Research and Monitoring

Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 1

Directory of Estuarine Nearshore Marine Assessment Projects1

Orca Pass
Cherry Point
Rapid Shoreline Inventory
Salmon and Steelhead
NWSC Nearshore Habitat
Nearshore Ecosystem
Rocky Habitat and Fishes
Washington State ShoreZone
Submerged Vegetation
San Juan County Forage Fish

San Juan Shoreline
Critical Spawning Habitat
Whatcom County Shoreline
Marine Bird Monitoring
Coastal Atlas
Caged Mussel
Puget Sound Herring
DFW Spawning
Shellfish Fecal Monitoring
Development of Matrices

Orca Pass International Stewardship Area

Description. Orca Pass refers to our area of interest. This trans-boundary area was selected by using mapped physical characteristics, marine resources, and constituent interests to identify the borders of an ecological system in need of protection due to declining or endangered natural resources. The area of interest was also considered in meetings with government officials on both sides of the border to determine how this citizens' initiative could complement and enhance related efforts. On-going governmental efforts include the Islands Trust/San Juan County marine protection initiative and the National Marine Conservation Area proposed by Parks Canada for southern Georgia Strait. The Orca Pass initiative is unique in its cross-border approach, and in the fact that it is a citizen-led effort. With more than twenty citizen-based organizations coming together to sponsor this project, it marks a departure from traditional mechanisms of resource management.

Within this larger project we are trying to identify specific "core" sites for special protection that might allow the larger ecosystem to function despite ongoing human impacts. This portion of the project utilizes known species distributions, ecological information, and appropriate algorithms to identify an efficient network of sites intended to protect those species identified as being at greatest risk. These "core" sites are likely candidates for designation as marine protected areas, marine reserves, marine parks, or protection using other tools, while we hope to encourage enhanced environmental stewardship throughout our general area of interest. The critical, and in some ways unique, components of our approach are that it places habitats and natural resources on both sides of the border into a common framework. In this way, Orca Pass can be seen as a regional effort that is attempting to use an ecosystem approach for targeting conservation decisions, rather than basing them on single species management goals or politically relevant but biologically meaningless geographic constraints.

Objectives. There are two primary drivers:

Despite the political boundary, the "trans-boundary" waters between British Columbia (BC) and Washington State really make up a single ecosystem. They are home to the same marine creatures – from Orca whales to oystercatchers – and are affected by the same types and sources of pollutants and habitat and population disruptions.
This effort was prompted due to several alarming reports of steep declines in populations of multiple marine species. Prominent among those species that led to this project are the southern resident Orca whales which are currently being petitioned for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing, and seven Puget Sound fish species that were recently reviewed for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Also of concern are a suite of birds, marine mammals, and habitats that are considered to be in steep decline and are listed as "priority," endangered or threatened by Washington State and British Columbia.

Geographic Scope. The site identification is taking place throughout our area of interest. This area is bordered on the south by the northern and western edge of the San Juan Archipelago (including the north shores of Orcas and San Juan Islands, and the western shores of San Juan and portions of Lopez Island). The area extends north through the southern Gulf Islands (to the southern edge of Galliano Island) in the north, and includes portions of the Saanich Peninsula to the west. The specific results of this project are discrete locations identified in this area of interest, and those results are not applicable sound-wide.

However, the methodology and criteria used for identifying and selecting sites for protection and for promulgating appropriate management are applicable. We are using an algorithm developed by Hugh Possingham and Ian Ball to place habitat and species occurrence data into a common framework for making decisions about how most efficiently to protect species groups of interest. This framework allows us to set species and habitat specific representation goals and enables us to define what represents "viable (or sustainable) occurrences." More information about this tool and its uses are available at: <http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/overview.html>

Subdivisions. Our study area is not being subdivided because we believe we have captured a functional unit that should be considered as a whole despite its crossing an international border. Our analysis differentiates, at its finest scale, sites at a 25 hectare resolution (500X500 meter grid across our area of interest/study area). We are currently exploring the use of larger resolution analyses to capture wide ranging species and habitats that depend on conditions and spatial arrangements not captured in 25 hectare planning units.

Variables. The primary variables being addressed are species occurrence as identified through surveys and expert consultation; species life stage information as identified through surveys; and habitat as identified in either the nearshore (shoreline data taken from ShoreZone) or marine environment (developed using bathymetry and other data sources).

Our analysis currently uses historic information only for the purpose of identifying species representation goals in our project. These goals are developed using expert consultation and reports such as Geographical Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and Data Source Sheets (Miller and Borton 1980).

Data Sources.
In the U.S.
Species data were collected from Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Natural Heritage program, and the Whale museum. Much of this data is widely available, while some was developed with partners from consultation with individual species managers. Habitat data was developed primarily using WDNR's ShoreZone data set and bathymetry data collected from WDFW. Some species and habitat data was developed through expert interviews and through expert workshops where resource managers and scientists from throughout the state were brought together to discuss data with a particular focus on this project.
In Canada
Species data was collected from federal and provincial agencies including Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO) for data that is publicly available. Some species data was collected from expert workshops and from Canadian partner organizations that collected data through their own workshops.

Products. Products include a discrete map describing the results of our analyses that shows sites picked using our methods to achieve targeted goals for sustaining species and habitats of interest. This map will be integrated into a brief report (10-20 pages) describing the overall methods, findings, and proposed actions. Information about this study will be available through our web presence <www.pugetsound.org>.

Products will be produced for three target audiences, including: 1) scientists and resource stewards; 2) targeted public constituencies who might encourage protection of marine resources, and 3) the general public and decision makers.

Timelines. Project initiated in late 1999. We have identified some preliminary sites within the area of interest that we are researching further to examine their suitability for protection. The overall methodology for identifying sites is continuing to be revised as we include more information about invertebrate species and habitat classification. We expect to have tentative results from this analysis in Fall 2001 and to produce detailed results and publications in early 2002. A February, 2002 publication entitled, Orca Pass International Stewardship Area -- The Wave of the Future, is now available at the following URL: <http://www.pugetsound.org/publications/
external/orca_pass_wave_of_future.pdf>

Funding. So far this project has cost $80,000.
Funding Sources include: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Primary actors include:
Kathy Fletcher, People for Puget Sound
Laurie McBride, Georgia Strait Alliance
Jacques White, People for Puget Sound
Howard Breen, Georgia Strait Alliance
Mike Sato, People for Puget Sound
Peter Ronald, Georgia Strait Alliance
Philip Bloch, People for Puget Sound
Kevin Ranker, Friends of the San Juans

The chorus of project supporters includes more than 20 non-profit organizations in Canada and in the U.S., and through consultation this project has included individuals from most resource agencies on both sides of the border, from First Nations and Tribes, and from several universities in the area.

Regional Risk Assessment for Cherry Point

Description. Three phases:

Herring (June to October 2000).
Identifying alternative resident species (October 2000 to April 2001).
Performing risk assessment for alternative species (tentative pending funding: June 2001 to June 2002).

Objectives. The objective of the first phase was to retain a focus on herring as the species of interest, but rather than concentrating on the potential risks associated with a particular facility [as the Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment did with the Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO) pier extension] to look at the risks to the species of interest on a regional scale.

The objectives of the second phase are to identify resident species (since herring are present only part of the year, they may not be a good indicator species to assess impacts on organisms that spend most or all of their life cycle at Cherry Point), and to revise the results of the first phase based on additional information that has been collected.

The objective of the third phase will be to develop and test risk hypotheses for the resident species.

The driver is Department of Natural Resource's (DNR) need to start managing aquatic resources on a regional, rather than a case-by-case, project-by-project basis. We think we will have a better chance of effectively managing state resources and contributing to the protection of endangered species if we start working on a regional basis.

Geographic Scope. Geographic scope of the current project includes the following areas, split up into "risk regions": Alden Bank, Semiahmoo-Birch Pt.-N. Birch Bay, S. Birch Bay-Pt. Whitehorn-Cherry Point, Cherry Point-Sandy Point-N. Lummi Bay, S. Lummi Bay-Hale Passage, Pt Roberts.

One of the goals is to build staff expertise so that we can apply the regional risk assessment methodology to other areas of the Sound as the need and opportunity arise.

Variables. The method involves identifying sources (location of potential stressors), habitat (location of potential receptors), and impacts (location of potential effects) on the organisms of concern, applying ranking and weighting factors to enable comparison of different kinds of risk, and developing testable hypotheses.

Data Sources. Contractors are reviewing a great deal of existing literature and drawing heavily on data from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). We anticipate generating some new data to fill gaps in the literature record.

Products. Products will include/have included: formal written reports to DNR, presentations to DNR staff, management, Cherry Point Technical Workgroup, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) audience.

Timelines. The first phase was completed October 13, 2000 as scheduled. The second phase will be substantively complete by June 30, 2001. The timeline for the third phase will be determined in part by the amount of funding available, which will not be known until the end of the legislative session. We would like to complete the third phase in 12 - 18 months (Jun - Dec. 2002) after funding levels are identified.

Funding. Phase 1 and 2 funded by internal DNR funds and by in-kind contribution from the investigators. Phase 3 would be funded via a request in the 2001-03 biennial budget.

Names. Dr. Wayne Landis, Ms. April Markiewicz, Ms. Emily Hart-Hayes – Western Washington University, Dr. Bruce Duncan, US EPA Region X.

Rapid Shoreline Inventory (P4PS program)

Description. The Rapid Shoreline Inventory (RSI) recruits, trains, and deploys a team of volunteers to gather data on a select set of shoreline at an extreme low tide. This data (mostly physical) is taken on 150-foot sections of beach, thereby providing a look at the beach that is much more detailed than ShoreZone. The data looks at both the nearshore and adjacent upland -- we know of no other system that does -- and can be used to target areas for conservation and/or restoration.

Objectives. In general, the object is to discover relations between adjacent land use and the health of the nearshore. In specific, the goal is to identify areas as high priority for conservation and/or restoration.

Geographic Scope. We are working sound-wide, but not restricted from working with partners in British Columbia (BC). As the database grows, it will get more interesting sound-wide, both in terms of the geography covered and in terms of having enough data with which to draw larger conclusions.

Subdivisions. We are using other data sets to target our more geographically specific data gathering based on 150-foot sections of beach (about the size of a house lot). A typical survey this year is five to eight miles.

The analysis that does the targeting will be conducted for all of Puget Sound. We are hoping to develop this into a multivariate statistical model. The spatial resolution of the analysis is 1 to 12,000. Data form to be provided.

Data Sources. We use all available large georeferenced data sources, mostly ShoreZone, other Department of Natural Resources (DNR) like eelgrass and bull kelp, and several Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) like forage fish spawning and herring holdings. Plus, of course, those developed through the project.

Products. We produce sample maps that display data x or data y with an elevation map in the background (we provide these to the local jurisdiction and funder). We are currently working on a new web display. The data is available to the public. The audience is broad, from local, state, and federal agencies, to activists and academics.

Timelines. The timing is dependent on daytime low tides, which generally means five to ten days a month from May to August. The time-line is also dependent on the length of the survey. Even a one-mile survey should take at least five months, though quicker is possible if there is a good reason. Here is a sample schedule:

Month one, target the RSI.
Month two, gain permission to access the beach.
Month three, recruit and train volunteers.
Month four, gather the data.
Month five, process and distribute the data.

Additional and more up-to-date information on the The Rapid Shoreline Inventory is available at <http://www.pugetsound.org/RSI/default.html>.

Funding. Projects planned for 2001 are funded by local jurisdictions. We are working up standard cost estimates.

Names. The Rapid Shoreline Inventory (RSI) was piloted by People for Puget Sound in 2000 with the National Parks Service on San Juan Island and Friends of the San Juans, and with ReSources and the Whatcom Marine Resource Committee in Whatcom County.
People for Puget Sound staff who work on RSI:
Jacques White
Tom Dean
Phil Bloch
Sarah Lord

Salmon and Steelhead Inventory and Assessment Program

Description. Salmon and Steelhead Inventory and Assessment Program (SSHIAP): A partnership-based information system that characterizes freshwater and estuary habitat conditions and distributions of salmonid stocks in Washington State at the 1:24,000 scale. Data on habitat are drawn from GIS coverages, aerial photos, field surveys, existing databases, historical records, and the expertise of tribal, state, and other biologists.

Objectives. To make sound scientific data for Washington's salmon recovery efforts available to local watershed groups, state and county agencies, and others. Computer-generated maps will allow people to view salmon conditions over large areas, or to find information on a single stream, tributary, or estuary to give resource managers information to prioritize restoration projects.

Geographic Scope. State of Washington marine shoreline and estuaries. Outcomes of this project will be applicable sound-wide, when complete.

Subdivisions. Study area(s) are individual estuaries in Puget Sound (for example Nisqually Estuary) and on the coast (for example Willapa Bay). Nearshore habitat delineation will follow the "Shorezone" data mapping method of DNR. Geographic units are the Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA's). Spatial resolution is 1:24,000.

Variables. Physical and structural features, water chemistry, energy and dynamic features, vegetation, animals, habitat disturbance and change. Probably others to follow. Historical data used will be U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey(s), dated back to mid-late 19th century.

Data Sources. Department of Natural Resources (DNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of Energy (DOE), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), tribal and county governments, University of Washington, Washington Conservation Corps (WCC), People for Puget Sound, and so forth.

Products. Products include GIS maps of historic and current extent of estuaries, with overlays of variables (see variables above) and links to other map databases, that is DNR's Shorezone system, and links to an Access database. The data will focus on the habitat needs of Pacific Salmon and is well suited for salmon production modeling. The intended audiences are local watershed groups, state agencies, tribes, and others working to restore lost salmon habitat. Distribution will be from the SSHIAP site within the WDFW website, and direct response to data requests.

Timelines. SSHIAP estuary work started in August 2000 and is ongoing. Additional and more up-to-date information is available at <http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/sshiap/>.

Funding. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board is funding the SSHIAP project through June 2001. Funding proposals have been submitted for the next biennium.

Names. Project lead: David H. Johnson, WDFW, johnsdhj@dfw.wa.gov
Estuary/nearshore: Joseph M. Jauquet, WDFW, joe.jauquet@wadnr.gov

NWSC Nearshore Habitat Inventory and Evaluation

Description. The project will consist of five phases: 1) Preparation of nearshore habitat maps and draft criteria; 2) Technical review of nearshore habitat data; 3) Outreach to Marine Resource Councils (MRCs), lead entities, and counties to present maps and refine criteria; 4) Development of final criteria; 5) Reworking of maps to show priority areas for habitat restoration and preservation. The scope of this contract includes phases 1, 4, and 5. Separate contracts or other arrangements are under consideration for phases 2 and 3.

Objectives. This short-term project will organize and analyze existing information on nearshore habitats that support marine resources in the Northwest Straits. The results of this project will: 1) assist MRCs in identifying high priority areas for habitat restoration or increased levels of conservation; 2) identify gaps in nearshore habitat information and point towards the efficient collection of that information; 3) assist the Northwest Straits Commission (NWSC) and MRCs in meeting their Benchmarks for Performance; and 4) will be designed to interact with longer-term data collection efforts in the Northwest Straits and adjacent marine areas.

Geographic Scope. Marine shoreline of the seven northwestern counties of the state (Clallam, Jefferson, San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Island Counties).

Products. GIS that synthesizes geospatial data sets that describe the nearshore habitats. Maps and data files that show nearshore habitats. List of criteria that can be used to set priorities for habitat restoration and preservation. Examples of these criteria might include physical attributes that make for desirable restoration sites, such as hydrologic connectivity, possibility of replanting overhanging vegetation, and so forth; other criteria might be of a more human-related nature, such as ownership of the property, availability of watershed protection on adjacent property, and so forth. The project final report is available at <http://www.pugetsound.org/articles/2002-01_nwsc_nearshore.pdf>.

Names. Tom Cowan, Northwest Straits Commission

Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration General Investigation

Description. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration General Investigation. This project is intended to assess the quantity and quality of the nearshore habitat in Puget Sound with the purpose of identifying regions and sites for habitat restoration and enhanced levels of protection.

Objectives.

Develop an effective coalition of public, private and Tribal interests to accomplish habitat protection and restoration on a sound-wide basis.
Understand the functions and values of the nearshore habitats as an integral step to protecting and restoring the environment of Puget Sound.
Identify a list of habitat restoration projects for early action that can be implemented under appropriate funding sources.
Develop plans that will facilitate access to funding sources at the federal, state, and local levels for nearshore habitat restoration and protection.
Involve and serve the habitat evaluation and restoration needs of the local sponsors, regional authorities, and citizens.

Geographic Scope. Puget Sound, including the Straits to the Canadian border.

Subdivisions. Not at this time – it is possible that portions of Puget Sound will be identified as critical to the overall health of the ecosystem and targeted as a result.

Variables. Both historical (Pre-European settlement) and current conditions will be addressed.

Data Sources. They will be developed through the project.

Products. GIS maps, and accompanying documents with descriptions. Intended audience is anyone and everyone interested in Puget Sound.

Timelines. We are currently developing a Project Management Plan and scope for the project, which will formally be undertaken (start date) after a local sponsor signs a cost sharing agreement with the Corps. This is likely to take place in late summer 2001. We anticipate a 5-10 year project. The schedule is flexible. The official project website is available through the following URL: <http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/>.

Funding. Federal funding will be provided for 50 percent of the total project costs during the Feasibility Phase, which will probably take five years. This phase entails collecting the available information, identifying data gaps and needed studies, and conducting those studies to fill the gaps. After a programmatic EIS is written for the project, we go into a Design Phase for identified projects to be constructed, and then the Construction Phase.

Names. Currently, the Corps of Engineers is spearheading the project. We are attempting to partner with a local sponsor, but this sponsor has yet to be finalized. Once they are identified and agree to cost share with us, they will be co-leads in the project.

Video-Assessment of Rocky Habitat and Fishes

Description. Official Title: Video-Acoustic Assessment of Rocky Habitat and Fishes in Puget Sound. The project is primarily a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in-house attempt to quantify the amount of rocky habitat within the interior marine waters of the State of Washington. The current focus of the project is on the nearshore waters from 0 mean lower low water (MLLW) to -40 meters MLLW.

Objectives. The primary "driver" of the project is to improve the management of rocky habitat fishes in Puget Sound. By quantifying and mapping rocky habitat in Puget Sound we can improve our rockfish and lingcod population assessments by designing surveys that sample only those habitats likely to be occupied by these species.

Geographic Scope. The interior marine waters of Washington State east of Cape Flattery. The outcomes of this project are applicable sound-wide.

Subdivisions. The overall study area has been sub-divided based on WDFW Groundfish Management Regions (GMR's). Within each GMR, the area is further sub-divided on the basis of perceived or known habitat quality as follows: 1) no rock habitat present; 2) some or potential rocky habitat; 3) rock habitat present.

The geographic units and spatial resolution of the project have varied over time, but currently are measured in square nautical miles and or hectares.

Variables. Variables to be addressed include substrate type, level of relief and or slope, habitat complexity, depth, floral and faunal cover.

Because the GMR surveys are repeated over time, the database will be historical with a starting date of 1993.

Data Sources. Underwater video and SCUBA surveys.

Products. Annual state and federal reports, WDFW technical reports, refereed publications, CD ROM database. Intended for agency staff and scientific forums.

Timeline. Ongoing, indefinite (based on staff and budget limitations). Surveys of one or multiple GMR's are generally conducted from July to October on an annual basis.

Funding. State funding. Approximately $200,000/year.

Names. Bob Pacunski, Wayne Palsson – Washington Department Of Fish and Wildlife

Washington State ShoreZone Inventory

Description. The project inventoried Washington State's saltwater shorelines statewide between 1994 and 2000. The resulting GIS data set describes physical and biological littoral features.

Objectives. The objective of the inventory project was to characterize shoreline habitats on a landscape scale as part of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). Physical and biological components of habitat were described (see list below). Because it provides a landscape context for nearshore habitat patterns, the data set is useful to researchers and planners for a variety of projects.

Geographic Scope. All of Washington State's saltwater shorelines, approximately 3067 miles.

Subdivisions. We conducted a synoptic inventory, so the study area can be partitioned in a variety of ways. The shoreline was divided into shore units based on physical characteristics. Average unit length is approximately 0.5 miles. Scale = 1:24,000.

Variables. Below is a summary of features described (see the project documentation for a complete list):

Vegetation (for example, eelgrass, kelp, surfgrass, green algae, Sargassum)
Geomorphic form
Geomorphic material (Substrate type, such as boulder, cobble, pebble, sand)
Wave exposure
Sediment source and abundance
Shoreline modification (for example, bulkheads, piers, docks, slips)
Riparian overhang
Oil residence index
Shoreline type (British Columbia shoreline type, Dethier classification, and NRDA classification).

Data Sources. Aerial video imagery collected from a helicopter with simultaneous voice commentary by a geomorphologist and a biologist.

Products. GIS data was released on CD. Reports and papers on spatial trends in nearshore habitats are being produced for scientific and resource management audiences. In addition, the following URL provides a link to additional information on the Washington State ShoreZone Inventory project: <http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/research/>.

Timeline. The inventory is complete. There is no current plan for future sampling.

Funding. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) funding through Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). Project cost for collection, analysis, and data release was approximately $500,000 (includes contract funds and in-house costs).

Names. Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources (Betty Bookheim, Helen Berry, Amy Sewell, Tom Mumford)
Coastal and Ocean Resources (John Harper)

Submerged Vegetation Monitoring

Description. The focus of this project is to design and implement a monitoring program that will assess the trends of abundance, distribution, and health of subtidal eelgrass (Zostera marina) and other marine vegetation in Puget Sound.

Objectives. The primary driver is to use eelgrass abundance as one nearshore indicator of health for the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). The project will be implemented in three phases. Phase 1: Monitor broad scale submerged vegetation (eelgrass) trends in distribution and abundance in Puget Sound at sampling sites. Phase 1 has four main goals: 1. Capture temporal trends in submerged vegetation abundance and distribution, specifically eelgrass, in Puget Sound. 2. Summarize temporal trends over large areas. 3. Monitor vegetation parameters that are strong indicators of the extent and quality of nearshore vegetated habitat. At a minimum, eelgrass (Zostera marina) must be monitored and mapped to its full bed extent including subtidal and intertidal extremes. 4. Consider stressors. A major focus of the PSAMP is to correlate environmental trends with stressors to the greatest extent possible, and to differentiate natural and anthropogenic stressors. At a minimum, temporal trends in submerged vegetation must be considered along some continuum of pristine/degraded conditions.

Geographic Scope. Sound-wide. We made a great effort to include the whole Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Portions of South Puget Sound were excluded from the sampling protocol because Z. marina does not occur there.

Subdivisions. One level of analysis will be based on five Regions, roughly equivalent to the oceanographic Basins. One strata of sampling units in the study, the fringing eelgrass beds is based on 1,000 meter segments of the -20 footbathymetric contour in Puget Sound. The other, the broad flats sites, are individually defined and range from 27 acres to 18,000 acres. Spatial resolution is mutli-scalar. Smallest sample is one square meter. Eelgrass bed resolution is larger.

Variables. Eelgrass abundance (basal area coverage of individual beds)

Maximum and Minimum depth of eelgrass beds at each site
Leaf Area Index (shoot density multiplied by leaf surface area)
Shoot to Root ratio (above ground biomass divided by below ground biomass)
Shoot density
Patchiness index
Water quality parameters (temperature, salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, turbidity, Photosyntheticly Active Radiation (PAR), backscatter, fluorescence)
Sediment hardness and roughness
Depth (+ or - 0.5 foot).

There were re-sample diving data collected in 1962-3 by Ron Phillips, maps made by Dave Jamison, and examine WDFW herring rake data starting from the mid-1970s.

Data Sources. We are collecting data each year using underwater video, filming linear transects over eelgrass beds of selected sampling sites throughout the Sound. Other parameters are calculated from these samples and benthic grab samples collected at selected sites.

Products. Annual project reports including summaries of data collected each year, and annual reports with summaries of the data analysis. After several years of data collection, we will generate reports analyzing the data and reporting on trends. We plan to create GIS layers of the sites where data were collected. In addition, the following URL provides a link to additional information on the Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Project: <http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/research/>.

Timelines. This project was initiated in April 2000; the data collection methods were developed and the first year of data were collected in the summer of 2000. We intend this to be a long-term monitoring program and currently have two years of funding to continue with collections in 2001 and 2002. Sampling protocol and statistics are projected for 50 years.

Funding. We are using Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) provisoed funds: $100,000/year ($200,000/biennium).

Names. Amy Sewell, Tom Mumford, Helen Berry, Betty Bookheim, Department of Natural Resources, Nearshore Habitat Program
Jim Norris, Marine Resources Consultants, Port Townsend, WA
Sandy Wyllie-Echeverria, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington
John Skalski, School of Fisheries, University of Washington

San Juan County Forage Fish Project

Objectives. To identify important forage spawning habitats within San Juan County and initiate actions to reduce habitat loss.

Geographic Scope. San Juan County.

Subdivisions. Moulton/Pentilla prioritized beaches of San Juan County. Spatial resolution less than 9 feet.

Variables. Presence or absence of spawn.

Data Sources. Field survey.
High-resolution digital shoreline provided by Dale Gombert of Fish and Wildlife.

Products. High resolution GIS map and accompanying report of spawn habitat throughout San Juan County. Additional information about the project can be found through visiting the Friends of the San Juan website at <http://www.sanjuans.org/>.

Timeline. Two years, beginning February 2001 and finishing March 2003 – First phase.

Funding. $238,241 -- 70 percent SRFB and 30 percent from Marine Ecosystem Health grant and donated labor.

Names. Larry Moulton, Forage Fish Coordinator, Friends of the San Juan (FSJ) and San Juan County Marine Resources Committee (SJC MRC)
Kevin Ranker, Director, FSJ
Shann Weston, Environmental Programs Coordinator, FSJ
Jim Slocomb, Natural Resource Planner, FSJ – Chair SJC MRC
Dan Pentilla, Fish and Wildlife
Chris Coulter, Administrative Assistant, FSJ
Laura Arnold, Director, SJC Planning Department.

San Juan Shoreline Stewardship Program

Description. Rapid Shoreline Inventory (RSI) coordinated by Friends of the San Juans.

Objectives. To provide a baseline shoreline inventory for resource management decisions, and to identifying critical habitats for further more detailed analysis within San Juan County.

Geographic Scope. Some portion of San Juan County.

Subdivisions. 150 foot segments.

Variables. Intertidal, backshore, and bluff characteristics (including substrate, slope, vegetation, invasive species, and so forth) and adjacent land uses.

Data Sources. Data collection by RSI.

Products. (GIS map of San Juan County Shorelines inventoried.) Additional information about the project can be found through visiting the Friends of the San Juan website at <http://www.sanjuans.org/>.

Funding. Public Involvement and Education (PIE) P00-06, and last year Northwest Fund for the Environment. As of the end of the current PIE contract (May 15, 2001), we have no monies for our Shoreline Stewardship Program.

Names. Shann Weston, Friends of the San Juan (FSJ)
Kevin Ranker, FSJ
Chris Coulter, FSJ

Critical Spawning Habitat for Fish in Puget Sound

Description. A series of maps depicting known spawning areas for herring, surf smelt, sand lance, and rock sole in Puget Sound. The publication is designed to be a guide for land use decisions for local governments and interested citizens.

Objectives. Identify known spawning habitat of forage fish in Puget Sound to provide protection to these habitats. These areas have been described as "saltwater habitats of special concern" (WAC-2220-110-250). In addition, the Wild Salmonid Policy requires that the functions and values of herring spawning habitats and intertidal spawning areas be maintained.

Geographic Scope. Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, and the San Juan Islands. Outcomes of project are applicable sound-wide.

Subdivisions. Depicted on scale of 1:63,360.

Variables. Geographical location of spawning habitats, using both current and historical conditions combined. Historic back to 1972.

Data Sources. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) spawning ground survey field notes and data summaries.

Products. A three ring notebook with introductory text and maps. The intended audience is local governments and citizen groups. The notebook has been distributed to local governments and several environmental groups. Notice of availability is on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) webpage.

Timeline. 1999 to March 2000.

Funding. Puget Sound Action Team. Funds initially from EPA ($14,000).

Names. Greg Bargmann, Dale Gombert, Lori Guggenmos, and Dan Penttila, all with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Shoreline Inventory of Whatcom County

Description. Compilation of existing data (Anchor Environmental) and Rapid Shoreline Inventory (RSI) (Resources/P4PS).

Objectives. Characterize portion of Whatcom County shoreline using available data and citizen-based inventory.

Geographic Scope. Some portion of Whatcom County shoreline.

Subdivisions. Unknown if any for data compilation; 150 foot segments for RSI.

Variables. Unknown for data compilation; RSI collects information on intertidal, backshore, and block characteristics (including substrate, slope, vegetation, invasive species, and so forth) and adjacent land use.

Data Sources. Unknown for data compilation (assumed to be Bellingham Bay project; Department of Natural Resources data from aerial multispectral and infrared photo).

Funding. Northwest Straits Commission.

Names. Bruce Roll, Whatcom County Marine Resources Council (MRC).

Marine Bird Monitoring by Aerial Surveys (PSAMP)

Description. Winter aerial surveys of all nearshore and a sampling of open water areas of Puget Sound to produce density and distribution data.

Objectives. Characterize status and trends of Puget Sound marine bird populations to support evaluation of actions to protect and restore the ecosystem.

Geographic Scope. Puget Sound wide.

Subdivisions. Nearshore (less than 20 meters depths) and deep water (greater than 20 meters) strata defined for any/all areas of Puget Sound. Data are routlinely presented as density indices for one or two minute grid cells. Data are extrapolated from counts of birds on transects/track lines.

Variables. Density indices for diving ducks, alcids, grebes, and loons, and other species.

Data Sources. Ongoing annual (winter) surveys.

Products. Standardized GIS output (including paper maps and electronic files); Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) technical reports.

Timeline. Monitoring surveys are annual; reporting is not on a set schedule.

Funding. State general fund provisoed for Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP).

Names. Dave Nysewander, WDFW.

Digital Coastal Atlas

Description. Digital data related to coastal management presented on the Web – currently available on Ecology's intranet (MapObjects); transition to internet as an ARC/IMS application.

Objectives. Make diverse data layers available for visualization and analysis by agency staff, local planners, citizens/property owners, and entities involved in salmon recovery.

Geographic Scope. Marine shoreline of Washington State.

Subdivisions. No overarching subdivisions, although each component data set has its inherent subdivisions (for example, oblique aerial photos; U.S. Geological Survey maps).

Variables. Drift cells, Washington Resource Inventory Area's (WRIA's), wetlands (simplified categories from National Wetland Inventory), listed wildlife species, facilities (dams, discharge sites, hazardous material sites, storage sites), commercial shellfish growing areas with classifications, drinking water wells, city and county boundaries, townships/sections, roads, water bodies, oblique aerial photos (link), 303d listed surface waters, background images (topo maps, orthophotos, shaded relief).

Data Sources. Various agencies.

Products. Web-served interactive mapping software and data.

Timelines. Available on the Washington Department of Ecology's website at <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/atlas_home.html>.

Names. Cinde Donoghue, Ecology (360-407-7257).

Programmatic Caged Mussel Study (DNR)

Description. Estimating chemical exposure to herring eggs at selected sites in Puget Sound, using caged mussels as biological integrators to estimate concentrations of bio-available chemicals in the waters of selected herring spawning grounds.

Objectives. Project objectives are to understand potential for chemical contamination to have a negative impact on spawning stocks of Puget Sound herring, by using caged mussels as bio-monitors.

The original driver for this work was concern about the precipitous decline in spawning herring at Cherry Point, and the potential for herring to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. (NMFS has recently determined that Puget Sound herring do not warrant listing.)

We wanted to compare ambient conditions at Cherry Point with other areas where there are healthier spawning stocks to see if there are differences. This complements data collected at Cherry Point in previous years, possibly presenting some time series information at Cherry Point as well as samples over a broader geographic area.

Geographic Scope. The outcomes may have sound-wide applicability. Mussels were deployed at Cherry Point, Fidalgo Bay, Port Gamble, and Brownsville.

Subdivisions. The areas were chosen to coincide with herring spawning grounds, and to try to get some idea of the variability among different sites in the same area. Cages were deployed as follows:

Cherry Point: three cages at each of five sites – Arco, Gulf Road, Intalco, Midpier, and Tosco
Fidalgo Bay: East Pier, Center Pier, West Pier
Port Gamble: Little Boston, Sawmill, Teek Bluff
Brownsville: North Marina, South Marina, University Point.

Unfortunately, not all the cages were retrieved.

Variables. Parameters analyzed: animal growth (length; whole animal, tissue, shell weight); percent lipids; percent solids; PAHs and their alkylated homologs (~54 analytes); metals (As, Hg, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn, Se).

Data Sources. Methods and to some extent site selection relied on previous mussel cage work by Applied Biomonitoring in 1998 and 1999. DFW information about herring stock status and spawning ground locations were also used to select sites.

Products. Final report to DNR. Format will be printed/electronic report, will be distributed to members of the Cherry Point Technical Workgroup (an information exchange group consisting of members from Cherry Point industries, environmental groups, state agencies, Tribes, and interested others.)

Timeline. This phase started June 2000. Deadline for final report is June 2001. Data have been collected and draft report has been written.

Funding. Funding from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) internal funds. Total cost $36,149.

Names. Michael Salazar and Sandra Salazar of Applied Biomonitoring, with support from volunteers at DNR.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Puget Sound Herring Study 2000

Description. 1. Sound-wide spawning success and larval survival potential.
2. Sound-wide survey of Ichthyophonus hoferi in spawning herring.

Objectives. Objectives are to compare the larval success, larval survival potential, and parasite infestation levels of several Puget Sound herring stocks. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also intends to correlate this information with the chemical data gathered in the mussel study described above, to the extent possible.

The original driver for this work was concern about the precipitous decline in spawning herring at Cherry Point, and the potential for herring to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. (National Marine Fisheries Service has recently determined that Puget Sound herring do not warrant listing.)

Geographic Scope. Herring spawning locations from central Puget Sound north to border and west to Discovery Bay -- Cherry Point, Port Gamble, Quartermaster Harbor, Port Madison/Brownsville, Port Susan, Holmes Harbor, Discovery Bay, Quilcene Bay, Fidalgo Bay, Samish Bay, Semiahmoo Bay, Drayton Pass, Harney Channel, Port Townsend Bay, Skagit Bay.

Subdivisions. See specific locations above.

Variables. For embryos: hatching success, dead larvae, deformed larvae, larval weight at hatch, larval weight at yolk resorption, yolk abundance at hatch, survival to yolk resorption, deformed larvae at seven days.

For Ichthyophonus survey: prevalence among different stocks, correlation with stock biomass trends, stable isotope analysis to determine if food sources differ with Ichthyophonus levels, genetic similarity of Puget Sound Ichthyophonus to the Norton Sound, Alaska strains. -- not historic, but we will eventually compare data collected in 2000 with similar information from 1992, 1996, and 1998-1999.

Data Sources. Previous work by Kocan and others for Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1992, 1996, 1998, 1999.

Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Spawning Survey Data

Products. A final report is to be provided to Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It will be shared with the Cherry Point Technical Workgroup and other interested parties.

Timeline. Started February 2000. Draft final report was due in February 2001, but has not been received. Final report is due in April 2001. Current contract terminates June 30, 2001.

Funds. DNR internal funds: $41,646 (through a cooperative agreement with the University of Washington that waived $10,828 of indirect costs).

Names. Dr. Richard M. Kocan and Dr. Paul Hershberger, School of Fisheries, University of Washington.

Fecal Monitoring at Shellfish Growing Areas

Description. Marine waters are monitored routinely at shellfish growing areas to ensure that water quality meets standards for commercial harvest of shellfish. The monthly or six times per year sampling provides data for characterization of status and trends of conditions at commercial shellfish growing areas.

Objectives. Characterize status and trends of conditions in Puget Sound to support evaluation of actions to protect and restore the ecosystem; track changes at individual growing areas and at individual stations within growing areas, to describe environmental responses to pollution sources and controls.

Geographic Scope. Sound-wide.

Subdivisions. Shellfish growing areas (just fewer than 100 in Puget Sound) and monitoring stations.

Variables. Fecal coliform bacteria in marine water, measured every month or every two months.

Data Sources. Ongoing Department of Health (DOH) monitoring. Data record extends back into 1980s for some growing areas/stations.

Products. Annual report with graphic depictions of status and trends for growing areas and individual stations.

Timeline. Sampling occurs monthly or every two months depending on growing area classification. Report is produced annually (in the spring).

Funding. State general fund provisoed for Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP).

Names. Tim Determan, Department of Health (DOH).

Development of Matrices for Properly Functioning Conditions

Description. Develop matrices of pathways and indicators for the marine environment.

Objectives. The different agencies are involved in this project for varying reasons. In general, the objective is to define properly functioning conditions for the marine environment, including estuaries, nearshore habitats, and deep water. The goals vary slightly between agencies. For the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the goal is to develop a tool that can be used for Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT), the goal is broader, to develop a tool that can be used to protect the marine environment in general, with an emphasis on salmon.

Geographic Scope. We hope that these matrices can be used by agencies and project proponents in all coastal areas of Washington, including Puget Sound and the Columbia River estuary.

Subdivisions. Since we are attempting to describe properly functioning conditions, we are not actually engaged in a study. However, for the purposes of our project, we have divided the marine environment into three habitat types: 1) river mouth estuaries; 2) nearshore marine habitats (under 20 meters Mean Lower Low Water); and 3) Deepwater habitats (greater than 20 meters Mean Lower Low Water).

Variables. We are addressing a wide range of variables that can be used as indicators of properly functioning conditions. They include physical parameters (energy regimes, sediment quality/quantity, water quality/quantity, and so forth) and biological parameters (community composition, species diversity, and so forth) and includes comparisons of historical and current conditions for many of these parameters. These variables are, at the present, preliminary, and will require additional time before they become finalized. The historical comparisons of these indicators depend on a variety of factors, including the indicator being compared, the location and scope of the analysis, and the availability of historical data. Therefore, it is impossible to state the time frame of such historical analysis.

Products. We hope that the matrices will provide a tool that can be used by state and federal agencies, as well as project proponents, to assess the impacts that a project has on the overall health of the marine ecosystem. We anticipate that they will be made available to the public.

Timeline. This project was begun in October 2000 at a workshop convened by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Since that time, we have developed a list of the pathways and indicators that we intend to submit to review within our respective agencies in the very near future. Once that review is completed, we plan to distribute it more widely for review by other federal and state agencies, as well as Tribal associations and the public. The timeline for completion is not known at this time.

Funding. This project is being conducted by the participants as part of their regular employment with the participating agencies. Therefore, there is no budget or projected costs available.

Names. John Stadler, Robert Donnelly, Cathy Tortorici, NMFS; Bill Graeber, WDNR; Joe Jauquet, WDFW; Jo Henry, PSAT.

Reference Cited

1. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Directory of Estuarine Nearshore Marine Assessment Projects. <http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/Programs/nearshore/directory.pdf>