Washington Department at Wildlife
Wildlife Management Division
Nongama Program
ASSESSMENT OF NONGAME
MARINE INVERTEBRATE
HARVEST IN WASHINGTON
A Report to the Department of Wildlife
by Diane CamBy and Rikk G. Kvitek
May 1991
-------
FINAL REPORT
ASSESSMENT OF NONGAME MARINE INVERTEBRATE
HARVEST IN WASHINGTON STATE
by
Diane Carney1 and Rikk G. Kvitek1
Zoology Department NJ-15
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
A research project supported by:
Washington State Sea Grant
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
and the Washington Department of Wildlife
address: Moss Landing Marine Labs, P.O. Box 450, Moss Landing, CA 95039
-------
ABSTRACT
Results of on-site surveys and more than 900 collector interviews, conducted May
through August, were used to calculate the 1990 harvest pressure on Nongame Marine
Invertebrates (NGMI) from 13 Puget Sound beaches, estimated to be 43,000 collector
hours. NGMI are species currently not classified as foodfish or shellfish under jurisdiction
of the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), or as game under the Washington
Department of Wildlife (WDW), The first minus tides of the season sustained the greatest
harvest. Harvest pressure generally increased with decreasing tide height. The species
most frequently collected from the 13 beaches surveyed were the marine snail, (Nucella
spp.), shore crabs, polychaetes, and moonsnails with estimated annual harvests of
119,000; 74,000; 43,000; and 21,000 individuals, respectively. Catch variances were high
due to changes in harvest activity with season and tidal height.
"Catch and replace", meaning the collector collected a NGMI from the beach and at
some time prior to leaving the site intended to replace the animal back on the beach, was
identified as the primary usage of NGMI, followed by collection for food and bait. Asians
and Filipinos comprised over 50% of those harvesting NGMI for food or bait. Public
school groups comprised 50% of all groups visiting these sites. An estimated 10,000
children from five Puget Sound school districts visited these beaches on field trips in 1990.
Over 90% of the students visiting beaches received instruction from their teachers to replace
all marine invertebrates and turned-over rocks.
A review of Washington Department of Wildlife's research permits and phone
interviews with potential NGMI collector groups revealed over 100 species of NGMI were
collected from Washington's waters by universities, schools, private consulting firms,
biological suppliers, aquaria and science centers in 1990. These collections included over
9,000 echinoderms 170,000 amphipods and 150,000 polychaetes and 6,000 gastropods.
Uses included research bioassay biological supply, education and display.
Baseline NGMI faunal surveys were conducted at 11 exploited, 2 low-exploitation
and 3 protected sites. Comparisons of exploited versus protected sites indicated a decline in
the abundance of an anemoneAnthopleura, the rock jingle.Pododesmus, sea stars and
terebellid worms at exploited sites. Shore crab densities, however, tended to be higher at
exploited sites. Rocks with barnacles on their under-surfaces were more abundant at
exploited sites, indicating more frequent turning by collectors.
-------
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
2.0 METHODS 6
2.1 OBJECTIVE 1
NGMI HARVEST 6
2.1.1 Study Site Selection 6
2.1.2 Direct Harvest Evaluation Method Bucket Surveys 6
2.1.3 Indirect Harvest Evaluation 9
2.2 Objective 2
Baseline Surveys 11
2.2.1 Faunal Survey Method 11
3.0 RESULTS 12
3.1 DIRECT evaluation 12
3.1.1 Bucket Surveys 12
3.1.2 School/Group On-Site Surveys 13
3.1.3 Volunteer Surveyed Beaches 14
3.2 INDIRECT COLLECTION SAMPLING.. 14
3.2.1 Phone Surveys (Schools) 14
3.2.2 Phone Surveys (Other NGMI Collectors) 15
3.3 FAUNAL SURVEYS 15
3.3.1 Paired Control vs Exploited Sites 15
3.3.2 Overall Exploited vs Control (Protected) Sites Comparison 16
3.3.3 Baseline Surveys 16
4.0 DISCUSSION 17
4.1 CONCLUSIONS 17
4.2 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research .20
4.2.1 Estimation of Harvest Effort and Catch Size from Bucket Surveys 20
4.2.2 Estimation of Harvest Effort and Catch Size of "other" NGMI Collectors 23
4.2.3 Control vs Exploited Site Evaluation 23
4.3 Recommendations 24
4.3.1 Assessment of the Effects of Harvest on NGMI Species and Populations 24
4.3.2 Identification of the Life History and Habitat Requirement For NGMI
Species 25
4.3.3 Research on the Extent of the Algal Harvest and its Effect on NGMI 25
4.4 Problems With the Current Regulatory System 25
4.4.1 Research Permits 25
4.4.2 NGMI Harvest Enforcement .26
4.5 Marine Invertebrate Management in California & Oregon 27
Acknowledgements 28
5.0 References 28
Tabic 1 30
Table 2 31
Table 3 32
Table 4 33
Table 5 34
Table 6 35
Table 7 36
Figure 1 37
Figure 2 38
-------
4
Figure 3..... 39
Figure 4 40
Figure 5 & 6 41
Figure 7. ...42
Figure 8 43
Figure 9 44
Figure 10 45
APPENDIX A 46
APPENDIX B 48
APPENDIX C 49
APPENDIX D ...50
APPENDIX E 51
APPENDIX F 53
APPENDIX G 54
APPENDIX H ....57
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Recent shifts in collection activity and intensity has elicited concern over nongame
marine invertebrate (NGMI) harvest from environmental, agency, private and educational
quarters (Dethier et al.1989). Except for species classified by the Washington Department
of Fisheries (WDF) as foodfish or shellfish (Appendix A) all other invertebrates are non-
classified and under Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) jurisdiction as NGMI.
Currently, the harvest of these species is uncontrolled. Harvest pressure on many NGMI
species has increased due to:
1. Expanding commercial markets and export of species not traditionally harvested
in western countries.
2. Harvest of non-traditional species for consumption by Asian immigrants and
other U.S. collectors.
3. Expansion of the use of marine invertebrates for research, bioassay and toxicology.
Expansion of the unregulated harvest of these organisms coupled with increasing
disturbance of the intertidal communities by public foot traffic may influence the
distribution and abundance of species and decrease the value of Puget Sound tidelands as a
recreational, educational , research and commercial resource. Removal of species by
collectors, and inter species effects of removal, also may alter natural communities.
These concerns and the absence of basic information about the NGMI harvest and
species affected prompted the initiation of this project. Our goals were to:
1. Identify and quantify the major components of the NGMI harvest (the who,
what, where, how much, and what for) for selected Puget Sound beaches
2. Establish baselines on current composition of certain harvested species,
abundance and size structure at harvested sites as well as control sites for
comparison and future monitoring.
The information provided in this study will be useful in identifying those species in
greatest need of harvest management, designing managerial strategies to balance
recreational and commercial demands upon the NGMI resource, identifying harvester
groups (ethnic, organizational, and institutional) with special needs which must be
considered for effective future managerial or educational programs, and monitoring
changes in NGMI populations on Puget Sound beaches.
-------
6
2.0 METHODS
Our project had two objectives, each with separate methodologies for investigation.
OBJECTIVE 1. Identify those species of NGMI currently being harvested from
Puget Sound beaches, and quantify collector demographics, harvest effort and
pressure, and NGMI usage.
OBJECTIVE 2. Collect baseline data on NGMI species for selected Puget Sound
beaches. NGMI species larger than 10mm were to be included in baseline
surveys.
2.1 OBJECTIVE 1: NGMI HARVEST
2.1.1 Study Site Selection
Seventeen state and county beaches in Puget Sound were selected for NGMI
harvest Surveys (Figure 1). Thirteen of these beaches, called "Bucket Survey Sites", were
surveyed by our project crews using the protocol described below. The remaining four
beaches, called "Volunteer Survey Sites", were surveyed by volunteer crews. These
surveys were not conducted using the same protocol as those surveyed by project crews.
Consequently, methods and results are summarized separately.
Criteria for site selection were:
1. Evidence of existing NGMI harvest activity from anecdotal
information provided by WDW, Friday Harbor Laboratories,
private collectors, and our preliminary observations of NGMI
harvest on Puget Sound beaches.
2. Accessibility to the public.
3. Reasonable proximity from the project's base of operations in Seattle.
2.1.2 Direct Harvest Evaluation Method Bucket Surveys
Two major factors known to affect intertidal harvest effort are tide height and day
of the week (Hockey and Bosman 1986, Underwood and Kennelly 1990). Weather also
may dictate the extent of harvest, with more occurring during mild and/or sunny weather.
As a result, most intertidal species are harvested during minus tides, with effort peaks on
the lowest tides during the daylight hours of spnng and summer (Hockey and Bosman
1986, authors pers. obs.).
-------
NGM1 bucket surveys were conducted June through August, 1990, during rimes of
expected maximum harvest activity,on days when the tidal height was -1.0 ft., mean low
low water (MLLW) or lower during daylight hours. Within these criteria, beach surveys
were conducted on 48 out of 59 harvest days. No surveys were conducted during March,
April, and May, 1990, due to funding delays. The 1990 season harvest effort and catch
estimates were extrapolated from surveys and calculated with the assumption that no
harvest occurred on days with low tides higher than -1.0 ft and/or at night. Therefore,
harvest estimates were underestimated by some unknown amount.
The day of the week may influence harvest effort and collector demographics,
particularly when comparing week-days with week-ends or holidays (Underwood and
Kennelly 1990). To allow examination of day-of-week variability, the surveys were
divided into two sampling strata: the "weekday" stratum and the "weekend and holiday"
stratum. The stratified design method was implemented June 20. Results of surveys
conducted before this time were analyzed separately. Beach surveys were performed on
the 30 days between June 20 and August 20 with low tides < -1.0 ft MLLW. Half of the
total 112 available crew-survey days were allotted to each stratum. Beaches were assigned
randomly for harvest surveys to days throughout the field season and tidal cycle. Beach
survey assignments were made separately by "day-of-week" stratum.
Estimates of the type, extent, duration and effects of NGMI harvest were
determined by on-site interviews of persons actively collecting invertebrates (nongame or
game), algae and fish from Puget Sound beaches and examination of their collections.
Interview sessions began 1 h before and continued for 1.5 h after the tide nadir. The
interviewer walked an established survey path (Appendix B) and approached anyone with
a container who was collecting or appeared to be intending to collect something from the
beach. The interviewer asked the collector a series of questions about the kind of collection
they were making. If the collector was intending only to collect classified species such as
hardshell clams or dungeness crabs, this was noted along with the number in their party,
but further questions regarding NGMI harvest were not asked. Persons collecting or
intending to collect NGMI were asked all the questions on the "Bucket Survey" form
(Appendix C). Types and amounts of marine algae and fish collected also were noted.
In all but two cases, surveyors were able to locate and question an individual in a
collecting group with some command of the English language. Non-English speaking
collectors of apparent Asian descent were presented with survey forms translated into
Hmong, Korean, Laotian, Vietnamese, Japanese and Cambodian. The surveyor indicated,
-------
through gestures, that the collector should select and complete the form written in his
language.
School or organization groups were interviewed differently from private groups
(see School Survey form Appendix D). The surveyor interviewed the group's
representatives (i.e. teachers, chaperones or leaders). In order to determine the general
behavior of the group regarding NGMI collection, group leaders were asked the following
questions and their answers noted :
1. Has your group been instructed to collect any species in particular?
2. Has your group been instructed not to take home any invertebrates?
3. Has your group been instructed to replace rocks right side up that they have
turned over?
The interviewer then walked a transect through the group tallying the species and
number of NGMI's collected and replaced, or collected to be taken off the beach.
Additionally, the number of rocks turned over and replaced right side up versus the number
turned over and not replaced were counted and recorded. No attempt was made to quantify
the area of the transect. The data provides only a relative measure of NGMI collection and
rock-tuming outcome, as well as an idea of the effectiveness of teacher instructions on
group behavior.
At the time of the tide nadir, the interviewer scanned the beach survey area using
binoculars or spotting scope, and counted the number of all collectors, differentiation
between NGMI or non-NGMI collectors was not made. The number of NGMI collectors
relative to the number of total collectors was determined from bucket survey data. NGMI
harvest effort by beach, tide height and day-of-week, and annual NGMI collection effort
and harvest were estimated.
No attempt was made to establish harvest effort per unit beach area. A survey path
was established for each beach dictated primarily by beach ownership or topographic
barriers to public access. In addition, it was necessary to define a survey path that allowed
a clear view of the entire survey area for the nadir counts. Total survey areas varied by
beach. The paths (Appendix B) coincided with the beach area most used by collectors.
In some cases, it was possible to interview every collector on the beach throughout
the survey interval. At other times, particularly for large beaches with occasionally heavy
harvest activity, there was collector emigration and immigration throughout the survey
interval in front of and behind the interviewer as he or she followed the survey path which
precluded interviewing every collector. Consequently, harvest estimates are conservative.
-------
Daily NGMI harvesi effort (En) was determined using the formula:
En = E-(an/at) , where E = the nadir count; an = the number of NGMI
harvesters; at = the number of total harvesters.
NGMI harvest pressure (Hp) was determined using the formula:
Hp = En-T , where T = the harvest duration , or number of harvestable
hours for tides 0.0 ft. or less on days with tides of -1.0 ft. or lower.
T= 2.26 - 0.55 x the day's low tide. R2 = 0.982.
Estimates of 1990 NGMI catch and harvest pressure were calculated using methods
described in Appendix E.
Volunteer Surveys
Volunteer crews surveyed NGMI collection at West Beach , Rosario Beach,
Ebey's Landing and Manchester Beach (Figure 1). Selection of survey days for these
beaches was not random or stratified as to day-of-week. However, except at Manchester
Beach, the bucket survey interview protocol, as outlined above, was followed. The
volunteer for Manchester Beach could see the beach from her house. She observed the
beach on 9 days. No collection activity was observed. Ebey's Landing was surveyed 8
days. West and Rosario Beaches have the most complete survey coverage with 17 and 16
surveys, respectively, over the course of 8 weeks (June 21 - August 19). Many of the
surveys for Rosario Beach occur on consecutive days throughout the week and tidal cycle.
For this reason, these surveys were used to ascertain the importance of tidal height and
day-of-week on collection activity.
2.1.3 Indirect Harvest Evaluation
WDW Research Permits
NGMI collection information for universities, research institutions, research and
consulting organizations, aquaria and science centers, and state and federal agencies was
obtained from examination of Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) research permits
for 1990.
-------
10
Phone Surveys
Information concerning NGMI harvest by public school students, and other groups
(research, educational, aquaria, biological supplier, consulting) was gathered from phone
interviews with organization representatives.
Schools
A total of 36 elementary schools, 8 middle schools and 8 high schools from five
school districts in the Seattle area were surveyed to:
1. Estimate the number of Seattle area students visiting Puget Sound beaches
per year on field trips.
2. Determine the average distance classes traveled from schools to beaches.
3. Evaluate the percentage of teachers giving their students instructions not to
take home marine invertebrates and to replace rocks they had turned over in
the intertidal zone.
Schools for survey were selected randomly from the Seattle phone book.
-------
Other NGM1 Collectors
Additional universities, research institutions, consulting organizations, agencies,
biological suppliers, aquaria, etc., not identified by WDW as research permittees but
suspected to collect NGMI were contacted by phone to determine NGMI use. Most of these
collectors were within the Seattle area, however, it became apparent that the extent and
diversity of individuals and groups collecting NGMI potentially is great. In almost all
cases, each contact with a potential NGMI collector lead to the identification of other
potential collectors both within and outside the state of Washington. Approximately one
fifth of the number of potential collectors contacted collected NGMI.
2.2 OBJECTIVE 2: BASELINE SURVEYS
Eleven "Exploited" beaches currently sustaining NGMI harvest, and three
"Control" beaches, protected from harvest activity, were surveyed to provide baseline
faunal information. Control beaches were paired by similarity of habitat and proximity to
three of the exploited sites to allow comparison of species abundance and size structure
(Figure 1).
2.2.1 Faunal Survey Method
Two 20 m transects were run parallel with the shore in the mid-intertidal zone. Tidal
heights of the transects were determined with hand transits. Ten 0.25m2 quadrats were
placed randomly along each transect. All NGMI > 10 mm length occurring within the
quadrat were identified and counted. Rocks > 20 X 20 cm and 40 X 40 cm within the
quadrats were measured (length and width), turned over, examined for fauna, and
identified as having or not having barnacles (live or dead) on the bottom surface. Barnacle
coverage on the underside of a rock indicates it has been turned over. The extent of rock-
flipping provides an estimation of the magnitude of collection or general traffic sustained by
a site. Because fauna was associated with the undersides of rocks, species densities were
defined as density per m2 of rock bottom surface area.
The first 30 individuals encountered of each NGMI species were measured, to the
nearest mm, to determine size structure of the populations. If 30 individuals did not occur
within the quadrats, additional quadrats were tossed haphazardly in the vicinity of the
transects and measurements taken of target species found within the quadrats. For some
species, abundances were low and it was not possible to get 30 measurements.
-------
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 DIRECT EVALUATION
3.1.1 Bucket Surveys
1990 Harvest Pressure
Sampling effort and estimated 1990 NGM1 harvest pressure (collector hours) for
the 13 "bucket survey" sites are provided in Table 1. Total harvest effort for 1990 at the 13
sites was approximately 43,000 collector hours. Saltwater Point had the greatest harvest
pressure at approximately 10000 collector hours. Seahurst (public), Carkeek and Purdy
sustained between four and six thousand collector hours. Variances were high due to the
effect of tidal height on harvest activity.
Cwh Sizes, Species and Uses
Table 2 shows sampled catch sizes and 1990 estimated total catch and uses for
selected NGMI species and groups harvested from 13 Puget Sound Beaches.The
moonsnail, Polinices lewisii, was given a classified status by WDF after commencement of
this project and now is considered a game species, but is included in our results. An
estimated 119,000 marine snails (Nucella ); 74,(XX) shore crabs; 43,000 polychaetes; and
21,000 moonsnails were harvested from the beaches sampled in 1990. Species catch
variances were high. Percent composition of NGMI harvests at each site is provided in
Table 3. Most collectors collected a few individuals (<10) of a number of species, but
some NGMI collectors harvested many individuals of one or two species (Figure 2). Algal
harvest also is included, although incidental to the scope of this project. The NGMI's
most often collected were shorecrabs, (including in decreasing order of collection:
Hemigrapsus spp., Lophopanopeus sp., Petrolisthes sp.) and were second only to
moonsnails. The use most often srated by collectors for their harvests of shorecrabs,
snails, kelp and spider crabs, barnacles, and starfish was "catch and replace", meaning the
collector's slated intent was to return the animal to the shore before leaving the site.
Moonsnails and the graceful crab,Cancer gracilis, as well as a high percentage of Nucella
were most often collected for food. Polychaetes were collected primarily for bait. Overall,
the reason cited most often for collection of NGMI was "catch and replace", followed by
food and bait (Table 2, Figure 3).
-------
13
Ethnic Heritage of Collectors
Over 50 percent of those collectors harvesting NGMI for food and bait were Asian,
Korean or Filipino (Figure 4).
Influence of Tide Height and Dav-of-week on Collection Activity
The number of NGMI collectors correlated positively with tide height (Figure 5 , t-
test p<0.001), while the day of the week did not correlate significantly (p>0.4). The
greatest collection activity occurs during the lowest tides.
Influence of Season on Collection Activity
The first minus tides in spring may sustain the greatest NGMI harvest for the year.
Figure 6 indicates a trend towards diminishing collection activity for three successive minus
tides of similar magnitude, as the season progresses. The percentage of NGMI collectors
to total collectors remains approximately the same , although different by site
(approximately 55% for Alki, and 35% for Purdy), for each survey.
3.1.2 School/Group On-Site Surveys
NGMI Collector Group Type and Beach Visitation
Approximately 70% (n=24) of all groups collecting NGMI were from private or
public schools. Other types of groups included church, youth, aquaria-sponsored, and
tours conducted by state or county park personnel. Of the 13 beaches surveyed in this
study, Saltwater Park had the highest number of groups visiting the beach with 240
surveyed individuals visiting the beach as a group , followed by Mukilteo South (225),
Seahurst (193), and Alki with 170.
Beach "Etiquette" Assessment
Approximately 75% of all school groups surveyed (n=17) had been given prior
instructions by their leaders or guides to replace, right-side-up, all rocks they had turned
over, and to replace all marine invertebrates they had collected. Sixty-six percent of other
groups (n=6) had been told to replace all invertebrates, and 33 percent were told to
correctly replace turned-over rocks.
-------
Outcome of Group "Etiquette" Instructions on NGMI and Rock Replacement
Individuals in the groups receiving instructions to replace turned-over rocks were
much more likely to do so (Figure 7A). Ninety-eight percent of invertebrates collected by
individuals in groups instructed to replace them did so, while 60 percent of invertebrates
were replaced by individuals from groups not instructed to do so. The difference,
however, was not significant (Figure 7B).
NGMI Species collection bv Groups
Schools and other groups most often collected shore crabs (65%, n= 299) primarily
to be collected and replaced, with anemones and moonsnail egg-cases running distant
second and third in frequency of NGMI collection.
3.1.3 Volunteer Surveyed Beaches
No NGMI harvest was observed at Ebey's Landing or Manchester Beach. NGMI
harvest activity was low at West Beach, with an average of 3.8 collectors (SD = 4.3, n=17)
per survey day. Hermit crabs (41%, n=69) were the most frequent NGMI in collector
buckets, followed by barnacles ( 32%) and limpets (26%). Hermit crabs and limpets
primarily were "collected and replaced", while live barnacles were most often cited as being
collected for souvenirs. Collector activity was higher at Rosario Beach (9.5 collectors per
survey day, SD = 11.6, n=16). NGMI harvest at Rosario was low and most invertebrates
were "collected and replaced" although two school groups collected about ten gastropod
snails and limpets to take away. The species most often collected were hermit and shore
crabs, and limpets (41%, 33% and 30%, respectively, n= 111). These species were
primarily "collected and replaced".
3.2 INDIRECT COLLECTION SAMPLING
3.2.1 Phone Surveys (Schools)
Percent of Student Classes Visiting Beaches on Field Trios
Phone interviews of teachers in five Seattle area school Districts (Edmonds,
Highline, Seattle Public, Mercer Island and Northshore: grades K - 12), revealed
approximately 12 percent of the total student body (87384) visited Puget Sound beaches on
field trips. Grades K - 6 had the highest proportion of student visitors (15%, n=54346),
followed by high school students (8%, n-25239) and middle school students (2%,
n=7799) (Appendix F). Of classes that went to the beach on field trips, most visited one
-------
15
beach per year during one of the lowest tides in spring or early summer occurring on a
school day (62%, n=52).
The average distance traveled from a school to a beach was about 10 miles
(SD=6.9, n=18 ).
Beach "Etiquette" Instructions
A high percentage of classes were instructed by their teachers to 1) not take marine
invertebrates off the beach and 2) replace, right-side-up, rocks that they had turned over
(96% and 92%, respectively, n=52).
3.2.2 Phone Surveys (Other NGMI Collectors)
Figures 8 & 9 summarize NGMI collection by aquaria, research and educational
institutions, biological suppliers, and environmental consultants. Information concerning
NGMI harvest from WDW research collection permits is included. NGMI collections made
by these groups are not represented in Bucket Surveys and harvest pressure and catch
could not be estimated. Instead, an outline of species targeted and amounts of harvest by
group is presented and is expected to represent minimum levels (Appendix G).
Macrofauna are those species > 10mm in length and include amphipods and small
polychaetes. Microfauna include species < 10mm in length.
Over 150,000 polychaetes and 170,000 amphipods were collected, most often by
universities and private consulting/commercial suppliers. Rhepoxynius abronius, was the
principle amphipod collected (75%). Hchinoderms (including sea stars, brittle stars, sand
dollars, and sea cucumbers) were the second most collected group at about 9,000
individuals. Over 6,000 gastropods (snails, limpets and nudibranchs) were harvested
principally by aquaria.
Aquaria and science centers collected the greatest number of macrofauna (41%),
while universities collected the most microfauna (54%). Private consulting and research
firms were second in collection amounts for both faunal groups.
3.3 FAUNAL SURVEYS
3.3.1 Paired Control vs Exploited Sites
"Between site faunal variation" as a result of differences in rock sizes was avoided
by restricting the range of rock sizes in data analysis (Table 4). Examination of faunal
differences at three paired control/exploited sites (Fort Ward/Manchester; McNeil
-------
Island/Steilacoom; Seahurst Private /Seahurst Public) indicate a tendency toward the
absence of Anthopleura, Pododesmus, terebellid worms and sea stars in the exploited sites.
Significantly more rocks had barnacles on their underside at exploited sites, and the number
of species found was lower than at control sites (Figure 10). While outside the scope of
this project, of particular note was the abundance of midshipmen fish (Porichthys notatus)
under the rocks at McNeil Island, and their absence at Steilacoom.
Selected species densities are compared for two sets of paired control/exploited sites
(McNeil Island/Steilacoom and Seahurst Private/Seahurst Public) in Table 4. Terebellid
worms were absent at exploited sites. Densities of Nucella, shore crabs and the chiton,
Mopalia, were lower at the Seahurst Public and Seahurst Private sites, but were not
different for the McNeil/Steilacoom comparison. At Seahurst, densities of all species were
lower at the exploited (or public) site.
Species sizes were not different at the paired Seahurst sites, but were different for
the snail, Nucella and shore crabs at the McNeil/Steilacoom paired sites. Species sizes
were smaller at the exploited site (Table 5).
3.3.2 Overall Exploited vs Control (Protected) Sites Comparison
A comparison of the average mean densities of species for the eight exploited and
three protected sites provides a measure of the possible effects of NGMI harvest and
subsequent habitat disturbance. As with the paired sites analysis, some species were found
only at control sites (Anthopleura, Sea stars, Tonicella, limpets, and midshipmen). In
addition, Mopalia, Nucella lamellosa, the rock jingle, and sea cucumbers were
significantly higher in the control sites (p < 0.1, Table 6). Shore crabs were the only
species with lower densities in control sites.
3.3.3 Baseline Surveys
Baseline faunal survey results for eleven exploited, three control (protected ), and
two low exploitation beaches are provided in Appendix H.
Virtually all marine invertebrate fauna in these surveys was either attached to or
resided underneath rocks. Consequently, densities are given per m- rock-bottom surface
area. Faunal densities may be slightly over-estimated because invertebrates attached to the
sides and tops of rocks were included in survey counts.
-------
17
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first to identify and quantify the unregulated harvest of NGMI in
Washington state. Data from this project will help resource managers determine goals and
strategies for management, and identify areas requiring further research of the NGMI
harvest. In addition, NGMI population baselines from this study will provide a benchmark
against which changes can be gauged. Extrapolation of harvest estimates and impacts from
this study, to the entire Puget Sound area should be made with caution. Our estimates are
for beaches near metropolitan areas that sustain a high amount of human impact from direct
harvest and the effects of foot-traffic and other disturbance. Sections of coastline with
restricted access or in more isolated or rural areas, likely will be less affected.
Results from our bucket surveys showed an estimated 43,000 hours (Table 1) were
spent during 1990 by collectors engaged in harvesting NGMI at 13 Puget Sound beaches.
The NGMI species most often collected were marine snails (Nucella ), shore crabs
(Hemigrapsus spp., Lophopanopeus sp., Petrolisthes sp. ), polychaete worms and
moonsnails (Table 2). NGMI were harvested primarily for non-consumptive or
recreational use ("catch and replace"). However, moonsnails (Polinices sp.), the marine
snail (Nucella), and the graceful crab (Cancer gracilis ) were most often collected for
food. The harvest of marine snails (Nucella) and even shore crabs for consumption is,
apparently, a relatively new phenomenon. It remains to be seen if these species can sustain
protracted harvest. Harvest pressure may eventually reduce their numbers below a
renewable level with resultant changes in the intertidal community. The marine snail,
Nucella, is a predator on barnacles. As their numbers decrease barnacle abundance likely
will increase (Connell 1970). Ninety percent of polychaete worms and about 30% of the
barnacles were collected for bait (Table 2, Figure 3).
Persons of Asian ethnicity represented over 50 percent of those collecting NGMI
for food or bait (Figure 4). Some of these people did not speak English, and apparently
were recent immigrants from Cambodia, Viet Nam and Laos. However, with two
exceptions, an individual with some command of the English language in a predominantly
non-English speaking group, was located an questioned about the group's NGMI
collection.
Variance in harvest effort, pressure and catch size estimates was high, most
probably due to differences in tidal heights on survey days and a pattern of decreasing
harvest effort possibly due to a decrease in harvestable organisms with the progression of
-------
IE
the season. The greatest harvest effort and catch occurred during the lowest tides and
especially on the first lowest tides of the survey season (Figures 5 & 6).
Organizational groups (church, youth, school and park personnel-guided tour) also
contributed to NGMJ harvest pressure on Pugei Sound beaches. Bucket survey results
showed school groups comprised a high proportion (70%, n=24) of groups visiting the
beaches. From phone surveys we estimated that 12 percent of the student body from five
Puget Sound school districts visited these beaches at least once during 1990 on class field
trips (Appendix F). Most school children were non-consumptive NGM1 collectors. Over
80 percent of teachers interviewed in phone surveys said they instructed their students to
replace all organisms that were collected and to correctly re-orient and replace all rocks
that were turned over during the course of field examinations. Direct observation of
students on the beach indicated that these instructions on beach etiquette were followed by
most students (Figure 7). The impact of school groups , and any harvester, on NGMI may
be less of harvest than of 1) habitat disturbance when rocks are turned over and organisms
handled and 2) disturbance by foot traffic.
Examination of WDW research permits and collecting logs from aquaria, research
and private organizations; as well as phone interviews of potential NGMI users
(universities and schools, private research or consulting firms, biological suppliers and
aquaria and science centers), demonstrated another major NGMI harvest not apparent from
our bucket survey results. These users generally targeted particular species and made their
collections from sites other than our survey sites. Many of these species live in subtidal
or open water habitats and were collected by trawl or SCUBA divers. Many thousands of
individuals from > 100 NGMI species were collected by these groups in 1990 (Figure 8,
Appendix G). These numbers, however, are undoubtedly underestimates of the total catch
because identification of potential users and quantification of their harvest was problematic
if their collection permits were not on file with WDW. In particular, anecdotal information
from collectors indicated there is a demand for NGMI, being met by commercial
suppliers, yet there is no legal framework in the state of Washington within which they
must conduct their operations. For this reason, it is not surprising information concerning
the commercial harvest of these species was difficult to obtain.
NGMI harvesters collecting for research purposes often targeted species not
collected by beach harvesters, in particular, amphipods and micropolychaetes. Amphipods
and micropolychaetes are common and ubiquitously, if patchily, distributed in the
intertidal. Depletion of these species due to direct harvest is unlikely. Destruction of habitat,
-------
19
through pollution, development, or disturbance by humans, will probably exact a far
greater toll on populations.
Faunal surveys of exploited versus protected sites showed anemones , rock
jingles, terebellid worms and sea stars to be rarer at exploited sites. These sessile or
sedentary species are soft-bodied, fragile or conspicuous, making them more susceptible
to decline with increasing disturbance from human traffic, rock flipping or other activities
related to NGMI harvest, than other species such as shore crabs. Shore crabs were the
only species found to be more abundant at the exploited sites. They may be better adapted
to disturbance than other species. Or, their advantage may have been enhanced by the
decline of competitors for food and space due to collection, disturbance or some other
factor.
Frequency of occurrence of barnacles on the bottom surfaces of rocks in faunal
transects showed that 85 percent of the rocks at exploited sites had been flipped versus five
percent at the protected sites (Figure 10). Rock flipping is a likely source of mortality to
intertidal organisms and may restrict their distribution. Animals living underneath rocks,
such as midshipmen or marine worms, may be damaged or killed by crushing when the
rock is set down upon them, or they may die of desiccation or predation if the rock is left
up-turned and they are exposed to the sun, air and predators. The contrast of midshipmen
abundance at the protected McNeil site versus its absence at the paired exploited site at
Steilacoom was striking. Midshipmen may be one of the first species to disappear from
exploited sites. They are included in faunal surveys because they may lend themselves as a
disturbance indicator species for future research. Adults, eggs, and young are particularly
sensitive to disturbance by their conspicuousness and accessibility during critical times of
their life cycle. During the breeding season, pairs of midshipmen come up into the
intertidal, excavate a hole under a rock upon which the female attaches her eggs to the
underside. The pair guards the eggs until the eggs break loose (MacGinitie and MacGiniiie
1949).
Human harvest and traffic, no doubt, has altered NGMI populations in terms of
species composition and abundance, on the 13 Puget Sound beaches surveyed, with
cumulative effects for decades if not centuries. It would appear human harvest and
disturbance has reduced the numbers of some species to the benefit of shore crabs and
possibly barnacles. Soft-bodied and showy organisms fare poorly in or are removed from
exploited sites. Other species may suffer from loss of habitat. As these creatures diminish,
so does the seashore experience for consumptive and non-consumptive users alike.
-------
20
Aesthetic, educational, and recreational values decline with the loss of each species and the
complex of community and habitat to which it is associated. Because the health of the
species cannot be isolated from the community in which it lives, we speculate that habitat
protection will be a more effective way of protecting the intertidal resource than species
management and harvest regulations. Habitat management protects the intertidal community
as an integral complex of interactions between organisms and their environment. The
importance of this relationship is neglected when the management focus is on maintaining
numbers of a single species. The factors that sustain the species in its community may be
overlooked or lost with detrimental consequences for the species.
4.2 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
4.2.1 Estimation of Harvest Effort and Catch Size from Bucket Surveys
High variability in the number of NGM1 collectors and the time spent harvesting
precluded a precise estimate of harvest effort from bucket survey data (Table 1). Tidal
height, weather, season, and day of the week all may have contributed to this variability
(Hockey and Bosman 1986; Underwood and Kennelly 1990). Malvestuto et. al (1979),
working with the predictive precision of fishing effort from creel surveys determined that
the proportional allocation of sampling effort to the degree of variation within a strata
provided the best estimates. In keeping with this approach, NGMI surveys were
concentrated during expected peak harvest times (on days with tides <-1.0 ft. during
daylight hours in spring and summer), and at the most frequented locations (13 sites
most accessible to the greatest number of people). Previous work on intertidal organism
collection (Underwood and Kennelly 1990) and fishing effort (W. Palsson, pers. comm.),
indicated that day of week may be critical in determining harvest effort. Upon this
assumption, our surveys were stratified into "weekday" and "weekend and holiday" strata.
Our results show tidal height to be a more important factor than day of the week (Figure
5) A change in design to randomly sample within a tidal height instead of "day-of-week"
strata may increase estimate precision.
Harvest effort estimates from Bucket Survey results were minimums due to three
major factors:
1.) Bucket Surveys did not begin until June, 1990, when funding became
available, and therefore the first minus tides of the spring were not sampled.
Preliminary surveys at two sites prior to the onset of this study, during the
lowest tides in May, showed the greatest daily number of NGMI collectors for
-------
the project's sampling season for those sites. If future studies or monitoring of
NGMI harvest are conducted, survey coverage during the first lowest tides of
spring will be critical in determining harvest effort and total NGMI catch for the
year.
2.) The sampling design and subsequent analysis assumed NGMI harvest did not
take place at night, on days with low tides higher than -1.0 ft., or beyond the
time when the tide rises above 0.0 ft. on those days with tides at or below -1.0
ft.. Some level of harvest probably occurred throughout the day and year.
Also, there appeared to be a trend of diminishing harvest, during comparable
tides, with the progression of the spring and summer seasons (Figure 5). We
did not have enough data to incorporate this trend into our harvest estimates.
3. Our results do not include NGMI harvest outside the 13 survey sites in Puget
Sound. In particular, we were not able to survey beaches accessible only by
boat. One pleasure-craft was observed making periodic landings along the
shoreline near Nisqually, unloading bucket-toting persons apparently making
some kind of collection. They were logistically inaccessible to our survey
crews. This type of harvest strategy probably occurs throughout Puget Sound
and may well be a common practice among the most serious NGMI collectors.
The high variance in our catch estimates (Table 2) is in part due to the fact that
collectors generally fell into two major categories, recreationalists (those without a specific
collecting agenda), and specialists (those with particular target species for collection).
Recreationalists collect a few individuals of a variety of species, and accounted for the
majority of NGMI harvesters surveyed . The collection is probably opportunistic and of
recreational or novelty value, and the invertebrates often may be released before leaving the
beach. Specialists , while in the minority, collect and keep a larger number (often >100)
of a particular species with a definite use in mind (Figure 2).
The predominate use stated by NGMI collectors was catch and replace (Figure 3).
Caution is warranted when categorizing "catch and replace" as a non-consumptive use. It is
our opinion mortality of organisms identified as "catch and replace" was high either due to
delayed effects of: injury incurred during handling; debilitation caused by prolonged time
spent out of the animals' natural environment and in the inhospitable environment of the
collectors "bucket"; replacement of the organism in an unsuitable environment (exposed to
predation or crushing by foot-traffic, or lacking the necessary habitat requirements to
-------
sustain life), or direct consumption by the collector . We feel a collector who stated a
consumptive use (food, bait, souvenir, etc) felt confident about his rights to take an animal
for these uses, and probably told the truth. However, on-site interview and examination
of NGMI collections by surveyors may have produced a suspicion of legal jeopardy or
entrapment in some collectors motivating them to misrepresent an intended consumptive
use for the non-consumptive "catch and replace" use of their harvest. This may be
particularly true where language is a barrier, as is the case for some recent immigrants.
Occasionally, a collector saw the approach of our survey interviewer and threw away their
harvest, or said they were finished collecting when a visual check sometime later proved
they had not. Examination of "catch and replace" shore crab data from bucket surveys
shows that of the 48 collectors collecting shore crabs for "catch and replace", 77 percent
collected less than 15 individuals each. Only 23 percent of the collectors harvested more
than 15 shore crabs apiece, yet their collection accounted for 80 percent of the total "catch
and replace" shore crab harvest (Table 7). As defined above, a specialist is likely to target,
collect and consumptively use a large number of a few NGMI species. It seems likely that
the 23 percent of "catch and replace" shore crab harvesters were collecting for a
consumptive use and they misrepresented the intended use of their collection.
No attempt was made to interpret "catch and replace" data for analysis as anything
other than such. However, "catch and replace" data are included in harvest estimates and
not delimited by consumptive vs nonconsumptive use because:
1.) Although the number of collectors stating a "catch and replace" harvest was
high (Figure 3), the "catch and replace" harvest was less than 20 percent for
most species and did not contribute substantially to harvest estimates (Table 7).
2.) The "catch and replace" harvest by harvesters collecting <15 individuals of a
NGMI species and thus likely to be truthfully stating the nonconsumptive use of
their harvest is low (Table 7).
3.) The majority of the "catch and replace" harvest was by "specialists" collecting
>15 individuals of a species and probably planning a consumptive use for their
harvest even while stating otherwise.
4.) A high percentage of NGMI collected for "catch and replace" probably
experienced mortality as a result of collection.
-------
23
4.2.2 Estimation of Harvest Effort and Catch Size of "other" NGMI Collectors
An important constituency of NGMI collectors undocumented by the bucket
surveys were research and private consulting institutions, aquaria and science centers,
"commercial" collectors, Friday Harbor Laboratory, and state and federal agencies (Figure
8, Appendix G). These groups never were encountered collecting from the 13 survey sites.
This was true in part because their target species do not occur or no longer occur at these
sites in the numbers needed for expeditious collection, and because many are subtidal.
Marine invertebrate collections made for research and interpretive display must be
made under permit with WDW or WDF. The distinction between collections made for
research and those made for bioassay, toxicology testing, or by private companies in their
line of business or aquaria supplying out of state aquaria with Washington NGMI, is often
ambiguous. Commercial NGMI use and collection is illegal in the state of Washington
(RCW 77.16.040). Consequently, many NGMI collectors, either through ignorance or
reluctance to admit to their collection activities, do not document their collections through
WDW.
The data presented in this report represent a fraction of these types of collectors
harvesting Puget Sound NGMI. With the exception of the few organizations on file in
WDW research permits, and Friday Harbor Laboratory's R.V. Nugget and Ardea
Enterprise's collecting logs, other harvesters were arduously tracked by referrals and leads.
In some cases, collectors were hesitant to divulge the names of other harvesters, but
intimated that, particularly for "commercial" collection, the harvest goes on and is occurring
even by groups outside the state. As such, the data is incomplete, but identifies the types
and amounts of invertebrates being used and by whom (Figures 8 & 9). Monitoring this
harvest and its impact may prove formidable.
4.2.3 Control vs Exploited Site Evaluation
Caution is warranted when evaluating stress on a population (harvest pressure) by
comparing abundances of species in an exploited area with a similar but protected (control)
area. Differences between sites may be due to human collection activity or spatial
variables such as slope of beach, degree of exposure and substratum. Hurlbert (1984)
identified this type of flaw as pseudoreplication. The problem of spatial variation can be
minimized by comparing the populations' mean densities from several replicate exploited
and protected sites. Differences in the average mean abundances between exploited and
protected sites can be ascribed, in this case, to NGMI exploitation and includes both
-------
24
harvest and disturbance by rock turning and trampling (Underwood 1989), Additional
faunal surveys for these and other areas, particularly control sites, compiled with these data
will provide a more definitive analysis of the effects of collection activity on NGMI
populations. The most conclusive way to evaluate the impact of humans on intertidal
species is through the use of manipulative field experiments in which people are excluded
from sections of exploited beaches (Castilla and Duran 1985; Duran and Castilla 1989; as
recommended below),
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
This study is the first of its kind on the west coast. The primary objectives were to
1.) characterize the NGMI harvest from Puget Sound beaches and 2.) provide baseline
faunal surveys at those sites. Should resource managers, biologists, and other interested
groups deem this unregulated harvest problematic, our results will aid in identifying
information gaps for further research and in developing a marine nongame invertebrate
management plan. Three studies are advised regardless of the type of management plan
ultimately chosen (sustainable yield, preservation, or unrestricted harvest):
4.3.1 Assessment of the Effects of Harvest on NGMI Species and Populations
One of the best ways to gauge the effects of harvest would be to cordon-off areas of
beach (termed exclosures), or in some other way protect from human disturbance, sections
of beaches currently sustaining NGMI harvest. Comparison of NGMI population structure
over time (in terms of species abundances, diversity and species size structure), from
adjacent protected and exploited sites will afford the best view of harvest impacts. In this
way, the rate of recovery and resilience of NGMI species can be assessed. This approach,
carried out on short sections of shore in central Chile, has been used to demonstrate the
profound community wide effects of human harvest of intertidal invertebrates (Castilla and
Duran 1985; Duran and Castilla 1989). We strongly recommend similar studies be
initiated at several of our most intensely harvested sites as a short term experiment (3-5 yrs)
which may be extended as long term experiments or as preserves to serve as reference
communities. A related experiment also could be used to test the impact of rock turning
alone on the diversity, abundance and size structures of intertidal species. Selected rocks
could be flipped and replaced or not replaced at different frequencies within shore plots
from which people have been excluded.
-------
25
4.3.2 Identification of the Life History and Habitat Requirement For NGMI Species
An understanding of the biological constraints and environmental needs of a species
is an essential but often neglected requirement for effective management. For example,
identification of source stocks for NGMI species recruitment into harvested sites, is
imperative when planning harvest levels. For some species, harvested sites may be
restocked by recruits from adjacent privately owned tidelands (approximately 60% of Puget
Sound, J. Thomas, pers. comm.). Species that seasonally migrate between shallow and
deep water may be more or less adversely effected depending on their vulnerability to
harvest during critical life stages.
4.3.3 Research on the Extent of the Algal Harvest and its Effect on NGMI
The marine algae community must be considered integral to marine fish and
invertebrates because it provides them food, protection and habitat. Our results show
approximately 8,000 gallons of marine algae were harvested from 13 Puget Sound sites in
1990 (Table 2). This represents a substantial loss of habitat and food for some NGMI
species.
4.4 PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT REGULATORY SYSTEM
4.4.1 Research Permits
WDW's research permit system documents NGMI collections made for the
purpose of research or education. Collections made by aquaria are included in this category
as are those made by consulting and research companies for bioassay, toxicology and other
uses. Compliance in filing a permit is spotty at best, and there is ambiguity between
collections made for research and education, and collections made for research-for-profit or
display-for- profit. WDW issues research permits for NGMI collection to biological supply
houses, aquaria, consulting companies and others for their profit-making ventures.
There is a market for these species, and suppliers fill the demand. In particular, certain
bioassay and toxicology protocols require testing with a single species. As the usefulness
of these species in pollution assessment grows, so will the demand, and research collection
enters the realm of a commercial enterprise. Another source of ambiguity of collections
made under WDW research permits is the harvest of NGMI by commercial day-cruise
ventures in Puget Sound. Customers pay to cruise the Sound, and as part of the
educational experience, NGMI are collected by dredge or tow for customer examination.
Their harvest may be non-consumptive, but even if the organisms are returned to the
-------
26
water, some impact will be sustained. It is necessary to define and allow for the
commercial collection of these and other species within the regulatory framework. A
review of the NGMI collected by research and other groups (Appendix G) will help to
identify species or types of collection warranting particular attendon.
Research permits are filed prior to the NGMI collection. Accuracy of these
documents is subject to the permittees honesty in compliance to a stated collection and
thoroughness in identifying locations and dates of collection. WDW currently does not
follow-up with a comparison of stated versus actual collection, nor is permit information
used in management planning (R. Sherry, pers comm.).
An overhaul of the method and use of the research permit system could yeild
valuable information on the NGMI harvest with moderate expense and effort. At the very
least, under the present permitting system, it would be prudent to elicit research permit
application of a higher percentage of collectors than presently occurs. This includes state
and federal agencies. A notice sent to potential collectors (research institutions,
environmental consulting companies, aquaria, biological suppliers, day-cruise operations,
etc.), reminding them of the need to obtain a collecting permit from WDW, may increase
compliance and provide a better idea of the NGMI harvest at minimal effort. Accurate log
keeping of NGMI collection also should be stressed. The use of words like "some" or
"many" in describing the extent of a collection are meaningless and should be discouraged.
More quantitative records and an annual summary will enable agencies to monitor changes
in catch-per-unit-effort and species harvested thus provide an indirect measure of changes
in resource abundance.
4.4.2 NGMI Harvest Enforcement
Managers may identify the need for regulation of the NGMI harvest. Any type of
regulation is only as good as the degree to which it is adhered. A management plan will
have to be publicized and understood throughout the collecting community.
Special attention should be given to the non-English speaking constituency of
NGMI collectors. Recent immigrants in particular, may be unfamiliar and culturally at
odds with Washington's current regulations. They will require special educational
attention. The state of California has had some minor problems with adherence to wildlife
regulations by individuals of non-English speaking (in this case Southeast Asian)
communities. They have dealt with this by establishing a liaison (usually one of their
enforcement officers) with Southeast Asian community organizations. The liaison is
-------
invited or asks 10 be invited to speak, with the aid of a translator, to these organizations
about current regulations and why they are necessary. Translated regulations are
disseminated. Often these invitations are a result of a series of court notices concerning
wildlife violations incurred by members of the community (D. Johnson, California Dept. of
Fish and Game, pers. comm.).
4.5 MARINE INVERTEBRATE MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA & OREGON
California and Oregon state agency personnel report little problem with the
collection of NGMI, although the harvest of marine algae is becoming an issue (R. Collins,
California Dept. of Fish and Game, pers. comm.). The following is a summary of marine
invertebrate harvest regulations in these states.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) authorizes the commercial
take of marine invertebrates, including the following species: barnacles, sand crabs,
limpets, mussels and sand dollars, nudibranchs, starfish and worms under permit to
licensed commercial fishermen. Other marine invertebrates may not be taken. Marine
invertebrates may be collected for research and education under a scientific collection
permit. There is no recreational collection of invertebrate species within 1000' MLLW of
shore with the exception of marine worms, turban snails, and sand dollars. For these
species, the daily bag limit is 35 (California Sport Fishing Regulation 29.05,1990).
In the early 1950's, public outcry over the denuding of marine invertebrates by
collectors from rocky tidepools spurred CDF&G to set up ecological reserves of major
accessible tidepool areas. Marine invertebrate collection is prohibited in these reserves.
Concern over the harvest for food of marine invertebrates by Asians, recently immigrated
to California, fueled a second wave of public concern in the early 1970*s. CDF&G
responded by implementing the regulations currently in place. Anecdotal information
indicates some rebounding of abundances of marine invertebrate species in reserves with
adequate enforcement effort. State regulations in some reserves are enforced,
cooperatively, by county law enforcement entities. Restriction of access to a few well
monitored points of entry facilitates enforcement (R. Collins, pers comm.).
In Oregon, there is no commercial harvest of intertidal animals without a
commercial fishing or bait permit (Oregon Wildlife and Commercial Fishing Code 635-05-
090). There is no limit on the recreational harvest of sand crabs, kelp worms and turban
snails. The daily catch limit on all other marine invertebrates is 10 in aggregate. In
addition, Oregon has identified a number of sites as "Permit Areas". These areas are closed
-------
28
to the taking of marine animals except for education or research under permit (Oregon
Sportfishing Regulations, 1990).
Acknowledgements
We thank our project crew: C. Buck, C. Hughes, E. Painter, B. Penney, and A.
Ward; volunteer crew: L. Anthony, M. Bitts, W. Clifford, J. Egan, L. Glenn, P. Hall, J.
Hedstrom, H. Johnson, C. Knapp, P. Linton, C. Lockhart, E. Mathews, P. Miller, M.
Olson, M & B. Rudge, M. Segalt, T. Thacker, S. Turner, M. White, T. Wilson, and
J.VanDeGrift. W. Palsson for help with the survey design, the Eastside Resettlement
Center for quesrionaire translations, and M. Schlenker for the tour of McNeil Island. We
also thank J. Armstrong, S. Jeffries and R. T. Paine for their support and advice. This
report has been funded in pan by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the
National Estuary Program. The funding was through interagency agreement No. DW13
4674 01 to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
5.0 REFERENCES
California Sport Fishing Regulation 1990-1991. California Dept. of Fish and Game, 1416
Ninth St., Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 27 pp.
Castilla, J. C. and L. R. Duran. 1985. Human exclusion from the rocky intertidal of
central Chile: the effects on C. concholepas (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Muricidae).
Oikos 45: 391-399.
Collins, R. California Dept. of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Division. P. O. Box
944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090.
Connell, J. H. 1970. A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region. I. Balanus
glanduia and several predatory species of Thais. Ecol. Monogr. 40(1): 49-78.
Dethier, M. N., D. O. Duggins, and T. F. Mumford Jr. 1989. Harvesting of non-
traditional marine resources in Washington state: Trends and concerns Northwest
Environmental Journal. 5: 71-87.
Duran, L. R. and J. C. Castilla. 1989. variation and persistence of the middle rocky
intertidal community of central Chile, with and without human harvesting. Mar.
Biol. 103: 555,
Hockey, P. A. R , and A.L. Bosnian. 1986. Man as an intertidal predator in Transkei;
disturbance, community convergence and management of a natural food resource.
Oikos. 46: 3-14.
-------
29
Hurlbcrt S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments.
Ecological Monographs. 54: 187-211.
Johnson, D. Pers. Comm. 1990. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Law Enforcement
Division, 1416 Ninth St., Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090.
Kyte, M. A. 1989. The nongame marine invertebrates of Washington; An inventory of
species and sources of loss with a status evaluation and management and
conservation guidelines. Washington Department of Wildlife - Nongame Program.
MacGinitie, G. E, and N. MacGinitie. 1949. Natural history of marine animals.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. N.Y. 473 pp.
Malvestuto, S.P.,W.D. Davies and W.L. Shelton. 1979. Predicting the precision of creel
survey estimates of fishing effort by use of climatic variables. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc., 108: 43-45.
Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations 1990. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 2501 S 1st-
P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207 38 pp.
Oregon Wildlife and Commercial Fishing Codes 1989-90. Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207 p. 60-61.
Palsson, . A. 1990. Pers. Comm. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Marine Fish Program,
7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Bin C15700, Bldg. 4/2129, Seattle, WA 98115.
RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 1989. Vol. 6 Title 77. Statute Law Committee.
Olympia, WA. p. 40.
Sherry, R. 1991. Pers. Comm. Washington Department of Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N.,
Olympia, WA 98501.
Thomas, J. Aquatic records manager, Washington Department of Natural Resources,
South Puget Sound Region Office, 28329 SE 448th, Enumclaw, WA.
Underwood, A.J. 1989. The analysis of stress in natural populations. Biological Journal
of the Linnean Soc. 37:51-78.
Underwood, A.J. and S.J. Kennelly. 1990. Pilot studies for designs of surveys of
human disturbance of intertidal habitats in New South Wales. Aust. J. Mar.
Freshwater Res., 41: 165-73.
-------
Table 1. Sampling effori and nongame harvest pressure at the 13 Puget Sound bucket
survey sites. Number of survey days, total number of collectors interviewed, and the
percent of collectors with non-game species are given for each site. Estimates for total
nongame harvest effort (En: number of collectors) and harvest pressure (number of
collectors x hours available for harvest) are based on 59 days in 1990 with tides below 0.0
ft occurring during daylight hours (see text for details).
Total Nongame Effort
Collectors Surveyed
Estimated for 1990 season
Percent
Harvest Pressure
Days
Total
Nongame
Collectors
(collector hrs)
Site
sampled
(Ind)
collectors
(En) ± SD
(En-T) ± SD
Alki
8
193
66%
943
± 616
3232 ± 2830
Carkeek
8
198
63%
1207
± 975
4607 ± 3927
Edmonds
9
392
35%
1136
± 1539
3807 ± 6528
Flagler
8
250
16%
358
± 133
1187 ± 588
Golden Gardens
7
114
54%
599
+ 747
1992 + 3065
Mukilteo N
9
100
42%
326
± 255
931 ± 827
Mukilteo S
7
147
87%
840
± 1284
2520 ± 5247
Picnic Point
9
248
10%
139
+ 104
453 ± 328
Purdy
13
608
34%
1049
± 877
4167 ± 5097
Seahurst
9
445
65%
1866
± 3001
6181 ± 12215
Saltwater Pt.
10
435
94%
2817
± 3737
9724 ± 16088
Tatsolo/Steilacoom 11
163
58%
500
± 403
1875 ± 2092
Titiow
11
152
72%
573
± 700
2072 ± 3199
All sites combined
119
3445
52%
12,353 ± 5,513
42,748 ± 23,510
-------
Table 2. Catch sizes and reported uses of NGMI and algal harvest at 13 Puget Sound beaches. Actual Catch is the sum of all collections
observed and counted in the containers of all 903 collectors interviewed during the buckets surveys. Total 1990 Catch is the estimated
harvest of each catch-type for all 13 Puget Sound survey sites calculated for the 59 days in 1990 with tides below 0.0 ft occurring during
daylight hours.
Uses of Non-Game species as given by surveyed collectors
Total 1990 Occurrence
Species Actual Catch
Catch x 103
(Estimate ± SD)
in collector
buckets
Catch &
replace
Food
Bait
Souvenir
Art
Other
Algae
314 gal
8 ± 6 gal
8%
10%
54%
28%
0%
0%
8 %
Shorecrabs
2344 ind
74 ± 53 ind
10%
58%
4%
19%
10%
0%
9%
Nucella
2111 ind
119 ±85 ind
3%
36%
32%
4%
14%
11 %
3 %
Moonsnails
1625 ind
21 ±20 ind
12%
33%
59%
2%
2%
0%
4%
Polychaetes
1564 ind
43 ± 32 ind
8%
6%
0%
90%
0%
0%
4 %
Barnacles
797 ind
45 ± 70 ind
2%
53%
0%
28 %
1 %
1 %
18 %
Kelp & spider crabs
144 ind
5 ± 5 ind
3%
84%
4%
4 %
0%
0%
8 %
Cancer gracilis
83 ind
2± 3 ind
2%
25 %
67 %
0 %
8%
0%
0%
Starfish
68 bid
2 ± 2 ind
3%
76%
0%
0%
16%
0%
8%
-------
32
Table 3. Percent composition of actual nongame marine invertebrate harvests at each site, N
= total number of NGMJ individuals counted in collector buckets for all survey days.
Kelp &
Shore Moon spider Star Cancer
Site crabs Nucella snails Worms Barnacles crabs fish gracilis
Alki
18%
65%
1%
2%
7%
1%
1%
0%
Carkeek
34%
2%
17%
12%
8%
6%
0%
0%
Edmonds
4%
6%
40%
2%
6%
4%
0%
0%
Flagler
28%
9%
0%
19%
0%
3%
3%
0%
Golden Gardens
39%
0%
19%
7%
21%
0%
0%
0%
Mukilteo N
0%
1%
0%
93%
6%
0%
0%
0%
Mukilteo S
32%
5%
0%
40%
0%
0%
2%
0%
Picnic Point
18%
25%
13%
18%
25%
0%
0%
0%
Purdy
9%
0%
66%
3%
3%
0%
1%
4%
Seahurst
48%
18%
18%
0%
0%
13%
0%
0%
Saltwater Pt.
64%
0%
3%
24%
1%
2%
3%
0%
Tatsolo/Steilacoom
7%
27%
2%
18%
38%
0%
0%
0%
Titlow
32%
46%
0%
3%
2%
0%
0%
0%
Total harvest
24%
22%
17%
1 6%
8%
1%
1%
1%
Species contributing to majority of individuals in "Other" catagory: * hermit crabs, t sand
dollars,«»other gastropod snails.
-------
m
ro
Table 4. Differences in disturbance level and NGMI abundance (mean ± SD) at paired non-harvesied and harvesied sites. If
sampled rocks had barnacles (dead or alive) on the undersurface they were classified as previously turned, ns = no significant
difference between means (P < 0.05).
Rocks Soecies associated wiili rocks (means ± SD)
Size
Previously
Rocks
Terebellid
Nucella
Shore
Mopaila
Site
mean ±SD
turned-over*
sampled
worms
snail
crabs
chiton
comparisons
(m2)
(%)
(N)
(ind/m2)
(ind/m2)
(ind/m2)
(ind/m2)
Non-harvested-1
McNeil Is.
0.1 ±0.03
0%
14
14+17
3 ± 9
47 ± 44
2 ± 5
Harvested-1
Steilacoom
0.1 ±0.03
50%
16
o
+i
o
31 ±53
44 ± 152
12 + 29
t-test comparison
ns
p = 0.004
ns
ns
ns
Non-harvested-2
Seahurst - private
0.1 ±0.01
14%
29
2 ± 9
61 ±61
39 ± 38
5 ± 10
Harvested-2
Seahurst - public
0.1 ±0.01
92%
67
o
+t
o
3 ± 10
14 ± 23
< 1 ± 0
t-tesl comparison
ns
p = 0.03
p = o.oom
p = 0.0001
p = 0.004
-------
Table 5. Sizes (means ± SD) of selected NGMI at paired non-harvested and harvested
sites, ns = no significant difference between means (P < 0.05).
Species sizes (means ± SD~>
Nucella Shore Mopalia
Site lamelbsa crate chiton
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Non-harvested-1
McNeills. 42± 11 30± 8 45± 5
(N) (32) (39) (5)
Harvesied-1
Steilacoom 16 ±12 13 ± 5 41 ±23
(N) (32) (40) (15)
t-tcst comparison p = 0.0001 p = 0.0001 ns
Non-harvested-2
Seahurst - private 34+8 18 ± 5 67 + 13
(N) (99) (49) (13)
Harvested-2
Seahurst - public 35 ± 5 17 ± 4 66 ±15
(N) (24) (24) (15)
t-lcsl comparison ns ns ns
-------
Tabic 6, Differences in nongame faunal abundances (mean ± SD ind/m2 of rock surface
area) at exploited (n = 8) and protected (n = 3) sites in Puget Sound. Faunal densities are
means of the mean faunal densities calculated from transect data collected at individual
sites. P-values are from ANOVA test for each faunal group. P is the probability that the
means come from different populations.
Exploited sites Protected sites p
(ind/m2) (ind/m2)
CNIDERIA
Anthopleura (anemone)
0.0 ±
0.0
5.0 ± 8.7
0.10
MOLLUSKS
Tonicella (chiton)
0.0 ±
0.0
1.3 ± 1.2
0.006
Mopalia (chiton)
1.3 ±
2.8
6.7 ± 5.7
0.059
Limpets
0.0 ±
0.0
1.0± 1.7
0.10
Nucella lamellosa
22.0 ±
34.0
23.2 ± 33.0
0.002
(snail)
Rock jingle
0.1 ±
0.4
15.6 ± 16.3
0.016
POLYCHAETES
Terebellids
3.4 ±
9.6
12.3 ± 10.0
0.20
CRUSTACEANS
Shore crabs
56.5 ±
40.8
39.0 ± 27.0
0.52
Hermit crabs
5.1 ±
9.9
5.3 ± 7.6
0.17
Kelp crabs
0.1 ±
0.2
0.3 ± 0.4
0.32
ECHINODERMS
Sea stars
0.0 ±
0.0
0.4 ± 0.6
0.07
Sea cucmbers
0.1 ±
0.4
12.7 ± 20.2
0.08
FISH
Midshipmen
0.0 ±
0.0
1.3+ 2.3
0.10
-------
Table 7. Reliability and importance of "catch and replace" (C&R) as a "Use" category reported by surveyed NGM1 collectors.
Although many collectors gave C&R as the reason for collecting NGMI (Fig, 3), few of them collected > 15 ind. Those that did
collect £ 15 ind, however, accounted for the majority of the C&R catch for most species, and may have been reluctant to reveal
their true intentions. The percentage of the total measured NGMI harvest (harvest values given in Table 2) attributable to
collectors claiming C&R was highest for crabs and starfish. In actuality, these C&R values may be inflated due to collector
reluctance to be truthful.
NGMI
species
Collectors Percentage of Total C&R Percent of C&R catch Percent of actual NGMI
claiming C&R C&R collectors catch taken by collectors harvest taken by
(ind) holding £ 15 ind (ind) holding >15 ind collectors claiming C&R
Shore crabs
Nucelia spp.
Moon snails
Polychaetes
Barnacles
Starfish
Kelp & Spider crabs 21
Cancer gracilis 3
48
10
34
4
8
3
14
23%
10%
0%
25%
24%
19%
0%
7%
837
70
79
21
82
136
14
44
80%
70%
0%
71%
50%
59%
0%
57%
36%
3%
5%
1%
10%
94%
17%
65%
-------
WASHINGTON
¦ BUCKET SURVEY SITES
O FAUNAL SURVEY SITES
X VOLUNTEER SURVEY SITES
~ CONTROL FAUNAL SURVEY SITES
FIGURE 1. Map of the NGMI harvest sampling
sites in Puget Sound, Washinqton.
Rosan
West Bead
Ebey's Landing
TOWMSEND
Ft. W
BREMERTON
Manchester
K
Mukileo N.
Mukiteo S.
Picnic Pt.
Edmonds
Carkeek
Golden Gardens
SEATTLE
AM
Seahurst (Control)
Seahurst (Public)
PES MOINES
Saltwater
TACOMA
Tillow
Sleilacoom
-------
38
CO
Numbers of NGM1 individuals found in collector buckets
Ui
15
o
o
o
Q
o
a
TJ
c
3
s
M
m
3
•g
">
c
0
A. Data from bucket surveys show most NGMI collectors (>50%) collect a few
individuals (< 10) in aggregate. These collections probably are made for their
recreational, not consumptive, value. However, about 10% of collectors
harvest > 100 NGMI individuals indicating a specific harvesting agenda.
600-
500-
400 A
300
200-
100
0-
N=304
I
I
2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of NGMI species found in collector buckets
FIGURE 2. B. Species diversity is inversely related to the number of NGMI individuals
found in collector buckets (from Bucket Survey results). Collectors either target
and harvest a large number of a particular NGMI species, or a few of a number
of species.
-------
39
Reasons Given for Harvest of Non Game Species
by Collectors Interviewed During 1990 Surveys
FIGURE 3. Reasons given for the harvest of nongame
species by collectors (n= 315),
-------
40
52
o
o
j>
o
O
0)
E
CO
(3
o
CD
o»
CO
c
Q)
s
o
Q_
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
.59
CO
<
HI
w
c
CO
0)
o
o
cz
'a.
IE
Q_
c
CO
*5)
CO
D
3
CO
O
aj
JZ
Figure 4. Ethnic heritage of nongame harvesters collecting for food
and bait(n= 178).
-------
41
CO
~c
g
o
yj
O
O
0
Z
u.
O
%
30
20
10
0
N-152
•
•
•
•
•
# • • •
•
-1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0
TIDE HEIGHT (feet)
-3.5
FIGURE 5. The number of NGMI collectors increases with
decreasing tidal height (from Rosario Beach
Bucket Survey results (p=.Q01. R2=0.66).
m 100.
e
o
3 75 J
25 26
MAY
g Purdy
Q Alki
Lr
23 24 20
JUNE JULY
DATE
FIGURE 6. The number of NGMI collectors during days with
comparable tidal heights decreases as the season
progresses (from nadir counts).
-------
42
8 a)
Z 100%
c
CO
.
JQ
T3
CD
O
J2
Q.
d>
CO
JjC
O
o
DC
60%
40%
20%-
yes no
Prior instructions given to collector groups
03
W
+1
c
to
o
T3
Q>
O
iS
<"*>
2
CO
0)
2?
CD
¦c
0)
>
c
100%
b)
80%-
60%-
40%
20%
0%
1
yes no
Prior instructions given to collector groups
FIGURE 7. Prior instructions to replace over-turned rocks and invertebrates
given to groups of NGMI collectors by their leaders had a positive effect on
collector behavior, a) The mean percentage of rocks replaced by 8 groups
receiving instructions was significantly higher than for 4 groups not so
instructed (1-tailed t-test, p = 0.03, percentages arcsin transformed), b)
Although the difference in invertebrate replacement was significant (1-tailed
t-test, p = 0.03), replacement was high in all cases.
-------
43
MACRO
A. FAUNA
8.0% 3.0%
B. MICRO FAUNA
8.0%
1.0%
1.0% 1.0%
35.0%
54.0%
7
B
University n=3
HI
Private consulting n=8
~
Commercial collector n=2
0
Aquaria/Science Ctr. n=5
m
State Agency n=1
Federal Agency n=1
~
Friday Hbr. Lab n=1
FIGURE 8, A. Aquaria and science centers collected 41% of NGMI macrofauna (species with
adult length > 10mm). Private consulting firms and commercial collectors harvested 25% and
20%, respectively (from 1990 WDW research permits, organization collection logs, and phone
interviews). B. The most NGMI microfauna (species with adult length < 10mm) were
harvested by universities for research (54%). Polychaetes were the species most collected.
Private consulting firms collected 35% of NGMI microfauna, primarily the amphipod,
Rhepoxynius abronius (from 1990 WDW research permits, organization collecting logs and
phone interviews).
-------
CO
<
Q
>
Q
Q
LU
H
O
LU
_J
—J
o
o
cc
LU
CD
200000
150000
100000—1
10000
2000
NGMI
FIGURE 9. Numbers of NGMI species collected by aquaria, science centers,
biological consulting firms, commercial collectors, educational institutions,
Friday Harbor Labs., and state and federal agencies (from 1990 WDW research
permits, organization collecting logs, and phone interviews).
-------
45
UJ
CO
-H
E
g 100-
o
CD
c
O
w
o
o
nj
e
i_
CB
CD
»
3
O
JC
w
-IC
a
o
DC
75-
50-
25.
0-
12
UJ
C/D
+1
w
0)
a
a)
Q.
C/5
o
c
to
a)
8-
0-
CONTROL
EXPLOITED
n=8
B.
CONTROL
EXPLOITED
SURVEY SITES
FIGURE 10. A. Significantly more rocks had barnacles on their
undersides at the exploited sites than at the control sites (t-test, t=5.9,
p=0.001, DF=9). B. The mean number of NGMI species were
significantly higher at control sites than at exploited sites (t-test. t=5.3,
p=0.001, DF=9).
-------
APPENDIX A
Marine invertebrate species classified by
foodfish or shellfish.
GROUP/SPECIES
ABALONE
Halioris kamtschatkana
H. rufescens
BARNACLES
Pollicipes polymerus
CLAMS
Clitiocardium nunalli
Macoma secia
Macoma spp.
Mya arenaria
Panope abrupta
Prototfiaca staminea
Saxidomus giganteus
Siliqiia patula
Tapes philippinariim
Tresiis capax
T. nuitalli
Zirfaea pilsbryi
CRAB
Cancer magister
C. productus
Chionoecetes tanneri
MUSSEL
Mytilus californiamts
M. edulis
OCTOPUS
Octopus dofleini
OYSTER
Crassostrea gigas
C. gigas (Kumamoto)
C. virginica
Ostrea lurida
O. edulis
Ostreidae
SCALLOPS
Chlamys hastata
C. rubida
Crassadoma gigamea
Patinopecten caurinits
SNAIL
Polinices lewisii.
the Washington Department of Fisheries
COMMON NAME
Pinto abalone
Red abalone
Gooseneck barnacle
Cockle
Bent nose clam
Mud clam
Geoduck
Litde neck clam
Butter clam
Razor clam
Manila clam
Horse clam
Gaper clam
Piddock
Dungeness crab
Red crab
Tanner crab
California mussel
Blue mussel
Giant Pacific octopus
Pacific oyster
Kumamoto oyster
Eastern oyster
Olympia oyster
European oyster
All other oysters
Spiny scallop
Pacific pink scallop
Rock scallop
Weathervane scallop
Moonsnail
-------
47
SEA CUCUMBER
Cucumaria minima
Sea cucumber
Parastichopus californicus
Sea cucumber
SEA URCHIN
Strongylo centrotus droebachiensis
Green urchin
S.franciscanus
Red urchin
S. purpuratus
Purple urchin
SHRIMP
Callianassa spp.
Ghost shrimp
Pandalopsis dispar
Sidestripe shrimp
PauMus borealis
Pink shrimp
P.danae
Coonstripe shrimp
P. hypsinotus
Coonstripe shrimp
P. goniurus
Humpy shrimp
P.jordani
Ocean pink shrimp
P. platyceros
Spot shrimp
Upogebia pugettensis
Mud shrimp
SQUID
Loligo opalescens
Pacific coast squid
Ommastrephes bartramai
Flying squid
Onychoteuthis borealijaponica
Nail squid
Sepiodea or Teuihoidea
All other squid
-------
48
APPENDIX B
Path descriptions and lengths for faunal baseline and bucket surveys on Puget Sound
beaches.
BEACH
Alki
Carkeek Park
Ebey's Landing (Fort Ebey)
Edmonds State Park
Fort Flagler Historic Park
Golden Gardens Park
Manchester beach
Mukilteo North
Mukilteo State Park (South)
Picnic Point
Purdy
Rosario State Beach
Saltwater State Park
Seahurst Park
Steilacoom
Titlow Beach
West Beach State Park
path PATH DESCRIPTION
LENGTH
(m)
The length of the beach fronting Beach Dr.
SW, from Benton PL SW to SW Charleston
900 The length of the park
500 The length of the beach access.
200 The pilings near the parking lot S 200 m.
1000 From the pilings on the NW side of the spit at
the Fort Flagler Historic Park campground,
continuing SW towards the grassy headlands,
then NE towards the boat ramp
900 The length of the park
300 The length of the park
600 The public access NE of the ferry dock. NE
from the fuel tanks to the rocky headland
200 The boat ramp S to the end of the park
600 The park access N to the pilings
1200 The length of the public access on the shore
extending W of Burly Lagoon.
300 The length of the beach
600 The length of the park
1500 The length of the park
5000 Salter's Point S to Tatsolo Point
900 6th Ave. public access N to private boat ramp
300 Parking lot N to rocky headland
-------
49
APPENDIX C
NGMI Bucket Survey Form
NGMI BUCKET SURVEY Pa9®
Location
Weather
DOW
Data
Time
Tide
Surveyor
Nadir count:
(total scan count
— of all collectorson
beach at exact
moment of the
low tide)
USES Sc .. •
BaK*8
Pood.p ¦ ' : SouwnJr.-S..
AqOaiia-.A
BkiSup^-BS DMtroy-D
ftowroli.R CoHtctfr»plae« • CP
School-So Alt'* AR
DISTURBANCE
Nationality ^ 1
Adults
Children
F««8ng WTs#!- F
Raking-R
Rocktumlrig-T
Oh#r-«p«a8y
Ufino-L Japtm
Cambodian - C PhHtpoi
Kortan - K Asian-
Vlatraunam - V
Hnwnf-H Non-fflj
SpBito
Party #
*
3"
AdJt
/
chid
Species
Collected
Amt
lnd-l
Gal - G
Kg-K
How long
today?
Are they
done?
Use
How
often
this
beach?
Where else
they collect?
Other spp.
they looking
for?
I Disturbance i
1
J
-------
50
APPENDIX D
NGMI SCHOOL SURVEY FORM
Location
Surveyor
Date
Time
School
name
School
Location
Grade
1) How often collect?
2) Where else?
3) Number of students
4) Students received prior orientation about not taking inverts.
5) Students received prior instructions about returning turned rocks
Rock Replacement:
Tally replaced
Tally not replaced
6) What species have they been directed to collect:? For what purpose?
Species
Collected
Running Tally
To Be Replaced
Running Tally
To Take Home or School
-------
APPENDIX E
Variables used to calculate NGMI harvest estimates
E = nadir collector count (adults + children)
an = number of NGMI collectors surveyed
at = number of all collectors surveyed
c = actual recorded catch of a given NGMI
m = number of minutes a collector had been harvesting when interviewed
h = £ an-m = observed harvest pressure
r = c/h = harvest rate for given NGMI
En = E- (an/aO = proportion of NGMI harvesters on beach
T = harvest duration = number of harvestable hours (i.e. tide below 0.0 ft)
Hp = En-T = harvest pressure
Cd = H-r = H-(c/h) = days harvest for a given NGMI
Pn = number of NGMI parties on beach (trips)
For each day and beach
harvest rate = c/h
non-game harvesters = En = E-(an/at)
harvest rate = c/h
harvest pressure = Hp = En-T
days harvest = C = Hp-(c/h)
For each stratum (week day, and weekend or holiday) per beach for days sampled
i = l....n sample days in stratum
Pi = NGMI collector trips for the i^ sample day
Hj = NGMI harvest pressure for the i1*1 sample day
Q = NGMI catch of a given category for the 1th sample day
N = number of harvestable days in the stratum (days with tides < 0.0 ft)
n
means calculated as:
n
N-n
variances of means calculated as: Var (Xj) = •
Stratum totals for all harvestable days during the entire season
A A
means calculated as:
X = N-Xj
A
A
variances of means calculated as: Var (X)= N2 Var (Xj)
-------
52
Annual totals for a beach were calculated by summing the estimated means for both strata.
Variances are also additive. Standard deviation is the square root of the variance.
-------
APPENDIX F
Results of phone survey to Seattle area public school teachers ,June 1990, and
estimates of the extent of school children traffic on Puget Sound beaches.
DISTRICT
GRADE
# OF
# OF
#TOGO
% OF
PROJECTED
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
TO
STUDENT
TOTAL TO
IN GRADE
SURVEYED
BEACH
SURVEY
BEACH
Edmonds
K-6
9300
2530
50
1.9
177
7-8
2600
1274
70
5.5
143
9-12
5098
1905
276
14.5
739
Highline
K-6
7837
5956
709
11.9
933
7-8
2040
1280
0
0
0
9-12
3728
3486
21
.6
22
Mercer Is.
k-6
1754
962
100
10.4
182
7-8
510
0
0
0
0
9-12
1024
1024
0
0
0
Northshore
K-6
9907
3020
310
10.3
1020
7-8
2649
0
0
0
0
9-12
4669
0
0
0
0
Seattle Public
K-6
25548
2246
511
22.8
5813
9-12
10720
800
100
12.5
1340
TOTALS
87384
24483
2147
10369
-------
54
APPENDIX G
Numbers of NGMI species collected by user-groups determined from evaluation of
1990 WDW research permits, organization collecting logs and phone interviews of
organization representatives. Groups include: Univerities (Univ), Private consulting
laboratories (Cnslt Labs), Commercial collectors (Com. Coll.), Aquaria and Science
centers (Aquaria), State agencies (State Agn.), Federal agencies (Fed. Agn.), and Friday
Harbor Labs (FHL).
Cnslt Com. Stale Fed.
SPECIES
Univ.
Labs
Coll.
Aquaria Agn.
Agn. FHL
Total
SPONGES
Sponge spp.
71
8
79
Cliona cclata
2
2
Halicondria panicea
5
20
25
Isodictya quasinoesis
5
5
Mycalc odhaerens
2
2
Syringclla celata
2
2
SCYPHOZOA
0
Scyphozoa spp.
2
2
Hciloquistes sp.
5
5
SEA PENS
0
Ptilosarcus gurncyi
46
430
58
534
SEA Whips
0
Stylaiula elongata
15
7
22
SOFT CORAL
0
Gcrsemia rubiformis
1
1
SEA ANEMONES
0
Anihoplcura elegantissima
5
82
2
89
A. xanthogrammica
15
65
25
105
Cribrinopsisfernaldi
5
15
12
32
Epiactis prolifera
4
6
10
Mctridium senile
5
65
200
11
281
Pachycerianthus sp.
1
1
Stompliia didemon
5
25
55
1
86
Tcalia spp.
130
30
2
162
Urticina spp
70
70
CHITONS
0
Chryptochiton stcllcri
20
80
1
101
Kailtarina tunicata
10
1
11
Mopalia spp.
5
55
20
80
Tonicclla spp.
15
15
35
65
LIMPETS
0
Limpcl spp.
10
35
3500
1
3546
Diodora aspcra
10
110
120
GASTROPODS
0
Snail spp.
30
44
74
Calliostoma annulatum
20
150
1
171
Ccrato stoma foliatum
10
20
1
31
Fusilriton oregonensis
35
50
85
-------
Nucella spp.
80
20
100
Tegula sp.
1000
1000
NUD1BRANCHS
0
Anisodoris nobilis
20
20
Archidoris odhrnri
25
25
Armina californica
40
35
15
90
Coryphella sp.
30
30
Dendronoiis iris
10
15
25
Diaulula sandiegensis
10
10
Dirona albalmeata
100
100
Discodoris heaihi
5
5
Uermissenda crassicornis
20
20
Melibe leonina
10
10
Triopha spp.
20
20
Tritonia
562
562
ANNELIDS
0
Polychaete spp.
8
1500
70
48
1626
Eudistylia vancouveri
700
15
10
725
Hetermastus filiformes
50000
50000
Polydora tempi
50000
50000
Slreblospio benedicii
50000
50000
BARNACLES
0
Balamts glandula
160
160
B. nubilus
550
700
127
1377
Tanaid sp.
50000
AMPHIPODS
0
Ampipod spp.
30000
10000
3000
43000
Rhepoxynius abronius
100000
20(X)0
5000 2000
127000
CRABS
0
Cancer gracilis
20
67
87
Hapalogaster mertensii
10
10
llemigrapsus oregoncnsis
20
1
21
Hemigrapsus nudus
300
300
Oregonia gracilis
10
120
25
75
230
PagaruslEllasochirus spp
10
120
70
145
345
Petrolisthes eriomerus
2
5
12
19
Pugeitia spp.
4
110
75
7
1%
Scyra acuiifrons
10
I
50
5
66
Spider crab spp.
30
30
60
Tehnessus cheiragonus
5
5
BRYOZOANS
0
Heicropora magna
10
10
BRACHIOPODS
0
Brachiopod spp.
5
35
40
SEA STARS
0
Cribrinopsis fernaldi
1
1
Crossasier papposus
1
7
8
Derniasterias imbricata
I
65
30
96
E vaster ias iroschclii
1
25
100
7
133
Hcnricia ieviascula
16
40
170
11
237
-------
56
Hippasteria spinosa
1
105
55
161
Leptasterias hexaais
3
3
Luidia foliolata
1
20
1
190
212
Mediasier aequaSis
1
55
85
13
154
Orthasterias keohleri
1
5
100
106
Pisaster spp.
1
10
45
45
7
108
Pterasler sp.
3
1
8
12
Pycnopodia helianthoides
4
10
5
75
60
154
Solasler spp.
6
190
60
256
BRITTLE STARS
0
Gorgonocephalus sp.
2
2
C. eucnemis
1
1
Ophioroid spp.
10
4
15
77
106
SAND DOLLARS
0
Dendraster abronius
550
4800
24
200
5574
D. excentricus
510
300
810
SEA CUCUMBERS
0
Cucumaria sp.
21
21
Cucumaria piperata
15
65
5
85
Eupeniacta qmnquesimiia
1
100
15
20
136
Parasiichopus californicus
I
1
2
Psolus chitonoides
1
15
5
2
23
Stichopus sp.
56
56
ASCIDIANS
0
Ascidian spp.
460
75
3
538
Total Macro fauna
693
5595
4419
9115
200
403
1663
22088
Tola! Micro fauna
200000
130000
30000
3000
5000
2000
0
370000
-------
57
APPENDIX H
BASELINE FAUNAL SURVEYS - PROTECTED (CONTROL) SITES
Site/Species DENSITY/M2 SIZE (mm)
ROCK
MCNEIL ISLAND
Transect Height: -1.6' below MLLW.
mean
SD
n
mean
SD
n
Anihopleura
15
16
22
Mopalla
2
4
25
30
8
39
Tonicella
2
7
25
31
9
4
Nucella lamellosa
8
15
25
42
11
32
Pododesmus cepio
33
33
25
45
5
5
Terebellid worm
13
14
25
Hemigrapsus nudas
46
41
25
30
8
39
Petrolisthes
20
30
25
21
2
8
Sea stars: Leptasterias
1
3
25
420
22
8
hexactis, Pisasier ocliraceus
Cucumaria
2
4
25
Midshipmen
4
4
25
SEAHURST (CONTROL)
Transect Height: 1.0' above MLLW.
mean
SD
n
mean
SD
n
Mopalia
5
10
29
66
13
23
Nucella lamellosa
61
61
29
27
11
152
N, emarginata
4
10
29
24
4
60
Pododesmus cepio
.7
4
29
Terebellid worm
2
9
29
Idotea
5
12
29
Hemigrapsus spp.
39
38
29
19
5
54
Hermit crab
14
25
29
Pugettia spp.
.1
.7
29
Sea star spp.
.1
.4
29
-------
Washington Department of Wildlife
Serving Washington's
wildlife and people—
now and in the
future
The Wmfcingior
lorj v.cnot
TWfi dcpirtmto:
The 4<$> A a uf i*T». «fc>=fc
, tmJlBld nr-tje <* SfcxSaji V Injc jreu fc»*f-f«fer d«[l GpuaJWi*
------- |