THE OREGON COAST AQUARIUM:

A Case Study

by

Kim P. Van Zwalenburg

Internship Report

Submitted to

Marine Resource Management Program

College of Oceanography
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331

1986
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science

Commencement June 1987

Internship: The Oregon Coast Aquarium

1 Ferry Slip Road
P. 0. Box 78
South Beach, Oregon 97366
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

Without the generosity of friends and family, this paper

would never have become a reality. I would particularly like to
recognize my fellow Marine Resource Management students. Each
one brings a wealth of experience and wisdom to the program, and I
am much richer for my two years of sharing with them here at OSU.
Lynn Morrill and Mary Grace Gosla provided many smiles
during a difficult year, and Lynn and Fran Recht graciously gave
of their time to read and reread various drafts. They also were
willing to listen to my first stumbling attempts at giving my
presentation and gave me much needed encouragement.
My major professor Jim Good was always willing to listen to
my comments about the MRM program in general and my paper in
particular. I found our conversations often sparked new ideas.
It is with deep gratitude that I acknowledge the friendship
of Bruce Henderson. His support and belief in me, both
personally and professionally, carried me through some of my
darkest days.
Finally, my time spent at the Hatfield Marine Science Center
and the Oregon coast has resulted in friendships and memories I
will always cherish. My spirit is renewed.

In memory of Margaret H. Cameron who always strived to learn.

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

T. S. Eliot
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

HISTORY 3

PRELIMINARY STUDIES 5

Site Selection and Theme Development 5

Seawater Supply Alternative Evaluation 6

Economic Feasibility Analysis 9

Potential Cooperative Programs 13'

Analysis 15

The Master Plan 21

INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE 24

REFERENCES 27

APPENDIX 1 28

APPENDIX 2 31

APPENDIX 3 33
INTRODUCTION

In April 1984, the Yaquina Bay Economic Foundation ) was

presented with a preliminary study on an aquarium proposed for

the Oregon coast. Out of this study came a mission, a site, and

a better understanding of the steps needed to bring the project

closer to realization. The mission was stated as follows:

The aquarium will interpret the Oregon coast, its

environments, animals and people in a unique, compelling,
and interesting manner so that residents of Newport,
Lincoln County, western Oregon and all other visitors
will be better prepared to make informed resource
decisions when called upon to do so.2

This mission is to be achieved by a financially self-sufficient

non-profit corporation called the Oregon Coast Aquarium (OCA).

The OCA is reaching for two goals: education and research.

To be self-supporting, it must educate the public in an

entertaining manner. However, in addition to presenting

information on the basic biological, economic, social and

cultural aspects of the coast, the OCA seeks to become a focal

point for coastal research and a medium for educating the public
about ongoing and future research.
Reaching these goals will take dynamic and innovative
programs. It will mean fostering cooperative agreements with

local, state and federal groups, with citizens, schools,

universities, agencies and governments. The OCA has begun this

process using a unique approach. Input and comments from

many groups with which the aquarium might interact are being

sought before the final aquarium designs are completed. This

1. For this and all subsequent superscripts, please see Notes

in Appendix 1.
approach has already resulted in broad local support and in the

incorporation of a number of physical features not provided for

in earlier planning. It has given the OCA an all-important visibility

before the facilities are even in place as well as a sense that

it is already active and participating in the coastal

environment.
The following paper traces important decision processes

connected with initiating and constructing a coastal environmental

facility. There is a brief review of the early history and

summaries of the preliminary studies completed as of April 1986.
Particular focus is placed on the Oregon State University/ Oregon

Coast Aquarium cooperative study. Finally, there is a short

review of the Master Plan completed in July 1986.

2
HISTORY

The concept of an aquarium was first proposed in early 1981.

The Yaquina Bay Economic Foundation was formed at about the same

time, and it spearheaded the beginnings of the project. Thomas

Becker, a Newport businessman, donated funds for a study of the
potential feasibility and theme development of the aquarium. By

late 1982, community support for the Foundation had grown

substantially. Contributions and membership dues allowed them

to contract with BIOS: Inc. (a Seattle area design firm) in 1983

to work up a preliminary design, select a site and look into

potential permit requirements.

In May of 1984, recognizing the wealth of talent and
expertise available at Oregon State University (OSU), the Yaquina

Bay Economic Foundation signed a formal cooperative agreement

with the university. Oregon State University is a Land and Sea

Grant institution located in Corvallis, OR. and includes the

Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport.3

In October 1984, a project director was hired, the Oregon
Coast Aquarium, Inc. was formed and a Board of Directors was

established (Appendix 2). Responsibility for aquarium operations

was transferred to the OCA from the Foundation, and volunteer and

membership programs were begun.

1985 saw increased activity. Community support and

visibility was enhanced through a challenge-grant fund raising

effort and an OCA-sponsored maritime folklore and history program
presented in Lincoln County schools and as a public concert. In

June, the OCA was designated by the National Marine Fisheries

3
Service as part of the Marine Mammal Stranding Network 4 , and OCA

volunteers participated with OSU/HMSC staff in the rehabilitation

of nine harbor seal pups and a harbor porpoise (five pups were
cared for in 1986).

Two major grants were awarded to the OCA during 1985. The
Fred Meyer Charitable Trust donated $28,500 for preliminary
studies in engineering, economic feasibility and cost analysis.

The Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation provided $15,000 to identify

potential cooperative research and educational programs with

Oregon State University. In 1986, the Oregon Department of Land

Conservation and Development presented a $52,680 grant for The

Master Plan. The Master Plan represents a synthesis of all the

earlier planning efforts and will be used throughout the capital

fund rai s ing campaign.

4
PRELIMINARY STUDIES

Site Selection and Theme Development

The Oregon Coast Aquarium, to be located in Newport, OR.,

has been under careful development for the past five years.
Proposed as a coastal interpretive center, its theme will trace
the path of a water droplet from coastal mountain crest
through the watershed and out to sea. Visitors will see and
experience how coastal environments are integrated from upland to
ocean, as well as learn about the human impact on these areas.
Two particular criteria had to be met with the chosen site:
easy access and high visibility from Highway 101, and access to
quality seawater. Two sites were initially considered in the
South Beach area of Newport. The site west of Highway 101
consisted largely of private land holdings and was not visible when
travelling north on 101. More importantly, the exposed nature of
the site would have neccesitated an indoor facility and
seawater access would have required breaching the south jetty.
The selected site [Fig. 1] is located east of the highway
along the shoreline of the estuary and adjacent to the 0. S. U.
Hatfield Marine Science Center. It covers 17 1/2 acres
and is owned by the Port of Newport which purchased the last
private inholdings in 1984. The existing building on the site
was made available as an interim aquarium office and the Port has
recently (1986) leased the land to the OCA for 99 years at $1.00
per year. 5 The site was originally the location of a lumber
operation and includes an old log pond. In the 1970's the dikes
were breached and the pond was reclaimed as part of the estuary.

5
Figure 1

--- U.S. 20 to Toledo

Downtown Newport

Newport Bayfront

0.S.0 / Hatfield
Marine Science Center

01\
U.S.\
Bridge

OREGON COAST AQUARIUM SITE

Ferry Sli Road

NORTH

U.S.101
This was done by the Port as partial mitigation 6 for their South
Beach Marina development.
Declaration as a mitigation site places severe land use
restrictions on the site which must be addressed throughout the
planning process. Federal and state regulatory agencies were
contacted for review and comment regarding potental conflicts in
use of the land for an aquarium. While no one foresaw any major
difficulties, final reviews and decisions will be made during the
formal permit application process which must take place prior to
construction.

Two studies were completed under the Fred Meyer Charitable Trust
grant: 1) The Seawater Supply Alternative'Evaluation
2) The Economic Feasibility Analysis and Capital Cost
Summary
The Weyerhaeuser study produced one document: Potential
Cooperative Research and Educational Programs.
These reports will be summarized separately and are the sources
for all the following information unless stated otherwise.

Seawater Supply Alternative Evaluation

The engineering study was awarded to CH2M Hill and was a
necessary precursor to the economic study due to the large
capital cost involved in the construction of the system. The
tasks were to:
1) Determine OCA's seawater requirements
2) Evaluate alternative seawater supply systems

6
 3) Identify and evaluate locations for the supply system
intake
4) Estimate costs for system components, each system,
and each intake location.
Comparisons and evaluations were done on two systems and
four intake locations. Based on the planned exhibits, it was
estimated that 3520 gallons per minute (gpm) of seawater would be
required to sustain life in the tanks. 7 The full flow-through
system [Fig 2] would require 3520 gpm of fresh seawater. The
partial recirculation system [Fig 3] requires only 910 gpm of
fresh seawater to provide for salinity-sensitive exhibits. 2600
gpm (or 75% of the total flow) would be refiltered and recirculated.
Four intake locations [Fig 4] were considered:
1) West of Highway 101, off the south jetty
2) Oregon Aqua Foods (OREAQUA) dock
3) HMSC small boat dock
4) HMSC large boat dock
The south jetty was considered the least desirable due to extreme
weather conditions, increased regulatory issues, and the
remoteness of the site. The OREAQUA dock was also discounted due
to potential conflict of interest. OREAQUA is a private, for
profit, salmon ranching operation and it is unclear what a
cooperative agreement might entail. In addition, while OREAQUA
has the capacity to pump a surplus amount of water out of the
bay, there are no facilities for pumping the water to the OCA
site. The equipment necessary to do this would be similar to
that required for installation of the aquarium's own intake.
Thus, the two most feasible locations are the small and
 EXHIBITS

MUD LAB

RESERVOIR FISH AND

INVERTEBRATE

—4 MIXED FISH

PUMP
HARBOR
SEALS

SEAWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM LIMITS. TYP SEA LIONS )--00

HOLDING
POOL YAQUINA
BAY

—so< OTTERS

CETACEAN >—••••

FIGURE 2
FULL FLOW-THROUGH SYSTEM
OREGON COAST AQUARIUM
SEAWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
 EXHIBIJS

MUD LAB >■•••

■NIMMI

FISH AND
INVERTEBRATE
RESERVOIR

TNT
• 111111111

r
MIXED FISH
111111111

FILTER , ( RECIRCULATION) I
PUMP L_
HARBOR
SEALS
YAQUINA
BAY
L- SEAWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM LIMITS, TYP

SEA LIONS

(RECIRCULATION)1
HOLDING
POOL
YAQUINA
BAY

TIERS

RECIRCULATION
J
► CETACEAN
- -
(RECIRCULATION)

FIGURE 3
PARTIAL RECIRCULATION SYSTEM
SEPTEMBER 1985 OREGON COAST AQUARIUM
ULM HILL SEAWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
 YAQUINA BAY

FEET

OREGON
■ AQUA
FOODS
INC. MARK 0.
HATFIELD
MARINE
SCIENCE
CENTER

.
SOUTH
BEACH
MARINA

„„ , „.„, MECHANICAL
--IF:4; ";' '"'
BUILDING FOR
SEAWATER
„„- /- „.....- SUPPLY SYSTEM
...„,.....-; .
OREGON STATE UN1VERSI7
• ...... lefill,
V15.:,: ...... ..
I.... r ..... "
fi,i,:2 ............•.1
.....
IL:.
.......•-•
...........
........ " ... .....
"L",;(2
..... . ,.,,C
.,,,,A,,F
,S,,ITE_,,,,,,,,,
................
RRO
ELAODCATED 1. ....
FERRY SLIP .,;;.,,f;(iffifffik,/,

\ \
\ N., ....
■ ....., --... z

FIGURE4
ALTERNATIVE SEAWATER SUPPLY SOURCES
SEPTEMBER 1985 OREGON COAST AQUARIUM
SEAWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION
af34 HILL
large boat docks at the HMSC. Water quality at both locations is
similar. With the possible exception of the south jetty
location, a 100,000 gallon reservoir will be required to provide
water during periods of low salinity (most often a problem during
the spring) within Yaquina Bay.
The current HMSC intake is located on the small dock which
is about 200 yards upstream from the large dock. There are
potential benefits to locating on the same dock such as shared
maintenance and perhaps greater flexibility with future
modifications to both systems. However, there is no available
space on the existing pier and the condition of the pilings is
unknown. In addition, while perhaps remote, there is a chance
that a single catastrophic event could impact both intakes.
Locating on the large dock would reduce the options for shared
operation. However, this was the location of an earlier, and
since discontinued, system for the HMSC. The equipment was
removed and there is existing space for a new intake system.
For the cost estimates, the two HMSC docks were compared
with both the full flow-through and the partial recirculation
systems. Estimates included the cost of construction necessary
to support equipment on the small boat dock. Location made
little difference in the cost (about $900,000) for the full flow-
through system. For the partial recirculation system (about $1.1
million) the large dock location was the most cost effective.
However, when looking at operation and maintenance costs over
time, the reduced machinery made the full flow-through system
much more cost-effective ($160,000 versus $230,000 annually).
The results of this study were compiled in September 1985 for
inclusion in the economic feasibility study.

Economic Feasibility Analysis and Capital Cost Summary

This study was completed in December 1985. It was a
coordinated effort involving BIOS: Inc., Economic Consulting
Services, Santa Monica, CA., and the OSU College of Business.
Toledo High School students 8 participated in some of the data
gathering.
Study objectives included estimates of resident and tourist
markets, attendance levels, admission prices and total revenue.
Operating cost estimates were made as well as estimates for
construction and other development costs. The economic impact of
construction and operation of the OCA on the Newport area was
also investigated. Finally, the study outlined "key factors"
important to the OCA's long term success.
The market analysis looked at potential resident users,
visitors to the Newport area, and visitors just travelling
through. The resident market was defined as being those who
lived close enough to make a day trip to the attraction. Based
on other studies, it was estimated that people might be willing
to travel up to two hours one way for a two hour experience such
as the OCA would provide. This equates to about a 100 mile radius
from Newport. The primary market was defined as being those
living in a 0-50 mile radius and the secondary market as the 50-
100 mile radius. The 50 mile radius includes Lincoln City,
Albany and Corvallis and totals approximately 185,000 people. The
secondary market, with a population close to 1.9 million, extends

9
to the outskirts of Portland and includes Salem and Eugene.
Data on the age composition and buying power of the resident
market showed an age distribution similar to the United States as
a whole: approximately 25% ages 0-17 years, 50% ages 18-49 years
and 25% 50+ years. Annual income ($22,796 in Oregon) averaged
11% below the national median ($25,496).
The visitor market consists of those staying in Newport and
those passing through. Traffic counts and estimates from the
state Tourism Division indicate that somewhere between 2-3
million visitors come to or through the Newport area annually.
The potential penetration of this market was estimated by looking
at the attendance and fees of similar attractions along the
Oregon coast. Sea Lion Caves is located right on . Highway 101
about 38 miles south of Newport. It attracted 226,000 visitors
in Fiscal Year 1985 with adult admission fees of $4.00. Undersea
Gardens on the Newport Bayfront attracts 130,000-160,000 per year
at an adult ticket price of $3.50. It is located at some
distance off Highway 101 and parking is minimal. The HMSC
Aquarium is free and averages 350,000 visitors per year. Based
on the visitor levels at these area attractions, estimates of
250,000-350,000+ visitors per year are predicted for the OCA with
300,000 chosen as a planning target.
Attendance and admission data from selected aquariums across
the country was also analyzed. There was a wide variance in
attendance levels which was felt to be more attributed to lack of
promotion and knowledge of the target market than to admission
prices. On the whole people seem to be willing to pay for a

10
quality experience.
One other important factor came out of the local and
national data and that was the seasonal nature of attendance
figures. Approximately 50% of the visitors come during the summer
period between Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends. This is
crucial information in terms of staffing and design.
Based on estimated attendance levels (4 adults per youth),
and an adult admission price of $5.00 9 , the financial analysis
was completed. It was estimated that the average visitor
expenditure would be $5.95 (including food and merchandise
purchases). This yields revenues of $1,785,000. Gross revenues
would be approximately $1,875,000, with $90,000 coming from
grants, donations, facility rentals, etc.
Operating expenses are estimated to be $1,502,000 with over
$800,000 of that dedicated to salaries and wages. It is felt
that the OCA will need a staff consisting of 18 full time, 10
permanent half-time and 20 part-time positions. The part-time
positions are largely entry-level. It is hoped the permanent
half-time positions will be filled with OSU graduate (or other)
students working on appropriate degrees. There will probably
also be considerable summer-time hiring of high school and
college students. If a substantial, and well trained, volunteer
force is available, personnel costs could be reduced. Other
operating costs include animal care and feed, office and
promotional expenses, insurance, and exhibitry to list a few. A
large portion of the costs will be for store and food inventories.
Subtracting operating expenses from gross revenues gives the

11
operating profit or loss. In this case, there is an estimated
profit of $389,000 per year. This translates into a financially
feasible project provided that the bulk of the cost of
development is funded through grants and donations. This leaves
the OCA with a funding goal of more than $5,000,000.10
The report predicts the overall economic impact on the
Newport and Lincoln County area will be substantial. Much of the
revenue from construction of the facility will remain in the
local area. Once the facility is operating, over 30 new jobs
will be available and many are likely to be filled with area
residents. There will also be the potential for increased
revenue from tourists as the aquarium becomes part of the Newport
experience.
In summary, the feasibility report finds the OCA to be an
economically viable project with potential for substantial
economic impact on the Newport region. However, there are
certain "keys to success" to ensure the long term survival of the
aquarium. In financing the project, it is crucial that the
initial capital and development costs are met through grants.
Operating revenues will not be great enough to allow for payment
on large debts. The theme of the aquarium must be indelibly
linked with the coast, and promotion must be continual and kept
at a high level. The facility, or access to it, must be visible
from Highway 101 and the whole aquarium experience must be of
top quality. The OCA staff, from cashiers to director, must
believe in and identify with the goals of a quality experience.
Finally, there is potential for confusion between the Oregon

12
Coast Aquarium and the Hatfield Marine Science Center.
Coordination between the two facilities is crucial.

Potential Cooperative Research and Educational Programs

With the dual goal of education and research, it is hoped
that research potential can be built into the aquarium without
detracting from its entertainment value. It was recognized early
in the planning process that a close working relationship with
Oregon State University was important and in May 1984, a
cooperative agreement was formalized with then President Robert
MacVicar. Dr. John Byrne subsequently endorsed the agreement.
There was some early cooperative work begun in 1985 with both
institutions involved in the annual rehabilitation of stranded
marine mammals. In September 1985, the OSU College of Business
was asked to overview the economic feasibility project.
In February 1985, the OCA received a $15,000 grant from the
Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation for use in exploring the
potential cooperative relationship. The grant was primarily
requested to investigate potential research use of the aquarium
facility and the necessary physical design modifications. In
addition, it was hoped preliminary planning could begin on
programmatic interaction in public marine education efforts.
The study was begun in October 1985. The final report was
completed in March 1986 and is included in Appendix 3. A brief
summary is given here.
Detailed input from departments and individuals was sought
to ensure close collaboration in the development of the physical

13
and programmatic designs for the aquarium. It was a
multidisciplinary effort with thirty-five departments, colleges
and programs contacted. These were chosen based on current
and/or previous interaction with the HMSC, and also included
departments with the potential for program expansion into coastal
and marine related studies.
Prior to the study, very little was known about the OCA on
the Corvallis campus. An important initial step was thus to
disseminate preliminary information while soliciting ideas.
Initial meetings generally resulted in an expression of interest
and an agreement to pass the information and materials along to
faculty members.
In January and February 1986, each department was
contacted again and asked to respond to questionnaires (in
Appendix 2 of the report). Meetings were also held with a number
of individual faculty members. In late February, a series of
workshops were held on campus with the OCA director, a
representative of BIOS: Inc. and interested departments. The
input from all these sources helped give definition to both
physical and programmatic needs of the aquarium.
To demonstrate the feasibility of coordination between the
aquarium and the university, two pilot programs were run under
the grant. The educational outreach program entitled "Mr. and
Mrs. Fish" was directed by Ms. Vicki Osis, a Marine Educational
Specialist at the HMSC. This program was a series of skits about
the marine environment geared to elementary students and was
taken to about 70 schools. The research project is

14
headed by Mr. James Harvey, a PhD. candidate in Oceanography.
Still underway, the project is studying the survival (via radio
tracking) of captive-reared harbor seals reintroduced to the
natural environment.
The report does not provide an overall analysis of the
project, nor does it address some of the benefits which could
accrue to each institution. The following section is an attempt
to look at those subjects.

Analysis
While largely successful, the study fell short in two
particular areas: students were not involved in the process and
there was difficulty getting people to see beyond the obvious
biological aspects of the aquarium.
The biology of the habitats and the animals will be an
important feature throughout the facility. The possibilities for
research right in the aquarium are exciting, for its displays
represent an intermediate step between the lab and a natural
setting. Studies which might be done include settling rates on
substrates in the tanks, stress effects on fish behavior, etc.
However, the biology of the organisms is not the only topic of
interest in the coastal environment.
Offshore mineral mining is a current and very real issue, as
is coastal erosion. The coastal economy, waterfront
revitalization and fisheries management are also timely topics.
Many people and communities are becoming involved in
researching and resolving these resource issues. The OCA can be,
and wants to be, a forum for addressing the questions and

15
conflicts present in the decision-making process.
Forestry practices and anthropology are also important
elements of the whole coastal ecosystem. Forestry practices have
long had an impact on fisheries, and the whole upland habitat is
an important source of nutrients which flow down the streams and
into the estuaries. Anthropologists and archeologists study the
past and present human uses of the coast and its resources.
There are numerous sites all along the coast which need to be
carefully studied to help gain insight into what the region was
like before the arrival of the Europeans.
There are a wealth of research opportunities. These need
not take place at the aquarium. The OCA hopes to be a
'lightning rod' for funds which will be available to students
and faculty with proposed projects addressing a coastal issue.
This covers everything from water quality and toxicity studies to
engineering projects, horticultural projects to archeological
digs, and intertidal studies to studies on the economics of
tourism. The topics are only limited by one's imagination.
Although not covered in detail in the report, there were a
number of departments that expressed interest in incorporating
the OCA facility into new, or altered, courses. In addition to
research, it is hoped that classes will take advantage of the
aquarium as a lab, as a field trip destination, and for projects.
The lack of student input was dictated by lack of time.
Students stand to gain the most from the aquarium's existence.
However, the absence of response from several departments
represented decisions made at the departmental level without

16
considering the potential of the OCA as a resource for students.
There will be employment and internship opportunities along with
potential funding for projects.
There are many potential benefits resulting from a
cooperative arrangement which could accrue to both institutions.
The OCA will gain increased visibility and validity in a liaison
with an already widely recognized institution. The university
will also be a readily available source of valuable expertise and
knowledge. By jointly cooperating in active research throughout
the coastal region, the OCA will remain in the public eye. While
the aquarium won't have a great deal of equipment or lab space,
much of that is available at the HMSC.
The OCA will also benefit by having educated and
enthusiastic students on its staff. Students are full of ideas
and new ways of approaching questions. Many of the students will
have a specific interest or training and this will allow
them to put it into practice. While staff positions have been
budgeted for student biologists (animal care is a daily
requirement) and for positions in the education department,
this does not preclude the involvement of business majors,
journalism students, graphic artists, economics majors,
engineers, horticulture and botany students, etc. as interns or
volunteers. With the boom in museums and aquariums, there is
increased demand for trained people, and the OCA can serve as a
training facility. All this activity leads to increased public
interest and educational potential. It also expands OCA's
flexibility and will help keep it in the news.

17
 There are many benefits which will accrue to OSU as well.
As the market for students tightens, universities and colleges
need to offer unique opportunities to attract them. If
nothing else, the potential for students to participate in a
successful and functioning facility will make a good recruiting
angle. The chance to be involved in a project such as the OCA can
be a very valuable enticement. OCA's location adjacent to the
Marine Science Center expands the possiblities for students and
faculty interested in coastal resources and issues. The HMSC is
a valuable resource but is often neglected, or perhaps just
overlooked, by many on the main campus. Perhaps OCA's presence
can be a factor in revitalizing educational activities in
Newport.
If there is to be a joint working relationship, careful
planning and coordination with the HMSC is of great importance.
While there is the sense that competition between the two
organizations won't occur it is a possibility which shouldn't be
ignored. Both the university and the OCA recognize the mutual
benefits. However, both must also recognize that the proposed
cooperation will take an enormous amount of work. This work
won't end once programs are in place.
The Marine Science Center is at an important turning point.
Class enrollment has been inconsistent in recent years (all 1986
summer courses were cancelled) and the staff has begun looking at
ways to improve the instructional program in order to attract
students. With potential changes in the wind, a close look at
future goals and relationships, including those with the OCA

18
should be investigated and defined.
These future goals should include the public wing and its
Marine Extension/public education office. Seatauqua is a well
established summer program attracting people from all over the
state to workshops, lectures and films. Many of these visitors
have grown up attending the aquarium with its touch tank, aquaria
and famous octopus. These people continue to return with their
own children, and it is obvious that the Marine Science Center
meets an important need.
While it is generally felt that the OCA will, if anything,
have a positive effect on the public's use of the Marine Science
Center, who can read the minds of the visitors? Though free,
exhibits at the HMSC are largely unchanging. Will people
continue to attend with the presence of the new, "bigger and
better" aquarium next door? If they go to the HMSC first, it is
likely that they will follow with a visit to the OCA. Will the
reverse also be true? This sort of marketing survey has not been
done.
Although there is talk of little overlap between the two
aquariums there will nonetheless be overlap in a general sense.
The OCA plans a touch tide pool and there will be the usual
tanks of fish. To many, one tank of fish looks like any other.
Media shows, talks and demonstrations will also be presented.
What impact, if any, will these have on attendence at the
aquarium and events at the HMSC?
What of the volunteer programs at both aquariums? Even now,
there is overlap with a number of volunteers donating time to

19
both. Can this continue without detriment to either facility?
Will the volunteers continue working at both locations or will
they choose one over the other? This could potentially leave one
of the aquariums with little volunteer support.
The HMSC volunteer coordinator is a Marine Extension
employee. The OCA has budgeted for their own coordinator.
Should the OCA specifically require that their coordinator be in
continual contact with the one at the HMSC? Two people working
for separate institutions could lead to competition even under
the best of intentions. The issue could get critical
particularly during the high attendence periods of summer and
holidays when volunteers are especially at a premium. Could the
job be done by one person or one office? If coordination was
done through one office what sort of financial arrangements would
need to be made?
In the area of educational programs, there has already been
alot of thought and discussion. The "Mr. and Mrs. Fish" project
successfully demonstrated a cooperative effort. The OCA gave
financial support and development assistance while the HMSC
handled scheduling, advertising and staging details. Similar
arrangements might be possible with other outreach programs, but
each one will require special planning and organization.
How will school groups be handled? Will staff members
jointly present the programs or will each organization present an
entirely separate set of activities? The OCA plans to have an
active education program for school groups, undergraduate and
graduate students. However, this can only be a success with the

20
cooperation of the HMSC. The OCA has neither the money nor the
space to build classrooms and laboratories, let alone stock them
properly. These are available at the Marine Science Center along
with an excellent library.
Care must be taken to keep the identities of both
institutions distinct. As more and more cooperative programs are
organized and presented there could be a tendency for the lines
to become blurred. It will be the OCA's responsibility to keep
the definitions distinct. It will also be the OCA's
responsibility to promote the HMSC and the activities it offers.
Mutual respect for the roles of each in public education, as well
as close communication will be necessary if each is to benefit
the other. It is felt that both groups can work together.
Rather than conflicting, the OCA and the HMSC hope to broaden
opportunities in, and people's perspectives of, the coastal
region.

The Master Plan

Supported by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and

Development with funds from the U. S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Coastal Management, the Master Plan was completed in
July 1986. It represents the culmination of five years of
planning and thought and is being used in the capital fund
raising effort. The Plan is intended to be a working document,
serving as a guide in all facets of future development. In the
words of the authors, "it describes not only the physical results
of the planning process, but also the philosophical and

21
organizational goals."
The Master Plan emphasizes the careful attention to detail
so evident throughout the entire planning process of the past
five years. The site has a number of natural features which will
be fully utilized in the project--a small wooded hill, an existing
pond, and the estuarine waterfront. Guidelines are elicited for
both building and landscape architecture. The over riding goal
is to create a series of believable habitats for visitors to
experience and learn about.
Much of the Master Plan is devoted to the exhibits which
are the centerpiece of the aquarium. The exhibits are crucial
for attracting visitors, and are also where much of the public
education will occur. In addition to, and in support of,
the physical exhibitry, the Plan focuses on both public and
educational programs and the administration and operation of the
whole organization.
After a mood-setting Introductory Exhibit, the path leads to
The Forest. Here, and on the Forest Loop Trail, visitors will
learn about coastal forest ecology and the hydrologic cycle, as
well as observe some of the typical plants and animals found in
such a habitat. Along the way will be a viewing blind
overlooking the existing pond with interpretive displays on the
waterfowl. From here visitors pass to The Stream and then on to
The River. The River exhibit will focus on salmon, particularly
the life cycle and the human uses of the resource. The Beaver
Loop Trail will expand on river ecology and allow one to observe
beavers and otters in seemingly natural environments.

22
 The Dunes, an exhibit focusing on the Oregon Dunes National
Monument will be located along the estuary shoreline. Here
visitors learn about dune migration and stabilization and are
given close-up views of shorebirds. Adjacent to this will be The
Estuary--a hands-on laboratory type of exhibit allowing people to
discover the life hidden in those seemingly barren mudflats and
blue waters. The Sea will be the most aquarium-like element of
the OCA. It will hold small and large aquaria presenting varied
habitats: sandy bottoms, piers and pilings and rocky shores.
The outdoor exhibit area will include a marine mammal (including
harbor seals, sea lions and sea otters) pool and a sea bird
display. A cetacean pool may be added later.
A visit to the aquarium will conclude in the Oregon Coast
Center. Here, the "trip" from mountain crest to open ocean is
reviewed. In addition, there will be displays on current coastal
issues, as well as exhibits on the research and possible
solutions of these issues. Finally, there is an Ocean Sciences
exhibit displaying work currently underway in the Newport area.
Much of the Oregon Coast Center will be flexible and allow space
for temporary exhibits.
The Master Plan sketches a facility that is much more
compact than in earlier drawings. There is also less reliance on
the outdoor paths reflecting the realities of the Oregon weather.
However the Plan still adheres to the original concept of
providing visitors with an experience that stretches from the
Coast Range to the open ocean.

23
INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE

I was hired as campus liaison in October 1985 by Mr. Bruce

Henderson, Executive Director, Oregon Coast Aquarium and by Dr.
Lavern Weber, Director, Hatfield Marine Science Center. I knew
very little about the project when I was interviewed and pointed
out that fact was an advantage since I had no preconceived ideas.
I had my initial doubts about the viability of the aquarium
proposal but found myself getting more and more excited as I
talked to people about it.
It was my job to familiarize people on the OSU Corvallis
campus with the OCA project. It was also my job to get them
thinking in imaginative ways about how they might interact with
the aquarium. I spent a good deal of time myself thinking of
ways to inspire interest and counter claims of "I see no way we
could interact" with viable ideas.
Response to the questionnaire was a mixed success. The form
was one which took time and a good deal of thought to answer.
A few forms were returned blank, and while that was
disappointing, at least I knew of their fate. Many simply never
responded in any way despite the follow-up letters I sent out
emphasizing our interest in their ideas. I learned later of the
Survey Research Center on campus which would have helped
formulate the questions. I'm not sure it would have resulted in
an increased return (the reponse rate was about 20%), but I would
have felt we had done everything possible to achieve a maximum
return.
The workshops were also a good lesson for me. It is very

24
difficult to get more than two busy people together at any one
time and I was disappointed in the turnout. However, there were
some good ideas which resulted from the meetings, and I believe my
sense of frustration came more from my lack of control over the
situation rather than because it was all a waste of time.
The position required a great deal of phone calling and
meeting with strangers--two activities I find particularly
difficult. It was "good for my character" as they say, and gave
me a glimpse of much of the institution that is called Oregon
State University. I was astounded by the amount of activity that
goes on and began wondering where people find the time to
complete anything. It was exciting to hear of some of the ideas
and projects and to recognize all the potential wrapped up in
these "ivied "walls". I also lost a great deal of my naivete.
Not everyone associated with higher education is innovative
and imaginative. Many are just doing their job and getting
through the day. There are some here on campus who have little
thought for students and opportunities which might benefit them.
That saddens me since I was brought up with the notion that
higher education involves, and is primarily directed toward,
students and their quests for knowledge. Perhaps in a state that
fails to recognize and support the efforts of higher education,
it is not surprising that the imagination becomes dulled and the
research dollar becomes paramount.
The work begun with this study needs to be followed up.
Students especially must be introduced to the project and
encouraged to begin thinking of ways they might like to be

25
involved. It will be the responsibility of the aquarium to
continue advocating the cooperative relationship. There are
interested people at OSU who continue to stop me on campus and
ask about the status of the project. The OCA needs to keep these
people informed and enthusiastic.
The internship provided me with an opportunity to become
involved with a new and exciting project. It resulted in an
experience in program development which was challenging and is
the field I hope to pursue. I was given a great deal of freedom
to institute and carry out my part of the study. I appreciated
that freedom. It is my hope that the Oregon Coast Aquarium will
bring back some of the fun of learning and teaching. However, I
don't believe it will be truely successful without strong OSU
support.
I regret that I won't be involved in the follow-up process.
The opportunity was offered to me for the fall of 1986. However,
I believe it will be time and money better spent once funding for
construction and development is less tenuous. At that time, the
OCA will be able to present the university community with a
project that is no longer a dream but a reality. 11

26
 REFERENCES

BIOS: Inc., Economic Consulting Services, CH2M Hill, Oregon

State University College of Business. 1985. Economic
Feasibility and Capital Cost Analysis. 6Opp.
BIOS: Inc. 1984. Theme Development and Site Selection Study.
BIOS: Inc. 1986. The Master Plan for the Oregon Coast Aquarium.
CH2M Hill. 1985. Seawater Supply Alternative Evaluation. 2Opp.
Scavotto, E. D. 1986. Research plays key role in growth of U. S.
aquariums. Oceanus 29: 28-35.
Van Zwalenburg, K. P. and J. W. Nightingale. 1986. Potential
Cooperative Research and Educational Programs. 39pp.

Note: All listed references are available at the Oregon Coast

Aquarium office.

27
APPENDIX 1

28
 NOTES

1. The Yaquina Bay Economic Foundation was formed in 1981. It

is an organization which is focused on ways to improve the
economy of the Newport community. Among other things, they
have looked at the fishing industry, airport improvements and
the OCA.
2. In the Master Plan the mission has been reworded:
The Oregon Coast Aquarium is (to be) a financially
self-supporting, non-profit, public aquatic and
marine science exhibition facility of the
highest quality dedicated to public enjoyment,
education, and research so that the public will
better understand and cherish the natural
resources of the Oregon coast.
3. The Hatfield Marine Science Center is operated by OSU "to
serve the general public, the staff of OSU, sister
institutions, and cooperating state and federal agencies."
(OSU Catalog)
There are fresh and saltwater labs, office and classroom
space, a library with over 300 periodicals, and an
aquarium/museum with auditorium space. Some of the agencies
located here include NOAA, NCRI, NMFS, EPA, ODF&W, and
Sea Grant Extension. Classes are offered three quarters of
the year and there are many on-going research projects.
4. Marine Mammal Stranding Network is under the aegis of the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Designated institutions
are available to investigate mammal strandings, provide
expertise and volunteer help, and to help rehabilitate and
release stranded animals.
5. The property has now been acquired by the City of Newport
and they hold the lease agreement with the OCA.
6. Mitigation: The creation, restoration, or enhancement of
an estuarine area to maintain the functional
characteristics and processes of the estuary, such as
its natural biological productivity, habitats, and species
diversity, unique features and water quality (ORS 541.626).
The aquarium will be built on a site that consists mostly of
old dredge spoils. Much of the acreage has been zoned for
marine dependent use in the City of Newport Comprehensive
Plan. The area designated as mitigation includes the
pond and an old slough. Plans are to restore these areas
even more in order to attract waterfowl.
7. An adequate seawater supply system is crucial to an
aquarium. A number of the exhibits are salinity sensitive and
it is important to keep tanks clean and animals healthy. In a
discussion with Dr. J. L. Fryer (12/11/85) he mentioned that

29
 many aquaria don't worry about diseases in their facility
design. This is an important issue because of the expense of
replacing animals and the instability of the exhibits. He
cited the Hong Kong Aquarium which has a major problem with
disease due to the lack of a clean water source. With the
help of OSU personnel, they have had some success immunizing
fish by injection after deriving the serum from their own
fish.
The location of the HMSC and its long history of seawater
use from Yaquina Bay indicates that the OCA should have an
adequate supply throughout most of the year. The reservoir
will store enough to keep the aquarium provided with fresh
water through one tidal cycle when water quality in the bay
is poor.
8. Toledo High School students gathered information on resident
demographics as well as economic data on local attractions.
Their participation demonstrated one potential interaction
between the OCA and Lincoln County schools.
9. Admission prices for Youth (4-12 yrs): $3.50; Senior
Student: $4.50; Family: $18.00. There will be a 10%
discount for groups and members. (Economic Consulting
Services)
10. In the Master Plan, it is now estimated that $6.9 million
will be needed for construction and development. This
figure includes all design fees and costs for the two years
of pre-opening operation and program development.
11. As I was finishing this report, I came across an article
which appeared in the Fall 1986 Oceanus. It highlights the
importance research is playing in the boom of new aquariums
across the country. A number of existing facilities are
closely linked with universities and/or research institutions.
Nearly all those in the planning stages include research as
one of their primary goals. The Oregon Coast Aquarium
is a part of this trend and would provide Oregon State
University with a top-notch facility. The OCA would allow
students and faculty to engage in "state of the art"
research, and for that reason, I believe the university
would have a great deal to lose should the project not
take place.

30
OREGON COAST AQUARIUM BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marvin Vernon, Chairman
John K. Palmer, Vice-Chairman
Dr. Lavern J. Weber, Vice-Chairman
Richard F. Hert
Donald A. Davis
Donald E. Giles
D. Joyce Hall
Clyde Hamstreet
Jay L. Rasmussen
Michael G. VanBlockland

32
Potential
Cooperative Research
and Educational Programs

Oregon Coast Aquarium

and
Oregon State University

Kim P. van Zwalenberg

College of Oceanography
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon

John W. Nightingale, Ph.D.

BIOS: Inc.
Bainbridge Island, Washington

March 1986

./
-
OREGON
COAST
AQUARIUM
Acknowledgements

This study was conducted under the direction of Dr. Lavern

Weber, Director, O.S.U. Hatfield Marine Science Center; and
Bruce Henderson, Director, Oregon Coast Aquarium. The
information dissemination and collection was done by Kim P.
Van Zwalenburg, O.S.U. College of Oceanography. The final
interviews of O.S.U. Faculty were conducted by Ms. Van
Zwalenburg, Mr. Henderson and Dr. John Nightingale of
BIOS:INC. Ms. Van Zwalenburg and Dr. Nightingale authored
this report.

Funds for this study were provided by the Weyerhaeuser

Company Foundation. All of the participants thank the
Foundation for the truly unique opportunity to explore the
potential cooperative programs which may be called out
between O.S.U., the Hatfield Marine Scince Center
and the O.C.A.

The study reported here revealed new and previously

unimagined ways in which these institutions might work
together. The timely inclusion of the resulting physical
design additions and changes in the O.C.A. before design had
begun will facilitate this future cooperation.
Table of Contents

Chapter Page

1. Introduction 1

2. The Oregon Coast Aquarium 3

3. Study Methodology .... 7

4. Study Results: Physical Changes 11

5 Opportunities for Joint Programs 17

6. Pilot Program Development 22

Appendix 1: List of O.S.U. Contacts 30

Appendix 2: Sample Questionnair e 34

Chapter 1
Introduction

The Oregon Coast Aquarium is to be a new public viewing

facility displaying and describing the habitats and animals
of the Oregon Coastal region. It will be located In
Newport, Oregon at South Beach, adjacent to the Oregon State
University Mark O. Hatfield Marine Science Center(HMSC).
Planning for the aquarium began in 1982, and its development
has followed a path of systematic planning and design. The
non-profit organization which will operate e the aquarium,
Oregon Coast Aquarium, Inc. (IRS 501 (c)(3)) was founded in
1984, and is actively raising both operating and capital
construction funds. Today, the concept for the exhibits and
visitor experience has been completed (summary, Chapter 2).
An analysis of economic feasibility was completed in late
1985 and shows that the OCA can be financially self-
supporting from earned revenues. Master planning work for
facilities and exhibits is currently underway

The keys to long term survival and prosperity of the OCA,

according to the economic feasibility report, are excellent
public exhibits delivered at a fair price, coupled with a
dynamic marketing program, and supported by a variety of
public and educational programs involving as many people as
possible.

The recommendation of the economists was welcome because one

of the principles guiding all planning and development work
to date has been the concept of total integration with as
many user groups as possible. The board of directors is
comprised by people from the Newport community and nearby
areas. Citizens from the area and specialists from the
Willamette Valley and Portland areas sit on advisory groups.
An active volunteer program exists and is expected to grow
as the physical facility comes into existence. The staff of
.the aquarium has explored possible relationships with many
groups and agencies to further the involvement of the
aquarium in as many activities as possible.
It was recognized very early in the development process by
the board, staff, and designers that the OCA must have a
strong relationship with the O.S.U. Hatfield Marine Science
Center and with Oregon State University. It was also
obvious that such a relationship would be multi—faceted and
would manifest itself in many different ways. As one
example, during the feasibility analysis the decision was
made to utilize students in some of the animal care and
public interpretation positions. This would give the
students financial support and experience, and would give
the OCA the benefit of highly educated staff.

In the development of aquariums, zoos, and museums the trend

has been to design the facilities, and let the operating
management develop interactive and integrative programs as
they could. The management of the OCA realized that if such
relationships were explored before design began, some new
opportunities might be found to include the required
physical facilities. Further, such an exploration would
begin to build the bridges necessary to operating a diverse
and involved institution.

For these reasons, this study exploring possible areas of

cooperation and mutual interest between the OCA, Oregon
State University, and the O.S.0 Hatfield Marine Science
center was undertaken. This study, and the pilot programs
which are part of it, were made possible by the support of
the Weyerhaeuser Trust. The O.C.A and O.S.U. both thank the
trust for a unique opportunity to begin defining the many
possible relationships before design begins, and to study
the physical facility needs arising from the possible
cooperative displays, educational efforts, research and
other programs.

This study is based on the facility concept as described in

Chapter 2 and was under the direction of Dr. Laverne Weber,
Director of the HMSC, and Mr. Bruce Henderson, Director of
the OCA.

In summary, this study marks the first time that programing

cooperation has been explored to this degree before a
facility was designed. The study accomplished its mission
to a better degree than could have been expected, and both
programatic and physical needs have been defined, and will
be included in the master plan.

2
Chapter 2
The. Oregon Coast Aquarium Concept

The Oregon Coast Aquarium will be located on the south shore

of Yaquina Bay directly across from the Newport bayfront,
and adjacent to the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine
Science Center. The site is visible from the U.S. 101
bridge, and offers visitors excellent access from the
highway (Figure 1). The aquarium is being designed to take
full advantage of the 17 acres of bayfront and to
incorporate the natural features, including a pond. The
property is owned by the Port of Newport, which is making it
available to the Oregon Coast Aquarium.

Figure 1

3
It is appropriate that this site of a former lumber mill be
used to stimulate public interest and understanding of
coastal habitats, animals, and issues.

The Oregon Coast Aquarium will be the first facility of its

kind in the world. Located on the Yaquina Bay estuary at
Newport, Oregon, the aquarium will invite its visitors to
participate in an environment rarely experienced by most
people.

Following an exhibit pathway that begins at the top of

Oregon's coastal mountains, visitors will trace the descent
of water as it flows from mountain spring to forest pond,
from stream to lake, and from the estuary into the ocean.
The exhibits encountered in this environmental microcosm
will be carefully designed habitats for the plants and
animals which inhabit these zones... on land, under the sea,
and in the air.

Decidedly "non-traditional" for an aquarium, animals on

display will include birds, squirrels, beavers, otters and
eagles, as well as the expected fish, invertebrates, seals
and dolphins. The exhibits will be located along the
pathway trail and will be both indoor and outdoor. A
variety of weather protected pathways will promote a
pleasant visit in all seasons and under all weather
conditions. The preliminary concept layout is shown in
Figure 2.

The emphasis throughout the aquarium will be on stimulating

personal involvement, both mental and physical. Many
displays will include "hands-on" interactive elements, and
all interpretive graphics will contain several levels of
information. Surprises and discovery will await the visitor
at every turn.

In addition to exhibits which invite and stimulate

individual involvement, a visit to the aquarium will involve
visitors in a variety of programmed activities. These
"shows" will not be the circus type performances often seen
at marine parks and some zoos. Rather, they will feature
films, demonstrations and talks, each describing a unique
ecological or biological point. Examples include an initial
multi-media introduction, feeding demonstrations, a flight
show utilizing hawks and eagles, and demonstrations of
animal behaviors.

4
The salt water necessary to support much of the aquatic life
will be pumped from Yaquina Bay near the existing O.S.U.
Marine Science Center intakes. It will flow to the aquarium
facility through a pipeline and be processed before it is
used. Most of the salt water will be used and returned to
the bay (a flow—through system). A storage reservoir will
provide water for those short periods when the water quality
in the bay is unacceptable.

5
OREGON COAST AQUARIUM
NEWPORT, OREGON
KEY
I (nay and onenial.on la
4 Beat er Pt.' Cermet Open Ocean Comples
14a F Laden Seal Pool
S fr., Cent. I ab
Ca S,. One/ Pool
Flmeq Bad Flight OnoIay I ac Dep.. Coat I xhaba 'Lank
8 Root, ■• Onolay I ad Dolphin Pool
9 Roe, One, Pond Center 1 -It Sea Bath
111 Roe, Center 141 Title Pools
11 f 'too ). Center—"Isiogil4b' 1S Oregon Coati Cenlan
 Chapter 3
Study Methodology

INTRODUCTION

Until this fall (1985) little was known about the Oregon
Coast Aquarium (OCA) in the OSU community. To ensure
effective and active collaboration between OSU and the OCA,
it was recognized that this information gap had to be
filled. This was done by hiring a campus liaison whose task
was to inform as many departments as possible.
STUDY CHRONOLOGY

After initial orientation meetings, 35 different

departments, colleges, and programs were targeted for
contact. These were chosen based . on the potential for
interest in collaborating with the OCA on a variety of
levels ranging from research and teaching_ opportunities to
student internships. The chronology is shown in TABLE 1
below.

TABLE 1

STUDY CHRONOLOGY

Fall 1985: orientation and background of the

Oregon Coast Aquarium (OCA) project

October 1985: identification of departments

with potential interaction.

Oct-Dec. 1985: informational meetings with

department chairs -- background information,
review of project goals, request for
information circulation amongst faculty,
follow-up phone calls to those departments
thought to need additional prodding.

7
 IV. Jan. 1986: Meet with departments which were
missed during fall.

V. Questionnaire formulated and distributed to

departments.

VI. Individual faculty members contacted for

heir input.

VII. February 14th: questionnaires returned.

VIII. February 24-25: meetings held with

departments, Dr. John Nightingale, Bruce
Henderson, and Kim Van Zwalenburg.

IX. March: information collated and report

completed.

X. Spring 1986: informal seminars to be held

with interested departments and their
students. Preliminary projects begun.

Initial contacts were made at the department chair level.

Departments and individuals contacted are listed in Appendix
1. Meetings generally lasted 30 minutes during which time a
brief overview of the history and goals of the project was
presented. Once the general background had been covered and
the brochure and schematics reviewed, the department heads
were asked to circulate the brochure and summary memorandum
to their faculty. Everyone was encouraged to give some
thought to ways that their department might utilize the
aquarium and its resources. An attempt was made to inspire
creative thinking and to avoid limiting the scope of
potential interactions. Summaries of ideas would be
collected and collated in the winter.

During the meetings, response was positive with a number of

initial ideas presented and general agreement made to pass
the information on. In some cases, the information was
directed to a few specific people, though most departments
circulated it to everyone. No individual responses were
received -- perhaps due to time pressures. When departments
were recontacted, a number of faculty members mentioned that
they were interested but had not had the time to get in
touch.

8
 Initial results of the meetings were collated and sent on to
Bruce Henderson and Dr. Lavern Weber in December.

The study was resumed in January. The few departments which

had been bypassed in the fall were contacted. In addition,
meetings were held with selected faculty members in a number
of departments.

A questionnaire was developed by Dr. Lavern Weber, Mr. Bruce

Henderson and Kim Van Zwalenburg (Appendix 2). This was
directed at department heads, and provided a way for them to
summarize potential departmental-0CA interactions, as well
as any physical and programing support(s) which might be
needed. Two to three weeks were allowed for response with
all questionnaires due February 14.

The questionnaire was also handed out to a number of

individual faculty members (notably Agriculture and Resource
Economics, Civil Engineering and Zoology) after meeting with
each of them personally and reviewing the project.

Based on the level of response, those departments which

might benefit most by meeting with Dr. John Nightingale and
Bruce Henderson for added follow-up, were notified of
workshops planned for February 24-25. Ten meetings were
held involving a total of 14 departments. Seven other
departments or programs had been contacted and were either
unable to accommodate the schedule or simply did not show.

During these meetings an update of the project was presented

and participants were solicited for ideas in terms of
programing interactions as well as physical facility needs.
Input varied but was again largely positive and seems to
assure long term active participation by the OSU community.

CONTINUING WORK

Lack of time prohibited significant student involvement in

this initial process. A series of informal seminars on the
OCA will be presented in the future to facilitate active
student p articipation. In addition, meetings have been
scheduled with a number of the participating departments to
actually look over the aquarium site and/or to discuss
future interactions.

9
PILOT PROGRAMS

In January of 1986, two cooperative programs were selected

for pilot scale testing. Those were an educational program
for elementary school groups (Mr. and Mrs Fish), and a
research project involving the tagging and release of adult
harbor seals. Both programs were operated with the HMSC.
At the time of this publication, the program's testing is
still going on. The programs and their results through
March 15, 1986 are summarized in Chapter 6.

10
 Chapter 4
Study Results: Physical Changes

INTRODUCTION

Several additions and changes to the physical plant as

currently conceptualized were identified during this study.
Several of the changes will mean improved and added exhibits
for the public. Most, however, will broaden the
opportunities for cooperative research and contribute to
increased university and public education programs. No
attempt was made during this study to estimate costs of the
changes identified. The following additions and changes,
their costs, and feasibility of their inclusion will be
considered during the master planning process.

PHYSICAL FACILITIES

1. A multi-use room. A flexible room is needed for use as

a classroom, for seminars, as a temporary lab, a base for
on-site class work, as a gathering place for students, and
for professional meetings. Over 11 departments identified a
need for such a room at the OCA to facilitate the many
different kinds of teaching and other programs they could
forsee holding at the aquarium. The room should have
folding tables and chairs enough for approximately 30-40
people at one time. The use of folding furniture will allow
this space to be used as a temporary lab space, and for
other activities which require an indoor area. This room
should be located with immediate access to the OCA grounds,
making it usable for classes and other activities which need
a base of operations while working on the aquarium grounds.
It should also have direct access to the outside (outside
the entry i.e., the street), so as to be usable for evening
events. Direct outside access would also preclude the
conflict of having everyone using it pass through the normal
public entry.

11
2. Spare desk space. Several departments wondered whether
some unallocated desk space could be preserved for students
or interns whom might be working at the OCA for some
extended period of time. Most departments predicted this
need to be periodic. When the desires of those departments
was added up, however, it became clear that there will
probably be a continuous need for 1-2 cubicles or desks to
be made available to transient users. All questioned
indicated that this space could be part of the normal
office/administrative area, and did not have to be separate.

3. A group entry. Bringing groups of students or other

visitors into the OCA will be a common occurrence. Public
school groups, college classes, and a host of other groups
will be entering to take a tour, to use the multi—use room,
or for many other functions. Experience at other
institutions has shown that bringing such groups through the
normal public entry works well only when there are few
public visitors. Whenever there is any appreciable flow of
visitors, the entry becomes overcrowded and unpleasant.
Interrupting the normal flow of public admissions to bring a
group through compounds the problem and can lead to conflict
and visitor dissatisfaction. The group entry must be
secured, and should lead directly to the core of facilities
including the auditorium, administrative area, food service,
and the start of the exhibit pathway.

4. A holding pool for marine mammals which is not on

public display. Dr. Mate, the Marine Mammal Stranding
Network of which OSU and OCA are already part, and the
Department of Veterinary Medicine all agreed that if the OCA
were going to house and display marine mammals, an off
exhibit holding and service facility would be needed. That
facility will be needed to hold sick or injured display
animals, and can do double duty in providing a place to hold
and rehabilitate stranded or other marine mammals brought to
OSU or the OCA. Such a facility should have a water system
separate from that of the public display mammal pools to
prevent cross contamination of the holding and public
facilities by disease organisms. It should have an open
work area for weighing or otherwise handling mammals. The
area should be directly accessible both from the outside and
from the other aquarium exhibits. The outside access should
permit a truck or pickup to come close to load and unload
animals.

12
5. A flexible display space. Many departments expressed
the desire to display materials and graphics describing
their work and educational mission. Some have existing
traveling displays, while others talked of one time displays
for the OCA. Obviously, not all displays could be mounted
at once. What emerged was the need to provide for these
displays at several locations throughtout the OCA public
exhibit areas. Specifically, many of the possible display
subjects seem related to coastal use, planning, and
exploration rather than to a particular biological
discipline. The suggestion was that the Oregon Coast
Interpretive Center exhibit near the end of the visitor
storyline should contain some space that could house these
kinds of exhibits. A small space of 200-300 square feet set
up in flexible form like an art gallery would serve most
departments. The displays could then rotate an a flexible
schedule affording all departments and other state and
federal agencies an opportunity to "tell their story."

6. Coastal Culture Exhibit. Several requests were made to

consider the possible expansion of the storyline of the OCA
to allow for inclusion of material related to cultural and
anthropological studies. Public exhibits of pre—indian and
Indian uses of the resources of the Oregon Coast could be
prepared and installed by students. The physical
requirements indicated would be relatively simple general
exhibition space. An expansion of some of the areas
currently in the concept plan could easily accommodate this
need.

7. Off exhibit plant holding. The OCA will need a

continuous supply of replacement plants for its exhibits.
It is possible to design that area so that interactive
teaching and internship programs can operate with the
horticulture programs at OSU. The facility will need direct
outside access for the delivery of plant materials and
horticulture supplies.

The following physical facility needs came from exploring

possible research use of the OCA by the various departments
at OSU.

13
8. A data collection system. Several departments were
aware of the changes taking place in the use of micro-
computers to collect and process data. The first area where
the subject came up was with admissions and entry data. It
was suggested that since cash registers must be purchased
anyway, models which could be computer linked would allow
collection and processing of visitor entry data. Such data
would make excellent teaching and research material for the
College of Business, Hotel, Tourism, and Restaurant program.
All such research would benefit the OCA by helping
management understand who the OCA public audience is, where
they come from and what they desire.

The second area where a data collection/processing system

was discussed was the need for good biological/animal care
and operational records. Both the department of Veterinary
Medicine and various scientists at the Hatfield Marine
Science Center observed that the OCA will need accurate and
complete animal records. Those records will also provide
research and documentation material for both teaching and
research use. That data would be best collected and
processed through use of a computer system that allowed the
direct entry of data as it was collected during the normal
operation of the aquarium.

9. Estuarine research space. In the Estuary Interpretive

Center (Mud Lab), the exhibit designed to be a laboratory
type experience for the visitor, interest was expressed in
having some space set aside which would be off-exhibit for
research. The area need not be large (300-500 square feet),
and would be used for research on mud-living estuarine
animals. The question was raised during discussions as to
whether the area would have to be off-exhibit, or just
secure from public access. It is possible that the area
could be visible to the public, and that the research could
benefit both he OCA by helping keep estuarine animals alive
longer, and serve as a public display at the same time.
10. Wave Machine. At least one of the exhibit pools for
marine mammals (harbor seals) will have a wave generating
machine to add interest for both the animals and the public
viewer as well. The Dept. of Civil Engineering has interest
in turning the design of the machine into a teaching

14
 exercise. It was mentioned that students, either as part of
a design class, or a special seminar could assist in the
design. Further, once the exhibit was in place, the pool
could further serve as a teaching/demonstration tool.

11. Specifications for Marine Mammal Display Pools. OSU

does not presently have large pools in which to house marine
mammals for display or research. The large OCA display
pools that will house, in different exhibits, Harbor Seals,
Sea Otters, and a small Cetacean (whale or dolphin) will
provide avenues for new kinds of research. To permit the
various kinds of research possible, certain design
specifications were suggested. Those include, adequate work
areas around the pools for weighing and handling animals,
good water quality provided and maintained by the water
supply system, and acoustically quiet underwater
environments, particularly in the Cetacean. pool. Some of
the research will involve training animals to sound signals
which will require that pump, public, and other noises not
be transmitted into the water. This suggests that the pumps
and compressors for the water system must be located
remotely from the pool.

12. Wet Lab Space. Several individuals suggested that

because the OCA will need some area to hold extra display
fish, the area might be planned to accommodate some research
as well. It was agreed that most of these research
functions would best be done at the HMSC. However,
recognizing that some particular research might best be done
at the OCA because of the live fish collections maintained
in the exhibits, some small research space might be provided
as part of the animal holding and working wet lab areas
needed for normal operation and maintenance of the displays.
13. Laboratory. Although most research procedures which
require specialized laboratory space would best be done at
the HMSC, the aquarium will need a small lab for routine
water quality, bacteriology and food quality analysis. That
laboratory should be large enough to provide space for all
needed services required to operate OCA, and might without
additional cost or size, support some limited cooperative
research. Two people spoke to the arrangement and location
of such a lab indicating that it should be centralized in
the Oregon Shore Complex, and should be accessible from the
off-exhibit marine mammal holding area if one is included.

15
SUMMARY

The interviews and questionnaires brought several points

forward which will influence and change thinking about parts
of the design. Each of the potential changes/additions will
be considered during the master planning process. Many of
the changes/additions will have significant impact on the
feasibility and desirability of OCA—OSU—HMSC cooperative
programs.

16
 Chapter 5
Opportunities for Joint Programs

INTRODUCTION

Rarely are educational, research, or other public programs

operational when new institutions are opened to the public.
The kinds and number of programs offered by institutions are
most frequently a random group that was developed over time.
While it is true that the programs offered often were
developed to serve a particular need that had been
identified, other reasons such as staff desires or interests
are also reasons for providing a particular program. The
overall list of programs offered by a particular institution
are planned in a systematic manner to serve a pre-defined
constituency, and to achieve a particular range of public
responses.

Recognizing that visible local and regional user communities

with long term involvement with the OCA are the best ways to
ensure initial support and continued vitality, the OCA
management set out to identify the kinds and types of
programs which would achieve these two goals. An informal
survey turned up several categories of programs where
potential aquarium users could be involved with the OCA.
Some of these categories will not contribute directly to
providing gains in attendance, nor will the research
projects yield immediate new exhibits for public enjoyment.
Many will yield indirect improvements to exhibits, animal
keeping practices, operational economics, and other areas
important to operations.

Most public programs offered by the OCA should provide a way

for people to be involved on their terms. That is, each
person must find something they are interested in. A broad
offering of public programs is essential to making and
keeping the OCA a vital institution, one.that is constantly
*on the minds of Oregonians. All prog.rams, public or not,

17
will contribute to the sense of the OCA as a thriving place
with lots of activity. This is the best kind of marketing
that can occur. A dynamic suite of programs will yield many
other opportunities to turn OCA activities into "good news",
the kind of stories which the media loves.

There was no need for the physical OCA to exist and be open
to the public before starting some of the public and
research programs. The OCA has already begun offering
programs to various user groups and to the general public.
In that way, building a constituency for future programs is
well begun.

BASIC PROGRAM CATEGORIES

The possible programs were placed in the following general

categories in order to have a format for their description.
Any or all of these programs could be held at the OCA, at
HMSC, at both, or could be operated on an outreach basis.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
Public schools
Other schools
College classes and seminars
Statewide science radio network

PUBLIC PROGRAMS
Volunteer program
Films, lectures, talks, field trips
Special events, art shows, concerts

RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Basic animal care research (as part of normal
operation)
Research on display animals (non-invasive)
Dedicated research (requires off exhibit holding
areas)

MARKETING PROGRAMS
"Good news"; turning any activity into a media
story
Word of mouth marketing by satisfied users
Purchased marketing and advertising

18
It has been-the intent from the start of the aquarium
development that the OCA would work closely with O.S.U., and
the O.S.U. Hatfield Marine Science Center. A consensus was
reached early in the planning stage that many programs such
as school educational classes could be jointly sponsored.
The HMSC has laboratories, a library, classrooms, an
auditorium, and other facilities that would be costly to
duplicate in the OCA. The HMSC already has research and
education programs in place and staffed. Like many
government institutions, funding is a frequent limitation on
the number and extent of the programs they can offer. Thus,
cooperative programs where the OCA can help with program
funding in return for HMSC expertise and cooperative
operation became a goal guiding the initial planing of
programs to be offered by the OCA.

STUDY RESULTS

Exploration of the many possible relationships with OSU and

HMSC began early in the OCA development. This study
provided the opportunity to greatly expand that process, and
to document many programs, both generally and in more
specific terms where possible. Most of the interactive or
cooperative opportunities identified during this study are
described here. In addition, two were selected for pilot
phase testing and are described in Chapter 6.

1. ON SITE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GROUPS

- guided tours of:
HMSC-the museum/aquarium and selected laboratories
OCA-the aquarium exhibit pathway and behind the
scenes tours of both HMSC and OCA
- self-guided (or using non OCA-HMSC staff) tours
- classes taught by OCA-HMSC staff using OCA-HMSC
curriculum
- one class period -- general introductory classes or
on a selected specialty subject
- half or whole day-lab demonstrations, "hands-on" lab
experiences
- longer periods -- i.e. day or week long science
"short courses"
- classes coupled with a tour
- class taught at HMSC or OCA by non OCA/HMSC staff
(outside'curriculum)

19
2. ON SITE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC
lectures/talks -- OCA or HMSC staffs, visiting staff
or visiting professionals
- film screenings
- seminars -- marine or coastal biology, some aspect of
related coastal concern; or non-related subjects
- volunteer program -- school, community or HMSC people
- special event focused on a particular animal,
habitat, or branch
- of science -- i.e. weather related festival, kite
flying contests, etc.

3. OUTREACH PROGRAMS
- curriculum packets developed by OCA, HMSC or OSU,
distributed by OCA or HMSC
- cooperative or jointly operated programs to schools
and groups
- newsletter
- films
- periodical scientific papers, discussion papers, or
other specialized publication
- statewide science radio network

4. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
- on exhibit: normal ongoing research on animal
husbandry, normal OCA operational staff, HMSC
staff co-investigate/consult, and students as
project or thesis research or as volunteers
- on exhibit project research conducted by dedicated
research
staff-OCA staff/volunteers assist HMSC
staff/students
- off exhibit project research conduced by dedicated
research; staff-OCA staff/volunteers assist HMSC
staff/students
- special activities
marine mammal stranding network
sea bird rescue center

20
5. MARKETING
- on site special events, festivals, displays, etc.
- off site special events, festivals, displays, etc.
- news releases on:
research results
new animals
births

It was not the intent of this study to describe in detail

all of the possible programing interactions between OCA and
HMSC. The investigations reported here did lead to detailed
descriptions of some programs, while only outlining the
general areas of cooperation for others. A separate program
development plan will be formulated by the OCA in the near
future. That plan will build upon these findings, and will
provide a detailed listing, prioritization, and
implementation strategies for OCA and joint OCA-HMSC
programs.

21
 Chapter 6
Pilot Program Development

Two cooperative programs were selected for pilot scale

development and testing during this study. These
programs are the first direct cooperative efforts
between Oregon State University and the Oregon Coast
Aquarium. One of these programs, Mr. and Mrs. Fish, is
an outreach educational program and was selected
because joint educational programs of all types are
expected to be a primary area of cooperation. The
second program, a research'program on the tagging and
release of Harbor Seals was selected because
cooperative research is also expected to be a major
cooperative area, and also because this program
involved the existing Oregon Coast Aquarium volunteer
program.

Neither program would have been possible without the

cooperative efforts being tested here. O.S.U. lacked
the required financial support to complete either
project without assistance. The Oregon Coast Aquarium,
on the other hand, did not have enough contacts or
expertise to make either program viable without O.S.U.
assistance. In return for providing some financial
assistance and volunteer labor, the Oregon Coast
Aquarium benefited from added public exposure directly
from the programs, and indirectly from the news stories
and other publicity about them. O.S.U. benefited from
the broadened public recognition, and from having its
educational and research messages reach more people.
Both institutions gained from the opportunity to work
together on a defined basis to test the relationships
and procedures which must be used to jointly develop
and sponsor a public program.

Beyond the consideration of the institutions involved,

the true beneficiaries of these jointly sponsored
programs are the students and public institutions which
rely on outreach educational programs or on scientific

22
 information gained through research done by others.

Both programs have shown that by working together,

Oregon State University and the Oregon Coast Aquarium
can reach far larger audiences, can offer greatly
expanded educational and other public programs, and can
both benefit from the information and public exposure
gained through research. The two programs selected for
pilot testing are described below:

RELEASE AND MONITORING OF CAPTIVE REARED HARBOR SEALS

Project Director–James T. Harvey

Graduate Research Assistant
Oregon State University
Hatfield Marine Science Center
Newport, Oregon 97365

Recently zoos and aquariums have been encouraged

to make use of captive born and reared Harbor Seals,
Phoca vitulina, to meet their needs for display instead
of removing seals from the wild. For several-years, .
captive births and surplus captive reared animals have
provided for the needs of most new facilities, and in
making up for losses in existing ones. Within the last
two years or so, some aquariums have experienced
overcrowding of their facilities because improvement in
husbandry techniques has lead to higher survival rates
among captive born populations, and because stranded
seals are being more successfully rehabilitated. Since
the supply of captive animals exceeds the demand for
them, the possibility of turning these captive
individuals back into the wild has been discussed.
Unfortunately, there is little data which addresses the
question of survival of these previously captive
animals. Therefore, the federal agencies which
regulate them have been reluctant to allow their
release.

Researcher and rehabilitation centers have been

marking and then releasing wild seals brought in for
rehabilitation for approximately 5 to 8 years. The
number of seals marked and released is small, and

23
therefore few have been re-sighted after their release.
Some animals have been observed up to one month after
release, and presumably were in good health (Harvey et.
al., 1984). Recently, a marked Harbor Seal which had
been. released was seen on a haulout with other seals
2.8 years after its release as a 3 month old
rehabilitated pup (Harvey and Brown, unpublished data).
These data would seem to indicate that at least a
portion of rehabilitated and released seals are able to
re-adjust to life in the wild. Researchers do not
know, however, what the chances of survival are for
adult seals which were born in captivity, and which
have been in captivity their entire lives. This
project is directed toward answering these questions.

Ten (10) harbor seals were provided by the Point ,

Defiance Zoo (PDZ) of Tacoma, Washin.gton. The first
two seals are presently (3/86) at the Hatfield Marine
Science Center where they remained for approximately
one month for a study of digestion. The purpose of the
digestive study is to provide information on the degree
of digestion of fish otoliths (fish ear bones) as they
pass through the ailmentary canals of the seals. This
data is needed to allow researchers to better evaluate
the feeding habits of the seals in the wild, and their
impact on commercially important fish stocks. The
study of digestion is an added benefit of the main
release/observation research program.

During their confinement for this study, Oregon Coast

Aquarium (OCA) volunteers were responsible for the
daily feeding and care of these animals. The volunteer
researchers record the number and size of the
maintenance diet of fish, primarily herring, fed to
each seal. This cooperative effort has allowed OSU
scientists to devote more time to data collection. It
has also allowed the OCA volunteers to become familiar
with the care regimes to be used for the remainder of
the test seals.

After completion of the digestion studies, each of the

present animals will be outfitted with a radio
transmitter (6 X 4 X 3 cm, 98 g). This radio-tag will
be glued to the fur on the top of the head in similar
fashion to the 28 seals previously tested (Harvey,
unpublished data). The battery life of the

24
transmitters is approximately 8-12 months. At that
time, the fur will have grown enough that the animal
will shed the transmitter. The remaining 8 seals will
be brought from PDZ to the HMSC one pair at a time for
pre-release feeding and outfitting with transmitters.

These tags attached to the top of the seals head will

allow each animal to be located while on a haulout
area, or while in the water. A signal is broadcast
each time the transmitter antenna clears the surface of
the water.. Thus, information on movement and dive
behavior can be gathered from both resting and
traveling seals. An aerial survey will be flown once a
month to locate tagged individuals.

From time to time, individual seals will be tracked by

OSU and OCA volunteer researchers to record specific.
movements and behaviors. The OCA volunteers are being
trained to use the radio telementry and tracking
equipment which will allow daily records of how each
animal is adjusting to the wild. This data will be
compared to data collected on the rehabilitated wild
seals which were tagged and released.

This study will'provide necessary information on

the behavior, movement, and survival of previously
captive seals upon their release to the wild. The
information as to the fate of these animals will help
determine whether and how they can adjust to the wild.
The research is of immediate concern to other aquariums
and to federal agencies which regulate the release of
captive pinnipeds.

In summary, the effort reported here is a pilot

research project providing valuable and timely data,
done on a cooperative basis between OSU and the OCA.
This arrangement offered the promise of mutual
benefits. Although this research effort will go on for
some time, the results have already proved that this
kind of program provides both institutions with
manpower, money, public exposure, and advancement of
scientific interests to levels above what either could
achieve independently. Both O.S.U. and the OCA
recognize these benefits, and intend to pursue more
joint and cooperative research opportunities.

25
MR. AND MRS. FISH, A JOINT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Project Director: Ms. Vicki Osis

Marine Education Specialist
Oregon State University
Hatfield Marine Science Center
Newport, Oregon 97365

Mr. and Mrs. Fish is a lighthearted educational

program designed to teach marine science to young
students. Mr. and Mrs. Fish are two O.S.U. college
students with a background in children's theater. The
program consists of skits that are acted out in front
of a class or assembly of students. The skits present
information about the ocean in an imaginative and
delightful way. Geared for the lower elementary
grades, the students receive specific information about
the adaptations fish make such as changes in
coloration, schooling behavior, and other adaptive
mechanisms. Other skits introduce the concept of
diversity to provide an overall introduction to the
natural history of tidepool creatures such as dungeness
crabs, moon snails, sea stars, and even sea gulls.

This program was designed to be taken into

schools. While several thousand students visit the
coast and HMSC each year, budget cuts have forced
curtailment of this experience for many. Mr. and Mrs.
Fish provides a low cost educational experience for
those unable to visit the HMSC

Response from both teachers and students indicates

that a high percentage of the informational content
presented is retained by the students. Overall
response has been positive with both teachers and
administrators indicating a desire for more such
programs. Attached is a letter similar to many of
those received from program users.

This program is operated on an outreach basis by

26
the HMSC and the OCA. It was selected for testing
because it is not operated at a specific site. The OCA
provided some operating budget support, and a small
amount of editorial and developmental assistance. The
HMSC provided advertising, scheduling, and handled the
details of staging. Both institutions received
recognition as co—sponsors, both in the written
materials left with the school, and during the live
presentation.

The schools participate in the support of the

program by paying the transportation fees for Mr. and
Mrs. Fish to bring the program to them. For a minimal
fee, the schools receive a lively stage presentation on
marine science, a presentation which would normally be
too expensive.

Because the program has been so successful and so

well received, the planning of similar efforts has been
started. Both the HMSC and the OCA share a common
philosophy of public education and awareness about
Oregon's coastal resources and environments. Through
joint programs such as the one tested here, both
institutions will be able to expand both their
effectiveness and their public visibility.

27
I 7(-IIctd
6 co )2. Z(,&24eiget
.7‹,7 e.'?) 9772I
/z J-1-a-L640,6ey /9(6
02. C. 3Xi c-cede,c,e,
X-1-e-r) 9 736S"

fiZ7-7-'4- •.r:
7 ."--/'
,,.,‘ e64..41,,ee.....■6-• 1 ‘--e.-'1.,/
--C e.-7-..- t.-----
,, ..... ----.‹.--
. (1 / -„,-, ,
/ ,,...1,,,e...,,,,,ee)„, ----z-,z-f_.- A...e": -1, e "
-1,,
-Lei • .._ 12
.,n .". .. ,,
..JI 23 ./
/- •,/ 6L, C' t*/ ---
Jf-'-'77
.e-e1/4-24..<1.,
7-- ,

-_,Cife.---L-ce-.. /
. Z-- - .Z--='-'---6---r-4
i -
..;1z4-/--; ,--;,:?(_ C`-' C"-te___ 6.-e) 7. z .d_,

C
..../
. , .._./.,,

/-7
 >1
CC
LU
(13
03 C
s.
0
0
CC L C
0 0 .
Z C C.

•
03
C.)
cc o o
•
CO
0 0
0
rr
LL

–1 0 O O
< 0 0
cc w C C C
cc 0
Z
w.
U
0 0

Oregon State University

Extension/Sea Grant Program Non Profit Org.
Administrative Services Bldg. 422-A U.S. Postage
Corvallis, Oregon 97331 PAID
Remit No. 200
Corvallis, OR V331

Address correction requested

A Member of the
Oregon State System of Higher Education
 us -ss -< C.. -1 A- us 3 are C) n 0 0. X 0< e, w re -1w us .< n z- -1 --• -% -h - 0 CI" 3 01 re CD us us O. 17 10 01 3 '17 C)
CD - 0 CD > C v = -t* CU Q t..1 = 0 - - 7 - 000
0 -• 3 -1 top -I z- < n0 CD X'0 -cu Lel0X 7 al reC= in 7 01-I C. -< -I 7" 0 - n n < n
at • ''''' 0 0 •-• S 0 - re n •.< us " et- 0 us in
zm 0 7 0
re ..... , X C VI n 0 al re 03 13 CD 0 --• -r, o 13 0 • = 0
- 2. at cc C 0 M CD 0 O. 7 re 3 re CO < at n• A-
-
0 0 srl -• = D W 0 r• co Fr cs -- - (D 0 0 m m 0 n
-I et. C = = r g 4 7 KL 07 C n re -1 7 "tl S- Cr at -, (0 01
am•

0 C A- -c -< us n = ...; 12 us re 3 n cD fri• -< 0 c -- e,

" 0
as 411 119 ..---
-- rp al il ,.. 111: 72:8 ial 0
6.) °a
• re =
0 7 •-• Cis 0 'I - 0 0 "CI • n re = 0. 0 .-. 0 n 0. - 0 ..? re "0 = r , -c - as 0 0.
c 0- -is - --. = 7
CU 0 CD 0 CI. 0 7 CD • • N< 7" (D al n (30-< us C IV 0 el 3 CD in - 1 a X 0 = = =
-..
01 -s CD • -I 0 -.< CD ....,
Os n •-• 0 ....
7 - CD 1 7 0 CD w • a, = as C
-I 0'
0 0 us • 13 IC 0 vs as -I• •■• O. -1 0 •It CU
re n tbal 19 rt ry °1 : ;=It >, =z
C. C. C. > -r• OS 0 O. 7- CI (A • re 1 n 0 n = CD
-es ? • tn • •ui
In _. 3 .<
-• •••• 3 x ul .< _ 0 .
-n 3 - > (0 al et re 0 CI • ? sr., 0 0 r CD- tn 0 -I
C 0 000 •
= .<
N -t re > -4 n •-• (3. •••C 01 al en = us as CD re --• (fl •••• 0 10
CD 0 0 -c = S tn C3 0. VI r, a. r? 0 0 7- = < _ < In 7"
.01 CD 01 -1 in 3 -ft < ,-, a .-4 -r,
• 01 rt re C :7' < -rt .7. "I
= 3 c r. tD CI 0 -- 0 -• M CI -. Z CO •It in CD OS
0 -- MI 3 --•
O. 7• U.) 71 NI -• -s 0 0 --< 0 . 01 us n (1) re < re 111 in rt
0 13- ...‹-se .•in in
0 -t ri vi - us
:_ ,_ 0
c-s = -. gm e"" -• 3 = -ei al = •-• = 01 0
C 0 0 CS < 0 -• ft.Let 0 7
Us g ..n fit 0 7
m. _. C CD m Os - re
=
- . , :7 9
:4.- 3
0 g- 731 8111- (D 0 • 0 n -. = re • r. 01 et. W ....
IP •1 X > 0) --.
0 UR
•-• lo X re C 0. = M UM 0 - < C ''t X
< -C CD 10 -• O 0 = c 3 us rT T er t7' -- 7 = 0.1 01 CD re -es 0 cr. r, ■ C -
et 0.1 en.VI ••••• = al .... ... 7-s M -- n - -• 7' ••C re .< ts3 -1 7 0. z 0 c < -i 0. -.• C M 0 0 •-• 1:7
3- --• 7" -- n n us re (D -< ta 0- CD al 0= 6 1:7 -CI rt
-et 0 -et 8 CD 7 _ 0. = re n ...7„ 0. ..C‘ -.
CD •-• r - Os 0 13 0 = 0 Ns - 3 0 n = in 0 re
-I C''
re
re -I Oa
al 0- a us re 7 - n C re 0 Ns O. vs -I -. as 0 10 co sil us as •••
n
....
us 0.
... en - --- 0 = 0 us 0 n - C' n • -0M
CC - n us . . . -•
= as 0 CD 0
CU re 7 21 er 0- re 0 re • 7 us 07 el ...
••••-- • C .• = (D (0 X 0 C 0 0 0 c- C 0. n n
en n 0 0 M 0. as -I 0. as - • al m as
•••••' 3 S CD us 0..
0
re --
- re -< 7"
n us :7 c --. 0 O. S m "••
on III
10 0 0 C7 s-s. 0 r. O. en --• CD -1 0 0
1 n r-
•
-I c
Q. n Cis
..< - a
as -7 7
IA ,-, -t 0. =
- c n.
ri. S it us 0 z- - Os CUM - 0 7 = C. 0 M •"""
0 .0 re 0 - en . -• re •< -1 7 -- 0 al 0 C
re .. S
us 7 ID - 7 7 - -ti -PI 0 e-r n c um
-
us 10 0. n
i P
'nsn++ M 0 m =C CD re 3 DI n re 0 = 0 CD 3 ... . -
-.. (0-tt •-: =.•-• VI 0 0
co
C DI Os •-•
0 ...
•• 0 7 0. n rr
0- F
= r 2 7° •3 Us C1
0 3
VS
VS us 3
Cs.
- -Fs
- T „- 8 - ° -5 -.t.°
n
0 rt n
C us us CD n 7
.
0 "--
CT
rP
O n
CD
re --• rs
C 0 =
0
Da (D re re as =
10 rr 7 =
0.
Q)
•-• re 7 Z
M 0 ts3 7- CU 0 -•
n •• al In --• -
'n CD • CD it
..... us O.. CIS .-•
(D 0 -1 --•
-•• cf.
= C 0. 07' 3 0 c =
g - n < -n re CD -I (et CD -el c o
re 3
Ei _
0
1.0 •••••• ,P O re 0 _, 0 7' 0 ••‹
Os .0 = -I =
n
X" 01
m = = w ••■ r• 0 0 0 0.
R re - -I
r CO

40 M • CD 0 tn = 0 us II en 7 0 ..• -. (D
CD 07"A 0 n O. 10 7 10 at
in In

a c- en 0 -1
3- as -ts = .... E (<-3t 0.
(1) c r >
-<C CD -et = 0 te -ti = > CI tv = r • C 1 re --•••1 > 13 4 1.0 Con
l 01
re 7 n 7
0 a. in R-
c -3 0= 7•-••-t -0 0 -- 0 -t n 7 n = .0 = 7 nX
-

(7 et CD -•• • m 0 a.
0 C n r 0 CL • o,s C CD = 00
-1 M -I 3 0 0 .-• re O. ..< al -0 O. Os
C
Z
M n CD n n -- CD D 'ft " ..t7 re 1=
(.0 7" 7- - -et < al tts 7 -cs - -.1 . ni (1 7
01
en C. • Z .< -t (.0 f 3 g -. r,„ c .3 .... co CS 0
M in -• -- 7 0. -(0c ns pm.,
I ) 7 :
10
O M al C. 0 re re 3 us n - us = M C. in -1 re
7 X.3.C7' al Cn -n CD n to
A o = 5 a st = rn
•••• 10 - us 0 = CD CD = Os O. 0
IMEN
03 ^ (1) rrlig mi...i
....c c Os -1- m co 0 0: p In
en fD 0 .. n CI tn --• < 3 CU - n
..
VS ..1
NcMS

0 0
DI In = = = VI _,
'•••• re X- 01 CD -
3
- 13 In
.... -s vs z -- .-r •
as -< •••0
-0 vi -I
fD et0 0
n
CD Ca 0 re 13 (D -- 0 -
re 0 -es 0 10 a1 --. etZ ° --. rt X->
- al
rn : ; m
(1) cf)
CO -•• Rrr
ID 'I x a, el . o. 0 -,C •ii C is . CD FT :7 .vi .
et 0 Vs N 0.8 Us --11 O.. 0 .0 -I 0 ,S CO -
-

7" 0° 0' tif --• = 0.1 C ry tn: 0 CU

• • 5. a,
7 = • C --• 7 = ....
2* `,. ai O
= vs r• •••• - - sn, 0. z vs a
n .0 (.0 re .1.1 < 7 CD = itIm. i , ..• (1) "0 re • CD 0 < In 7_ ,f; 2 2 annall
0 M -n - - 0 C. Os - ... 0 al "0 re al 0 01 et 01
Os OS - in 7 -% et n -. --• 13 t • s o 0 'I 13 --• in n us us CI n -• as C
n 0 =- •es ' C I •••• 0 - re
-. 0 • 0 CD
n•
1••• = 0 a,-n 0 = --. (D 3 3 4C13 ami
- cp •-• 0 0 =
. 0- 0. co moo 0 1° as --• al 0 e ' 0
C n C. 'V nn •••• IA C
Mo. ....
•-i -.< = -3 0
a0
. as 7 0 n B X- 0 N mcr •T• CiZoCr .,...000.1 as<- -.0 CO vi 0 -0
" 0.
3 "<,,F, us m
R as to Cu 0 < Cr 7- = CU n 0. (
" 1 : 1 "I
RI -n ir 42-n
(9 X'
R O. re CD CD n 0 0 - 0 -ps ill • > -a g o 0.3
awe
n n - =" 01 0 = tO - in -
• - as X m ,.., n c 0-0 0 us <• - re ns 7 re
= =10 01 3CD= = - 0 = -I = 0 us -- ID C -0 •"I (3
I cn
• re
• =
=
0
0
- a -I0- -
n Cli:13 Or
••••
0 -ri 0 -.-1 VI 7' z-
c. 0
0 = CU (11 N
'0 VS CD V 7 7' n.....
at - M
di el as 3 0 .< CD
1.11 •
- n 0 CD = 0 re eP rr a
a - = 0.• us CU 7 r to a) C -. C o o -t as in < • 0"
X ts3 - n 0 re OS .• • CD
CD 7O C. .1_ 0,1 FP re
7
0. _(Dt _l
c
••••
r4. 0 ca
rn 7 0,
Cr - -ts
2 a n •-• 411 g In
-

c n
0. CD
-ts 3 ....
.tn 0
0
7 al re
-
r-r ...'Z
m X.
CM .< 0 Ce. CD 0. 0 O.
7 us

---clip---
I would like to schedule a MR. AND MRS. FISH program on
at am/pm
Teacher's Name:
School Telephone:
School Name and Address:

Ci ty State Zip
Number of students participating in program:
Grade Level:
D irections to School: (use reverse side ,
if necessary)
RETURN THIS FORM TO: Vicki Osis
H atfield Marine Science Center
N ewport, 0 R 9 7 3 6 5
Initial Contacts at Oregon State University:
(all are department chairs except where indicated)

TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM: Dr. D. R. Buhler

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS:

Anthropology -- Dr. R. L. Hall

Art -- Dr. D. P. Hardesty
Economics -- Dr. J. P. Farrell, Acting Chair
Geography -- Dr. T. J. Maresh
History -- Dr. D. D. Wax
Journalism -- Mr. F. C. Zwahlen
Political Science -- Dr. R. W. Maddox Jr.

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE:

Atmospheric Sciences -- Dr. W. L. Gates

Biochemistry and Biophysics -- Dr. C. K. Mathews
Botany and Plant Pathology -- Dr. T. C. Moore
Entomology -- Dr. B. F. Eldridge
General Science -- Dr. P. L. Farber
Geography -- Dr. T. J. Maresh
Geology -- Dr. J. G. Johnson, Acting Chair
Microbiology -- Dr. J. L. Fryer
Science, Mathematics, and Computer Science Dr. T. P. Evans
Zoology -- Dr. C. E. King

COLLEGE OF:AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES:

Agricultural Chemistry -- Dr. I. J. Tinsley, Acting Chair

Agricultural and Resource Economics -- Dr. A. G. Nelson
Agricultural Engineering -- Dr. J. R. Miner
Fisheries and Wildlife -- Dr. R. A. Tubb
Horticulture -- Dr. C. J. Weiser
Soil Science -- Dr. B. P. Warkentin

31
 COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management -- Mr. Steve Lawton,

Acting Chair
Management -- Dr. C. F. Gray
Management Science -- Dr. A. E. Abrassart
Marketing -- Dr. B. W. Becker

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING:

Agricultural Engineering -- Dr. J. R. Miner

Civil Engineering -- Dr. F. D. Schaumburg

COLLEGE OF FORESTRY:

Forest Engineering -- Dr. G. W. Brown

Forest Management -- Dr. J. R. Boyle
Forest Science -- Dr. L. A. Norris
Resource Recreation Management -- Dr. P J. Brown

COLLEGE OF OCEANOGRAPHY:
Dr. D. R. Caldwell, Dean

COLLEGE OF PHARMACY:
Dr. R. A. Ohvall, Dean

COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE:

Dr. N. E. Hutton, Assoc. Dean, Director of Instruction

HATFIELD MARINE SCIENCE CENTER

Dr. Lavern Weber, Director
Dr. Bruce Mate, Marine Mammalogy

32
 Individual faculty contacts:

AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS:

Dr. Richard Johnston

Dr. Susan Hanna
Dr. Bruce Rettig

CIVIL ENGINEERING:

Dr. Charles Sollitt

Dr. William McDougal
Dr. Sandra Woods
Dr. Peter Nelson
Dr. Ken Williamson

HORTICULTURE:

Dr. Tom Cook

Mr. John Stewart

JOURNALISM:

Dr. Barbara Ellis

MICROBIOLOGY:

Dr. Jim Winton

OCEANOGRAPHY:

Dr. Herb Frolander

ZOOLOGY:

Dr. Jane Lubchenco

Dr. Frank Moore
Dr. Bruce Menge
Dr. Joe Beatty
Dr. Mark Hixon
Dr. Austin Pritchard

33
 January 20, 1986

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Kim P. Van Zwalenburg

College of Oceanography

RE: THE OREGON COAST AQUARIUM

We have now reached the second stage of this study, funded by the
Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation, to assure a 'close collaboration
between Oregon State University and the Oregon Coast Aquarium. I
deeply appreciate the overwhelmingly positive responses I have
received and feel this bodes well for the project.
This questionnaire is a follow-up to my initial contact with you.
The OCA is about to begin working on a Master Plan and we would
appreciate your input in order that research and education
potential for OSU faculty and graduate students is built into the
Aquarium without detracting from the entertainment and
educational value in the area of public education.

We are now at the point where we need in p ut on how your

department could potentially use the Oregon Coast Aquarium, and
what we need to do to facilitate that use. I hope that you will
examine each point fully keeping in mind that we are most
interested in learning how the Aquarium can help you.

I realize these questions will be difficult to answer but we want

you to consider how you might use the facility if given the
op p ortunity to design it yourself.

I would like to ask that these questionnaires be returned tome

at the College of Oceanography by February 14, 1986.
Department Name:

1. What is your department's public message and how can OCA help
promote that?

1
OCA Questionnaire (cont.)

2. How could your staff and students utilize OCA as a research

tool?

3. How could your department use this facility as a teaching aid

for college undergraduate and graduate students?
OCA Questionnaire (cont.)

4. How could you use. the OCA to further the public's

understanding of your departments' activities (i.e. current and
future research)?

5. Would your department be interested in shared sponsorship

with OCA for studies and research?

3
OCA Questionnaire (cont.)

6. How might you use this site and its facilities as a test site
for future projects? For example, what are the research trends
in your department and would it be feasible to run pilot
projects at OCA?

7. Would your department be interested in placing interns at the

OCA? If so, what sort of funding would be needed from OCA--
partial, total?

4
 OCA Questionnaire (cont.)

8. What kinds of support, in terms of physical equipment, would

you need for research and education here on the coast? i.e.
dorms, classrooms, microscopes? Please be specific.

9. What time(s) of year would you like to be on the coast?

We tentatively plan to hold a workshop with the Aquarium design

team on February 24-25- We would like to meet with your
department, or a representative, to specifically discuss how OCA
can help you achieve your goals. In order to plan the workshop,
we need to know how many would be interested in attending, as
'well as who in the . department should be sent the informational
material. Please list them below.

If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to call

me--754-44l5. Thank you very much for your input.