The bivalve-rich beaches of Hood Canal were all summer after detection of a marine biotoxin that causes , a life-threatening foodborne illness that affects the nervous system.

Given that Washington’s commercial shellfish industry employs nearly 2,400 people and brings in more than $240 million each year, a monthslong closure during peak season had sweeping consequences.

Detecting harmful algal blooms early is critical for consumer safety and trust in the industry. The Washington State Department of Health oversees a that monitors toxin levels in shellfish tissue from various growing areas. The effort is supported by an unofficial partner: , a program launched by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2006 that migrated to Washington Sea Grant several years later.

Unlike the DOH, SoundToxins screens the water for harmful algae, which can expedite detection. When SoundToxins monitors detected �� — a species of phytoplankton that produces the toxin that causes PSP — they quickly relayed the information to the DOH, which closed the impacted marine areas before anyone got sick.

Although this type of advance warning can save lives, the future funding of the program is uncertain. Washington Sea Grant relies on a patchwork of research grants and federal and state funds to operate SoundToxins. Recent cuts to research funding and the current state of Washington’s budget have illuminated the precariousness of funding for vital programs like this. Washington Sea Grant remains committed to working with state and federal partners to find the right funding pathway to keep SoundToxins running.

A quantified the value of SoundToxins with survey data. Ģ����Ƶ News spoke with program manager about the results and the program.

How is the monitoring program and the early detection of harmful algal blooms (HABs) valuable?

Michelle Lepori-Bui: Harmful algal blooms can be really detrimental to the shellfish industry as closures have a direct impact on revenue and because recalls and illnesses affect the reputation of shellfish as a safe and healthy food source. Robust monitoring programs and early warning of these events help protect public health and minimize these impacts. There are many benefits to early detection of HABs to the general public and recreational and commercial harvesters that can be hard to quantify. Farmers can benefit by modifying harvesting activities to minimize losses, avoiding recalls, and maintaining trust in the market, while shellfish consumers and coastal communities benefit from safe local food sources and working waterfronts.

How does the new study demonstrate the value of SoundToxins?

MLB: This survey sought to capture the many tangible and intangible benefits of the program and distill them into a single economic metric using an approach called ‘willingness to pay.’ The study found that shellfish growers value the program with a willingness to pay $533/year for phytoplankton monitoring. With changing environmental conditions, shellfish mortality events, and heat waves, growers are facing an extremely challenging production environment. The finding that they are willing to pay this amount, even during these challenging economic times, shows how valuable this program is to coastal communities.

How does SoundToxins support the state-led effort?

MLB: The DOH’s biotoxin monitoring program is a series of steps in compliance with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program that starts with monitoring for biotoxins in mussel tissue. Mussels typically pick up toxins faster than other species, so they are a good indicator, but other species are tested as well. If toxins are detected, they can initiate recreational and commercial closures.

We’re not part of the official regulatory process, but our work can guide the DOH’s efforts through early warning. We maintain a database populated with volunteer data and a map that uses red, yellow and green color coding to report HAB presence on the coast and in Puget Sound and surrounding waters. We notify the DOH via email when something changes and it uses that information to prioritize certain samples or request additional samples.

Who collects the data?

MLB: SoundToxins is a very cost-effective program because we have really amazing monitors, partners and volunteers. A lot of different folks do the actual monitoring. We work with tribes, growers, environmental education groups and individuals at 35 different sites throughout the region. We provide them with equipment and training and support the database, and they collect and analyze the samples, posting everything online within 24 hours.

What happened this summer? How was it different from years past?

MLB: We got an alert from our monitor in early June that they found Alexandrium cells in a sample from Hoodsport, which is pretty far south in Hood Canal. That alert went straight to the DOH and it reacted quickly, requesting more samples from various parts of Hood Canal.

Historically, there haven’t been many incidents of PSP in south Hood Canal. There were a few blooms in the early 2000s and a big bloom in 2015 that went further south than usual, close to Hoodsport but not to the end of Hood Canal. That was considered unprecedented and this year surpassed that.

It’s understood globally that harmful algal blooms are increasing in frequency, severity and impact. This is partially related to changing climate conditions. Also, phytoplankton like Alexandrium respond to nutrients in the water. The input of nutrients from human activities can influence blooms. We have seen things showing up in places they haven’t been before and increasing in intensity.

A lot of people are working on models to predict harmful algal blooms, but it’s complicated, especially in our area where there are a lot of complex water bodies. We need to continue doing the research to try to understand things better, but in the meantime, monitoring is critical.

Co-authors include Michelle Lepori-Bui, marine water quality specialist at Washington Sea Grant; , water quality specialist at Washington Sea Grant; Vera Trainer, a Ģ����Ƶ research scientist in environmental and forest science and director of the Olympic Natural Resource Center; of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; and of NOAA; and Jerry Borchert and Tracie Barry of WA DOH.��

This research was funded by the NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of HABs.

For more information, contact Lepori-Bui at mdtlb@uw.edu.��

Source

The historic Norwegian tall ship Statsraad Lehmkuhl set sail for San Francisco from the Port of Seattle on Monday, marking the end of and another stop on the to support a sustainable future at sea.

The ship, built in 1914, boasts three towering masts and hails from Bergen, Norway. During the inaugural One Ocean Week Seattle, organized by , it docked at Pier 66 to welcome attendees and members of the public aboard to explore and learn.

The drew hundreds of people to Seattle to discuss marine ecosystems, the seafood industry, shipping and renewable energy, and more. Ģ����Ƶ scientists joined policymakers, educators and industry leaders to define and address priorities in stewardship and ocean science.

, a Ģ����Ƶ affiliate professor and research scientist at the Center for Ecosystem Sentinels, served as a panelist on the “Coast to Coast Collaboration in Research” aboard Statsraad Lehmkuhl on Friday morning.

Moore contributed her expertise as a marine mammal ecologist to help launch the in the Pacific Arctic in 2010, leading to an international effort to establish a network of observatories in the Arctic to track ecosystem health amidst physical changes to the region.

The panel, part of a series hosted by , offered a chance to discuss shared goals as melting ice opens the Arctic up to more traffic.

“It was an important opportunity for international collaboration and public engagement regarding rapid ecosystem changes in Arctic, and local, waters,” Moore said.

, a Ģ����Ƶ professor of mechanical engineering, helped lead a “behind the scenes” lab tour hosted by the , which joins researchers at Ģ����Ƶ, Oregon State University and the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

During the tour, researchers showcased marine energy monitoring projects at the , including videos and sonar documenting interactions between marine life and tidal energy turbines, sensors to detect underwater collisions, and systems to monitor how much noise is produced by the devices that help harness energy from waves and currents.

“These tools help us identify and minimize environmental effects associated with harnessing energy from waves, tides and rivers,” Polagye said.

, a Ģ����Ƶ principal research scientist of aquatic and fishery sciences participated in a panel discussion, where he shared his work on habitat in , which borders downtown Seattle. Toft’s lab studies how shoreline development impacts habitat value for young salmon.

“Although the shorelines of Elliott Bay have been heavily modified, restoration efforts have had positive results,” he said. “The panel gave us a chance to discuss the importance of maintaining a healthy shoreline along a major urban working waterfront.”

Despite the density of human activity along the shores of Elliott Bay, these waters are home to key species, including kelp, orcas and salmon. Maintaining functionality without losing habitat is a challenge, requiring input from various stakeholders, and creativity.

, a coastal hazards specialist at , provided an update on observed and projected sea level rise during a Friday workshop bringing together coastal managers and tribes around the Puget Sound region.

“The opportunity to meet in person with that many people who all came for the workshop was invaluable,” he said.

To connect with a Ģ����Ƶ expert in ocean or environmental science, contact Gillian Dohrn in Ģ����Ƶ News at gdohrn@uw.edu.

Source

Many Tribes in Washington and Oregon call coastal areas home, meaning they are especially affected by climate change. They also face changes in wildfire risk and in changes to fisheries that are economically and culturally important.

A led by the Ģ����Ƶ’s Climate Impacts Group, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and Washington Sea Grant compiles the experiences of Washington and Oregon coastal Tribes as they prepare for climate change. The report aims to build on successes and identify common barriers to progress.

“Every year the climate crisis continues to elevate and accelerate. The lack of a coordinated federal response is what causes Northwest coastal Tribes — and other coastal communities — to suffer from hazards which are imminently impacting life, property, Tribal rights and resources,” said project co-lead of the . “With direct quotes from Tribal citizens and staff with lived personal and professional experiences, [this report] describes the immediate urgency of the federal government to take coordinated climate action.”

Results will be shared with Northwest coastal Tribes and other governmental and nongovernmental entities.

“The report is based on listening sessions with Northwest coastal Tribes, and summarizes the barriers and unmet needs they face in their efforts to prepare for climate change,” said project co-lead Meade Krosby, who is director of the Ģ����Ƶ-based and senior scientist at the Ģ����Ƶ . This report was funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through the .

The project team held six Tribal listening sessions, each 2.5 hours long, in varying formats. Three listening sessions took place during Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians conferences already attended by many Northwest coastal Tribal members.��Two sessions were held virtually, and one was hosted by an individual Tribal Nation. Participants in each session met in small groups and shared information with each other and with a moderator.

All participants had the choice of making their comments public or not, and of contributing anonymously or under their name. Researchers later coded all the contributions and summarized the overall findings. Contributions represented 13 Tribal nations, roughly half of the federally recognized Tribes within the study’s coastal regions. The overall findings include:

• Despite being national leaders in climate adaptation, Northwest coastal Tribes face significant needs in realizing their adaptation goals
• Key barriers and unmet needs centered in five areas: funding, staffing, technical expertise, partnerships and communications
• Successful efforts noted strengths in many of these same areas, such as securing external funding, the dedication of Tribal staff, and building robust partnerships

Participants described specific situations and frustrations, including the piecemeal nature of federal funding; challenges recruiting and retaining key staff; potential partners’ lack of familiarity with Tribal processes and priorities; and establishing stable support for long-term initiatives.

Participants’ quotes included:

“If you just looked at the total amount of Tribal land, you’d say: ‘Well, there’s lots of places that the Tribe can move,’ but if you take away all the places that are sacred or culturally significant, or habitat for important species, or landslide hazard, or some other hazard, the options are diminished. We must also be careful not to move away from one hazard into another. How bad would it be if we move away from the shoreline, and we put ourselves in harm’s way for fire?”

– Robert Knapp, environmental planning manager and climate resilience lead, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

“Some of the challenges that we face on the coast are due to the magnitude of some of the projects that we need to undertake. For example, we are in the midst of relocating our two main Quinault villages on the Washington coast. That’s a multimillion-dollar, multi-agency effort … It’s very difficult to integrate our plans and priorities for village relocation with those of the agencies and constrains on available funding.”

– Gary Morishima, natural resources technical advisor, Quinault Indian Nation

“To build capacity we need funding sources that are long-term, that we can say to Tribal leadership: ‘We know we’re going to have funding for five or six years, so we want to hire this person who’s an engineer, who’s a project manager, who can take on these projects, talk to other [external] engineers, and who can make these projects happen.’”

– Rochelle Blankenship, Tribal council member and executive director, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

The report concludes: “While these findings do not fully represent the depth and breadth of [the challenges faced by Northwest coastal Tribes] and what is required to address them, we hope they will help build awareness among funders, policymakers, climate service providers and others to mobilize necessary action in support of the climate adaptation efforts of Northwest coastal Tribes.”

In related upcoming work, the Northwest Climate Resilience Collaborative’s Tribal Coastal Resilience effort at the Ģ����Ƶ was as part of a to support coastal readiness in Washington state.

The grant will support hiring a full-time climate adaptation specialist to provide technical assistance to Northwest coastal Tribes, Krosby said. That person will also coordinate a small grants program that will distribute most of the funds to Tribes to support their adaptation efforts. The grants program was designed to respond to Tribal priorities without imposing barriers that often make funds difficult to apply for and administer. Awards will be made starting in 2025.

“We’re really excited that this is happening at the same time our report is coming out,” Krosby said. “So it’s not just describing the problem. It’s also: Here, let’s bring some resources to bear based on what we learned.”

Other co-authors on the report are Ryan Hasert at the Ģ����Ƶ Climate Impacts Group; Kylie Avery at the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; and Chandler Countryman and Melissa Poe at Ģ����Ƶ’s Washington Sea Grant. The project’s Tribal advisory group and report reviewers include representatives from the Makah, Tulalip, Coquille, Squaxin Island, Swinomish and Quinault Tribes and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

For more information, contact Marchand at amarchand@atnitribes.org, and Krosby at mkrosby@uw.edu or 206-579-8023.��

Source

Three new faculty books from the Ģ����Ƶ cover wide-ranging topics: oysters, the moral contradictions of religion, and Cherokee creature names and environmental relationships. Ģ����Ƶ News talked with the authors to learn more.

Updated ‘Heaven on the Half Shell’ a ‘love letter’ to oysters

Oysters are a beloved food in the Pacific Northwest, but many people don’t realize what it’s taken to bring this bivalve from tide to table. “” dives into this very topic, providing readers with insight into the diverse history and communities involved with all things oysters

The book was written by and of the along with author . Originally published in 2001, “Heaven on the Half Shell” has been updated and republished two decades later by Ģ����Ƶ Press.�� Double the length of the original, the new version includes an additional chapter as well as more photos and text.

“Over the course of 20 years, it needed a lot of updating,” said Gordon. “There was originally no mention, for example, of ocean acidification in the book. That is probably the biggest confrontational point nowadays, but it wasn’t on the radar then. I felt it badly needed some updating, and I’m glad that the Sea Grant people agreed with me.”

The story of the oyster “includes a lot of social history, environmental history and the development of what we know as the Pacific Northwest,” Larson said.

“One big focus that we had on this new edition was really elevating our treatment of the tribal history and carrying that history up to date with how important many tribes are in terms of owning and operating their own shellfish farms today,” Larson said. “That’s another slice of history that can be told and looked at through this kind of unique perspective.”

Apart from oyster history, the book also provides readers with a behind-the-scenes look at modern-day oyster farming and recipes for how to enjoy oysters after the harvest.

“The ways that we’ve been eating them in the past and the ways that we’re eating them now are different,” Wagner said. “I personally wanted to document that and show how it changed over time and the different faces that have contributed to those recipes.”

The oyster farming industry has evolved since the book’s initial publication, with environmental changes like ocean acidification and rising temperatures causing new issues for farmers. But the underlying theme of the book and the main requirement for a thriving oyster industry remains clean water, Gordon said. The Pacific Northwest still has pristine waters in many places and a growing population that understands its role in the industry.

“This book is basically a love letter to the oyster,” Gordon said. “And it’s great, because I’ve always felt that in order to get people motivated to protect the natural resources, you have to get them to love the environment.”

For more information, contact Wagner at maryannb@uw.edu, Larson at larsonsa@uw.edu, and Gordon at david@davidgeorgegordon.com.

Mark Smith’s ‘Right from Wrong’ reveals moral contradictions of religion

It seems harder and harder in today’s world for people to come together to respectfully debate an issue, consider alternative viewpoints and reach a consensus. But such a process is vital to determining how we will function and progress as a society, argues in his new book.

In “,” published by Prometheus Books, Smith tackles religious and secular approaches to establishing a moral code. He underscores contradictions in the texts and challenges the defenses of Christianity – a form of theology known as apologetics.

“One major part of my book explores how pious members of book-based religions grapple with scriptures that any modern person would have difficulty swallowing,” said Smith, a Ģ����Ƶ professor of political science. “If the text justifies genocide, or defends patriarchy, or requires capital punishment for minor offenses, how can the believer respond?

“If you’re absolutely convinced that God is good, and that a set of scriptures captures his speech either through inspiration, as in Christianity or directly as in Islam, you’ve got to reconcile any challenges you face.”

Smith proposes that a process of inclusive deliberation is a more thoughtful, rational basis for establishing objective morality and the means of working together in community. He points to what is today a practice widely recognized as immoral – slavery – and prohibited around the world. But it took centuries of heated debate (and a civil war in the United States), as well as the spreading of abolitionist views through the printing press, and the stories and speeches of formerly enslaved people.

Today, Smith said, the shrinking of traditional media and the rise of social media often keep people from engaging in meaningful discussion.

“You can curate what you read, watch, and listen such that you never have to hear from people with contrary views. Social media, for its part, rewards those who preach to the choir.�� By doing so, you attract likes and followers. Anyone who tries to engage with the ‘other side’ gets quickly dismissed as a traitor to the cause,” Smith said. “The result is that we have many siloed conversations that rely on distortion and straw man tactics rather than true deliberation across lines of political difference.”

But it’s still possible, Smith said, among people of all faiths, or no faith.�� He writes in the book’s conclusion: “No person has all the answers, but if we put our minds together, we can make progress on even the most difficult moral questions.”

For more information, contact Smith at masmith@uw.edu.

Exploring nature through Cherokee creature names

In “,” , professor and chair of American Indian Studies at the Ģ����Ƶ, explores nature and the world through Cherokee creature names, environmental relationships, traditional stories and philosophical discussions with fluent Cherokee speakers and knowledge keepers.

Published by Ģ����Ƶ Press, the book provides a unique perspective of the world we live in by bringing together decades of oral history. The creature names – Cherokee words for the natural world, including birds, animals, edible plants, reptiles, amphibians, trees, insects, plants and fish – were collected orally from elders over a 30-year span by , the late Cherokee cultural leader.

Loretta Shade, Hastings’ wife, and their son, Larry, shared the collection with Teuton and said they wanted to publish. Written in collaboration with the Shades, “Cherokee Earth Dwellers” documents more than 600 creature names.

“As we went over the collection and looked through all these different names, and all the stories that are attached to the creature names, we realized this is more than just something like a dictionary,” Teuton said. “It’s actually a Cherokee ecology through words and relationships. And so, we began to work together and reached out to other elders to get their input on the project and to reflect on the collection created by Hasting Shade.”

This community-driven collaboration was written “with the goal of creating a work of art and a work of language, revitalization and cultural revitalization that would be valued by all Cherokee people.” Teuton hopes it can be used as a resource by people studying the Cherokee language as it includes spellings, pronunciations, meanings for various names and stories told by traditional storytellers in the community.

“This book can teach about the natural world and about traditional ways of understanding oneself in relation to the relatives that we have among us —plant relatives, animal relatives, fish relatives,” Teuton said. “All the different creatures of the natural world with whom we have relationships, dependencies and reciprocal engagements with.”

For more information, contact Teuton at teuton@uw.edu.

Source

It’s hard to forget the excruciating heat that blanketed the Pacific Northwest in late June 2021. Temperatures in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia soared to well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with Seattle of 108 degrees on June 28.

During the heat wave, also called a heat dome, scientists and community members alike noticed a disturbing on some beaches in Washington and British Columbia, both in the Salish Sea and along the outer coast. The observers quickly realized they were living through an unprecedented event and they organized to document the shellfish die-offs as they happened in real time.

Now, a team led by the Ģ����Ƶ has compiled and analyzed hundreds of these field observations to produce the first comprehensive report of the impacts of the 2021 heat wave on shellfish. The researchers found that many shellfish were victims of a “perfect storm” of factors that contributed to widespread death: The lowest low tides of the year occurred during the year’s hottest days — and at the warmest times of day. The were published online June 20 in the journal Ecology.

“You really couldn’t have come up with a worse scenario for intertidal organisms,” said lead author , a research scientist at Ģ����Ƶ Friday Harbor Laboratories. “This analysis has given us a really good general picture of how shellfish were impacted by the heat wave, but we know this isn’t even the full story.”

The research team leveraged existing collaborations across tribes, state and federal agencies, academia and nonprofits. They devised a simple survey and five-point rating system (1 = much worse than normal to 5 = much better than normal) and asked participants to provide ratings based on their knowledge of a species in that location. In total, they gathered 203 observations from 108 unique locations, from central British Columbia down to Willapa Bay, Washington.

“The strength of this study and what it really highlights is the value of local knowledge and also the importance of understanding natural history,” said co-author , a Ģ����Ƶ associate teaching professor in environmental studies and aquatic and fishery sciences. “This is the first step and a snapshot, if you will, of what shellfish experienced on the beaches during the heat wave.”

The researchers found that each species’ ecology contributed to its general success or failure to survive the extreme heat. For example, some shellfish that naturally burrow deep beneath the surface, like butter clams, usually fared better than ones that typically ride out low tide just below the sand’s surface, such as cockles.

They also found that location mattered. Shellfish on the outer coast experienced low tide about four hours earlier than shellfish on inland beaches. For inland shellfish, low tide — or when the most shellfish were exposed — hit around solar noon, when the sun was directly overhead.

Additionally, air temperatures were much higher at inland sites compared to the outer coast, causing more stress on inland populations. For example, California mussels, found almost exclusively on the outer coast, mostly survived the heat while bay mussels, found in more inner coastal sites, were more likely to die from heat exposure. More water movement and wave action on the outer coast also likely helped lessen the impacts of the heat on shellfish along those beaches.

“The timing of low tide helps determine when and where organisms may be exposed to heat stress and can structure behavior and distribution. In this case, organisms at locations that are already exposed to air at the hottest time of day were very unlucky that temperatures soared so high,” said co-author Hilary Hayford, habitat research director at Puget Sound Restoration Fund.

Many shellfish don’t tend to move much on any given beach, so where they naturally live in the intertidal zone also contributed to their success or failure, the researchers found. For example, acorn barnacles that live higher on the shore generally were more impacted than clams and oysters that are lower on the beach and more likely to remain under water.

“Although this event had negative effects on marine life, there is hope that can be found in this work. Not all locations and species were affected equally, offering clues to pathways to resiliency in the future,” said co-author Annie Raymond, a shellfish biologist with Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.

Perhaps most surprisingly, the researchers noticed interesting patterns in survival rates among shellfish on the same beach. In some locations, shellfish in the path of freshwater runoff on one section of beach survived, while others just a few miles away perished. If a tree hung over part of a beach and shaded the sand, those shellfish generally made it while others didn’t. Co-author , senior shellfish biologist with the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, remembers seeing those patterns while walking the beaches of Skagit Bay and, in some locations, being surrounded by dead cockles in every direction.

“It was pretty unsettling, and I’ve never seen anything like it,” Barber said. She remembers exchanging emails with colleagues from around the region as they noticed similar mass die-offs on their local beaches, then realizing that they urgently needed to coordinate and document what was happening.

“This effort was a beautiful demonstration of how collaborators can come together with one common cause — which in our case was trying to understand what happened to these shellfish,” Barber said.

Because the heat wave occurred during the time frame when many shellfish are reproducing, the mass die-offs could impact those populations for at least several years, highlighting the need for long-term monitoring, the researchers said. And as climate change continues to produce more frequent extreme heat events, shellfish deaths like those of last summer may become more of a common reality.

“The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is proud to be a leader in this important scientific research that assessed in real-time the devastating impacts to our shellfish resources from the unprecedented heat dome last summer. Shellfish are a priority first food that our tribal community relies on for spiritual and subsistence nourishment. Last summer’s extreme weather event reinforced to us that we must act faster to ensure climate resiliency for our community’s long-term health and well-being,” said Swinomish Tribal Chairman Steve Edwards.

“Once the effects of the heat wave started to become apparent, the collaboration that emerged was amazing as managers and scientists worked quickly to put together a rapid response to capture information,” said co-author Camille Speck, Puget Sound intertidal bivalve manager for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “We still have so much to learn about the effects of the heat wave on Salish Sea marine ecosystems, and more work to do as managers to prepare for the next one and develop informed responses. These conversations are happening now, and it is our hope that we will be better prepared for whatever comes next.”

Other co-authors are Megan Dethier of the Ģ����Ƶ; Teri King of Ģ����Ƶ-based Washington Sea Grant; Christopher Harley of University of British Columbia; Blair Paul of Skokomish Indian Tribe; and Elizabeth Tobin of Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. More than two dozen individuals contributed data to this project.

This analysis was funded by Washington Sea Grant with data contributions from tribes, state and federal agencies, academic institutions and nonprofits.

For more information, contact:

• Wendel Raymond, Ģ����Ƶ and lead author: wraymond@uw.edu
• Sean McDonald, Ģ����Ƶ: psean@uw.edu
• Julie Barber, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community: jbarber@swinomish.nsn.us
• Camille Speck, WDFW (contact Ben Anderson, communications manager): Benjamin.Anderson@dfw.wa.gov
• Teri King, Washington Sea Grant: guatemal@uw.edu

Source

European green crabs feast on shellfish, destroy marsh habitats by burrowing in the mud and obliterate valuable seagrass beds. The invasive species also reproduces quickly, making it a nightmare for wildlife managers seeking to control its spread in Washington’s marine waters.

Last month, Gov. Jay Inslee issued an in response to more than as well as dramatic increases in crab populations on Washington’s outer coast and other locations in Puget Sound in recent years.

As the green crab invasion in the state worsens, a new analysis method developed by Ģ����Ƶ and Washington Sea Grant scientists could help contain future invasions and prevent new outbreaks using water testing and genetic analysis. The , published online Feb. 6 in the journal Ecological Applications, show that the DNA-based technique works as well in detecting the presence of green crabs as setting traps to catch the live animals, which is a more laborious process. Results suggest these two methods could complement each other as approaches to learn where the species’ range is expanding.

The new method relies on genetic material in the environment, known as eDNA, that is found in the water after organisms move through. Scientists can collect a bottle of water from a location, extract DNA from the water and discern which species were present recently in that area.

“We have limited resources to be able to combat this problem, and it’s important to think about how to allocate those resources efficiently and effectively,” said lead author , who completed the work as a master’s student in the Ģ����Ƶ School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. “Knowing the best situations for using eDNA to detect invasive green crabs is important, and that’s what our study tried to tackle.”

The research team relied on data collected over three months in 2020 from green crab traps in 20 locations throughout Puget Sound and the outer coast. Trapping at these locations was done by a large number of partners participating in statewide efforts to monitor and control European green crab, including multiple tribes, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife — the state lead for green crab management — Washington Sea Grant’s , and other state and federal agencies.

For this study, the researchers visited each location and collected water samples, then ran genetic analyses to detect both the presence and quantity of European green crab in each location. In this way they could validate the eDNA data with the actual presence and numbers of crabs. They found that using eDNA to detect the presence and abundance of the species was as sensitive as trapping and counting live crabs.

This is significant, the researchers said, because eDNA as a detection method is new, and it hasn’t always been clear how to interpret eDNA detections in past scenarios. This study shows how conventional monitoring methods — in this case, trapping and counting crabs — can be combined with eDNA techniques to more effectively find and control invasive species outbreaks.

“Here’s a really well-validated example of how to use eDNA in the real world. To me that’s really exciting,” said co-author , a Ģ����Ƶ associate professor in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. “There are lots of invasive species, and many imperiled and endangered species that are hard to monitor, so this is one significant way forward on all of those fronts.”

The study also evaluates when eDNA would add value in monitoring for invasive crabs, and when conventional trapping and counting still make the most sense. For example, taking water samples and testing for green crab DNA in remote locations — or in areas where outbreaks haven’t yet been identified — could save time and resources instead of deploying traps. Alternatively, eDNA probably wouldn’t be helpful in locations where large numbers of green crabs are already living and where community scientists and managers are already trapping and controlling those populations, the researchers explained.

“From a management perspective, the value of this tool just really comes to life in places that are more remote or have a lot of shoreline to cover, like Alaska, where green crabs haven’t yet been detected,” said co-author , a marine ecologist who leads the Washington Sea Grant Crab Team. “I see eDNA as another tool in the toolkit, and we can imagine scenarios where it can be used alongside trapping, especially as an early detection method.”

Finding these crabs soon after they have occupied a new location is important for controlling the population and protecting native habitats. Managers could get ahead of new invasions by testing water from multiple locations, and then follow up with more water testing, on-the-ground monitoring and trapping if green crab DNA is detected.

The paper identified green crab DNA in one location where the species hasn’t yet been captured, near Vashon Island. The research team followed up a year later with intensive trapping and retested the water; no green crabs or additional green crab DNA were found. The researchers think the earlier positive sample likely was picking up green crab larvae, which weren’t present in that location a year later. Notably, the effort represented an important test case for how eDNA and traditional trapping can be implemented together for green crab management.

“The reason we pursued this project in the beginning is that early detection of green crabs is difficult — it’s like finding a needle in a haystack,” said co-author , a Ģ����Ƶ associate teaching professor in environmental studies and aquatic and fishery sciences and the Ģ����Ƶ principal investigator for Crab Team research. “So if adding eDNA to our toolkit helps us detect those needles, then that’s great to have at our disposal.”

of the Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean and Ecosystem Studies is an additional co-author. This research was funded by Washington Sea Grant.

Contact the co-authors for more information. Contact info and expertise listed below:

• Abigail Keller (lead author, eDNA, European green crab): g.keller1@gmail.com
• Ryan Kelly (eDNA): rpkelly@uw.edu
• Emily Grason (European green crab; Crab Team efforts): egrason@uw.edu
• Sean McDonald (European green crab; Crab Team efforts): psean@uw.edu
• Chase Gunnell, WDFW communications (policy and state funding questions related to green crabs): gunnell@dfw.wa.gov or 360-704-0258 (cell)

Grant number: NOAA Award No. NA18OAR4170095

Source

The National Science Foundation has funded a multi-institutional team led by Oregon State University and the Ģ����Ƶ to work on increasing resiliency among Pacific Northwest coastal communities.

The new Cascadia Coastlines and Peoples Hazards Research Hub will serve coastal communities in Northern California, Oregon and Washington. The hub’s multidisciplinary approach will span geoscience, social science, public policy and community partnerships.

The Pacific Northwest coastline is at significant risk of earthquakes from the Cascadia Subduction Zone, an offshore fault that stretches more than 600 miles from Cape Mendocino in California to southern British Columbia. The region also faces ongoing risks from coastal erosion, regional flooding and rising seas due to climate change.

The newly established Cascadia CoPes Hub, based at OSU, will increase the capacity of coastal communities to adapt through community engagement and co-production of research, and by training a new generation of coastal hazards scientists and leaders from currently underrepresented communities.

The initial award is for $7.2 million over the first two years, with the bulk split between OSU and the Ģ����Ƶ. The total award, subject to renewals, is $18.9 million over five years.

“This issue requires a regional approach,” said co-principal investigator Ann Bostrom, a Ģ����Ƶ professor of public policy and governance. “This new research hub has the potential to achieve significant advances across the hazard sciences — from the understanding of governance systems, to having a four-dimensional understanding of Cascadia faults and how they work, and better understanding the changing risks of compound fluvial-coastal flooding, to new ways of engaging with communities to co-produce research that will be useful for coastal planning and decisions in our region. There are a lot of aspects built into this project that have us all excited.”

The community collaborations, engagement and outreach will focus on five areas: Humboldt County, California; greater Coos Bay, Oregon; Newport to Astoria, Oregon; Tokeland to Taholah, Washington; and from Everett to Bellingham, Washington.

“We have a lot to learn from the communities in our region, and part of the proposal is to help communities learn from each other, as well,” Bostrom said.

The Cascadia hub is part of the NSF’s newly announced , an effort to help coastal communities become more resilient in the face of mounting environmental pressures. Nearly 40% of the U.S. population lives in a coastal county. The NSF established one other large-scale hub for research and broadening participation, in New Jersey, and focused hubs in Texas, North Carolina and Virginia.

The Cascadia hub will focus on two broad areas: advancing understanding of the risks of Cascadia earthquakes and other geological hazards to coastal regions; and reducing disaster risk through assessment, planning and policymaking.

“We’re not thinking only about the possibility of one magnitude-9 earthquake; this effort is about the fabric of hazards over time,” said co-principal investigator , a Ģ����Ƶ professor of Earth and space sciences and director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. “The heart of this project is merging physical science and social science with a community focus in an integrated way — translating scientific discovery with actions that coastal communities can use.”

The project intentionally emphasizes incorporating traditional ecological knowledge from the region’s Native American tribes as well as local ecological knowledge from fishers, farmers and others who have personal history and experience with coastal challenges.

“We are committed to co-producing research together with coastal communities and integrating multiple perspectives about disaster risk and its management,” said , an assistant professor in Ģ����Ƶ’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, who is co-leading the hub’s Community Adaptive Capacity and Community Engagement and Outreach teams.

“There are many dimensions to resilience, including economics, health, engineering and more,” said principal investigator , a professor at OSU. “This research hub is a way to bring together a lot of groups with interest in coastal resilience who have not had the resources to work together on these issues.”

The research hub’s other principal investigators are , a Ģ����Ƶ associate professor of Earth and space sciences who will lead efforts to quantify the timing, triggers and effects of landslide hazards on communities and on landscape evolution, and , a professor of sociology at OSU. The other institutional partners are Washington Sea Grant, Oregon Sea Grant, University of Oregon, Washington State University, Humboldt State University, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Georgia Tech University and Arizona State University.

For more information, contact Bostrom at abostrom@uw.edu, Ruggiero at 541-737-1239 or peter.ruggiero@oregonstate.edu and Tobin at htobin@uw.edu. See related press releases from and .

Source

Back in the summers of 2018 and 2019, the shellfish industry in Washington state was rocked by .

“It was oysters, clams, cockles — all bivalve species in some bays were impacted,” said Teri King, aquaculture and marine water quality specialist at Washington Sea Grant based at the Ģ����Ƶ. “They were dying, and nobody knew why.”

Now, King and partners from NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Northwest Indian College and AquaTechnics Inc. think that they have finally sleuthed out the culprit: high concentrations of yessotoxins, which are produced by blooms of certain phytoplankton. The researchers’ were published last month in the open-access journal Harmful Algae.

Because are not a threat to human health, their presence in Washington has not been closely monitored. The researchers dug through data that had been collected by the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center and NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science for different purposes, coupled it with current observations from the SoundToxins phytoplankton monitoring program, and discovered that these algae species, Protoceratium reticulatum and Akashiwo sanguinea, are correlated with shellfish mortality events stretching as far back as the 1930s.

In 2018 and 2019, with SoundToxins partners’ eyes on the water, and reports of dying shellfish from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the shellfish industry, the research team was able to collect shellfish and water samples for analysis. This set the table to help answer the mystery of what was causing summer mortality in Washington state shellfish.

These findings have significant implications for shellfish growers in the region.

“We are working towards being able to help growers count the cells of yessotoxin-producing organisms in the water and correlate it to an action level,” King explained. “SoundToxins has been conducting similar work for the Washington Department of Health for three ‘human health’ marine biotoxins since 2006. Adding the ‘shellfish killing’ plankton species to the real-time mapping capability of the SoundToxins partnership would allow for shellfish producers and natural resource managers to make informed decisions, such as harvesting their product early or otherwise strategizing to save as much crop as possible.”

King said this research is also a demonstration of the value of partnerships between shellfish producers, plankton monitors, Native tribes, agencies and researchers.

“We were a team of oceanographers, biologists and chemists working together to answer these questions,” King said. “People are able to think differently when you have different people at the table.”

Sometimes, it’s even the key to solving the longstanding mysteries that have been taking place right in your backyard.

For more information, contact:

MaryAnn Wagner, Washington Sea Grant, 206-371-7656, maryannb@uw.edu
Michael Milstein, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, michael.milstein@noaa.gov
Sierra Sarkis, NOAA/NCCOS, NCCOS, sierra.sarkis@noaa.gov
Barbara Lewis, NW Indian College,�� bjlewis@nwic.edu

Source

To understand how Puget Sound has changed, we first must understand how it used to be. Unlike most major estuaries in the U.S. — and despite the abundance of world-class oceanographic institutions in the area — long-term monitoring of Puget Sound fish populations did not exist until 1990. Filling in this missing information is essential to establishing a baseline that would provide context for the current status of the marine ecosystem, and could guide policymakers in setting more realistic ecosystem-based management recovery targets.

Researchers from the Ģ����Ƶ School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Ģ����Ƶ Puget Sound Institute, NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have discovered an unconventional way to help fill in these gaps in data: using old vessel logbooks.

The crews of the Ģ����Ƶ’s then School of Fisheries’ research vessels R/V Oncorhynchus (1947 to 1955) and R/V Commando (1955 to 1980), both of which were skippered by , took notes on all of the fish tows conducted under their watch. With funding from Washington Sea Grant, the researchers combed through more than 1,000 of these logbook entries to analyze the information regarding the groundfish species caught in each tow, including when and where the fish were caught. Then, the researchers analyzed historical logbook data from 1948 to 1977 and contemporary monitoring data to reveal longer-term trends in the local groundfish populations. The research was published in last month.

Although there were changes throughout the periods analyzed, the researchers did not find that groundfish populations today in Puget Sound look fundamentally different from the historical populations.

“We see the same types of fluctuations in the historical data as in the contemporary data,” said , professor at the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and the study’s lead author. “This suggests that boom and bust populations are natural, and speaks to the importance of having a long time view to establishing a baseline.”

However, some trends did stand out, Essington explained. For example, Pacific cod used to be very common but is rare today, and the abundance of Pacific spiny dogfish has decreased.

The fact that the researchers were able to fill in any of the historical gaps was really a matter of luck: the right people had maintained the research vessels at the right time.

“They were remarkable, the records,” Essington said. “They not only noted the species and size, but also detailed descriptions of the locations. It was amazing what we could reconstruct.”

was a graduate student at the School of Fisheries from 1957 to 1960, during which he ventured out on the Commando along with Oswold and his advisor, Allan DeLacy, to collect data for his research on Puget Sound rockfish. He remembers once being chastised for filling out the logbook incorrectly.

“I had misspelled one of the scientific names — that was the only time I remember that DeLacy got mad at me,” Hitz said. “He said that the logbooks had to be correct.”

This level of precision made Essington’s work possible decades later. For Hitz, the logbooks also became a rich repository of memories.

“When I was going through the logs of the Commando, I found an entry that I had written on May 3, 1960,” he wrote in a 2015 . “It was for trip #6017 and it brought back a wave of memories, since that was my first encounter with the open waters of the Pacific Ocean. At the time I was being considered for a job with the Exploratory group which worked the outside waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea. The first thing that came to my mind was, would I become seasick once I was outside? If so, would three years of graduate school be wasted? There was no class about seasickness given at the [School of Fisheries], but there was talk.”

Although the researchers analyzed logbooks up until 1977, Essington explained that they became considerably less useful after 1973. As Hitz recalls, this was around the time the school began to place more emphasis on chartering the Commando for outside research, rather than using it for students’ education and research.

“I assume the logbooks became less important when the boat was being chartered,” Hitz said.

Essington described the project methods as “half detective work and half computer work.” The detective work involved the researchers carefully perusing the old logbooks while wearing N-95 masks to protect themselves from the mildew and dust (prior to COVID-19). The computer work involved analyzing how the catch rates of 15 groundfish species differed between the historical and contemporary datasets, to understand how the general groundfish populations differed between the two periods.

Given that the details within the logbooks petered out, and then stopped altogether once the Commando was retired, the researchers were forced to leave out an important period in their analysis.

“There was a 17-year gap between the captain’s books and current monitoring, and no amount of scrappiness could fill this in,” Essington said.

The years between the two datasets — the bulk of the 1970s and 80s — also happened to coincide with extensive environmental change in Puget Sound, including the implementation of regulations to address pollution and protect endangered species. A few changes particularly impacted groundfish: For example, the 1974 Boldt decision resulted in increased non-tribal recreational groundfish fishing. Subsequently, the introduction of bag limits, marine protected areas and species-take prohibitions in the late 1980s and early 1990s reduced the intensity of recreational groundfish fishing.

in June 2020, groundfish were added as a food web indicator species for the Puget Sound Partnership’s , which has guided policy since 2010. This research could help shed light on what to look for as healthy for this vital sign, the authors said.

“It might be better to think about baselines in the dynamic sense,” Essington said. “To focus on acceptable ranges of fluctuation, rather than a precise number.”

Other co-authors are and of the Northwest Fisheries Sciences Center; of Puget Sound Institute at Ģ����Ƶ Tacoma; , an independent consultant who previously worked at the Ģ����Ƶ School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences; and of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

This study was funded by Washington Sea Grant, The Seadoc Society and the Lowell Wakefield Endowment.

For more information, contact Essington at essing@uw.edu.

Source

Ģ����Ƶ Notebook, encouraged by the overlap between radio and podcasting, talked with the co-hosts of this prolific show with almost two dozen produced episodes so far. Also, below, EarthLab’s podcast “” releases a new season of timely topics.

“Coastal Café” is a joint production of Washington Sea Grant and the College of the Environment. Its 23 episodes and counting explore “cutting-edge marine science and related topics with researchers, policy experts and people who live and work on the Washington coast.” The show is broadcast every Wednesday at 5:10 p.m. on KPTZ, 91.9 FM out of Port Townsend.

The podcast/radio show is co-hosted by , Washington Sea Grant’s assistant director for communications; and , its boating program specialist. Both have past radio experience: Wagner with Seattle’s Classic KING FM and Barnett with a public radio station in Alaska.

The two say they modeled the program after a Maine Sea Grant radio show called “.” They approached Port Townsend radio station KPTZ with the idea for a show and the selection of marine-related topics appealed to the station, whose listeners include many in the maritime industry.

What is the audience for ‘Coastal Café’? ��

Aaron Barnett: The content is eclectic with a focus on Washington state but with national relevance. The audience we try to reach is composed of coastal stakeholders — vessel operators, marine trades, coastal homeowners, you name it.�� The show was also syndicated on Radio Free America for a year until they folded this summer.��

MaryAnn Wagner: Really, anyone who has an interest in what is happening in the Pacific Ocean or Salish Sea, and along those shorelines would be interested in our show topics, including anyone interested in learning about the latest news in marine science and policy, or even just fishing and boating.

What episode might be the best for a newcomer to listen to first?��

A.B.: That depends on what they are interested in. For example, if a newcomer is interested in the arts, we did a , whose band provides music for the show. We have many science-focused episodes, with most of those based at the Ģ����Ƶ. And we have a couple of shows focused on recreational boating and the commercial fishing industry.

M.W.: Aaron recently did an on-location show about aboard a U. S. Coast Guard Lifeboat, and we did a show on Ģ����Ƶ tsunami research in the Pacific Northwest — and another on abandoned and derelict boats and what to do about them. Coming up is a show for recreational boaters and beachgoers on how to help reduce marine debris, such as plastics and other garbage.

You are recording new episodes — what are the challenges of keeping the podcast going during the coronavirus shutdown?

A.B.: The biggest challenge we have faced during shutdown is finding a way to record good sound quality outside of the production and recording studio, since no one is allowed to tape in the station. We have experimented with different phone and internet platforms and think we have something that works now. However, good sound quality still hinges on good connection with the interviewee’s phone signal, which these days is usually from a cell phone.

M.W.: And cell phones are not always reliable! I really miss being in the studio setting with the interviewee sitting across the table with all the equipment.�� But that has not stopped us. Aaron and our excellent producer Jared DuFresne of KPTZ have experimented with a number of variations for taping the show remotely, and as Aaron said, they have found a good technical combination. The show must go on, and so it has.

We have found over the past two years that the number of marine topics we could report upon is endless. For example, there is so much research happening at the Ģ����Ƶ on marine and related environmental issues, that we could do multiple shows focused on Ģ����Ƶ projects alone.

I should add that we are always open to ideas from our listeners. So, please send us your ideas.

• To learn more or submit ideas, contact Wagner at maryannb@uw.edu or Barnett at aaronb5@uw.edu.

* * *

EarthLab’s ‘Voices Unbound’ second season talks of social tensions from COVID-19

“” is a podcast created by EarthLab and Ģ����Ƶ Tacoma, and hosted by associate professor in the school’s Nursing and Healthcare Leadership Program. The podcast has now published its second season.

“In this series opener we go way-deep into the social tensions of our time,” show notes say, “discussing how racism in law enforcement and governmental responses to the COVID-19 epidemic contribute important environmental threats to communities in our region and elsewhere.”

The podcast also will continue to report on its analysis of answers to questions posed since 2019 about public attitudes toward environmental challenges.

Principal investigators for the work are Evans-Agnew and , urban ecologist and assistant professor in Ģ����Ƶ Tacoma’s School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences.

Read an earlier Ģ����Ƶ Notebook story about this podcast. For more information, contact Evans-Agnew at robagnew@uw.edu.

Source