong
and Gunderson have been documenting changes in distribution and abundance of estuarine macrofauna (with emphasis
on juvenile Dungeness crab and English sole), noting which
estuarine subregions are the preferred nursery habitats. This
study links the pelagic dispersal work of Shanks and Roegner
with the habitat work of Thom and Rumrill Finally, in response to the growing conviction that oysters and oyster shell
habitat represent important components of coastal estuaries
in Washington and Oregon, we will begin a new pilot project
(headed by Jennifer Ruesink, University of Washington) to
study links between oysters and a suite of native and introduced species.
xi
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Coastal 'tOcean-Estuary
.:417'
Coupling
Project 1
0
Barbara M. Hickey
4
s.orrto 2.11
Aran suggest
lilt data
ib yearA.the
Milo
that 1+ crab densitiVt
ties Narvr:nt
are much higher in estuaries
than along
are; az
the
401,41'itroz
ctrimn size data demopen coast. Moreover, offshore
tr-kcx.
f4C'emu
vitrinz:
onstrate
thatt.tt
thetit.
estuaries
serve as
a nursery;kir
for
7.:4 crab: a significant number
Dm 14,-)r
young
of 4,3114
crabs emirrAittIlL
ti
C'At coast, gat:Z141,
grate fromLett
the estuary
to the
producing a
-444E-z_
At" rzietat when
1'14°
jump inia-Actve
offshore twitr
mean size distribution
a::+a:IPA '0:43afh
emigration
occurs.
Introduction
Time
sites
uv, series of oyster condition at different al=r
within
Willapa
Bay
demonstrate
significant
-ithit
itgo
rzym aibai i74,1:37
t-r:JAZ
interannual
wellI Li
as at significant
'-..t.17111r14,3 variability as -!z
downward
long
term
trend
(Dumbauld,
V?.
(7tittibt:LA. Pers.
comm.). Multi-year
time series of Dungeness
t
fLuz).4-7.13' Oa)
crab populations
for !Se
the Washington
coast as
77n.A
well sa
as :of
for 713,1417?;
Willapa Bayif.
and Grays Harbor estuaries 434,Kto-ttr'_:demonstrate strong interannual variability
'ii iLt:,
b -0+ (.1
in
(newly
settled crab less (xi:
than Ia year
vi, petitt,.1
otr old)
..===
atfi environmental
brirsir:',A_Y:nroldata
041are
irninif.
At tat,gcs-i!alt
the present time
-t:-e, ;:itOe.ez-1475_tin,L.,ILMIF/61.-hth
sufficient
to determine the link between
producBarbara Hickey
and 1+ (crab less than two years old) crabs,, both
VIA% rJ11 and
-0.iite-1.1 estuaries
iit% variability
tivity .:E
in our coastal
44:ItiTz: in
off
and it.in-113
the estuary (see,
IE the open
id IN
;III coast
.1=11 as either
tr.:1i'. yid
re.;e.g. Gunderson et the species that
t--JP-3.-tm*ci5.=!..r.
use them
nurseries or homes. Estual., 1990; .Jamieson and Armstrong, 1991;TIN
Iribarne et al., aries on the U. S. Pacific Northwest coast
:-`4 have
c not received
1994, 1;31';
1995;___LtzbiAr:
Armstrong atet al., 1994). LI
In all
.7101"
iptIFa0!
LE74 been more
si but the 1985 El the attention
of east coast estuaries
that have
.1
;OA;600
ta
rtiact
I
1..L 1.1. Time-line
Table
for PNCERS
measurements.
tn4 1111.
if 12 al-wary-Ir./Pr-fir.
Wind
GHOS
-I
r.=
u,v,T,C (20m); Doppler
--rFkprofiler
rfizt
u,v,T,C
(20,30m)
7,, :1,r4,
4
u,v,T
.441'(9m);
CIU u,v,T,C (urn)
GHEST1
>,
u,v,T (I(9m); ti.
u,v,T,C
I_ -"(11m)
1.1-)
urr"
WBEST3
czt
czt
09'
u,v,T
4:r (9m);
Ir._A; u,v,T,C (11m)
'1;
WBEST6
T,C
WBP3
WBP6
T,C
7
r,10.,...!
c.rpr_v profiler
u,v,T,C
(35,65m); and Doppler
_
CBOS
-
kr:7;*
7.-r_fE r (17m)
T,C-1U.1
and Doppler profiler
LID
CBEST1
ir.,:r7r (11m)
11 r
u,v,T,P
CBEST2
Aug Sep Nov
Ii7.1
1997
Jan
Apr
.L.
Jun
:11:7
a, 0;
Aug
Oct
Dec
Jan
1998
71-;'''.
Apr
Jun Aug
Oct Dec
11999
:ti;
Feb
2000
tin .7.37;k211.1C.:*.f.rtstl'
ftsw tax.
Photo
facing .14.,0
page: Eelgrass
on Washington Coast (1988). Photo by Sara Breslow.
I' rata
7 COUPLING
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY
1
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
heavily impacted by development For the most part, variability in these estuaries is directly related to changes in the
physical environment, due in particular to changes in the adjacent coastal ocean.
each of three estuaries and over the shelf adjacent to
those estuaries.
Our component of PNCERS was designed to address the
physical variability in several Pacific Northwest estuaries,
riverflow conditions.
and the relationship between variability in the coastal ocean
and these estuaries and, in concert with the fisheries components of PNCERS, to determine factors that cause variability
in year class strength in several important species. Measure-
We have demonstrated that during high riverflow con-
ditions, subtidal scale stratification is controlled by
riverflow and not by tidal state.
ments in three estuaries (Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay,
Washington; Coos Bay, Oregon) allow comparative studies
in both fishery success and environmental variability.
We have demonstrated that the plume from the Columbia River dominates water properties during late
spring and early summer in estuaries north of the Co-
We have completed analysis of water property vari-
ability in a Pacific Northwest estuary under low
lumbia during high snow pack years. This leads to large
interannual variability in a given estuary as well as to
significant differences between Oregon and Washington estuaries.
Results & Discussion
During the past year of PNCERS we have made substantial
progress toward our goal of understanding water property
variability in coastal estuaries of the Pacific Northwest. Major accomplishments include the following:
For a second year, we have successfully acquired simultaneous data on currents and water properties in
Each of these results is discussed in more detail below.
I. Data Collection and Analysis
Our primary task during the last two years has been to maintain water property and current instrumentation within three
coastal estuaries and at two sites on the adjacent coast. Time
Table 1.2. Time-line for database in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries and nearshore environment.
II
I
I
Data Time Line Ocean-Estuary Coupling Study
II II
IIII 11111
I
Washington
Shelf Oregon Shelf
Grays
Harbor Will apa
Bay
-
Coos -_
Bay
Sea Grant / EPA
Sea Grant
11111111111111111111111
1111
C--
!It'll
PNCERS
111/111111111
00
Crs
Crs
Current Speed and Direction
Wind Speed and Direction
Conductivity and Temperature
2
COASTAL OCEANESTUARY COUPLING
11.111
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
lines of data collected to date with PNCERS
support are shown in Table 1.1. A time line
showing the extensive data base acquired for
Wind Stress vs. Near Mouth Velocity
WI
10
0
0
-
Pacific Northwest coastal regions with the support of other agencies (EPA, Washington Sea
Grant) as well as PNCERS is shown in Table
1.2.
In general, moorings and sensors were cleaned
and refurbished at approximately quarterly in-
tervals in estuaries and semiannually on the
shelf. Seven sites are being occupied and each
site requires separate ships and trips for each
refurbishment. The Coos Bay estuary sites are
serviced by divers using a small boat. Successful maintenance of the suite of equipment in
the many locations has been challenging and
arduous, utilizing much of the PNCERS-sup-
Along Estuary Velocity
ported field effort. After a year of complete
measurements it was decided to limit the Coos
Bay measurement suite to water properties
(only) and to the site near the mouth (only).
Because of the strenuous field effort, data pro-
Along Estuary Temperature
cessing has lagged behind collection effort.
Analysis this year was primarily restricted to
data from Willapa Bay. Data analysis will be
,..., 18
0
emphasized in the fourth year of PNCERS.
2. Ocean-Estuary Coupling under Low
k 14
Az 32
Rivedlow Conditions in Willapa Bay
Results from our analysis of Willapa Bay data
show that water property and mid- to lowerwater column current variability on scales of
several days during low riverflow conditions
are driven by offshore variability in coastal upwelling processes adjacent to the estuary. Density changes near the mouth of the estuary that
In
result from upwelling or downwelling of coastal
10
Wind Stress vs. Near Mouth Salinity
'EP
S' 28
24
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
Time (Julian Days)
Figure 1.1. Top Panel: Alongshelf wind stress and along-estuary currents
near the estuary mouth (W1). Upper Middle panel: Along-estuary currents
near the mouth (W1) and halfway up the estuary (W5). Lower Middle Panel:
Temperature at -15 m at all sites (W1 at the mouth to W5 mid-way up the
estuary). Bottom Panel: Alongshelf wind stress and salinity at the site nearest
the estuary mouth, with salinity adjusted earlier in time by 1.5 d. From
water are transmitted to the estuary as a gravity current, modifying the along-estuary density gradient and hence the gravitational circulation. New water moves up the estuary at an
average rate of about 12 cm s These relationships (e.g., the up-estuary temperature and velocity movement and the salinity-wind stress
coupling) are shown in Figure 1.1. Water properties change at a slower rate than the speed of
the advancing gravity current, indicating that
vertical mixing plays an important role in determining resultant water properties at a fixed
location. These results are presented in detail
in Hickey and Zhang (2000).
Hickey and Zhang (2000).
COASTAL OCEANESTUARY COUPLING
3
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Initial comparison of water property data from all three estuaries (see the PNCERS 1999 Annual Report) shows a high
degree of inter-estuary correlation during the summer growing season. This similarity is a direct result of the large scale
of atmospheric forcing and hence, the occurrence of upwelling
and downwelling events along the coast (Halliwell and Allen,
estuarine salinities as low as 10 psu. Comparison of salinity
at the surface (TP, 0 m) with salinity in the lower water column (W3, 12 m) shows that lower water column salinity fluctuations are correlated to the surface fluctuations, although
salinity during the high runoff period is rarely less than 22
psu. Note that the correlation of lower water column salinity
to high riverflow events and surface salinity may be entirely
fortuitous: high riverflow occurs at the same time as maxi-
1987). Thus, we expect that detailed analysis of the other
two estuaries during this season will yield exchange mecha-
nisms similar to
those described
above, although
time scales will
likely differ from
30
3 26
estuary to estuary as
a result of differing
morphology.
3.
High-Runoff
= 18
was
Conditions in a Pacific Northwest Es-
14
I.'
10
3.0
tuary (Collabora-
Gradient
Reversal
TP, 0 m
3
4
0
4
Time (calendar
tive Measurements
500
ay)
5
0
with J. Newton).
Measurements of
salinity and temperature near the
300
surface and near the
made in Willapa es-
100
sites. The work is a
50-
collaboration be-
tween PNCERS
period shows that
salinity at the sea
surface is strongly
correlated to high
riverflow events
350
300
Agency (Jan New-
near the surface during a high riverflow
"sas,
0
(Barbara Hickey)
and the Environmental Protection
series of salinity
------ North
150
tuary at several
Comparison of time
Naselle
200
bottom are being
ton at the Department of Ecology).
Willapa
250
30 -
(W3, 12 m) or 10
km (TP, 0 m) from
the ocean. High
riverflow produces
4
500
I
550
- 40
Deep
s 25 CA
a: 20
15 - Surface ;,-'
c
10 - , 1 ;j,.'1,,iddi.12,1,,
-0T5
cn
5
0
28.75 a
r-I,,,
,.,,
17.5
;
I
II;',,,
.
.,,)
,,
i ,,ti,
,V,;.,,..thep.',.,..,.,',10,)
, i %,01,.?,iik.;;110,1,,,,iii,1,
4 Pie V I V li iN r ii
iiiir.,0 11 ililAohoolhol 0.111,,
1114...- rail
-4010,3:0,,,i,:',1:1,'Iaiii,,,e1,11.,.,,,-,r: 1,11.0 4 II/.11.1.10011!"11.'":Tri::111.0
, ' ' l' ) .
) 1 ' 11/,rlit's
0
'
I
1 I
A 4011.1 i
--e
Ilr 0 1,7,
.
1
Iii4IIiIIA ,11.1/1111,011111/1
111101'
320
330
(Figure L2). Data
are from sites 6 km
400
450
Time (calendar day)
1
340
350
360
Time (calendar day)
"
'1111,1'
,1
370
CD
6.25
1,
380
5
Figure 1.2. Upper Panel. Time series of salinity in Willapa Bay at the surface (TP, 0) and in the lower
water column (W3, 12 m) from November 1998 through June 1999. Data are from sites 6 km (W3) and 10
km (TP) from the estuary mouth. Middle Panel. Time series of riverflow from the 3 major rivers in Willapa
Bay. After day 500, riverflow is less than 25 m3 s-1. Bottom panel. Comparison of surface and deep salinity
with tidal amplitude at the same sites shown in the top panel.
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY COUPLING
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
mum downwelling along the coast, during which processes
described in (2) above come into play. The relative importance of in situ and remote forcing to local water properties
will be examined in our future analyses.
A number of large low salinity events in the lower water column show no correlation to local riverflow. In the next section we will show that these extrema are caused by intrusions
of water from the Columbia River plume into the estuary.
The mouth of the Columbia River is located about
22
20
E
18
13)
16
.(.7)
Late spring
Winter
Hi Riverflow Period
24
Al' \ tvi
Sig 11 !
1
°1\
t
N
'Itill'1.A
"la?
T
1 4 --
Nkv ni
\011 N
1
)A
Ai,
t
'
II
4\r
\
IIA
1
t 1,"
lit\iir CR
12
n
li CR
ii
Plie..0 '
/V
12
upwelling
16
--___.,,,i,
e".0 1 4
0h
N
11
18
1
Iv"
Atm. cooling
I0
300
350
450
400
Time (calendar day)
a
a)
cu
In many estuaries, stratification on greater-than-
E.'
tidal time scales is con-
73
10 ai..
0
aE
8
'nn,P
as
cR
6
4
June
G)
trolled by tidal amplitude;
in particular, vertical mix-
ing is enhanced during
periods of stronger tidal
currents (spring tides) and
550
500
30 km south of Willapa
Bay.
diminished during periods of weaker tidal currents (neap tides). This is
30
f\
1,
if'
I
A,
25
li
V:
/111',0114:
111, ,, 'I;
/
.1
dS, W3-W6
I
Ii
11
il iiil 111'41,r4
1,,,,,.
,
clearly not the case in
10
m
r
I."
:,,,
5
1)1, rA
f,' vi
1
Cl)
1,,
0
fication) are observed
20
Gradient
Reversals
S, W3
15
300
350
400
450
Time (calendar day)
during high riverflow periods, and not necessarily
500
10
550
015
Northwest Estuaries
co
(Collaborative Measurements with J. Newton)
Time series of sigma-t at
a location 6 km from the
5
0
;FC
0
connection to tidal amplitude, if it occurs, must be
of secondary importance.
lumbia Plume on Pacific
10
w
during spring tides. The
4. Influence of the Co-
a.
17)
Willapa Bay (Figure 1.2,
lower panel). Maximum
differences between surface and near bottom salinity (i.e., vertical strati-
Gradient Reversal
5
ocean show dramatic den-
sity minima throughout
10
'
15
I
20
n
I
25
I
Salinity at 12 m near mouth
30
Figure 1.3. Top Panel. Time series of lower water column sigma-t and temperature from November
1998 through June 1999. The period of high riverflow and periods of upwelling are indicated. A
major atmospheric cooling event is also indicated. "CR" indicates a low salinity event caused by the
Columbia plume. Dates of CTD sections presented in the next 2 figures are indicated with large dots.
Middle Panel. Time series of the along-estuary salinity difference over a 20 km distance along the
estuary. A negative value indicates a reversal of the "normal" estuarine salinity gradient; i.e., the
estuary is fresher at the ocean entrance than half way down the estuary. Bottom Panel. Alongestuary salinity difference plotted versus salinity near the estuary mouth.
the year (Figure 1.3).
with
Comparison
riverflow data (Figure
1.2) shows no relationship between these dramatic minima and high
riverflow conditions.
Minimum salinity in the
lower layers of the estuary occurs not during the
high riverflow season. but
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY COUPLING
5
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
s
P. "Comma
D
0
i
-20
-
-40
40
0
20
.10
ft0
0
I
40
40
0 '0
0
0
b
2.0
26
Kilometers from shore
Figure 1.4. Cross-shelf salinity sections from a location near the Columbia River to north of Grays Harbor during downwelling
conditions in late May 1999. Sections confirm the presence of extremely low salinity water offshore of Vv'illapa and Grays estuaries
during this high snowmelt year. Contours are drawn at 1 psu intervals.
in late spring (May-June). Salinities as low as 14-18 psu are
not uncommon (see Figure 1.2). The winter of 1998-1999, in
which La Nina. hence rainy, conditions prevailed in the Pacific Northwest, resulted in an extremely high snow pack in
by which climate changes can affect both nearshore and
coastal estuaries. Moreover, the effect would be limited to
Washington's estuaries. Thus, comparison of crab settling
rates, phytoplankton growth and other biological indicators
Pacific Northwest mountains. Such conditions produce
anomalously high runoff conditions in the Columbia River
the following spring due to melting snow Thus, in spring
between the estuaries during such periods could provide information on the effect of climate changes on Pacific Northwest estuaries and nearshore regions
1999, the plume from the Columbia River was unusually large
and unusually fresh. Hydrographic sections across the shelf
offshore of Willapa from the Columbia to north of Willapa
Bay confirm the presence of very low salinity water from the
Columbia River plume just offshore of Willapa Bay during
this period (Figure 1.4). Data were collected on a PNCERSsupported offshore survey (processed by Curtis Roegner).
Data were Oft;
obtained near day 500, just following an upwelling
:CtiM
event (sec survey dot in Figure 1 3)
Wind conditions
in May-June, 1999 continued to reflect La
Ctotlit
Nina conditions;
namely, poor weather continued to occur,
tcrii
catted,.
with the associated northward winds that move the Columbia plume to shore (Hickey et al.. 1997). Thus the time series
of salinity in the estuary in May-June as seen in Figure 1.3
reflect a period of fluctuating upwelling and downwelling
winds. Upwelling occurs, but the amount of freshwater over
the shelf due to the Columbia freshet is apparently sufficient
to inhibit upwelling of deeper, saltier colder water. Since the
Columbia River has essentially no nitrate in spring (it is utilized by indigenous phytoplankton), the lack of deep. nutrient rich water during this rather lengthy period is likely to
have had major consequences on the biology of both the
coastal region and the local estuaries. In addition to more
direct climate effects such as increased or diminished
riverflow, or changes in the amount or duration of coastal
upwelling, we have thus identified another important route
6
CoAsTAL Oci,..AN-EsTuARY CouPLING
Time series of salinity differences over a --20 km distance
along the estuary demonstrate that during Columbia intrusions, the "normal- along-estuary density and salinity gradients (denser and more saline nearer the ocean) are near zero
or reversed (Figure 1.3, middle panel). Such reversals occurred several times in the 1998-1999 winter to spring period; in particular the reversed gradient persisted for up to 2
weeks at a time in May 1999. We speculate that such gradient reversals may have important consequences for both juvenile fish and larvae in the estuaries Gradient reversals typically were associated with lower water column salinities less
than about 22 psu (Figure 1.3, lower panel). Water property
surveys collected by DOE during a "normal" high winter
riverflow event and a 'Columbia intrusion" are shown in Figure 1.5. The survey data illustrate that in addition to elimination or reversal of along-estuary density and salinity gradi-
ents, vertical stratification is dramatically altered by intrusions of Columbia plume water; i.e. vertical stratification is
eliminated completely over much of the estuary.
Integration & Interaction
Our research team is providing information on environmental conditions in three estuaries and the coastal zone Similarities and differences of processes and em ironments within
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
0
1
2
56
4
:4
78
Q
10 1112
13
15 16 17
14
18
20 21 22 23 24
11
15
25
10
20
tr.
15
10
C/)
Typical winter
ccndd inno
MOT conditions
...
30
,0
11
0
5
20
15
:5
10
25
35
30
40
Distance
from
StartSr.
of Transect
'Oat)
rj6111,7t.
frIGMt
atuta l (km)
0
1
2
50
4
1
79
9
15 16 17
Ite 13
,S 14
54:kt
1 n 1 11 2
1R
20 21 22
-r-23 24
1.Q
35
10
5
125
10
15
I) 20
25
Columbia intrusion
15
30
15
10
5
20
25
30
Distance from Sran
Start of Transect (kin)
Willapa R.
35
40
'0
Naselle R.
44' 40-
4 f,
30.
44, 2u
A5°
--
124
10'
124- 0
123' 50'
Figure 1.5. Sections showing salinity along the estuary from the Willapa River west toward the ocean and down the main axis of
the estuary during "typical- winter storm conditions (upper) and during an intrusion of Columbia River water (bottom). Dates of
these surveys are shown in Figure 1.3 as a pair of large dots (near days 362 and 378). The black vertical line indicates the turning
point from east-west to north-south. The measurement location for data presented in Figure 1.3 (W3) is also shown. Note the
transition from high stratification during normal high riverflov to low stratification during a Columbia plume intrusion.
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY Col5PLINc
7
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
the three estuaries and along the coast are being exploited in
conjunction with PNCERS colleagues to address spatial and
temporal variability in fishery year class strength, larval settling rates, fish, zooplankton, phytoplankton distributional
patterns and growth rates as well as the occurrence of toxic
algal blooms (HABS).
Phytoplankton standing stock in coastal estuaries is of vital
importance to the estuarine ecosystem and also provides the
primary food source for commercial species such as oysters.
We hypothesize that oceanically-derived phytoplankton can
enter coastal estuaries by two routes:
During upwelling events, just as on the coast, seed
stock are pulled into the estuary where they are fueled
Specific examples of integrations to date in addition to those
described in (3) and (4) above include the following.
1. Estuary-Ocean Biological Coupling for a Pacific North-
by the high nutrients brought in with the upwelled
water. A local phytoplankton bloom may follow as
this biomass moves up the estuary with the patch of
west Estuary, Willapa Bay: A Working Hypothesis. B. Hickey,
water at a rate of about 10 km per day.
C. Roegner and J. Newton
Research on processes affecting local estuaries has demonstrated that waters in Willapa Bay exchange with the coastal
ocean on a time scale of about 5 days in the main portion of
the estuary (see schematic in Figure 1.6). The type of water
During downwelling events, just as on the coast, the
phytoplankton from the upwelling-fueled bloom are
pulled into the estuary and also move up the estuary.
This biomass, although nutrient poor and declining
rather than growing, may provide a direct food source
to the estuary, particularly near the mouth of the estuary. It seems likely that HABS blooms from the coast
may enter coastal estuaries via this mechanism, particularly during late fall storms. Any HABS bloom on
the coast would also move to coastal beaches during
these storms.
presented at the mouth of the estuary on flooding tides is
governed by the water available near the coast at that time.
The properties of that water (temperature, salinity, nutrient
levels and phytoplankton content) are governed by whether
upwelling or downwelling is occurring along the coast at that
time. During upwelling, surface water moves offshore and
cold, saltier, nutrient rich water moves upward within a few
kilometers of the coast; during downwelling, surface water
moves onshore and warmer, fresher, nutrient-poorer water
moves inshore and downward within a few kilometers of the
coast. In the Pacific Northwest,
Data from a PNCERS-supported survey in June 1999 illustrate the rapid transition from downwelling to upwelling con-
transitions between these two
upwelling
states occur at 2-10 day intervals.
Water presented at the mouth of
the estuary (for both upwelling
and downwelling events) travels
up the estuary at the rate of about
heating
downwelling
heating
10
12 14 16
14
12
16
18
10
10
9
10 km per day, modifying the cir-
estuary
estuary
culation in the estuary (the
Temperature
"gravitational "circulation) as it
e',>(
Temperature
passes (see Figure 1,1 and discussion in text).
31
During a coastal upwelling event
on the coast, phytoplankton seed
30
29 28
28
27
26
stock are upwelled into the euphotic zone and, fueled by the
high nutrient level, begin to grow.
estuary
estuary
Salinity
Salinity
The growing phytoplankton
move offshore as new seed stock
is upwelled so that highest biom-
ass typically occurs offshore
rather than right at the coast.
During the downwelling event
that inevitably follows, the phytoplankton bloom is advected
back to the coast.
8
Upwelling
Downwelling
Figure 1.6. Schematic illustrating baroclinic coupling processes between the coastal ocean
and a coastal plain estuary during upwelling and downwelling events for a low riverflow,
summer period in an Eastern Boundary system. From Hickey and Zhang (2000).
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY COUPLING
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
ditions offshore of Willapa Bay. Isohalines tilt downward
toward the coast during the downwelling event; just three
days later, isohalines tilt upward toward the coast (compare
Figures 5.4 and 5.5, upper panels, in Project 5 report ). Phytoplankton distributions illustrate the rapid response (i.e.,
growth) of the biomass to upwelling conditions (compare
Figures 5.4 and 5.5, lower panels).
Time series of sigma-t in the lower water column within the
estuary during this period show the rapid change from
downwelling (lower density water) to upwelling (higher density water) consistent with the change in wind direction from
southward to northward (Figure 1.3). Time series of chlorophyll within the estuary, although available (from EPA-supported research) have not been processed to date. During the
remaining portion of PNCERS Year 3, these data as well as
information on phytoplankton species will be incorporated
into the analysis and a paper prepared for publication.
The hypotheses presented here are unique. Previous work
has suggested only that phytoplankton enter estuaries during
"wind relaxation" events. Our results demonstrate that this
conclusion is likely overly simplistic, describing only half
the possibilities for biological estuary-ocean coupling in Pa-
least the northern half of the Washington coast may be primarily generated in the Juan de Fuca eddy; b) that during
years when intense southward advection in late summer bring
this eddy (or portions of the eddy) southward to the Washington coast, c) HABS are swept to the coast if (and only if)
the intense southward flow is followed by a fall storm with
associated currents strong enough and/or persistent enough
to move the bloom across the shelf to beaches (and, in some
cases, to coastal estuaries, see above). The components of
this hypothesis each require further in-depth examination and
analysis. A paper presenting these ideas is in preparation.
Time Variability of Larval Recruitment. C. Roegnet; B.
Hickey, A. Shanks
We have supplied coastal current data to C. Roegner to help
interpret larval light trap data at Coos Bay. This collaboration will increase this year as more of our data becomes avail-
able. In particular, the analysis will be extended to include
light trap data in Willapa Bay, allowing comparison between
the two estuaries.
Data Processing. N. Banas and D. Armstrong
CTD obtained during the Dungeness Crab trawl survey in
June, 1999 were processed and interpreted by our research
cific Northwest estuaries. The ongoing research suggests that
multiple sources of phytoplankton may exist for the estuary
(beyond indigenous species) and that these different sources
may impact different subregions of the estuary.
group.
Crab and Flatfish Larval Recruitment. Don Gunderson,
Chris Rooper and Barbara Hickey.
We are assisting Chris Rooper in modeling transport of larval and egg stage English sole along the coast from spawning grounds to juvenile nurseries in estuaries. We are providing information on time series analysis techniques as well as
a simple numerical model for alongshelf transport in late
winter-spring conditions.
sist interpretation of fish and zooplankton patterns in data
from the coast-wide triennial fish surveys (processed by
Swartzman) This collaboration will continue and will be
Willapa Bay Biophysical Studies. Barbara Hickey, Neil
Banas, Jan Newton and Eric Siegel
A group of four interrelated abstracts were prepared for the
Armstrong, J., D.A. Armstrong and S. Mathews. 1994. Food
habits of estuarine staghorn sculpin, Leptocottus armatus,
with focus on consumption of juvenile Dungeness crab
Cancer magister. Fish. Bull. 93: 456-470.
Garcia-Berdial, I., B. M. Hickey and M. ICawase. Factors
Controlling the orientation of the Columbia River Plume:
a numerical model study. Ocean Sciences Meeting, San
Antonio, January, 2000.
Ocean Sciences Meeting in January, 2000. The abstracts used
both physical and biological data to address issues of nutri-
ent supply and phytoplankton growth rates and spatial patterns in Willapa Bay. At least two papers are expected to
emerge from this collaboration.
Zooplankton and Fish Patches Along the U.S. West Coast.
G. Swartzman and B. Hickey
Physical oceanographic expertise has been provided to as-
extended to other years following the joint GLOBEC award
to these investigators.
References
Gunderson, D.R., D.A. Armstrong, Y.B. Shi and R.A.
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS). Barbara Hickey, R. Horner
and V Trainer
Patterns and time series of data on HABS collected off the
Washington coast has been analyzed to attempt to determine
when and where HABS occur. Dr. Hickey has been providing expertise on movement of coastal waters. A working hypothesis with three parts has emerged: a) that HABS on at
McConnaughey. 1990. Patterns of estuarine use by juvenile English Sole (Parophrys retulus) and Dungeness crab
(Cancer Magister). Estuarines 13 (1): 59-71.
Halliwell, Jr., G.H. and J.S. Allen. 1987. Large-scale coastal
wind field along the west coast of North America, 19811982. J. Geophys. Res. 92 (C2): 1861-1884.
Hickey, B.M., L. Pietrafesa, D. Jay and W.C. Boicourt. 1997.
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY COUPLING
9
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
The Columbia River Plume Study: subtidal variability of
the velocity and salinity fields. J. Geophys. Res., 103(C5):
10,339-10,368.
Hickey, B.M. and M. Zhang. 2000. Baroclinic coupling between an Eastern Boundary ocean and a flood plain estuary (Willapa Bay) during low riverflow, summer conditions. Submitted to J. Geophys. Res.
Iribarne, 0., D.A. Armstrong and M. Fernandez. 1995. Environmental impact of intertidal juvenile Dungeness crab
habitat enhancement: Effects on bivalves and crab foraging rate. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 192: 173-194.
Iribarne, 0., M. Fernandez and D.A. Armstrong. 1994. Does
space competition regulate density of juvenile Dungeness
crab Cancer magister Dana in sheltered habitats? J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 183: 259-271.
Jamieson, G. and D.A. Armstrong. 1991. Spatial and temporal recruitment patterns of Dungeness crab in the northeastern Pacific. Memoirs Queensland Museum 31: 365381.
Siegel, E., J. Newton, B. Hickey and N. Banas. 1999. Hydrographic variability and river-estuary-ocean linkages over
the seasonal time scale in Willapa Bay. Abstract for Ocean
Sciences meeting, January, 2000, EOS, American Geophysical Union.
Trainer, V., R. Homer, B. Hickey, N. Adams and J. Postel.
1999. Biological and physical dynamics of domoic acid production off the Washington, USA, coast. Abstract for Ninth
International Conference on Harmful Algal Blooms, February, 2000, Hobart, Tasmania.
Presentations:
Barbara M. Hickey, "Water properties and currents in coastal
estuaries of the Pacific Northwest." Invited Paper. Pacific
Estuarine Research Society Annual Meeting, January, 1999,
Hatfield Marine Center, Newport, Oregon.
Applications
Barbara Hickey, "Physical oceanography of the Pacific Northwest." Invited Presentation, JISAO, May 1999,University of
Washington.
Publications:
Banas, N. and B. M. Hickey. 1999. CTD data in Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and Coos Bay during 1997-1998. School
Barbara Hickey, Jan Newton, Eric Siegel and Neil Banas,
"Event scale processes in a coastal plain estuary, Willapa
Bay, Washington." Ocean Sciences Meeting, January, 2000.,
of Oceanography, University of Washington, Special Report.
San Antonio,
Banas, N., B. Hickey, J. Newton and E. Siegel. 1999. Physical and biological properties of banks and channels in Willapa
Bay, Washington. Abstract for Ocean Sciences meeting, January, 2000, EOS, American Geophysical Union.
Eric Siegel, Jan Newton, Barbara Hickey and Neil Banas,
"Hydrographic variability and river-estuary-ocean linkages
over the seasonal time scale in Willapa Bay." Ocean Sciences Meeting, January, 2000, San Antonio.
Garcia-Berdial, I., B. M. Hickey and M. Kawase. Factors
Controlling the orientation of the Columbia River Plume: a
numerical model study. Ocean Sciences Meeting, San Antonio, January, 2000.
Jan Newton, Eric Siegel and Barbara M. Hickey, "Controls
on primary production in the Pacific coastal estuary Willapa
Bay: oceanic versus riverine forcing." Ocean Sciences Meeting, January, 2000, San Antonio.
Hickey, B. M., J. Newton, E. Siegel and N. Banas. 1999.
Event scale processes in a coastal plain estuary, Willapa Bay,
Washington. Abstract for Ocean Sciences meeting, January,
2000, EOS, American Geophysical Union.
Neil Banas, Barbara Hickey, Jan Newton and Eric Siegel,
"Physical and biological properties of banks and channels in
Willapa Bay, Washington." Ocean Sciences Meeting, January, 2000, San Antonio.
Hickey, B. M. and Xuemei Zhang. 2000. Baroclinic coupling
between an eastern boundary coastal ocean and a flood plain
estuary during low riverflow, summer conditions. Journal of
Geophysical Research. Submitted.
Barbara M. Hickey, "Oceanography of the Pacific Northwest
coast and adjacent estuaries." Physical oceanography lunch
seminar, February, 2000.
University of Washington.
Newton, J., E. Siegel and B. M. Hickey. 1999. Controls on
I. Garcia-Berdial, Barbara M. Hickey and M. Kawase, "Factors Controlling the orientation of the Columbia River Plume:
a numerical model study" Ocean Sciences Meeting, January,
2000, San Antonio.
primary production in the Pacific coastal estuary Willapa Bay:
oceanic versus riverine forcing. Abstract for Ocean Sciences
meeting, January, 2000, EOS, American Geophysical Union.
10
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY COUPLING
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Workshops:
B. Hickey attended the PNCERS "All Hands" Meeting, January, 2000, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
ing in February, 2000, Tasmania and a paper is in preparation.
University of Oregon. A. Shanks has provided small boat
support and lodging for our Coos Bay surveys and mooring
Partnerships:
refurbishments.
GLOBEC (NSF/NOAA supported research). Dr. Hickey has
been awarded two grants, one to maintain instrumented moorings off the coast near Grays Harbor, Washington and Coos
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDF).
Bay, Oregon for the next four years; the other (with G.
Swartzman) to provide oceanographic interpretation for zooplankton and fish patches (from hydro-acoustic data all along
the west coast on two triennial surveys). With GLOBEC sup-
port, data from these moorings will extend 7-15 years, allowing interannual comparison of environmental effects on
the coast and in its estuaries. Data include ocean currents,
temperature and salinity at a range of depths. GLOBEC moorings will also include fluorometry and optical sensors to better examine biological variability.
COOP (Coastal Ocean Program). As a member of the NSF
supported COOP steering committee Dr. Hickey has represented PNCERS at two semiannual meetings this year. At
these meetings, members of other groups (NSF, ONR and
other NOAA programs) are kept informed of PNCERS efforts to assist in planning their own programs.
B. Dumbauld has provided a small boat for many of our
Willapa trips to clean or refurbish sensors and collect CTD
data. We have provided Dr. Dumbauld with results from re-
cent drifter and Doppler current surveys. We have undertaken surveys in intertidal regions of Willapa Bay of particular interest to WSDF.
Department of Ecology (DOE). We have been collaborating
with J. Newton in a number of analyses [see (1), (2) above
and (4), (5) in the "Results" section]. In particular we have
shared CT]) data as well as data from moored sensors. These
data are being incorporated into several papers describing
biophysical interactions between Willapa Bay and the coastal
ocean.
Personnel
Ongoing physical oceanographic studies of biologically important intertidal areas supported by Washington Sea Grant
Dr. Barbara Hickey, Professor, University of Washington
Susan Geier, Research Engineer, University of Washington
Dr. Nancy Kachel, Oceanographer, University of Washington
William Fredericks, Scientific Programmer, University of
Washington
Jim Johnson, Field Engineer, University of Washington
Neil Banas, Graduate Student, University of Washington
complement the channel-oriented studies undertaken by
Samuel Sublett, Diving Safety Officer, University of
Washington Sea Grant. N. Banas (supported by Sea Grant)
and B. Hickey have prepared a data report including much
of the recently collected CTD data. Title "CTD data in Grays
Harbor, Willapa Bay and Coos Bay during 1997-1998".
PNCERS.
Washington
Dave Thorson, Oceanographer (diver), University of
National Marine Fisheries (NMFS). We are providing
oceanographic interpretations to V. Trainer (NMFS) and R.
Horner (UW) to help understand HABS blooms off the Washington coast. An abstract was recently submitted for a meet-
Washington
Jim Postel, Oceanographer, University of Washington
Christopher Moore, Oceanographer (diver), University of
Washington
COASTAL OCEAN-ESTUARY COUPLING
11
J
PNCERS 1999
REPORT
Ith; ANNUAL
L1F471-1r
-1U0
xi]it4
Plankton patches, .1k*
fish schools
1.t and
in t.ia
the nearshore
I LId. environmental conditions Li
so 2
- =1.1.14M-rmr' MN
-:a a-wir w.11. grrIrrIE
ocean environment
of Project
,I
-
[II
1.
Fir.--=.7141111
I 1111{1
N.
Gordon
artzm
an
.1adtoS w1-gE
zaw--
e
tt1-11.
Introduction
In this project we meldI two-freeCrquency
SI
It 1.C7 acoustic data collected by
the t0
National Marine
Fisheries Ser..fittiM PIPI=.2;t
fTtal:
vice (NMFS) Alaska Fisheries
P14:0:904. Sci;704-
directly_ relevant
the feeding conditions of
-0`.1.:tat to 6ri
otregionally
rent, lit: important biota,
salmon, crab, Pacific
'etc hake, andj 71..
EnPer,....171.1 cieiritcp3/4.
VW:r_ including
34.
miciLut' of these
M Lag;
glish Sole. They
a gap between the ddynamics
Ls tialso fill
biota
larger-scale environmental
conditions.
1-tirt andCl...nifp:'ve,440
-retprilt41:-.r.s.itt
lzk
-
i
ence Center (AFSC) during
summer
1L
1995 :4+-4
and 1998
along the Oregon19:4A A:dna
Washington nearshore marine environment with
"Ztt11.1Y
*Lb accompanying envirrr:
icapt,E.141u
ronmental data (depth,
temperature,
r1ij,4_111:Lye.et.uvrGordon Swartzman
currents) collected during the survey.
..e7r.mti;.441-latelLtqis
The
e Alb
data have
been processed,
using image processing
methVII.a=Viirti
;,,,f-A.asiterrospe-Ft.
twira.4w4';%
ods
(SwartzmanIX
et A
al.,. 1999)
produce maps of fish
shoals
Or ISTiltirATIAI
107. to*trotitMI/AN!
01 7113
and plankton patches along a =inv.'
transect curtain trzeirn
under!t!4the survey wk..-a.track. These
map of:ten
the fish
plankton
ri and
to.data provide a r_..A7
t vicri
T
biota
of the nearshore shelft ecosystem which
can be
L-: used
to:
ter,
-ftt.1.7-awint4Tf4
Lfivutt.
zzie :AL
t
:
the sk
spatial distribution tif
of fish
L characterize changes
14,811-4- in tr.
and plankton 1between
1.77.11,1T1J
(1995) and an El Nil-10
rz, a normal
iiir11,14,,Ltat
f19)
(1998) year
characterize the nearshore distribution of plankton as
encountered by smolt salmon when they first arrive in
the ocean, and to relate this to ocean survival of various salmon stocks
examine the proximity of fish and their plankton prey
over the study region and to relate this to bathymetric
and environmental features
relate the distribution of fish and plankton near major
bird rookeries to rookery size and breeding success;
and
attempt to generalize the spatial distribution of
nearshore fish and zooplankton to other years through
examining possible relationships between the them,
larger-scale environmental conditions and primary
production, obtained from satellite images.
Ocean current information, collected during the surveys using an acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP), can be used
to examine the spatial variability of current conditions near
the mouths of major estuary systems (e.g. Willapa Bay , Gray's
Harbor, Coos Bay, Yaquina Bay) to supplement mooring data,
with an eye to investigating via modeling the conditions which
lead to successful transport of settling larvae into the estuaries. These nearshore data provide a synthesis of information
12
PLANKTON PATCHES AND FISH SCHOOLS
.L
...elk
Results
4 _.,L & Discussion
I
-qthY.:74ictt Between; 1995
Comparison
of
t.; Fish and Plankton Distribution
$721'
and 1998
We
fish schools
from11'cot
these
teC42 and plankton
;.1044/01patches
Od1tI1Wia
,-et extracted
-rtriAr4 131:
data using
image thresh1St
-ate image processingg methods including
A;t44,-`40&\2404olds,f`Jjgtat....mt
differencing and morphological image
4ll
atc processing
vrevr-fir.1;
(Swartzman
al.,I1999).
planktonK./101-11w*
patch extraction methcilltaIrraetrt.
-04 The ptaltl:
ar
-,E7.44-01)
ods are Volt:
basedcA
onf-0-1
the increase
in backscatter from small or7.7
ganisms in the ocean
(e.g.
euphausiids)
with
increasing
freiv it" .
legi 4.4 EL."
quency (Swartzman n
et J.,
al., Wi;
1999).Piatinrf
Planktonpi
patches and fish
0.L.
schools were plotted, along with bottom depth, for East-West
tthvis
running
10 n.mi. along the
2.1).
r:-**S transects
qt." tea every
tra- 1,1
To. coast (Figure
:77 _-rt1,.1:I
The transects
40OPL
to 120 km in length
71-110
and cover
arm ga
=Mt= range from
:.:T-aa
bottom4:eft,
depth range between
and 500 m.
tni.ta
l'Oit 40 O46+4
tom2i. xacsk,
In general, 1995 was a year of high fish abundance, particularly in the southern part of the survey area (South of Cape
Blanco, OR), while 1998 featured an extreme northward shift
in abundance, with lower fish abundance in the study area.
Plankton patch density was higher in 1998, an El Nifio year,
particularly south of Cape Blanco. We divided the transects
into a shelf area (bottom depth < 250 m) and an offshore
region. We examined the relative abundance, for both survey years of fish and plankton biomass both in the shelf and
offshore regions (Figure 2.2 A and B). From changes in the
relative abundance of fish and plankton we divided the study
area into three broad regions:
I. A southern region from Cape Mendocino, California
to Cape Blanco, Oregon.
A middle region from Cape Blanco to Cape Lookout,
Oregon (45.4N latitude, just south of the Columbia
River).
A northern region from Cape Lookout to the USCanada border at the Straits of Juan de Fuca (48.3 N
latitude).
Results from this study have been submitted for publication
in proceedings of the Lowell Wakefield Conference on Spatial Modeling and Management in Fisheries in Anchorage,
I
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
AK in October 1999 comparing fish and plankton abundance
between the 1995 and 1998 surveys. Emphasis in this paper
is on changes over the three regions of the survey in relative
abundance and in the proximity of fish and plankton patches.
ton near the shelf break appeared to occur when plankton
abundance was higher and there were sufficient fish in the
area to exploit the plankton.
Integration &
Interaction
Bird-Fish and Bird-Plankton Interactions
In collaboration with Julia
Parrish, we are relating the
abundance and fledging
success of birds on selected
colonies to the plankton
patch distribution in the
neighborhood of the colo30
10
70
50
-
nies. Initially, we have plot-
ted a plan view of fish
0
school and plankton patch
biomass along the coast, for
total fish and plankton and
100
for patches and schools
above the thermocline
200
a)
(where most piscivorous
fish feeding dives are
300 -
thought to be). We will use
a nonparametric regression
Transect 44, Lat=43.8°N
400 -
approach to model the
30
10
50
70
90
colony size, and, if available, breeding success, as a
0-
function of available
colony-specific parameters
100
(e.g. closeness to habitation,
perimeter, area) and biological parameters (e.g. index of predation or predator presence. fish biomass
fi 200a)
300-
within 40 km of colony,
median distance between
Transect 34, Lat=42 1°N
4000
20
40
60
Distance from start of transect (km)
relative importance of
physical and biological fac-
Figure 2.1. Distribution of fish schools and plankton patches for several transects in 1995. Plankton
patches are in red and fish schools in blue. The intensity of color in the patch is proportional to
the biomass of the patch.
Various methods for examining proximity of patches were
used to conduct this analysis (Swartzman et al., 1999). We
found that on many transects large biomass schools of fish
were attracted to large biomass plankton patches near the
shelf break (Figure 2 1) this co-occurrence of fish and plank-
fish school clusters). This
will provide insight to the
tors in influencing bird
abundance. Acoustic data
for 1995 and 1998 are being currently used for this,
and future data acquisition
of surveys in 1999, 2000 and 2001 will also be used and
working with past data from 1992 and earlier (proposed).
Relating the Spatial Distribution of Fish and Plankton to
Environmental Conditions
PLANKTON PATCHES AND FISH SCHOOLS
13
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
In collaboration with Barbara Hickey, we plan to develop a
coast-widey.camr
picture of current
flow and
upwelling
:WO El _HOW
32C
CFI-74f7kpatterns
Pi
during the summer,
based on a melding of ADCP, CTD and
:LLL1i3. tiez-tA
atirl;
mooring current data. We have begun
examining tie
the csTirt
current
;11..v-thvatvo
:-4.0,1xacttin
velocity
means
Au Iare developing
ma a to visual-.
tit a4...*
: information-and
71.4-171.ize t"
these data along with 12,
the itaN
fish and rChM
planktonIT:561
data (Figure
I4
2.4) and
:Lod to
LI test relationships
.31%7-3 Akvf between plankton
-11k11-6abundance
and current conditions.
Upwelling, cross-shelf
flow and :Karinorthcidatry.atrils,
UpAtIll
=',e..c-thJ Cow/ad
south
flow
its duce.
change with depth
are
thought
to
strongly
11)* 1.
It and
:1
da
!Zt
.4141,3affect the
distribution and
abundance of zooplankton.
t*. spatial
atkt 4.20.1%L.te
1.1.1113.).Wirzazzvit:::41;r.
We -41
will examine
with an eye to developing
W.34° 7. this
:ill relationship
T::$6:02i.94 V41".1ra
a model of plankton abundance
as
*CAROM Za function
esofe environmental %.,311:4atiltrif(temperature, depth
and current) conditions.
IA!
apt' A1.4:r.sata1
and;
Vtla.1frfL1 Z. ix:Al
tems to be used as input to models of the effect of
vertical migration of larvae near the mouth of estuaries on larval transport into the estuaries. This work
will be done in collaboration with Curtis Roegner
iritzt
(PNCERS Postdoctoral fellow) and Barbara Hickey.
laaat
Relating
Salmon Survival to Nearshore Plankton Abundance
Ei
During Smolt Arrival at the Ocean
Working
with Ray Hilborn and graduate student Arni
.! 1,
Magnusson we are comparing survival of salmon runs from
'Llarrit_t
rivers
er
TT ina the study area, marked with coded wire tags, with
the plankton patch abundance and distribution. Our objective is
to shed light on conditions that lead to successful or
tros
it =
unsuccessful
smolt survival in the nearshore ocean environ"X.,
ment. We have extracted plankton patch data from regions
.11e-rf:
near
major river systems having hatcheries where the smolts
were
marked with coded wire tags.
ft=;
LILL
These data tAll
will also
it* be used to:
1.
model the current patterns near large estuarine sys-
2.
develop a curt
more kJ-VI
general .picture
of the elke-Miter.u.
relationship 1--be!-Ietti. "elf&
tween
upwelling
and
large-scale
flow
patterns
and
pitero. s
Ma. trti-rcth
YEZt Ifritra
plankton and
fish 1.11
distribution
(i.e. generalize
the spa+ rt. fish
.110"v..rltra
iTVIC"e.
tial
I_ . to other
11 distribution
C. of fish and plankton
Cr LET years)
.-rrt 4-r.
00
`Cr
%.0
,,, -
(Cy -
I
-a- ''''''''' -
----
------
;
126.0
125.5
125 0
,
a
.........
124.5
124.0
123.5
123.0
longitude W
Figure 2.2. Comparison of plankton (squares) and fish (circles) biomass density for 1995 (A, above) and 1998 (B, facing page).
Symbols are plotted on the land end (shelf biomass) and seaward end (offshore biomass) of each transect.
14
PLANKTON PATCHES AND FISH SCHOOIS
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
This Irt.1.0:-.6.161.1..fte
project examines the relative ranimportance of various large rently limited fa
to 1995
and 1998,
only
one of these
years
oi.l oki3
U-Nic-1*.Lus
15' /Ad
I
'A*
(1995)
being
long
enough
ago
that
survival
data
are
availscale and local environmental
and biological
factors for ocean 1199 xszif kag S.0Vtc d'iti
lata
Pc:a:1414'11:AM
1-4).1/44;1ttrztp
survival
of salmon.
It operates-403
with the
premise
that
ma- Ate
ableta
in 1.0
the coded wire 11,5
tag data base.
major
47*m,our
15./
alp
opt However,
rrrite:Litkt
R.:1)6-.24s
itrtaitir
fLit
tiethe1-ur
contributionc4)
may ;.be developing
stratjor unknown
is early t',Ngn
ocean smolt
survival ekutairrir
v301011) ta nrs:
.tt area for survival ii
1hvto, and demonstrating
tp.4.:Int-M.
and 0-vtfls
thereforeptinsely
primarily examines
potentially influegyrtxfor
information to
'ea
H1t7,./1 factors
tectizi 904w-iik
411:- gine. 11-47r-t-,
- more
sliews biological
tIt
bihow
La. to add direct
encingttia
thisott.tD:.-..trt
period in the
The tamed
factors
ettitt,
:14salmon's
sclutt* life history.
tvattr; 7.1v.
contributed by this collaboration concern plankton patches
itcr..kts
loartAlnedb,
in tb:
the near-ocean region. This
patches within
This includes
tr. :t...s*C.L
34!./t I.10
0
itti.:141'..412 all
of thet%44--Its
mouths oformajor
riverr..o...=o433na:
systems (those having
:n.mi
r:1 00;1
rtto-4tra
km:4. hatcheries with coded wire tagged fish). We ut
are.m41/1(
looking at.parltet
patches
in ftt
the upper water
where
salmon risC
smoltsIEX,
are known
iiniFatat
in14/4.4.6tif column
Parameters extracted from the
cto feed. P...1*-ELA
Lvt. acoustic patch data
include the
biomass (a measure
avail..g-4./r,3#
6.1 total patch ./.41c4e
=war of total food Entii
ability), wt.*:
the density
plankton patches, the median clettiv:
distance
10/1,/7\
cku.sityofaritr..td:tt
between patches, 1-14
and the
biomass
ofIfpatches.
&Al
AIM', distribution
OLZIR
pi r.kr=s
Parameters 121.91i7,-1.
relative to
plankton patch
density and
biompieL exv
02 the
IMMCt-1/31...211
ass distribution
being sought
through exploratory
4 are
nr-Anter
tgrAti 2.gvuea
el:pole-Ty data
dilr
analysis.
We hope to expand our currently limited 41-.1
data (1995
cypt4. 1:rrt
(7, q5
t
ieaftnw
t
readily available physical environmental
Al covariates
ot§vorIP
Cesvittnveea data as
for estarit.tty
examiningskr.ixtoosta.
salmon oceante.-42-13
survival.
fix
References
Swartzman,
Hewitt,
ti
- tezh. R. F.
x- D.
at= G. R. Brodeur,
V.v.' D. Walsh,
11%.14-.101 J. Napp,
Demer. G. Hunt
and E.
Logerwell.
11(4 AK',e
1.4.p..e.
rani). 1999. Relating spatial
Dbara,
distributions of *rms..
acoustically determined ptclt.Q
patches of
n' fish
S.a.L.Juoa
rIpz.3.
and
viewing,
image
analysis and spatial
Llf 3)plankton:
dart 1.a.%data
41!d
e-r4. 1/t.q:rt
4-1/71:jSr4
proximity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
56(1):188-198.
Atm"- Sci.
te 54
14.122,i
P.Tversr-eT.
tblt.,14".1.1extsr,
Swartzman. (IL.,
J. Napp, G. Hunt,
D. Demer, R. Brodeur,
6
A9t-z-CUPIA1,
3.L., R.
iJ proximity- of age-0 walleye
and R. Hewitt. 1999. Spatial
ri47
and 1998) through addition of surveys (conducted under other
projects) in 1999. 2000 and 2001. The plankton data are cur-
poll ock (Therugra chalcogrununa) to zooplankton near
the Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska. ICES Jour. Mar.
,,.. .......
U;
,
.............
----- z
-a
+71
-------
'
longitude W
Figure 2.2, continued.
PLANKTON PATCHES AND FISH SCHOOLS
15
PN('ERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
e
00
),.nou,re
I
Cablktzaac eth
di
Erin' rs'iiri de
egge seiigh
v S eA,.Lyigzks
L
,-
I I
2apeTrarcaM.11Rk
PistiflaWE'fk
Tlyrifiee
chl;cks
pe L 00 OM
Utter
S
'4uffial-tend
NrSitRRER:isorReef
ya51"e'loc
ea
Bandm
lye?
Tower Kock
/-51
02468
WhIthIdRdck
nname
White Rock
126
125
124
123
longitude I(W)
tripkic
longitude (W)
Figure 2.3. Plan view of the distribution of fish shoal biomass (left ;wet:4
panel) Etti.-11.4ficot
and plankton patch
biomass (right panel) in relation to
;At& ZrArAvrel
the location of bird rookeries between Cape Mendocino and the Straits of°:Juan
lit Ede Fuca. The leftt panel
-xi shows a 40 km region of
foraging around each colony. The right panel names each colony (top
and.ovicr
shows an ellipse proportional to the population
.1(4to bottom)tik
of murres at each colony.
Sci. 56:49-63.
Swartzman, G. submitted. Spatial patterns of Pacific hake
(Alerluccius productus) shoals and euphausiid patches in
the California Current Ecosystem. Proceedings of Lowell
Wakefield Symposium on Spatial Modeling and Management in Fisheries.
Gordon Swartzman,,"Near-shore
fish and plankton distribuSlutex....-7c-ttner:
"biatf
tion:
11.3plankton
1.1fr-tan through the noise." PNCERS
lc see the
_-a How to
and Learn
Seminar Series,
?Eat prk:'
Afar Sixt.r_Ae.
' zi41. February 5, 1999 University
of Washington.
itztos.44zn
.12
&'ll14b4
Applications
Gordon Swartzman, "Proximity
7iIf of4 fish schools and plankton
Ecosystem" ICES working
group
FisheriesAretricirs'
Acoustics Science and Technology April
pztp on Fsliutsa
16, 1'9
1999.
Johns, Newfoundland
imtrimot
ElSt.ifiasi,
Publications:
Gordon
distribution of fish and plankp
en
I Swartzman.
lozzaar, "Spatial
None.
ton
VIM
patches in
the California
Current
iLkavr.tlit
T.Vg1-.3%
;a 1%.1-3/if
Presentations:
16
PLANKTON PATCHES AND FISH SCHOOLS
12-=
from &i
an acoustic Isurvey
in summer
1995 along the CaliVW: Us
;40
International Symposium on
fornia Current Ecosystem"
6124mi2tsfr- ._ OVA
Natural Resource Modeling June
- 22. 1999 Halifax Nova
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
--
A
I
1-,
ii
,
r'
/
-r
20000
40000
60000
80000
I 00000
distance (m)
Figure 2.4. Distribution of fish schools (blue polygons) and plankton patches (red
polygons) along a survey transect in 1995. The arrows denote the current velocity
averaged in 5 minute bins along the transect. East and west velocities are shown by
right and left respectively, while north and south are up and down on the graph.
The transition with increasing depth from predominately southward to
predominately northward is shown here. Also overlaid on the transect are isotherms
computed from CTD data taken during the survey.
Figure 2.5. Map of coastal Washington and
Oregon north of Cape Blanco showing the
distribution of survey tracks and the
general location of plankton patches near
the mouths of major river systems where
salmon smolts are likely to be feeding on
first arrival in the near-ocean environment
Scotia.
including programs to contour and meld these data. Helped
write and critique the manuscript under preparation.
Workshops:
Steve Pierce, Michael Kozrow, Oregon State University. Provided 1995 ADCP data in ASCII form.
Gordon Swanzman attended the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting. Jan 20-21. 2000. Seattle. Washington.
Partnerships:
Chris Wilson and Steve DeBlois, NMFS AFSC Provided
acoustic data for 1995 and 1998. Provided CTD data for 1995,
Personnel
Gordon Swartzman, Research Professor. University of
Washington
PLANKTON PATCHES AND FISH SCHOOLS
17
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
fo
Seabird1 Indicators
II
.1...
-
I-
Project 3
-.1
Julia K. Parrish
fa.
Introduction
tems, including shipping and oil spills (Burger
& Fry 1993), gillnet fishery bycatch (Takekawa
et al. 1990, Melvin et al. 1999). and disturbance
(Parrish unpub. data). ln sum, murres reflect
"bottom up" (i.e. climate and oceanographic).
"top down" (i.e. predation), and anthropogenic
forces as they alter the coastal environment. Finally, seabirds are highly visible, highly recognizable animals to the public. Because of the
IT-S
"charismatic megafauna" effect, using information on the factors affecting population change
Seabirds, specifically the Common Murre, Uria
aalge, are used in PNCERS as indicators of
physical change in the coastal environment.
Other studies have shown that seabird demography, specifically colony size and reproductive
success, are responsive to climate and oceanographic forcing such as El Nino (Wilson 1991),
changes in prey availability (Monaghan et al.
1989, Montevecchi 1993), and changes in trophic
Julia Parrish
structuring as a possible consequence of regional
in seabirds to educate the public about the
atmospheric forcing (Aebischer et al. 1990). In general, any coastal environment and our effects on it, is a relatively easy
upper trophic level predator population exists because it is task
supported by the underlying trophic pyramid. Alterations in
food web structure, including trophic collapse, will be reflected in upper trophic level variables. Severe change may
result in a concomittant collapse of the population, as individuals starve or are forced to emigrate. Subtler changes
may be reflected in a change in average annual reproductive
In this study, we focus on murres nesting in two colonies:
Tatoosh Island, Washington and Yaquina Head, Oregon. At
output (as parents are forced to choose between foraging and
public. There are no permanent inhabitants on the island.
chick provisioning) and even in diet breadth (as prey type
11
and
availability shift). In seabirds. these patterns many be
exacerbated over more
fte.te." mobile species, because breeding restricts parents to a limited foraging environment (i.e. they
can a.AY
only move
outc..ofcr,Ert14
unacceptable conditions
I
Jj
LTEevin by abandonarttizio.
Located at the tip of Cape Flattery at the entrance to the Strait
1E1
the former colony, we now have nine years of data on colony
size and reproductive success. Oregon data collection started
in 1998. Tatoosh is a relatively remote site, off limits to the
of Juan de Fuca, Tatoosh is a relatively remote site, except
for its proximity to shipping lanes and fishing vessels in and
around the Strait. The murre colony is small, averaging 5000Head is located immediately'T.e.tuat
north of
6000 birds
(-Si. Yaquina
r.V.Arut11.14s.d.
ing
Newport,
coastal town and summer
reIrrrocrt,_OR,
Or'a amajor
_fig,te'ai%;771,C.0-.
Kivit tourist
ivy's raeta offspring).
sort. The seabird
colony is Ictatvikn,ti.2.-a:44.1E4bri$.
located immediately offshore of
wZ:it cGIALY't
a lighthouse and tit
tourist
Why
seabirds? Many seabirds
'by use
net facility
fa:!A. maintained
.1' Imt of
4.3+4 by the FBureau
t ,-.41r14
te.r.1*:14 are long-lived natally
this ;LL
colony is
philopatric species,
returning
4.zutt).Ii
spcdsi. 150
tr.br. to
.0 the same
11.1breeding
WALL* colony Land Management. In proximity to humans,
year after
during the
much more sv4ftl:
subject to
human disturbance, including
:t.eatt.
IP daily
tL12L-oga
-rho. year. Because
r 44- 4.1:11c14` off"Jr range widely
- *00.they
vessel 1-d
and 0:gamit
aircraft disturbance.
time,
it is
season, measures of.1body
and reproductive
outputI small "1.ae.',
: I the
.+15same
.i
3.:412,H
az,.Aso,
txtett ot At
4?condition
Willa& Nix
%tr.:* gt alp.
relatively protected
from shipping
traffic tstiAgLqi
and fishery effects.
are r_ImPA-Livitmot
natural integrations of coastal.=(*.tf
conditions. Murres,1arc
.-4tc1z.
xpor.ozr.;N:za
tuviqte.04
ars te1e04.7
ThisVcolony
considerably larger
than
Tatoosh, averaging
additionally
nesting birds,
making
'oh-1ie0
P
if-.
e-1'0-..rt.illy surface
I re_mLaiLi
-d .1 it is1.7-,..3.:reaFi.
TU51:41.4them
/NV visually ac- 71.
itLe
cessible from blinds, vessels, or aircraft. Censuses
can IX!
be 'ZAN:
20,000-23,000 aftta.
birds.
Orilttna IA.
conducted
remotely without
disturbing the er-.-17,
colony. Finally,
ksut cUtreitif,b
zax:1
late! ttAitigt
3:r r4 t,
data;et
oniczn.-c'
patterns of
murres are deep-diving piscivores,
=amt."
e-Acpm. specializing on the same During the breeding season, we collect let
krip
colony
attendance, reproductive
forage fish and
euphausiid species
commercially urr
impor- Yi
444 .p.i:ILLAsio.
Itca:As as -3::Ma-if
I. sources of disturlow JE1,e_t*--tit.
re,r4(44,1 output,
tant rea.`
finfish.CLA
andc-CalitWy,
mortality, and 114.15i
chick diet.-.3=1417.
Attendance is a census
Diet can be easily
sampled
54g
tac.,414 by recording the bance ;Pc
of the number
murres zitty
on the colony
any one
time.Pcri,
Popuspecies and
size of prey brought back to chicks on
ai.&icof 27_,t
tit% r.at -,gs
ace_
*Lieu
ix the
fir colony.
pLnly attic.
sizelavtltiOtat...1
is then estimated by using a mutiplication
These features trO.
make murres
substitute for lation i's
Tii
`1911t an
L.inexpensive 4etr4
ad11.:441ti factor
Itt-m
ship-borne :surveys of
fish distribution,
(usually 1.67 by
convention) to account for adults
gtv431 %cid
cicfrolotct.
z abundance, and growth
.31.standard
ittr11-11x,-vf..^.0
111 population variable
(all
change in tOt
not present (foraging). Reproductive
riglietteaffected
attrisziby environment chArITI:Ji
Parat:VA
to.% output
o.sp is summarized
space and time).
annually in a single measureestimated
percent
pairs raismu:amid-0K
-:446.131.Fil.,
§Alt of
11:1:(62
ing a chick
of disturbance
--zw=are
ire pri.1u:4 z:
*4
.r1t to
'ATfledging
-1:41ty. age. Sources
These
Murres
are/Iv
also
useful species with
to other
envi-- marily natural - Polk
bald eagles
peregrine falcons
4.. 11`
Taw. ire
t). a011041,1,c....,t&
74* respect
- r...v.g..10.
Psikt and
r :--Pittem
6:Ja P4n.i
ronmental forcing
factors. 1.:.14140-itci,),131M3
predators are also tt
the major sources
of JN:
mortality.
Changes in predator pressure, psYLE7Kri
Zinn ot
I VA We report
Tur-Irtzi
iawi6s-/cNr
the trnr:41-ti
estimated
number
of murres killed by eagles
specifically.51inh fr-")
raptor abundance,
colony :01
tfa atI each
W.F.
LA:
I- '
x-iar.;43:13
aXse1r45, is reflected in murre
kle0=''''
size, attendance pttran,
patterns,irs.1
and reproductive
success. Murres
colony These
data are
til..gr,r7Altitilli based on the actual
LZ41.4
V)..^.Z.1.
M34:0 4-411
-?Xt standardizations
1 %rrta
ro':1;.rtra rsexcn.
number of :LOS
kills witnessed
byAa 1411:4t
time factor
are alk
also
highly wtvifiti*a.sit.miti
susceptible to human
activities
coastal sys- t14111=
'Vett-VA. multiplied
1.12*..U11;,;.
yrs= which
a ;Mi.
01.011e
err.L.:.1.:!w
Ir. in
c,,A.O.t.1
_
.
m.
era
SEABIRD
INDICATORSrit'''TtraciteDf
outgo
(r
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
accounts for the percent of total hours of
observation during the portion of the season when eagles are present (Yaquina
April through June; Tatoosh
June
through 20 July). Chick diet is collected
by observation and is reported as percent
of the total sample in each taxon category,
as well as average length of fish and average foraging trip time in each year. When
combined with independent data on
oceanographic variables, predator presence, and human activities, these datasets
begin to provide us with specifics on the
degree to which murres reflect local and
regional change, mediated by both human
and natural forcing factors.
-2
Time (Months)
Figure 3.1. Monthly sea surface temperature anomaly calculated from the West
Coast of Americas SST database (NOAA) during the 1990s.
Results & Discussion
Table 3.1. Reproductive success (fledglings/pair) in percent of Common
Murres on Tatoosh Island, WA (TI) and Yaquina Head, OR (YQ). Data
from Tatoosh are reported as estimated colony-wide success and success
in locations least affected by eagles, the dominant predator. Data from
Climate Effects
Local, regional, and global climate indices indicated that 1997-1998 were El Nifio
years, epitomized by warm coastal waters
Yaquina are reported as success across all index plots and success in
those plots least affected by eagles.
(Figure 3.1). For upper trophic species,
this may translate into a shift in food web
structure and overall prey abundance as
primary productivity drops due to a subsidence of coastal upwelling. Unfortunately, there are few direct measurements
of primary production, and no measurements of fish abundance to validate this
suspected pattern. Seabirds would be expected to experience increased difficulty
in obtaining sufficient food, perhaps leading to decreased body condition (usually
weight to length ratio), smaller egg and/
or clutch size, and even decreased breeding colony attendance as stressed birds
abandon their reproductive effort, skip
breeding altogether, or succumb to starvation. At both Tatoosh and Yaquina,
colony size and breeding success was far
below average annual values in 1998
(Table 3.1). In 1998, breeding was
slightly delayed in both locations, and
many breeders at Yaquina abandoned their
eggs.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
TI least
8
20
64
91
36
94
28
63
YQ
YQ least
81
15
15
97
28
20
28
28
58
72
4500
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
IuIIIIIIIIIJIuI'
91
Due to the intensity of the physical signal, these population-level responses are
not surprising. What is interesting is the
rebound in attendance in 1999 (Figure
3.2), indicating that the birds were prob-
26
94
TI
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Year
Figure 3.2. Estimated number of Common Murres attending Tatoosh Island, WA
annually during the afternoon, after eggs have been laid but before chicks have
begun to fledge.
SEABIRD INDICATORS
19
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
ably skipping in 1998 rather than dying. Prior years data
from Tatoosh shows that this dip and rebound pattern is a
Coastal Refuges personnel have documented repeated eagleinduced evacuation and delayed breeding at Oregon's larg-
feature of warm water event
years (eg. 1993 and 1994
Figure 3.2). In Washington, data from the coastal
est murre colony - Three
Table 3.2. Standardized estimate of eagle kills on Tatoosh Island,
WA (TI) and Yaquina Head, OR (YQ).
refuge colonies to the south
of Tatoosh indicate that
warm water events may
precipitate dramatic change
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
TI
24
85
77
71
30
YQ
84
33
121
83
in colony size (Wilson
1991). Thus, either a
change in the frequency of
Table 3.3. Diet of Common Murre chicks on Tatoosh Island,
WA 1996-1999. All numbers are percent of total known diet
eral regime may ripple up
items (sample size).
through the coastal food
Predator Effects
Both Tatoosh and Yaquina
murre colonies are experiencing increasing effects of
eagles (Table 3.2). On
Tatoosh, where data have
been collected on eaglemurre interactions for nine
years, eagle pressure, measured as the first principal
component score of the following three variables:
number of eagle eyries
with chicks within 25
km
average maximum num-
ber of eagles seen simultaneously on the island
average number of
eagles flying by the observation platform each
hour
Pitkin, pers. comm. to JKP).
Eagle presence, the number
of overflights, and the num-
ber of successful kills has
also risen at the Yaquina
colony (Table 3.2). Because
the Yaquina colony is approximately four times the
these events, or a more gen-
web, with ultimate consequences for upper trophic
level populations.
Arch Rocks (Lowe and
1996 1997 1998 1999
Black Smelt
Cod
Eulachon
Flatfish
Hexagrammid
Larval Fish
Myctophid
Northern Ronquil
Pacific Herring
Pacific Lamprey
Red Brotula
Rockfish
Salmon
Sardine
Sculpin
Sandlance
Smelt
Shrimp
Squid
Surf Smelt
Saury
Tubesnout
Number of Taxa
Major Taxa (>5%)
Dominant Taxa (>20%)
0.22
0.8
1.82
17.72 15.63 13.34
1.43
0.43
1.67
0.5
0.51
0.2
3.47
5.15
0.3
0.5
0.59
1.88
size of the Tatoosh colony,
the relative effects of predators are still minor at our Oregon site. However, indications from 1998-99 Yaquina
data are that this interaction,
now confined mainly to a
simple direct effect (i.e. mor-
tality), may lead to more
massive indirect effects (i.e.
egg predator facilitation as is
happening on Tatoosh) if lo-
cal eagle populations con-
0.08
23.63 33.72 36.37 52.08
tinue to rise.
0.2
1.83
2.53
0.8
0.2
0.81
22.81
0.41
0.2
0.2
0.17
2.98
1.08
0.17
Clearly predators are an im-
0.69
7.82
0.07
8.97
6.63 20.59
1.16
4.47
0.07
0.58
1.09
30.55 30.61 31.81
5.64
1.45
0.07
12
4
3
1.3
17
4
2
13
4
1.38
0.31
1.56
0.31
2
13
5
2
portant factor structuring
seabird populations. As
eagles and Peregrine Falcon
populations continue to rebound from depressed levels,
a wide range of prey species
will be effected. It is entirely
possible that the coastal land-
scape will change as these
raptors continue to depress
seabird populations. Obviously, it is important to docu-
ment the extent to which
murre and other surface nest-
ing species' populations are
changing due to this elevated
Mean Fish Size (MBL)
Standard Deviation
Sample Size
1.48
0.36
1.51
0.4
504 1464 1364 1070
level of natural interaction,
versus human-mediated effects.
has resulted in chronic re-
productive depression
Average Trip Time (H)
Seabirds as Nearshore
5.26 4.63 3.91 3.47
(Table 3.2), as eagles flush
Predators
murres from their eggs alJust as eagles eat murres,
lowing Glaucous-winged Gulls, Larus glaucenscens, unim- murres eat fish. Diet studies on Tatoosh since 1996 indicate
peded access. Although eagle pressure does not appear to murre prefer high lipid forage fish species, including Pacific
be depressing reproduction at Yaquina, USFWS Oregon
20
SEABIRD INDICATORS
herring, surf smelt, eulachon, and sandlance. In 1999, ap-
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
proximately 8% of the chick diet was salmon smolts (TABLE
eagle eyries within a 20 km strip along the coast
3.3). Both the range of species returned and average fish
size appear to be fairly even among years, with the exception
of 1997. In that year, murres brought back more species (17)
but of lesser size. These data may indicate early effects of
the El Nifio altering prey abundance and distribution. Foraging rate data do not seem to echo this pattern (TABLE
XX). Since 1996, the average amount of time parents are
away foraging has steadily decreased from approximately 3
feeds per day in 1996 to almost 5 feeds per day in 1999.
Even in 1996, the rate is comparable with other colonies,
indicating that food may be plentiful around Tatoosh even in
bad years.
1
Murres are one of the most abundant piscivorous seabirds in
the Pacific Northwest. Upwards of one million murres breed
along the Oregon and Washington outer coastlines, the vast
majority (>950,000) in Oregon. As such, these birds can
exert a tremendous effect on coastal foodwebs, both in the
nearshore environment as well as in the estuary. Murres and
related Alcids have been observed foraging in the large outer
coast estuaries of Washington (T. Good pers. comm. to JKP)
and have been caught in gillnets in these estuaries (WDFW
unpub. data). Simple calculations based on foraging rates
and distribution of fish species prey on Tatoosh suggest that
during the breeding season, breeding murres and their chicks
on the Oregon and Washington coast consume 13,000 metric
tons of forage fish in a three month period.
Integration & Interaction
1
Seabirds as Nearshore Predators
To explore the role of murres in shaping coastal food webs,
we are collaborating with two other PNCERS researchers,
Gordon Swartzman and Elizabeth Logerwell, as well as with
NMFS researcher Ric Brodeur. With Swartzman, we are attempting to link trends in distribution and abundance of plank-
ton and small fish, as assessed hydroacoustically, with the
numbers of seabirds nesting within a given area of the coast.
HI
This project is more fully explained in the report titled Plankton Patches, Fish Schools and Environmental Conditions in
the Nearshore Ocean Environment Our contribution is to
compile:
human pressure, as assessed by County level census
data
These data will then be used to ask what types of factors
might explain the unique distribution pattern of murres within
the PNCERS study area.
With Logerwell and Brodeur, we are attempting to estimate
the amount of food murres remove from the coastal system,
using a spatially explicit bioenergetics model. Our contribution is to translate our diet and foraging rate data into usable
estimates, and combine these data with estimates of total
population, by area. In addition, we will attempt to estimate
estuarine versus marine-derived food by conducting stable
isotope analyses on fresh murre carcasses deposited by eagles.
We propose to examine "CPC ratios because 13C shows
greater enrichment in inshore or benthic food webs, relative
to offshore or pelagic food webs (Fry & Sherr, 1989).
References
Aebischer, N.J., Coulson, J.C., and Colebrook, J.M. (1990)
Parallel long-term trends across four marine trophic levels and weather. Nature 347:753-755.
Burger, A. E. and D. M. Fry 1993. Effects of oil pollution on
seabirds in the northeast Pacific. The status, ecology, and
conservation of _marine birds of the North Pacific. K.
Vermeer, K. T. Briggs, K. H. Morgan and D. Siegel-Causey. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication: 254-263.
Fry, B. and Sherr, E. 1989. VC measurements as indicators
of Carbon flow in marine and freshwater ecosystems In
Stable isotopes in ecological research, pp. 196-229. Ed.
by P. Rundel, J. Ehleringer, and K. Nagy. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Melvin, E, Parrish, J.K., and Conquest L. 1999. Novel tools
to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries.
Conserv. Biol. 13:1386-1397.
Monaghan, P., Uttley, J.D., Burns, M.D., Thane, C., and
Blackwood, J. (1989) The relationship between food supply, reproductive effort and breeding success in arctic terns
Sterna paradisaea. Journal of Animal Ecology 58:261-
existing colony size data for all murre colonies in
Washington and Oregon
colony location
physical size of all island habitat suitable for nesting,
whether currently housing murres or not
274.
Montevecchi, W.A. (1993) Birds as indicators of change in
marine prey stocks. In: Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change. R.W. Furness and J.J.D. Greenwood (eds.)
New York: Chapman & Hall. pp:217-266.
Talcekawa, J. E., Carter, H. R., & Harvey, T. E. 1990. Decline of the common murre in central California, 19801986. Studies in Avian Biology 14:149-163.
predator pressure, as assessed by location of all known
SEABIRD INDICATORS
21
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Applications
facilities during our summer field season.
Publications:
The Makah Tribe and the U. S. Coast Guard. Allowed us
access to Tatoosh Island as our primary Washington field
None.
site.
Presentations:
Julia K. Parrish, "From Fish to Birds: Circling Back on the
Road to Conservation" Invited Speaker, The Hatfield
Marine Science Center Distinguished Marine Scientist
Colloquia, October 1999, Newport, Oregon.
Workshops:
Julia Parrish attended the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting, January 20-21, 2000, Seattle Washington.
Partnerships:
Bureau of Land Management Yaquina Head Outstanding
Natural Area. Allowed us access to the Yaquina Head
Lighthouse as our primary Oregon field site.
Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory in Newport,
Oregon. Provided us with office space and computer
22
SEABIRD INDICATORS
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Provided
us with field accommodations and computer and phone
facilities in Neah Bay, Washington.
Washington Sea Grant. Provided concurrent funding to
work on Common Murres in Washington and Oregon
relative to fishery management issues.
Personnel
Julia K. Parrish, Research Assistant Professor, University of
Washington
Sara Breslow, Technician, University of Washington
Nathalie Hamel, Technician, University of Washington
Jill Pettinger, Hourly Employee, University of California Santa Cruz
Amy VanBuren, Undergraduate Student, University of
Washington
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Salmon Survival: Natural and Anthropogenic Impacts
Project 4
Ray Hilborn and Arni Magnusson
Introduction
The coded-wire-tag (CWT) data provide
711e
insight into hatchery-reared juvenile
AtLupn
rr 41 to
1. adulthood (Coronado
salmon survival
1.A: Coronado and Hilborn 1998).
;:,44 We
1995,
canCa
safely
assume
that the survival rate
M.
8.-1::
SiZ...04Piibel
ut
of a CWT :radar,
release group
by
cf. is affected
10.0
Ray Hilborn
physical
biological conditions
;.1 u of the
,ATILVII and 142,:ogica:
river, estuary and oceanic areas
that 1:137:
they pass
ucvs. thai
(MK through
t1.-:-.46 before
ic
cut. The
Itp: objective ofra:13.
611t:7 is to
the survivors are recovered.
this study
define the variables
those conditions
teis..h4 that describe
it4471.-it:1.1.1.:.4aand
Awl asNfr
sess 11..sr
their asignificance in affecting
aYPX.EAS survival rate.
t
Ir
The ,JUSekiltN,Lit
assessment will be approached with
frame--7.tt, aa regression
It- go4:
work, using Jr;37791.1%4
generalized linear
'IrWs'models
sere th (GLM)
I: 3: ::.1 and/or generalized additive models (GAM). The response
will
o4ToN. Y.! variable
.LInakieLI
be 113114e
survival ?"
rate,
the predictor
variables
trt
is. but
Nava will
Outs'
It
:eZ be derived
from various data sources regarding
attributes
"
'2.C10. physical
h Pi.
41111':totts and
It oThr activities
i.jucti Oct
/ILI
t a.;,41.4k
human
that:ray
may
affect
salmon survival.
Hence, the
LI.11:"10.1,10study not only 1313-312,
benefits from, *T4t.
but depends on terksru)al
integration Ntt.
with
mbei
other studies,
otherwise. The
mainI. restriction is
7 t, PNCERS
I:i;721`.5 or
fr.c.trcr-a:zr_
Tic shod
that 'MULE.'
results from other
1-111.4.fmust
=!,.% be
tw able
13.1e to
Ir. be
1 r% extrapo4E=
rA.k? studies
lated
r.: Oregon
far, con14%1'over
Pr a both Washington and
..JrfAtiqareas.
Mal So
',7J111.17.
GI*
.4
.1 J:Cobtl have
nections
I1 two_ ongoing PNCERS stud.:4145made
-114e with
LE been
ies: Gordon
zooplankton
surveys (see
"Integraale;Swartzman's e0-171/nt
r2c
L-r.'rti
Wirt I
tion" section below)
and Julia Parrish's11 seabird
research
(sec
t_rie
1"
'Jrgt.-t.*
- re) tcssr.
same section).
.Itertinste3:_d!
;
,
of
I
Pi',
Results
a. & Discussion
lit/
I
ing hatchery. This can
revealI large,Ittt:r..,4t
At"
Tv ei.-;
scale spatial 7121:-Ii
trends rt.when
the strati-
fication
based on states/prov!AI is
:Km41
ttial:Apr
inces,
or Pr
small-scale
spatial trends
k'es-o. or
$
wAtt.t9
when
-$413
based
or basins.
rdw..A1 on sectors
--0.
With 222 .!U.S/Canadian hatcheries,
711'1'1n
Arm 4Magnusson
U1111111iiri
1.:-'
each with
combinationi of geome
lit,Jits-nrri.
graphic attributes,
multitude off ways to stratify the
agt;:t..4,
Az'.there
Lest is a tr.:00
CWT groups
overview
- a geographically.
cxf- Fry. var A comprehensive "f.'!f
"nn of
the observed Ortr:701.7...
survival rate
distribution for fall chinook, sr.
spring
a it.:trit-A,41-7.-All
t4
jYt
chinook led
and(...A7.1coho would
space1:1r4
than is
h availch:15,-lk
nr.:4 require more 371Z'.
able here. Instead, the examples below are selected
zi70.1 Fr to
r" illuminate
some of the 71,'
traps lurking
in the SL447a:
survival rate 1404
data, as
at; Ivor'
i.1D L,4
tystr.s.-!.Trixrp!_st
well
as We:7
tricksfOr.Ve1..1341
for dealing with them.
pa.=
:it
Yanking Trap/Strata Trick
The average
t -rin/ survival rate of coho CWT groups released in
Iii.1t1
Washington form an interesting
series pattern when over!I): E. time
er.. ..1-h..miLsix.fn
_
an:
laid with r-r-;
the survival rates 2fial
from Alaska, foi
as sevy
seen in Figure
4.1.
be a dynamic
1I. From around 1980 onward, there seems to te
negative rijtj,-relationship which
loftyePorr..e.
specula; .1) might give rise to
:1.14;r
iha
I
tions about
the reasonsa behind
But 1:41,
it's a La,
trap, 1-'35
the "EX-71.c
yanking
bawd' it. eT.
kind. Once
geographicalPrc',41
substrata
ofznAlbtic.;*ff=:e1"
Washington have
e7:I
I CF- the itt.7,6,ars.kkei
(elk&
11
trn.
been revealed
4.2), it becomes
clear
that the
bumpy
-*eke (Figure
etran 4!.:-t.kcaulia
ti=r
4E4-6
7.477,,,;
pattern of Cut
that state's
not due to
-riAtar.v.around
itigOvi1980
;92n was
*-ti iv_
*to' average
greati'Lararnu
fluctuations
within
substrata. The
average survival 0.4
rate
eeriz
vv.=ex'xtri44
al5VtlriVi,s
i
:t by a sudden
EgAszi fivefold inin19
1980-1982 was yanked down
It
In US
the 1999 research
year13.
an inr.C44
Access CWT
SAW)"
P717.7 database
!OA-AM was reconstructed
from
data
downloaded
from
Pacific
:
4:4
i0-Ort
-.elt States MaAP
'llatt.,154t41
rine Fisheries .:3
Commission
Numerous anomaIsYrrs...-411;iiio_zi in Portland.
EY'irk:44.:41.-31-ritteu
emnrilies were
clarified
and filters were defined to extract
CWT
tinscl
otx:rw.
hifivinkok
,21! the
release groups considered
suitable for
rate estimaL-- survival
'Joni-41,mb
idInd;0111.1At
i1rttA:f5
tion. The .:P-tt
resulting
dataset
(described in
R411.
C11vt
;:a.-4c4itht9
111 Table
Tdit I4.1)
1) consists
znia§1411
of
16,638 chinook and
their
corretc4.t. groups,
ItO coho tag code
41114AC;112_
er*
M'me
sponding survival
rate estimates,
:tit
Caatiefil and various information
about their release
vz,..?rtja_
era; and
zr recoveries.
:f=
4
A useful
way to
explore temporal
t
taf=0:4:-.
and
the.11:r
survival
lc tx
73.1.1 spatial
=7.411e, trends in
rate distribution
to stratify the
u*-1:40 1 is V:
T*2.4:1 t; to geo7:71": groups by referring
CWT
graphical attributes of'
of the
ad releasgrtsJis/
,
crease in the number eC-TE.T7
of CWT groupsy7.1
released
from the
co 1 CrAY
giitCoC.
:INN
11.4.t; in Washington,
-141°110' which
lumbia River
brought the Washington
erlatZttrA4010.=
dgi=
average Einbr-m
close to the
level ofofColumbia.
Ito low survival rate 14-'31
Cih.:aS
I
Brood
310%44
Trap
-.111 /Release Trick
Again,
negative correlation catches
etplitt the eye
3;1 when looking
14eIttp a Pr011isra
at fall Unut.I.
chinook 00,1
and coho
rates inir'tx:Atr7.04
Columbia River in
3.;tdt
.4t- survival ra161,
Oregon during the mid 1980s (Figure 4.3). "10/
What was lo
it .041i
with
ChrtoraiLv=
brood year19Gek4
1984, for
example,
made fall l'At
chinook fare so
kred5r-va
I'FY
a-Mt*, that WV-6W
Table 4.1. Overview of the 16638 chinook
CWT groups used in41this study. "Other non-experimental CWT groups were
k and coho
:i$ 77?7-r*-*---re
IL: 11:21
filtered out on the
basis of species,
brood-v.v.-.
year.
7 a group:I size
v.:Jr'and
toil:m-4
Hatcheries-----CWT
-r Groups
r r Ir.
------F44C-74-:
Fall chinook
Spring chinook
a.
Coho
III
138
0....
60
146
w:
7116
, 144
2554
6968
CM
Avg
- Grp Size
38355
. .
30836
A17
e.V
18938
-,
Brood
Yrs
11
.4 _7ra
1971-1992
ISAM
1971-1991
1211-.1
1970-1993
141.4C0
Avg Survival
0.82%
1.06%
1.86%
Median
Survival
4*
:A I tkirt-,
0.33%
4.93111
0.33%
0.90%
-.40%
SALMON SURVIVAL
23
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
4%
Fall chi nook (n=1094)
Coho (n=739)
0%
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
70
72
74
76
78
Brood Year
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
Brood Year
Figure 4.1. Survival rate estimates of coho released from Alaska
and Washington states, plotted against brood years. Inside the
brackets is the total number of tag code groups used in
calculating the respective averages.
Puget Snd (n=820)
Figure 4.3. Survival rate estimates of fall chinook and coho
released from Columbia River in Oregon, plotted against brood
years. Inside the brackets is the total number of tag code groups
used in calculating the respective averages.
4% -
Fall chinook (n=1094)
WA coast (n=407)
Coho (n=739)
41WA Col R (n=521)
ra
4
0%
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
Brood Year
Figure 4.2. Survival rate estimates of coho released from
Washington, plotted against brood years. Stratified by Puget
Sound, Washington coast and Columbia River in Washington.
Inside the brackets is the total number of tag code groups used
in calculating the respective averages.
well and coho so badly at the same time? The picture becomes clearer when the survival rates are plotted against release year (Figure 4.4), since most of these coho CWT groups
were released at age 2 while the fall chinook smolts were
released at age 1. Smolts released into the Columbia River in
Oregon in 1985 seem to have had a greater probability, on
average, of surviving to adulthood than smolts released in
1984 or 1986. This observed trend is based on 76 CWT
groups of two different salmonid species released in 1985
from 15 different hatcheries.
Modelling Consistent Trends
This high survival rate anomaly of 1985 shows up again in
Figure 4.5, for coho released into Coos Bay (OR) and Willapa
24
SALMON SURVIVAL
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
Release Year
Figure 4.4. Survival rate estimates of fall chinook and coho
released from Columbia River in Oregon, plotted against release
year. Inside the brackets is the total number of tag code groups
used in calculating the respective averages.
Bay (WA). Not only are the hatcheries different now, but
these CWT groups were released into different watersheds.
This might imply that the reasons behind the high survival
rates of release year 1985 lie not in river or estuary habitat,
but in the ocean. It is well possible, though, that the Northwest freshwater habitats were all affected by some environmental phenomenon, such as the timing of snow melting or
the amount of rainfall. In the worst-case scenario, the survival rates of salmon released in 1985 were affected by some
violations of the survival rate estimation. An example of this
would be a sudden increase in recovery effort, either by the
commercial fishing fleet or stream surveyors.
The year 1985 will play no special role in the data analysis;
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
5%
Coos Bay (n.261)
-Willapa Bay (n.32)
4%
would describe the SST around the respective estuary at the
relevant time for that CWT group, while the other would be
a more broad description of the North Pacific sea surface
temperature during the CWT group's oceanic life stage.
3%
Two variables are being extracted from Gordon Swartzman's
zooplankton data, one describing the overall zooplankton
abundance close to the corresponding estuary, and another
based on the distances between plankton patches. Either or
both of those predictors might be significant in explaining
1%
the variability of salmon survival rates in a regression frame-
0%
76 77 78 79 80 81
82
83
84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Release Year
Figure 4.5. Survival rate estimates of coho released from Coos
Bay (OR) and Willapa Bay (WA), plotted against release year.
Inside the brackets is the total number of tag code groups used
in calculating the respective averages.
this particular observation is only used as an example that
touches on many important aspects of the modelling effort.
Although not yet fully defined, it is clear that the planned
regression is not modelling for the sake of modelling. It is
very hard to describe any general trends in the data without
modelling, although exploring is a vital part of any data analysis. Part of the difficulty is the sheer scope of the dataset, but
so is the varying geographic resolution where trends appear
and disappear by changing the "zoom level" Finally, it is
possible that the data will be stratified by smaller temporal
units than a year, e.g. quarters, to dampen the knife-edge
importance of New Year's Day in the data analysis.
Even if the CWT data are somewhat slippery regarding the
number of anomalies in the database and the assumptions on
which the analysis rests, it is very clear that they carry an
enormous amount of ecological information about natural
and anthropogenic impacts on salmon survival. The key unit
in the regression framework will be the tag code, which stands
for a group of identically tagged salmon. Each tag code is a
datapoint, with one survival rate estimate and many separate
predictor variables, both numerical and categorical. Most of
the predictor variables will be the results of other separate
studies, involving research integration.
work. The problem is how recently the zooplankton data
became available as a by-product from acoustic surveys off
the West Coast. Only one year of zooplankton data, 1995,
will be useful in the CWT data analysis. The next year in that
dataset is 1998, which is too recent a release year for survival rate estimation. Nonetheless, even the single year of
zooplankton data can be statistically useful, for instance in
fitting the 1995 residuals of the otherwise final CWT regression model.
Salmon smolts are known to be preyed upon by common
murres, which implies a negative correlation between survival rate and murre abundance close to the corresponding
estuary. With rough extrapolation from Julia Parrish's seabird data, the murre abundance can be estimated as ca. 100
times higher in Oregon than it is in Washington. The exact
proportional difference between the abundance in the two
states is not critical for the regression, but it needs some more
contrast, either in time or space, in order not to be redundant
with the categorical variable state. Moreover, there have been
a couple of meetings with Elizabeth Logerwell. Some research
integration is very likely, but details have yet to be looked
into.
A loose connection has been made between the CWT database and an Arc View project, copying tables to the latter and
creating a point layer of estuary locations. GIS may become
a useful angle from which the CWT dataset can be explored
with an important geographical overview, which is not offered by the scatterplot format.
References
Integration & Interaction
Some collaboration has already started with four UW researchers, three of which are also PNCERS researchers:
Gordon Swartzman, Julia Parrish and Elizabeth Logerwell.
The fourth one is Steven Hare at IPHC, who supplied a sea
surface temperature (SST) database in Access. Most likely,
two separate variables will be derived from the SST data to
be included as predictor variables in the regression. One
Coronado, C. 1995. Spatial and Temporal Factors Affecting
Survival of Hatchery-Reared Chinook, Coho and Steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Washington. 235 p.
Coronado, C. and R. Hilborn. 1998. Spatial and temporal
factors affecting survival in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 2067-2077.
SALMON SURVIVAL
25
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Applications
Publications:
Workshops:
Arni Magnusson attended the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting,
January 20-21, 2000, Seattle, Washington.
None.
Presentations:
Arni Magnusson, "Coded-wire-tag analysis of chinook and
coho survival rates in the Northwest." SOF Graduate Student Symposium, November 1999, University of Washing-
Partnerships:
Gordon Swartzman, PNCERS
Elizabeth Logerwell, PNCERS
Julia Parrish, PNCERS
Steven Hare, IPHC
ton.
Personnel
Arni Magnusson, "Coded-wire-tag analysis of Chinook and
coho survival rates in the Northwest." PNCERS Eat and
Learn Seminar, February 3, 2000, University of Washington.
26
SALMON SURVIVAL
Ray Hilbom, Professor, University of Washington
Ami Magnusson, Graduate student, University of Washington
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Project 5
Links Between Estuaries: Larval Transport and Recruitment
7.1
.
Curtis Roegner, Alan Shanks, and David Armstrong
'A.'.
Introduction
The population dynamics of
:71 many estuarine
)fr.:pprkuirc.
IT:T.cic Iinir
r.trg,r1:. and coastal
vertebrates
varies-"id,
with 'Nut
factors affecting the critical larval
r,-,nrtr,
7tri:.
stage. In fiat
the izara.v.
absence of immigration,
larval supply to benthic
:1
habitats sets
the upper bound of
recruitment. In
the Pacific
IW'."1.11/
Ply IL!
4 LAI
ri..-ezni_Ar.ni
rjIyto
currents found flintI12
the
ocean,
and so
van.und
saare
ire not
rig
tar
Ilikely to propel themselves ta:(
backice
to the
ttt coast,
but they are cAp..*
capable of
extensive
sArxer. -vertical migra-
NW,
many of rthe important
species have
.
ram
,?..-rzar estuarine and coastal 443:1A411411`1
tions. We therefore hyOat
pelagic :AM!:
larvae that spend weeks to months in fiti
the-=es
ocean- ber4....gr
fore returning shoreward and
metamorphosing to the benthic
EPJne_e_nci:b
juvenile form. The patterns and mechanisms of dispersal
en* in
t.gjsaori tk_j_
pothesize
that0.144.-27v11
dispersal
(r
LI 1Jtc
it
the .;::::1.71!!,Lh
Pacific Northwest
ikfit coastal ecosystem are largely unknown.
Most
larvae
cannot swim
effectively against the
4:f .*r:
car»:
vot et.:_xdriy
ibE horizontal
t
48 0
47.0
M.
I&
ER
nin.9191
Roegner and Alan snanks
zand recruitment to settle-
ment habitats are determined by behavioral factors coupled
to oceanographic processes. This project seeks to measure
the varcti
patterns of Inr14.
larval dispersal
to understand the factors and
sr
Grays Harbor
\'Jays
Washington
47.0
.
++
+
+ + +++
W ill a p a Bay
"-
46.0
46.5
larN.
F
Columbia R.
.
Columbia
C:1;o3t.in
bi
45.0
R
^
-123.5
-124.0
-124.5
46.0
-123.0
43.5
44.0
43,4
98
43.0
CA
CAR0-3
43.3
Oregon
42.0
-125,0
-124.0
-123.0
-124.5
-1244
-124.3
-124,2
-124,1
Figure 5.1. Cruise tracks and mooring sites for the larval recruitment studies. A. PNCE region showing cruise tracks for McArthur
1997 and 1998, the Wecoma NH (off Newport) and FM (off Coos Bay) transect lines, and the Lady Kaye 1999 cruise track. Olympia
sampling is not shown. B. Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. C. Coos Bay. Orange stars are the positions of light traps; blue circles
designate PNCERS oceanographic moorings; green rayed circle is the CARO C-MAN station.
LARVAL TRANSPORT AND RECRUITMENT
27
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
processes underlying recruitment variation to PNW estuaries.
1200
1998
Cancer spp /&2
1998
Cancer magister
1999
Cancer magister
ROO
goo
We are investigating several interrelated
questions:
400
41%
What is the distribution and
00
patch size of larvae in the coastal
ocean?
300
3i2k
.._._
200
kt/H
7:77s
What is the temporal (seasonal.
interannual) and spatial (within
and between estuaries) variation
in the supply of larvae to estuarine sites?
IV'
100
0
2000
2C00
1500
What are the physical processes
that correlate to larval abundance?
1000
500
5.N.)
-
0
0
90
'EC
What behavioral factors facilitate dispersal and transport?
We are measuring larval abundance in
two ways: 1) daily time series from
120
i
110
100
1
t
130
rc.
April
nr-r1
140
:0
la
150
160
May
IV:rzy
170
180
200
190
210
.7.11
July
June
Day of Year
Figure 5.2 Time series of megalopae abundance from the Charleston light trap site in
Coos Bay during 1998 (A and B) and 1999 (C). "x" = sample not counted.
fixed estuarine stations using light traps,
and 2) surveys of the coastal ocean dur-
ing oceanographic cruises The abundance data is being related to physical
data
lath sets acquired from ship-borne and
via
I
el'Irkro
moored
oceanographic
instruments
ti.
;cc
r:-.14:15oroirp
31L111:11311L!.
Although ace/
many -oat
taxa bore
have been
%Tee col
lected Is
in the
samples.
we
are
-LOAM
Mt smlis, los sr*concen=Cal.
trating
our
:alit& OM'analysis
malyts on brachyuran
crabs. This tiay
study is fulfilling a nriicr
major
=sEs.`ftfa
component of
CrabL..iJ
Impact.1Hypothzr the :at
esis (outlined in the PNCERS 1998
9;8
31'3
Annual Report): namely, that larval sup-ply jd.1";74
influences crab production.
;4;
a
[II
in
MO
IGO
i7.0
110
flO
1
I()
'
ill
I
II ho120
I(,(
140
If
1
17C/
190
W1Q
1 tg
200
It*
St. I IL'or
CharLston
[4
v4tir
: zif4M.
-I--li
4ia
IC
UJ
140
IN
70
1 SO
ISO
80
goo
:1
00
Results & Discussion
40
Light Traps
The
The llight trap
vIc.
":1; deployments
1-T1,:yrv.ru have continued to provide insight into the recruitment dyt.t.iht3
dynamics of brachyuran crabs.
awl
3= . In
Coos Bay. we now have ar continuous
oNa
record of over
2 years from
tta 2.1rte.t4
qzt: the Charles-
20
lOu
.10
tiens.1jibtL, t;
ton site (Figure 5.1),
7. '1). with additional
sampling
and July210'.
at the
st.-rc
lc/ between March
tit I r-,th.,;
up-estuary
.vg
-Dem= site. In 1999 we "L'Cyf.L.
expanded
LI.
the light trap deployments
to
sites in
1t3' .../racit.i L. tit:"
Grays 1-1.4±
Harbor and Willapa Bay. in
ad
'n
28
00
p
SO
1110
110
April
130
May
tKiit
140
150
t Pitre
I 70
100
June
it
-100
1S0
July
Jo
Day of year 1998
Figure 5,3. Time series of data of A., water level at Charleston and phase of moon; B.,
temperature
at the Charleston coast guard station (red line) and St. George NOAA
ITO
EL-JI
buoy (blue line); and C., near surface velocity from the Coos mooring site (line) and
Cancer magister abundance (Individuals/night). In B., shaded areas designate warming
ci
1,42
periods.
LARVAL. TRANSPORT in.
AND
RECRUI
TWAT
Jr...ICI
...TrEii
In C., shaded areas indicate periods of northward velocity.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
dition to the up-estuary site maintained by Brett Dumbauld
in Willapa Bay. The new deployments were located near the
estuarine mouths, and were sampled from March to July. We
now have samples that encompass 2 recruitment seasons for
sites in Coos Bay and Willapa Bay. In addition, the five light
trap sites were sampled coincidently between March and July
1999, during the primary Cancer crab recruitment period.
When analyzed, these data will allow both regional and
within-estuary patterns of recruitment to be investigated.
We are presently counting the many light trap samples, but
some preliminary conclusions can be made from the data
sorted to date (from the Charleston site). We are observing
both species-specific and interannual variation in recruitment
patterns, as illustrated by the example in Figure 5.2. Preliminary observations indicate: 1) Larval abundance is pulsed,
and is often episodic. For example, annual recruitment of
Cancer spp (C. ore gonensis + productus) was confined to a
2 day window in 1998. In contrast, C. magister recruited over
a broader period composed of 4 to 7 day periods of enhanced
abundance. 2) There is interannual variation in the timing of
recruitment pulses, as shown for C. magister in 1998 and
1999 in Figure 5.2 (although this preliminary conclusion is
based upon partially completed time series). We have also
and 4) pulsed Cancer magister abundance. Note the two larg-
est recruitment events are associated with temperature increases in the estuary and current reversals offshore, which
may indicate an advective event. These relationships will be
more fully investigated this coming year.
Cruises
Previous cruises on board McArthur and Wecoma revealed
information on larval patch size and distribution. We continued participation on the GLOBEC surveys in 1999 (cruises
W9902 and W9904); samples consisted of neuston and sub-
surface Bongo net tows and CTD casts. Data from these
cruises are clarifying the cross-shelf dispersal of
meroplankton during different seasons, and in addition we
now can compare the physical oceanography and plankton
abundance and composition during El Nifio (1998) and La
Nifia (1999) conditions. We have processed most of the 1998
samples, and found crab larvae to be widely distributed in
the coastal ocean (including off the shelf) during both night
and day periods (data not shown).
megalopae were sampled as late as November. We do not at
In May, we undertook a 10 day cruise off the coast of Grays
Harbor and Willapa Bay on the trawler Lady Kay. We sampled
a grid of cross-shelf transects, once at the beginning and again
after 4 days (Figure 5.1). Fortuitously, this period captured
the transition from downwelling to upwelling conditions, and
we observed the initiation of a dense phytoplankton bloom.
present know the significance of these late arriving
Figure 5.4 shows the first series of transects during
megalopae. 3) Interestingly, the light trap time series indicate that grapsid crabs recruit predominantly in the winter,
when seasonal wind patterns generate downwelling condi-
downwelling conditions. Note the relatively flat position of
the 10 and 11 °C isotherms and the low abundance of chlorophyll (time sequence goes from A to E). Just 3 days later,
strong upwelling resulted in a peak algal biomass >10 mg/m3
(Figure 5.5). Note how the 11 °C isotherm progresses offshore with time (sequence goes J to F), and that the algal
bloom is concentrated between 20 and 40 km offshore. We
also observed strong gradients of meroplankton abundance
in relation to these oceanographic variations. This pulse of
chlorophyll, and any associated meroplankton, would be expected to propagate shoreward during wind relaxation where
it may then be advected into the estuary. Note that the light
discovered that, while the majority of C. magister megalopae
recruit between April and June, several small pulses of
tions. Cancer species recruitment occurs after the spring transition to upwelling conditions. Megalopae of Pachygrapsus
crassipes are similar in size and swimming ability to Cancer
magister megalopae, and so contrasting these patterns of
abundance in relation to the seasonal variation in oceanography will be informative.
In collaboration with Barbara Hickey, we are beginning to
assemble the physical oceanographic and biological time
series we will use to investigate dispersal and transport processes. An example is illustrated in Figure 3, which compares time series of water level at Charleston (Figure 5.3a),
temperature from Charleston and an offshore NOAA buoy
(Figure 5.3b), horizontal velocity from the PNCERS ocean
mooring off Coos Bay (Figure 5.3c, line), and C. magister
abundance (Figure 5.3c, bars). The full dataset will include
physical measurements of salinity, temperature and velocity
from estuarine and ocean moorings, water level from tide
stations, and wind and SST recordings from weather stations.
The data to date indicate: 1) no strong relation with tidal
period; 2) coincident temperature variations between estuary and nearshore suggesting a synoptic regional forcing; 3)
occasional reversals in the mean southward surface current;
traps at all 5 estuarine sites were in operation during the cruise,
and we will be looking closely at the relation among offshore
plankton abundance, light trap time series, and physical
oceanographic processes during this period.
Integration & Interaction
The light trap data is revealing that the supply of larvae to
estuaries does vary both within and among years. We also
have additional information revealing the patchy nature of
the offshore larval distributions. It now seems clear that much
of the light trap variability is due to variation in transport of
patches from offshore sites to estuarine mouths, at which point
LARVAL TRANSPORT AND RECRUITMENT
29
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
-20-1
-10
20..
.60
-40
-70
-2.2
D.
B.
A
-10
0
u
-8(
-60
40
-40
-4,,
-20
-at
v
-90
-60
-40
70
-20
0
t0
,60
-6.2
-40
-20
20
0
0
-80
-90
-60
-91
-40
-90
-20
70
9
0
n
20
-46
6(
-60
-30
[6.
-33
-60
-40
.19
0
-ti0
60
40
-4(1
.60
-400
20
-10
0
a
-441'0
10
:c0
0
-80
.rt!
-60
-40
-20
K ilom eters from shore
Figure 5.4. Cross-shelf transects of temperature (upper row ) and chlorophyll a (lower row) during downw ening conditions. Transects
were made in the order A to E (north to south). Isotherms are 1"C intervals; chlorophyll isopleths ate 1 mg/m% gray areas indicate
the bottom.
larvae can gain access to estuarine habitats. Since
;;:cc.etransport
tnrtirtxt
is dependent largely on physical oceanographic
i4eop4.is events,
?nit", the
it:
integration of light trap time series with advective
ctidv, 37t. events
ever z
sample
processing
continues,
willitsur.4
extend the
analytrrai:
*1e?..tiltg*Ifkl;
Oa'
ntiti4g, we kl
sis
to
the
Washington
estuaries
es dr 7tittirpu trus:ist.
determined from the mooring dz:strz-r
data may yteld.th
yield the
Further oceanographic
cruises
Fltrglat
z.c.tancs-..rihtt
mini on Wecoma and
McArthur f.cc
are planned
to examine 15*.ci,12.H11-.
the vertical distritfc
p4r.c.-A0;7'4114
mechanism(s) influencing recruitment variation.
bution fff
of larvae
tt.6513
lc, plc.
The following specific integrations are
currently planned or
;T-T-ursuPYrit.t...e.d
cr
under way:
1.
A't
Using ike
the net
crabfkL.:.1-e
abundance
data from David
titiAg
ix er.ztax.11
4.4 of Armstrong.
Don 152:6
Gunderson,
ChrisIP.:/Y-At
Rooper, weIihr.f
hope to evalu-W_c1crt and
extaris
In collaboration with Barbara Hickey and Jan New-
ate how
annual recruitment
affects estuarine
z_e
Iv= att..)&44-.-4tf ohm variation oritnu
ton, we are collating the chlorophyll
and coastal onv;/..
oceanThird
crab
r..mb
production levels
TU.
ography signal from the Lady Kay'
:ay cnnse with
a:it. time
cm-
2Lii',Mt: b
series from the ocean and estuarine moorings in
Willapa
project will evaluate
I eztBay.
EgyThis
Taiscrtrtt
rev e.v.,
litate tithee nearshore-
estuarine
linkage for estuarine
primary
production.
ratiagrruag,
rafi
;dairy p_
Data
analysis4rracer:tab
is presently underway.
rttaryrir
2
OurI iarir-terr=
long-tefin coThh-nti
collaboration witht Barbara
A Hickey's
bk.1.,/ r.
group continues.
coaze.s. At
Al present,
;nor we are
rn. assembling the
physical
times-rdr....:
series with
to deEL Slim.,
With light trap time
Mooseries
wta-r4
termine
patterns of larval abundance can be re're.ifIf the
rbt.wraras
lated
to advective events
KIttlalvtetitmr.
entle at the Coos Bay site. As
r
30
LARVA'
Lanrad.rRANSPORT
irR" lE42,:ggAND RECRUITMENT
5 .1:!.141113crit
In collaboration with
Gordon Swartzman, we propose
s
r.--z2barfol.k.."==,-x,rcptsti
to
larval vertical swimming behavior
ltzharkseinarelanni.
J model larri
tion tovestittl
Vertical velocity shear to examine
the boundbthL.ui1
z-trz
vijb
aries of larval
dispersal.
G.St
!trail ,It#ersai.
Applications
Publications.
None.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
-20
-40
-60
-80
H.
-100
-80
=L.
-60
-40
A1.
20
-V..
n
5
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
-SO
-60
-40
-20
-80
0
-60
-40
20
0
-SO
-60
-t0.
-40
-0
-20
-Ze
a0
0
r!'
-20
-40
.60-
-60
-80
6
G.
-I 00
-50
-60
-40
-a
0
-80
-6
-40
-2(
1.
-80
-60
-40
-20
-80
0
-60
-40
-20
0
-80
-30
-60
-40
-20
0
Kilometers from shore
Figure 5.5. Cross-shelf transects of temperature (upper row) and chlorophyll
row) during upwelling conditions. Transects
Juiv5 I
6.11
"rip.%71 a (lower
_.g.wg71:7171041i4CGCOMilliatirfititz.a
were made in the order J to (south to north). Isotherms are 1 °C intervals; chlorophyll
isopleths are 1are
mg/m3;
gray itareas indicate
4-0901,0:1WITfalks
*Ash ;gm
the bottom.
Presentations:
Curtis Roegner, "Time series of brachyuran larvae in the Coos
.112
Estuary," 1999 Pacific Estuarine Research Society, in Newport. Oregon.
Curtis Reogner, .ime series of brachyuran larvae in the Coos
Curtis Roegner and
Shanks attended
theJ13711Agne1iJ
WRAC annual
Torix
ae.:1 Alan
....vaELtodui
idwittki3
meeting, Jan 19,
2000,
Seattle,
Washington.
.1196iWal
I
It-
Partnerships:
GLOBECD1
PI Bob Smith
riU,NEV.:
thi7 time
lure aboard R/V
,S :AVM provided ship
Estuary: Physical transport mechanisms," 1999 Estuarine
LI!
Research Federation meeting, New Orleans. Louisiana.
Weconia.
Wfrre...z.
Curtis Roegner presented "Larval crab abundance and distribution in relation to physical oceanographic signals- at the
PNCERS Eat & Learn series. UW.
Personnel
Curtis
Associate.
University
Oregon
;furl; of C.E-g::_hi
-sttirdi Ale
Z. datnt. fiat
--rtk Roegner, PResearch
Alan Shanks, Assistant
Professor.
University
of
Oregon
160.13=Eri Y.7'1%:?:SEIZS,Uigr:7'.17 Jr :-Ja.494.Amy Puls, Masters student. University of Oregon
Tucker Bowen, High school student
Beth Pecks. Undergraduate student. Oregon State University
David Armstrong, Professor, University of Washington
.
Workshops:
Curtis Roegner and Alan Shanks attended the PNCERS AllHands Meeting, Jan 20-21, 2000, Seattle, Washington.
LARVAL TRANSPORT AND RECRUITMENT
31
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
=71^
11r- 121a: 6
Bioindicators in Coastal
Dungeness Crab and English
rle.:1 Estuaries:
IC:41'rA1-741.11
3r:rezi Sole ...Project
David Armstrong, Don Gunderson,
Feldman
7.frtu Rooper, and Kris Ramo
mitvcio, Chris
iLeta 5:Ozf
Introduction
Several
work and
jIFj:]).
=Ay: its rela,t-41 objectives guide the focus of this
tionship
to other PNCERS
ittprpLatwt-:1
pf4.C4tCC
'Libel"! programs:
Ie
This aspect of r_4,4
the
PNCERS program is inPrat-2"
of
spatial/temporal distriAr;e:Alles-rt!
itr!-
Evidence
coastal species EcTm.ozam;
like Dungeness :rot:
crab and
14'
"SW* that tr:$1411
English
sole
use
estuaries
as
"nursery"
grounds
! durkfl
wit:Lc
II
FA016:1 isoir,-416
ing
early
life
history;
1E !k WbJrcf;
certain macrofauna
in OR
CA.
'411014-1.
WA
coastal
estuaries.
,,,fAvi
4fril go:
-occ.
the physical processes by which
sysI
c)eltt they enter the
tems
from
the
open
coast;
I
vaiv 45C.
4.1,
moo
tended to provide ac sense
6r.
bution and r-rrriv
abundance
Imiait
. of
David Armstrong and Don Ciunaerson
and
asp':
il 7)r1.;
'.
-11%.
4
..;
it
I Irsl
, I/At kc.,,,-11
i:1-...:74,1 4.41,
.u".. II
i:j'f..,`"9;i:
.4,.,,...
g 'F, '
e elt-5-1.,.
rle47,
bati
-
052
;`,6"e
r
';11
ektt.
'
...
s
-i.r.
.7gl At
7TI4.
Jr ...... .
4,
t
.
.-(t-4.4s
N-4
'
"-1...._
..,,,..1
"ZZAIN
IN.
";'.-4 .4.4. *P.A.
---Iari
:
......
nalut."; 1'21.44.4'1v,
-
ri.
Gray'sr Harbor
1114,rtri
Yaquina Bay
(GH)
r-m
(YB)
I
'
-S.
".....
1
..".=."."11%-.-147 ;../=.. 1,.
I";;LThs,...,_ 4Cr
-1-... . [t:40ii,*
r
..*,,_
tik a
f#Tthr
. ---,
..,0
At.
....least-Awl ;7'
, -4-
Att ....c.f.
%.,
-
- JA---;
...
e
-...e.t,,:,,
Al
A
,
t
'
Willapa Bay
(WB)
Coos Bay
(CB)
Strata.. 3
0..
4..-
ptg:...) ,
LI:.
[7.7
IL _VS1-,a
e'*-1-
111%4_41,--krar'r':'t";11
.fr4;
,
."i
?.. t 4. . g 74. .,#
,..'
.4
I
o
--
i
hk,..
-11:":"" A
igz.
V,t.:.
4'4 gr
rl i IV --
r
' ilifit!
s
s
0-?Sarataat
cl'Irble!
.-
w.-^Figure 6.1. Mapsor
of the four-10.mits_arnilst
estuaries sampled as0."*.rtitthi
part of the bioindicator project.arra
Shown
intertidal
areas and54.r.r.tsr1z,
boundaries.13of
et are
otteItril
11TA:**LIgrg.
strataESA
used to
in abundance. The
r characterize
treA
d-wrz.-_,-111-1spatial
rpz 1 differences
urscrfre.f* i1.1,21-5dt
;444 areas
tett' for
ar G1-1, WB, YB, and CB are 8,545,
lat. combined
.ttippi4 subtidal
and 1,197
11,200, 487. wire.
respectively.
A; .7_ha,tic...
32
BIOINDICATORS INeq.611:ki../MOCCE
COASTAL ESTUARIES
Tticerr.n.4..itti-tv
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
3. type and quality of nursery habitat (refugia) required
by small post-settlement stages of crab and sole;
small instars of Dungeness crab has focused work on the historic arrival and population expansion of Mya arenaria that
eventually created intertidal shell habitat as "death assemblages". Introduction of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gi4. subregions of the estuaries where such habitat is most
gas, has further changed the shell-habiextensive and resultant density and/
tat landscape within NW estuaries where
or biomass of target species highest
Table 6.1. Compilation of catch for it is now the focus of many studies to
and;
each species or group captured during
ascertain its value as habitat and its comPNCERS trawling in 1998 and 1999.
5. means of communicating such bio- Not included is an undetermined munity ecology role within the suspension-feeding guild. We are further tied
logical/ecological information to colbiomass of Crangon shrimp that was
to the Larval Transport and Recruitment
leagues addressing economic, demothe numerically dominant catch during
sampling.
project (Alan Shanks and Curtis
graphic, and decision processes.
Roegner) in that we study nearshore distribution of advanced larval stages, meaIn this past year we not only continued
Catch
Species or group
sure the timing and magnitude of entry
the field surveys in four estuaries, but
into estuaries, and describe the physical/
spent much time with collaborators Flatfish
12,205
behavioral means by which this occurs.
English sole
working on retrospective data sets from
3,237
Sanddab
Deepening knowledge of these processes
our previous programs to especially adSand sole
347
has led to the idea, among collaborators
dress objectives 3 and 4. Analyses of
255
Starry flounder
and other PNCERS investigators
some detailed data from 1983-1995 have
7
Cal tonguefish
(Hickey, Newton, Roegner, Dumbauld,
proved valuable as the focus of several
new proposals closely related to
PNCERS. A four-year program funded
by the Western Regional Aquaculture
Center (WRAC) includes many of the
same PNCERS scientists and is to be located in Willapa Bay (WB) and Coos
Bay (CB). The principle objectives are
to determine if bivalve aquaculture practices perturb intertidal juvenile salmonid habitat (primarily eelgrass), and the
community ecology role of oysters as a
major suspension-feeding element of the
trophic web. There is great synergy be-
tween PNCERS and WRAC that expands ability to study habitat quality and
system characteristics that favor certain
bioindicators.
Curlfin sole
Crab
Cancer magister
Cancer productus
Hem igrapsis
Cancer oregonensis
Cancer gracilus
Other crab
Sculpin
Staghorn sculpin
Buffalo sculpin
Other Sculpin species
landscapes within the estuary (e.g. dredg-
ing, diking, landfill, decline in water
Tubesnout
quality) and how these actions may have
curtailed estuarine production of certain
Snailfish
Rockfish
Dogfish
Lamprey
Thom and Steve Rumrill). We provide
further basis on which to describe the
spatial distribution of certain fauna with
respect to habitat types and major physi-
cal/chemical features and processes.
Important in this regard is information
about historic anthropogenic changes in
fauna. The potential role of exotic
bivalves in this system as habitat for
DeWitt and Eldrige) that nearshore
ocean processes are sources of nutrients and phytoplankton, and drive estua-
24,822
331
rine production more than previously
thought.
185
28
21
18
Results & Discussion
Research Highlights
2,833
116
31
Completed estuarine trawl surveys
in June and August
Developed ACCESS data base for
Other species
Gunnel
Spot shrimp
Prickleback
Lingcod
Starfish
Midshipman
Greenling
Pipefish
Stickleback
Goby/Blenny
Tomcod
Eelpout
Salmon
Our project is closely associated with the
Mapping Estuarine Habitat project (Ron
1
1,370
265
231
199
144
143
118
73
71
1983-1988 estuarine/nearshore
surveys
Entered 1998 and 1999 PNCERS
data on estuarine surveys in ACCESS data base
Acquired hydrographic data required to model nearshore ocean-
64
28
ography.
22
17
17
15
Monitored larval recruitment at
Grays Harbor (GH) and WB in
concert with the same effort at CB
(Shanks and Roegner)
11
6
2
Assisted coastal sampling effort for
Dungeness megalopae (Roegner)
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUAR/ES
33
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
1998
1999
2500
A
Grays Harbor (8 545 ha)
2000
1500
En
C
a)
Willapa Bay (11.200 ha)
ON
1000
500
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Willapa Bay
Grays Harbor
25
20
Yaquina Bay (487 ha)
15
5
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Willapa Bay
Grays Harbor
7fit
.
Coos Bay (1197 ha)
Figure 6.2. Average English sole density (A) and abundance (B) based on subtidal trawl surveys in Grays Harbor and Willapa
Bay (WA) and Yaquina Bay and Coos Bay (OR), during 1998 and 1999. Data are combined over the June and August surveys of
each year.
Completed analyses of infaunal biomass as affected
by predators in GH (Eggleston)
method:
A=W*D
Completed analyses of infaunal shrimp recruitment ex-
periments for use in a major Estuaries review paper
(Feldman)
Field Season Activities
Cruises: Trawl surveys were conducted during June and
cd AuZ
gust in CB and Yaquina Bay (YB), Oregon, and in WB
irD and
GH, Washington. The stratified random survey design and
sampling protocol followed procedures established in31998,
I:51
with catch/ha being determined for all fishes and crustaceans
...te,.±1:
ill
caught. Benthic trawl stations (18, 20 17, and 18 in
GH,
4, C11.1,
WB, YB, and CB. respectively)
sampled in IhIC
each
estut-tpclawly; were writ*
h.-474
ary within 4-5 strata. (Figure
.e.6.1)
'.1, selected
AlltCied to reflect major
differences with respect to-4,_J
distance from the mouth
't 41_.4
wo-t. (relative
oceanic influence) sediment. salinity,
cover.
r.ibcntLii ty'eteel,
osikkky. and epibenthic
CZ 3
Size compositions were
obtained
for
Dungeness
crab
)or ilk ac ice L'-r,ixe-acri) (Cancer magister) and all species
or: r.r./ y of flatfish. most notably
nove English sole (Purophrys vetulus). Densities
!7,9410 ICS of juvenile
1fst English
sole and Dungeness crab were calculated
.1 _kW using
it-41)
1);, the area
Wel swept
:I
:11
.11=I
34
BIOINDICATORS
11 COASTAL ESTUARIES
icx4 IN
where PI
W It
is to
the-slit,
widthelof*.!!
the mouth 7rtrr;
opening and
D is the
.31 la
1e,
distance."vrei
towed.Etch
Each tow was 150 to 260 m
inItlength,
and
-nth
isth, .1.11
ditiatv
distance was
readings in
,itum..--e
int calculated
taltvit:ixt from differential GPS rez-zrlac
1998 and 1999.
Mean
density and abundance for each strastrbIti.97C.
,i1.114
lect5t-/
tum mei
and tit
thewart
entire
subtidaltriinTa given estuary were
calculated
r: !.07.110141
tut-.
obs1/4.1.4
according
stratified random sampling f7.-ti..Ilat
formulae. The mean
alrzitetoumiredirrkluz.
it::
lengths. densities and abundance of English sole as well as
density and abundance of
lilliforArAftktukk"..
ofage
tir 0+
44 crab and age 1+ crab were
compared
among
the
four
estuaries
over
foul sampling
t the
'oar
retniti.v
'
ea-nr-3-1 1.T..-14
-
using analysisr of' variance
techniques. In 1998 and
AtimotiLJ
La*
1999c."1163r..1.
combined,
a
total
of
286
trawls
were
;;:-..$,,crzwl.,
7' A.; completed in the
4 1:70111
four estuaries, where _31
the dominant
eteertri ri.
species were Crangonid
tja
shrimp.
-.)1qsaKtil crab
"*". (>28.000) and English sole
-4v:ttp. Dungeness
(>12.000). The catch also included 31 other species oi groups
periods
,aticofe,
The amount of
of fishes
invertebrates,71Nla;rn
(Table 6.1).
W'.=11z.c-xlve-1
6.
.1rIdt and
epibenthic debris (algae, woody debris, shells, etc.) associAire
ated IA'Iseka-rratil
with each trawlcALL
catch was also
quantified in both 1998
31c-4ta;
and
1999
4eX:
4y:"
p..ychlttydee;
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
might be more important than predation in structuring soft-
bottom marine communities. Kris Feldman and Brett
Dumbauld finished analyses of mud and ghost shrimp recruitment data collected across several habitats (open mudflat,
oyster shell mitigation, Mya death assemblages) and treatments to evaluate effects of predators (cages), and used results in a publication with Armstrong and DeWitt. We worked
June 1998
August 1998
June 1999
August 1999
Date
to summarize data on weight of major epibenthic material
caught during 1980s trawl surveys to portray kg/ha of shell,
eelgrass and maeroalgae, sticks and woody debris most common in the various strata of GH and WB. Similar data on
crangonid shrimp biomass were also summarized to compute kg/ha of this common estuarine prey resource.
Figure 6.3. Estimated abundance of English sole combined over
the four PNCERS estuaries during each of the subtidal trawl
survey periods. Abundance is significantly higher in June than
August.
40-
0 1998
B.,
35 -
1999
la
30 -
c
A
25 -
156,
E 20
5
ic
63
c
-a
15
15
10
5-
English Sole
Densities of English sole captured ranged from 0 to >11,200/
ha over all estuaries and months. While there was no significant difference in fish density between years, there was a
significant interaction between estuary and year. This result
was driven primarily by the average densities in GH in 1999
which were significantly lower than most of the other yearestuary combinations (Figure 6.2A). Mean English sole density was typically between 1200-1600/ha in most estuaries
both years, but was less than half this range (600/ha) in GH
during summer 1999 (Figure 6.2A). The resultant estimates
of abundance primarily reflect the relative size of the subtid al
area in each system (Figure 6.2B). For example, since there
is a 20x difference in subtidal area between WB and YB
(11,200 and about 500 ha, respectively), the population estimates of about 18 million and < 1 million mirror this ratio
(Figure 6.2B).
Analysis of variance showed that densities were significantly
lower in August (mean = 966/ha, SE = 246) than June (mean
5
0
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Willapa Bay
Grays Harbor
Location
Figure 6.4. English sole abundance based on subtidal trawl
surveys during 1998 and 1999. Data are shown for the June (A)
and August (B) surveys in each year, and in most systems there
is about a 30-50% decrease in abundance during summer.
Retrospective Analyses
Dave Eggleston continued to work on infaunal data describing predators effect on species and biomass. Experiments were
done in 1992 to define the role of predation in structuring
benthic communities in inter- versus sub-tidal habitats, but
data only analyzed this past year. As part of his ongoing
association with PNCERS, Dr. Eggleston worked with D.
Armstrong this past summer and submitted a paper to Journal Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology (in review)
in which they concluded that organism-habitat relationships
= 1,687/ha, SE = 390), and this trend was conspicuous in
June of 1998 (mean of 2000/ha) which was significantly
higher than August densities in both years. Such difference
in population abundance can be seen in summing mean estimates across all four estuaries, which ranged from a high of
45 million in June 1998, to 21 million in August 1999 (Figure 6.3). Notable change in abundance between June and
August is most dramatic in estimates for the large systems
(GH and WB) where populations decline about 50% across
the 3 months (Figure 6.4).
The length of English sole caught ranged from 14 to 200 mm
in the 11,720 fish measured in 1998 and 1999. Average length
was significantly different among estuaries and months, as
well as all combinations of estuary, month and year. The
only insignificant terms in the analyses were year (p = 0.099)
and the year*month interaction (p = 0.147). English sole
were significantly larger in August than in June, as would be
expected. But even within the same month, June, mean size
of fish was about 33% greater in YB than GH (mean TL =52
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
35
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
and 35 mm, respectively). Such geographic differences in
mean size are better portrayed in June size-frequency plots
which show more common bimodal distribution of English
0 400000 C
350000 to
A
sole caught in CB, YB, and WB, but not GH in both years
(Figures 6.5 and 6.6). Such patterns probably indicate two
distinct settlement events that produce two cohorts of juve-
CD
Coos Bay 1998
300000 -
=
.o
250000 co
a) 200000 -
z
.0
150000 =ca 100000 c 50000 u)
0
Ul
71.
0
co
Ul
1-7.
0
a)
0Ul N0
Ul
CO
0
LO
0
Ul
(D
CO
11.1
0
Ul
LO
Cr)
0
Lf)
N.
09)
0 N0
LO
LO
0
LO
CO
0
CO
LO
0)
CD
co
0 800000
5 700000
2 600000
.o 500000
Coos Bay 1999
CO
mu'
F;)
c%)
c
C7J
co
4000000
3500000
Willapa Bay 1999
c 3000000
-o
2500000
co
a) 2000000
400000
u) 300000
.u)
4000000
1000000 -
11110111
0
u-)
.c
Willapa Bay 1998
CD
.c
a)
A
5000000
3000000
0
2000000 .0
T)
tu
6000000
7:)u)
1500000
lam000
fn 500000
200000
In 100000
0
0
0
.11
c?
Co
LO
N.
0
0)
0
.11
0
CV
L11
CO
CD
CD
0
LI)
0
.11
CD
cCD
CO
Li)
0
,
I1
,11,i.11111",..
LO o
.11
0)
Lt)
CD
N
F)
140000 -0C
o
Lt)
r.;-.
o
0)
COLo
tr)
0
N
Lt)
,L
0
mu-)
ai)
C)1:1-
,LCD
N.
CD
0)
a)
c 160000 -
.gi
u 5000000 -
C
Yaquina Bay 1998
C
= 120000 100000
ea
.o
a)
,
T)
-c
.0
)7»
C
tu
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Gray Harbor 1998
z 3500000
fa 3000000
[
,II
LO
IIIIIIIIIIAm,
0
co
U)
0
U)
r,
0
a)
NS
7:76
Lr9
1-7
cou"
,:t
0
LII
G
N0
CIS
7)
0 2000000
, 1500000
u) 1000000
II,II
0 U))1111
fp)
I
LII
CO
G
0
LII
CIS
.q6
C
tu
U)
co j00000
a) 280000 -
1-
CI
GnG
1..-
CD
CO
co
Yaquina Bay 1999
a)
-5
co
c 240000 20000 LEI
7
0
c?
CD
N
,11,11111,1,11,1A1,1,.,11..,
Ln
oLt) oa,' U0
co
Lc,
o
LO
r'z.
[Z.
,L
o
11111
o tO o
111
1000000 -
ca
500000 -
Th
c
w
N.
o
0)
CD
1-
CD
N.
LO
0LII 0N
CI
CO
.111
,
,-,-1
0
0
Lf)0
..-co,r
(oh;
1-
03
0
Lf)
LII
CD
0
CO
LII
Cr)
c IS
CD
c
Lr)
CO
0 0N
LO
LO
CO
0
L11
Lf)
(D
0
CO
Lf)
CO
CIS
c
;7)
.07)
Length (mm)
LII
1111,1.11.
N
CD
u-)
CD
D
Grays Harbor 1999
CD
,L
1:1-
o
LO
C°
U.)
cr
.ct
1500000 -
co
.c
I.111
N
1,11
g
cco 3000000 2500000C
2 2000000 a)
ill 60000 -
0
500000
0
0)
CD
120000 -
=
C
4500000 4000000 -
CD 2500000 -
7
-Fa
12
c
1
oa)
Fr)
Length (mm)
Figure 6. 5. Length frequency and estimated abundance of
Figure 6.6. Length frequency and estimated abundance of
English sole during June sampling in Coos Bay in 1998 (A) and
1999 (B), and in Yaquina Bay in 1998 (C) and 1999 (D).
English sole during June sampling in Willapa Bay in 1998 (A)
and 1999 (B), and in Grays Harbor in 1998 (C) and 1999 (D).
Note that Grays Harbor in both years did not have strong modes
of larger fish as seen in the histograms for the other three
estuaries (e.g., Coos Bay, June 1998).
36
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
nile English sole. In CB, for example, June '98 cohorts had
size modes at about 40 and 75 mm (Figure 6.5), suggesting
separate winter and spring settlement events.
of GH and WB in 1998, but such patches and resultant estua-
Age 0+ Dungeness crab
Densities of age 0+ Dungeness crab were highly variable
among estuaries, months and years of sampling, and ranged
from 0 to >46,200/ha over 1998-99. Analysis of the age 0+
crab densities revealed significant effects of estuary, year,
month, and a strong estuary-year interaction. Like the results for English sole, juvenile Dungeness crab are at higher
densities in June than August, which reflects high mortality
after settlement in May early July. In 1998, there was a
geographic dine in density from north to south where means
were about 8500/ha and 1000/ha in GH and CB, respectively
(Figure 6.7A). In 1999, the jiattern was reversed and overall
recruitment much lower than the year before with about 3700/
ha and >500/ha in CB and GH, respectively (Figure 6.7A).
High temporal variability in density of 0+ is common and
due to time-space dynamics of the coastal larval populations,
settlement processes (predation, episodic physical events like
reduced salinity) may result in differential survival and subsequent variable population estimates. We hope to work with
Dr. Barbara Hickey to explore these hypotheses further using an oceanographic transport model.
rine advection were more common to the south off CB in
1999. An alternative hypothesis is that even though oceanic
larval supply may be comparable in all four estuaries, post-
1200 1000
E
800
600
400
200
relatively long intervals between sampling trips (over a month
9
in this case), and substantial post-settlement mortality over
much of the subtidal area of estuaries. However, the geographic pattern of difference across the two years likely depicts real differences in relative entry to, and settlement in
the four estuaries, which is reflected in aspects of the Larval
Transport and Recruitment project (Shanks and Roegner).
In general, we interpret the data of Figure 6.7 to mean that
larger larval patches occurred adjacent to northern estuaries
8
Ii
E 1998
01998 1999
76
5
4
-o 3
2
1
Coos Bay
Willapa Bay
Yaquina Bay
Grays Harbor
Location
14000
12000
Tif
A
D 1998
10000
Figure 6.8. 1+ Dungeness crab density (A) and abundance (B)
in the four PNCERS estuaries. Note relatively higher estimated
abundance of 1+ (1998 year class = YC; strong El Nino year)
during 1999 in GH and WB.
1999
8000
«4.
6000 4000
2000
D Willapa Bay
0
Grays Harbor
80
70
01998
.2 60
1999
50
40 -o 30
20 H
1983
10
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Year
0
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Willapa Bay
Grays Harbor
Locations
Figure 6.7. 0+ Dungeness crab density (A) and abundance (B)
in the four PNCERS estuaries. Unlike the relatively comparable
density for English sole, that for 0+ crab is highly variable
between estuaries and years.
Figure 6.9. 1+ Dungeness crab abundance estimated from
retrospective analyses of previous Sea Grant work from the
1980s. Shown are three month summer means for GH and WB
(surveys of WB began in 1985) where abundance generally
ranged between 8-12 million crab. The high estimate for the
1984 YC (1+ in 1985) is consistent with similar high abundance
directly along the nearshore coast that year.
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
37
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
As$ twp,M!tlikerAiftr..LaslirCftf
a consequence of difference in mean density
ealky and subtidal
area between estuaries, the geographic, seasonal
Lei
trAtritil and
interannual
patterns lintt4i,rNtar.
are amplified when computed as estior'4%
6ml...op:I I:Att.:mg
mated population abundance (Figure
74, COverall
fre.,40abunttuira,V1pyzcJigiseirai4E
%Ire 6.7B).
r' significantly
dance of age 0+ Dungeness crab was
higher in
jLiiiid7 =ling
June
(mean = 63.7* 106 SE = 276'
106)&trial
than in
August:true?
(mean
4' 1V
.4.8:4.3
!at xtvio
= 32.2*10.
SE = 7.5*10).
- ..0',Ze
5* 1 ZottThere was
Alfalso
a:r,anittorder
rAt-of magnitude ttif?;tr..:41
difference :a
in ail
abundance
L- 4 and 1999. Avnalia-r between 1998
ma:14
erage
87.4*10°
r;IS was triCle a (SE
3. lb= 28.3' 10°),
r, while
dant in 1998
env abundance
ter,:ts+
'";ft
-
irt
rvir 21
August. "rW
This larger size-class of crab -els-En-A;
generally occur
at
densitieser-sfrAt
of aboutX300-600/ha
both months. In compariqeatim
241. ta laintiffs,tr-InJA
fi141:1331:r
son 14,
to that
0+.t, dip
the :relatively
vity constant
density of older
crab
naelAsiars
fit. I offp,
may reflect
bothaa .*e4
reduced
mortality 7.2to
rate after
highly
telte. the 111/14
au?
feta IL
noruti
iii ifofrts44.:
pee.
episodic ;Attar
pattern oft&id.=ttr
decline after settlement
megalopae.
and possible 4--trytt
carryingfisgtrZtv
capacity limitations
for this species
rrdjr- at
nitairrititr
high bior.A3a
biomass of
classes.
kit age ::..nrot:
or the
:Ir. older
and
to-ki
Age14
1+n't-b
crab tv-s-viAretabundance reflects
relative estuarine
area as
..p
teilt,=.:LQL
wrzo ar5%
gadisole.
tolit GH
111 and
ttp:. WB
seen foi population
English
7flivition estimates of L-13account for the majority
of estuarine crabYz.:aig-fx.,7I-z.h.
production. which.
rrty cetrulAent-ttil
together,'DEA
was about
and 11 vt.lots
million in 1998 and
tlif.1110,
ItCti; 5 million, tivt
irct suffi1999, respectively
(Figure
6.8B).
.__1!
'Po:A
0 Although we lack
1999,
aid
ies
cient time series to ler:zotiot.
test the notion, there is a -r-JtAfP.fy
possibility that
English A-.
sole, igt
age 0+ ear.t4
Ora, Epp&
f,013,0 Unlike
s.45 combined (Figure 6.7B).
higher
abundance
of
1+
in
1999
reflects
strong
larval
crab dmr
density
is not
estuaries and
111
rditalt
Walk
4-4
2ot comparable across
Er in
;04:-Nreclxs=e4
al Iso abunAtte. much
ek3CthLtL1WiX
year.Filem
Eileen1.1.57'
Visser
dance
area;JULIavail- settlement during the previous
El Nino Fat_
per 'so F.1
ftractco of habitat
Labix am
tn.1.4 is
ft not a simple linear- function
able
has
continued
to
monitor
crab
settlement
in
the
GH
Army
-,3011.114
ft
-.txt
24:r
;alit
atY
O/G.
artier .L
Corps shell mitigation
work
ith---Ato fin plots
plo.2 as continuation of
L earlier
Cbp
Age I+ Dungenes.s crab
by Armstrong that began in 1990. She found highest densiAge 1+ crab density was fairly consistent in our surveys and ties of lt instar crab (>800/m2) in shell plots in early sumnot significantly different among the four estuaries, nor sig- mer, 1998. It will be interesting to learn if larval light-trap
nificantly different between 1998 and 1999 or between June indices (Roegner and Shanks) correspond to differences in
in
the abundance wasC.t5°
8.6 106
(SE7a.:%0
= 4.0*106). Although
10 rrE
uc:1999
AT, bc*A---tiall=5Y44
estimates
of ter=
over5.11
60 million 0+
rAct_tt`
1.04 ..f
N- in GH were significantly
di,.1t7-x.*/
higher than in Cimethk-stettrit,
the other estuaries during
Lsrtqf 1998. CB contained
64.1-tottolin
more
larger
Washington ntuArestuaiOA
lit '9.1.41T-7,
kers'0+
- crab in 1999 than the two
,
Stratum 2
Stratum 1
Stratum 3
Stratum 2
Stratum 1
Stratum 3
t.
Figure 6.10. Estimated densities of English sole at trawl survey stations in Willapa Bay in June 1999 (A) and August 1999 (B).
Size of the circle marking the station represents the relative density of English sole which ranged from <100 to 5300/ha.
38
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
density of early benthic instars between 1998-99. Population estimates of 1+ between 5-11 million in GH and WB in
1998-99 are somewhat lower than estimates from earlier work
in the 1980s when we computed abundance of around 8-12
million, with an extraordinary value near 25 million in 1985
(the 1984 year class; Figure 6.9).
1
WB 1
WB2
WB3
WB4
WB5
Stratum
Figure 6.11. Density of 1+ Dungeness crab across the 5 sampling
strata of Willapa Bay in June and August, 1999. Lower density
in stratum 2 is exemplary of significant spatial difference across
subregions of all estuaries studied, which implies difference in
habitat quality as refuge, food, predators, and physicochemical
variables.
`11 200
A. Ghost shrimp
E
o.
GIS Data
Preliminary results of the analysis of surveys conducted in
GH and WB during 1983-1988 indicates seasonal changes
in English sole and Dungeness crab abundance within the
estuary. In 1998 and 1999 differences in crab and sole distributions were also apparent between June and August surveys. In Willapa Bay, for example, these changes were most
evident in English sole densities concentrated in stratum 2
during June and stratum 3 in August (Figure 6.10A and B).
In the case of 1+ Dungeness crab, density commonly differed across strata (subregions) of the estuary. During both
June and August 1999, crab density (and biomass) was lowest in stratum 2 adjacent to the mouth (mean about 100/ha)
than in strata 1 and 3 (means ranging from 400-88/ha; Figure
6.11). Seasonal changes in distribution, as well as general
distribution patterns in the four PNCERS estuaries suggest
that differences in habitat within the estuaries may control
abundance of our estuarine indicator species. Ongoing fieldwork and data analysis in a GIS data framework will provide
an important method to answer this central question: what
types of habitat delineations are important in determining how
many crab or English sole are produced in estuarine subregions that can be characterized by shared abiotic and biotic
attributes?
Intertidal Predator-Prey and Recruitment Dynamics
In an effort to more completely characterize the role of intertidal shell habitat in life history of key fauna, Kris Feldman
and Brett Dumbauld finished analyses of settlement experiments and post-settlement monitoring of 0+ ghost shrimp
(Neotrypaea californiensis) and mud shrimp (Upogebia
E 150 .c
Lo
100 -
70 60 -
0
0
0+
other
adult bivalves
juvenile bivalves
bivalve recruits
50
o. 40
co 30 -
m
.c 30
co
20
E 10
0
0
Mud
Subsurface
shell
Epibenthic
shell
Mya Shell
Substrate
0
open
cage control
cage
Treatment
Figure 6.12. Density of juvenile ghost shrimp and mud shrimp
Figure 6.13. Mean total biomass and composition of soft-
recruiting to open mud and various configurations of shell,
sediment prey as a function of predator treatment from intertidal
experiments in Gil. Most prey were several life history stages
of bivalves, "other" prey were generally polychaete worms. The
including shell that had sunk below the tideflats surface
(subsurface shell), a thick layer of oyster shell (epibenthic shell),
and deposits of Mya shell. Ghost shrimp prefer or survive better
in open mud habitat, and mud shrimp are more abundant in
shell.
absolute quantity as g AFDW is very high and reduction in
biomass during summer experiments can be seen in the "open"
treatment. (Eggleston and Armstrong, in review).
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
39
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
pugettensis) survival in GH estuary. Density over time was
compared across open mud, mud with subsurface shell about
8-10 cm deep, epibenthic oyster shell used for crab mitigation, and "natural" surface deposits of Mya. Data indicate
that the two species behave/survive differently (Figure 6.12).
Ghost shrimp settle and survive at much higher densities in
open tideflats, while mud shrimp do much better in surface
shell deposits. We hypothesize that ghost shrimp do poorly
in shell either because it serves as a physical barrier, or supports high density of predatory 0+ Dungeness crab when this
shrimp species typically settles in late summer. Mud shrimp,
however, settle in early spring in advance of most 0+ Dungeness crab, and seem to have body morphology more conducive. to movement through the matrices of shell hash.
the production ofjuvenile crab and English sole will be evalu-
Extensive work done in 1992 has been analyzed by Dave
both ecological and societal issues of great importance in
these estuaries. This same spectrum of themes has brought
us into collaborative planning with Ted DeWitt and Pete
Eggleston to describe relative effects of predators (generally
sculpin, crab, crangonid shrimp, and wading birds) on density and biomass of intertidal infaunal prey (mainly bivalves
and polychaete worms). Results show that prey standing stock
is very high (bivalves alone > 50g/m2 ash-free-dry-weight,
AFDW, Figure 6.13), and that a predator guild may not de-
ated in future years. We are working to compile existing
information on benthic production in the intertidal zone.
Using this information, we hope to apply energetics-based
models to back-calculate the level of productivity required
to sustain standing stocks of the dominant predators. We
also plan to initiate a program of infaunal sampling in the
little known subtidal area.
We remain very interactive with several scientists whose pro-
grams bear on topics of estuarine predator-prey systems,
trophic web relationships and models, and key species as
drivers within the systems. As noted in the introduction, collaboration with Brett Dumbauld provides an ongoing link to
the oyster-eelgrass-crab-shrimp conundrum that manifests
Eldridge at EPA, Newport, to adopt their trophic models based
on nutrient flow for analogous intertidal systems in WB.
plete such resources as bivalves. This suggests very high
Since both Curtis Roegner and Libby Logerwell are now
present as post-docs within our program at UW, we have
rates of both recruitment and production of such prey as means
greater capability to expand both the field program to exam-
to avoid seasonal depletion by predators. These data are
ine trophic relationships and ecosystem functions, and to
begin a more concerted modeling effort tied to other elements of PNCERS. Most notable has been the recent effort
to better define the ocean-estuarine coupling as a source of
nutrients and phytoplankton as drivers of estuarine production, which has led to a Sea Grant pre-proposal. Jan New-
also typical of a rich backdrop of such information that will
be added to GIS frameworks, and used in modeling bioenergetics and trophic relationships within estuaries.
Integration & Interaction
Oceanographic Modeling
In 1999 we initiated work with Dr. Barbara Hickey to model
surface transport in the California Current during the English
sole pelagic egg and larval stages. Dr. Hickey has provided
us with a model that calculates alongshore transport based
on wind speed and direction, and has worked closely with us
to apply the model. We continue to work on acquiring the
data needed to run the model, and refining it to apply to time
periods where English sole eggs and larvae were in the surface waters. Light trap sampling by Dr. Curtis Roegner may
have captured significant numbers of larval English sole during estuarine sampling in 1998 and 1999. With his cooperation we will sort those samples to determine an index of the
recruitment timing of the English sole to the PNCERS estuaries. Combining these data with the oceanographic model
provided by Dr. Hickey should provide insight into the transport of English sole eggs and larvae and Dungeness crab larvae from spawning grounds to juvenile nurseries in estuaries.
Estuarine Ecology and GIS
The relative importance of intertidal and subtidal habitats in
40
BIOINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
ton, Barbara Hickey, Curtis Roegner, Alan Shanks and Brett
Dumbauld are major architects of this emerging program.
We see tremendous opportunity to merge the new WRAC
Essential Fish Habitat program with ongoing PNCERS logistics to broaden our research questions within WB and CB,
particularly. Both programs will blend for the first time in
summer, 2000. We hope that results from these studies on
ecosystem processes will greatly augment modeling that may
be supported in a new national Sea Grant-EFH proposal by a
team of PNCERS scientists collaborating with others at
NMFS, Newport (now in review).
We also plan further collaboration with colleagues working
on the Institutional Mapping and Ecosystem Management
project (Huppert, Bell, Leschine) to devise further means of
using species-ecosystem information for economic analyses
related to their program missions. In all cases, we are now
moving to place our data in a GIS context, and support any
collective PNCERS decision to make this a central element
of the overall program. Virtually every aspect of data inventory, analyses, and future modeling will benefit from a common GIS structure that Amy Borde, Dana Woodruff, and Ron
Thom have begun as part of the retrospective habitat analyses.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Applications
Publications:
Feldman, K., D. Armstrong, B. Dumbauld, and T. DeWitt.
1999. Oysters, crabs, and burrowing shrimp: An environmental conflict over aquatic resources and pesticide use in Wash-
models to describe trophic dynamics of intertidal systems in
Willapa Bay.
David Eggleston, North Carolina State University. Worked
with us on analyses of estuarine infaunal data to measure
impacts of predators.
ington State's (USA) coastal estuaries. Estuaries (in press).
Dumbauld, B., E. Visser, D. Armstrong, L. Cole-Warner, K.
Feldman, and B. Kauffman. 2000. Use of oyster shell to
create habitat for juvenile Dungeness crab in Washington
estuaries: status and prospects. J. Shellfish. Res. (in press).
Palacios, R., D. Armstrong, and J. Orensanz. Fate and legacy
of an invasion: Extinct and extant populations of the softshell calm in Grays Harbor (Washington). Ecol. Applications
(in review).
Brett Dumbauld, Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife Provided field logistical support for work in Willapa
Bay, and collaborated on the manuscript with Feldman et al.
We have formed a team (Dumbauld, Armstrong, Feldman,
Roegner, Rumrill, Thom) that just won a four-year grant from
the Western Regional Aquaculture Center (WRAC) to study
impacts of bivalve aquaculture on intertidal juvenile salmonid habitat; focus to be in Willapa and Coos Bay to join with
PNCERS programs in those systems.
Eggleston, D. and D. Armstrong. The relative importance of
predation in structuring benthic infaunal communities in inter- versus soft-bottom estuarine habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. (in review).
Jose (Lobo) Orensanz. Analyzed data on estuarine Mya shell
habitat as refuge for 0+ Dungeness crab, the predator-prey
role, historic implications of an exotic species as affecting
community ecology, and predictions about long-term prospects of populations dynamics of Mya in coastal systems.
Presentations:
Dr. Greg Jensen, Washington Sea Grant Green Crab program.
Provided some field support in Willapa Bay and Grays Har-
Don Gunderson. "Design criteria for a network of West Coast
groundfish harvest refugia." PNCERS Eat and Learn Semi-
bor during PNCERS trawl sampling as related to studies of
green crab (Carcinus maenas) distribution.
nar Series. School of Fisheries
David Armstrong and Don Gunderson. "Role of Estuaries in
sustaining coastal fisheries: North Pacific." AAAS special
symposium, January 1999, Anaheim, California
David Armstrong. "Fisheries resources in Pacific NW Estuaries." Pacific Estuarine Research Federation, April 1999,
Newport, Oregon.
David Armstrong and Don Gunderson. "Role of North Pacific Estuaries in Sustaining Coastal Fisheries." 15th Biennial International Conference Estuarine Research Federation,
September 1999, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Washington Sea Grant Green Crab program. Dr. Greg Jensen
provided some field support in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor during PNCERS trawl sampling as related to studies of
green crab (Carcinus maenas) distribution.
Army Corps of Engineers-Eileen Visser. The annual work in
Grays Harbor has continued through summer '99 to monitor
settlement of 0+ crab in the intertidal shell habitat and those
data will be of great use in comparing trends at settlement to
resultant distribution and abundance across the entire estuary.
Personnel
Workshops:
David Armstrong, Don Gunderson, Chris Rooper and Kris
Feldman attended the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting, Jan 2021, 2000, Seattle, Washington.
Partnerships:
Ted DeWitt and Pete Eldridge, EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory. We collected specimens for EPA toxicity study
during trawl surveys of Yaquina Bay. This group plans more
detailed interactions and discussions on application of their
David Armstrong, Director, School of Fisheries, UW
Donald R. Gunderson, Professor, School of Fisheries, UW
Chris Rooper, graduate student, UW
Kris Feldman, graduate student, UW
Tim Loher, graduate student, UW (seasonal help)
Joe Miller, hourly employee, UW
Grace Tsai, graduate student, UW (seasonal help)
Kristen Larson, hourly employee, UW
Yunbing Shi, private consultant
Darin Waller, undergraduate student, UW
Gakushi Ishimura, non-matriculated student, UW
B/OINDICATORS IN COASTAL ESTUARIES
41
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Habitat/Bioindicator Linkages and Retrospective Analysis
Project 7
Ronald M. Thom and Steven Rumrill
the Social/Economic assessment group for further analysis.
Introduction
They will provide data on upland development in a GIS
The overall goal of the
format, which will allow direct comparison with the changes
noted in the estuaries.
Habitat/Bioindicator
Study is to provide resource managers and decision-makers with information about habitats that
Ronald Thom and Steven Rumrill
is useful for making management decisions about coastal estuaries in the Pacific Northwest. To achieve this goal, the study is addressing two broad
objectives:
To understand and document
Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) has been the primary focus of
our work on spatial and temporal patterns. Eelgrass is an
ideal indicator of estuarine "health" because it forms meadows throughout much of all coastal estuaries in the region,
harbors large numbers of fisheries species, is a nursery and
feeding area for juvenile salmon and Dungeness crab, and
responds to physical and chemical forcing factors through
changes in its size, morphology and distribution. To evaluate interannual variation, in 1999 we
repeated sampling conducted in 1998
large-scale changes in primary
benthic habitats that have taken
at all six eelgrass sites in Willapa Bay
and four sites in Coos Bay. In addition, we added sampling for burrowing shrimp density. This information
was gathered to try to assess the rela-
place in the target estuaries
through retrospective analysis.
To understand and document the
factors responsible for spatial and
interannual dynamics of selected
tionship between eelgrass and bur-
habitats through directed field and
laboratory studies.
by eelgrass in the systems. These data
rowing shrimp. We also gathered data
on the range of elevations occupied
assist managers in predicting elevations that should be avoided for development and help define the limits
of eelgrass to determine the best sites
for eelgrass restoration projects. Fi-
200
By accomplishing these two objectives, we will be able to provide man-
agers with credible indicators of the
types and relative impacts of stres-
sors affecting estuarine habitats.
Within PNCERS, the habitat studies
form a key link between geophysical
conditions in the system and quality
of the estuarine system for a variety
of fisheries resources. Because of
these close linkages, the habitat stud-
e
Cr,
-....0'
150-
=
4r.'
4
nally, by sampling along a gradient between the upper and lower estuary, we
too -
4
45
are developing an understanding of
.=
the spatial patterns in eelgrass metrics.
o
cn
:1111j11111
e
5
Z
ies rely heavily on data gathered by
nid populations, and physical/chemical processes.
Willapa
o
8
Coos Bay
Figure 7.1. Mean eelgrass above ground
biomass and shoot density at the 10 sites in
1998 and 1999.
The results of the retrospective analy-
sis, reported in the last annual report, indicated that largescale changes had occurred in all estuaries. These changes
included loss of intertidal marshes and eelgrass through filling, diking and dredging operations conducted near developing ports in the estuaries. These data, which are in Geographic Information System (GIS) format, were provided to
42
c"
3"
other PNCERS program components,
including investigations of Dungeness crab, English sole, and salmo-
:411
This understanding can also be used
to assess anthropogenic impacts on
eelgrass within the context of natural
spatial variation.
HABITAT LINKAGES AND RETROSPECTIVE
Results & Discussion
Eelgrass Abundance
The same general patterns in eelgrass
biomass and density seen in 1998
were documented in 1999 (Figure
7.1). In general, Willapa Bay eelgrass was less dense than in
Coos Bay. However, above ground biomass was similar be-
tween the two estuaries. The reason for the difference between the two estuaries is still under investigation. We have
documented cooler water temperatures in Coos Bay as compared to Willapa Bay, which may explain the greater densi-
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
450
ties. We are
also considering evaluating
1998
400 -
1. Below Ground
350 -
Above Ground
250 -
40-
20-
ies differ sub-
150 -
stantially in the
100 -
duration
10-
of
light, especially
50-
,
.c
during
the
spring-summer
1:34
450
cr
400 -
1999
30-
The two estuar-
200 -
a:
0 1998
the effects of
photoperiod.
300 -
=
50
,
7
c .c0/1
-0
.2:
1
.1
growth period.
Ct
1999
In Coos Bay,
the greatest
350 300 -
Coos Bay
Willapa
density and bioFigure 7.4. Mean percentage cover of Ulva
spp. at the 10 sites in 1998 and 1999.
250 -
mass occurred
200 -
at the most marine site (Fossil
Point) followed by the next most marine site (Bar View). In
Willapa Bay, the densest meadows occurred at intermediate
sites located at Nemah, NW Long Island and Lewis Slough.
Patterns in 1998 were similar to those observed in 1999 suggesting that there is consistent spatial difference spatially
throughout both estuaries that force measurable differences
in the eelgrass population throughout both systems. We suspect that salinity and temperature are key factors controlling
this spatial pattern.
150-.
100_
50 0_
0.
3
P-
Willapa
Coos Bay
Figure 7.2. Mean eelgrass above and below ground biomass at
the 10 sites in 1998 and 1999.
Density, above ground biomass and below ground biomass
were all greater, in general, in 1999 as compared to 1998
(Figure 7.1, 7.2). Data on temperature suggest that the pe5
4.5 43.5 3-
0
Willapa Bay
Coos Bay
2.5= +
2-+
1.5-
+,.
1
+
0.5 -_
0
-1
gt -1.5
-2
-2.5 -4)
'
+++
+
..F-F
. ..... .
f.X
-3
+
+
+
+
*
++
*0't-i- ++T +
++
+ +0 +
+
00
++
0
0
0
-3.5-
-4-
-4.5- 0
_50
0
25
510
75 100 125 150
5 200225
'
25 0275300
' 17
'
325 350
'
Shoot Density (no/sq.m)
Figure 7.3. Flowering shoot density at the 10 sites in 1998 and
1999.
Figure 7.5. Depth versus eelgrass shoot density in Coos Bay
and Willapa Bay in 1999.
HABITAT LINKAGES AND RETROSPECTIVE
43
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
nod between the summer of 1998 and the summer of 1999
were cooler than the previous 12-month period. This may
indicate stronger upwelling and nutrient supply to the systems as well as less desiccation stress. This strong regional
signal of increased biomass reflects an increase in productivity, which is ultimately important to and reflective of ecosystem productivity.
Flowering
Flowering was again greater in Coos
Bay than in Willapa Bay (Figure 7.3).
125
zone at Coos Bay. Potential explanations for this feature are
that the flats in Coos Bay remain moister than those in Willapa
Bay, thus preventing drying of the plants at low tide. There
also may be a stronger freshwater signal at the surface in
Willapa Bay, which could limit its extension into higher elevations. We will be exploring some of these factors in subsequent years. The data do assist in the development of a
stronger biophysical understanding of
the factors controlling eelgrass distribution not only horizontally along the
estuarine gradient but also along the
Interestingly, flowering was much
vertical gradient. These data could
greater in 1999 as compared to 1998 in
75
both estuaries. The spatial patterns in
flowering shoot density, with the most
50
upstream site (i.e., Cooston Channel) in
Coos Bay containing the greatest flowering density, indicates that this site is
subject to factors consistent between
years in producing more flowers than
other sites. Again, salinity and temperature may be proving to be important factors driving flowering. The ultimate effect of increased flowering is seed pro-
duction and seedling production. We
would predict that eelgrass shoot density would be greater in 2000 owing to
the fact that more seeds were introduced
into the system in 1999.
help managers site development in areas not likely to contain eelgrass.
25
0
nfl
ri
Burrowing Shrimp
Burrowing shrimp are a major compo-
nent of most outer coast estuaries in
the Pacific Northwest. They can be re-
<
Willapa
Coos Bay
sponsible for massive reworking of
sediments, alterations in nutrient cycling, and elimination of some other
species. Their interaction with eelgrass
is still understudied. In 1999, we found
burrows (an indicator of shrimp) at
Figure 7.6. Mean shrimp burrow
most sites, with the Toke Point site con-
density at the 10 sites in 1999.
taining by far the greatest densities
(Figure 7.6). As yet we have no definitive explanation for the high abundances at this site relative to the other
sites.
250
Ulva Cover
The green seaweed Ulva spp. occurred
in very high abundance in Coos Bay
with very little noted in Willapa Bay
The general negative correlation between burrowing shrimp burrow den-
(Figure 7.4). Ulvoids are often associated with areas of high nutrient inputs
and can be indicative of eutrophication.
Ulva was generally in very high abundance at the more marine sites in Coos
Bay and was far more abundant at these
sites in 1999 as compared to 1998. The
Bar View site is located very near areas
of high commercial and private shoreline development. It is also the site that
sity and eelgrass shoot density suggests
a negative interaction between these
species (Figure 7.7). Our impression
is that eelgrass, once established, can
50
100
150 200 250 300
Eelgrass Shoot Density (no/sq.m)
Figure 7.7. Shrimp burrow density
versus eelgrass shoot density at the
10 sites in 1999.
suffered physical damage from oil
effectively exclude burrowing shrimp.
We are evaluating these questions experimentally in a companion study in
Tillamook Bay conducted for the US
Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program. This informa-
cleanup operations following the New Carissa oil spill.
tion will improve the general knowledge about burrowing shrimp and help managers with difficult decisions regarding control.
Depth Distribution
The depth distribution of eelgrass was measured at approximately 300 points in 1999 (Figure 7.5). In general, eelgrass
Temperature
reaches its greatest density between +1.0 and 2.0 feet
(MLLW). Our study sites are centered in the middle of the
densest eelgrass in both systems. Eelgrass penetrates deeper
in Willapa Bay, and appears to extend higher in the intertidal
44
HABITAT LINKAGES AND RETROSPECTIVE
Temperature was measured approximately hourly between
Summer 1998 and Summer 1999 site visits using Hobo temperature monitors (Figure 7.8a, 7.8b, 7.8c). We were able to
recover 5 of the 10 sensors put out in 1998. Several features
are evident from the recordings:
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
there is a
repeating
pattern of
highs and
25
A. Willapa - Toke Point
20
viek
44,
t
r41::'; IP
'14
.s_look. 4"._____
,wo
xi:44
Av
1
.1.vt
4
\4
5
approxi-
mate
monthly
cycle probably corresponding to
1ft v
w
:.41eveto,****4,
neap and
spring tides
*
summer of
0
6/4/98
lows on an
7/24/98
9/12/98
11/1/98
12/21/98
2/9/99
3/31/99
5/20/99
7/9/99
8/28/99
1998 was
warmer
25
than the
summer of
B. Willapa - West Long Island
1999
20
in
both systems
there was an extreme
cold event during late
December 1998 in both
systems
comparing two up-estuary sites (Cooston Chan-
nel in Coos Bay with
West Long Island in
0
6/4/98
7/24/98
9/12/98
11/1/98 12/21/98
2/9/99
3/31/99
5/20/99
7/9/99
8/28/99
Willapa Bay) it is evi-
dent that there was a
25
warm event in Coos Bay
C. Coos - Cooston Channel
t".
tures were cooler in
20
Coos Bay, winter temperatures were wanner
in Coos Bay, and temperatures were similar
Q.
o 15
affitsvto
I-
>.
between systems in
1/44,
To-
0,4)
%Iry
10
spring
t*
1,
co
°AV,* tV.
C)
Toke Point was gener-
ally cooler than West
5
Long Island in summer,
but both sites were similar in winter and spring
0
35950
only, autumn tempera-
36000
36050
36100
36150
36200
36250
36300
36350
36400
Date
Key to our work is the development of correlations between
Figure 7.8. Average daily temperature as recorded by the Hobo sensors at (A) Toke Point,
(B) West Long Island in Willapa Bay, and (C) Cooston Channel in Coos Bay.
temperature and other water
properties based on extensive
HABITAT LINKAGES AND RETROSPECTIVE
45
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
data sets gathered in Willapa Bay by the water properties
group led by Jan Newton, and from data collected by various
sources in Coos Bay. Using this information we plan to char-
acterize water property conditions at all 10 sites to better
understand the factors forcing spatial and annual variations
in eelgrass metrics. This information will be useful to managers to help interpret interannual and spatial differences seen
in eelgrass and potentially other resources in their systems.
Conclusion
There are strong patterns that are emerging in eelgrass metrics
both spatially and temporally within systems but also between
systems. The patterns appear to be consistent between years
within each site, and along the estuarine gradient. Increased
flowering and shoot abundance in 1999 over that in 1998
points to the fact that the primary productivity of these systems varies substantially. Monitoring of temperature as well
as other properties of these systems is promising in terms of
interpreting the factors most responsible for the patterns. We
are beginning to explore links between changes in benthic
primary productivity and secondary production through discussions with other PNCERS team members. Continuing
the present monitoring through one or two more years should
yield even stronger and more enlightening relationships as
yet undocumented in coastal estuaries of the Pacific Northwest.
Although we did not deal with these in this report, there were
three distinct "disturbances" affecting our study. First, the
study is spanning a period from a strong El Nino event to a
strong La Nina event. This is seen in the temperature record
and may explain the large interannual changes encountered.
Second, the New Carissa oil spill at the mouth of Coos Bay,
although not impacting our sites directly, resulted in damage
estuaries. This has involved some meetings through
the year and the exchange of GIS data layers that we
have produced during the retrospective analysis. We
expect to work further with these individuals to try to
refine the interpretations of changes.
We are acquiring data sets on water properties from
the water column monitoring group (Jan Newton) for
use in our analysis of factors affecting eelgrass metrics
in Willapa Bay.
We have provided our Hobo temperature monitoring
data to the physical oceanographic group (Barbara
Hickey) for their use in interpreting the effects of the
flats on water temperature.
We are discussing with the benthic invertebrate and
fish group (Dave Armstrong) the incorporation of their
data into our GIS system in order to make overlays of
habitat and fish and crab abundance in the estuaries
We continue to collaborate with the UW-based group
(Dave Armstrong) studying the effects of oyster aquac-
ulture on eelgrass and juvenile salmon. We are providing assistance in eelgrass sampling and interpretation of results.
We are continuing our study in Tillamook Bay looking at interactions of oysters, eelgrass and burrowing
shrimp for the National Estuary Program. This study
should further refine the information on the relationship between eelgrass and burrowing shrimp as well
as the effects of oyster aquaculture on eelgrass.
booming activities. These impacts were caused by boats
We have ongoing discussions with estuarine researchers at the US EPA Newport Laboratory (Ted DeWitt)
regarding their investigation of eelgrass and burrow-
gouging the sediment when moving the booms. We will follow recovery of this site in subsequent samplings. Finally, a
long line oyster culture system was established over part of
ing shrimp ecology. We will supply them with our
data which can be used to assist in their development
of an eelgrass model.
at an elevation slightly below our study site at Bar View from
our study site at Toke Point. We recorded no measurable
effect of this operation so far on the eelgrass at the site. This
represents a great opportunity to study the longer term effects of this type of oyster aquaculture on eelgrass.
Integration & Interaction
The Habitat/Bioindicator study is interacting with several
other PNCERS team members as well as with collaborators
outside of PNCERS:
1. We have provided data and are working with the social-economic group (Dan Huppert) to understand and
relate land use changes to effects on habitats in the
46
HABITAT LINKAGES AND RETROSPECTIVE
Applications
Publications:
PNCERS habitat maps used in article by D.G. Gordon. 1999.
Coastal Dynamics. Alaska Airline Magazine (September
1999 issue).
Presentations:
Ronald Thom, "Factors controlling the dynamics of eelgrass
in the Pacific Northwest", PNCERS Eat and Learn Seminar,
19 February 1999, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Ronald Thom, "Factors controlling the dynamics of eelgrass
in the Pacific Northwest", Pacific Estuarine Research Meeting, April 16-18, 1999, Newport, Oregon
Tillamook Bay National Estuary program. Conducting experimental study of the interaction of oysters, eelgrass and
burrowing shrimp
Amy Borde, "Factors controlling the dynamics of eelgrass in
the Pacific Northwest", Society of Wetlands Scientists Meeting, May 1999, Newport, Oregon.
Dr. David Armstrong and Dr. Dan Cheney of the Pacific Shellfish Institute, WRAC study of interaction of oyster aquacul-
Ronald Thom, "Restoration of west coast ecosystems",
Washington State Department of Transportation. Ongoing
studies on eelgrass requirements in Puget Sound, and the effects of various stressors on eelgrass populations, as well as
Coastal ecosystem restoration workshop set up by the Estua-
rine Society of America and Restore America's Estuaries,
May 6-7, 1999, NOAA, Seattle, Washington
Workshops:
Ron Thom attended the PNCERS workshop held in
Vancouver, WA
Ronald Thom attended the Workshop on fish behavior near
and under ferry terminals, Center for Urban Horticulture,
University of Washington.
ture and effects on eelgrass in Pacific Northwest
fish behavior.
Dr. Brett Dumbauld, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Provided laboratory space at the Nahcotta Laboratory for processing samples during our field trip to Willapa
Bay.
The Oregon Institute of Marine Biology. Provided laboratory space for processing samples during our trip to Coos
Bay.
Ronald Thom attended the National Panel on C-sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, February 3, 1999, Denver,
Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy
Personnel
Ronald Thom attended the workshop titled "Effects of com-
Ronald Thom, Staff Scientist, Battelle Marine Sciences
plex stressors on aquatic ecosystems", September 11-16,
1999, Society of Ecotoxicology and Chemistry, University
of Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, Michigan
Laboratory
Steve Runuill, Research Coordinator, South Slough National
Estuarine Research Reserve
Amy Borde, Scientist, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory
David Shreffler, Senior Scientist, Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory
Dana Woodruff, Senior Scientist, Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory
Ronald Thom, Steve Rumrill, Amy Borde, and Dana Woodruff attended the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting, Jan 20-21,
2000, Seattle, Washington.
Liam Antrim, Senior Scientist, Battelle Marine Sciences
Partnerships:
Dr. Ted DeWitt, EPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Newport OR. Continued coordination of studies on eelgrass
and burrowing shrimp
Laboratory
Eve Fagergren, Student Intern, Associated Western
Universities Program
HABITAT LINKAGES AND RETROSPECTIVE
47
PNCERS
1999 ANNUAL REPORT
;
Integrated
D'(;153p
I'. 4 Ecological-Economic
.ttzll
Modeling:
1.15 L11-: Modeling
Spatial
of Land461
Use and 1Management
1,1V
tr.r(1 Activities
1114-7.14
I
Project 8
Kathleen Bell ,and nixfpit-PA4-,e
Daniel Huppertt
Introduction
70,L,11.74th;;:e.Tril
tvir_xed..-an (date trd
residential property transactions
and pet:.
price
of transaction, acreage, assessed
ruIPT:d land
:4,11and
.41 imr.:r4cA.2.fturi
provement ,r_
values) were acquired directly
from
Since fie
theSnc.:rti,Sinception of this project in May of
1999,
have explored
various av4
directions
ISP, we '.larr6
wria.red --/4,
tam for
it
.3 integrated
ibbsi oval ecological-economic
the
wirx
xir.ii*14, e-p modeling
project, always
primary objective of
PI:eari
A7P with
74rttthez!tarc.
-e Grays 'bat
'cost Z'ecirtakm
1 se>13.
the
Harbor County
Departmenta of
Assesswff, Taxation. Additional
/Adikb4 .1406.7?".7
ment
data were collected
anE Z.Y2
and/or estimated using
GIS edo
data on land um,
use,
iate4
oil. locations, itrzztrc
road networks, city !Al
and town
sewage
:aionsites,
irk, and
Mil
treatment plants, pollution emission
Wolff. ad sites.
rza. While the modeling results ce
superfund
are
;sit
r
w.VT-tthey are
RI limited
tbk:
encouraging
in some
ways,
in
tion for tra:
improved
rs.414.g
xder: We
cinknag
rfati management 4decisions.
other respects, to.d
and current work is addressing
Kathieen Bell
began by adopting a spatial perspective Mr,
and exbaP.adei,uft
some ef-=AsaziListAk....
of these limitations. Of particular interest
ploring
thevolia.
utility 4.7
of as land
use 1414:0
change approach that had is searching for a way
nk. to integrate more
71:.-r
-viiip
directly with the
ki w,t
atet,trJ.V.E3
Pe
been
applied
elsewhere
to
coastal
areas
of
the
US
(e.g.,
rAT
marine
resources
under
study
by
the
PNCERS
natural sci,...4.1dus.1
ceo,t2
t- IcAlied, =1to-I
Bockstael
1998). As a first step, we developed ence investigators.
S.-artticla4and
aalBell,
3I. 14,2%.
models of property ;07-C:r:11
(and land) values toreit
explore the significance of certain wk.112*..:1
ecological attributes
in
explaining
price dif- The second research
40:MAarea
,tr4AX
jr%.
aI _ collecting
cir.c*
of thiskite
project
involves
,t0t!* .t1 '174
...a linked .«.
:I are
ferentials 7.4
and tto Otter
characterize generally the preferences of spatially explicit dam
data that
to potential/claw:
stressors on
ferz.=liP
'11residents
location. In ctiltabel:
collecting the data required the coastal ecosystem. These
tsalFx e regarding
oblratu. lae.-46..r
&I 41 being
data are actively
ktitx colfor this Tordettig-cal
modeling and other
databases on regional population lected for the counties
'_ø' falling
f benin lenit:
al
the PNCERS ttrre.
region god
and are
ioterithlatiruCi'd)
and land
use trends, we discovered
zwiwith
rat+ ist--:g
fal
1, Jr,at2.
50-4-ulatirdsources
h:--rvai,otaiiVrtiaso
other information
such as United
kg,v**. Za limited amount of on- being integrated
it.i-.ir_tar
rot Nifer,r,
going land use titri
change
the PNCERS study area. Few data States Censusteetmlamic-Iiir
.-A42 in 'ir4.a.1178tU
demographic
and
economic data, United
States
7
capturing
-sii
nag feedbacks between the
lt9 7ecological
*fiat& and
economic systems
of IPNCERS.
there are
t4111/7.(16A,
ratelit Ur
T7ri=8. While
1-1rilotta
many reasons :innVA
wrt_o
for pursuing k.
this objective,
we are
Ate:
studying
these feedbacks to ROTIVA_;11.t
generate informaI As;fliOviibuk/
Tit
bitAttattt.
tirU
1.7.1
Ian -.MEP1.
sources exist
7:1..re-TE
to even p7CILt
permit the tracking fl
oft.changes
because
_ -ro kft-rapp
amount of changes. As a result,
- we have
I.), de&1401
&et the Ifit.J
cided that
land use4111141
change approach is notitnura-roy:::-a
an appropriate
of the limited
4Cf.1,1126.141
one to employ its
for this
bg study area. Instead,
wetynts.1
intend on
IvItsti4 ..r
continuing to use a 4:12.m.i.vstmitie
spatial perspectivetiin
documenting
L )r-zrot.2113; human istress on and value of
oat
the
coastal
ecosystem
p34a
fOi:'jiL....511..4 but direct
kerna Jgi
iijg di ,!XL.ftZ b0',4-
the research to4)11=4164z9a-rtctrgtr1:&1411:
a more conventional economic iraw.atierd
assessment of
1:057W4tri&
ecological-economic interactions. In the future, we hope
I3q to
complement
the
property
value
(hedonic)
results
with
other
au.= zptiegr thz 4,..v1orie:
assessments of the4.14x*d
demand ffor environmental
quality
and/or
.a.:LcranateMr.
tazz.
Dr ar,
ec.s4Ate Ltr,-.N.c.,
ecological
service flown.
flows by voz4.44iflTo
studying factors such
dtt as recreridoe:
ation demand and ttskiItt
habitat ilvta.-_;111"
service flows. We
-it, also, will
TI] continue tt±txklizaziell
to collect data ilesamt
related to
human
impacts
on
the
.ThrLup ilvitaVs
0.4 coastal
CrAlhe
estuary.
1:1C74:A
-
- JI 'it
There are two
types117
of research being completed as part of
d rtr=t
the Integrated Ecological Economic shickting
Modeling1A-4-(4Project. "Thi
The
tivirkstme./3c91:s:Alllett!ie-it
rcq area involves valuation of ecosystem =MIMI
first
components,
while
&Lk erhilc.
Ls
*17:11;'COr
thei&402Sr.:!.
second area
focuses on collecting data
1pi and4 information
kanruck.;._
on
human 1.11;,..mre
impacts on
,ezthe
.61 ecosystem.
-4111...a
PA
Jki
Jr515 the
as, extensive literature on
Using
,
applied ii.r6r.r.
studies of ruicorresidenCre!".1
:
tial propertyv.ak-k
valuesme
as a guide (Palmquist, 1991),
a (hedonic)
444c:tit-ft
model of
1.?-m-Pat.z0-14111
residential property values
developed for
Grays
Alum was
vraAwAtvpaa
r4E,"-bto
HarborCueCounty,
Washington.
collected
on aa Pt
range
:Lit*
v2;afkorn
Ow) Data
-Ltr,were
cr:i-k,,'.td
Leo
-;=
:if
of :,:tp_sro,Irsr;
explanatory 'variables
that4.:s#
could be used to explain
Artiklio M.
;tin resiitir
t.117:1;
dential property atm.
values.
Much of the pitkr
primary data
on the
1 noif
.41
48
-ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC
Ikr,-oraotg.i..111Lotukt5 MODELING
itwIM
Census
Line file data, USGS land cover and slope
Attt,-data,
loa
Crzor.Tiger
aiaLir.r
and
variousptut.
stateN104
and county
data
nd -wicttz
4:taun GIS
*.t resources. The
r- data
11.6 410!I
collection
process
largely
reflects
the
research
interests
tra-r-3 t -',1stera) futew of
cr,:s50.9e. p:.t&ta
other
PNCERS
PI's.
In
some
cases (Julia Parrish and Ray
Tr... Tr,
twb,t,
itlr'
Hilborn),
thetLa.firactim
production
..11an the
fixcollaboration
Itate,Ntitta may be limited
ikuictrjtoEL
of da basic
of human
stressItt,:b
such as population
hare.measure
azxlt.sr5
at teats?..,
rctninua density--nrtruf
or area of
impervious surface. In
tirf
13.4,;01-Inra
7n other cases (Ron Thom
and Steve Rumrill), the
collaboration is den:.
more extensive
ggr.i.ig: with
zidIJX-46d.qwL
4t.Eb:CSVN1
considerable tailoring
data 2-0P01/4-t4
collection to meet a specific
S:Zadi:Jatea
trmritor,of 411L4
Vic "1.1e.
need (e.g.
cleel
(1..2determinants
Orirefolit of habitat
U-Lt& Ichanges)
*/ rteW' of the
P2 natural
1004
science investigators.
d
it
Results & Discussion
Property Value Modeling
acer,,
A model was estimated to examine the variation
in residenTonal %.111--i,67:
tial property
tr,!
prir 4.7 values
Itlry; in Grays Harbor
7'141-/3-4,11.
-4401JeCounty, Washington.
One objective of this
effort was
the in156:414*
V41t-itTCCt
i:Itt modeling
.M341/43 AEXPI
wet to explore
fluence."of
ecologicalsr=&
attributes
values relative
to
%two,
N41:11imi.
...sc.-iton
oilthese
:vs,Q-7tIvsL,
ttist-t. to,
other tf,...111
social and economic anrito,t..
attributes. Llity
Many scpl:
applications in
the environmental
economics
literature
tku
11-71r.J.7r vAtt
roz5 IL
mc...is(Palmquist,
711inn I, 1991)
I VP1,-
support the finding
housing
priceM.:Catai
differentials reflect
4t.oport
i2 dththat
(LC
bjVutt
i %uIt.the
differences in
environmental quality. As a result,
gid quanti4.4
dIf'x.vricac
tz4-afittr:imu-44,
fication$of these relationships through
has served
our7.4
4tbr'.0tmodeling
pwArtizt,
&Lem
as1-Wthe IAALia
basis of applied welfare analyses
of changes
(tee in envitr- La.",
PI
ronmental taquality.
s
7.s..nurk=ka,
11
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Data received from Grays Harbor County were cleaned, resulting in a sample of approximately 3,100 market transactions of residential properties from 1994 to part of 1998. The
county parcel-level assessment data provide several important explanatory variables: transaction price, assessed value
of the structure, assessed value of the land, date of transac-
tion, and lot size. After creating a GIS database of these par-
cels, several other variables were estimated using ESRI's
ARC/INFO. These include distance to the nearest major road,
distance to the nearest central business district (Aberdeen or
Olympia), distance to the nearest smallest town or city, dis-
tance to the nearest sewage treatment plant, distance to the
Table 8.1. Property value model: Definitions of variables and descriptive statistics. Sample includes 3,108 transactions of residential
parcels in Grays Harbor County, WA, 1994-1998.
Definitions of Variables and Descriptive Statistics-I
Variable
Description
Units
Market Price
Market price
Dollars
Value of structure
Assessed value of structure
Dollars
Lot size
Lot size
Distance to CBD
Distance to Aberdeen or Olympia
Industrial Emitter
=1 if residence is located within
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Dev.
7,000.000
385,000.000
80,584.000
48,354.700
763.825
387,013.120
60,141.170
40,383.800
Acres
0.029
75.500
1.204
3.339
Miles
0.044
30.556
9.523
7.576
0.000
1.000
0.079
0.269
0.000
1.000
0.042
0.199
0.000
1.000
0.117
0.321
0.5 miles of an NPDES or TRI site
Sewer Treatment
=1 if residence is located within
Plant
0.5 miles of a Sewage Treatment Plant
Hazardous Waste
=1 if residence is located within
Site (NPL)
0.5 miles of an NPL Hazardous Waste Site
Percent Developed
Percentage of land within 3/4 mile that is
developed (residential, commercial etc)
0.000
1.000
0.404
0.243
Percent Agriculture
Percentage of land within 3/4 mile that is
0.000
1.000
0.078
0.144
agriculture
Percent Wetland
Percentage of land within 3/4 mile that is
wetland
0.000
1.000
0.111
0.153
Percent Forest
Percentage of land within 3/4 mile that is
forest
0.000
1.000
0.065
0.121
Percent Water
Percentage of land within 3/4 mile that is
0.000
1.000
0.044
0.094
0.000
15.110
0.638
1.161
water
Distance to Major
Distance to major road
Miles
Road
Notes:
1 Data sources include Grays Harbor County Assessment and Taxation parcel data file, US Census 1997 Tiger Line
Files, USGS Land Use/Land Cover 1:250,000, US Census Place Locations, US EPA Region X BASINS GIS data.
ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC MODELING
49
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
nearest National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) or Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) facility, distance
to the nearest National Priority List (NPL) Superfund site,
(TRI and NPDES) and proximity to National Priority List
Superfund sites have a significant and negative influence on
residential property values. Proximity to a major road appears to have a negative effect on residential property values. Overall, the suite of land use variables had mixed effects on residential property values and the significance of
distance to the coast, distance to Grays Harbor, and surrounding land uses. Surrounding land uses were measured by drawing circular land use buffers around the parcels (with a 0.75
mile radius) and identifying the different types of land surrounding the
Table 8.2. Property value model: Results by functional form. Sample includes 3,108
parcels. USGS land use/land cover
transactions of residential parcels in Grays Harbor County, WA, 1994-1998.
data were used to describe these
buffers. The final variables included
in the model from these buffers are
the percentage of area falling within
established land use types. Table 8.1
presents the definition of variables
used in the property value model and
their descriptive statistics. Because
of multi-collinearity between several
of the ecological variables, only the
land use variables were included in
the final run.
Dependent Variable : Market Price
Variable
Linear
Double-Log
Semi-log
Intercept
6145.7671***
3.6275***
10.2456***
(1392.1782)
(0.0584)
-0.0251
Lot size
3238.7274***
0.0872***
0.0276***
(140.8110)
(0.0030)
-0.0025
Lot size2
-25.7367***
-0.0078***
-0.0002***
(3.2763)
(0.0019)
-0.0001
Value of Structure
1.0699***
0.7040***
0.000012***
(0.0070)
(0.0050)
0.0000
property value model, using three
different functional forms that are
Distance to CBD
1093.1679***
0.0467***
0.0173***
(167.8169)
(0.0089)
-0.0030
commonly employed when estimating hedonic models: linear, double
log or log-linear, and semi-log. The
Distance to CBD 2
42.3709***
-0.0129***
-0.0006***
-7.0839
-0.0031
-0.0001
-989.9290
-0.0295*
-0.0212
(1379.6880)
(0.0173)
-0.0248
-3884.4718***
-0.0551***
-0.0638***
(1071.9151)
(0.0143)
-0.0193
150.1682
0.0222
0.0088
(3459.2757)
(0.0433)
-0.0622
5042.9360***
0.0213
0.1352***
(1549.8887)
(0.0185)
-0.0279
873.6774
0.0228
0.0631
(2166.2118)
(0.0274)
-0.0390
Table 8.2 presents the results of the
Industrial Emitter
property value model is simple in
design, with price regressed on numerous explanatory variables. A
Hazardous Waste Site (NPL)
considerable amount of the variation
in property values is explained in all
Sewage Treatment Plant
3 cases. In addition, the results are
Percent Developed
somewhat consistent across the
functional forms and agree generally with other applied hedonic studies of residential values. Please note
that it is incorrect to compare directly the R- squared values and that
the coefficients have different inter-
pretations in the different models.
While there are some differences
across the functional forms, strong
relationships between certain factors
Percent Agriculture
Percent Wetland
Percent Forest
Percent Water
Distance to Major Road
and property values emerge. In
5325.2507**
0.0323
0.0585
(2191.6313)
(0.0272)
-0.0394
5654.2293**
-0.0031
0.0900**
(2503.0822)
(0.0315)
-0.0450
4957.5052
0.0060*
0.2102***
(3653.6920)
(0.0458)
-0.0657
-898.4263***
-0.0025
-0.0187***
(267.3225)
(0.0027)
-0.0048
short, larger lot sizes, higher valued
structures or improvements, and
proximity to central business dis-
R-squared
tricts have a significant and positive
Observations
F Value
0.9027
0.8937
0.7782
2050.582
1858.884
775.434
3108
3108
3108
influence on residential property
values. In contrast, proximity to in-
Notes:
dustrial and commercial sites that
are permitted emitters of pollution
1 Parameter estimates, standard errors in parentheses below; ", **, and """ indicate
significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels respectively.
50
ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC MODELING
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
these effects varied across different functional forms. Greater
amounts of surrounding land in wetland, water, and devel-
were not able to include certain variables because they were
limited in spatial scale and did not apply to the whole sample.
oped or built up uses consistently had a positive effect on
residential property values. We believe the value of living
near the estuary is captured partially by the water and wetland variables and find their positive signs encouraging.
While the five land use variables are jointly significant using
all 3 functional forms, we are not content with the present
results.
A next set of hedonic runs will focus only on the coastal
portions of Grays Harbor County. These future runs on a
subset of coastal properties will scrutinize the potential influence of more ecological factors on residential property
values. This subset of transactions will allow for more detailed environmental variables to be included in the model,
and we hope this change of scale will broaden the types of
ecological variables that can be considered and, in turn, increase their prominence in the models. In doing so, future
In this first county-wide model, ecological variables were
represented by the percentage of land in different uses surrounding the parcel. We intend on expanding the consider. ation of ecological variables. In the county-wide model, we
runs may involve greater levels of integration and use of data
being collected by the PNCERS natural science research
projects. Grays Harbor County, Washington was chosen as
Table 8.3. Summary of land use by county and county coastal areas of the PNCERS region.
Land Use By County
Area (acres)
AG
Grays Harbor County, WA
Pacific County, WA
Tillamook County, OR
Lincoln County, OR
Coos County, OR
BARREN
5091
3463
29309
2061
9316
468
38234
10475
COMM
FOREST
24702
1105534
2090
534801
2094
657657
3545
601313
911850
10260
RANGE
4570
4936
1892
336
20787
RES
17675
AG
BARREN
0.0150
0.0042
0.0302
0.0057
0.0410
0.0029
0.0144
0.0007
0.0367
0.0101
COMM
FOREST
0.9010
0.0201
0.0035
0.8845
0.0029
0.9208
0.0055
0.9332
0.0099
0.8760
RANGE
0.0037
0.0082
0.0027
0.0005
0.0200
RES
18401
18241
8925
6653
11231
20737
WATER WETLAND OTHER
11361
15094
7353
6663
14671
32827
9756
6816
1971
5228
9314
11279
2176
2585
7341
Percentage of Total Area
Grays Harbor County, WA
Pacific County, WA
Tillamook County, OR
Lincoln County, OR
Coos County, OR
0.0144
0.0148
0.0093
0.0174
0.0199
WATER WETLAND OTHER
0.0093
0.0250
0.0103
0.0103
0.0141
0.0268
0.0056
0.0161
0.0371
0.0028
0.0034
0.0025
0.0176
0.0248
0.0108
Land Use By Coastal Sections of Counties (within 5 miles of coast)
Area (acres)
AG
Grays Harbor County, WA
Pacific County, WA
Tillamook County, OR
Lincoln County, OR
Coos County, OR
2072
8418
19593
2656
5469
BARREN
4566
3446
2044
407
9612
COMM
FOREST
212068
3840
183101
1263
1339
140642
2379
140998
5365
94238
RANGE
2735
4898
1733
327
10159
RES
9896
BARREN
0.0178
0.0144
0.0110
0.0024
0.0629
COMM
FOREST
0.0150
0.8267
0.0053
0.7653
0.0072
0.7582
0.8192
0.0138
0.0351
0.6166
RANGE
0.0107
0.0205
0.0093
0.0019
0.0665
RES
7414
5702
7886
9240
WATER WETLAND OTHER
6236
14870
7325
5977
11043
10427
8515
1971
2174
1786
4676.31
7341.48
5150.53
9314.03
5925.00
Percentage of Total Area
Grays Harbor County, WA
Pacific County, WA
Tillamook County, OR
Lincoln County, OR
Coos County, OR
AG
0.0081
0.0352
0.1056
0.0154
0.0358
0.0386
0.0310
0.0307
0.0458
0.0605
WATER WETLAND OTHER
0.0243
0.0622
0.0395
0.0347
0.0723
0.0407
0.0356
0.0106
0.0126
0.0117
0.0182
0.0307
0.0278
0.0541
0.0388
Source: USGS Land Use/Land Cover Data 1:250,000.
Notes: AG=agricultural; BARREN=barren lands; COMM=commercial lands; FOREST=forest lands; RANGE=range lands;
RES=residential lands; WATER=lands covered by water; WETLANDS=wetlands; and OTHER-undefined land use types.
ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC MODELING
51
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
the first study area because it has a parcel level GIS database
system in place that documents the specific locations of par-
cels. In the future, we hope to contrast the results found in
Grays Harbor County, Washington with a county in Oregon.
Population, Land Use, and Human Activities
In addition to the property value modeling, we also spent
time developing a Geographic Information System (GIS)
whose focus is human and management activities. Data on
the location of human activities that are potential stressors to
the coastal ecosystem and related management activities are
being assembled. One early focus of this effort was the creation of a spatially explicit database of population and land
use in the five PNCERS estuaries. Past research completed
as part of the Socioeconomic Baseline and Institutional Mapping Project relied on county-level data. The more detailed
data display some interesting traits about the different estuaries. Observing the 5 counties that are most strongly related to the 5 PNCERS estuaries (from north to south, Grays
Harbor and Pacific Counties, WA; Tillamook, Lincoln, and
Coos Counties, Oregon), the Oregon counties as a group are
more populated and densely settled along the coast than the
Washington counties. Development in coastal Washington
is largely limited to the areas near Grays Harbor and Willapa
Bay. In contrast, development is more persistent along the
Oregon coast. This difference may be partially explained by
the higher level of accessibility to the Oregon coast. The
distribution of major roads and employment centers in western Oregon parallels the coast in many sections. This same
distribution is not found in Washington. Within 5 miles of
the coastline, the 1997 population levels were approximately
44,864 in Washington and 112,803 in Oregon. We are examining these differences in population, land use, and devel-
opment patterns to characterize basic indicators of human
stress (population density) and to allow for the prediction of
future changes in population and human activities.
counties are quite similar, with the majority of their land being in forest uses (greater than 80 percent in all cases), followed by small areas of agricultural, water, and developed
uses. There is more variation across these areas when the
coastal land uses are assessed. While forest remains a dominant land use in the coastal areas, several other uses (agriculture, residential, and commercial) account for a higher por-
tion of the area along the coast than they do in the countywide assessments. We are exploring these data to consider
questions such as:
Does the management of the estuarine resources in
the PNCERS study area reflect and/or affect these distributions of land use? And:
Are there correlations between land use patterns and
the health or condition of select estuarine resources
(e.g., habitat, seabirds, salmon, crab) being studied
by PNCERS natural science investigators?
In addition to the population and land use information, other
types of spatially explicit data that are linked to potential
stressors on the coastal ecosystem are actively being collected
for the counties falling in the PNCERS region. For example,
these data include: sources of various pollution discharges,
agricultural activities, oyster culture, shoreline modification/
hardening, dams, and port activities. These data are being
integrated with other information sources such as United
States Census demographic and economic data, United States
Census Tiger Line file data, USGS land cover and slope data,
and various state and county GIS data resources.
Integration & Interaction
In collaboration with Ron Thom and Steve Rumrill, we intend to develop a broader understanding of the factors that
Table 8.3 displays the number of acres and percentage of have influenced historical habitat changes in the PNCERS
area by land use type for the 5 PNCERS counties. The land estuaries. While the data that Thom and Rumrill have coluse/land cover data used to generate these estimates is again lected so far reveal an interesting story, it is somewhat inthe USGS 1:250,000 data for Oregon and Washington. Al- complete, given that the human behavior and activities assothough these data reflect late 1970s and early 1980s condi- ciated with these changes are not well documented. If future
tions, we still believe the distribution of lands to be quite stressors are to be contained through management efforts, it
representative. As noted previously, the lack of land use will be important to understand the motivations behind the
change in this region has limited the production of data re- behavior causing the stressful influences. Ron Thom has
sources such as land use/land cover GIS coverages, and we shared GIS data on historical habitat changes as well as their
were able to find no alternative data resource that was con- qualitative assessments of the human stressors associated with
sistently produced for all 5 areas being considered here. Two these changes. We are now assessing human-driven changes
different sets of land use figures are presented in Table 8.3. on surrounding lands and changes in human activities at the
The first set represents county-wide estimates, whereas the corresponding time periods.
second set reflects only the land area of the county that is
within 5 miles of the coast. Together, these figures allow for The GIS data collection work dims to broadly integrate with
interesting comparisons to be made across the counties and many of the other PNCERS research projects. For example,
their coastal areas. From a land use perspective, the PNCERS data on human activities are being collected to enable basic
52
ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC MODELING
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
linking of human indicators of stress (population density, land
Kathleen Bell, "Understanding the Use of Lands in the
area in developed uses) with research on the estuarine resources of PNCERS, including seabirds, salmon, and crabs
(Julia K. Parrish, Ray Hilborn, and David Armstrong).
PNCERS Region: A Foundation for Integrated Research",
For more details on social frame integration refer to Social
Frame Interactions and Integration, page 69.
PNCERS Eat and Learn Seminar Series, University of Washington, February 24, 2000.
References
Workshops:
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert, and Tom Leschine served as
organizers and discussion leaders at the PNCERS "Protecting and Restoring Pacific Northwest Estuaries: Human Ac-
Bockstael, N and K. Bell. 1998. Land Use Patterns and
tivities and Valued Ecosystem Components" Vancouver,
Washington, December 8-9, 1999.
Water Quality: the Effect of Differentiated Land Management Controls. In: R. Just and S. Netanyahu (ed.), Conflict and Cooperation in Trans-Boundary Water Resources,
pp. 169-192, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Palmquist, R.B. 1991, Hedonic Methods. In J.B. Braden
and C.D. Kolstad (eds.), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, 77-120, Elsevier, North Holland.
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert, Rebecca Johnson, Tom
Leschine, Michelle Pico, and Joel Kopp participated in
monthly socio-economic group meetings.
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert and Tom Leschine attended
the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting, January 20-21, 2000, Seattle Washington.
Applications
Publications:
None.
Partnerships:
Larry Claunch and Angie Comer, Grays Harbor County,
Washington. Provided access to data on the sales of properties, property characteristics, and locations and boundaries
of parcels.
Presentations:
Kathleen Bell, "Striving for Integrated Research: The Human Dimension of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystem
Regional Study," Presented at the "Human Dimension of
Large Marine Ecosystems Workshop", University of Rhode
Island, February 14, 2000.
Personnel
Kathleen Bell, Research Associate, University of Washington
Daniel Huppert, Associate Professor, University of
Washington
ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC MODELING
53
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Project 9
Institutional Mapping and Analysis
Daniel Huppert
Introduction
ing on the
substantial
data on laft1641136-47
laws, institutions,
e
itisiaff
itt 4E,
As described in earlier reports, the PNCERS in-
and (1.1(60133
decision processes
and reported
nifr.V.1J'
cad
EnowirFgathered
v1trx--1azgt
in previous
years,
the
1999
work
focused
on
ftsmull
1...q9
Pis XS proP,
more
analytical
tasks.
First,
we
created
a
simple
A1917
inka 1.41:a.vit
ECM
stitutional mapping and analysis research in-
i,
scheme for
characterizing the regulatory styles
r04-Snabti=edis
(a "typology- of regulation)
vosIJItliai> used
zaci for controlto identify the underlying social units (agenling 111.
use of
land
and
water
in
coastal
areas. The
Z..2:11.01 611-Offeeri result
is
a
logical
system
of
nomenclature
cies and non-governmental organizations),
coomfAive for
rtrul, t? toecto *ma
characterizing
the
myriad
formal
Ag:t'el4.:4111.0 tur-44 kart" and informal
means; of siVili:ti,ir4-14IL
exercising individual and
collective
to describe the resources and authority that
detLlt-le.
LiaruL.support these units. and
control over such resources. Second,
FAcar1.we
nstdevel40.4
Daniel Huppert
Extu.1ET:crl
oped
means to display the f12:r-',01=4.4
relationshipstdirs1S951
between
PO -tees
to explain how the numerous agencies and groups cothe web of institutional
ri.e.zi.0
;Eta.< authorities
2.1.6t/tAtt. and specific
ordinate or compete to exercise their authorities and
ecosystem Atm
users. To
and fur
exercise
this capability,.
Li 'Arro 6.4
om ;Xs
'it illustrate
to formulate policies.
we focused on Oyster growers in "YuNfta
Washington
irt-1 estuaries as aa.
central example These
components
are grouped
under
the
.f AM
4)4.1! Lula!
!_!LEI
.rh"E' NAG`
mapping" because they
are predomiThe institutional mapping and analysis work feeds into the heading of "institutional
Tospaixe
isugrigiotiuut:Ite":0,3.ist
more in-depth explanation of policy or decision processes nantly descriptive and focused on
structure and lines
thstriz-ax;aret
"ragofti auwhich are contained in other PNCERS research tasks. Draw- thority and control.
cludes three objectives
Governor Appointed Workgroups
Dept. of
A riculture
Community, Trade
& Economic Develop/
Dept. of Fish
& Wildlife
Dept. of
Ecolo
IL]
Tourism Dev. Council
0
Dept. of
Health
r
Dept. of
,,__Licensing ]
Environ. Health
+ Shellfish Programs
Fish & Shellfish
Wildlife
Land and Habitat
Water Resources Prog
Przt.
Water Quality
W4r.
gay Prog.
rErvg,
Shorelands/Environ
aiiittiarr.W4kly:ro4
Assistance
Prog.
ktratnnz Frog.
Rural Dev. Council
Pesticide Management
f-
Dept. Natural
Resources
,
Dept. of
Trans ortatio
Business License
Natural Heritage Program
lnvironmental
Vessel License
Natural Area Program
Affairs Office
.1
i
0
Figure 9.1. Washington State organizational chart includes eight departments directly involved in coastal resource, industry and
activity management. The four departments represented in purple are directly linked to resource management. The Governor
appoints all directors and most council members.
54
INSTITUTIONAL MAPPINC
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Results & Discussion
In pursuit of the PNCERS objective of understanding of how
organizations and institutions influence the use and conservation of coastal ecosystems, the institutional mapping and
analysis task devised information display methods that uti-
lize our large data base of laws, institutions, and organizations. The linkages between various resource users and "external" institutional
controls can be
characterized as
property rules, regu-
lations, legal constraints, or contracts
(i.e. voluntary, but
enforceable, agreements). Property
the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the State
Shorelines Management Act are
Property Rules
Owners, backed by courts,
Control Tidelands, oysters,
coastal land, watercraft
Nature
Trusts &
Liens
ESA Prohibitions,
Riparian Buffers
rules are the bundles
of privileges and re-
strictions that per-
Use Regulation
tain to the use of any
F&W Regs, Fish Quotas
Water Rights
property. In modem
urban and suburban
coastal systems occurs in a complex web of social customs,
and rules promulgated by local and regional governments,
special agencies and districts (Ports, water districts, watershed councils), and State and Federal governments. Water
quality regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act, for
example, are implemented by a State permit process that relies on self-reporting of pollution events. In Washington State
Zoning
State/Local Land
Use Control Lot Sizes,
Set-backs, Building
implemented by
local governments. Both Pa-
cific and Grays
Harbor Counties
have adopted
Shoreline Master
Wetlands Permits
Min.
stream
flows
developed and
Use Permitting
Water Quality Regs;
Emission Permits,
TMDLs, Tideland leases
Plans (SMPs) under this authority.
Coastal and estuarine water use
settings, for ex-
and quality are
ample,
regulated by eight
property
rights to land are restricted in a number
of ways: restrictions
Figure 9.2. A typology of coastal ecosystem resource regulations.
on construction of buildings under city or county land use
zoning regulations, restrictions on uses that disturb or endanger neighbors under nuisance law, restrictions on discharge of polluted water by regulations under the Clean Water Act, and restrictions on building exterior appearance or
landscaping or vehicle parking under privately agreed codes,
covenants and restrictions (CCRs). Many of these property
rules affect land ownership near the estuaries and coastal
ocean areas in the PNCERS region. For example, owners
and leaseholders of tidelands in Washington coastal estuaries frequently exercise their rights to raise oysters or to dig
for clams. They, in turn, depend on the enforcement of restrictions on water pollutant discharges that reduce the whole-
someness of, or spread disease among shellfish. Zoning of
land along mudflats for development of large-scale tourist
facilities, for example, might pose a threat to water quality
and shellfish growers. So, water quality regulations could
help protect and enforce property rights of shellfish growers
while weakening and restricting the rights of some shoreline
land owners.
Some activities are found to be directly limited through specific formal government rules. For example, channel dredging and navigation is regulated by the Army Corps of Engi-
neers and salmon fishing is controlled by State and tribal
regulations. But the bulk of human activity affecting the
of Washington
State's eighteen
departments (Figure 9.1). Each department is responsible for specific aspects
of the coastal ecosystem (water quality, State land use, navigation, human health risks, fish conservation, endangered species protection, etc.). The Department of Natural Resources,
for example, leases tidelands to oyster growers, and the Department of Ecology implements water quality regulations.
The bewildering array of customary, legislative, contractual
and cooperative controls on use of the bays, tidelands and
nearshore lands can be understood through the use of a typology. Our typology or resource regulation (Figure 9.2) includes property rules, resource use regulations, resource use
permits, and zoning rules. Property rules include all those
customary rights and common law responsibilities and limitations pertaining to personal and business property. This
includes nuisance law, liability law, and commercial or contract law. Resource use regulations comprise restrictions on
private use of public or common resources; e.g. fishing regulations, water rights, and regulated closures of public lands
and water to certain uses. Resource use permitting is distinguished from Use Regulation as it involves issuing a general
permit to engage in a specific activity: a water pollution emissions permit, for example. Zoning is a restriction of private
leased property that limits the location and/or size of structures. Not all regulations fall under just one category. Re-
striction of land for wildlife habitat under nature trusts or
INSTITUTIONAL MAPPING
55
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
liens represents a hybrid of property rules and zoning. i.e.
reservation of private land for a public purpose under contract. Regulation of minimum stream flows to achieve water
quality (usually temperature) standards is a hybrid of water
use regulation and water quality permitting. And restrictions
on use of riparian or shore land to protect public wildlife or
fish habitat is a hybrid of resource use regulation and property rules. This typology will facilitate further discussion and
research on ecosystem management in the coastal estuaries.
To implement an ecosystem approach to managing coastal
areas requires creative changes in the web of interweaving
and overlapping authorities and rules. Much of the management activity is generated by government agencies. How ever, coordination and cooperation among government agencies, local governments and industries can be facilitated by
non-governmental organizations such as the Pacific Oyster
Growers Association and the Willapa Alliance. Special multiparty coordinating groups frequently form to deal with specific problems. The Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council is a Pacific County board appointed by the
County Board of Commissioners that works to coordinate
the community interests in multiple uses of Willapa Bay. The
)FW
WS
Citizen Groups
Pacific County
Noxious Weed
Control Board
'aier Bay
ribe
Pacific Oyster
;rowers Assoc.
4
council oversees the drafting and implementation of the
Willapa Bay Water Quality Plan and other similar documents.
The Pacific County Noxious Weed Control Board oversees
the noxious weed program for Pacific County interests. The
Board targets weeds that are non-native, invasive and detrimental to the economy or environment. A prime example is
the exotic cordgrass Spartina alterniflora, which has invaded
mudflats and eelgrass beds used by the Oyster industry and
which are potentially important to juvenile salmon.
To illustrate
howLY
theIDNfirltri54.
institutional -.1.7!:171'Cg
environment connects
frt.= to a
1:# 8:9
specific
coastal tt"
ecosystem use, we have developed web-like
EZ4Vvite
diagrams
that 'LA
illustrate
Litg several
vozut dimensions
to...35=ton.simultaneously.
.e.toi: '0_11311::
tan 'La!
Our example T:UXPT
(Figure 9.3) focuses on
oyster growing in
.ii rffS="
Willapa
Bay.
The
Figure
shows
which
local
organizations
35:.
7:1
riwic
ibicra
16-1,
2.x.d
t.7.7%.mtet.
`IE
interact with
privateelotft.
oyster6.7.7:111
growers. Some organizations
-Ali plutr,
2.4 4011 are
IC::
mainly involved in (t.r,
regulating
or protecting
tr_zu
tear; o-;
:tali{outside
rauti: interests
reg
(e.g public health): Washington Department of Health (closes
oyster beds affected by poor water quality), US Army -2,
Corps
5
of Engineers (permits
tr:0411.1
ap in! navigable
es,..crtict construction
A:tot:Lt.-6u) & dredging
waters), National tsisia.4
Marine74-.177.71
Fisheries !:Srvi
Service (protects
'-fr4)..:.'=:.1 essential fish 1G,
habitat
tit for salmon), and Washington Department of
Ecology (water
Other or4er quality
-it4tri monitoring and standards). .)=.141."
.1
Other Industry
te Grower
Pacific
it
County
Willapa Al/lane
Willapa Bay Water
Resources Coordinating
NRCS
Willapa)'Grays Harbor
&GPIvers. Assoc,
\USCOE
Figure 9.3. Institutional web for Willapa Bay oyster growers. Red lines indicate regulations; dark green lines indicate mutual
interest; turquoise lines indicate assistance and support; and purple lines indicate possible conflicting interests. The light gray
organizations (NOAA, WDFW, USFVVS and Shoalwater Bay Tribe) are thought to have minimal direct interest in oyster growing
practices.
56
INSTITUTIONAL MAPPING
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
ganizations have largely supportive roles: Washington De-
partment of Agriculture (assists with pest management),
Washington Sea Grant Program (research and public outreach
support for marine industries). Yet others have mutual interests to promote: Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association,
Willapa Alliance, Washington Department of Natural Resources (leases state tidelands).
Institutional mapping provides a comprehensive, descriptive
means of viewing and understanding the multitude of regulatory and other relationships between industries, communities, interest groups, and agencies. It also clarifies the link
between legislative/judicial rules and management authorities that give these relationships staying power. Implementing management measures that protect or enhance the natural ecosystems of Pacific Northwest estuaries requires the
mobilization and coordination of decision making through
the webs of organizations and institutions depicted in these
maps
Integration & Interaction
By design, the Institutional Mapping and Socio-economics
Baseline Project promotes integration and research interactions. Knowledge of organizations, laws, institutions, and
decision processes that affect the PNCERS estuaries and regional demographic and economic trends of areas surrounding the estuaries serves as a foundation for the PNCERS social frame research. Our baseline understanding of these factors shaped the development of the coastal resident survey
questionnaire (Rebecca Johnson) and the coastal practitioner survey (Tom Leschine). This knowledge will continue to
be employed, especially in subsequent years when specific
management questions and issues are addressed.
For more details on social frame integration refer to Social
Frame Interactions and Integration, page 69.
Davis, Shannon, and Hans Radtke. 1999. Economic Description of Selected Coastal Oregon and Washington Coun-
ties. Prepared for PNCERS by The Research Group.
Corvallis, OR
Washington Department of Ecology. 1995. Washington State
Coastal Zone Management Program. Shorelands and
Water Resources Program. Olympia. 76 p.
Applications
Publications:
The Research Group. 1999. Economic Description of Selected Coastal Oregon and Washington Counties. Part I and
Part II. Corvallis, Oregon.
Presentations:
None
Workshops:
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert, and Tom Leschine served as
organizers and discussion leaders at the PNCERS "Protecting and Restoring Pacific Northwest Estuaries: Human Ac-
tivities and Valued Ecosystem Components" Vancouver,
Washington, December 8-9, 1999.
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert, Rebecca Johnson, Tom
Leschine, Michelle Pico, and Joel Kopp participated in
monthly socio-economic group meetings.
Partnerships:
None
Personnel
Daniel Huppert, Associate Professor, University of
References
Huppert, Daniel D., Michelle Pico, and Julie Nelson. 1999.
Mapping of Institutions for coastal Ecosystem Management in Washington State. Draft report. School of Marine
Affairs, University of Washington. 56 p.
Washington
Michelle Pico, Graduate Student, University of Washington
Courtland Smith, Professor, Department of Anthropology,
Oregon State University
The Research Group, Corvallis, Oregon.
INSTITUTIONAL MAPPING
57
PNCERS
-IVEri 1999 s.ANNUAL REPORT
-
F'd vjlir. Perceptions, Attitudes,
Public
...."altr162-0 and Values
11:0
ram
Fttif.
Rebecca Johnson, Kathleen Bell, and Daniel
j, Huppert
nuNai
t1
I
-
-
Project 10
Ill
ues. Such values may prove useful to future decisions regarding
coastal salmonerigri4t
stocks in Iftu
the
Ste..CP,P.
7/44741-1C,eztdteretr.
Pacific Northwest.
-111:113Z
PiCalrotr,,
e
V.rauza the significance
addresses
4toe of public perceptions, attitudes,
tatAt). and values when con4;11
e.4.114
sidering threats tagati-7
to and management of the coastal
ecosystem. Over
'C.-- the
de last
Ism year, we finalized the
ust
fkAi framework
1., ;srzti.ofrIk3)(040:
analytical
the coastal resident sur_%vynter.ett tk.--n&tcf.atigrAmts
vey, incorporating
different research 4f1,:-.Vatst
hypotheses
g: interests and t1210.)11t.ot
and
establishing linkages
the
&Imps to C,V3
011
coastal
practitioner
of
the
En11- ;1-'14:ttkr4 survey research
-1 or eh/
vironmental and
Ecosystem
Rift Vt.
431,1t-MManagement
LitaitbSIZ
11.1.8
7,140_1
This project
4i j.
Project A.70=
(Tom Lnel-50)
Leschine)AV4I
as well
as to r-th
the V.4)
eco441.4
from asking
same questions
residents over
ft-cz,
tem: the
th3t:2/2
cut Lai. to
tp.mietzta
rrta (goy
large area along
thehzifi+t
PacificINorthwest
Coast.=
lib tts
I:.
In *-7:,
the past,
one or.
spe' on
WE, surveys
rdr'04,1: have focused
wars
Rebecca Johnson
system ot,irtitiuts
components focused on by other
,..134.7,projects
prrifeib (Julia 4K.F4sAtm14.24
PNCERS
Parrish, PNCERS PI Ray Hilborn,
Eh:
.1:1e.ace:17:4, Mtr,
David
Armstrong,
Ron Thom,
and
IL* mfr.,
rinSteve
1 StrzRumrill).
lurtELA
"The. final lutartinr4ti-7.
Car< - a aehltre'
questionnaire -reflects
subset of(1.z
the original rpro)
te
posed survey :L,;:vut
objectives: (1) to -.Serac
determine
w which
44,1' valued ecorotit.r4-000CIINOCIl,ICIP3
system components (and their 4starar.t.i-twis
associated goods and services)
oatidnedi, to be ofr most
are considered
:414`er significance
co-for
to, residential
si Atm mr-,.lat:
Ayr, M.
choice,
recreation,
andAVAIViy
quality of life .rPin the
ars
grz. 5
-atth
Pt= nad;
five estuaries
of the PNCERS
study region; (2) 1r
to iitCfroir
discover
how
in environmental
and ecosystem
tAnychanges
ne-Akif41i4
oNtIreenatri av:4
aatdc. -icetconditions
trx)-Mile affect residential
r L location- choices, recreational
use, and the
VS.
.",!i.T tam,
:.5
economic values
(willingness
to pay) of specific ecosystem
ALL.,L =2 L4)
components; (3) 1:
to investigate a tIrist,
small number
....aim' of specific
vAr.il:
social science research
issues, contingent on ow
convenience
t1.17:1
t7k :sts-EV,trirlier..7
4701.:Ire3 and
bad
feasibility (e.g., willingness to pay
611Z1:141r.
61. improved coastal
kt:e for
salmon stocks, relationship betweenX.er.Art"?
ecosystem components
v11:.;.:11ranr.146xatlirelier=r4b
and conditions
values
held for residential littildeltsb
locations 3;);
r4-trIttimetand
.t 'AV.!
te.?21.1
832:Fr
and (4) to ,jrnSeirt
compare attitudes
atrAin and values toward coastal ecosystems3 across4 the citira
different study t.lcu
sites and the two different
states.
I
:
c'7 questions
The Jar
71survey
seek the çj
opinions of
at.T:' :to c
811 residents
1!:,Ztt on char11.t.s
acteristics of their *11714M111/7;
community and residence,
V.!..zom natural
atesid resourcebased or outdoor or.rrotel.
1.4.3nr1
recreation, threats to the local natural environment and natural resource
management programs, threats
!IA
r
to coastal
.7.,
salmon stocks,
sitNELD preservation
t.ecttl and coastal salmon
C*9.371 3-1.1r.Cill
programs. While the majority of the questions
7.0gletcd
luffalk:S: explore the
opinions
pi?
illf.Z.1/4 of r0C44kri-Li
residents on community character, outdoor recreation, ecosystem components,
and threats
ecosystem
*am. fur.
ti. !t 0 to
t-..-.1!
health, a subset of questions
at gathering more
%CaLiz are
In aimed CC
practical information
suchtitasZ:G
how residents
gain information
ctf_-.) 7.*
ittitr.faMI1t,L.!
about ia4
the Ito
health of their local bay and what residents fre_i
feel
about current
natural
resource Ilt1ir4=53
management
sixr-t
tjt 111sc. :113Nr3
1 and regulation
efforts. InIioricLi:_%,r.Xlet:
addition, the contingent
question _aft
that
rvhrt valuation
idna ty:." til:mean
seeks respondents willingness to
to Mt
pay 677
for programs
that
FrfcivAira
Icrwill
M/
preserve
salmon 7`,Z)
runs will allow for
pAt-sril coastal coho :1117:a
ItZ quantitative exploration :of j'.;
the basis of
these willingness to pt.,;
pay val:efriac1/47.-
J1p
11/11/,-
PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES
''0.11.1_11/
I1
Finally, vr5
we believe
large ett-tzt
return
balit'n athere- will be a WE!
r
58
-fi=--40
u.vii.rzrAmtc,;:tysetg1to r,
Introduction
,
-
;.- +JIG' -
cificAx5t.
area or one state. Weck.Ic
look :;-erwca..:e7.1
forward to com-akc
paringirkivand contrasting
responses across r.101
the
7-4hg
En.: Li: the 47,g1kii
areas. By implementing the coastal
resident
sur-vat:a:six
)cre'rt
tte
vey, we have created a mechanism that will auei
share
the public perceptions,
values of
-rrirms, attitudes, and*gra.,
Lefirfe.:ir
residents on tr
a variety
important coastal issues.
_riekttj of Aq_atc.
04.1-1.1361
I L1,/ele
r
Results & Discussion
0-1
_Irm%
.
Pre-test of Coastal Resident Survey Questionnaire
Jra-Z:
The vortc.1
coastal resident :Mr
survey
was pre-tested
in
Cf questionnaire
Vas
VZT
wts,
(iNcraui IP
November of 1999
using zoth3
a small irtjs,:v1r.k.asinrti.
sample of respondents. One
Ar-40:Cinr1i
1t4'5c
hundred surveys
to property
rff mailed -r
tw.s.ctrxt
clft1S1 were
p'r7.17, owners
7 r residing
within .TA-Mrt
30 miles vf
of thegsvlattit.tuotftt.Ptv
respective estuaries. 20 surveys were
/(1.3 to respondents
comf e(
mailed
living
in each r.4
of the 10!..
five kV.
different arI
eas (Grays
and Willapa Bay, Washington; Yaquina
%."-IIIC:a Harbor
II'Niiui:1.1-tr
/4111c7,14-111
COI
45,01 Fwpttsicas
Bay, Coos Bay,tn.!
and Tillamook Bay,zi
Oregon).
Respondents
were 'dab:A
asked to complete
questionnaire
and
commentOlt
on
turli the
tr. 4T
4173tratrt [cat
r:-min4C51
'.1"=::
/443110
sections or questions that were tir
hard to understand and/or
unclear. Ofr the cti
85 possible respondents (15 mailing addresses
were
28 returned
questionnaires, resulting in
4ect invalid),
IXPN.L;),Cbti!
!rt.'their
4Kft-L6:7'13:-..7tetettiat'i
Ilka
fIr no
response
rate of1.41f%:.,1
33 percent.. With
follow up /4:".krtitu:3
activities and
.001)rqe.fetSZ,
I
explicit recognition
of the draft
survey,
this response
Lii status
4.;7.oft1r,
.Iiitos;prArr
.4.1g-i
rate fa
is considered
reasonable. The
rue
c...1.-d:tiev-:-JsxL
1 pre-test
r.:1responses
nop51461 were
rT.1:
closely examined "to1:r
detect
potential
problems with the de-ITt77tir
ttl pr;1,1cau
sign of the milsurvey
rm
=7 questionnaire.
a
0
_
i;
II
7.
'71
it
LI
lt responses were entered
I.? F i."IvIteLtztsc4AA
The pre-test
into a database and ana-
stc2-00
i
lyzed. In
addition,
written
recorded on the surIjiIt-7/1
i.;
74-11P fl comments
veys
also noted
format. .14
The
ey were
.-:1 and entered into electronicGrad.
f0.1
pre-test
eco survey had five sections:
;.3v1,:-.st. (1) Characteristics of Your
/vrt..r.' dhe
Community
and Residence; (2) Outdoor
.71::::.2ex Recreational Activities; (3) Health of
(4)
cit the "Bay/Harbor"
3 VI I .R7=11 C
47
ate*Vb. Environment;
Coastal Z:a_913-%
Salmon Stocks;
(5) Demographics.
Sezi;:cr, and :f.")
7-4 hz.v. Overall, we
were
by the
intrigued
tr.responses
iv -cflU and
vel were particularly cpes
C:= excited11V
by Ithe way these responses concurred
with
findings
generXT:d1:17%': "'`tJ f. ea!
riXt"
ri
(
rr teet
ated l-r
in the
review
Uri
- of
z past
1..s1 surveys
Luz- 417 of coastal Oregon and
I A7rrt-
Washington
residents
(Bell,
1999). sv-7,.014..:a
Residents recognize
the
77.711Arr.-1-..2
3E5.
I.iv;
rir=01. 4 L-40
significance of ts.,g_re
ongoing
economic and demographic change
r41.-1.:41111C4
.g.t-,1;40-rcc.
in their communities and hiP:"
have strong
Ate"
enr-a opinions
NI! about what
they
like to/V:
see happenrm
in t'L
the future. Second, resi1..P7 would lie,C
rI
1.1
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
dents acknowledge the importance of natural amenities to
their communities, both socially and economically. Third,
residents frequently note natural resources as the reason for
locating and staying in their communities. Finally, residents
have extremely strong opinions about threats to ecosystem
health and the design and implementation of natural resource
management strategies. It will be interesting to see whether
or not the final responses will offer similar conclusions when
compared and contrasted with the results of past surveys.
While the pre-test only
involved a small sample,
the results are useful in
foreshadowing what
may come out of this re-
search effort in the future. The responses to a
subset of questions are
22 males and 6 females.
The average age of the
respondents is 58. Forty
six percent of the respondents are retired
and only 28 percent of
the respondents have a
college diploma or
higher level of education. 71 percent of the
respondents live in
coastal communities
year round, with an av-
erage length of resi-
dence of 24 years.
Household incomes var-
ing" choice in Table 10.1 are the sum of 1 to 5 scale responses received for each community characteristic, with 5
being extremely impor-
Table 10.1. Importance of community characteristics in choosing to
live in and choosing to move to a coastal community. Scores indicate a
ranking of importance of the different community attributes.
Community
Characteristics
highlighted below. Prior
to this discussion, some
descriptive statistics of
this sample are offered.
The pre-test sample includes 28 individuals,
respondents were asked to rank the importance of different
community attributes in affecting specific choices. Table 10.1
displays the responses to two questions on how important
community attributes are in choosing to live in and move to a
coastal community.- Please note that the scores for these two
questions are not comparable directly because of a difference in the wording of the questions. The scores for the "liv-
Score
of Importance:
Choosing to
Live in a Coastal
Communityl
Score
of Importance:
Choosing to
Move to a Coastal
Community2
106
105
98
12
Little traffic congestion
Near ocean
Views and scenery
Clean water in the bay
Recreation opportunities
Good public services
Fewer people
Lower incidence of crime
Health care facilities
Climate/weather
Nice people
Good schools
Low cost of living
Job opportunities
Near family and friends
98
96
96
95
94
88
noting a household income of less than or equal to 50,000
dollars per year. Twenty one percent of the respondents
indicated membership in an environmental or conservation
organization and/or membership in a sporting or recreation
group.
Several questions in the first section of the survey address
issues related to coastal communities. These questions are
included to help us better understand the role of the coastal
ecosystem in these communities and attitudes about ongoing
demographic and economic changes in these communities.
It is interesting to compare the responses to questions where
portant. The scores for
the "moving" choice
are based on responses
to a question that asked
respondents to list the
three most important
community character-
istics that influenced
their choice to move to
the coastal community.
31
Here, scores were de-
17
rived by assigning
4
27
4
33
3
6
weights of 5, 4, and 3
to the top choices listed
by each respondent and
then summing over the
sample. When asked
85
29
83
75
72
11
about why they choose
to live in a coastal com-
15
munity, high scores
6
69
45
34
were given by respondents to attributes such
as little traffic conges-
64
Notes:
1 Score is the sum of rankings of importance on a scale of 1 to 5.
Each respondent was asked to rank all of the characteristics.
2 Score is the sum of rankings of the three most important
characteristics. Each respondent was asked to list only three
characteristics. Weights of 5, 4, and 3 were used to assign rankings.
ies across the respondents, with 60 percent
tant and 1 being not im-
tion, being near the
ocean, views and scenery, clean water in the
bay, recreation opportunities, and good public services. However,
when asked why they
moved to that commu-
nity in the first place, attributes such as job opportunities,
being near family and friends, having fewer people (low popu-
lation density), being near the ocean, and climate/weather
received the highest scores. Interestingly, many respondents
noted ongoing changes in these community attributes. Over
fifty percent of the sample believe that the cost of living, job
opportunities, crime rate, and housing costs are getting worse
in their community, while 30 percent feel health care and
public services are improving in their community. Numerous respondents stated that increases in the cost of living and
reductions in job opportunities are so great that they are considering moving away from their coastal community.
PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES
59
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
The second section of the survey addresses recreation activities. Natural resource-based or outdoor recreation is an important factor in these communities for several reasons. First,
the local economies rely on such recreation opportunities in
promoting tourism. Second, recreation opportunities are an
important source of value to the residents of and visitors to
these areas. As a result, information on recreation behavior
can be used to inform decisions regarding natural resource
management. We included several questions on recreation
and erosion, and decline in fish habitat are considered the
greatest threats based on this ranking. When asked who
should be most influential in making natural resource management decisions, 40 percent of respondents noted existing
partnerships between government and citizens. 30 percent
believed county governments should be most influential. Only
one respondent believed the federal government should be
most influential, and only two felt that role should be assumed by the state government. These responses are consisto understand better if, how, and where residents recreate tent with other regional survey findings concerning who
both regionally and in their commushould be responsible for mannities. Overall, participation rates
agement (Bell, 1999). These
Table 10.2. Importance of potential threats to the
varied considerably by activity:
pro-local
sentiments were also
estuarine environment. Scores indicate a ranking
fishing (64 %), beachcombing
of importance of the different potential ecological
(64%), hiking/walking (57%), hunt-
threats. Scores are calculated as the sum of
questions about sources of infor-
ing (46%), boating (43%), clam-
responses on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being extremely
mation on bay environments.
ming (39%), camping (25%), crabbing (21%), birding (14%), swim-
important and 1 being not important.
Widespread trust was placed in
ming (11%), surfing (4%), and
kayaking (0%). Responses to questions on local recreation activities
suggest some interesting trends in
recreation near the PNCERS estuaries. In the last year, 85 percent of
salmon or steelhead trips, 100 percent of clamming trips, 71 percent
of crabbing trips, and 28 percent of
Ecological Threats
Score of
Importance
reflected in the responses to
local resources (newspaper,
community groups, local government) and not in the federal
government and environmental
Oil Spills
95
82
birding trips were taken near the
PNCERS estuaries. Because respondents were asked to indicate
using a map where they recreated
in the PNCERS estuaries, we will
be able to assess which areas are
Shoreline Development/Erosion
Decline in Fish Habitat
Spread of Spartina
Spread of Green Crabs
Municipal Sewage Discharge
Industrial Pollution
Logging in Upland Areas
Decline in Oyster Habitat
Water Runoff from Farms
Water Runoff from Urban Areas
Dredging of Channels
more widely used for recreation and
this may have implications for other
Notes:
spondents about their percep-
PNCERS studies and resources.
1 Score is the sum of rankings of importance on a
tions of the cause of salmon decline. Poor ocean conditions for
salmon was cited as the greatest
The small size of the pre-test sample
prevents us from offering a discus-
sion of the spatial distribution of
recreation in the estuaries at this
72
71
66
Several wrote numerous paragraphs sharing their attitudes of
65
natural management programs.
62
61
The coastal salmon stock section
60
of the survey discusses the de-
53
cline of native salmon runs along
40
the Pacific Northwest Coast.
The section begins by asking re-
scale of 1 to 10. Each respondent was asked to
rank all of the ecological threats.
time.
The third section of the survey focuses on the health of the
estuarine environment. In this section, we ask respondents
for their opinion of threats to the local estuarine environment. Understanding public perceptions can help identify
areas where outreach efforts may be targeted. In addition,
public opinions of threats and management programs can be
important because support for natural resource management
policies from the community can affect the performance of
those policies. Table 10.2 shows one ranking of ecological
threats, where the ranking is again based on scores that reflect the sum of the (1 to 5 scale) responses indicating importance by ecological threat. Oil spills, shoreline development
60
80
groups. An open-ended question
on opinions of natural resource
management programs sparked
much interest in the respondents.
PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES
cause of decline, followed by
degraded river habitats in forest
lands, degraded marshes in the bay, and too much commercial fishing for salmon. After presenting respondents with
detailed historical information on coastal chinook and coho
salmon stocks, the survey then asks respondents to indicate
their support or lack of support for a referendum that would
establish a program that would protect coastal coho salmon
runs. Respondents were asked to reveal their votes (yes or
no) for two different proposed referendum programs, and
the household costs (annual tax amount) of the programs were
varied randomly over the surveys. 25 percent of the respon-
dents voted yes, demonstrating support for both of the programs; while 75 percent responded no to both of the programs. This series of questions proved to be the most confusing for respondents and has been revised substantially for
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
the final questionnaire Because of these difficulties, we will
not elaborate further on the pre-test responses.
the survey, as the survey questions focus on a range of
Design of Final Coastal Resident Survey Questionnaire
During the fall of 1999, the coastal resident survey questionnaire was also circulated for further review by researchers
with survey expertise. As noted previously, comments from
many of the PNCERS researchers and partners were instrumental in revising early drafts. In general, we received positive feedback on the survey questionnaire from the 28 respondents who returned their questionnaires. However, the
responses themselves suggested some sections of the survey
were unclear. External reviewers made useful suggestions
regarding the wording, design, and length of the final survey
questionnaire
For more details on social frame integration refer to Social
Frame Interactions and Integration, page 69.
Based on the pre-test responses and external reviews of the
coastal resident questionnaire by individuals with survey
expertise, Rebecca Johnson, Kathleen Bell, and Daniel
Huppert worked as a group to finalize the coastal resident
survey questionnaire The final questionnaire attempts to
meet the protocol designated by the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation in 1993 (Federal Register, 1993) and reproduced in Portney (1994) and strongly reflects the insights of
Mitchell and Carson (1989) regarding the use of surveys to
value public goods.
In February, 2000, 5,000 survey questionnaires were mailed
to residents living within 30 miles of the different estuaries.
In the final mailing, we hope to avoid a high rate of undeliv-
PNCERS estuarine resources.
References
Bell, K. 1999. Emerging Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding
the Changing Coasts of Washington and Oregon: A Review of Coastal Resident Surveys. Draft manuscript, July
26.
Dillman, D.A. 1975. Mail and telephone surveys: the total
design method. Wiley, New York.
Federal Register, 58, 4601, January 15, 1993.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to
Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Portney, P.R. 1994. The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why
Economists Should Care. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 3-17.
Applications
Publications:
None
erable responses. Based on discussions with the firm providing the mailing addresses, we are hopeful that the problems that arose in the pre-test will not persist. 1,000 survey
questionnaires were mailed to each of the 5 different areas.
The final distribution process follows generally the total design method (TDM) guidelines (D.A. Dillman (1978)) for
high response rates and appropriate survey design. These
Presentations:
guidelines are widely adopted by researchers conducting mail
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert, Rebecca Johnson, Tom
Leschine, Michelle Pico, and Joel Kopp participated in
surveys. In cases where surveys are not returned, respondents will be mailed a post-card reminder 1 week after initial
distribution and a second letter and survey 4 weeks after initial distribution.
Dan Huppert, "Motivation, design, and pre-test results of the
PNCERS coastal resident survey." PNCERS Eat and Learn
Seminar Series, January 13, 2000.
Workshops:
monthly socio-economic group meetings.
Partnerships:
Integration & Interaction
Nancy Bockstael, Professor, Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, University of Maryland. Provided review of coastal resident survey questionnaire
The coastal resident questionnaire broadly integrates with
many of the other PNCERS research projects. The design of
the survey reflects the research interests of both PNCERS
social and natural scientists. Direct interactions are evident
between the coastal resident survey and the research of
Kathleen Bell and Tom Leschine. In addition, interactions
Chris Carter, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Provided review of the coastal salmon section of the coastal resident survey questionnaire
John Loomis, Professor, Colorado State University. Provided
with the research interests of Julia Parrish, Ray Hilbom, David
Armstrong, Ron Thom, and Steve Rurnrill are supported by
review of the coastal salmon section of the coastal resident
survey questionnaire.
PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES
61
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Ivar Strand, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland. Provided review of coastal resident survey questionnaire.
Mario Teisl, Assistant Professor, Department of Resource
Economics and Policy, University of Maine. Provided review of coastal resident survey questionnaire.
Personnel
Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Oregon State
University
Kathleen Bell, Research Associate, University of Washington
Daniel Huppert, Associate Professor , University of
Washington
Tom Leschine, Associate Professor, University of Washington
Andy Bennett, Graduate Student, University of Washington
Michelle Pico, Graduate Student, University of Washington
Laurie Houston, Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State
University, Department of Forest Resources
62
PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES
FiL
PNCERS 1999
141' ANNUAL REPORT
13th-co A r Management
Environmental
and Ecosystem
ZtiuJL.44tIJ.'
Tom
r_sztkii.xt.
Leschine,
.111
1
-
Introduction
base?
r 4cutirfv!
bw-2 (Bennett
0.00-S9 and Leschine)
This component
PNCERS
7-711.--;:mv. of
Jr00the
LTALICIAZE
socio-economic tresearch agenda
4n:le
focuses
on examining
114:1 -**2cz
-frit/sir:athe
tkttability
Lithj
and mechanisms
for marine and
46,1.
I p417 At
HowY
do environmental
th
:ityxor-41managers
=curs-, and
£4 scientists who
coastal
--titn- estuarine
Irma, u management
.a- sys-
perceive
limit the ability of science to
;err.in barriers that
a
LuLink
inform
management
decisions,
kfm-rf tim.Ar- .10k Alarms. and what steps would
I
Af,1,
.11
. .
work with
the marine
of the
ibc. and coastal resources tic
III J:
PNCERS
region perceive the flow of information beara-132,51q..i..0
tween r.t..
science
and management to Rs-z4z:*
operate? 2'4
Do &tit
they
ct n"wA/07-117
tems to incorporate
of
'-GNtaVt.:0 findings
fr
they like to see taken to icorm.,3
improve this
information flow?
Itirldnnrck=ittrzl
Locurx
(Pico and Leschine)
PNCERS-like
research efforts $1:4,1
into
luT.-est_of:t
decision
.5.-rifla making.
TO filLI6 It approachcs
frre
this
question
in two ways. First, it
11114t.TA*0-4.2fpr1ftu
Tom Leschine
seeks to understand 64
the decisionow:kJ'
-ph*
making styles of the management organizations
mitak:111,P6 that affect
the status
of
marine
and
coastal
resources
invithe
tL6PNCERS
biz=ALS Nt.4 9-.Z4.*IP., Or. tu
region.
Second,
it
seeks
to
understand
how
scientific
Mein,
i"
CP ':W171431
Kroallr and
114TE-a
itko to_Prga
technicalC-fpfroli
information
enters P13
this management
arena
ii
It_ andILIwhether
barriers
exist
that
impede
information
being
.
ranttas4rZle.1iAzr iteNet:i
,te--he.sought
rveAr
or.:111:17440.0
utilized as 54Jr.
fully as tiru
it might.
In
a
sense,
this
work
connects
_
-.7.6.1-11
ta irItat..trzinut
tr
to all PNCERS research, as it addresses
the basicintrtr.1_
working
,itoldtiveEPhtit
assumptions
that
we
as
PNCERS
investigators
hold
about
arscr-4KLcrts
14
-earhow
PNCERS
research
will
(or
should)
influence
resource
i.
fat ( abokri irickrarm
management in tthe PrilABit
PNCERS region.
How
effective
is environmental management
in the
iv
. ri"="
er.ri4t1.-3Lifit.i;.3..uttitsi
region at ran
maintaining; I:11114Turr
and improving estuarine condi.;rt
tion, and what 4
accounts
for variations
!yr
-ariadVit'in managementt.
h.aii-Orir
effectiveness?fizl4km..:3
(Proposed Years
& 5 research)
,:kr4 4 4J
arnxilActitel
1.1c?
a
Project 11
AM=.41.4111711y-i,
Andy btru-vt.
Bennett, Michelle
Pico, and Joel Kopp
L.,.11-_-30.:Pre:,
tt al
'
At least three general hypotheses can be distinguished:
1511
Good research with policy implication simply "finds
its way" to the decision points where it can best influence the course of management and policy. (Knowledge Diffusion Model)
Concerted effort at "science communication" is required (or desirable) for policy-relevant scientific results to have the influence that "they should". (Orchestrated Science Communication Model)
Scientific information enters policy arenas in "pointcounterpoint" fashion, introduced by position advocates in policy disputes. "Policy brokers" may act to
filter or validate information that ultimately forms the
basis for policies, or that drives policy change. ("Advocacy Coalition Framework" approach; developed
by P. Sabatier and colleagues)
AAitr:ouric
discussion of two research projects follows. The- .1st,
first,.Ea
"capacity assessment"
of regional management institutions
44r ry:F;ww,Lt
L4W man
to incorporate F/At.':EPN;
PNCERS-like ;-.=re.1
researchtori.tsi
results in ways thu
that
lead
integrative
rr_management
--(VAL2"..ricate'
and a more
4 atlort
sustainable
t,taidat4
!..vianu
x..-11 to more
resource base, is13currently
being completed
c.....vlertit, by
by Andrew
Liwn-,""lk,ze,
Mart.; P41:Bennett and 7..sa
Tom Leschine. The second
examines percepLeareci
aar.ot mniflaatti
tions
of the
between aultwe
science and
ti:td
4.1,1!
d flow- of
tr.!information
Livritza tvg4sier
tx" man7
agement. This latter research effort centers on a coastal practitioner survey and is being conducted by Michelle Pico and
Tom Leschine with the assistance of Joel Kopp.
Capacity Assessment of Regional Environmental Planning
and Management Institutions
A "capacity assessment" of regional management institutions to incorporate PNCERS-like research results in ways
that lead to more integrative management and a more sustainable resource base is being completed by Andrew Bennett
and Tom Leschine. This project has employed a case study
approach, focusing on two important resource management
institutions operating in Grays Harbor, Washington. A masters thesis by Andy Bennett is expected to be completed very
soon. The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Task Force is
the oldest estuary management organization in the region and
one of the oldest such organizations in the United States,
having been established in 1975. The Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) is much newer, now in just its third year of
existence.
Specific questions being addressed by research in this area
include:
What is the capacity of the region's management institutions to incorporate PNCERS-like research results
in ways that lead to more integrated management approaches and improve "sustainability" of the resource
The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Task Force was
founded originally to help implement and streamline a permit process that was becoming ever more complex and, from
the standpoint of some local constituencies, burdensome. The
introduction of shoreline permitting under Washington State's
Shoreline Management Act in the 1970s had brought to the
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
63
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
fore increasing conflict between the needs of environmental
protection and the needs of economic development in the
Grays Harbor region. One dispute, whether or not wetlands
should be filled for the construction of a facility to build offshore oil platforms, drew national attention to Grays Harbor.
Out of this dispute came the creation of the Grays Harbor
National Wildlife Refuge, one of the most important migratory shorebird feeding and resting areas on the West Coast.
The Task Force produced the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (GHEMP), which has been adopted by the local governments into their Shoreline Master Plans and incorporated into the Washington State Coastal Zone Management
Plan. Today, the agenda of the Task Force has broadened
somewhat, and the plan is undergoing one of its periodic reviews. But GHEMP's primary focus remains on permitting
issues.
By contrast, the CBP came into existence in 1998 as a means
for local governments to exert more control over environmental management in the basin. Subsequent to its formation, it became the "Water Resource Inventory Area" (WRIA)
lead entity for the Chehalis River Basin, part of a new state-
Among questions both are facing are: how much to broaden
or narrow the scope of their endeavors, how much to invest
in coordination or collaboration with other local and regional
entities and state and federal authorities, and how much to
invest in monitoring or other efforts to understand the status
of resources and resource threats in the region. Moreover,
each organization's purview encompasses a geographic area
in which human activity has the potential to directly affect
the management efforts of the other (the Chehalis River is
the dominant freshwater inflow to Grays Harbor). Thus each
faces in theory at least the question of whether and how it
should try to "integrate" its mission with that of the other
(and, more generally, other entities with similar geographically or functionally overlapping missions).
Our research strategy was first to review relevant literatures
to develop an "ideal" model of integrative resource management against which to compare each of the two entities. We
examined literatures on a) estuarine, watershed and coastal
management, b) "ecosystem management" (predominantly
aimed at terrestrial, especially forested, ecosystems), and c)
"systems" and organizational theory. As an example of the
kinds of organizational characteristics that can be gleaned
from such a review, the literature on "organizational learning" suggests a hierarchy of characteristics that can be ap-
wide system of administrative areas established to promote
integrated watershed management. As the WRIA lead entity, it is responsible for taking an inventory of scientific data plied to gauging an organization's ability to "learn." This
on the watershed and developing a watershed management hierarchy appears in Table 11.1.
plan. It is also the lead entity for salmon recovery efforts in
the watershed. In this role, the CBP's most immediate task is Perceptions of the Flow ofinformation Between Science and
to evaluate proposed restoration projects in the basin for their Management
suitability for funding under the state's Salmon Restoration This research examines how environmental managers and
Enhancement Fund. The fund was created by the state legis- scientists who work with the marine and coastal resources of
lature in response to widespread decline in the state's salmon the PNCERS region perceive the flow of information between
stocks, to the point where several were on
the verge of being listed under the federal
Table 11.1. Hierarchy of "organizational learning" characteristics applicable to
Endangered Species Act. These include
examination of environmental planning management organizations affecting
Grays Harbor, Washington.
the coho stocks of the outer coast, which
have since been listed as 'threatened'.
We examined both organizations' current
and recent past activities. For GHEMP, this
meant we focused on the most recent five-
year review of GHEMP (as mandated by
its charter) and the process of defining adjustments to the GHEMP in light of the review. For CBP, this meant we examined
the process of putting the basic CBP organization into place and defining what its
mission would be. Interviews with organizational representatives, documentary review and attendance at meetings of the two
entities revealed that they have or are now
facing somewhat similar organizational issues.
64
Organization shows ability to recognize:
Need for information not currently on hand (and can deploy resources to collect same)
Management objectives not being met and approach must be modified accordingly (e.g. can design, implement and utilize monitoring to adjust operations)
Objectives not being met and objectives must be changed (e.g., can shift to
ecosystem-based, rather than single-species management)
Need to plan for, and adapt and respond to:
uncertainty (environmental, or regarding decision consequences)
fallibility (the possibility of failing to carry out tasks as intended)
Need for fundamentally different organizational arrangements (either to achieve
different purpose or to achieve same purpose in new ways, as for example,
through collaboration with other organizations)
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
science and management.. Specifically, we are exploring
whether or not they perceive barriers that limit the ability of
science to inform management decisions, and what steps they
believe would improve this information flow.
This work in progress seeks generally to understand the environment in which PNCERS research might find application in improving the management of marine and estuarine
resources in the PNCERS study region. This project is expected to result in a masters thesis by UW School of Marine
Affairs student Michelle Pico. Our approach is to conduct a
mail survey, which to date has been distributed to more than
300 environmental researchers and environmental managers
in Washington (n=125) and Oregon (n=178) (refer to Table
11.2). The survey examines:
How each of these two groups perceives its own vs.
other group's "professional culture" and reward system
Where difference is perceived, the extent to which it
is seen to help or hinder the cause of science relevancy
to, and use in, resource management decisions
The effort that each group thinks is warranted to improve researcher - manager communication so that
management-relevant research will be conducted and
used in management
Most responses are elicited via closed-form questions. The
survey also asks for the respondent's advice on how best to
improve the flow of information between scientists and managers, however. Both researchers and managers are asked to
identify the specific estuaries where they do their work or
with which they are most fa-
Table 11.2. Coastal practitioner survey: Preliminary assessment of the demography of respondents
A Preliminary Analysis of the Demography of Respondents to the
Survey of Washington & Oregon Coastal Scientists & Managers
miliar, and basic structural
information on the "work
life" of members of each
group is also sought. All
PNCERS investigators
Oregon
Washington
Overall
were targeted as part of the
survey population.
Surveys Mailed
178
125
303
Our research hypotheses,
Surveys Returned
54
47
101
Response Rate
30.3%
37.6%
33.3%
Percent Scientists*
21.2%
22.8%
Percent Managers
55.8%
28.6%
50.0%
gleaned from both literature
review and our own experience, are that:
Percent Doing Both Equally
25.0%
16.7%
19.8%
Both researchers and
Percent Whose Job is < Half Coastal Issues
Percent Whose Job is > Half Coastal Issues
37.7%
60.0%
46.5%
managers perceive
62.3%
40.0%
50.5%
differences in own vs.
Percent Whose Job is < Half Estuarine Issues
Percent Whose Job is > Half Estuarine Issues
70.4%
74.5%
72.3%
other group profes-
29.6%
25.5%
27.7%
Masters
Masters
Master's
Modal Educational Status
49.5%
Both groups perceive
Affiliation
these differences as
Port Authority
0
0
Local Government
5
3
a
Federal Government
13
9
22
Tribal Organization
0
1
1
University/College
State Government
NGO/Non-profit
Business/Industry
5
a
13
23
17
40
4
5
9
1
3
4
3
0
3
Other
sional cultures and rewards;
* All percentages are based on those responding. Respondents who rated themselves from
affecting (+/-) the
utility and actual use
of research in management;
(Null) There is no significant difference be-
tween the two groups
in overall perception
of the effect these differences have (+/-).
2.5 to 3.5 (on a scale from Ito 5, with 1 being pure scientist and 5 being pure manager)
were categorized as doing both equally. Those scoring below and above that range were
categorized as scientists arid managers, respectively.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
65
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Results & Discussion
Capacity Assessment of Regional Environmental Planning
and Management Institutions
Our use of a systems-theoretic framework, coupled with an
ecosystem management perspective, enabled us to key on a
few basic principles of organization and organizational conduct for our analysis. We looked for:
1
evidence of "feedback and control" (the ability to detect and correct error) as planning and management
proceeds,
the relationship between problems of concern to the
organization and its jurisdictional boundaries and management tools-in-use,
the extent of "integration" present, i.e., coordination
or collaboration with other entities capable of affecting the same problems both at similar jurisdictional
levels (local and county'horizontal' integration) and
at higher jurisdictional levels (state and federal' vertical' integration),
extent of public involvement, and
evidence for "emergent" system properties (extent to
which the system exhibits such desirable whole-system characteristics as stability, resilience, adaptabil-
ity to environmental change, etc.) Evidence that
biodiversity was being preserved or enhanced or that
sustainable resource use was resulting from management is an example.
Several hypotheses guided our inquiry. Among them, that:
Relatively greater incentives exist to plan than to
implement (thus rendering completion of the feedback
loop to assessment and adjustment relatively difficult).
Underlying cause: Fiscal costs of (centralized) planning are much less than organizational costs of (decentralized) implementation (and in fact can be seen
as an organizational "good").
Relatively little attention beyond regulatory compliance is given to horizontal and vertical integration
compared to attention to own mission;
Underlying cause: Costs of integration are perceived
to outweigh benefits, or costs of "going own way" perceived as less than costs of integration.
66
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Incentives for public participation in estuarine resource
management are relatively low, with result that local
management organizations in turn have low incentive
to view problems from the "multiple perspectives" that
form the foundation of ecosystem-based management.
Underlying cause: A perceptual gulf exists between
environmental managers and ordinary citizens, who
interpret managers' claims that "environmental" problems exist as further evidence of continued economic
and community decline.
Our assessment of the operations of the two groups largely
confirms these hypotheses, particularly for the GREMP task
force. For the CBP, which is very new, our conclusions must
necessarily be more tentative.
The CBP, with a specific habitat protection and restoration
mandate, and state funding for at least some of the projects it
recommends, appears more likely to make good use of appropriately targeted scientific information than the GHEMP
task force at this point. Currently lacking buy-in from surrounding communities on several aspects of its proposed plan
revision, it appears that the GREMP task force would value
new scientific information pointing to resource sensitivity to
human-induced harm less than it would value information
that would help facilitate and expedite permit review, and
hence "buy in" from local communities. GREMP has never
conducted environmental monitoring nor has it sponsored
directed study of the Grays Harbor environment. The CBP
would presumably welcome information that helped it develop habitat restoration and protection spending priorities,
but might find some types of information more conducive to
conflict than to cooperation. The latter category potentially
includes information suggesting that local habitat restoration
efforts are not likely to be successful, or that habitat restoration and protection opportunities outside the Chehalis Basin
are superior to those that lie within it. The CBP has a specific mandate to assemble scientific information relevant to
its task, something GHEMP's overseers have never had.
The CBP appears to be open to considerable variation in
how it approaches its basic mission of focusing on the
Chehalis Basin. Possibilities appear even to include some
that could extend the partnership to embrace economic development initiatives. As such, CBP has the character of a
governmental enterprise whose way of doing business has
been influenced by the "reinventing government" movement
championed by Vice President Al Gore and others at the federal level. For example, some CBP representatives take an
entrepreneurial stance on the organization's budget, actively
seeking ways to build a bigger funding base than the organization has at present. By contrast, GHEMP task force members tend to see the budget as setting the limits on the aspira-
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
tions that the organization can reasonably afford to have.
Neither organization has a strong citizen participation component to validate its endeavors at this point, and representatives of each view the lack of broader participation from the
surrounding communities as a problem. Neither sees partnership with the other, even if limited to defining an agenda
of problems of mutual interest, as offering very clear benefits. While CBP could be accused of exhibiting youthful
enthusiasm as yet untempered by the lessons of advancing
age, GHEMP has suffered its share of disappointments over
its long life. Chief among these is a long-standing desire to
work more closely with state and federal entities whose jurisdictions overlap with GHEMP's permit authority under
the state's Shoreline Management Act. The ability to influence permit-review at all levels, so that it is more compatible
with the local interest in pursuing economic development,
was a primary motivation for forming GHEMP in the first
place, and it has gone largely unrealized. The reason appears to be lack of interest (and perhaps authority) by higher
level entities, upon whom GHEMP has been able to exert
little influence.
Neither these benefits of cooperation nor other offsetting
benefits have materialized, which may largely explain the
modest level of its accomplishments over the past quarter
century. We speculate that the CBP will similarly have realize benefits of an economic nature from its efforts at enhancing the Chehalis Basin (e.g., salmon stock recovery that stimulates segments of the local economy that derive income from
recreational or commercial fishing or tourism) if it is to sustain its current levels of enthusiasm.
their counterparts in Washington. This may reflect differences in how the two states organize their coastal and estuarine programs, a question we plan to pursue through examination of the results of the "institutional mapping" project
described elsewhere in this report.
Integration & Interaction
The two projects reported on here both contribute to our understanding of how PNCERS research in the natural and so-
cial sciences can contribute to improved management of
coastal and estuarine ecosystems. The proposed years 4 and
5 project to which they lead involves direct collaboration
with PNCERS natural science investigators (possibly Julia
Parrish, Steve Rurnrill, Ron Thom, and related post-docs). The Environmental and Ecosystem Management component
of the PNCERS Social Frame Studies is highly integrated
with other aspects of the Social Frame work, addressing as it
does the management implications of improved understanding of natural and socio-economic resource systems. The
coastal practioners survey project, when completed, is expected to be highly relevant to the outreach activities of the
PNCERS project management team. Active collaboration
with them on how to put into practice the ideas generated by
the survey on strengthening the management-research linkage is anticipated.
For more details on social frame integration refer to Social
Frame Interactions and Integration, page 69.
References
Perceptions of the Flow of Information Between Science and
Management
Systematic analysis of survey results has not yet begun. Cur-
rently we are concentrating on efforts to maximize our response rate and the diversity of the segments of the coastal
and estuarine research and management communities represented in the respondent population. The brief discussion
below addresses only some of the basic demographic char-
A.K. Bennett. 2000. Environmental Management Systems:
the Evolution of Environmental Planning in Grays Harbor. Unpublished masters thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington.
Applications
acteristics of those who have responded to the survey to date.
Among interesting preliminary findings are that the distinction between who is a researcher and who is a manager is not
as clear as one might expect. Many, if not most, respondents
feel their jobs require them to do a little of both. Only about
25% of respondents classify themselves as having purely
management or purely research jobs. Another preliminary
general finding concerning this group is that relatively few
individuals work exclusively or even a majority of the time
on estuarine or coastal problems (refer to Table 11.2). Oregon researchers and managers appear somewhat more likely
to focus predominantly on estuarine or coastal issues than do
Publications:
A.K. Bennett. 2000. Environmental Management Systems:
the Evolution of Environmental Planning in Grays Harbor.
Unpublished masters thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington.
Presentations:
Andy Bennett, "Estuarine Ecosystem Management: Putting
together all of the Pieces of the Restoration Puzzle". Society
for Ecological Restoration, September 17, 1998, Tacoma,
Washington.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
67
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Leschine, T. and Andy Bennett, "Estuarine Ecosystem Management: Are we ready for it?" PNCERS Eat and Learn Seminar, March, 1999, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Brett Dumbauld, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Provided review of the coastal practitioner survey, as
did PNCERS investigators Julia Parrish, Steve Rumrill, Ron
Thom, and Andrea Copping.
Workshops:
Personnel
Tom Leschine served as an organizer and discussion leader
at the PNCERS "Protecting and Restoring Pacific Northwest
Estuaries: Human Activities and Valued Ecosystem Components" Vancouver, Washington, December 8-9, 1999.
Kathleen Bell, Daniel Huppert, Rebecca Johnson, Tom
Leschine, Michelle Pico, and Joel Kopp participated in
monthly socio-economic group meetings.
Partnerships:
Grays Harbor County Planning Department. Provided results of survey of all county landholders regarding issues of
importance to landholders.
68
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Tom Leschine, Associate Professor, University of Washington
Andy Bennett, Graduate Student, University of Washington
Michelle Pico, Graduate Student, University of Washington
Joel Kopp, Research Assistant, University of Washington.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
Social Frame Interactions and Integration
Kathleen Bell
Introduction
tion of this type will continue to gain prominence in the final
years of the PNCERS research project.
As the social research program has evolved, two types of
integration have been emphasized. The first type involves
the integration of the different social science research projects,
while the second type reflects the integration of social and
natural science research projects. Although different in some
aspects, both types of integration serve the same goal: understanding how humans use, value, and impact the coastal
ecosystems and marine resources of the Pacific Northwest
and, in turn, how management affects the status of the Pacific Northwest coastal ecosystems and marine resources.
Much of the social research stems from the following
PNCERS research objectives:
developing predictive models that support adaptive
management of living marine resource and/or human
use, and;
evaluating the appropriateness of management practices and programs that affect coastal ecosystems and
living marine resources.
Recognizing the ultimate goals of supporting and improving
management processes, the social frame has been carefully
designed to inform a final set of projects tailored to meet
these specific research objectives. There are currently four
projects falling under the Social Frame: Institutional Mapping and Socio-economic Baseline (Daniel Huppert); Public
Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values (Rebecca Johnson), Environmental and Ecosystem Management (Tom Leschine),
and Integrated Ecological-Economic Modeling (Kathleen
Bell). Together, these projects address the human dimension of the PNCERS project, weaving together knowledge
of economic and demographic trends, public attitudes, governance, human behavior, and economic values. Proposals
for future years call for narrowing the research to two projects,
one on management and one on the use and value of the
PNCERS coastal ecosystems and marine resources. These
two projects will rely heavily on the findings of the previous
social frame projects, building on the foundation established
during years 1 through 3.
Integration with ongoing natural science projects is also a
priority of the social frame. Several of the social science
projects have been designed specifically to incorporate aspects of the marine resources and coastal ecosystems under
study and have developed with considerable input from the
natural science investigators. It is likely that active integra-
Results and Discussion
The Institutional Mapping and Socio-economic Baseline
Project (Daniel Huppert) established a baseline understanding of the organizations, laws, institutions, and decision pro-
cesses that affect the PNCERS estuaries and the regional
demographic and economic trends of counties surrounding
these estuaries. When examining the latter, attention was
given to the connections between estuarine natural resources
and these trends. The Socio-economic Baseline information
influenced the development of the coastal resident survey
questionnaire (Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values
Project; Rebecca Johnson). Several questions on the coastal
resident survey seek the attitudes of respondents concerning
economic and demographic trends that are noted in the socio-
economic baseline research. In addition, the institutional
mapping research fed directly into the development of the
coastal practitioner survey (Environmental and Ecosystem
Management, Tom Leschine). The sample population of the
coastal practitioner survey was identified using a database of
organizations constructed as part of the institutional mapping research. The institutional mapping research is also
likely to further supplement both the Environmental Ecosystem Management Project and the Integrated Ecological Economic Modeling Project in the future, as these projects scrutinize specific management objectives and interactions between the ecological and economic systems.
The Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values Project
(Rebecca Johnson) centers on the coastal resident survey that
seeks the opinions of residents on characteristics of their
community, outdoor or natural resource-based recreation,
threats to and management of the local natural environment,
and preservation of coastal salmon stocks. The design of the
survey strongly reflects the goal of integration. The survey
and its analytical framework were developed by the social
frame researchers as a group. This joint effort ensured that
numerous research interests would be met and that the de-
sign of the survey would be appropriate given our understanding of the local communities, government, and other
environmental planning organizations. Two direct interactions with other social science research projects emerged as
significant. First, a subset of questions on the coastal resident survey also appear on the coastal practitioner survey
(Environmental and Ecosystem Management Project; Tom
Leschine). This duplication will allow for comparison of the
SOCIAL FRAME INTERACTIONS AND INTEGRATION
69
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
responses of coastal residents and managers. Second, one
question on the coastal resident survey related to characteristics of residences and/or location is designed to parallel the
property value modeling (Integrated Ecological-Economic
Modeling Project; Kathleen Bell) research. Responses to
these questions will act as a supplement to the findings of the
empirical model. Finally, the coastal resident questionnaire
direct collaboration with PNCERS natural science investigators (possibly Julia Parrish, Steve Rumrill, Ron Thom,
Curtis Roegner, and Libby Loggerwell).
The Integrated Ecological-Economic Modeling Project
(Kathleen Bell) focuses on the feedbacks between ecological and economic systems. Similar to the case of the Envibroadly integrates with many of the PNCERS natural sci- ronmental and Ecosystem Management Project, this research
ence projects. For example, the recreation activity and the broadly integrates because of its focus, the interactions of
threats to the natural environment questions focus on activi- ecological and social/economic systems. Currently, research
ties related to many of the PNCERS marine resources such on this project is divided into two tasks. One involves propas seabirds, salmon, crabs, and habitat. In addition to the erty value modeling to detect whether or not price differeninfluence on the survey design, numerous natural science PIs tials in the residential property market reflect variations in
(Julia Parrish, Steve Rumrill, Ron Thom, and PNCERS PMT the quality and type of natural environments found in the
member, Andrea Copping) were asked to serve as reviewers PNCERS estuaries. The second task entails the collection of
of the survey and offered useful comments regarding the de- data on human activities that are linked with potential stressign of the survey.
sors of the marine and coastal ecosystem. Both tasks are
integrative in nature. As noted previously, in collaboration
The Environmental and Ecosystem Management Project with Rebecca Johnson (Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and
(Tom Leschine) focuses on examining the ability and mecha- Values), the coastal resident survey questionnaire was denisms for marine and coastal estuarine management systems signed to include a question on location preferences. This
to incorporate findings of PNCERS-like research efforts into question will allow for the direct comparison of survey redecision making. It approaches this question in two ways. sponses regarding the influences of different factors on locaFirst, it seeks to understand the decision-making styles of the tion choices with those suggested by the empirical modeling
management organizations that affect the status of marine of property values. This comparison will offer a unique opand coastal resources in the PNCERS region. Second, it seeks portunity to contrast the empirically derived and stated prefto understand how scientific and technical information en- erences of residents. In addition, since the survey covers
ters this management arena and whether barriers exist that residents from all five estuaries, statements about location
impede effective information flow. By design, this work con- preferences can be compared across areas. We are particunects to all PNCERS research, as it addresses the basic work- larly interested in responses regarding ecological attributes
ing assumptions that we as PNCERS investigators hold about such as proximity to certain types of land and water bodies.
how PNCERS research will (or should) influence resource Our data collection efforts are specifically tailored to the remanagement in the PNCERS region. By addressing the man- search interests of the PNCERS natural science investigaagement implications of improved understanding of natural tors. For example, data on human activities are being coland socio-economic resource systems, this research is highly lected to enable basic linking of human indicators of stress
integrated with other aspects of the social frame. As noted (population density, developed land area) with research into
previously, the research of this project has been shaped by the marine resources of the Pacific Northwest coastal ecothe Institutional Mapping and Socio-economics Baseline system, including seabirds, salmon, and crabs (Julia K.
(Daniel Huppert) and the Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Parrish, Ray Hilborn, and David Armstrong, respectively).
Values (Rebecca Johnson) research. The coastal resident In addition, more extensive collaboration continues with Ron
practitioner survey is a particularly strong indicator of this, Thom and Steve Rumrill regarding the collection of human
as it was designed in parallel with the coastal resident survey related data. These investigators have shared GIS data docuand builds on the organizational understanding gleaned by menting historical habitat changes as well as qualitative asthe institutional mapping project. Numerous PNCERS natusessments of the human stressors associated with these
ral science investigators were instrumental in the review of changes. Data are now being collected to supplement their
the practitioner survey and many will serve as respondents. analyses and portray the social dimension of these changes.
The proposed years 4 and 5 of the project will involve more
70
SOCIAL FRAME INTERACTIONS AND INTEGRATION
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
SEARCH YROGRAM
NAGEMENT
Research Program Management
Julia K. Parrish and Sara J. Breslow
Introduction
Breslow:
The PNCERS Research Program is managed quarter time by
Produce a Progress Report (November 1999).
Julia Parrish, with 80% time technical assistance by Sara
Breslow. In addition, the PNCERS Steering Committee,
Produce an Annual Report (April 2000).
composed of David Armstrong, Dan Huppert, Steve Rumrill,
and Julia Parrish, is charged with directing the vision of the
research program, including decisions about funding allocations. In this past year, the primary accomplishments of the
management team have been to:
Parrish:
Organize the Annual All-Hands meeting
Coordinate and facilitate Eat-and-Learn seminar series.
Develop the PNCERS metadatabase (see
Metadatabase, next page).
Meet and coordinate with PNCERS Program Coordinator and Program Management Team (PMT).
Eat & Learn Seminar Series
Assist Program Coordinator in the development of the
annual Manager's Workshop.
Make presentation on PNCERS research program to
Coastal Ocean Programs staff.
Make additional presentations on PNCERS research
to groups and organizations collaborating with
PNCERS or interested in PNCERS research results.
Assist PMT in development of a PNCERS slide show.
Assist PMT in development of a PNCERS brochure.
Assist Program Coordinator in the development of a
PNCERS research video.
Assist PNCERS researchers in coordinating project
and collaboration meetings.
Steering Committee:
Issue a call for Year 4 specific proposals, based on the
outcome of the All-Hands Meeting. Review propos-
als and associated budgets. Prepare a final Year 4
workplan and research budget.
Hold an Annual All-Hands meeting, attended by 31
people (see Appendix A: All-Hands Meeting Report).
This year's Eat & Learn Seminar Series, like last year, provided a lively and informal forum for PNCERS researchers,
collaborators, and others to both learn about ongoing research
and participate in shaping its direction. This years' series,
which took place Winter Quarter, 2000 at the University of
Washington, was even better attended than last year, attracting people from the nearby NMFS lab, as well as faculty and
students from both the fisheries and zoology departments.
Seminar speakers included those PIs who did not get a chance
to present last year, PNCERS' three post-doctoral students,
a graduate student and a member of the Program Management Team (Table M.1.).
One of the most important functions of the seminar series is
to foster collaboration among researchers and integration of
research projects. Presentations and discussions this year
emphasized collaborative work that was initiated or built on
during the January 20-21 All-Hands meeting.
For example, Julia Parrish presented plans to work with EPA
collaborators Ted DeWitt and Pete Eldridge on including
seabirds in estuarine food web models. Using stable isotope
analyses, they will distinguish the percent of the diet of the
Yaquina Bay common murre colony that comes from the
nearshore versus the estuarine systems.
Gordon Swartzman focused his seminar on the collaborative
aspects of his research on fish and plankton distribution. Most
significantly, he and Curtis Roegner, with help from David
Armstrong and Barbara Hickey, are working together on the
RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
71
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
question of how larvae travel from ocean feeding areas to
estuarine breeding grounds without getting swept away in
southwest currents. Several hypotheses have been put forward, including avoidance of currents through diurnal vertical migration.
Elizabeth Logerwell, PNCERS' most recently hired
postdoctoral fellow, explained how her previous work with
modeling California current sardine survival could be applied to survival analyses of Pacific Northwest salmon smolts,
and how it could integrate with nearshore dynamics discussed
at the all-hands meeting.
Metadatabase
The metadatabase currently contains information on approximately 70 different databases relating mainly to oceanogra-
phy, meteorology and fisheries (Table M.2). Fifty of these
records were added since last year. Plans are to provide an
equal amount of information on socioeconomic and biological databases. PNCERS researchers draw on the metadatabase for a variety of purposes, from plotting sea surface temperature for a particular place and time, to assessing what
kinds of GIS information is available for Willapa Bay. Like
these researchers, database managers respond with great enthusiasm to the immi-
Table M.1. PNCERS Eat & Learn seminar series schedule, Winter quarter, 2000.
nent
on-line
PNCERS metadatabase, recognizing its
Jan 6
Bob Bailey
PNCERS: Concept and Reality
Jan 13
Dan Huppert
Motivation, design and pre-test results for the
PNCERS Resident Survey
Feb 3
Arni Magnusson
Coded-wire-tag analysis of chinook and coho
survival rates in the Northwest
Feb 10
Julia Parrish
The secret language of seabirds: seabirds as
environmental indicators
Feb 17
Curtis Roegner
Larval crab abundance and distribution in relation
to physical oceanographic signals
Feb 24
Kathleen Bell
Understanding the Use of Lands in the PNCERS
Region: A Foundation for Integrated Research
Mar 2
Gordon Swartzman
Fish and plankton patches in the California Coastal
Ecosystem (CCE) and their relationship to birds,
salmon and ocean currents
Mar 9
Libby Logerwell
Spatially explicit energetics and California Current
sardine: Are mesoscale oceanographic features
areas of exceptional prerecruit production?
potential to fill urgent
data dissemination
and research needs.
So far, about 40 database managers
from agencies, research institutions
and organizations
around the country
have confirmed the
accuracy of one or
more database entries. In general, responses have been
positive and enthusiastic. Here are a few
of the comments we
have received regard-
ing the PNCERS
metadatabase:
"With the web
growing every
day, it becomes
harder and harder
to find what
you're looking
In addition to fostering integration among individual
PNCERS projects, the Eat-&-Learn seminars act on a broader
level to integrate disciplines. A seminar series in which presentations range in subject matter from sociological survey
design to salmon smolt survival offers natural and social scientists an opportunity to learn about, and question, the meth-
ods and assumptions particular to each others' disciplines.
In doing so, they bring fresh perspectives to challenges in
research design and data analysis.
72
RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
for, so your
project sounds great .... The page looks really good
and I appreciate your efforts to promote my web site."
Ray Slanina, Coast Watch West Coast Regional
Node, La Jolla, California.
"Indeed, it looks like you've done a very thorough
job of profiling RMIS and CWT data exchange proJim Longwill, Regional Mark Processcedures."
ing Center, Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commission, Gladstone, Oregon.
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
"We would appreciate knowing when it is on-line ...
so we can use it too!" Julie Thomas, Coastal Data
Information Program, Center for Coastal Studies,
Scripps Institute for Oceanography, La Jolla, California.
the information more readable and intuitive, and ways to standardize a web site so it is easy to navigate. Others have made
suggestions for further contacts and other sites to explore for
ideas and information, such as the Bering Sea and North Pacific theme page and California's OCEAN (Ocean and Coastal
Environmental Access Network). A single email sent to
In addition to this kind of encouragement, database managers have offered database and website design tips, such as
ways to streamline data confirmation requests, ways to make
Scripps Institute of Oceanography was broadcast widely and
resulted in 5-10 responses from researchers interested in the
metadatabase, or offering information about databases they
Table M.2. Databases currently entered in the PNCERS metadatabase.
Database Title
1
Advanced Very-High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)
Digital Images
2 BC Lighthouse Data
3 Buoy Weather Data Canada
4 CalC0F1 Data
5 COADS on CD-ROM
6 Coast Watch
West Coast Regional Node
7 Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) Data
8 Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) Data Access
9 Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set
(COADS)
10 CO-OPS West Coast Station Products
11 Daily Temperature and Precipitation Data (Western
U.S.)
12 Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs)
13 Dynamic Estuary Management Information System
(DEMIS)
14 El Nino Theme Page
15 EPIC: A System for Management, Display, and Analysis of Oceanographic in-situ Data
16 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)/Pacific Coast Salmon
Plan
17 Global OTIS Archive
18 Government Information Sharing Project
19 Hatfield Marine Science Center Seawater Database
20 Hydrologic Units Maps of the Conterminous United
States
21 InfoRain
Bioregional Information System for the
North American Rain Forest Coast
22 IRI/LDEO Climate Data Library
23 Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and
Ocean (JISAO) Climate Data Archive
24 Landsat MultiSpectral Scanner Imagery
25 Landsat Thematic Mapper Imagery
26 Line-P Data
27 Live Access to Climate Data via FERRET
28 Microsoft Terraserver
29 MultiSpectral Scanner Landsat CD-ROM
30 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, National
Trends Network (NADP/NTN) Data
31 National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) Data
32 National Environmental Data Index
33 National Water Information System - Web (NWISWeb)
Database Title
34 NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Other Flux Data
35 NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Pressure Level Data
36 NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Surface Data
37 NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Surface Flux Data
38 NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis T62 Spectral Coefficients
39 NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Tropopause Level Data
40 NOAA Marine Environmental Buoy Database
41 Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database
42 North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)
43 Olympic Natural Resources Center Clearinghouse for
the Olympic Peninsula
44 Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN)
45 Pacific Northwest Index (PNI)
46 Pacific Northwest Weather Records Search
47 Pacific Seabird Monitoring Database
48 PFEL Air/Ocean Data from NOAA Moored Buoys
49 PFEL Coastal Upwelling Indices
50 PFEL Comprehensive Air/Ocean Flow Indices
51 PFEL Live Access Server
52 PFEL Monthly Mean Pressure Maps
53 PFEL Sea Surface Temperature Maps
54 PSMFC Economics Data Program (formerly EFIN)
55 Recreation& Fisheries Information Network (RecFIN)
56 Regional Mark Information System (RMIS)
57 SeaWiFS Project Image Archive
58 SIO Shore Station Information
59 Social Development Research Group Diffusion Consortium Archival Database
60 Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI)
61 StreamNet
The Northwest Aquatic Information
Network
62 Surface Observed Global Land Precipitation Variations
63 The Data Zoo
64 USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data (LULC)
65 USGS National Stream Water-Quality Monitoring Networks (WQN) Data
66 USGS Real-Time Water Data
67 USGS Suspended-Sediment Database
68 Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries
69 Willapa Watershed Information System CD-ROM and
Spatial Data Catalog
70 World Ocean Atlas 1998 (W0A98)
71 World Ocean Database 1998 (W0D98)
RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
73
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
were in charge of. A similar response rate
occurred when an email was sent to British Columbia's Institute of Ocean Sciences.
As these examples illustrate, database contacts have been remarkably helpful and resourceful in this effort.
We are currently working on the process
of putting the metadatabase on the web,
using the web-database connectivity program, Drumbeat 2000 Plans are to complete this project by the end of April 2000,
with the intention of informing PNCERS
researchers, collaborators, and other interested parties of the metadatabase site by
the middle of May, 2000 (Table M.3).
74
RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Table M.3. Metadatabase time-line.
March 1999
20 databases entered
March 2000
75 databases entered
40 database contact confirmations received
prototype search engine in Drumbeat established
May 2000
build simple metadatabase search engine on web
inform database managers of web site
April 2000
hire new metadatabase manager
Summer 2000
work out bugs in on-line search engine
double (at least) number of databases entered
Fall 2000
continue metadata entry
scope out options to upgrade on-line search engine
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
ALL-HANDS
MING
All-Hands Meeting
Sara Breslow, Julia K. Parrish, and Elizabeth A. Logerwell
Introduction
(Figure 1, page ix). Whereas the foundation of PNCERS has
always been based on the independent research projects, two
The third annual PNCERS All-Hands Meeting was held at
the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture on January 20 and 21, 2000. Thirty-three people attended, including all PNCERS PT's (except Ray Hilborn, in New
Zealand), postdoctoral research associates, research staff,
graduate students; several collaborating researchers; as well
as PNCERS and Coastal Ocean Program (COP) managers
(Table A.1). The meeting was structured to foster collaboration among researchers and integration of research projects,
in the directions suggested by the Collaborations Diagram
major themes have been emerging from current PNCERS
research: 1) the broad scale role and consequences of physical forcing, and 2) the more local interplay between human
activities and environmental change. The former defines
much of the work in the nearshore environment, as physical
forcing and dynamic variability in oceanographic and atmospheric forcing factors exert a large influence on trophic structure, ecosystem function, and ecosystem production of goods
and services in the nearshore. The latter defines much of the
work in the estuarine environment, as human activities and
Table A.1. Attendees at the PNCERS All-Hands Meeting, January 20-21, 2000.
Name
Title
Armstrong, Dave
Bailey, Bob
Banahan, Sue
Banas, Neil
Bell, Kathleen
Borde, Amy
Ric Brodeur
Breslow, Sara
Copping, Andrea
De Witt, Ted
Dumbauld, Brett
Eldridge, Pete
Field, John
Gunderson, Don
Hamel, Nathalie
Hickey, Barbara
Huppert, Dan
Kopp, Joel
Leschine, Tom
Logerwell, Elizabeth
Magnusson, Arni
Mantua, Nate
McMurray, Greg
Moss, Jamal
Newton, Jan
Parrish, Julia
Roegner, Curtis
Rumrill, Steve
Shanks, Alan
Stein, John
Swartzman, Gordon
Thom, Ron
Woodruff, Dana
PNCERS PI
PNCERS PMT
COP Program Officer
PNCERS Graduate Student
PNCERS Postdoctoral Fellow
PNCERS Technician
Collaborator
PNCERS Technician
PNCERS PMT
Collaborator
Collaborator
Collaborator
PNCERS Graduate Student
PNCERS PI
PNCERS Technician
PNCERS PI
PNCERS PI
PNCERS Graduate Student
PNCERS PI
PNCERS Postdoctoral Fellow
PNCERS Graduate Student
Collaborator
PNCERS Program Coordinator
Graduate Student
Collaborator
PNCERS PI
PNCERS Postdoctoral Fellow
PNCERS PI
PNCERS PI
PNCERS PMT
PNCERS PI
PNCERS PI
PNCERS Technician
Affiliation
School of Fisheries, UW
Oregon Coastal Management Program
NOAA Coastal Office, Washington DC
School of Oceanography, UW
School of Marine Affairs, UW
Battelle Marine Sciences Lab, WA
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, OR
School of Fisheries, UW
Washington Sea Grant Program
USEPA Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, OR
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
USEPA Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, OR
School of Fisheries, UW
School of Fisheries, UW
School of Fisheries, UW
School of Oceanography, UW
School of Marine Affairs, UW
School of Marine Affairs, UW
School of Marine Affairs, UW
School of Fisheries, UW
School of Fisheries, UW
Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean, UW
Department of Environmental Quality, OR
School of Fisheries, UW
Washington State Department of Ecology
School of Fisheries/Department of Zoology, UW
School of Fisheries, UW
South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, OR
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, UO
Environmental Conservation Division, NWFSC, NMFS, WA
Applied Physics Laboratory, UW
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, WA
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, WA
ALL-HANDS MEETING
75
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
the impact of them are concentrated in this arena. The allhands meeting concentrated on defining areas of collaboration within PNCERS as well as among collaborating prograins, with specific reference to nearshore and estuarine environments, focusing on physical forcing in the former and
human activities in the latter.
The Estuarine Group
The Estuarine group's discussion centered around two main
areas:
potential new projects that could integrate ongoing research in useful ways and
The meeting started with 14 short presentations on the cur-
rent status and most recent results from each of the 12
ideas for how to "tell a story" about Pacific North-
PNCERS research projects, as well as related and collaborative research projects (Table A.2). These summary presentations generated enthusiastic questions and discussions on
potential avenues for collaboration among projects. Animated
discussions continued during breaks and over lunch.
west estuaries based on current and projected PNCERS
data.
Break-out group sessions on the afternoon of the first day
and all day on the second day centered on the major themes
outlined above, with one group focused on physical forcing
in the nearshore system and the other on human impacts and
interactions in the estuarine system. Researchers were not
confined to one group, so that those involved in research in
both the nearshore and estuarine systems could contribute to
both discussions.
Emphasis in both areas was on how useful these projects and/
or stories would be to continued research, ecosystem management, and outreach and education.
GIS Development
There was overwhelming consensus on the need to develop
a Geographic Information System that would integrate and
facilitate analysis and presentation of diverse sets of estuarine-related data, such as current as well as historical information on estuarine habitat, biota, human development, and
land use. This effort might include meso- to fine-scale map-
Table A.2. PNCERS All-Hands Meeting Schedule, Jan 20-21, 2000.
THURSDAY, JAN 20, 2000
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:20 AM
9:40 AM
10:00 AM
10:20 AM
10:40 AM
11:00 AM
11:20 AM
11:40 AM
12:00 AM
12:20 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:10 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
Julia Parrish
Tom Leschine
Julia Parrish
Ric Brodeur
Arni Magnusson
Gordie Swartzman
Barbara Hickey
Curtis Roegner
Jan Newton
Ron Thom
Dave Armstrong
Chris Rooper
Ted DeWitt/Pete Eldridge
Kathleen Bell
Dan Huppert
2:30 PM
4:00 PM
Introduction: Integrating PNCERS research
Ecosystem management & managers survey
Seabirds as ecosystem indicators
GLOBEC and salmon
Coded-wire tag salmon data
Morning Break
Nearshore fish & plankton distribution
Estuarine currents and water properties
Larval transport
Biological oceanography
Estuarine habitat
Lunch
Crabs in estuaries
Fish in estuaries
EPA Yaquina project
Integrating people and estuaries
Socioeconomic baseline & residents survey
Break out group discussions
Meeting ends
FRIDAY, JAN 21, 2000
8:45 AM - 5:00 PM
76
ALL-HANDS MEETING
Break out groups all day
PNCERS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
ping of the study estuaries.
Ecological-economic valuation
The group agreed to pursue "valuation" of the estuarine ecosystem, relying not only on economic data but also on biological indicators such as the Index of Biotic Integrity, and
normative social values reflected in the coastal residents and
managers surveys which were distributed earlier this year. It
was determined that the process of valuation would work
most effectively in conjunction with the development of an
estuarine ecological-economic model.
Ocean Influence
The estuarine group saw the need for a more sophisticated
way of understanding and visualizing the impact of ocean
currents and circulation on estuarine functions. They agreed
to incorporate the growing understanding of circulation and
water properties in the assessment of spatial and temporal
variations in habitat and biota.
In addition to these major proposed projects, several new
data collection efforts were identified that are needed to fill
existing data gaps: chlorophyll measurements, stable isotope
(carbon and nitrogen) analysis of estuarine food webs, and
nitrogen limitation for eelgrass and diatoms.
Integrating for Outreach
Discussion on integrating research for outreach purposes focused on choosing an indicator, or set of indicators that could
become the focal point(s) for the Pacific Northwest estuarine "story". Ideas for potential indicators were: oyster production, salmon, marine birds, ghost shrimp, eelgrass, estuarine habitat, land use, water quality, and/or nutrient propagation and tideflat depletion. Oyster production was the most
popular indicator suggestion, as it has the potential to integrate most PNCERS research, is economically relevant, links
to water quality, and would be a factor involved in restoration projects, among other things. Ideas for broad thematic
story "plots" were: ecosystem decline (reflected in, e.g, an
oyster condition index, habitat change, and/or eelgrass
change), human behavior changes due to oceanographic or
climatic effects, and/or the overlay of human and biological
induced variability on the "original conditions" of physical
fluctuations. It was suggested that there should be two or
more contrasting stories, representing estuaries that span the
PNCERS region, and that these stories should highlight that
complexity of human-ecosystem interactions. These were
all preliminary ideas for outreach, and it was also pointed
out that we don't yet know enough to tell a definitive story.
The Nearshore Group
The Nearshore group focused on defining avenues of collaboration between existing PNCERS projects (Swartzman,
Parrish, Hilborn), PNCERS postdoctoral research (Logerwell,
Roegner), GLOBEC-NEP research (Brodeur, Swartzman,
Hickey), NMFS researchers (Brodeur, Wainwright) and
RSA() and other UW research (Mantua, Francis, Fields). The
possibility of collaboration between PNCERS and the various research programs being conducted by Ric Brodeur and
his colleagues at NMFS was discussed extensively. Three
ongoing field efforts to survey juvenile salmon, their prey,
their predators and other habitat information were described
by Brodeur. The projects are funded by GLOBEC, BPA
(Bonneville Power Administration) and EPA. The BPA
project is focussed on the Columbia River plume and the
EPA project is targeting the very nearshore environment. It
seemed appropriate for Libby Logerwell to participate in any
of these research cruises, and discussions along that line were
initiated and continued during the weeks following the meeting.
Several interesting lines of integration were discussed by the
participating scientists. Regarding Hilborn and Magnusson's
project on salmon survival, as assessed with coded wire tag
data (CWT), integration of large scale retrospective data on
upwelling and winds into his general linear model was mentioned. Collaboration with Parrish on bird predator data was
also discussed. Another collaboration seriously considered
was one between Parrish, Logerwell and scientists at the
Newport EPA (Pete Eldridge and Ted DeWitt). The goal
would be to conduct stable isotope analyses of seabird tissues to assess the relative foraging activity occurring in estuarine and nearshore habitats. This information would be
required for Logerwell to construct bioenergetic models of
salmon growth and survival in both habitats. Efforts on the
part of NMFS, PNCERS, and other UW scientists (particularly John Field, a student of Bob Francis, and Nate Mantua,
a research scientist at JISAO) to construct an ECOPATH
model of the northern California Current were discussed. A
follow-up meeting to cross-foster modelling efforts among
the NMFS, UW, and PNCERS scientists has been set for midApril, 2000.
ALL-HANDS MEETING
77