Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-01-04

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Marine Sanctuaries Division

November 2001

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary:

Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop,

 Seattle, Washington
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationís Marine Sanctuary Division (MSD)

administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Its mission is to identify, designate,

protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic

resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and marine areas. The existing marine

sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and historical resources and include nearshore and

open ocean areas ranging in size from less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected

habitats include rocky coasts, kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard

and soft bottom habitats, segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary

has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and

enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these programs is fundamental to

marine protected area management. The Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and

supports this integration by providing a forum for publication and discussion of the complex

issues currently facing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of published reports

vary substantially and may include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on

resource management issues, and results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The

series will facilitate integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences,

education, and policy development to accomplish the diverse needs of NOAAís resource

protection mandate.
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary:

Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, Washington

C. Edward Bowlby1, Barbara A. Blackie1, Julia K. Parrish2

Editors

1

NOAA, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

2

University of Washington, Department of Zoology and

School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences

U. S. Department of Commerce

Donald Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Scott B. Gudes, Under Secretary, Acting

Silver Spring, Maryland National Ocean Service

November 2001 Margaret Davidson, Assistant Administrator, Acting
DISCLAIMER

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the National Marine

Sanctuary System or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nor does the

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the National Marine Sanctuary

Systemís web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be obtained from the

following address:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Marine Sanctuaries Division

SSMC4, N/ORM62

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

SUGGESTED CITATION

Bowlby, C. Edward, Barbara A. Blackie, and Julia K. Parrish (editors). 2001. Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, Washington.

Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-01-04. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, MD. 84

pp.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................i

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ...........................................................................................ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................iii

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1

PRESENTATIONS ....................................................................................................................3

Workshop Overview - Ed Bowlby...................................................................................3

Workshop Goals - Julia Parrish .......................................................................................3

Sanctuary Program - Todd Jacobs ...................................................................................4

Bigger NOAA Picture - Don Scavia ................................................................................6

Coastal Oceanography - Jerry Galt ..................................................................................9

Harmful Algal Blooms - Jim Postel...............................................................................11

Trawl Surveys and Habitat Types - Mark Zimmermann and Mark Wilkins ...................14

Geological Surveys - Pat McCrory ................................................................................18

Intertidal Ecology - Bob Paine.......................................................................................20

Sea Otter and Subtidal Surveys - Pat Iampietro .............................................................23

Pinniped Population Trends - Harriet Huber..................................................................26

Seabird Colonies - Julia Parrish.....................................................................................28

At-sea Distribution of Seabirds - Chris Thompson.........................................................31

FOCUS GROUP REPORTS.....................................................................................................35

Group Report on Nearshore Communities.....................................................................35

Group Report on Fish and Shellfish Biology .................................................................36

Group Report on Seabirds and Marine Mammals ..........................................................39

Group Report on Physical and Biological Oceanography...............................................42

Group Report on Cultural and Historical Resources ......................................................45

FINAL SYNTHESIS ................................................................................................................47

LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................50

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................51

APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................. 53
ii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Page

Figure 1. Chart of Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary....................................................2

Table 1. Major Recommendations from the First Olympic Coast Marine Research

Workshop...................................................................................................................54

Table 2. Agenda for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's Research

Workshop 1998..........................................................................................................55

Table 3. List of Abstracts from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's Research

Workshop 1998.. ........................................................................................................57

Table 4. List of acronyms used in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's

Research Workshop 1998...........................................................................................73

Table 5. Participant list from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's Research

Workshop 1998..........................................................................................................75

Table 6. Group discussion list provided to participants of the Olympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary's Research Workshop 1998. ...........................................................82

Table 7. Final synthesis of recommendations from the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary's Research Workshop 1998. .......................................................................84
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or Sanctuary) planned and

organized the 1998 Research Workshop as part of its mission to protect and improve

understanding of its marine resources through research and education programs. The Sanctuary

is also mandated to coordinate and facilitate information exchanges and sponsors periodic

research workshops to that end.

The goals of the 1998 Research Workshop were as follows:

A. Highlight and prioritize research needs for the Sanctuary relative to the

development of a framework for a five-year research plan;

B. Build on results from the Olympic Coast Marine Research Workshop of 1996;

C. Present recent/ongoing research;

D. Share multi-disciplinary information;

E. Select priority sites for multi-disciplinary studies; and

F. Promote student participation and research.

Pre-workshop information packets were sent to a targeted audience of marine

scientists, resource managers, interested individuals, and students. This packet contained

the major recommendations from the 1996 Research Workshop. It also contained a list of

potential topics that would be open for discussion during the two-day workshop. The

topics included:

• Funding partnerships for long-term mooring(s) for temperature, salinity, dissolved

oxygen, current velocity, chlorophyll a, turbidity;

• Ways to promote student participation and research;

• Ways OCNMS could support and/or leverage existing programs as well as new

projects;

• El NiÒo Southern Oscillation effects;

• Harmful Algal Blooms effects;

• Tenyo Maru restoration plans;

• Marine biodiversity; and

• Introduced species.

To promote a multi-disciplinary information exchange and to highlight general

disciplinary areas, the Sanctuary invited a series of speakers to provide overviews on: 1)

the Sanctuary program; 2) the bigger NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration) picture; 3) Coastal oceanography; 4) Harmful algal blooms; 5) Trawl

surveys and habitat types; 6) Geological surveys; 7) Intertidal ecology; 8) Sea otter and

subtidal surveys; 9) Pinniped population trends; 10) Seabird colonies; and 11) At-sea

distribution of seabirds.

The Sanctuary also solicited researchers to share information on their on-going

investigations off the Washington coast. Twenty-two abstracts were submitted and are

included with the proceedings, as part of the Sanctuaryís mission for information

exchange.
iv

After plenary presentations, the 68 participants broke into concurrent focus group

sessions that addressed the following disciplinary topics: 1) Nearshore Communities; 2)

Fish and Shellfish Biology; 3) Seabirds and Marine Mammals; 4) Physical and Biological

Oceanography; and 5) Cultural and Historical Resources. To assist in formulating

recommendations and priorities for the Sanctuaryís research program, facilitators led the

groups through a discussion list. Representatives from each group reported back to the reassembled plenary session on their major findings and recommended priorities.

Recommendations from the Workshop included several basic needs and identified

several outstanding data gaps. The need to inventory living and cultural/historical

resources, as well as following-up with long-term monitoring, was identified throughout.

Participants also recommended that monitoring include distinctions between natural

versus anthropogenic influences. High-resolution seafloor mapping, for both living and

cultural/historical resources, was noted as a primary data gap.

Assessing linkages between offshore, nearshore, and watershed processes was

highlighted, as well as the need for year-round information on currents and other physical

parameters.

The need for centralized databases to be shared across disciplines was another

common theme. Requests were also made for resource inventories to be placed in GIS for

both researchers use and for public awareness.

Several groups expressed interest and concern with harmful algal blooms, from

both an ecosystem level as well as a harvest-related concern.

Participants cautioned that more information was needed before the selection of

which long-term monitoring sites or indicator species could be determined. The use of

endangered/threatened species as criteria versus using trophic-based or habitat-based

communities was discussed.

The Workshop concluded with a note of thanks to all the participants for their very

constructive recommendations and comments.

Keywords: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, research workshop proceedings,

research plan, NOAA, marine resources, physical oceanography, biological oceanography,

harmful algal blooms, marine fish, shellfish, marine mammals, seabirds, intertidal,

subtidal, kelp, macroinvertebrates, macroalgae, introduced species, biodiversity, El NiÒo,

long-term monitoring, cultural and historical resources.
1

INTRODUCTION

Invitations and announcements for this workshop were mailed to attendees of the first

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or Sanctuary) research workshop that was

held in 1996 (Strickland 1996), as well as other interested individuals. The targeted audience

included: 1) marine scientists and resource managers, and 2) interested individuals and students.

Prior to the workshop, attendees received the following information:

Workshop Goals:

• Highlight and prioritize research needs for the Sanctuary relative to the development

of a framework for a five-year research plan (participants were referred to the

research section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan for

OCNMS [NOAA 1993])

• Build on results from the Olympic Coast Marine Research Workshop í96 (Strickland

1996)

• Present recent/ongoing research

• Share multi-disciplinary information

• Select priority sites for multi-disciplinary studies

• Promote student participation and research

These information packets also contained background topics that the Sanctuary was

proposing for potential discussion items at the workshop.

Potential Discussion Topics:

• Funding partnerships for long-term mooring(s) for temperature, salinity, dissolved

oxygen, current velocity, chlorophyll a, turbidity

• Ways to promote student participation and research

• Identify ways OCNMS could support and/or leverage existing programs as well as

new projects

• El NiÒo Southern Oscillation effects

• Harmful algal blooms effects

• Tenyo Maru restoration plans

• Marine biodiversity

• Introduced species

Participants were informed in the pre-workshop packets that the workshop would build

on major recommendations from the first Sanctuary research workshop (Strickland 1996). These

recommendations were sent to participants and are listed in Table 1.

The workshop agenda is shown in Table 2. The plenary sessions were audiotaped and are

summarized below under plenary speaker names. Representative reports from each focus group

were also audiotaped and are outlined under their respective disciplines.

Numerous abstracts and posters were submitted for the workshop and are recorded in

Table 3. A table of acronyms used during the workshop is listed in Table 4.
2
3

PRESENTATIONS

Workshop Overview - Ed Bowlby, Research Coordinator, NOAA/OCNMS

The workshop was convened on the morning of February 12, 1998, at the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) facilities in Seattle, Washington.

Approximately 68 participants (Table 5) from various agencies, universities, and disciplines

attended. Ed Bowlby, Research Coordinator for the OCNMS and co-convener of the workshop,

outlined the workshop goals and provided an overview of the logistics for the two-day workshop.

He directed the participantsí attention to the information packets provided prior to the workshop,

stating that this was the roadmap for the next two days. The plenary session continued through

early afternoon, and consisted of invited speakers highlighting marine resource issues and

general disciplinary topics.

Concurrent sessions followed the plenary presentations. These breakout, focus groups

discussed pre-selected discipline topics (Table 6) which were summarized onto worksheets.

Individuals were also asked to rank their professional or organizational priorities within

worksheets, which were tallied after the workshop. Poster viewing and a no-host social hour

concluded the first dayís activities.

Participants convened the following morning as a plenary session. Focus group

representatives reported preliminary findings and initial round-table discussions were held. The

workshop concluded in the afternoon with an attempt to develop consensus on the discussion list

and to provide recommendations for research priorities and direction.

Workshop Goals - Julia Parrish, Assistant Professor, University of Washington

Julia Parrish, co-convener of the workshop, research representative on the Sanctuary

Advisory Council, and an Assistant Professor at the University of Washingtonís Zoology

Department, focused attention on the purpose of the workshop. She encouraged participants to

think about what research endeavors were really needed on the outer coast. Participants were to

make some suppositions about what research needed to be done, and what research initiatives

could be done within the confines of funding and personnel availability. To this end, she

encouraged participants to explore options for cooperation and integration of existing programs,

including state, federal agencies, tribal, academic programs, and various funding sources

including private foundations.

Several examples of existing integrated efforts to leverage funding and

research/monitoring were given. The Tenyo Maru Trustees had funds for restoration efforts as a

result of an oil spill in 1991, and they were well on the way to figuring out what the restoration

efforts were going to be. The Sanctuary had been affected by the oil spill, so the Sanctuary stood

to benefit both in terms of restoration and in terms of monitoring. Parrish mentioned the Pacific

Northwest Coastal Ecosystem Research Study (PNCERS), which incorporated the Sanctuary as

well as the southern parts of Washington and on down into Oregon. PNCERS involves many

players from several states, academic institutions, and agencies. The new Cape Flattery Trail
4

combined funding efforts from the Makah Tribe and Washington Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR). People with differing interests had been able to work together within the

bounds of the Sanctuary. She asked the participants to identify what research they were doing

and, specifically, what was working well. This type of information would assist the Sanctuary in

building a comprehensive research plan.

Sanctuary Program - Todd Jacobs, Sanctuary Manager, NOAA/OCNMS

Todd Jacobs, then the Olympic Coast Sanctuary Manager, thanked the assembled

participants on behalf of NOAA and OCNMS, for spending the two days to help the Sanctuary

put together a research plan. He outlined how the Sanctuary supported various resource

programs and how these programs fit into the Sanctuary's research plan.

Jacobs highlighted some of the Sanctuary's history. The Olympic Sanctuary was

designated in 1994, making it a recent addition to the National Marine Sanctuary System. The

boundaries extended for a little more than half of Washingtonís outer coast. The offshore

boundary approximated the continental shelf break and the coastal boundary extended from

approximately Cape Flattery down to the Copalis River for about 135 linear miles of coast

(Figure 1). This very pristine area encompasses the coastal strip of Olympic National Park, the

offshore National Wildlife Refuge islands and the Usual and Accustomed fishing areas for four

treaty tribes (the Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault). It included many management partners,

including the tribal entities, the state agencies, and the academic community. Todd reiterated

that as of 1998, there were only 12 National Marine Sanctuaries in the entire country, so these

areas represent special recognition and a significant commitment from NOAA and the federal

government.

Todd outlined how sanctuaries worked and described the three main tenets of the

National Marine Sanctuary System:

• To provide comprehensive resource protection

• To help coordinate research and education activities within a Sanctuary

• To ensure compatibility of these multiple-use areas (some commercial activities are

allowed such as commercial fishing and shipping) with the above mandates.

Marine Sanctuaries provide a framework that facilitates coordination of the various

activities that occur within their waters. They provide a catalyst for making activities happen

and they promote national visibility, which could be used as leverage for facilitating

partnerships. Sanctuaries function with an emphasis on partnerships. Jacobs stated that this

workshop emphasized partnerships as well.

OCNMS provided support to marine research primarily through its in-kind contributions.

The Sanctuaryís major in-kind support included: 1) the operation of OCNMSís research vessel,

the R/V Tatoosh; 2) ship time aboard the NOAA Ship McArthur (or other ships if available),

which conduct surveys within the Sanctuary each summer; 3) research coordination; and 4)

limited financial support.
5

Sanctuary Facilities

The NOAA Ship McArthur, a 175 foot research vessel, supports multi-disciplinary

projects, including: 1) oceanographic collections (conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) and

acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP) data) in conjunction with the University of Washington

(UW) and NMFS; 2) harmful algal bloom investigations, with the UW and NMFS; 3) marine

mammal and seabird surveys with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and

Cascadia Research Collective (CRC); 4) investigations of floating algal mats for juvenile

rockfish with the WDFW; and 5) geological work with United States Geological Survey

(USGS). These investigations had been competitively ranked and combined together in a 24-

hour operations plan that maximized use of ship time.

Jacobs provided a description of the Sanctuaryís 36-foot workboat, the R/V Tatoosh as

well as the OCNMS small field station, which was made available to scientific parties, generally

in conjunction with Tatoosh projects. The field station is located at the United States Coast

Guard (USCG) Station in Neah Bay and accommodates up to six people. OCNMS also has a 22-

foot, rigid-hulled inflatable boat (RHIB) with GPS, radar, and twin outboards, capable of being

launched by trailer from various locations.

The R/V Tatoosh conducts operations four to five months of the year while based at Neah

Bay. It is equipped for many kinds of nearshore operations and has excellent navigation systems

(DGPS), hydraulics, compressor, and salt-water connections on the deck. In earlier years it has

supported seabird surveys with the WDFW, sea otter work with the Biological Resources

Division (BRD) of USGS, benthic habitat work with California State University at Monterey

Bay (CSUMB) and University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC), and some archeological

survey work for historical shipwrecks in the Sanctuary.

Financial Support

The Sanctuary occasionally provided modest financial support to selected research

projects. During 1995-1998 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary funding was

approximately $600,000 dollars a year. Total staffing amounted to 12 or 13 individuals, which

included a permanent staff of 5, with addition contracted summer staff. The staff included

interpreters, skippers, and other personnel. Financial support for individual projects ranged from

$500 to $9,000. Although these funding levels were relatively low, OCNMS was still able to

provide leverage for additional funding by facilitating partnerships and coordinating research

activities.

Research Workshop Results

Results of workshops such as the 1998 Research Workshop would be used to formulate

the OCNMS five-year Research Plan. OCNMS envisioned interdisciplinary and interagency

collaborations and partnerships as the backbone of the research plan. Partnerships would

maximize the value and relevance of the research being carried out on the outer coast. Jacobs

views the research plan, not as the Sanctuary's alone, but as a collaborative effort. He stated that

not all the goals would necessarily be possible or obtainable due to the lack of available funds.

But he suggested that over the two days of the workshop, the participants might make some

commitments to the eventual implementation of some of research goals that are identified.

Jacobs mentioned that many excellent programs currently operated off the coast, and he
6

challenged the participants to help coordinate these programs and raise the level of research

opportunities.

Jacobs then introduced Don Scavia, the former head of NOAAís Coastal Oceans Program

and Chief Scientist at and National Ocean Service (NOS), who discussed how NOAA and NOS

reorganizations offer opportunities to help OCNMS and other agencies gain more leverage and

commitment to research and resource issues. Scavia discussed the big picture of NOAA and

NOS and how the development of the new science office would provide opportunities and

partnerships.

Bigger NOAA Picture - Don Scavia, National Oceans Service Chief Scientist

Don Scavia, the Chief Scientist at NOS, detailed the ìbig pictureî of NOAA by referring

to recent remarks made by President Clinton. Several times in the past month, the President had

talked about the past few decades as being ìthe era of physicsî and the next several decades as

ìthe era of biology.î Scavia concluded that when the President mentioned biology, he was also

talking about the areas of biology that marine researchers are interested in.

In a second context, then Vice President Gore had asked for the development of a report

card for the health of the nationís ecosystems. In response, the White House Science Office

created a team of federal and state governmental scientists, academicians, and representatives

from private industry, to design such a report card. Coastal/Marine Systems was one of the three

sectors included in the first pilot of the national report card. This developed into an opportunity

to highlight coastal and marine areas and to start identifying opportunities and needs.

Although a heightened awareness of coastal issues from the federal government is

positive, actual funding for NOS programs is a much better measure of progress in attracting

attention for NOS policies. With regard to attracting funds, Scavia speculated that the future

would be interesting and exciting. Within the White House Science Office and its Committee on

the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), there was growing support for a major

interagency initiative on ecosystems. Scavia explained that, although budget initiatives

sometimes did not advance in Washington, this organization had generated the Natural Disaster

Reduction Initiative in the previous year, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Therefore, if the initiative went forward, a multiagency and multi-disciplinary effort led by the

White House Science Office could be manifested in significant increases in budgets.

National Ocean Partnership Program

The National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP) is a relatively new program consisting

of 12 agencies focusing on funding ocean research and development. For example, the Program

helped the U.S. Navy allocate its research budget, which approached $20 million in 1998.

Funding allocation from NOPP was a competitive, peer-review process with annual calls-forproposals. NOAA had requested that funds for the partnership program be moved into mutual

areas of interests for both NOAA and the Navy. NOPP was a potential funding opportunity for

Sanctuary research in future years.
7

In the past, the emphasis of the National Ocean Partnership Program has been on coastal

ocean observations and predictions, baseline information, data access, and marine education.

Physical oceanographic studies have dominated the programs sponsored by NOPP, but Scavia

anticipated the program would be placing more attention on coastal activities, on land-sea

interfaces, and on ecosystems in the future.

NOAA Developments

 In 1998, NOAA went through a protracted analysis and then Administrator Jim Baker

decided that NOS would be strengthened in two ways. First, it would refocus on coastal ocean

issues by transferring global water oceanography programs out of the National Ocean Service.

There were also developments on transferring the aeronautical charting part of NOS to the

Department of Transportation. Most of those transfers had been accomplished.

The second part of the strengthening endeavor was to build a strong, responsive, and

protective coastal science compliment within the National Ocean Service. That meant reestablishing a strong senior scientist for NOS and consolidating some of the stronger programs

and laboratories into a new science office in NOS.

To meet that end, NOS would establish a senior scientist position. The role of that

position would be to work with others in developing and overseeing a science policy for NOS,

which had not been done before. The senior scientist would ensure that NOS science programs,

were healthy, and appropriately connected to talented researchers external to NOS. The science

programs would retain their high quality stature over time, and the senior scientist would provide

national leadership for coastal ecosystem science.

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

In addition to reestablishing the senior scientist position, a science office was being

created. It would support and conduct coastal ocean and Great Lakes monitoring, research, and

assessment, as well as provide technical assistance. NOS would accomplish this by bringing

together significant critical mass of internal and external programs. The new program, named

the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), would be modeled after the National

Centers for Environmental Predictions, an organization of the National Weather Service.

NCCOS would consist of five centers.

The first would be the Center for Sponsored Research, which would include the Coastal

Ocean Programs and the National Partnership Programs, both proposal driven and peer reviewed.

The second center would be the Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. This center

would combine existing NOS monitoring programs, such as National Status and Trendsí Mussel

Watch, and a portion of the former Strategic Environmental Assessment Division in NOS, with

the primary initial focus on habitat. The third center, the Center for Coastal Fisheries Habitat

Research, was designed to be the premiere habitat research laboratories in the country with a new

facility constructed in Lafayette, Louisiana. The fourth center, the Center for Environmental

Health and Bimolecular Research in Charleston, was known previously as the National Fisheries

Service Laboratory and it already had strong programs in toxicology, marine forensics, and other

chemistry-based activities. Connected and working with that lab was a cooperative fish

pathology lab in Oxford, Maryland. Finally, the fifth center would be the Center in the Great
8

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. In addition to the laboratory in Ann Arbor, which

focused on environmental and ecological research and physical oceanography on the Great

Lakes, additional facilities for this lab were in the development phase.

Scavia explained that NOS was working hard to develop a partnership with the

Environmental Conservation Division (ECD) of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center

(NWFSC) in Seattle, so that in the long term, the ECD would include a NOS presence on the

West Coast.

At present, this was only a vision of what the offices would look like, and very little of

that vision was actually in effect. Various pieces of the program required approval at different

levels. In the meantime, Scavia asked the participants to engage in a little bit of ëletís pretend,í

assuming that the new organization already existed and was starting to function. Specific

relationships between the centers and the academic community would be forming and some

connections would be developed through a competitive ranking approach while others would be

through cooperative avenues. Rules of engagement would be developed between the centers and

the management and operational parts of NOS, NOAA, and other state and federal partners.

The creation of these centers would not be easy. The expectations would be very high for

this new organization, in fact the demands would be incredible at this point because only 10% of

the organization would actually exist inside NOS, with the remainder scattered around the

country. The toughest challenge in developing this activity would be to strike a balance between

keeping the efforts scientifically strong and forward-reaching while at the same time being

responsive to current needs.

Potential Partnerships for OCNMS

Scavia concluded by describing what he saw as potential opportunities between the

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and the new Science Office. Most people were

probably aware of the Coastal Ocean Programís PNCERS, which Julia Parrish had previously

mentioned. Also in the Pacific Northwest, or what oceanographers would call the Northeast

Pacific, was the Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) Program. GLOBEC was going

to grow and evolve over time, and would be a program to follow closely. It had an outer coast

and ocean focus that should be of interest to most participants. As mentioned previously, the

National Ocean Partnership Program initiative had funding announcements every year and would

likely focus closer to shore and more into ecosystems than it had in the past. This also would be

administered through the Science Office. Coastal Ocean Programís Ecology and Oceanography

of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) got a boost in 1998 because of the ëPfeisteria hysteriaí on

the east coast. This should be considered a great opportunity and it would not be exclusively

focused on Pfeisteria. Scavia recommended that interested groups watch for the annual

ECOHAB announcements.

In closing, Scavia promised that, over the next few years, more routine and more

dependable ways to interact with the Science Office would develop allowing scientists to interact

with other scientists.
9

Coastal Oceanography - Jerry Galt, Physical Oceanographer, NOAA

Before reviewing the oceanography and physical processes of the Sanctuary, Jerry Galt

of NOAAís HAZMAT (Hazardous Materials) branch, explained that during his oceanography

career he had opportunities to visit most of the nationís coastal areas and he ranked the Olympic

coast as one of the most beautiful and scenic parts of the world.

Oceanographic and Physical Processes Within the Sanctuary

Galt described how the outer edge of the Sanctuary was under the influence of the

California Current, a large scale, clockwise gyre that circles the North Pacific and is relatively

quiet and stable offshore. Inshore, including most of the Sanctuary, seasonal winds are

controlling. The Washington coast has two kinds of seasons, the summer season and the winter

season. In the winter season, the flow is basically up-coast or south to north, and during the

summer season, it reverses.

During the early 1960s scientists made a significant effort to locate the effluent from the

Columbia River. Data showed that during the winter rains, sediment plumes flowed north,

across the shelf. During the summer, the Columbia plume flowed south off the Oregon coast.

Barbara Hickey at the University of Washington was the lead on analyzing the regional data.

Although most of the processes are understood, there were some areas of uncertainty.

During the summer season when the general flow is south, the boundary between the California

Current and the in-shore current mostly disappears. As that happens, the wind that is forcing the

currents south also moves the water slightly offshore. Satellite thermal imagery reveals curls of

cool water that materialize periodically. This moves flotsam offshore as well as signatures from

the Columbia River plume.

During the winter, low-pressure systems cause the dominant winds to blow from the

southwest, thus reversing the system, and the Columbia River plume moves north. The

transition between these two seasonal patterns occurs in the fall. It can also lead to increased

detection of bird mortality events along the beaches. But this can be an artifact of the transition,

since organisms that have been dying in the ocean have been held offshore during the summer,

and with the reversal in flow, can then be deposited on shore as if the result of a short-term

event. Thus what might appear to be a short-term event might in reality be long-term events.

Winter and summer seasonal patterns are not always consistent off the outer coast.

Winter flow, though usually northward with reversals in the summer flow, demonstrated withinseason variability. That variability was important in ocean mixing and probably had some effect

on habitat.

Another factor contributing to oceanographic variability, especially during the summer

months, was stratification. For example, the lower, deeper currents tended to move north, such

as the Davidson Current flowing north along over the shelf. During an upwelling event, that

current could actually be entrained, suddenly appearing at the surface for a day or two. Galt was

interested in this phenomenon because of the need to develop trajectories for oil spills. His

group had experimented with deploying current moorings, but he also suggested using real time
10

events, such as a spill itself, to actually map trajectories. He used the example of the Nestucca

oil spill that occurred off the Washington coast in the 1980s, where the trajectory model actually

predicted where it would flow, based on prevailing winds and known currents.

Galt discussed other smaller scale, oceanographic factors that dominated, or were

significant for the Sanctuary. One such factor was the fresh water plume from the Columbia

River. The water moved offshore and, with sufficient winds and direction, might pile up along

the shoreline. This process made a small wedge that created a pressure force, that in turn drove a

coastal, fresh-water current (10-15 km wide) close to shore. Although a number of rivers were

located along the Washington coast, they were all relatively short and drained very quickly after

storms. The Columbia, and the Fraser River in Canada, behaved differently. A relatively small

current of low salinity could actually be detected in this area.

Bathymetric Influences in the Sanctuary

Bathymetric features controlled and tended to steer currents. The major feature was the

Juan de Fuca Canyon that ran from the southwest to northeast, with a distinct hook into the

Straits of Juan de Fuca. This caused a loop in the current, whether the current was moving north

or south. This hook, combined with the Fraser River out-flow, could form an eddy-like pattern.

This eddy could have closed circulation at times.

After providing the thumbnail sketch of what generally happened with the currents, Galt

mentioned some specific effects, such as storm events. Off Washington storm events could have

wind speeds of 80-90 knots. This created another phenomenon that was not completely

understood, even though it was not uncommon. As the current moved north, the storm winds

could force water to pile up in the canyon, precipitating a water surge into the Straits. This

current tended to move on the south side of the Straits because of the Fraser River effect. Galt

thought it was fairly common for it to travel a few kilometers east to the Pysht River, and on

occasion as far as Port Angeles.

Questions from Participants

Oil fingerprinting. Galt was aware that this technique (identifying oil in the environment

as originating from a specific oil spill event or a specific location of oil extraction), had been

used during the Nestucca oil spill, but was not aware of its use by Canadian scientists for the

Tenyo Maru oil spill. Although he complimented of the fine work of the Canadian scientists, he

cautioned against putting too much faith in the technique of oil fingerprinting itself, saying that it

was ìnot an exact science.î He mentioned that there had been trouble using the technique

successfully in places as far-flung as Alaska and the Caribbean.

Drift cards. Galt discussed the use of this technique to discern current movements. His

biggest criticism was that the return on them was very small, a tenth of one percent, so that it was

difficult to say anything statistically conclusive about the results. He also mentioned that they

had a slight sail and so were susceptible to windage. Nonetheless, he felt that their use could be

provocative, interesting, and useful.

Shelf deepening. In discussions surrounding the United States Geological Service

(USGS) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) study on beach erosion, some of
11

the dialog included concerns that the shelf (from Tillamook Head to Point Grenville) was

deepening due to loss of sediment and sand recruitment from the mouth of the Columbia. Galt

discussed the dramatic changes in the sediment regime from the Columbia over the last 30 years

in terms of outflow. Historically, (at least 30 years ago), the Columbia had two major floods,

one in May when the big melt occurred and worked its way down the Columbia. The other flood

occurred in October/November when the fall rains started and freeze-up had not started holding

snow pack. The spring peak outflow was occasionally up to 1/2 million cubic feet of water per

second. As the river got more and more developed, the actual characteristic of the outflow

changed. For instance, the maximum values decreased to about 200 thousand cubic feet of water

per second; 40% of the historic peak. In addition, the river no longer had a biannual cycle.

Because of water storage, there is currently a fairly sharp peak high volume in May but the fall

flow is relatively uniform. The fall peak, if there is a peak, is quite low, and subsequently there

is a lot less sediment. This means that information gathered in the early 1960s on sediment

transport from the Columbia might not be relevant.

As far as potential shelf deepening occurring north of Point Grenville through the rest of

the coast, Galt was not aware of any shelf deepening in that region.

Harmful Algal Blooms - Jim Postel, Biological Oceanographer, University of

Washington

Jim Postel, a biological oceanographer from the University of Washington, discussed the

basics of harmful algal blooms (HAB), identifying what organisms were found off the

Washington coast and where and when they occurred. He also addressed an important question -

why they occur.

Postel gave some background information on his past work. He originally studied the

Columbia River flow off the Oregon coast, and later on, he worked off the Washington coast at

Copalis Beach. Early on in his career, Postel took note of the question his graduate advisor often

posed, ìWhat kind of phytoplankton are off the coast?î This question led him into his current

career. Postel discussed the beauty as well as the taxonomy of the phytoplankton, giving a nod

to Dr. Rita Horner, University of Washington, for her experience and expertise in phytoplankton

taxonomy, both locally and around the world. He mentioned that Horner had a major influence

on studies of HABs in local waters.

From 1990 through the present, Horner and Postel had been looking at the distribution of

phytoplankton in Puget Sound and off the Washington Coast. They collected samples off piers

and along the beaches using simple collection methods such as dipping buckets and nets into the

water. The sites were all easily accessible by roads and short walks. Postel described some of

the kinds of phytoplankton they commonly found.

Diatoms

Diatoms are a common group of phytoplankton they found on the outer coast. On typical

stretches of ocean shoreline in the southern part of the Sanctuary, beaches are generally sandy

and often the water has patches of brownish foam and scum at the surface. Usually this scum is
12

comprised of concentrated populations of surface foam diatoms. These diatoms are prime food

sources for razor clams. Diatom populations are highest during the fall and the winter.

The two researchers found that their samples rarely contained cells classified as harmful

algal species. To be a harmful algal species, the phytoplankton has to either: 1) produce toxins

that got into human food; 2) cause a fish kill; or 3) cause some sort of economic damage. In

Washington, most problems involve organisms that produced toxins in shellfish, which in turn

eliminate recreational claming, close commercial shellfisheries, and occasionally kill people.

The diatom, Pseudo-nitzschia spp., produces toxins that affect birds and possibly marine

mammals. There are many different types of Pseudo-nitzschia. For the most part the diatom

appeared whitish with lentil shaped cells attaching at the head to form long chains. Some

diatoms produced toxins and others do not. Identification was very difficult, and the detail of the

shell patterns was needed to determine the species. Since 1991, Postel and Horner had been

looking at one species in particular, trying to discern its distribution and the timing of its

presence off the coast. It was one of the organisms that produce domoic acid.

Dinoflagellates

Postel discussed some of the dinoflagellates that showed up along the coast and were

involved in paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Paralytic shellfish toxin production affected

people by accumulating in the shellfish and then into humans, if ingested. One species of

Alexandrium showed up along the outer coast. Another dinoflagellate that showed up

occasionally was Heterosigma. It appeared to be lethal to farmed fish and probably wild fish.

They found this organism in Puget Sound, as well as occasionally off the coast, but its

prevalence was unknown.

Cochlodinium

One species that researchers watched for, although not harmful per se, was

Cochlodinium. On several transects surveyed during the 1997 McArthur cruise, Cochlodinium

was observed in concentrations of more than 107 cells per liter. When it occurred in such high

concentrations, it turned the water a spectacular chalky greenish-white color.

Pseudo-nitzschia Research in the Sanctuary

Postel and Horner had been seeing, very occasionally, small concentrations of some

Pseudo-nitzschia cultanium, a domoic acid producing diatom, in their beach collections.

However they appeared in low numbers even when shellfish themselves showed high enough

levels of domoic acid to cause harvest closures. A small toxin data set, taken from Kalaloch

Beach from 1992 through 1995 and analyzed by the National Fisheries Science Center in

Conway, showed that toxin levels increased dramatically and then diminished over time. For

years Postel and Rita had been trying to find the source of these peaks. They questioned what

mechanism brought the phytoplankton to the shellfish beds where they were consumed by the

clams. They also wondered how the shellfish were accumulating domoic acid since the Pseudonitzschia in their sample collections were not in high enough concentrations to cause the high

toxin accumulation in the shellfish. They were extremely interested in getting samples from

offshore. Their hypothesis was that the concentrated populations of Pseudo-nitzschia were

offshore and were somehow swept onto the beach during specific oceanographic events. Then

the clams, as part of their normal feeding activity, would ingest the Pseudo-nitzschia, as well as
13

their normal surface foam diatoms, and they would accumulate domoic acid. But the researchers

needed a way to get offshore to address that question.

Postel's research group got their first opportunity to collect offshore samples in 1995

through the Sanctuary program. They sent phytoplankton collection jars along with the

Teachers-at-Sea Program aboard the NOAA Ship McArthur. Some of those samples revealed

Pseudo-nitzschia. In 1996 the researchers themselves were invited participants on the McArthur

cruise, and a more comprehensive collection of samples was taken. They returned in 1997 with a

more specific sampling regime, trying to focus on areas where either high domoic acid in clams

or high concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia had been confirmed. They collected water samples

and used the CTD rosette system to sample temperature/salinity profiles. Dr. Vera Trainer, from

the NMFS Science Center, took measurements of domoic acid levels in the water. These were

the first measurements they had been able to collect in coastal rather than shallow waters, and the

first taken on the continental shelf in Sanctuary waters. In 1996 some of the individual samples

had very high concentrations of domoic acid (greater than 1500/nanograms per liter in the peak

measurements). In 1997, high concentrations of domoic acid were also found, but further

offshore than in 1996.

In 1996, large numbers of Pseudo-nitzschia were present but were a species that had not

previous been found to produce domoic acid. This was a new discovery for the area and would

be historically valuable. Since that time, other researchers had shown that Pseudo-nitzschia

pungens could produce domoic acid.

In 1997, yet another species of Pseudo-nitzschia appeared to be the most prevalent in the

water, one that had not yet been identified completely. It was a very deeply silicified type.

In the individual transects sampled, different hydrographic conditions occurred in the

north as opposed to the south. In 1996, the highest concentrations of domoic acid and Pseudonitzschia were all in the north, but neither was noted in the southern collections. In 1997,

however, the distribution patterns were different. Pseudo-nitzschia was found in high

concentrations in the south off Copalis Beach and in high concentrations (105

 or 106 cells per

liter) further offshore. A pocket of high concentration also, existed (about 105.5), close to Cape

Alava in 1996.

Their data set included information on the distributions of temperature, chlorophyll, and

Pseudo-nitzschia. Postel showed examples of their data from an offshore transect by Portage

Head, showing the water column from 0 to 45 meters. The figure showed a very thin layer of

warm water at the surface, 14 degrees C and higher. The chlorophyll, for the most part, showed

the highest concentration (greater than 10 micrograms per liter) in the upper 5 to 10 meters of

water, demonstrating that the phytoplankton were normally at the surface because of the

sunlight. The Pseudo-nitzschia concentrations roughly agreed with the chlorophyll maps,

showing high concentrations in pockets of warm water. However, even though there were lots of

Pseudo-nitzschia cells, they occurred with several other species, e.g., Cochlodinium. Although

the concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia could be high, they may only represent 25% of the total

phytoplankton population in that area.
14

In the south, near Copalis Beach, the story was somewhat reversed. The warmest waters

were close to the shore, the highest chlorophyll concentrations were close to shore, and the

highest concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia were also close to shore.

Summary

Postel reiterated that the question remained, "Can we predict where we are going to see

these things or whether we are going to see these things?" What was needed, Postel offered, was

a better understanding of the physics of how water moves, how the plankton grows, plankton

trophic dynamics and genetic variability. Postel emphasized that Sanctuary cruises offered his

research group a valuable opportunity to look beyond the beach in terms of sources and

movements of harmful algal species.

Questions from Participants

Correlations with ocean chemistry and physics

Postel stated that their research was, as yet, unable to show a correlation between salinity

or upwelling events and concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia because of a lack of species data

taken concurrently with such events. However, his research group had a proposal to look

specifically at that question.

One researcher commented that, in recent plankton samples taken in the fall offshore of

the Quinault reservation, higher concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia had been seen than in the

past, and that the samples did not seem to include many other species. However, Postel

commented that the University of Washingtonís sampling had shown a high degree of variability

with regard to concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia.

Trawl Surveys and Habitat Types - Mark Zimmermann and Mark Wilkins,

Fisheries Biologists, National Marine Fisheries Service

The goals of Mark Wilkinsí presentation was to introduce the Alaska Fisheries Science

Center and to inform the audience on what data they had and how the data and the Center could

be useful to other researchers. He also would describe some of the historical data sets that had

been collected over the years.

National Marine Fisheries Service

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had five regional Science Centers on the

Pacific coast. These include the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AKFSC), the Northwest

Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). Ten

years ago, the AKFSC and the NWFSC were one entity. When the original center was split into

two separate centers, all the ground fish work went to the AKFSC, with offices in Alaska. Most

of the salmonid work and coastal zone and estuarine studies work remained with the NWFSC,

based in Seattle, Washington. The NWFSC was currently in the process of developing a strong

ground fish presence in the Washington-Oregon-California region. But the AKFSC still did the

majority of the trawl surveys and had done them since the late 1970s. Both Mark Wilkins and

Mark Zimmermann worked with the Groundfish Assessment Task Force.
15

Triennial Groundfish Surveys, West Coast Region

The AKFSC conducts fishery-independent surveys, which consist primarily of two types

of surveys: 1) bottom trawl surveys, and 2) hydro-acoustic, echo-integration, mid-water trawl

surveys. They use some fixed gear methods to do some surveys (long-lines and pots and traps).

The AKFSCís jurisdiction is broken into three or four different areas: 1) the Eastern Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands (considered one area), 2) the Gulf of Alaska, and 3) Washington-OregonCalifornia (the West Coast region). Among those three, there is a triennial rotation of major

survey efforts, so every third year the West Coast receives a substantial amount of time to look at

groundfish and pelagic resources off the coast. The survey year for the West Coast occurred in

1998.

The main focus of the surveys is to estimate the distribution and abundance of

groundfish. The AKFSC use the data to describe the biological characteristics of groundfish

resources in the area. They currently conduct two ongoing bottom trawl survey programs. One

looks at the continental slope from 100 fathoms out to 700 fathoms. This began in earnest about

1988 and at that time, researchers only had about 4 weeks of survey time each year to collect

data and it required a very intensive effort to fish at depths that deep. It took quite a bit of time

to cover any one section of coast; for example, it took about 4 years to cover the entire coast

north of San Francisco (from 1990 through 1993). This protracted survey time was a very

contentious point when trying to look at stock assessments. In 1995 they implemented a

program to extend their survey period and this allowed the entire west coast region to be

surveyed in two years, (in 1995 they covered the top half, and in 1996 covered the bottom half).

AKFSC still did not feel that this was good enough to get a synoptic view of the resource, so in

1997, they scaled back the density and enlarged the survey area and did the whole coast in 6

weeks. These triennial shelf surveys look at the groundfish resources between about 50 meters

and 366 meters or 200 fathoms and, since 1995, extend out to 500 meters. The survey covers

resources from Point Conception in California to half way up Vancouver Island. Concurrently

there are hydro-acoustic, echo-integration surveys that cover from southern California to half

way up the British Columbia coast.

Wilkins showed that most of the 1998 shelf survey was conducted within the Sanctuary

boundaries. They collected temperature profiles and sometimes salinity profiles, however little

oceanographic data was collected. The bulk of the data collected was biological data aimed at the

groundfish resources; catch data, species compositions, size and age composition of the

important ground fish, age at maturity and other biological parameters.

Most of the data went directly into the stock assessments that are prepared for purposes

of managing groundfisheries. Abundance, distribution, and size and age composition were

critical for stock assessments. Data was also collected for special projects that would improve

knowledge about groundfish resources. Occasionally the researchers had extra time at the end of

the surveys and used the time to do special studies, primarily aimed at improving the ability to

conduct trawl surveys and obtain the best information. Some of those involved catchabiltiy of

the survey trawl; others involved the habitat structure and community structures.
16

Mark Wilkins introduced Mark Zimmermann, his colleague at NMFS, Groundfish

Assessment Task Force, who discussed the details of three of his groundfish research projects

that include the OCNMS area.

Identifying Data Gaps in Groundfish Surveys

Zimmermann was interested in trying to determine where the data gaps were in triennial

groundfish survey data and what it meant to the integrity of the data. The groundfish surveys

involve dragging fishing nets along the seafloor. For the last few years Zimmermann had been

trying to determine the areas along the coast where the researchers were actually prohibited from

dragging a net along the bottom. Some areas encountered during the surveys were so rough and

rocky that gear was not even put out because it most likely would have been lost. In other

places, researchers tried to fish and deployed gear, but the gear ended up being torn, sometimes

quite substantially.

As an example, Zimmermann discussed the Vancouver Area, from central Washington to

southern British Columbia (BC), one of their northern most strata that overlapped with the

OCNMS area. Zimmermann examined all the original data sheets for all the trawls that they had

conducted along the coast. Over 4000 bottom trawls were taken from 1977 to 1995. He looked

at all the anecdotal information that people had written on the sheets indicating if there had been

any trouble with fishing with bottom gear, and, if there had been trouble, what the damage was.

He wanted to focus on a small area that was ringed by the 100-fathom contour or 183-meter

contour and the United States/Canada border. He categorized all the trawl attempts as either: 1)

trawlable, 2) unsuccessfully trawled (e.g., nets hung up or lines shortened to avoid rocks), or 3)

trawling avoided completely due to habitat. He used that information to map out untrawlable

areas using ArcView, the GIS program NMFS used. His maps revealed a large untrawlable area

in the southern part of the Sanctuary and several smaller ones scattered throughout. Within the

Sanctuary, untrawlable areas existed in both shallow (55 to 183 meters) and deep (from 366 to

500 meters) strata.

Zimmermann then compared fish catches between trawlable and untrawlable areas.

Preliminary results indicated that, for at least one species of rockfish, the untrawlable areas were

very significant in terms of rockfish populations. More fish were found in the untrawlable areas

(which represented about 20% of the strata) when compared to the number of fish in the

trawlable areas (which represented 80% of the strata). Consequently, by being restricted to

surveying primarily in the trawlable areas, researchers were probably under estimating rockfish

populations.

Sediment Mapping

Zimmermann wanted to better understand the habitat of the trawlable areas, and toward

that goal, he had been building a sediment map using published information. He had collected

2000 data points from various Mastersí, PhDís, and university project literature and had created

a map for Oregon, Washington and southern BC. He hoped to use the map to describe trawl

habitats and relate them to the catch data from the surveys.
17

Species Assemblage Analysis

Once those two projects were completed, Zimmermann planned to perform a species

assemblage analysis of the catch data and relate the catch data to the sediments and the

untrawlable areas. Originally he attempted to do this using some high-powered statistical

techniques, such as factor analysis and cluster dendrograms, but results were unsuccessful due to

the nature of the analyses. At this time he was studying the assemblage data using a relatively

new technique called ëthe cumulative percentage of plotsí technique. Zimmermann briefly

explained the technique using the following example. The data was first sorted by a specific

variable of interest, such as water temperature, depth or latitude. The survey effort

(approximately 500 trawl hauls per year), was sorted according to the variable, in this case,

latitude. The data points were scaled to a percentage, 0 to 1 or 0 to 100, and the values were

added up, for example, starting at 0 % and working up to 100 % of the last survey data point.

Then the catch data was plotted using the habitat line as a reference. If you caught the exact

same weight of a species of fish in each haul, the catch line would fall right on top of the variable

line. If more of the catch was taken in the south, then the line would rise very quickly to 100 %,

and would cross the reference line. In his data, rockfish were caught mostly in the north end of

the survey area. In terms of latitude, no rockfish were caught until northern California and

southern Oregon. Forty percent of the rockfish were caught by the time they got to the Columbia

River and the rest, 60%, were caught from the Columbia River north.

Zimmermann then separated each species into size groups by weight: small, medium and

large fish. Looking at the variable latitude, little difference in size distribution could be

discerned. But in examining the variable depth, he found substantial differences in the

distribution of the different size classes of rockfish at different depths. The large fish were in a

substantially different depth range than the small fish. Without grouping the fish by size class,

the composite of all the fish fell at an in-between depth. This depth did not describe any real

group of rockfish and if that value was used in an assemblage analysis, the results could be quite

misleading.

Questions from Participants

Black cod ñ Was more specific habitat work being done for black cod? Could Mark

Zimmermannís work be analyzed to find out the more specific preferences for this species?

Would such data affect quotas?

Zimmermann believed his data might be analyzed for this species, but with much

difficulty. He did not know if that kind of information would influence how quotas were

established. He mentioned that some work was being done on black cod at the NWFSC.

Sport fishing pressure ñ It was mentioned that sport fishing could put pressure on rocky

refugia where large trawlers would not be fishing. Apparently sportfishing pressure was high on

rockfish in central California, which negated the benefits of potential refugia.

Zimmermann could not attest to the amount of sportfishing pressure on rockfish that

occurred off the Washington coast because most of his work was done further offshore where

sport fishers did not usually go.
18

Geological Surveys - Pat McCrory, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Geologist Pat McCrory described the USGS's sea floor mapping project and a sediment

processes study. She suggested that these two areas of expertise might be useful to the natural

resource managers on the Olympic Coast.

The sea floor mapping project began in the summer of 1997 during the McArthur cruise.

Predominantly, the USGS researchers conducted side-scan sonar mapping, which provided an

image of the sea floor. They also took 100-meter deep core samples from the sea floor. The core

samples provided an estimate of the thickness of the sediments making it possible to map

distributions of bedrock, gravel, sand or mud deposits. This baseline dataset would provide a

way to monitor any sort of change in sediment distribution in the future. These data could be

used for many different purposes, including sea floor habitat mapping, which the Sanctuary is

very interested in. The USGS would use the information in their Coastal Erosion Study and their

Earthquake Hazard Study.

The second project McCrory discussed was a process-oriented study on coastal erosion,

which looked at how sediment input from coastal streams was distributed in nearshore areas. In

order to track these dynamic processes (which usually occurred during flood events), data was

collected using instrument moorings stationed on the sea floor over an extended period of time.

Geoprobes were left on the sea floor for several months. The probes took photographs

documenting how sediments rippled across the sea floor. At the same time, they measured

bottom currents, temperature, and other physical data.

During the McArthur cruises, McCrory and fellow researchers also collected bathymetry

data. They used a bathymetric system on the port side of the ship, a seismic reflection sound

source off the starboard side, and towed a side-scanning fishfinder off the aft A-frame. This

provided real time images of what the floor looked like. McCrory provided some examples of

their more interesting findings:

Grays Harbor Area Fault Zones

One surprising discovery was the presence of fault zones off the Grays Harbor area.

Their images revealed an area of high bedrock with rocky outcrops where faults could be seen

offsetting some of those beds. Side-scan images revealed a second fault zone nearer to shore.

This fault zone contains a dike where mud had poured through at one time, probably created by

methane gases rising up and erupting on the sea floor. Methane leakage can create high carbon

concentrations, and unique bivalve and tubeworm communities can be associated with these

types of areas. McCrory suggested that further exploration by biologists might be warranted.

McCrory next referred to the formation in the Grays Harbor area as a "fault boundary".

She felt it was very important, in terms of earthquake hazards, to understand the activity of this

fault.
19

Sediment Composition and Movement

McCrory and her research crew conducted sediment sampling and found rounded gravels

in the shallower parts of the transect; in the deeper waters (about 70 meters), silty sand was

present. Using these data, McCrory mapped out some of the sediment pathways from coastal

streams.

Eighteen thousand years ago, during the glacial period, sea level was 120 meters lower

than it is today. What exists now is a drowned shelf where much of the sediment was a relic

from glacial times. Till and outwash from glaciation occurred from two glacial events, one

occurring about 115,000 and the other occurring about 20,000 years ago. McCrory suspected

that those glacial outwash sediments were the rounded gravels found in the samples taken off of

Cape Elizabeth.

Another interesting piece of coastal geologic history was uncovered in 1967. Sediment

samples taken on a UW cruise were analyzed for mineral content. The heavy concentration of

minerals off of Grays Harbor could be traced to the Cascade volcanics of the Puget Sound area.

One interpretation was that these sediments originated during glacial times, through the Chehalis

River out of Grays Harbor onto the shelf, and those sediments were still there today. There were

smaller sediment plumes off the major coastal rivers showing an Olympic Peninsula signature of

minerals that were tied to the Olympic Mountains. Historically, sediment input from the

Columbia River this far north of Grays Harbor was minimal, although to the south, there was

quite a bit of input. During glacial times, the sea level was lower and it was thought that most of

the sediment coming out of the Columbia River went directly into the Astoria Canyon, with very

little escapement to the north (except during catastrophic floods as glaciation waned and things

warmed up). Also, Lake Columbia had several catastrophic floods that eroded most of Eastern

Washington and carried a tremendous amount of sediment out to the shelf.

Summary

The information gathered on the cruise was far-reaching geologically, as well as

biologically. The bedrock high that was discovered seemed to be related to the tectonic

boundary and appeared to still be active. The nearshore fault area was also an interesting

discovery. The mix of sediments off the coast was not just coastal stream input, but contained

sediments that came through the Chehalis River during glacial times. A strong component of the

sediment was now coming from the south, from the Columbia River. The Astoria Canyon had,

more or less, been shut off, and sediment could now travel north with the currents, where,

historically, it could not.

Future research efforts would include collecting data further north in places such as

Portage Head and Cape Flattery. McCrory indicated that she wanted to take a closer look at the

Grays Harbor fault in order to discern how active it was.

Questions from Participants

Methane seeps ñ McCrory was asked to repeat the information regarding methane seeps

being present at 17 meters. She said that the presence of methane seeps needed to be verified

with sampling. Potential sampling of the identified areas were going to be conducted by Coastal

Oceans Programs in the summer of 1998. Some dives, down to 6000 ft., had been conducted by
20

McCroryís research crew down-slope of the area in question during 1998. The divers found

concretion slabs and some unusual marine invertebrates.

Petroleum hydrocarbons ñ McCrory explained that much offshore drilling occurred on

the coast in the 1950s through the 60s. She was uncertain how someone would look for places

where petroleum would be escaping. She mentioned that methane was associated with the

compression and heating of sediments at the subduction zone.

Intertidal Ecology - Bob Paine, Professor, University of Washington

Bob Paine discussed biological variation in the Sanctuary area in light of the work he and

his colleagues had conducted on Tatoosh Island (near Cape Flattery) for more than 30 years. He

admitted a major conundrum in his study: Although the scientific community generally

perceived that, in order to understand biological variation, it was necessary to look at it over

extensive spatial scales, his work had been an intense, long-term study at only one site, Tatoosh

Island. The variations that he observed were collected from one site, but over a long period of

time. He found Tatoosh Island to be a biologically rich and variable area. He described the

value of this type of long-term data set in helping understand biological variation regardless of

the fact that it covers only a narrow spatial scale.

Project Background

His program began in 1962, as a long-term study funded by the Biological Oceanography

Division of the National Science Foundation. It had been focused, not so much on monitoring or

the excesses of sampling, but on establishing the background nature of a large number of the

system's biological species. The program coupled this with experimental manipulation of all the

elements. Over the years, the researchers had developed many techniques, and had looked at a

wide variety of species, both plant and animal. The research intent had been to couple the

patterns they observed from their sampling with the processes that developed those patterns.

Paine claimed that one could not assess variability if variability was driven externally to

the system. One could make guesses as to what the causes might be, but those often tended to be

guesses that were often compounded by the complexities of the environment. External forces

that might drive variability in nearshore rocky intertidal communities included El NiÒo events,

oil spills, and major winter storms. All impacted the nearshore community, and they produced

local variation.

Internal forces also affected variability. Major variations in the life of an organism or a

species occurred from year to year and from site to site. The study showed that some species had

been diminishing in abundance for reasons that were often uncertain. And changes in abundance

of one species had direct implications for the abundance patterns of others.

Paine briefly described the specifics of his work on Tatoosh, and its contributions beyond

the scope of the scientific community. He and his researchers had been working there since

1968 with the approval and assistance of the Makah Tribal Council, and they worked exclusively

on Makah tribal land. The site was visited as much as 80 days a year. They accessed the island
21

by boat in the spring, summer and autumn months, and by helicopter in the winter. His research

group usually consisted of about eight people, two individuals from the University of Chicago,

himself, and graduate students and post-docs. Many of their findings had been published in the

primary ecological literature. The resulting data was a very long term, high quality database,

involving a large number of intertidal species, which had advantages for the Makah Tribe and the

Sanctuary. One advantage was due to it being such a focused long-term study. It had received a

certain amount of press in the literature and had attracted a lot of media attention. Julia Parrish's

work on murres on Tatoosh was featured on National Public Radio. In a segment of David

Attenboroughís Planet Earth, almost all the intertidal images were filmed on Tatoosh Island.

The work had been featured in Audubon magazine, on Bill Nye the Science Guy (Seattle TV

science program), and in the national and international press. This sort of publicity had brought

a lot of attention to the pristine nature and the biological importance of the Olympic Sanctuary.

And this helped the press and the public identify why this was a precious piece of real estate that

should be valued and protected.

A major problem in assessing biological richness was determining whether and how it

changed. Paine demonstrated that the biological systems he studied were not in any clear, local

equilibrium. They changed over time; species increased or decreased in abundance, and there

was much natural variation. Individuals charged with identifying changes in species variation

had to be able to distinguish between anthropogenic driven change and natural variation. Once

you accepted the later, one had to be very sensitive to the former. It was very difficult to

distinguish between the two unless a traumatic event, such as an oil spill, occurred. However

many of these changes, could in fact, be quite subtle. For example, a die-off of starfish or sea

urchins could be caused by a lack of recruitment, slightly increased water temperatures, or some

departure from the normal pattern of offshore currents during larval recruitment.

Examples of Natural Variation on Tatoosh

Paine described Tatoosh Island as "A spectacular piece of marine real estate." The

benthic community was very rich in species in those areas because heavy wave action produced

a lot of disturbance and brought new resources to the benthic community. It was this disturbance

regime that produced many of the distribution patterns on the shore.

One of the species that characterized the rocky shore intertidal was the outer coast

mussel, Mytilus californianus, which is very susceptible to winter storms. During the winter of

1996-1997 about 50% of the intertidal mussel beds were removed. Storms were producing the

patterning of mussels. Mussels were moved by the wave action, and this created bare patches for

new mussels to invade. Mussels were immune to the forces of the storms when they were young

and small, but by the time they were 6 to 7 years old, they were large enough and growing in

layers so that they were susceptible to being swept away. These bouts of disturbance produced a

mosaic of different-appearing patches. This pattern of diversity was natural and was an important

aspect of the enrichment of the shore.

Paine discussed his thirty-year dataset on disturbance to mussel beds by winter storms.

His data showed large inter-annual differences - some years showed very little disturbance and

others showed mussel removal of greater than 50%. These peak disturbances seemed to be on a

6 to 7 year cycle or minimal rotation period. The peaks occurred under a variety of ocean
22

conditions, including both cold and warm water events, so he found very little common cause for

the disturbances. Whatever the causes, the data suggested that cycles of disturbance

characterized the mussel populations.

Another factor determining mussel distribution on the Washington coast was predation

by the sea star Pisaster ochraceus. This starfish set the lower limit of the distribution of mussels.

Any change in Pisaster would have major effects on the nature of the shore. If Pisaster was

removed or if its populations decreased, the lower limit of the mussel beds would move

downshore and, in the process, effectively eliminate a large number of other characteristic

species.

Iridaea cornucopiae, a red algae, was a common zone-forming species on the outer coast of

Washington. Occasionally it bleached in the summer and turned into a characteristic white band

of algae. This was common during summer months. This characteristic algal species had an

epilithic system, where parts of the plantís thallus lived in the rock surface, which helped the

plant retain its exact position on the shore the following year. Paine recorded the yearly algal

position of Iridaea using permanent markers. From 1978 until about 1992, there were

remarkable consistencies in the algae's position. Something happened in 1991, when suddenly

what had appeared to be a very stable, upper limit of this zone-forming alga, became much less

predictable. These sorts of long-term databases may not always provide clues to what was going

on, but they at least provided a measure of the natural variation.

The last species that Paine addressed was sea urchins. The outer coast, at one time, had

many sea urchins, both Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus. Areas with

abundant urchins were barren-grounds due to urchin grazing on benthic algae. Experimental

devises, which excluded urchins, showed that brown algae would recolonize without the urchin

grazing pressure. The implications of these results were that sea urchins controlled the

distribution and abundance of algae. This small-scale experiment showed what happens when

grazing pressure was decreased and this was precisely what the presence of sea otters will do.

Sea otters are invading the area and that will transform the lower shore from one that is less

productive, to one that is potentially an order of magnitude more productive. Paine believed that

this was the sort of biologically driven change that the Sanctuary should be sensitive to.

Paine reiterated that long-term datasets were an essential aspect of monitoring. One

cannot monitor everything because it was much too expensive and so one had to pick and

choose. Rather than picking one species to monitor over a large area, benefits to monitoring

many species in a few areas existed, as was shown in the Tatoosh research.

Questions from Participants

Disruption of the algae minimum level: Paineís hypothesis for what might cause the

change in where algae can grow was that some environmental catastrophic factor had pushed the

algae beyond what it could manage in terms of a recovery. One environmental change that Paine

mentioned as a potential influence was that the shorelines are emerging at the rate of about 1 or 2

mm per year. In 30 years one would see a 3 to 4 cm change in the shoreline and that could be

enough of a slope to produce the sorts of changes that he measured.
23

Measurements of productivity of algal communities: In urchin dominated shores, primary

productivity was primarily maintained by export of primary production from elsewhere. The

crustose algae that survive the grazing pressure of urchins could be measured for various rates of

photoactivity and carbon fixation rates could then be compared to the kelp communities that

dominated when grazing pressure of urchins was reduced by sea otters. Kelp communities were

capable of producing approximately 50 kilograms of wet kelp mass per m2, which were orders of

magnitude greater primary production than was found in the crustose algal communities.

Sea Otter and Subtidal Surveys - Pat Iampietro, Marine Biologist, California State

University at Monterey Bay

Pat Iampietro of California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) described the

research that he, Rikk Kvitek, and Ed Bowlby conducted in 1995 in the Olympic Coast

Sanctuary. The research provided baseline data on benthic species distribution and abundance,

particularly sea otter (Enhydra lutris) prey species. He also reviewed the sea otter work

conducted in 1987.

Project Background

The sea otter and the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera are one of the most often cited

examples of the keystone predator concept or hypothesis. The paradigm is described as thus:

predation by otters controls the population levels of herbivores, mostly sea urchins, which in turn

allow kelp and other understory algae to grow much more profusely than in the absence of otters.

When there are more otters, there are more algae and habitat for living resources, like fish.

When otters are absent, urchin populations increase dramatically and produce urchin barrens.

The otters on the Olympic Coast had increased dramatically since their reintroduction in

1969 and 1970, from approximately 59 individuals initially, to approximately 100 individuals by

the time of the 1987 study. In 1998 more than 300 individuals lived in the Sanctuary area.

The 1987 investigation was a typical space-for-time-exchange study. When pre-otter

data for benthic prey was unavailable, a spatial displacement, defined by three types of areas,

was substituted. Three area types were defined: 1) primary - an area where more than three

otters were recorded per aerial survey; 2) secondary - a range between one and three otters

sighted per survey; and 3) areas with no otters sighted. The sanctuary had northern and southern

secondary ranges as well as a range with no otters in the north.

The results of the 1987 study were very predictable. Areas with more otters had less prey

abundance and biomass than areas with no otters, where there was a much higher prey biomass.

The algal cover data also suggested the same pattern although the researchers did not look

specifically at brown algae such as kelps. They recorded understory foliose red algae and

coralline algal crusts. In areas without otters, coralline crusts were more dominant due to the fact

that the foliose red algal turf had been grazed away by the urchins. And in areas with otters,

foliose, red, understory algae was abundant and less coralline algae were present.
24

Video Sampling Methods

The study took three weeks with about six divers and logistically was a large

undertaking. To survey all the sites required the establishment of field camps and a lot of very

intense diving. The methods used involved in situ 1-m2 quadrats where divers counted and

measured all benthic prey species and recorded percent coverage of the understory algae. This

was very, very dive-intensive.

The 1995 study was limited to three divers and one weekís time. Fortunately, the study

had the support of the R/V Tatoosh, a superb and fast vessel. The Tatoosh allowed the

researchers to travel to all the original sites, plus additional sites in the Neah Bay area. Because

of limited time and having fewer divers available, the researchers opted to use video sampling

methods. They had first used these techniques in research investigations in the Canadian arctic.

There, the rugged and dangerous diving conditions necessitated finding a way to take more

underwater samples more quickly. To do this, they used benthic video quadrat methods. This

involved using a high-8 video camera, mounted on the back of a underwater scooter. PVC rods

were projected onto the front of the scooter and were adjustable. When the diver placed the rods

against the substrate, the field of view in the camera was a known area, either 0.25 or 0.1 m2

.

The system required lights and two underwater lasers for a constant scale reference.

In regular deployment, a diver filmed 0.25 m2 quadrats. For the 0.1 m2 quadrats, about

half or one third of the pod's legs were folded back, to obtain a smaller area. In the absence of

the laser dots, the scale of replication was done using a 20-cm ruler of PVC placed on the

substrate in the field of view at the beginning and the end of each of the series of quadrats. This

verified the exact size of the area being filmed.

Transect video was also used. Instead of looking straight down at the bottom, the diver

traveled along a preset or random path at a constant distance off the bottom and at a constant

speed using the scooter. This gave both qualitative and, under the best of circumstances,

quantitative data regarding living resources that were not only on the bottom but also in the water

column.

Iampietro discussed the pros and cons of using video for sampling. In its favor, it was

quick and optimized bottom-time, because all the analysis, all the measuring and counting of

animals, was done in the lab. Video sampling provided a permanent record of all the quadrats

sampled, which was very useful after the fact. Often patterns emerged during analyses that were

not apparent during the sampling. Video sampling allowed researchers to return and measure a

species that was not in the original sampling plan but appeared to be important later. With a

permanent record, the researcher could always go back and reanalyze the tape as long as the

organism of interest was visible. Also, the imagery that was gathered was useful for

incorporating into different products, from outreach (e.g., making a videotape to show the

general public), to the creation of world-wide-web sites, to Geographic Information System

(GIS) products.

There were drawbacks to video sampling. Visibility and resolution were limited and,

because of that, the sampling unit scale was quite limited. In order to obtain a larger quadrat

size, for example, a 1 m2 quadrat size, the camera would have to be very far off the bottom. This
25

affected the ability to resolve things on the seafloor. Video sampling was also a problem if the

organisms of interest were underneath the algae or some other obstruction that was between the

camera and the bottom. Moving obstructing objects out of the field of view could substantially

slow sampling down. Having organisms hidden from view required adjusting the analysis. But if

its limits were understood, and if it was used when appropriate, and the results were groundtruthed, using a video camera could be an effective sampling method.

Iampietro and his colleagues' research goals in 1995 were twofold. First they wanted to

re-survey all the 1987 sites. This would allow a comparison of the sites with the increased

number of otters present in 1995. Second, they wanted to establish an archive of Sanctuary

sampling footage that anyone could return to later and analyze as they wished. They also wanted

to ground-truth the video sampling methods by duplicating the methods used in 1987. This

allowed comparisons of the 1995 data to the 1987 data.

The sampling sites started in Neah Bay, wrapped around Cape Flattery, and continued

south to Destruction Island. In 1995, the underwater visibility at Destruction Island was so

limiting that the footage could not be used. Primary and secondary sea otter regions were similar

to the 1987 regions, with the southern secondary, the northern secondary, and the primary areas

staying the same. However, some areas that had no otters in 1987 did have otters in 1995. Two

northern sites were added in 1995, one at Cape Flattery and one at Tatoosh Island. These sites

had some interesting results but they could not be compared to any data from 1987.

Sampling was conducted from the R/V Tatoosh in July of 1995. Twenty-one 0.25 m2

quadrats were recorded along continuous transects. At the 1987 sites, divers duplicated as

closely as possible the methods used in 1987. One m2

 hand-deployed quadrats were done for

ground-truthing purposes. All the benthic organisms were counted and measured and algal

abundance was estimated. Transect surveys were also conducted. Videotapes were viewed in

the lab. All prey species were counted and measured and sizes converted to scale.

The results of the ground-truthing showed that the data collected from the in situ and the

video methods were not significantly different. Data was statistically analyzed using ANOVA.

The power of the tests was slightly low but was substantial enough for testing purposes.

Results

The data shows high prey abundance outside the otter range and lower abundance where

otters were present. In 1995, significant prey abundance was not seen anywhere, except at

Tatoosh and Cape Flattery and those numbers were comparable to the highest prey densities that

were seen in 1987. This was probably due to the fact that high currents and rough seas in these

areas limited otter foraging. The otters, although they were moving into these areas now,

historically had not hit them as hard so the urchins were still there in number. Biomass showed a

similar pattern. In terms of algal cover, coralline algae were significantly lower, at least at Neah

Bay, in 1995. Foliose red algae were higher at two sites in 1995 than 1987, probably due to the

presence of otters reducing macroinvertebrate grazing.

In conclusion, the otter populations have expanded to the north. Higher otter numbers

may have depleted sites previously rich in invertebrate prey. A change in algal cover was found,
26

possibly due to the removal of grazing invertebrates. High prey numbers still remained at Cape

Flattery and Tatoosh Island.

Iampietro thanked Ken Keist, Todd Jacobs, and George Galasso, for helping in the field,

Jim Estes and Greg Green for reviewing their manuscript, and the various agencies that had

provided assistance.

Questions from Participants

Other otter prey species ñ Iampietro observed little actual predation in 1995 but

mentioned that they found Chione (a cockle) in some of the more offshore sampling sites that

were sampled only in 1995. Chione was not observed in any of the sites that were sampled in

both 1987 and 1995. Haliotis (abalone) was not observed on any of the sampling sites.

Pinniped Population Trends - Harriet Huber, Marine Mammalogist, National

Marine Fisheries Service

Harriet Huber, of NMFSís National Marine Mammal Laboratory, provided an overview

of the population trends of the common pinnipeds found in the Sanctuary, Steller sea lions,

California sea lions and harbor seals. The data was derived from NMFS survey data.

Steller Sea Lions

Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) can be found within the Sanctuary any month of

the year. The estimate of the numbers of resident animals in 1998 was about 4 to 600

individuals. The number was not constant, however, and during the spring (March and April),

and in late summer (August), the numbers increased to about 1,000 animals. Branding programs

in Oregon and in southeast Alaska at Forester Island marked sea lions with an identifying

shoulder brand, and within the Sanctuary, several sightings of branded animals from both

branding areas occurred. The re-sighting data of Stellers showed that the Sanctuary was

somewhat of a mixing zone for animals from the northern and southern rookeries where they

converged on the Sanctuary waters during the non-breeding season. This was potentially due to

an abundance of hake in the Sanctuary at that time.

California Sea Lions

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) do not breed in the Sanctuary and only the

males move into the area. Therefore, as expected, during the 1998 breeding season, virtually no

California sea lions were present. After the breeding season, numbers started to increase, and in

November, December and January about 4 to 600 animals moved through the Sanctuary waters.

In February, numbers dipped as they continued their migration north into British Columbia.

Numbers of California sea lions did not increase in the Sanctuary again until March, and by

April there were 1,000 to 1,100 animals, as they moved south again toward the breeding

rookeries. California sea lions in the Pacific Northwest had been increasing by about 8% a year

during the last 10 years.
27

Harbor Seals

Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are the only pinnipeds that breed in the Sanctuary, as well

as the most ubiquitous pinniped. At low tide, on almost every rocky reef, at least one or two

harbor seals can be seen. Two stocks of harbor seals reside in Washington State, the coastal

stock and the inland waters stock, which was comprised of animals in the Strait of Juan de Fuca

and Puget Sound. NMFS data elucidated one of the interesting differences between the two

stocks; the timing of pupping. Chronology of pupping in Washington State showed a sharp

division between the two stocks. In the coastal stock, the pups were born in May and June, and in

the inland water stock they were born in August and September. The peak of pupping at Cape

Alava was the middle of June, and the 1998 annual aerial surveys during that time recorded the

highest abundance in the Sanctuary. Harbor seal annual abundance had increased from the

1970's. In 1977 approximately 1,800 harbor seals were estimated to be in the Sanctuary. By

1995 and 1996, there were between 4,000 and 5,000. This was an increase of approximately 6%

a year. This upward trend was continuing but showed signs of leveling off.

Pinniped Management Concerns

To summarize pinniped population trends in the Sanctuary, two species were stable, the

northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) and Steller sea lion; three species were increasing, the

harbor seal, California sea lion and the northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). This

could be considered good news, with all pinniped populations in the Sanctuary being either

stable or increasing. But these increasing pinniped populations were also increasing the demands

on the ecosystem; the more seals and sea lions present in the Sanctuary, the more fish they ate.

So the significant question was, ìHow great was the impact of these increasing populations on

such things as endangered salmonids?" The NMFS would continue its work on pinniped

populations in the Sanctuary and continue their work on pinniped food habits. They were trying

to estimate the impact of pinniped populations had on fish stocks and fish resources, and,

conversely, what impact fisheries had on these increasing pinniped populations.

Questions from Participants

The effect that El NiÒo might have on food abundance for the pinnipeds: All the

pinnipeds were generalist feeders so if something happened to their food source as far north as

the Sanctuary, the animals would simply shift their diet to another prey species. However, if

something happened near their breeding grounds, as happened with California sea lions and fur

seals in southern California during their breeding season in 1997, populations could be heavily

affected. Because elephant seals did not breed until December/January, they were not affected at

that time, although they may have been affected later.

It was unknown how El NiÒo would affect pinnipeds in the Sanctuary. What was known

so far was that there were large numbers of Steller and California sea lions in the Sanctuary in

December 1997. It was possible that they were pushed up into these waters from southern

California waters where fish may have been less abundant because of the El NiÒo, but this was

only speculation.

Range expansions and unusual breeding sites: California sea lions occasionally had

moved as far north as central California, but no consistent breeding occurred there and they still

remained primarily in southern California. Steller sea lions did not appear to be moving into
28

new areas. But elephant seals, since they were heavily exploited in the 1800s, had progressively

been moving northward in their pupping areas. In January 1998, the first northern elephant seal

pup was born in Washington State. About 8 pups had been born in Oregon over the last year.

Seabird Colonies - Julia Parrish, Assistant Professor, University of Washington

Julia Parrish presented a brief overview of seabirds along the Sanctuary coast,

concentrating on the more common species that bred within the Sanctuary. The key species she

discussed were the common murre, the tufted puffin, the pigeon guillemot, three species of

cormorants, Leach's and fork-tailed storm-petrels, and gulls in general.

Breeding Seabird Overview

The common murre (Uria aalge), an alcid, breeds on Tatoosh Island. They also attend

many of the southern islands, where recent evidence suggested some breeding might occur. In

1998, WDFW researchers had actually observed some chicks and fledglings from some of the

southern colonies.

The tufted puffin (Lunda cirrhata) is also an alcid species. Parrish emphasized that this

species warranted a greater concentration of research effort because its numbers appeared to be

decreasing. Rigorous censusing of this species in the Sanctuary was lacking, although some

colony work had been done on Destruction Island in earlier times. On Tatoosh Island, where

Parrish and her research group study murres, researchers anecdotally saw noticeably fewer tufted

puffins than had been seen in the past.

Pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba), another alcid, are a particularly good species to

observe in food habit studies because they had a tendency to catch fish and then swim around

with them in their bills for hours. They also tend to aggregate in the rocky intertidal areas so they

are very easy to count.

Three types of cormorants breed within the Sanctuary area, pelagic cormorants

(Phalacrocorax pelagicus), Brandtís cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), and double-crested

cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritis). The numbers of all three species were going up according

to data from the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Refuge personnel performed aerial survey

counts and had a long-term dataset. On Tatoosh Island, which was not included in the NWR

data, double-crested cormorants moved into the system and had started to breed within the last

two years. The population of double-crested cormorants on Tatoosh had gone from 0 to about 35

pairs in a 2-year period.

One of the longest time series databases on seabirds in this area was from mist-netting

data on storm-petrels, collected by Bob Paine, UW, and his crew. The data series ran from 1978

to the present and included both Leachís (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) and fork-tailed (O. furcata)

storm-petrels. Mist-netting storm-petrels required netting them during night, when they returned

to their burrows. These data were quite valuable.
29

Several gull species were found within the Sanctuary. Glaucous-winged gulls (Larus

glaucescens) nested within the Sanctuary, as did glaucous-winged-western hybrids (Larus

glaucescens-occidentalis), and the two species frequent the Sanctuary in broadly mixed groups.

Future Research Priorities

The population data most often used for seabirds on the outer coast had been gathered

mostly from aerial or boat-based surveys and was somewhat dated. Parrish identified acquiring

better and more current population data directly from the colonies, as was done on Tatoosh

Island, as a research priority for the outer coast seabird colonies. This kind of data could be very

important. A good picture of what was going on at the seabird colony could become part of an

integrated assessment of what was going on in the marine environment. Seabirds could be used

as indicators and the data could be used in predictive models. As an example, if the variable

was first defined, a perturbation such as an El NiÒo or La NiÒa could be factored into a model

and predictions could be made of changes that followed. This type of modeling could be done

with a variety of factors. These were kinds of things that the scientific community might be able

to assess just by monitoring colonies.

Murre Populations on Tatoosh Island

For the duration of her presentation, Parrish concentrated on the results of her work with

murres at Tatoosh Island, noting that many of the topics covered could be applied to almost any

species that bred within the Sanctuary.

Populations of murres in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia had

decreased by one order of magnitude. Almost one million birds could be found south of

Washington (Oregon/California), very few birds in Washington and British Columbia, and high

numbers (in the millions) were present in the Gulf of Alaska. This was a rather odd distribution.

Several things adversely affected murres, not only in Washington, but everywhere. One

factor was oil spills. On the Washington coast two recent oil spills, the Nestucca and the Tenyo

Maru had occurred. From the total casualties resulting from these spills, murres comprised 75%

of all the birds recovered from beaches. Murres also frequently die in gill nets. The results from

two observer programs in California and Washington (the observer program of the gill net

fishery in Puget Sound) showed that murres comprised the majority of the birds recovered in the

nets.

Historically murres had bred all along, the coast within the boundaries of the Sanctuary.

Currently great deal about murres on Tatoosh Island was known, but not much about murres on

other colonies in the Sanctuary. Long-term datasets from the National Wildlife Refuge, and the

counts from south of Tatoosh Island, showed a rather precipitous decline from around 1982 to

the early 1990s. Since then, numbers had stayed fairly depressed. What precipitated this

incredible decline and would there be a recovery, are two outstanding questions for scientists.

Looking specifically at the murre data from Tatoosh Island, a slightly different pattern

emerged. The Tatoosh counts were taken from several vantage points on the island itself. This

allowed researchers to closely examine many different murre nesting areas. Count data was

taken in order to get estimates of population size or, more commonly, nest site attendance. Some
30

of the nest areas with fewer birds were easier to count. These habitats were often shared with

other species, mainly glaucous-winged gulls. The attendance pattern on Tatoosh since 1991

(note that the big drop in populations occurred prior to 1991) showed that they went into a slight

decline during the 1990s, but actually from the early 1980s, there was a precipitous increase of

murres on Tatoosh. So Tatoosh appeared to have a slightly different pattern than the rest of

Washington. The murres had shifted their habitat, however, from big cliff tops to the ledges, so

a change in habitat had accompanied the population trend.

Comparing the crevice nesting to the cliff top nesting in terms of attendance, crevices

seemed to be relatively safe sites, exhibiting stable nest attendance, but cliff tops appeared to be

more precarious. For example, one cliff top nest area went from about 1,500 birds to 0, in fact

that nesting area went extinct in 1996. What were the potential causes? Bald eagles (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) were one. Oil spills and gill nets had also been implicated. However, eagles

were one of the main avian predators of seabirds, not only on Tatoosh but everywhere else. Data

taken from 1991 to 1997 showed that bald eagles arrived on the island before and during egglaying by murres, but after July 20th eagles left.

Reproductive effort was another useful variable to observe. Sometimes it was difficult

to see a signal in attendance, especially in crevice colonies, however a signal in reproductive

effort was more likely to show a signal. Using unique blinds with one-way mirrors in six

locations on the island, researchers could actually count the number of chicks.

Although there were year-to-year variations, reproductive success was higher in crevices

than on cliff tops. Two messages emerged from this: 1) cliff tops are not safe places for chick

rearing, and 2) even in a safe place, reproductive success is very variable. Parrish's research

interests included examining the questions, why was reproductive success different between cliff

tops and crevices and what specifically caused these differences?

One difference between the crevices and the cliff top was a function of eagle predator

pressure. Parrish and her colleagues looked at and estimated the pressure that eagles had, both

directly, by eating the adults, and indirectly, by suppressing reproductive success. Eagle

predation pressure was a function of how many murres were nesting on the cliff tops (the bad

places), versus those good places, the crevices. Looking at population growth rates and the

formula, when population growth rate went below one, the population would go down. And the

data showed several breeding seasons where this occurred, possibly from the increasing predator

pressure from eagles.

Other factors, such as the huge El NiÒo that occurred in 1997, could also create dynamic

variability. Both the El NiÒo Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and La Nina created a tropical sea

surface anomaly which could have an effect on predator pressure but also could cause dynamic

changes in sea surface temperature that affected upwelling, which in turn affected food supply.

Within the data from 1991 to 1997, Parrish examined reproductive success for correlation with

the effect of predator pressure (a top-down effect) and El NiÒo signals (a bottom-up effect). As

examples, 1993 appeared to be a bad year for both the physical signal (bottom-up), and the

predator signal (top-down). The year 1996, on the other hand, had no El NiÒo signal but had a

predator signal.
31

In conclusion, Parrish used a postcard from 1903 that showed murres avoiding an eagle

by eliciting the ìA Niagara of murresî response and flushing off their site as a way of illustrating

that these kinds of effects (predator effects and El NiÒo effects) had been happening for a long

time.

Questions from Participants

Would the same kinds of patterns seen on Tatoosh Island (predation signals and physical

signals) be detected at Destruction Island? Destruction Island was very different. Its habitat

was more suited for burrow nesters such as rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata) and

tufted puffins, and it had very few murres. Its habitat was also being affected by introduced

rabbits, which were eating the vegetation and causing increased erosion, therefore, some of the

dynamics on that island were not comparable to Tatoosh.

However eagles were in the area and a pair of eagles may have used Destruction Island in

the past, so predation could be a factor, although the predation patterns on Tatoosh may be

unique to that island. Broad spectrum effects, like El NiÒo, that affect food availability

throughout the region, however, would be expected to produce the same pattern on Tatoosh and

Destruction Island and anywhere else.

Records of exotic bird species associated with El NiÒo - David Duffy from the Heritage

Program had a listing of El NiÒo birds and posted to that regularly. Bob Paine had a long-term

birdwatching record from Tatoosh Island which could detect presence/absence. More

systematic at-sea surveys needed to be done in order to detect exotic birds that rarely occurred

here.

At-sea Distribution of Seabirds - Chris Thompson, Ornithologist, Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Chris Thompson, of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, described the

coastal seabird monitoring program that the state initiated in 1995. Prior to 1995, seabirds, along

with ducks in Puget Sound, had been monitored under the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring

Program (PSAMP) but there was no counterpart for long-term monitoring of seabirds on the

outer coast. There had been some historical studies, conducted without such research tools as

GPS and GIS, but a solid database was lacking. It was determined that such a database was

needed to gather distribution and abundance information in order to monitor population trends.

He emphasized that it was important to have baseline data with which to evaluate the impacts of

anthropogenic events, such as oil spills and gill net fishing. In the WDFW program, seabirds

were being monitored using at-sea surveys conducted in the area from Port Angeles west to Neah

Bay and south from Neah Bay to the Columbia River.

Thompson emphasized that one of the main goals of their project was to document

patterns of abundance and distribution. This was the first step in understanding the underlying

processes that determined those patterns. Understanding the processes themselves was the most

useful for resource managers, but first the patterns had to be identified.
32

Scale was also an important concept in this study. Research was needed on varying scales

and Thompson compared his work to the work that Bob Paine and Julia Parrish described on

Tatoosh Island. Their studies were in-depth looks at one specific area. His study was on a much

broader scale. He emphasized the need for a variety of investigations to occur at different spatial

scales over a long period of time.

For the rest of the presentation, Thompson gave a brief overview of the relative

distribution and abundance of several seabird species, then he gave a more detailed overview of

marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratum) and common murres as examples of species

that they looked at more closely. He also addressed the past and present role of the Sanctuary in

their work, the directions WDFW wanted to go in the future, and how the Sanctuary might be

able to help them get there.

Survey Results

In his overview, Thompson presented data collected from 1995 to 1997. In order of

abundance, in the summer time, common murres and rhinoceros auklets dominate the species

composition, followed by shearwaters (predominantly sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus)),

scoters, (mainly white-winged (Melanitta fusca) and surf scoters (M. perspicillata)), cormorants,

pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, tufted puffins, phalaropes, loons, and Cassinís auklets

(Ptychoramphus aleutica). He cautioned that Cassin's auklet numbers were likely to be much

higher in the entire Sanctuary than their data suggested. This was due to the fact that the

WDFW survey effort was concentrated close to shore, within a kilometer or two, so more pelagic

species, such as Cassinís auklets, were under represented. Their results were admittedly biased

toward the nearshore environment.

Thompson agreed with earlier presenters, Julia Parrish and Bob Paine, that tufted puffin

numbers were probably declining and that the species warranted more research attention than it

was getting. This trend might be substantiated in Ulrich Wilson's research with the USFWS,

which was not yet published. A similar trend might also be true for harlequin ducks

(Histrionicus histrionicus) as had been suggested in anecdotal information from Bob Paine on

Tatoosh Island. However, without clear documentation of a decline, it was very difficult to

acquire funds to research these species, and this was a very real dilemma for resource managers.

Big differences could be seen between winter and summer in terms of relative abundance.

For example, scoter numbers rose significantly in the winter time, harlequin ducks rose slightly,

but murres, rhinoceros auklets and Cassinís auklets, disappeared entirely. Marbled murrelet

numbers decreased in the wintertime as well. This was partially due to the birds actually

migrating. Cassinís auklets migrated south then disappeared. Rhinoceros auklets, to a lesser

extent, also migrated south to California. On the other hand, it was unknown exactly where

murres went, whether they dispersed further out to sea or did something else, but it was clear that

their numbers dramatically decreased in the winter.

One surprising finding of the study was that abundance and distribution of murrelets

across seasons was correlated. Contrary to the general thought that seabird distributions were

remarkably unpredictable in time and space, murrelets, for some reason, appeared to be quite
33

predictably distributed. Although the absolute densities were higher in 1996 than in 1995, the hot

spots were roughly in the same areas. This high predictability in distribution was useful

information. For example, if a catastrophic event occurred, managers could assess the damage

with greater confidence.

Marbled Murrelet Distribution Patterns

Marbled murrelets, an endangered species, and murres, a species of concern to managers,

required unique and specific survey methodology. Thompson's group, along with other agency

researchers, was developing protocols specifically for at-sea surveys of murrelets. They were

trying to develop an at-sea counterpart to what the National Park Service biologists had

developed to census murrelets in their forest habitat. They had looked at factors such as time of

day and distance from shore, in order to discern exactly when was the best time and where to

look for murrelets. They had determined that higher densities of murrelets occurred closer to

shore and that morning counts produced higher densities than afternoon counts. Their data

showed that murrelet abundance decreased with distance from shore, both in the summer and the

winter. Not surprisingly, abundance was also correlated with water depth. The peak numbers of

murrelets were found 30 to 40 meters from shore and numbers gradually dropped off as distance

increased, so the Sanctuary shallow waters were where the most murrelets were.

What were the properties that caused this pattern? This was still unknown, but

Thompson and others had begun to look at the data for correlations of murrelet abundance and

kelp, asking the question, ëDo murrelets use kelp as a resource?í Future analyses would include

a multiple variable analysis. Presently they had used GIS overlays to measure where the

murrelet observations were in relationship to their distance from canopy kelp (both Macrocytis

and Nereocystis). They looked at the expected number of murrelets and compared that to the

observed number of murrelets seen at varying distances from kelp. A greater number of

observations of murrelets were seen close to kelp. The farther away from kelp, fewer murrelets

were found (relative to the expected number). Plotting the observed over expected ratio, the

resulting line had a negative slope as distance from kelp increased. In this superficial analysis, it

appeared that kelp might be an important resource to murrelets, but many of the confounding

variables would need to be examined before this correlation could be confirmed.

Common Murre Foraging and Fall Migration

In another study, Thompson, in collaboration with Julia Parrish, examined the foraging

range of murres breeding on Tatoosh Island. Their results showed high densities of murres

feeding on the water close to the island; after a few kilometers, the numbers of murres dropped

very rapidly until they disappeared after about 5 kilometers. These data suggested that murres

were not going very far to forage. There had been speculation on whether marine birds from

Tatoosh were getting caught in gill nets in Puget Sound and their data showed that was unlikely.

In determining why murres migrate up from Oregon after breeding and the timing of

murre fledging, Thompson's research group monitored father and chick pairs along the southern

coast of Washington, from the Columbia River to Tatoosh Island. Their fathers accompanied

murre fledglings for a month or two, so by monitoring these dad-chick pairs, fledging could be

observed. Their results showed that dad-chick pairs first showed up in high numbers along the

southern coast, Columbia to Grays Harbor, in mid-July. They began to show up on the north
34

coast, Grays Harbor to Tatoosh, at a similar time but their numbers did not increase as rapidly as

they did in the south. In the Straits of Juan de Fuca, dad and chick pairs did not show up until

some time in early August. These surveys were a useful tool for monitoring the movement of

murres into Washington from Oregon.

Thompson took the time to acknowledge the Sanctuary, thanking the organization for

providing space in their trailer at the Neah Bay Coast Guard Station and for use of the R/V

Tatoosh. The Sanctuaryís help had saved his project quite a bit of money. In order to establish

population trends in seabird populations it was critical that surveys were conducted every year

and over a long period of time. In light of this, it was hoped that the Sanctuary would continue

its support of the at-sea surveys well into the future.

Questions from Participants

Records of exotic bird species associated with El NiÒo ñ

Thompson said that on their at-sea surveys, they documented all bird species with the

exception of gull species, so if there were exotic species (other than gulls) they would be

recorded in their database. They were not seeing many exotics from the seabird community

standpoint. They had not noted any trend in unusual species showing up in their surveys that

could be related to El NiÒo events. Thompson did note that one brown booby (Sula leucogaster)

was seen in Puget Sound, but it was the only exotic seabird that he was aware of. Brown pelican

(Pelecanus occidentalis) populations were increasing and there seemed to be a northward range

expansion happening over the last few years, but it was not known if this was related to El NiÒo

effects or other factors.

Julia Parrish added that the 1998 breeding season, not the 1997 season, would be the

season where one would expect to see exotics showing up as a result of the influences of the

1997 El NiÒo.
35

FOCUS GROUP REPORTS

At the conclusion of the plenary presentations on Day One, participants broke into the

following focus groups: 1) nearshore communities; 2) fish and shellfish biology; 3) marine

mammals and seabirds; 4) physical and biological oceanography; and 5) cultural and historical

resources. A Group Discussion List (Table 6) was provided to each group along with a

facilitator to aid and guide discussions. Each groupís mission was to discuss relevant issues,

vote on the most critical research questions, and report back with a list of recommendations. Flip

chart notes and individual Group Discussion List worksheets were collected to aid in creating a

final synthesis outline (Table 7). A representative from each group summarized the findings to

the plenary session in Day Two as outlined below. Time was allotted for general discussion

from the re-assembled participants, to provide opportunities for multi-disciplinary exchanges.

Group Report on Nearshore Communities

1. Conduct inventories of marine resources, including distribution and abundance studies, and

life-history information. Create central database. Temporal and spatial data gaps identified as:

• Nearshore fish populations, particularly juveniles

• Intertidal and subtidal communities

• Determine use of subtidal areas by juvenile offshore species

• Floating kelp mat communities

• Infaunal and epifaunal benthic communities

2. Identify processes that influence communities and examine interaction of biological

oceanography with benthic and intertidal communities:

• Monitor influences from physical condition, water chemistry, and geomorphology

• Plankton investigations

• Modeling studies

3. Map and identify critical habitats and create central database (inventories in #1 would

eventually lead to #3 and long-term monitoring), particularly:

• Seabird habitats

• Kelp habitats

• Nearshore fish habitats

The Nearshore Group discussed how the Sanctuary could support or facilitate some of

those activities. The group agreed that public education/awareness was a good starting point.

They also discussed becoming more familiar with NOS and its funding mechanism. The group

talked about the funding prospects for identifying Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) through the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and listed other potential partners as: Washington

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW), Environmental Protection Agencyís Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Program (EMAP) and watershed programs, tribes, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
36

(USFWS), U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), United States Navy (USN), University of Washington

(UW), Western Washington University (WWU), Sea Grant, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring

Program (PSAMP), Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), Department of Ecology

(DOE), NOAA's Hazardous Materials Branch (HAZMAT), Pacific Northwest Coastal

Ecosystem Research Study (PNCERS). They also discussed pursuing funding from the oil

industry (it would be mutually advantageous to have resource inventories prior to a spill).

Other topics of discussion included:

• Consensus that not enough information is available to select indicator species; need basic

resource inventories first, followed by long-term monitoring

• Use of subtidal by juvenile offshore species

• Identify processes that influence communities and affect population distribution and

abundance (e.g., physical, water chemistry, and geology)

• Publicize why the area is so unique, since this could lead to more funding; but

counterpoint noted that if area is considered pristine, there may be less funding available,

since contaminants and other public concerns draw funding

• Increase number of Mussel-Watch sites and frequency of sampling

• More spatial and temporal monitoring needs to be layered onto the inventory aspect in

order to detect trends

• Potential use of volunteer monitoring groups, such as Adopt-a-Beach and beached bird

programs, and diver fish surveys (e.g., REEF)

• Identify critical limiting factors of various species in nearshore habitat and their various

life stages

• Need for year-round vessel time

Group Report on Fish and Shellfish Biology

1. Determine spatial and temporal distribution and abundance of harmful algal blooms (HAB)

and effects on marine food webs.

A. Specific research needed:

• Determining what vectors bring offshore blooms into the food web, particularly

nearshore shellfish

• Connecting/coordinating the offshore, ocean research with nearshore research

• Considering weekly sampling periods for HAB work

• Determining how domoic acid vectors into Dungeness crabs and razor clams

• Increasing information (via sampling) on subtidal benthic communities

B. The Sanctuary could provide support for harmful algal bloom (HAB) information in

the following ways:

• Letters of support from the Sanctuary could boost local entities (e.g., the Quinault

Tribe) chances for securing funds from federal and state sources

• Assistance in developing a centralized database that would help researchers

collaborate and connect offshore with nearshore data
37

• Development of a web page that would facilitate an exchange of data (the web

page would act as a clearinghouse for new information, ongoing research, where

data is available, etc. which would be especially suitable for monitoring

biotoxins)

• Provide use of Sanctuary vessels for HAB work (e.g., R/V Tatoosh and RHIB)

• Contact more research agencies who work with biotoxins, commercial fisheries

(e.g., crab and ground fishers); and sport fishing associations for support

C. Identify potential partnerships with regard to HAB

• Partner with WDFW for use of its R/V Corliss to use as a platform to sample the

subtidal community with dredges (e.g., tribe could pay for gas and crew to join

Corliss on its patrol, and conduct research off the vessel at the same time)

• Contact Washington Department of Health, (they used to sample razor clams and

mussels until funding was limited), to explore if they are interested in being

involved in a monitoring program

2. Select representative long-lived plant and animal species for long-term monitoring.

A. Suggested shellfish:

• Razor clams - some biotoxin work exists, but no long-term monitoring; condition

indexing may be used as a tool for indication of population health; plankton

populations (clam food supply) may be indirect measure of ecosystem health

• Mussels - some population monitoring already being done to determine

harvestable amounts

• Mobile species (e.g., crabs) ñ however no good monitoring method exists; more

information on their food habits might be a possible avenue of study

• Other species should be considered ñ examples in intertidal habitats

B. Suggested fish:

• Rockfish that live 60 to 70 years.

C. Sanctuary Help: Letters of support from the Sanctuary could be helpful in backing

official requests.

D. Partnerships: Department of Health used to sample razor clams and mussels but their

funding was limited; they might be interested in involvement in a monitoring

program.

E. Discussion:

Long-lived species, such as rockfish, may not be the best choice for long-term

monitoring. For example, if an organism is very long-lived, their reproductive cycle

may be longer than the time a researcher can study them. It can make it difficult to

see responses to perturbations in parameters such as reproductive success. Also, if

monitoring of populations involves killing individuals, monitoring a long-lived
38

species will mean culling very old individuals, which could be detrimental to the

population.

One suggestion was to not specifically try to identify long-lived species for

monitoring, but rather identify ecologically relevant species, or trophically relevant

species. Long-lived species may not necessarily be good indicator species.

Monitoring specific communities may be an option. Mussel communities, for

example, are long-lived, large, patchy, and ecologically relevant because of the way

they accumulate biotoxins.

3. Address management concerns for harvest-related stresses:

A. Anthropogenic contamination

B. Habitat alteration (e.g., impact of trawl gear on seafloor habitats and communities)

C. Effects of exotic species

• Green crab example; how to monitor as its range expands up the coast; determine

what factors control its expansion (do high energy environments like the Olympic

coast deter it?)

• Other exotics: Japanese seastar, some amphipods, ballast water discharge

D. Sanctuary help - Provide education and outreach programs for the public (e.g., green

crab and ballast water as a vector for exotic species)

E. Partnerships ñ none mentioned

4. Conduct inventories of marine resources and map and create central databases/identify and

map critical habitats and areas of special interest:

• Create a list of species of special concern and note work being conducted on them

• Create maps that identify where research was currently being, and had historically

been conducted in the Sanctuary (e.g., ArcView and photograph library)

• Create a repository of information to help connect the different pieces of data that

various agencies and researchers possess (e.g., a list of what is being done and who is

doing it)

• Sanctuary efforts:

- Act as repository for research

- Act as a store house of information

- Develop a web page that would link researchers and data

- Provide access to maps

• Partnerships ñ none mentioned

Discussion

Under the concept of identifying and mapping critical habitats, participants suggested that

complex fisheries habitats, the places that are untrawlable, be mapped and protected because

they harbor unique species such as long-lived anemones, sponges, and corals. Some of the

species have not even been identified yet.
39

It was also suggested that non-complex, flat, sandy bottomed, highly trawlable areas be

considered areas of special concern as well because they are continuously subjected to the

adverse affects of trawling.

Group Report on Seabirds and Marine Mammals

1. Monitor long-lived species.

A. Marine Mammals:

Nearshore indicators:

• Harbor Seals

• Sea Otters

Pelagic indicators:

• Humpback Whales ñ advantage of being able to individually identify

• Gray Whales ñ advantage of being able to individually identify

• Harbor Porpoise

B. Seabirds:

• Advantages to monitoring seabirds at colonies (in addition to at-sea)

- Multiple species can be surveyed at one spot

- Different species are indicators of different niches and environments so get

info from multiple areas from one colony location (e.g., Cassinís auklets

are pelagic and eat plankton, pigeon guillemots are nearshore inhabitants,

murres are generally distributed and are fish eaters)

• Colony data provides information on parameters beyond population (e.g., nest

initiation, nesting success, fledging success, mortality) and provides other ways to

monitor change in the ecosystem.

• Species to monitor:

- Black oystercatcher ñ intertidal indicator

- Pigeon guillemot ñ nearshore indicator

- Common murre ñ generalist distribution/ fish indicator

- Cassinís auklet ñ pelagic indicator/zooplankton indicator

- Tufted puffin ñ sensitive/threatened species

- Harlequin duck ñ sensitive/threatened species

- Marbled murrelet ñ sensitive/threatened species

2. Monitor background mortality trends for seabirds

A. Previous/ongoing work:

• Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife had some collection data on Southern

Washington coast for several years

• WDFW had some data collected in 1980-1985; Chris Thompson crew

collected data for last couple of years

• Julia Parrish, UW, had collected data on Tatoosh Island
40

B. Current needs:

• Systematic mortality baseline data collection

• An accurate assessment of variability - what is real mortality vs. what is

ocean condition-related

• An index versus actual total numbers (which requires more frequent

surveys and an understanding of rate of persistence of carcasses on

beaches)

• Professional versus volunteer observers

C. Future: Sanctuary is developing a part-time position that will include beached bird

monitoring as well as a marine mammal stranding coordinator

3. Monitor status and trends in marine mammal populations

A. Previous/ongoing work:

• Sanctuary had supported Ron Jameson, BRD, with limited funds for sea

otter population and distribution studies (in conjunction with the Makahs)

• University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC), Biological Resources

Division (BRD), Moss Landing Marine Lab (MLML) and Sanctuary

subtidal habitat surveys in the Cape Flattery area looking at impacts of sea

otter expansion

• University of Washington (UW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS)/Biological Resources Division (BRD) sub-tidal assessment east

of Neah Bay

• Cascadia Research (partially funded by Sanctuary) doing humpback whale

photo identification work offshore of Cape Flattery

B. Current Needs: More stability in monitoring in terms of long-term funding is needed.

4. Monitor status and trends in seabird populations

A. Previous/ongoing work:

• USFWS had one full time staff position to monitor seabirds at least

annually; had conducted counts since 1976 or 77

• PSAMP started in 1990, but limited to Puget Sound; funding only assured

for next 5 years; marine mammals and seabirds only a small component of

the project

• Thompsonís WDFW surveys on outer coast, but funding year to year and

based on soft money

B. Current Needs:

• More stability in monitoring in terms of long-term funding

• Improve counts at seabird colonies; more than once per season; more

systematic and standardize protocols

• More information needed on forage fish (large data gap) to include:

- Spatial and temporal spawning information
41

- Distribution and abundance surveys

- Direct data from trawl surveys

- Indirect data from seabird diet studies at colonies and stomach

contents from birds killed in gill nets (provided indices only)

5. Identifying and mapping critical habitats

A. Map kelp communities as critical habitat

• Previous/ongoing work:

- DNR does annual kelp surveys since 1989

- USGS sediment mapping which may relate to kelp recruitment

B. Current needs:

• Use GIS (e.g., kelp beds)

• Obtain data on kelp communities and ecosystems

• Map trawlable and untrawlable areas

• Map pinniped and cetacean concentration areas

• Identify/map species and habitats most susceptible to oil spills

6. What the Sanctuary should do:

A. Assist in determining which species should have highest priority

B. Inform funding agencies of importance of long-term funding

C. Assist in creating partnerships between groups that have funding for individual

species in order to maintain existing funding and/or acquire new funding

Discussion

Sea Otters and Kelp

Participants discussed historical accounts of kelp beds and sea otters further south than

their present distribution. The original sea otter population historically ranged south to the

Columbia River and there were historical reports of kelp beds northwest of Grays Harbor.

Present kelp distribution, as defined by annual surveys conducted by DNR since 1989, was to

Destruction Island, and was the same for sea otters. It was suggested that historic kelp areas may

have been silted over, and that sub-bottom profile maps could identify where hard bottom exists

that are overlain with recent sediment.

Ron Jameson, BRD, added that the kelp that was most likely to spread to the south

was Nereocystis, not Macrocystis, which preferred more protected environments, such as

the Straits. He also mentioned that when looking at kelp and otter distributions, it was

important to remember that kelp did not support sea otters per se, other than providing

them with refuges for resting. Several locations in Alaska contained sea otter populations

but no kelp. Kelp was not an absolute requisite for sea otters.
42

Historical records for sea otters may be biased because they usually came from

hunterís accounts who preferentially used the southern beaches as their hunting platforms.

However, it was obvious from the use of otter parts in cultural artifacts from the Makah,

that otters extended north into the Cape Flattery area, and historical accounts reveal that

they came into the Straits as far as east as Discovery Bay.

The Washington coastline to the south was perhaps limiting the sea otters, with its

long stretches of exposed sand beaches with no refugia for animals during winter storm

events.

Chris Thompson, WDFW, noted that the USGS erosion study had been mapping

the ocean floor and had noted that much of the seafloor in southern Washington was

uniformly flat and sandy, not be the best habitat for kelp or otters.

Jameson reported that Chris Morganroth, from the Quileute tribe, had observed

that kelp beds in the vicinity of La Push were much larger several decades ago than they

were currently. He suspected that increased sediments coming out of the river were

factoring in their decline.

Additional discussion followed regarding the value of monitoring kelp as an

example of long-lived species. This would also involve examining the understory kelp

(for example, Alaria spp.) as well as the canopy kelp. It was agreed that monitoring kelp

as a long-lived species was a valuable idea, in the context of its relationship to seabirds

and marine mammals. The group also felt it should remain under the category of Critical

Habitat, and, as such, be monitored using aerial surveys, although aircraft only recorded

canopy kelp.

Thompson noted that, although it was preferable to choose species for long-term

monitoring based on their value as indicators of ecosystems, sometimes funding and

policy dictated that sensitive species (e.g., threatened or endangered status) be used

instead.

Although the plenary sessions outlined pinniped and sea otter issues, cetaceans

were not covered. However, there are two cetacean abstracts in Table 3 that highlight

some current issues with whales and porpoises.

Group Report on Physical and Biological Oceanography

1. Research Priorities

A. Conduct a complete survey of the changes in currents and water properties of the

Sanctuary; quantitative data needed; very expensive

B. Look at the linkages between terrestrial and marine ecosystems and potential

watershed effects

C. Look at the linkages between terrestrial and marine ecosystems and potential

watershed effects
43

D. Identify localized effects

E. Understand if/how rivers/watersheds interact with ocean currents

F. Understand if/how rivers/watersheds affect biology, habitats, shellfish harvests

G. Predict how future development (in watershed) might affect coastline and beaches

within Sanctuary

H. Determine the spatial and temporal distribution and abundance of harmful algal

blooms and effects on marine food webs

I. Identify vectors / mechanisms of toxins from phytoplankton to shellfish

J. Understand how higher trophic levels of marine organisms might be affected by HABs

(e.g., can HABs cause deaths and strandings in marine mammals?)

K. Conduct inventories of marine resources and map and create central databases

L. Establish new moorings to determine both physical and biological parameters

(baseline information on water quality trends)

M. Use existing moorings or buoys such as navigational buoys or Coast Guard buoys

N. Conduct high-resolution seafloor mapping of representative habitats since mapping

was key to the Sanctuaryís role of understanding habitats and ecosystems

2. What the Sanctuary can do

A. Lobby for oceanographic research funds from agencies (e.g., National Science

Foundation and Foundation for Oceanographic Research)

B. Linkages/Watershed effects:

• Use information from watershed analyses that tribes and other organizations

have conducted to analyze linkages

• Put sensors at the mouths of rivers for monitoring sediment transport and O2

C. Harmful Algal Blooms:

• Continue to provide time and space on the research cruises for HAB

researchers from UW

• Assist in acquiring funding for HAB research from ECOHAB Program

• Determine effects on shellfish, marine mammals, and seabirds

• Use data on phytoplankton distributions from SeaWIFS Program

D. Moorings:

• Identify sites that are important for long-term information needs (proposed

Copalis Beach); make known to other research efforts

• Establish baseline water-quality parameters and monitor trends

• Put sensors on old navigational and weather buoys

• Use existing structures such as the Navy Test Range Cable to attach moorings

E. Inventory and Mapping: Sanctuary should be a clearinghouse for Sanctuary area maps

(GIS and databses) and have ability to distribute information; need high-resolution

seafloor maps

F. General: Establish links so that people could obtain Sanctuary information

Discussion

Watershed analyses

Much of the discussion centered on the value of trying to correlate ocean

conditions with information from watershed analyses as were currently conducted. There

were several shortcomings associated with watershed analyses that made them difficult to
44

correlate with ocean responses: 1) they usually preceded timber harvest and the harvest

itself could potentially change the current water regime as analyzed; 2) they were often

conducted far from the mouth of the river; 3) they usually only looked at a small part of

the watershed; and 4) usually no monitoring of change-over-time occurred since they were

a snapshot look at conditions.

Counter to that, it was mentioned that there was a growing awareness of the

importance of understanding interactions between the ocean and the land, and in the

future, there might be more attention given to this area of research.

Watershed analyses could give good information about sediment carrying capacity

flow rates, which feeds into sediment transport along the coast. This was an important

piece of information, especially for a place like the Sanctuaryís coastline where most of

the beach sediments came from local rivers.

Simpler ways of obtaining information might be to use environmental sensors in

the rivers and at the mouths to gather information on sediment load and O2 over time.

Some existing programs were mentioned that might provide some information or

direction: 1) EMAP from EPA might provide some methodology suggestions; and 2) the

Estuary Program from EPA might have case studies similar to ones in this region that

might provide insight.

It was suggested that calls-for-proposals that involved land-sea linkages, such as

ones issued from the National Science Foundation (NSF), were good opportunities to pool

resources into cooperative proposals.

Sand Shrimp

The abundance of sand shrimp and anecdotal information that they might be

spreading from estuaries to open shores was discussed. It was suggested that

anthropogenic sources might be the source ñ perhaps the addition of organic material from

bark and woodchips that accumulated on beaches might be providing the right conditions

for the shrimp to proliferate. No substantial data was available on this, only conjectures,

but it lead to a discussion regarding the Sanctuaryís ability to examine affects to the

resources when the source of the affect originated outside of the Sanctuaryís boundary.

The Sanctuary could look at such questions, however, it was the responsibility of the

Sanctuary to prove that an outside source was the cause of damage. This was difficult to

do, especially without baseline data for comparison.

Expense of Oceanographic Research

Because oceanography research was so expensive, two things were recommended

to deal with the expense. First the Sanctuary could find inexpensive ways to obtain

sensors for monitoring (suggestions incorporated in the above outline). Second, the

academic community could create a comprehensive plan to answer key oceanographic

questions addressing the data gaps off the Washington coast. This would allow
45

researchers to then apply to a big funding source like GLOBEC. The Sanctuary could

back such an effort with a letter of support.

Specific locations for sensors

Locations of moorings would be determined by the scope of questions that

researchers formulated. For general monitoring, and if cost were no object, it was

suggested that since local conditions could change approximately every 10 miles, there

would be a need for multiple moorings to capture the complexity of the area. Moorings

would be needed in the canyons and near the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Further south, where

the beaches were uniform and gently sloping, a single, key mooring placed south of

Kalaloch or Moclips, could generalize information all the way to Grays Harbor.

Group Report on Cultural and Historical Resources

1. Establish and maintain a database for historical research (though this might be beyond the

scope of the Sanctuary); link to Bob Schwemmerís database

2. Promote education programs (which might also lead to funding partnerships)

• Make presentations at schools (universities, colleges, primary schools)

• Arrange information exchanges with historical organizations, museums, or societies

• Establish volunteers

• Develop a field school for training in underwater archeology

• College level and/or primary level

• Training in mapping, reconnaissance, excavation, and archiving techniques

• Develop publications (e.g., interpretive pamphlets and academic publications)

3. Monitor archeological sites (for the purpose of protection)

• Monitor and identify natural vs. human-generated impacts

• Identify management/ protection needs

4. Promote partnerships and leveraging options with:

A. DNR, since they were responsible for most artifacts found in State waters

B. Museums and historical societies

• West End Shipwrecked Project (through the Clallam County Museum)

• Smithsonian

• Puget Sound Maritime Museum

• Columbia River Maritime Museum

• Makah Museum

C. National Park Service (e.g., Olympic National Park)

D. Washington State University

E. U.S. Navy (responsible for some shipwreck resources)

F. Volunteers (e.g., Coastal Maritime Archeology Associates)

G. Foundation grants

H. Corporate sponsors
46

5. What the Sanctuary could do:

A. Obtain records on traditional knowledge of marine resources

• Native American use of marine (with historical and legal importance)

• Local communities.

B. More inventory and more detailed position mapping of artifacts

Discussion

Elevated coastline and underwater resources

The coastline that existed 6,000 years ago was now covered with water. The possibility

that coastal village sites that existed 6,000 years ago might now be discovered underwater was

discussed. One researcher felt that sites were highly unlikely because wood is poorly

preserved over time, and also because the violent storms in the area reduced the likelihood of

artifacts withstanding the elements over time. Also, the technology did not yet exist (in an

affordable form) for exploration for artifacts in deep water. However, some underwater

middens had been discovered in the Queen Charlotte Islands, so it was within the realm of

possibility to look for artifacts underwater.
47

FINAL SYNTHESIS

Ed Bowlby and Julia Parrish concluded the two-day workshop with a summary of the

work accomplished. Parrish summarized the research priorities of all the groups. The main

categories she identified were as follows:

Inventory: She linked inventory to database creation. Once a list is available, it can be

entered into computer and it becomes a database.

Monitoring:

• Monitoring all physical factors that were affecting water properties in the

Sanctuary

• Monitoring cultural and historical sites relative to natural and anthropogenic

impacts and protection of those sites

• Long-term monitoring of ecologically relevant species, either habitat-based or

trophic-based

• Long-term monitoring of sensitive or threatened species relevant to ecological

components

She reviewed the discussion regarding monitoring species that agencies are

required to monitor and not worrying about priorities, versus selecting indicator species.

Parrish also discussed monitoring background mortality trends in animals.

Parrish highlighted the interesting dichotomy between what the marine mammal and

seabird group listed to monitor and what the fish and shellfish group listed. The fish and shellfish

group thought more along the lines of ëwhy monitor.í They focused on monitoring relative to

public health, to natural resource harvest issues, and to ecological constraints.

She noticed that harmful algal blooms were listed twice for monitoring, once by the fish

and shellfish group and secondly by the physical and biological oceanographic group. The fish

and shellfish people wanted to relate offshore surveys to endpoint impacts (e.g., health or harvest

issues) while the physical and biological oceanography group was more interested in ecosystem

effects.

Current Data

In summary, the recommendations from all the groups would either be to create an

inventory, or if an inventory already existed, researchers would then need to decide which species

or sets of species to monitor. All the information would be lodged in a database and linked to a

GIS layering system. This would then provide a map of what was known about species or

biological community locations.

One key suggestion for the Sanctuary office was to designate one person to be a

webmaster. That person would cultivate ties with all researchers and would keep up to date with

new developments. It would require at least a quarter to half of their time.
48

Parrish generated a list of what she called ëLimitations and Opportunities.í The list

included: 1) public awareness (which was linked to education broadly defined); 2) access to

vessels and platforms; 3) centralization of all of the monitoring and mapping and/or a

metadatabase creation, so at least there would be a centralized place where everyone knew where

to go for links; 4) interagency agreements and co-management opportunities, especially

state/tribal interests relative to public health and natural resource extraction; 5) use of volunteers

(e.g., for fish projects, beach monitoring, marine mammal stranding, archeology).

Bowlby reviewed the stated goals of the Research Workshop:

• To highlight and prioritize research needs for the Sanctuary relative to the development

of framework for a five-year research plan

• To build on the results from the Research Workshop of 1996

• To make presentations on ongoing research

• To provide a platform for multidisciplinary information sharing

• To select priority sites for multidisciplinary studies

• To promote student participation in research

He believed that most of the goals had been met through constructive recommendations

and the multi-disciplinary information exchanges. He commented that there hadn't been as much

student participation as hoped. That meant that more work needed to be done next time to get

more students involved, whether they be undergraduate/graduate students or even secondary

level.

He mentioned that there had been scheduling conflicts that precluded some key people

from attending the Research Workshop, pointing to the Ocean Sciences Conference taking place

in San Diego. However, he admitted that it was probably impossible to schedule anything where

there would not be a conflict. The Sanctuary would try to contact some of those people who had

wanted to attend in order to obtain their input.

A hard copy of the Workshop Proceedings would be sent to all participants. And a list of

participantsí contact information would be sent to everyone before the Proceedings were

distributed to facilitate immediate exchanges. The Proceedings would also include several

abstracts that were not presented during the workshop.

Bowlby asked for feedback from the participants. One person wanted to know about the

possibility of working with a non-profit organization that might do fund-raising for the

Sanctuary. Bowlby and George Galasso, the Assistant Manager at OCNMS, explained that

legally, the Sanctuary was able to form a partnership with a non-profit agency, but it could not

solicit or lobby such an organization. A legal and bureaucratic process would have to be

followed. A partnership between OCNMS and a local non-profit was an excellent idea, but none

existed to date.

Sanctuary Web Site

Bowlby mentioned that the Sanctuary was in the process of developing an interactive web

site. The Sanctuary would be hiring a contractor to speed-up the process and to train staff
49

internally, in order to keep the web site up-to-date. The 1996 and 1998 Research Proceedings

would be posted electronically at this site.

GIS Clearinghouse

Also, the Sanctuary was working in collaboration with the UW and Olympic Natural

Resources Center (ONRC) to be a GIS clearinghouse for the Peninsula. The Sanctuary would

primarily be responsible for the marine aspect of the clearinghouse.

There was also a GIS metadata clearinghouse project planned that would be tied into the

web site. However, that was expected to be a long process. The technical expertise was lacking

at the Sanctuary to manage all the data, so the revised plan would be to serve as a network for

connecting interested parties with the right resources, but it would not necessarily have all the

information in-house. The Sanctuary could provide links to the various sites where researchers

would post their own data. This would also facilitate keeping the data current.

Based on the focus group reports and information exchanges during plenary discussions, a

final synthesis of recommendations (Table 7) was created to highlight information needs and

directions the Sanctuary should pursue.

The workshop concluded after Bowlby and Parrish thanked all participants for sharing

their information and recommendations and for taking time out of their busy schedules to attend.
50

LITERATURE CITED

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary. Final environmental impact statement and management plan, 2 vol.

http://www.ocnms.nos.noaa.gov/SAC/ocnmsmanagementplan.pdf

Strickland, R. 1996. Olympic Coast Marine Research. Proceedings of a Workshop, Forks,

Washington, Jan. 24-26, 1996.

http://www.ocnms.nos.noaa.gov/research/96researchproceedings.pdf
51

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the following people who were very helpful with

planning and running the workshop: Nancy Beres, Mary Sue Brancato, Lilli Ferguson, George

Galasso, Michele Malarney-Hoshlyk, Mike Murray, and Bob Steelquist. Todd Jacobs, the

Sanctuary Manager in 1998, was instrumental in the formative stages of this important endeavor.

We would like to recognize Jacobs overall guidance he provided during the two-day workshop

We would like to thank our invited speakers Don Scavia, Jerry Galt, Jim Postel, Mark

Zimmermann, Mark Wilkins Pat McCrory, Bob Paine, Pat Iampietro, Harriet Huber, Julia

Parrish, and Chris Thompson, for their excellent presentations.

We greatly appreciated the assistance of facilitators George Galasso, Mike Murray, and

Bob Steelquist. Their guidance in the break-out groups helped in discussions. Group

representatives who provided their respective group overviews are also appreciated. Also many

thanks to the researchers who prepared and shared their research abstracts.

But most of all, we would like to thank all the participants for taking two days out of their

busy schedules to provide their constructive comments and recommendations to the Sanctuaryís

research program. Thank you all.
52
53

APPENDIX

Tables
54

Table 1. Major Recommendations from the First Olympic Coast Marine Research

Workshop (Strickland 1996)

• Select representative long-lived plant and animal species for long-term monitoring

• Monitor background mortality rates of seabirds

• Assess sea otter/sea urchin interactions at Cape Flattery

• Monitor status and trends in marine mammal populations

• Conduct annual surveys of Washington coastal currents and water properties

• Conduct work on the biological effects of the Columbia River plume

• Increase understanding of ocean dynamics of Strait of Juan de Fuca, submarine canyons,

coastal promontories, and plumes from coastal estuaries

• Examine interaction of biological oceanography with benthic and intertidal communities

• Update productivity information and determine plankton distribution and abundance

• Determine spatial and temporary distribution and abundance of harmful algal blooms and

effects on marine food webs

• Monitor coastal waters to determine baseline data on water quality trends

• Establish moorings to determine both physical and biological parameters

• Distinguish natural from anthropogenic changes in water quality that my indicate

environmental changes or emerging problems

• Address management concerns for harvest-related stresses; anthropogenic contamination;

habitat alteration; affects of exotic species

• Conduct inventories of marine resources and map and create central databases

• Conduct high-resolution sea floor mapping of representative habitats

• Monitor sediment dynamics and links to community habitats

• Explore links between terrestrial and marine ecosystems, including potential watershed

effects

• Develop better baseline data for seabird populations and life histories; kelp habitat; forage

fish; and harvested shellfish

• Develop tissue archives for contaminants in marine organisms

• Develop models to integrate nearshore, oceanographic, and ecosystem scales

• Establish and maintain database on historical and archeological information; complete

inventory of archeological sites and cultural resources

• Obtain additional background on traditional knowledge as related to marine resources

• Identify and map critical habitats and areas of special interest

• Consider long-term monitoring at following sites: Tatoosh Island, Cape Alava, La Push,

Destruction Island, Kalaloch, Cape Elizabeth, and Copalis
55

Table 2. Agenda for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's Research Workshop

1998

Day One - Thursday, February 12

9 a.m. Opening remarks and housekeeping items

Ed Bowlby, Research

Coordinator for OCNMS, and

Julia Parrish, Research

Representative for Sanctuary

Advisory Council

9:15

Plenary

General comments on Sanctuary operations Todd Jacobs, OCNMS Manager,

1998

9:30 Session Comments on the bigger NOAA picture,

funding, etc.

Don Scavia, Director of NOAAís

Coastal Ocean Program

10:00 Coastal oceanography Jerry Galt, NOAA HAZMAT

10:20 Harmful algal blooms Jim Postel, UW

10:40 Coffee break

11:00 Trawl surveys and habitat types Mark Zimmermann & Mark

Wilkins, NMFS

11:20 Plenary Geological surveys Pat McCrory, USGS

11:40 Session Intertidal ecology Bob Paine, UW

12:00 Subtidal surveys Pat Iampietro, CSUM

12:20

p.m.

Lunch break No-host lunch catered at NOAA

cafeteria (see map)

1:00 Plenary Pinniped population trends Harriet Huber, NMFS

1:20 Session Seabird colonies Julia Parrish, UW

1:40 At-sea seabird distribution Chris Thompson, WDFW

2:00 Coffee break

2:15 focus

groups

Break-out into focus groups Rooms to be assigned

4:30 Bldg. 9

foyer

Poster Session Review of posters

5:30 Day 1 concludes

6:00 Azteca No-host social hour for drinks, food Azteca Restaurant, Univ. Village
56

Table 2 (cont.). Agenda for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuaryís Research

Workshop 1998

Day Two - Friday, February 13

9 a.m. Plenary Reports from focus groups

Work Break-out into different work groups

9:30 Groups

Refer to Potential Discussion

Topics

10:40 Coffee break

11:00 Group discussions continued

12:30

p.m.

Lunch break No-host lunch catered at NOAA

cafeteria (see map)

1:00

Work

Groups

Continue work group sessions

Discussions

2:30 Coffee break

2:45 -

4:00

Plenary

Session

Wrap-up session Develop consensus on discussion

list and recommendations for

research priorities
57

Table 3. Abstracts from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's Research

Workshop 1998

(1 -oral presentation; 2 -poster presentation; 3 -abstract only)

RAZOR CLAM (Siliqua patula) STOCK ASSESSMENT ON KALALOCH BEACH,

OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, WASHINGTON USING THE PUMPED AREA METHOD

(3). Dan L. Ayres and Donald D. Simons, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 48

Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563.

During the summers of 1995, 1996 and 1997 the Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife undertook the task of estimating the number of razor clams on some Olympic Peninsula,

Washington beaches. The survey area included the sandy intertidal beaches located within the

Kalaloch Ranger District of the Olympic National Park (ONP). In 1995 we surveyed the 3.0 mile

section of beach between ONP Beach Trail Two and ONP Beach Trail Three. In 1996 and 1997

we extended our survey to include a total of 4.2 miles of beach between ONP South Beach

Campground and ONP Beach Trail Three. In all three survey years we choose to use a new

razor clam stock assessment technique, the pumped area method. Using this method, clams are

removed from the sample plot by liquefying the sand with a high pressure jet of water, which

causes the clams to float to the surface so they can be gathered and counted. We assumed that

every square meter of the survey area was equally likely to be sampled. To meet this assumption,

we used a systematic random sample to select transect and sample locations within tidal

elevations of the beach. Starting at the highest elevation of the clam population we surveyed

sample plots down to the lowest elevation available for the given sample day.

In 1995 we estimated a total of 1,130,000 razor clams living within our survey area and

their average size was 101.1 mm. In 1996 we estimated a total of 1,300,000 razor clams, with an

average size of 63.6 mm. Finally, in 1997 we found a total of 4,350,000 razor clams with an

average size of 33.2 mm. We plan to continue this work during the summer of 1998.

THE RESEARCH VESSEL TATOOSH (2). Harry W. Branch, Captain, Independent

Contractor; 239 N. Cushing, Olympia, WA 98502.

The Sanctuaryís research vessel, the Tatoosh, can under ideal conditions, run at thirty

knots. Speed improves productivity and in some cases accuracy. The Tatoosh is rugged, shallow

draft, highly maneuverable and well suited to working among the rocks. DGPS navigation

provides exact positioning and the ability to readily move from waypoint to waypoint.

Although the Tatoosh is not a heavy weather boat, the skipper can use the twin outdrives

to power through waves or to brake like sea anchors. With both engines running the Tatoosh is

quite formidable. However, if an engine fails she is difficult to control. It cannot be

overemphasized that the Sanctuary is located in one of the most treacherous stretches of ocean in

the world.
58

When planning itinerary, work aboard the Tatoosh should be conducted as close to Neah

Bay as possible. Under ideal conditions the Tatoosh can make the run to Kalaloch at the southern

terminus of the sanctuary in two hours. If the seas pick up out of the north, the trip back to Neah

Bay can take considerably longer.

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF MARINE RESERVES (2). Harry W. Branch, Captain,

Independent Contractor; 239 N. Cushing, Olympia, WA 98502.

The rocky environment of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary is occupied by

rock fish and other species with sedentary post settlement life histories. Spots in such

environments that are left unfished tend to be occupied by large, older individuals. These large

fish are highly fecund, producing as much as thirty times the number of offspring as younger,

smaller fish. Large, older fish donít, over generations, produce earlier maturing, smaller

offspring as do fish managed under the size limit model.

Marine reserves have great appeal to recreational divers and value to scientists because

they are areas where fish can be observed and studied under natural conditions. It has been

difficult to evaluate the productivity of no-take zones; the urge to catch fish always seems to

precede the quest for knowledge. In a few reserves that have survived long enough, the presence

of large fish is readily apparent, as are increased catches of the same species in waters

surrounding the sanctuary.

The concept of marine reserves is gaining in popularity as their effectiveness becomes

recognized. San Juan County has instituted three no-fish zones and the Washington State

Department of Fish and Wildlife will probably follow suit with no take zones at Des Moines

Beaches, Orchard Rocks and Octopus Hole in Hood Canal and an expansion of the Edmonds

Underwater Park. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has created Wildlife

Management Areas, Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas, all variations of the

no-take concept.

Marine reserves are most attractive to a collapsed fishery because there is less pressure to

fish when there are no fish to catch. San Juan County posted a map with a box of thumb tacks

and a sign asking people to put tacks at sites where they used to catch large fish and donít any

more.

THE POTENTIAL OF EXISTING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN DOCUMENTING AND

ESTIMATING NUMBERS OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS (3). Harry W. Branch, Captain,

Independent Contractor; 239 N. Cushing, Olympia, WA 98502.

New technology allows the capture of moving images with inexpensive digital cameras

and the transfer of this information directly to computers. Image resolution is superior to analog

video technology and data comprising the images can be manipulated and analyzed. It is

theoretically possible through pattern, color and movement recognition to teach a computer to

count birds, fish or other animals. As yet, a computer program is not available to coordinate
59

digital analysis in this way and if such a system existed it would allow only six to twenty three

minutes of real time per gigabit of memory. However, digital versatility is improving and may in

the near future provide a valuable tool. Digital Video sampling and analysis could save costly

drudgery. Video sampling doesnít entail harvesting plants or animals and minimally disrupts

areas being sampled, factors that are particularly significant in reserves. Using video technology

allows verification and the accomplishment of multiple projects per survey.

JUVENILE ROCKFISHES (Sebastes) USE OF SURFACE DRIFT ALGAL/SEAGRASS

MATS AS RECRUITMENT HABITAT IN COASTAL WATERS (2). Raymond Buckley and

Larry LeClair, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA

98501-1091.

Biological and ecological investigations of drift algae/seagrass habitat in surface marine

waters of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) have been conducted during

the summer cruises of the NOAA Ship McArthur since 1995. This unusual ecosystem is

produced by detachment of nearshore algae and seagrasses from substrates by oceanographic,

environmental, and biological processes. The ecological functions of surface drift habitat are

complex; the availability, composition, distribution, and duration of the habitat are dynamic at

short temporal scales, as are the availability, density, and species composition of biota associated

with the habitat. The use of surface drift habitat by juvenile marine fishes demonstrates an

important direct link between nearshore and offshore ecosystems in the OCNMS.

Pelagic juveniles of several species of rockfishes (Sebastes) recruit to the surface drift

habitats which function as pelagic nursery and refuge areas for unknown periods. Rockfishes are a

major group of fishes, which have considerable ecological and harvest importance in OCNMS

waters. The life history and the recruitment habitat pathways for juvenile rockfishes are virtually

unknown in Washington coastal waters. Identification of juvenile rockfish to species is vital to

determining the ecological importance of drift habitats, but is problematic due to similarities among

many species in meristics and gross morphology, and to the delayed development of many

morphological characteristics until sub-adult stages.

The 1995 investigations identified two species of juvenile rockfish (tiger rockfish, S.

nigrocinctus, and splitnose rockfish, S. diploproa), and possibly a third species of juvenile rockfish,

using the drift habitats. Gross morphological characteristics of the juvenile rockfishes collected in

1996 and 1997 found two, or possibly four, additional species associated with the drift habitats (in

order of most likely identification: widow rockfish, S. entomelas, yellowtail rockfish, S. flavidus,

bocaccio, S. paucispinus, and black rockfish, S. melanops). Pilot study identification of the juvenile

rockfishes collected in 1997 using 30 allozyme loci as revealed with horizontal starch gel

electrophoresis on muscle tissue, eliminated widow rockfish and bocaccio from the possible species.

Further examinations of liver tissue indicated that the juveniles are most likely black rockfish,

although examination of all of the juveniles using electrophoresis is needed to confirm the

identifications. This is the first documentation of pelagic juvenile black rockfish recruiting to

surface drift habitat in the substrate associated phase of recruitment pathways. Juvenile black

rockfish were known to recruit to eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat in coastal waters.
60

PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION OF HUMPBACK, GRAY, AND KILLER WHALES

OFF WASHINGTON AND SOUTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA (3). John Calambokidis and

Dave Ellifrit. Cascadia Research, 2181/2 W Fourth Ave., Olympia, WA 98501.

Cascadia Research conducted studies on humpback whales and other large cetaceans

(gray and killer whales) off northern Washington and southern British Columbia with the support

of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary from 1995 to 1997. Primary objectives of the

research included to: 1) obtain sighting and individual identification photographs of humpback

whales to determine abundance and movements, 2) obtain sighting and identification

photographs of gray whales for use in evaluating the residence status of these animals, and 3)

obtain identification photographs of killer whales to determine which pods and communities

utilize these waters. Surveys off the Washington coast were conducted primarily using

Cascadiaís 5.3 m rigid-hull inflatable and in association with the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary's cruises using the NOAA Ship McArthur.

About 70 unique humpback whales have been identified during the research and these have been

compared to other regions of the North Pacific including the more than 900 individuals identified

off Oregon and Washington. These have revealed that this area is used primarily by a small

population of animals that utilizes a fairly small feeding area. More than half the animals

identified in 1997 had been seen in a previous year. Only limited interchange has been found

with feeding areas off California and northern British Columbia and Alaska. Approximately 150

gray whales have been identified off the northern Washington coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. A

summer-regular population of gray whales returns annually to this area to feed and ranges along

the coast of Washington and British Columbia. Identification of killer whales has revealed that

these waters are used by all three recognized forms of killer whales (resident, transient, and

offshore types).

SEAFLOOR MAPPING IN MARINE SANCTUARIES: THE MONTEREY BAY NMS

EXAMPLE (2). Stephen L. Eittreim and Michael A. Fisher, US Geological Survey, MS-999,

345 Middlefield Rd., Bldg 2 rm. 2239 Menlo Park, CA 94025.

The US Geological Survey has investigated the seafloor geology and active geologic

processes within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Two principal goals

of the MBNMS project are to map in detail the continental shelf at better than 1-m pixel

resolution, and to determine the modes of sediment transport in the Sanctuary. Side-scan-sonar

data have been collected at an initial resolution of 12.5 cm and final mosaic map resolution of 40

cm. A total of over 1000 square kilometers of the continental shelf in the Monterey Bay area

have been mapped to date. A primary use of the seafloor maps is to identify, categorize, and

understand the many and diverse biologic habitats of the Sanctuary. We believe that accurate

information about the seafloor environments, home to the varied benthic communities of the

Sanctuary, is vital for understanding ecosystem functioning and health. Newly developed stateof-the-art seafloor imaging systems are ideal for this task.
61

The inner shelf of northern Monterey Bay, out to about 40-m water depth, contains a

modern wave-cut platform of outcropping bedrock composed of similar strata as exposed in the

adjacent coastal cliffs. The offshore outcrops contain joints and offset by faults that are clearly

delineated in the side-scan imagery. In addition, high-backscatter coarse-grain sand patches that

exhibit 1-m wavelength ripples, overprint the outcropping strata of the inner shelf.

We have acquired a total of over 400 box-cores on the shelf, using the EPA-formulated

EMAP random sample pattern. The gross patterns of sediment type show a mid-shelf mudbelt,

bordered inshore by a belt of active sands and outboard by outer-shelf relict sands near the shelf

break. Initial Pb-210 profiles from these box-cores have given consistent vertical gradients that

indicate modern sedimentation rates on the order of 2 mm/year.

The seafloor maps and other results from this project will be available on our web sites as

well as distributed via CD-ROM in 1999.

TRENDS IN PINNIPED POPULATIONS IN THE OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE

SANCTUARY (1). Patrick J. Gearin, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS/NOAA,

7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98115, Steven J. Jeffries, Marine Mammal

Investigations, WDFW, 7801 Phillips Road, SW, Tacoma, WA 98498, and Harriet R. Huber1,

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS/NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA

98115.

Five species of pinnipeds use the waters of the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary: harbor seals, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, northern fur seals, and northern

elephant seals. Only harbor seals pup and breed in Sanctuary waters, the other species use the

Sanctuary seasonally. Harbor seals are present year round on the Washington coast; up to 800

pups are born along the coast north of Grays Harbor between late May and late June. Numbers

have been increasing about 5 % annually since harbor seals were protected in 1972, but in recent

years, the population may be leveling off (4,000 to 5,000 seals are present during peak counts).

Steller sea lions are present year round, with lowest numbers present May, June and July when

they move to breeding areas in Oregon and British Columbia. Numbers of Stellers are stable in

Washington and Oregon, although listed as threatened south of the Gulf of Alaska. Peak counts

of up to 1,000 Stellers have been counted within the Sanctuary during migration just before and

just after the breeding season. California sea lions are present along the Washington coast during

their migration between the southern breeding rookeries in California and Baja and winter

feeding areas in British Columbia. Nearly all California sea lions in Washington state are adult

and subadult males. Females and juveniles remain near the breeding grounds in California and

Mexico. Over 1,000 California sea lions were seen at Bodelteh Island alone in December 1997,

normally peak counts within the sanctuary are 500 to 600 sea lions. A few elephant seals

regularly haul out on the eastern end of Destruction Island and occasionally may also be seen on

mainland beaches along the Olympic Peninsula. Adult female and juvenile elephant seals from

California feed March to June and August to October along the continental shelf. Northern fur

seals from Alaska and California also feed along the continental shelf from February to April

with peak numbers of around 86,000 off the coast of Washington in April.
62

UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK IN THE OLYMPIC COAST

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY (2). Carl C. Harrington III, Coastal Maritime

Archaeology Resources, 24019 104th Place West, Edmonds, WA 98020.

Since before the age of European exploration, the Straight of Juan de Fuca served as a

natural route to the interior northwest. Vessels have traversed these waters in exploration,

governmental activity, natural resource exploitation, and commerce. Factors such as complex

geography, quickly changing weather, as well as heavy vessel traffic, have lead to hundreds of

vessels being lost in these waters. Some were driven ashore in gales, others burned to the

waterline. Some sank after collision, and still others were lost without a trace far off shore.

Coastal Maritime Archaeology Resources (CMAR), a group of volunteers with extensive

experience working in the Channel Islands National Park, has assisted the Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) in fulfilling its mission to inventory, evaluate, and manage

the underwater cultural resources within the sanctuary. Guided by NOAA Archaeologist Bruce

Terrell, CMAR members have conducted archival research, assisted in a remote sensing

program, and have participated in week-long field reconnaissance surveys in 1996 and 1997.

The diving programs included checking the 1995 remote sensing survey targets,

reconnaissance, mapping, and evaluation of the ship General Meigs, and exploration and

mapping of artifact material reported by local divers. Reports prepared by CMAR assist NOAA

in managing the resources and planning future research. CMAR has been very successful at

locating the remote sensing targets detected in the 1995 survey. Although none of the targets

proved to be historical resources, the dives confirmed the utility of remote sensing and diver

reconnaissance. Guided by archival research, further side-scan sonar and magnetometer surveys

should provide promising targets for divers to investigate in the future. Already known

resources such as the General Meigs require continued survey and monitoring. Regular visits

provide the opportunity to survey the changing condition of a vessel and to examine any new

material revealed by changing ground or water conditions. Recently lost vessels are monitored

to assist in under standing artifact deposition processes.

From this established relationship with the OCNMS, CMAR looks forward to

cooperating further with the OCNMS in providing expertise with underwater cultural resources.

The data obtained from CMAR's research will contribute to understanding the maritime history

of the region. As part of the inventory and data collection aspects, future work in the OCNMS

could include an archaeological field school, which CMAR would assist organizing.

Additionally, future partnerships with local schools and colleges would increase community

participation.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION (USGS) SEA OTTER

PROJECT IN WASHINGTON (2). Ronald J. Jameson and Mark Stafford, USGS Biological

Resources Div., 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR 97333; Bernie Krausse (Biological Resources

Division, USGS)*, and Steve Jeffries , Washington Dept. Fish & Wildl., Marine Mammal
63

Investigations, 7801 Phillips Dr. SW, Tacoma, WA 98498 (*Currently with Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife).

Population Trends Sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) were extirpated by the fur trade in

Washington by the early 20th century. However, in 1969 and 1970, 59 sea otters were

translocated from Alaska to the Olympic coast of Washington, 29 near Pt. Grenville in 1969, and

30 near La Push in 1970. In 1969, 16 (55%) of the translocated sea otters were found dead

within 2 weeks of release. The first intensive survey of the population was completed in 1977

when biologists surveyed the coast from Destruction Island (DI) to Cape Flattery. Nineteen

otters were observed during the survey, and the range extended from DI to Cape Alava. Surveys

were conducted biannually until 1989, but since then they have been conducted annually in

cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. In 1997, the inshore area

from Pt. Grenville to Bullman Creek east of Neah Bay was surveyed and yielded 502 sea otters.

The rate of increase since 1977 has been about 18%-1, and the range has expanded from about 60

km in 1977 to over 160 km in 1997. The monitoring portion of this project is expected to be

ongoing.

Population Biology In 1994 the Washington sea otter project expanded to include

population biology and behavior. Objectives were to obtain information on movements,

reproduction, and foraging behavior of radio-instrumented sea otters. Since 1994, 69 sea otters

have been captured; 54 have been implanted with radio transmitters. Over 2300 relocation

records have been obtained and preliminary analysis indicates individual sea otters have centers

of activity connected by travel corridors through which they move fairly rapidly. Adult males

tend to use larger segments of coastline than adult females, but long distance movements have

been noted for both sex/age classes. Reproductive data have yet to be analyzed. Data on

foraging and food habits have been separated into two segments: south of Cape Flattery and east

of the ìCapeî. Nearly 12000 foraging records have been obtained, and preliminary analysis

suggests the prey base south of Cape Flattery is similar to that found in areas where sea otters

have been established for a long period of time. In contrast, the area near and east of Cape

Flattery is an area recently reoccupied by sea otters. East of Cape Flattery red sea urchins

(Strongylocentrotus franciscanus ) and clams account for, respectively, 60% and 17% of the prey

taken by number. South of Cape Flattery, where sea otters have been established for several

decades, red sea urchins account for <1% of the prey taken. This portion of the project is

scheduled to continue to the year 2000.

BENTHIC SEA OTTER HABITAT SURVEYS BETWEEN CAPE FLATTERY AND THE

SEKIU RIVER (3). Michael Kenner, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz Field Stn., A316 Earth &

Marine Sci. Bldg., Santa Cruz, CA 95064; Ronald J. Jameson , USGS Biological Resources

Div., 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR 97333; and Ed Bowlby, Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary, 138 W. 1st St., Port Angeles, WA 98362.

In order to document changes to the rocky-bottom subtidal due to sea otter (Enhydra

lutris kenyoni) foraging, the Biological Resources Division, USGS, in cooperation with the

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, sampled 40 subtidal sites between Waatch Point and

the Sekiu River in 1996 and 1997. Sites were located randomly from a chart and were sampled
64

at depths ranging from 6.5-10 m. At each site, kelps were counted, percent cover of fleshy red

algae, erect coralline algae, and encrusting invertebrates was estimated, and the biomass of

grazing echinoid and gastropod invertebrates was measured in 20 (0.25m2) quadrats. In 1996, 14

sites were sampled between Tatoosh Island and Neah Bay and 12 sites were sampled between

Neah Bay and the Sekiu River. In 1997 eight of the sites west of Neah Bay and four of the sites

east of Neah Bay were resampled. Sites, which had the highest urchin densities in each area,

were selected. In addition, eight new sites between Tatoosh Island and Neah Bay and six new

sites on the outer coast between Waatch Point and Tatoosh Island were added.

In general, most sites were dominated by kelps and other fleshy algae. The most

common grazers sampled were assorted limpets and small snails (Calliostoma and Homolapoma

ssp.) but these did not have an obvious impact on the fleshy algae. Only five sites were found to

have urchin densities greater than one per quadrat (all species combined) and three of these were

at Tatoosh Island. These Tatoosh sites were the only ones to have patches where kelps had been

obviously overgrazed. Of the twelve sites resampled, eight had lower urchin counts in 1997 than

the previous year. The two Tatoosh sites, which were sampled both years, showed declines but

were still among the three sites with the highest urchin densities and biomass. Data on sea otter

distribution and habitat use suggests the en masse movement of a large group to east of Cape

Flattery initially by-passed Tatoosh Island. However, recent observations indicates sea otter use

of the water surrounding the island is increasing. We plan to re-sample these sites again in 1998

and 1999.

QUANTITATIVE VIDEO-BASED ASSESSMENT OF SEA OTTER BENTHIC PREY

COMMUNITIES ALONG THE WASHINGTON STATE OLYMPIC COAST: 1995

RESURVEY OF 1985 SAMPLING STATIONS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A

QUANTITATIVE VIDEO BENTHIC ARCHIVE FOR ADDITIONAL OLYMPIC COAST

STATIONS (1). Rikk G. Kvitek and Pat J. Iampietro1

, California State University Monterey

Bay, Earth System Science & Policy, 100 Campus Center, Seaside, CA 93955-8001.

It has been conclusively shown for Alaskan habitats, that where sea otters (Enhydra

lutris), occur, herbivores are rare and plants are abundant, whereas when sea otters are absent

herbivores are relatively common and kelp plants are rare. Here, we take advantage of the rapid

range expansion of the sea otters introduced into Washington State during 1969-70 to test this

paradigm for a more southerly sea otter population. Rather than kelps, however, we focus on

changes in understory foliose red and coralline algae, species with different levels of palatability

to echinoids preyed upon by sea otters. Epifaunal benthic communities were sampled at eight

sites inside and outside the sea otter range along the Olympic Peninsula Coast in August 1987.

Using quantitative video sampling techniques, these same locations were resampled in June 1995

following the dramatic increase in sea otter numbers at sites within their 1987 range, and the

colonization by otters of all previously sampled sites outside their 1987 range.

Significant decreases in prey abundance and biomass (primarily sea urchins and sea

cucumbers) were found at all resampled sites. High numbers of large sea urchins were only

found in the highly exposed, current swept sites at Cape Flattery and Tatoosh Island. These two

sites are within the 1995 sea otter range, and were sampled only in 1995. Palatable algal
65

abundance (foliose red algae) increased significantly where measured at sites recently occupied

by sea otters, but less palatable coralline algae decreased in abundance at the site experiencing

the most dramatic decline in sea urchin prey. The results from this natural experiment outside of

Alaska support the general paradigm that sea otter occupancy favors enhanced abundance of

palatable plants as a consequence of reduced herbivorous sea otter prey abundance. Our results

also suggest that high water current areas may serve as refugia from sea otter predation for some

time following sea otter range expansion. The use of video sampling techniques allowed rapid

acquisition of a large number of samples, while also establishing an imagery archive for use in

further scientific and outreach endeavors.

TRIBAL JOURNEYS (2). Cathy Lear and Mary Williams. Hoh Indian Tribe, 2464 Lower Hoh

Road, Forks, WA 98331.

During the summer of 1997, tribes from the Olympic coast, Puget Sound, and Canada

paddled from Campbel River, B.C., across the Strait of Juan de Fuca, to Neah Bay and through

the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Members of the Hoh Tribe carved a six person

canoe and paddled it from Campbell River to their village at the mouth of the Hoh River.

Through photos, models, maps and videos, this poster presentation chronicles the Tribe's

journey. A cedar log becomes a canoe; the canoe is paddled from Vancouver Island, across the

Strait, through the Sanctuary, and home to Hoh River.

SIDESCAN SONAR AND SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEYS ALONG THE OLYMPIC

COAST, WASHINGTON (2). P. A. McCrory, D. C. Twichell, Jr, S. C. Wolf, T. F. O'Brien, D.

S. Foster, S. E. Harrison*, V. A. Cross, and K. F. Parolski, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 977, 345

Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (*currently at Seafloor Surveys international, Seattle,

WA).

Geophysical surveys conducted by the US Geological Survey onboard the NOAA Ship

McArthur and the WDFW Vessel Corliss in 1997 add a new component to the Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary's ongoing efforts to characterize biological productivity and physical

habitats within the recently formed marine sanctuary off the coast of Washington. The main

objective of the sonar and seismic surveys was to obtain reconnaissance data on the distribution

of bedrock outcrop and sediment on the seafloor. These results will complement existing

dataóprimarily surface-sample dataóand together will be used to create a map of seafloor

texture and morphology. These data also provide baseline information critical to the long-term

monitoring of benthic habitats. In addition, the US Geological Survey is using these data to

study coastal erosion within the Columbia River littoral cell and to characterize seismic hazards

associated with nearshore faults.

We collected geophysical data along 400 km of trackline in water depths ranging from

100 to 20 m with the R/V McArthur. With the R/V Corliss, we collected data along 100 km of

trackline within the Sanctuary in water depths ranging from 40 to 10 m. In addition to shipboard

navigation systems, USGS DGPS (differential global positioning system) navigation was used on
66

both cruises to locate tracklines with an accuracy of 5-10 m. A 3.5-kHz acoustic source recorded

seismic reflection data with a resolution of 1-2 m in the upper few meters of strata below the sea

floor. A lower frequency seismic reflection (boomer) system recorded data with a resolution of

3-6 m in the upper 100-150 m of strata below the sea floor. A 100-kHz sidescan sonar system

collected backscatter data with a resolution of 0.5-1 m using a 400-m swath width on the R/V

McArthur and a 200-m swath width on the R/V Corliss. The USGS also collected seafloor

sediment samples in 70 to 30 m water depth during an east-west CTD transect offshore of Cape

Elizabeth using a Shipek grab sampler. Samples from 50- and 70-m water depth recovered silty

sand consistent with the facies recorded on the sidescan images. The shallower grab samples

recovered rounded gravels with oxide coatings. These gravels are presumably relict stream

gravels deposited during the last sea-level low stand.

These data document the offshore location of a fault zone which trends southwest across

the shelf and comes onshore north of Grays Harbor. Twenty km offshore of Grays Harbor the

fault vertically displaces the seafloor 12 m over a 1.7-km-wide zone. Here, the fault and an

associated broad anticline form the southern end of a 20-km-wide structural high which extends

northward on the inner shelf from Grays Harbor to the Raft River (as far north as data were

collected). This high encompasses a region of intensely folded and faulted strata that display

spectacular curved bedding traces on the sidescan images where rock crops out in relief. Some

of these outcrops had reflective "clouds" in the water column above them that may represent

concentrations of kelp or fish and other animal life. Seaward from about 50-m water depth, the

bedrock high was commonly covered with rippled sediment. Nearshore, it was either barren of

sediment or crossed by small channels filled with both rippled and apparently smooth sediment.

The bedrock high disrupts the Holocene sediment distribution and modern sediment transport in

this area. Columbia River sediment, which has been transported NW along the shelf during the

Holocene, reaches 20 m in thickness on the middle shelf seaward of the structural high, is absent

on top of it, and forms a thin discontinuous cover on its shoreward side. Sediment discharged

from coastal streams such as the Copalis River is deposited on the inner shelf, shoreward of the

high. Thus, the bedrock high serves as a barrier separating the inner shelf and middle shelf

sediment provinces and contributes to starved beach conditions north of the Copalis River.

MONITOR WHAT? (1) R. T. Paine. Department of Zoology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle,

WA 98195.

Large numbers of plant and animal species coexist on rocky shores along Washingtonís

coast. Their distribution and abundance patterns vary due to both extrinsic (El NiÒo, winter

storms, oil spills) and intrinsic (changes in predators, variation in recruitment patterns) factors.

For Tatoosh Island, I document the long-term variability in mussel populations (28 years),

barnacle recruitment (20 years), and the upper limit of an algal population (19 years). In

addition, I describe variation in sea urchin populations and its consequence for local algal

productivity, in light of sea otter recovery. The managerís dilemma is that most populations vary

in space and time, variation is best established by long-term monitoring, not all species can be

monitored, so hard choices must be made. In this context snapshot surveys are useless and can

be misleading when it is important to understand the variationís cause.
67

ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PORPOISES AND OTHER MARINE MAMMALS

IN THE INLAND WATERS OF WASHINGTON AND BRITISH COLUMBIA (3). Steve

Osmek and John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research, 218 1/2 West 4th Ave., Olympia,

Washington 98501; and Jeff L. Laake, NOAAís National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska

Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle,

Washington 98115.

Harbor porpoise, harbor seals, and Dallís porpoise of Washington State and British

Columbia inside waters are incidentally entangled in gillnets set for salmon. To determine the

possible effect of these takes on populations and to mitigate mortality, information on their

abundance and distribution is needed. Line-transect surveys were flown in a twin-engine highwing aircraft during summer 1996. These surveys covered 6,263 km of the Strait of Juan de

Fuca, the San Juan and Gulf Islands, and the Strait of Georgia. A total of 1,505 sightings of nine

marine mammal species were seen with harbor seals, harbor porpoise, California sea lions, and

Dallís porpoise being most frequent. Total abundance of harbor porpoise, the primary study

species was divided as follows: 3,132 in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 2,361 in the San Juan/Gulf

Islands, and 911 in the Strait of Georgia. These estimates were generally higher than those

obtained in some of these areas in surveys conducted in 1991. During 1996, the encounter rates

of seals and Dallís were greatest in the shallow and deep water depths, respectively. Harbor

porpoise sighting rates by depth was unclear, except for the San Juan/Gulf Islands where they

generally preferred deeper waters. Analyzing sighting rates by 352 km2

 geographic cells showed

sighting rates for all three species were highest around the boundary waters of the San Juan/Gulf

Islands regions. Closing specific areas to gillnet fisheries may not be an effective method of

reducing take levels because these species range widely and are present at all depths and

distances from shore during summer.

ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF VARIABILITY IN RECRUITMENT AND GROWTH

IN MARINE POPULATIONS (3). Cathy Pfister, University of Chicago, Dept. of Ecology and

Evolution, 1101 E. 57th St., Chicago, IL 60637.

Understanding how populations will respond to changes in the environment requires

information about the how environmental variability affects ecologically important traits. My

research on the performance of individuals among a variety of species allows me to explore the

range of variation in the recruitment and growth of marine organisms, including some of the

correlates of that variation. With the permission of the Makah Tribal Nation, nearly a decade of

research on Tatoosh Island and nearby mainland sites has revealed the range of performance in

several marine species. My work with marine intertidal fishes (sculpins: Cottidae) shows that

nearshore recruitment events can be correlated with temperature and upwelling data from

offshore buoys. Although annual variation in the timing of the recruitment event can greatly

alter when fishes reach reproductive size, population changes are also very sensitive to

alterations in the survivorship of adult fishes, underscoring the importance of integrating the

effects of environmental change over the entire life cycle. Long-term demographic data

collection for intertidal kelps (Alaria nana, Hedophyllum sessile, Pleurophycus gardneri) also

reveal interannual variability in recruitment, especially for the shorter-lived Alaria.
68

Additionally, differences among individuals in size and growth are persistent and lead to

variability in the estimates of productivity and detrital production for intertidal areas. Since we

can also expect that variability in algal productivity and species composition will be altered by

the reinvasion of sea otters and the commercial exploitation of sea urchins, I quantify both the

changes in drift algae and how drift algae contribute to productivity in coastal areas. As a

complement to these field studies, I am exploring how marine organisms should be best

described quantitatively when there is such significant variability among individuals and among

key events (e.g. recruitment) in a population. By comparing simple population models with

more complex simulation models, I am asking when we will need more complicated population

models to characterize variable marine populations in the OCNMS.

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS IN THE OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE

SANCTUARY (1). James R. Postel1, Rita A. Horner, and Barbara M. Hickey, University of

Washington, School of Oceanography, Box 357940, Seattle, WA 98195-7940.

The Pacific Northwest coastal region is embedded in a large scale (~1000 km wide)

Eastern Boundary System known as the California Current System (CCS). The Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) extends from shore to beyond the shelf break from north

of Grays Harbor to the Strait of Juan de Fuca; its waters are heavily influenced by the CCS.

Both the prevailing winds and currents in nearshore regions of the Pacific Northwest undergo a

strong seasonal variation, such that within any season, winds or currents or both can reverse from

the seasonal mean direction for periods of several days or more.

Because of the strong wind forcing and narrow shelves, upwelling and downwelling

advective processes play a dominant role in characterizing biological production in nearshore

regions of the OCNMS, which is a highly productive and biologically diverse area especially

from spring through late fall. Blooms of harmful algal species (HABs) occur all along the

Washington coast including within the OCNMS at various times of year. At least 20 potential

HAB species have been identified in the area, usually as a fraction of the total phytoplankton

community, but their occurrences present significant problems to the region. These species

include dinoflagellates in the genera Alexandrium, Dinophysis, Ceratium, and Prorocentrum;

diatoms in the genera Pseudo-nitzschia and Chaetoceros; and the raphidophyte flagellate

Heterosigma akashiwo. The most pressing public health and economic problems are related to

Pseudo-nitzschia spp. that cause domoic acid poisoning, and Alexandrium spp. that are the

source of paralytic shellfish poisoning.

In 1996 and 1997 we participated in sanctuary-sponsored cruises aboard the R/V

McArthur. Data were collected to examine the hydrographic features, current flow and

distribution of HABs over the geographic extent of the sanctuary. High concentrations of

Pseudo-nitzschia were present each year, but not the same species, nor at the same locations in

the two years. In 1996 maximum Pseudo-nitzschia numbers occurred in a narrow band about 5-

10 km from shore in the northern part of OCNMS from Portage Head to La Push, with very few

cells from Kalaloch south to Copalis Beach. In 1997 high concentrations occurred nearshore at

Cape Alava, but they were more abundant farther offshore near the northwest boundary of the

sanctuary; appreciable concentrations occurred in the area south of Kalaloch as well.
69

Alexandrium spp. were seen in very low concentrations (usually < 10,000 cells/liter) both years,

but were observed in more locations in 1997 than in 1996.

Before these sanctuary cruises no consistent species data from off the coast existed, and

we were limited to collecting samples from the beaches. With the advent of the

OCNMS/McArthur cruises we have begun collecting long term data on HABs off the

Washington coast as well as the necessary hydrographic and meteorological observations to help

us understand their dynamics.

COUPLING THE ECOLOGY OF NEARSHORE HABITATS WITH COASTAL OCEAN

PROCESSES (3). G. Carl Schoch, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, OR 97331, and Megan N. Dethier, Friday Harbor Labs and Dept. of

Zoology, University of Washington, Friday Harbor, WA 98250.

Processes linking oceanographic events (physical) and nearshore ecological patterns

(biological) are poorly understood because of the difficult logistics of gathering oceanographic

data in shallow waters of exposed coastlines. A potential key linkage is that between oceanic

nutrient fluxes, coastal and nearshore plankton productivity, and the survival and growth of

organisms on the shorelines. Upwelling (the flow of cold water from the depths to replace

surface water advected away from the coast by winds) and the drainage of numerous rivers into

the sea replenish the nutrients that drive inshore primary production. Data from a long-term

intertidal monitoring program within the Sanctuary demonstrate that there is unexpected spatial

variation in the abundance and biomass of sandy shore animals among physically similar areas,

and that these spatial patterns are consistent from year to year. Preliminary oceanographic data

on water temperatures, chlorophyll content, and nutrient levels along the coastline suggest that

much of this variation in sand-beach secondary productivity correlates closely with levels of

oceanic chlorophyll. The chlorophyll and nutrients appear to be controlled by a combination of

upwelling events (affected by seasonal wind patterns and local bathymetry, e.g. canyons) and

localized retention of nutrients in some areas with broad, flat sand beaches and subtidal zones

(e.g., from the Kalaloch area southwards). We are currently seeking an El NiÒo 'signal' in the

biota of these sand beach communities; because the worms and crustaceans in high-energy sand

beaches have short life spans and are probably food-limited, alteration of inshore conditions

caused by the current El NiÒo may be visible in their numbers. Understanding of such oceanicnearshore linkages is critical if we are to scale up our understanding of local nearshore processes

to larger areas. Many current issues, e.g. the effects of climate change or oil spills, are concerned

with processes operating on scales of the landscape or region, but most of our knowledge base is

comparatively fine-scale (the normal scale of ecological investigations). A goal of current and

future research is to link physical shoreline and oceanographic databases with the extensive

biotic databases for this coastline (rocky as well as sandy shores). An integrated coastal GIS

database would help analyze the functional linkages between not only shoreline organisms and

oceanographic productivity, but also other 'data layers' such as locations of seabird colonies and

fishing grounds. Such a multi-disciplinary effort would result in an unusually unified picture of

an important coastline.
70

SEASONAL PATTERNS OF DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF SEABIRDS WITHIN

THE OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY, AND CORRELATES WITH

HABITAT PARAMETERS (1). Christopher W. Thompson1, Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek, WA 98019; Julia K. Parrish, Department of

Zoology, Box 351800, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Kirsten Brennan and

Monique Wilson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,

Olympia, WA 98501.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in collaboration with other

organizations, has conducted at-sea surveys along the Strait of Juan de Fuca and outer coast of

Washington, including the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) since the

summer of 1995 in order to document the winter and summer distribution and abundance of

seabirds in this area. We do not yet have sufficient data to indicate significant population

changes in species for which we have collected data, though with continued seasonal monitoring,

we hope to be able to track population trends in the future; also, estimates of population sizes and

densities of seabird species from previous studies are not readily comparable to ours because

these studies collected data by methods that are significantly different from our own. As a result,

in cooperation with other seabird researchers and government agencies in California and Oregon,

one of our main goals is to collaboratively develop standard methodologies for monitoring

various seabirds to facilitate comparisons of data among studies in different geographic areas and

for many years in the future. Within OCNMS waters, the relative and absolute abundances of

various species changes dramatically between seasons; most notably, most locally breeding

alcids decrease dramatically or disappear altogether. Although WDFW collects data on all

seabird species, including waterfowl (but excluding gulls), our data analyses have focused

mainly on issues regarding Marbled Murrelets, Brachyramphus marmoratus (hereafter

murrelets), and Common Murres, Uria aalge (hereafter murres), because of recent declines in

these species due to deforestation, oil spills, gill net bycatch, and El NiÒo - Southern Oscillation

(ENSO) events. In addition to survey methodology issues, we have focused mainly on issues

regarding habitat preferences and daily/seasonal patterns of movement of these species. Our data

indicate that murrelets are found almost exclusively within one kilometer of shore; their density

is highest close to shore (200-400 meters), at water depths usually less than 15 meters, in areas

with kelp, and at mouths of harbors, bays and rivers; surprisingly, they are distributed very

similarly throughout Washington waters in both summer and winter, but their overall densities

are much lower in winter than summer. In addition, they are more abundant within sanctuary

waters and along the Strait of Juan de Fuca than along the central and southern Washington

coast. In contrast, murres show a distinct preference for waters 500 - 1500 meters from shore

independent of water depth. During the breeding season, the density of murres around Tatoosh

Island, the largest murre breeding colony in Washington, decreases exponentially with radial

distance to background levels at about 5 km. Beginning in mid-July, reproductively mature

murres from Oregon begin to disperse northward into Washington, reaching OCNMS waters by

early August. Historical data indicate that this migration may be earlier in some years.
71

SPECIES INTERACTIONS AND THE EFFECTS OF EXTINCTION ON NATURAL

ECOSYSTEMS (3). Tim Wootton, Department of Ecology & Evolution, University of Chicago,

1101 East 57th St., Chicago, IL 60637.

Despite tremendous public concern, the consequences of species extinction and other

environmental impacts on complex natural ecosystems are poorly understood. Since 1984, I

have been exploring experimentally the effects of species extinction in the intertidal communities

of Tatoosh Island, Washington. Both experimental manipulations of shorebirds and marine

invertebrates, and observations of bird communities following re-establishment of birds of prey,

have repeatedly revealed complex consequences of extinctions, termed "indirect effects", which

radiate through the ecosystem. Obtaining these results has also resulted in the development of

new approaches, such as structural equation modeling, for detecting indirect effects. I am now

exploring approaches to predict the complex consequences of extinction and other environmental

impacts. A central focus is the analysis of ecological dynamics through the use of time-series

data in combination with Markov/Cellular Automaton models and Structural Equation Modeling

on dynamical data. If I can empirically apply and experimentally validate these approaches, they

will be valuable tools for managers to predict the consequences of environmental impacts and

will also identify new monitoring schemes to detect changes in ecosystem function. To develop

the appropriate long-term data base for applying and evaluating these techniques, in 1993 I

initiated censuses and experimental manipulations on permanent plots at thirty intertidal sites and

eleven transects on Tatoosh. Aside from their direct ties to the modeling approaches, these data,

in conjunction with several long-term bird monitoring programs that I began in the early 1980's,

will serve as valuable baseline information for detecting environmental impacts on the Olympic

Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). Other ongoing projects include 1) basic population

biology of, and likely harvesting impacts on, the goose barnacle Pollicipes polymerus, 2)

experimental investigations of the importance of genetic and demographic factors on extinction

risk in the sea palm (Postelsia palmaeformis), an exploited species of algae, 3) life history,

feeding ecology, and population dynamics of glaucous-winged gulls, American black

oystercatchers, and peregrine falcons, 4) size-dependent interactions among mussels and other

intertidal invertebrates, 5) role of bird predation and indirect effects on the evolution of intertidal

invertebrates, 6) consequences of nutrient variation in intertidal ecosystems, and 7) organization

and energy base of food webs in rivers flowing into OCNMS and adjacent waters.

UNTRAWLABLE AREAS, SEDIMENTS, AND SPECIES ASSEMBLAGES IN THE NMFS

TRIENNIAL WEST COAST BOTTOM TRAWL SURVEY OF CONTINENTAL SHELF

GROUNDFISH RESOURCES (1). Mark Zimmermann, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA 98115.

The NMFS conducts a bottom trawl groundfish assessment survey along the US west

coast every three years. This survey provides fishery independent data for the assessment and

management of several commercially important groundfish species harvested in coastal waters.

Using a stratified- random survey design, we distribute 600 sampling sites along 1700 km of

coast between the depths of 55 and 500 m. Our surveys are conducted in the summer, starting in

southern California and ending in southern British Columbia.
72

There are several places too rocky or steep to allow bottom trawling- these are places

where we have torn up our nets trying to obtain a sample or do not attempt to fish. I've been

using a GIS to determine the extent of these untrawlable places and to estimate the fish

populations we might be missing inside them. I'm also interested in the variety of habitats where

we can fish with our nets and have been constructing a sediment map as a means of describing it.

When these first two projects are complete, I'll conduct a size-related species assemblage

analysis, and describe each assemblage in terms of its preferred depth, temperature, latitude, and

habitat type. After determining where these assemblages occur, I will re-examine the utility of

our current stratification system.
73

Table 4. List of acronyms used in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary's

Research Workshop 1998.

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

AOP Annual Operating Plan

ASP Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

BC British Columbia, Canada

BRD Biological Resources Division, USGS

CENR Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources

CSUMB California State University at Monterey Bay

CTD Conductivity, Temperature, Depth

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DSP Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning

ECOHAB Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

ENSO El NiÒo Southern Oscillation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

GIS Geographic Information System

GLOBEC Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics

GPS Global Positioning System

HAB Harmful Algal Bloom

HAZMAT NOAAís Hazardous Materials branch

IOC International Oceanographic Commission

IOS Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sydney, British Columbia

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

NDBC National Data Buoy Center, NOAA

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

NMML National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NOAA

NOAANational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NODC National Oceanographic Data Commission, NOAA

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NSF National Science Foundation

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS

NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
74

OCNMS Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA

ONP Olympic National Park

ONRC Olympic Natural Resources Center, UW

OSU Oregon State University

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, NOAA

PNCERS Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystem Research Study

PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program

PSG Pacific Seabird Group

PSP Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning

RDA Resource Damage Assessment

RFP Request for Proposals

RHIB Rigid hull inflatable boat

SAC Sanctuary Advisory Council

SRD Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA

SRP Sanctuary Research Plan

US United States

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USN U.S. Navy

UBC University of British Columbia

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USN U.S. Navy

UVIC University of Victoria, British Columbia

UW University of Washington

WDE Washington Department of Ecology

WDFW Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

WDH Washington Department of Health

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

WWU Western Washington University
75

Table 5. Participant list from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuaryís Research

Workshop 1998.

Nick Adams

National Marine Fisheries Service

2725 Montlake Blvd. E.

Seattle,WA 98112

(206) 860-3302

nicolaus.adams@noaa.gov

Roland Anderson

Seattle Aquarium

1483 Alaskan Way Pier 59

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 386-4346

roland.anderson@ci.seattle.wa.us

Dan Ayres * Abstract only

WA Department of Fish and Wildlife

48 Devonshire Road

Montesano, WA 98563

(360) 249-4628 ext. 209

ayresdla@dfw.wa.gov

Megan Bailiff

Washington Sea Grant Program

University of Washington

3716 Brooklyn Ave. NE

Seattle, WA 98195

(206) 685-1108

mbailiff@u.washington.edu

William Barnett

PSMFC/ Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

474 6th Street

Astoria, OR 94103

(503) 325-1734

bbarnett@hotmail.com

Attended in 1998 as ñ Biologist, WA

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Nancy Beres

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3601 C Street, Suite 1030

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 786-3888

Nancy_Beres@fws.gov

Attended in 1998 as - Administrative

AssistantOlympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary

Ed Bowlby

Research Coordinator

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

138 West First Street

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 457-6622 ext. 23

Ed.Bowlby@noaa.gov

Mary Sue Brancato

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

138 West First Street

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 457-6622 ext. 27

Mary.Sue.Brancato@noaa.gov

Attended in 1998 as -Toxicologist, Parametrix,

Inc.

Harry Branch

Paramar

239 N. Cushing

Olympia, WA 98502

(360) 943-8508

HWBRANCH@aol.com

Attended in 1998 as -Olympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary Staff

Marilyn Bridgan

Lakes High School

3002 N. Viewmont

Tacoma, WA 98407-1560
76

Ray Buckley

WDFW Ecological Investigations

600 Capitol Way N.

Olympia, WA 98501-1091

(360) 902-2828

rm8820@u.washington.edu

John Calambokidis * Abstract only

Cascadia Research

218 1/2 W. Fourth Avenue

Olympia, WA 98501

(360) 943-7325

Calambokidis@CascadiaResearch.org

Jim Castle

NOAA Biological Consultant

1261 Leland Valley Road

Quilcene, WA 98376

Cindy Chaffee

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

510 Desmond Rd., SE, Suite 102

Lacey, WA 98503

(360) 783-9565

cindy.chaffee@fws.gov

Sharon Christopherson

NOAA/HAZMAT

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6829

christopherson@hazmat.noaa.gov

Andrea Copping

Washington Sea Grant

University of Washington

3716 Brooklyn Ave. NE

Seattle, WA 98105

(206) 543-6600

acopping@u.washington.edu

Paul Crawford

2619 S. Race Street

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 457-0231

mpcrawford@aol.com

Attended in 1998 as ñ Natural Resource

Manager, Olympic National Park

Dan Doty

WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

MS43135

600 Capital Way N.

Olympia, WA 98501

(360) 902-2577

dotydcd@dfw.wa.gov

Steve Eittreim

US Geological Service

MS. 99, Bldg 2 Room 2239

345 Middlefield Rd.

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 329-5272

eittreim@octopus.wr.usgs.gov

Lilli Ferguson

Coastal Program Analyst

Energy and Ocean Resources Unit

CA Coastal Commission

45 Fremont St. Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94105

(206) 526-4293

lferguson@coastal.ca.gov

Attended in 1998 as ñOlympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary Staff

George Galasso

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

138 West First Street

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 457-6622 ext. 26

George.Galasso@noaa.gov
77

Jerry Galt

NOAA/WASC

Route:N/ORCA33 Bin C15700

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6317

Jerry.Galt@noaa.gov

Patrick Gearin * Abstract only

NOAA/NMFS

National Marine Mammal Laboratory

7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Bldg. 4

Seattle, WA 98115

(206) 526-4034

Pat.Gearin@noaa.gov

Steve Gittings

NOAA Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

SSMC4, N/ORM2

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Steve.Gittings@noaa.gov

Andrea Goldsmith

614 Lake Washington Blvd. E.

Seattle, WA 98112

Merrill Gosho

National Marine Mammal Lab

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4023

Merrill.Gosho@noaa.gov

Angie Greig

National Marine Fisheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4236

Denise Gruccio

NOAA/HAZMAT

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

Linda Hanson

Food Safety and Shellfish Programs

WA Department of Health

7171 Cleanwater Lane Bldg. 4

PO Box 47824

Olympia, WA 98504-7824

(360) 236-3314

linda.hanson@doh.wa.gov

Carl Harrington III

Coastal Maritime Archaeology Resources

24019 104th Place West

Edmonds, WA 98020

(206) 685-3151

nailgun@u.washington.edu

Christine Hatfield

Northwest Fisheries Science Center ECD

2725 Montlake Blvd. E.

Seattle, WA 98112

(206) 860-3392

Jennifer Hickey

20034 Palatine Ave. N.

Shoreline, WA 98133

Rebecca Hoff

NOAA/NOS/ORCA

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6276

Rebecca.Hoff@noaa.gov

Harriet Huber

NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6433

huber@afsc.noaa.gov
78

Pat Iampietro

Research Associate

Earth Systems Science and Policy

CA State University Monterey Bay

100 Campus Center

Seaside, CA 93955

(831) 582-4214

Pat_Iampietro@monterey.edu

Jim Ingraham

National Marine Fisheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4241

Todd Jacobs

NOAA Special Projects Office

735 State Street, Suite 305

Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3351

(805) 963-3758

Todd.Jacobs@noaa.gov

Attended in 1998 as ñSanctuary Manager

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

Ron Jameson

USGS/BRD Western Ecological Center

200 S.W. 35th

Corvallis, OR 97333

(541) 754-4388

ronj@mail.cor.epa.gov

Jerry Joyce

11740 Exeter Ave. NE

Seattle, WA 98125

Michael Kenner * Abstract only

University of CA Santa Cruz Field Station

A316 Earth and Marine Science Bldg.

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

(408) 459-3244

mkenner@cats.ucsc.edu

Katie Krueger

Quileute Natural Resources

401 Main Street P.O. Box 187

La Push, WA 98350

(360) 374-5695 ext. 30

kkrueger@olypen.com

Rikk Kvitek * Abstract only

Earth System Science and Policy

CA State University - Monterey Bay

100 Campus Center

Seaside, CA 93955-8001

(831) 582-3529

rikk_kvitek@monterey.edu

Cathy Lear

Salmon Recovery Planner, Clallam County

PO Box 863

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 417-2361

clear@co.clallam.wa.us

Attended in 1998 as - Hoh Tribe Fisheries

Biologist

Peter Leon

NOS Pacific Coast Program

7600 Sand Point Way NE Bldg. 3

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4583

Peter.Leon@noaa.gov

Roberto Llanso

Ambient Monitoring Section

WA Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47710

Olympia, WA 98504

(360) 407-6992

rlla461@ecy.wa.gov

Michele Malarney-Hoshlyk

13734 Riviera Place NE

Seattle, WA 98125

(206) 362-7933

missbeastly@home.com

Attended in 1998 as -Olympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary Staff
79

Linda Maxson

Director of Development and Community

Relations

College of Ocean and Fishery Science

University of Washington

Box 355350

Seattle, WA 98195-5350

(206) 221-6808

lmaxson@u.washington.edu

Attended in 1998 as ñNOAA HAZMAT

Personnel

Pat McCrory

USGS

MS 977 345 Middlefield Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 329-5677

pmccrory@isdmnl.wr.usgs.gov

Anita McMillan

WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

P.O. Box 1686

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 457-4601

McmilAKM@dfw.wa.gov

Tim McNulty

168 Lost Mountain Lane

Sequim, WA 98382

(360) 681-2480

mcmorgan@olypen.com

Alan Mearns

NOAA/HAZMAT

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6336

John Miller

NOAA Restoration Center Northwest

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4362

Marianne Molchan

SMART Forum

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6869

mmolchan@wasc.noaa.gov

David Molenar

Fisheries Biologist

Quinault Indian Nation

P.O. Box 189

Taholah, WA 98587-0189

(360) 276-82153 ext. 27

Mike Murray

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

113 Harbor Way

Santa Barbara, CA 93109-2315

(805) 966-71073 ext. 64

michael.murray@noaa.gov

Attended in 1998 as ñOlympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary Staff

Steve Osmek

7 Riggs Drive P.O. Box 63

Hannawa, NY 13647

(315) 267-2288

sdosmek@gisco.net

Attended in 1998 as ñResearcher, Cascadia

Research Collective

Robert Paine

Professor Emeritus

University of Washington

Department of Zoology Box 351800

Seattle, WA 98195-1800

(206) 543-1649

painert@u.washington.edu

Attended in 1998 as ñProfessor
80

Julia Parrish

Assistant Professor

University of Washington

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and

Department of Zoology

Box 351800

Seattle, WA 98195-1800

(206) 221-5787

jparrish@u.washington.edu

Dan Penttila

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

1702 Anderson Road #4

Mt. Vernon, WA 98273

(360) 428-1011

Cathy Pfister * Abstract only

Assistant Professor

University of Chicago

1101 E. 57th Street

Chicago, IL 60637

(773) 834-0071

c-pfister@uchicago.edu

James Postel

Department of Oceanography

University of Washington

P.O. Box 357940

Seattle, WA 98195-7940

(206) 543-4485

postel@ocean.washington.edu

Debbie Preston

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

6730 Martin Way E.

Olympia, WA 98506

360 374-5501

dpreston@nwifc.wa.gov

Don Scavia

Chief Scientist/Director

NOAA/ NOS Nat'l Centers for Coastal Ocean

Science

Room 13508 1305 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3060

Don.Scavia@noaa.gov

Attended in 1998 as ñActing Chief Scientist

NOAA National Ocean Sciences

Carl Schoch * Abstract only

Research Coordinator

Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research

Reserve

202 W. Pioneer Avenue

Homer, AK 99603

(907) 235-4799 ext. 2

Abstract in 1998 as ñPhD Candidate, College

of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

June Schumack

Quileute Natural Resources

P.O. Box 187

La Push, WA 98350

(360) 374-5696

John Sims

Quinault Indian Nation

P.O. Box 189

Taholah, WA 98587

(360) 962-2051

jsims@quinault.org

Bob Steelquist

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

138 West 1st Street

Port Angeles, WA 98362

(360) 457-6622 ext. 25

Robert.Steelquist@noaa.gov

John Stein

National Marine Fisheries Service

2725 Montlake Blvd. East

Seattle, WA 98112-2097

(206) 860-3330

John.E.Stein@noaa.gov
81

Sid Stillwaugh

National Oceanographic Data Center

Liaison Office

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-6263

Sidney.Stillwaugh@noaa.gov

Larry Tellinghuiser

Washington State Public Health Lab

1610 N.E. 150th Street

Seattle, WA 98155

(206) 361-2800

Chris Thompson

Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife

16018 Mill Creek Blvd.

Mill Creek, WA 98012

(425) 775-1311 ext. 109

thompcwt@dfw.wa.gov

Vera Trainer

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

2725 Montlake Blvd. E.

Seattle, WA 98112

(206) 860-6788

Vera.L.Trainer@noaa.gov

John Wekell

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

2725 Montlake Blvd. E.

Seattle, WA 98112

(206) 860-3388

John.C.Wekell@noaa.gov

Mark Wilkins

National Marine Fisheries

Service/RACE Bin C15700 2067

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4104

Mark.Wilkins@noaa.gov

Mary Williams

Hoh Tribe

2464 Lower Hoh Road

Forks, WA 98331

(360) 374-6582

Monique Wilson

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

600 Capitol Way North

Olympia, WA 98501

Andrea Woodward

USGS NW Biological Science Center

6505 N.E. 65th Street

Seattle, WA 98115-5016

(206) 526-6282 ext. 332

andrea_woodward@nbs.gov

Tim Wootton * Abstract only

Assistant Professor

University of Chicago

Department of Ecology and Evolution

1101 E 57th Street

Chicago, IL 60637

(773) 702-2773

twootton@uchacago.edu

John Wullschleger

Division of Water Resources

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 250

Fort Collins, CO 80525

(970) 225-3572

Attended in 1998 as ñ Fish Biologist,

Olympic National Park

Mark Zimmermann

National Marine Fisheries Service

AK Fisheries Science Center/RACE

7600 Sand Point Way NE Bldg. 4

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

(206) 526-4119

Mark.Zimmermann@noaa.gov
82

Table 6. Group discussion list provided to participants of the Olympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary's Research Workshop 1998.

Name ________________________________ Focus Group 

Affiliation _____________________________

GROUP DISCUSSION LIST

Resource Issue

Rank 1-5

(1 = highest, 5 = lowest

priority)

Identify Partnerships,

Ongoing Work, and

How Collaboration

OCNMS Your

Organization

Could Leverage

Funding

select representative long-lived plant and animal

species for long-term monitoring

monitor background mortality rates of seabirds

assess sea otter - sea urchin interactions at Cape

Flattery

monitor status and trends in marine mammal

populations

conduct a complete annual survey of Washington

coastal currents and water properties since none

have been done at any location off the

Washington coast

conduct work on the biological effects of the

Columbia River plume

increase understanding of effects of Strait of

Juan de Fuca, submarine canyons, coastal

promontories, and plumes from coastal estuaries

examine interaction of biological oceanography

with benthic and intertidal communities

update productivity information and determine

plankton distribution and abundance

determine spatial and temporary distribution and

abundance of harmful algal blooms and effects

on marine food webs

monitor coastal waters to determine baseline data

on water quality trends; establish moorings to

determine both physical and biological

parameters

distinguish natural from anthropogenic changes

in water quality that my indicate environmental

changes or emerging problems
83

management concerns for harvest-related

stresses; anthropogenic contamination; habitat

alteration; affects of exotic species

conduct inventories of marine resources and map

and create central databases

conduct high-resolution sea floor mapping of

representative habitats

monitor sediment dynamics and links to

community habitats

explore links between terrestrial and marine

ecosystems, including potential for watershed

effects

develop better baseline data for seabird

populations and life histories; kelp habitat;

forage fish; and harvested shellfish

develop tissue archives for contaminants in

marine organisms

develop models to integrate nearshore,

oceanographic, and ecosystem scales

establish and maintain database on historical and

archeological information; complete inventory of

archeological sites and cultural resources

obtain additional background on traditional

knowledge as related to marine resources

identify and map critical habitats and areas of

special interest

some suggested long-term monitoring sites:

Tatoosh Island, Cape Alava, La Push,

Destruction Island, Kalaloch, Cape Elizabeth,

and Copalis

Other:
84

Table 7. Final synthesis of recommendations from the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary's Research Workshop 1998.

Nearshore Communities

Conduct Inventories

Distribution/Abundance

All Life History Stages

Determine Data Gaps

Create Central Databases

Identify Processes That Influences Community Changes

Physical Conditions/Oceanography

Water Chemistry

Biological/Ecological Interactions

Plankton Investigations

Conceptual Models

Identify/Map Critical Habitat

Geomorphology

Sensitive Life History Stages

Links to Limiting Habitat

Nearshore Fish and Kelp Habitats

Fish and Shellfish Biology

Harmful Algal Blooms

Link Offshore Surveys to Nearshore Sampling

Determine Spatial/temporal Distribution & Abundance

Determine Vector Process to Shellfish

Long-term Monitoring

Public Health

Resource Harvest

Ecologically Relevant and/or Long-lived Species

Mapping/Database Creation

Inventory Resources

Create Centralized Databases

Identify/map Critical Habitats

Note Physical Properties

Increase Research Effort

Management Concerns

Harvest-related Stresses

Habitat Alteration

Contaminants

Exotic Species.

Physical and Biological Oceanography

Surveys/Monitoring

Collect Year-round Currents & Water Properties

Collect Baseline Water Quality
85

Establish Moorings and Remote Sensing

Watershed-Marine Linkages

Upland Inputs

Nearshore Responses

Interactions with Local Currents

Harmful Algal Blooms

Map

Use Remote Sensing

Determine Ecosystem Effects

Determine Spatial/Temporal Distributions

Inventory/Map/Database Creation

Resources and Habitats in GIS

Conduct High-resolution Seafloor Mapping.

Seabirds and Marine Mammals

Long-term Monitoring

Status and Trends of Populations

Consider Long-lived Species

Consider Ecologically Relevant Species

Habitat-based

Trophically-based

Consider Sensitive/Threatened Species

Consider Indicator Species

Relevant Ecological Components

Habitat

Food

Background Mortality Trends in Beached Bird Surveys & Mammal Strandings

Map Critical Habitat

Inventories in GIS

Relative Anthropogenic Effects

Biological Hot Spots.

Cultural and Historical Resources

Inventory/Database Creation

Map/inventory Sites

Maintain Databases

Archive Material

Long-term Monitoring

Determine Natural vs. Anthropogenic Impacts

Identify Protection and Management Needs

Promote Partnerships

Survey Traditional Knowledge

Promote Education and Training Programs.