Chris Ellings, restoration biologist with the Nisqually Tribe, presenting on:

A study of Chinook distribution, feeding behavior, growth, and estuary residence to provide a baseline comparison for how the population may respond to large-scale ecosystem restoration.

Notes from Chris’s presentation:

Predicting a large response for restoring the Nisqually River estuary. So, what are the linkages between estuary restoration and more chinook smolts?

Wanted to look at broad distribution of chinook across the entire estuary and the nearby nearshore.

Studied otololith rings, which are earbones which give them an idea of where the fish are spending their time.

High abundance of chinook and chum in May and June. The entire estuary is a busy place in May through July.

Wanted to focus on natural origin fish, and how they use the estuary and where they stay. Reside there for an average of 16 days.

There are differences in natural origin chinook usage in two different sites. Less long term use in a restoration site that was shallower. In a deeper channel, there is longer usage by chinook.

They also looked at the diets of the fish using the site and compare that to what insects were available. Both wild and hatchery fish feed on the insects that were available at the time, wild fish with a broader diversity.

Jeanette Dorner from the Nisqually Tribe emailed in a question from Jennifer Ruesink’s presentation:

Did Jennifer from UW have any conclusions about the impact of aquaculture on South Sound health?  Or is she still investigating the question?

John Konvsky, who followed Jennifer’s presnation a lot closer than I did, was able to reply:

…her research goes the other way, its the impact of land management and land use on oysters, not the impact of oysters on the ecosystem. She did raise the possibility at the end that the removal of Pacific oysters from Totten Inlet is keeping Totten within the carrying capacity for nutrients.

Sandie O’Neill from NOAAA is giving a lunch keynote address on:

Regional Effort to Select Environmental Indicators for the Puget Sound. Where we’ve been, where we’re going, and South Sound involvement.

Notes from Sandie’s talk:

One of the uses of indicators is to keep policy makers up to speed on progress.

Must be science based, but also resonate with the public.

There can be a disconnect between science and policy. For example, Puget Sound Partnership wanted 10 or so indicators while science folks showed examples of 600 indicators being used in other areas.

Potential indicators for water quality could include oil spills or annual maximum daily flows.

Jeff Dickison asks the group what should be on the list for South Puget Sound. Here is the list (transcribed by John Konovsky):

• Variances to shoreline management plan
• Dissolved oxygen
• Land use/cover
• micro algea
• Nutrients
• Index of indicators to simply the presentation to public
• Forage fish, use more than herring
• Stormwater, effects on contaminants (complicated topic)
• Sediment
• “Nursery area”
• Forage fish spawning beds.
• Travel time of water downriver

Here is some audio taken from Charlene Krise’s presentation at the South Sound Science Symposium this morning.

Here is the original post on her presentation on traditional ecological knowledge.

Blake Feist of the NOAA/Northwest Fisheries Science Center on:

New predictive, spatially explicit model of coho pre-spawn mortality rates for the eastern Puget Sound basin.

Notes from his talk:

Over the past 10 years, people have been seeing coho salmon dying before they spawn. Sometimes within hours of returning to the streams.

What is causing the prespawn mortality?

Car exhaust? There are a lot of chemicals (lead, benzine, etc) coming from cars and car exhausts.

In Longfellow Creek, there seems to be a correlation between rain and prespawn mortality. There is something being washed out by the rain that is killing the fish.

The purpose of the study was to create a pre-spawn mortality model to predict the phenomena.

The study focused on largely urbanized creeks, the least urbanized (and reference creek) was Fortson Creek. Forston had a .9 percent pre-spawn mortality.

The study looked at variable such as traffic flow, road types, tree cover.

There is a relationship between heavily used roads and pre-spawn deaths of coho salmon.

Questions and Answers:

Why aren’t all the fish dying in the stream?

Chum and chinook are not impacted. Even coho smolts are not impacted. Don’t know why.

Was there pre-spawn mortality more than 10 years ago?

It was likely that it was going on longer.

Casey Rice of the NOAA/Northwest Fisheries Science Center talks about Jellyfish in South Puget Sound.

Study explores whether changes in fish and jellyfish distribution are natural history footnotes or potential indicators of ecological health.

From Casey’s talk:

Among his conclusions:

Jellyfish is a major competent of biota.

There is an inverse relationship between jellyfish and overall fish abundance and diversity.

Jellyfish are not bad. They are a widely diverse group. “Jellyfish are people too.”

More research is needed, “we really need to do these field studies.”

Questions and Answers:

Are they being impacted by same factors, but they’re just more resilient?

They can be. Diets, passive feeding, won’t starve and die in a low oxygen environment.

You may miss some needed data by looking at only a portion of the year.

They would get more year round data if they did the research again. Not just across the year, but across the entire area.

Jennifer Ruesink of University of Washington talks about:

Study of trophic support (stable isotopes) and productivity (growth rates) has revealed spatial and temporal patterns relevant to coastal zone management.

Notes from her talk:

Whether aquaculture in Totten Inlet was reducing overall health of the area. They also looked at areas in Budd Inlet and Squaxin Inlet.

What happens with anthropegenic inputs. At you go further into Totten, you get more nitrogen, which is the “signal” of anthroprogenic inputs.

For carbon, you see “light carbon” which is the signal that terrestrial inputs are increasing as you move inside Totten inlet, much more than Tacoma or Seattle.

Clam growth rates were much higher in Totten and South Puget Sound than rest of Puget Sound

Carbon sources were similar in Totten Inlet than rest of Puget Sound.

Question and Answers

What was the variability inside Totten?

There was variability inside and outside Totten. The growth rates were higher inside than outside.

But, with the isatopes, there was a gradual increase as you went inside Totten Inlet.

Skip Albertson of the Washington Department of Ecology, talks about “Going with the flow: South Sound water circulation.

Description of the particularly complicated circulation patterns in South Sound that determine the marine equivalent of upstream and downstream.

From his talk:

Generally, places closer to the Tacoma Narrows, flush easier than places deeper in the South Sound. Upper Case and Pickering Passage flow much slower than Nisqually Reach and Budd Inlet.

Flushing helps in Oakland Bay in the winter because of the number of creeks that flow into the bay. “A little stick” stirring the bay.

From the summary: the biggest impact is the tides. On top of that is the estuarine flow from the rivers, which in turn is impacted by the wind.

Questions and Answers:

How do you use the term flushing? Usually it is used to describe water flowing out of Puget Sound.

Really talking about residence time, but was calling it flushing to keep it simple.

Clint Bowman from the state Department of Ecology gave a talk about airflow and air pollution in South Puget Sound. I wasn’t able to take notes on his talk, but I did catch the question and answer session:

Recently we saw a plane had to return to the airport and dump fuel Puget Sound. How does that impact air quality?

Fuel releases a hydrocarbon, but they have to dump fuel high enough that it will evaporate before it gets too low.

You would see and increase in hydrocarbons for an hour or so, but unlikely it would reach ground level.

Heather Trim, People for Puget Sound: What are the dirtiest and cleanest parts of Puget Sound?

Different areas have different sort of pollutants. For example, ozone is highest from Enumclaw to Pack Forest area.

Most of the air from urban centers comes down to South Sound. What kind of health impacts does that mean for people in South Sound?

The air in South Sound, except for Puyallup River valley, is good. Pollution does get high in the winter though.

We don’t have monitors for toxics though, which is focused on Seattle.

The first break of the morning is upon us. Just a reminder that if you’re at the symposium, please email your observations to me: eoconnell (at) nwifc (dot) org.