State of Washington Department· of Fisheries

THE RECREATIONAL DIVE CHARTER -FISHERY IN THE SAN JUAN ISLANDS 1979 TO 1985

by Wayne A. Palsson Fish Biologist

Greg Lippert Fish Biologist

Robert Goff Scientific Technician

August 1991

Technical Report Number: 116 TECHNICAL REPORTS

The Technical Reports present results of completed or ongoing investigations carried out by the Department of Fisheries that are deemed of sufficient timely interest to be made available to the scientific community and the public.

The contents of these reports may be reprinted, and reference to the source will be appreciated.

STATE OF WASHINGTON Booth Gardner, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Joseph R. Blum, Director

MARINE FISH/SHELLFISH PROGRAM Judith Freeman, Assistant Director

115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504

~3 State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 116

THE RECREATIONAL DIVE CHARTER FISHERY IN THE SAN JUAN ISLANDS 1979 TO 1985

by

Wayne A Palsson Fish Biologist

Greg Lippert Fish Biologist

Robert Goff Scientific Technician

Booth Gardner Governor

August 1991 Abstract Between November 1979 and March 1985, an observer for the Washington Department of Fisheries accompanied scuba divers aboard three dive-charter vessels operating in the San Juan Islands. The observer sampled 63 trips over 101 days. Catch and dive information were taken from 957 divers who made a total of 3,272 dives. The observer program characterized what divers sought, their experience level, their catch, and catch rates. On a typical day, divers were given 2 to 3 opportunities to dive, and they made 2.2 dives on average. The average dive 1asted 0.6 hours and was to depths between 51 and 60 feet. The average charter diver had 4.6 years of di ve experi ence and made an average of 29 di ves in the previous twelve months. Charter divers targeted finfish on the majority of observed dives. The remaining dives were spent targeting shellfish, taking pictures or making observations. When spearfishing, most divers sought lingcod, and divers seeking shellfish primarily targeted abalone. Lingcod was the most common finfish harvested, followed by rockfishes and kelp greenling. The most commonly harvested shellfish were scallops and abalone. Divers were successful in harvesting finfish on half of all spearfishing dives. Shellfish were harvested on almost half of all dives including those spent spearfishing. Diver catch rates often differed among years and regions, however, decreasing trends were only noted for quillback rockfish and pink scallops during the study. Catch rates for some species differed among years at individual sites did not show decreasing trends over time. Table of Contents Page List of Figures . iii List of Tables iv Introduction . 1 Methods . . . 3

Study Area . 3 Data Collection 3

Data Categorization and Analysis . 8

Results...... 11

Trip Characteristics. 11

Diver Characteristics. 13

Residency .. 13

Experience . 16

Gear ...... 16

Target selection ...... 16

Catch...... 26

Species composition. 26 Biological data . .- 33 Catch Rates. . . 41 Diver success .. 41 Diver-day catch rates .. 41 Dive catch rates ... 45

Bag limit violations. 53 Table of Contents (Continued) Page Discussion ...... · · · · · . . . . . · · · · · 53 Dive Charter Fishery 54 Diver Activity . · · · · · · · 57 Experience . 57 Dives per day. 58 Purpose. . · · · · · · · · · · 60 Depth of dive. · 62 Catch and Catch Rates. · . . . 62 Species composition. 62 Biological data. 65 Catch rates. · · · · · · 66 Relative abundance · 67 Success and bag limits · 68 Recommendations. · · · · · 69 Summary. . . . . 70 Acknowledgements 72 Literature Cited . . · · · · . . . . . · 73

i i List of Figures Figure 1. San Juan Islands and study regions...... 4 2. Observer's interview form for each charter dive. 6 3. Frequency of years diving by charter divers . . 17 4. Average annual di ve act i vity (and 95% confi dence 1imits) versus years of diving experience...... 19 5. The proportion of dives and catch by gear type. 20 6. Average dive depth and 95% confidence intervals for each target type...... 28 7. Regional catch composition of finfish 32 8. Regional catch composition of shellfish. 34 9. Length frequency distribution of lingcod. A. Males, B. Females ...... 35 10. Monthly sex ratios and maturity of lingcod harvested by charter divers. A. % males, B. % mature...... 37 11. Annual mean lengths of male and female lingcod, 1979-1985 ...... 38 12. Length frequency distribution of kelp greenling. A. Males, B. Females ...... 39 13. Length frequency distributions of rockfishes. A. Copper rockfish, B. Quillback rockfish, C. Black rockfish, D. Yellowtail rockfish ...... 40 14. Frequency (%) of annual dive activity by observed charter divers and Washington divers surveyed by Bargmann (1984) ...... 59

iii List of Tables

1. Species caught by charter divers...... 10 2. Average trip and daily activity for charter boats from 1979 to 1985 ...... 12 3. Diver participation in daily diving activity .. .. 14 4. Observed diving activity and annual site usage by the dive charter fleet in each region ...... 15 5. Years of experience and annual diving activity by charter divers ...... 18 6. Percentage of dives by primary target type for each region of the San Juan Islands...... 21 7. Additional types of targets sought by divers with more than one purpose duri ng a dive . . • ...... 23 8. Annual targeting pattern by charter divers during a day ...... • ...... 24 9. Percentage of dives by target type and month. . . . 25 10. Frequencies (%) of maximum dive depths for each target type...... 27 11. Percent of finfish harvested by target type. . 30 12. Percent of shellfish harvested by target type 31 13. Biological data' from finfishes speared by charter divers...... • ...... 36 14. Success rates (%) for harvest di ves ...... 42 15. Annual estimates of finfish catch, per dive day, on days when at least one finfish-targeted dive was made. . .. 43 16. Annual estimates of shellfish catch per diver day, on days when at least one shellfish-targeted dive was made...... 44

iv List of Tables (Continued)

17. Annual estimates of finfish catch per dive on finfish­ targeted dives ...... •...... 46 18. Results of one-way analysis of variance tests for differences in catch per dive among years for regions and selected sites...... 47 19. Annual estimates of shellfish catch per dive on shellfish-targeted dives ...... 49 20. Regional estimates of finfish catch per dive on finfish-targeted dives ...... 50 21. Regional estimates of shellfish catch per dive on shellfish-targeted dives ...... 51 22. The importance of spearfishing to recreational fisheries in Puget Sound and San Juan Islands during 1982 . . 55 23. Species composition of finfish speared by divers in California and Washington...... 63

v

Introduct;on

Scuba diving has grown as a recreational activity since its introduction to Washington State in 1944. In 1982, 14,880 Washington residents dove, and they along with non-residents, spent 120,000 days diving (Bargmann 1984). Dive clubs, shops, and charter operations promote the sport, especially in the San Juan Archipelago where rocky reefs, high currents, and diverse marine life provide for scenic and rewarding diving. About half of the dives in Washington's inland marine waters (Puget Sound) are made from boats, but less than half of the divers own boats (Geselbracht 1991). Many spearfishing dives are made from four charter vessels that operate in the San Juan Islands and only carry scuba divers. Twenty percent of Puget Sound divers use charter vessels during the year, and on average, a diver will make three dives per year from a dive charter (Geselbracht 1991). The San Juan Islands are where most dives and spearfishing trips occur of any Puget Sound region (Geselbracht 1991, Bargmann 1984). The impact of the dive charter fishery on bottomfish stocks in the San Juans is unknown but concerns have been expressed that repetitive visits to the same reefs by dive charter boats may deplete bottomfish populations. Several studies have specifically addressed the spearfishery and the charter fishery in Washington. The status of diving and spearfishing activity in Washington was first summarized by Buckley (1967). Another limited creel survey characterizing the bottomfish 2 catch by spearfishers and recreational anglers in the San Juan Islands was carried out jointly by the University of Washington and the Washi ngton Department of Fi sheri es (WDF) in the spri ngs and early summers of 1979 and 1980 (LaRiviere and Bargmann 1983). A larger, comprehensive study to estimate dive catch and effort for all Washington State marine waters was conducted from April 1982 to March 1983 (Bargmann 1984). During Bargmann's study, divers volunteered data to characterize the recreational scuba fishery and to estimate the annual harvests of finfish and shellfish by divers. Most recently, Geselbracht (1991) surveyed Puget Sound divers, identifying their activities, experience, and resource concerns. More information about spearfishing and dive charters was collected as part of a two-year study of the charter boat industry in Puget Sound. In 1986 and 1987, a vol untary logbook program provided data to characterize bottomfish catch and effort of the charter fleet (Lippert et ale 1991). Dive charters of Puget Sound were found to only operate in the San Juan Islands. The growth of diving and spearfishing concerned resource managers and prompted a study to understand the dive charter fishery. Between 1979 and 1985, WDF conducted an observer program with the dive charter fleet operating in the San Juan Islands in conjunction with the National Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (NMRFSS). Although the NMRFSS sought to estimate statewide bottomfish catches, WDF used the onboard observations to gather biological information from fish caught by divers, learn more 3 about divers and the i r fi sh i ng success, and assess the potent i a1 impact of dive charters on fish and shellfish populations.

Methods Study Area The study regi on encompassed the inland mari ne waters of Washington surrounding the San Juan Islands (Figure 1). Schumacher et al. (1978) and Waldichuck (1957) demonstrated regional differences in temperature, depth, and sal inity throughout the Strait of Georgia and San Juan Islands. The dive sites were grouped into four regions based upon hydrology, bathymetry, and bottom type. These four regions were: North, Inner, Southwest, and East (Figure 1). Habitats in the North Region are influenced by the estuarine flow of the Fraser River. Deep bathymetry provides for bottom water replacement by oceanic water while estuarine surface waters flow southward (Schumacher et al. 1978). The Inner Region sites are located wi th in the main group of the Islands. These sites are protected from storms and are subject to high currents through the narrow channels between islands. Southwestern Region habitats are exposed to wave action and the saline waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The East Region is sandy, shallow, and of a low salinity because of the proximity to several river mouths.

Data Collection The NMRFSS required a quota of spearfishers to be interviewed during consecutive two-month periods between November 1979 and April I I ... ,.. ,...... ,. JI

'. 'Is' ~'t\'a.~---- Sue i 0 I s ) _~o~'t\ 0 }~ _~\~t:> ./ (~::R~' ··~'··:~·\ '" "<-. . b. " ,. \ . \.' \ \ '0~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \.\ \ \ . \ ~ SOUTHWEST

Figure 1. The San Juan Islands and study regions. 5 1985. The NMRFSS survey design is summarized by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce (1987). Trips were coordinated between the WDF observer who collected the NMRFSS interviews and the dive charter companies at the beginning of each two-month period. The observer rode the vessel on a space-available basis to obtain the interview quotas. Tri ps with a full complement of divers, or conversely, wi th few divers were not sampled. The WDF observer sampled three vessels duri ng the study peri od. These three vessels accounted for the majori ty of dive charter trips taken in Puget Sound based on charter license information and knowledge of the local fishery. Almost all trips originated from Anacortes, Washington. Each vessel was usually operated by its owner duri ng the course of the study although different operators may have conducted some of the trips. Trip information such as date, number of divers, vessel name, and weather was recorded on a standardized form (Figure 2). A form was filled out for each diving opportunity given at a site during a trip. A "trip" was defined as a continuous time period in which a series of dives were made with the same complement of divers. A "dive day" was defined as all diving activity conducted within one calendar day by all divers. A "diver day" was the sum of all activity in a day by an individual diver. A "dive" was a single dive made by a diver at a site. Typically, dive boats visited several sites during a day, giving divers the opportunity of making two to four dives during a day. Page of Dive No.: __ Location Date: Time: Charter: Weather:

CATCH Experience

Years! Length Weight Sex Time Depth Dives Target in in & Diver in 12 mas Type Equipment* (minutes) (feet) Species mm kg number

Comments: * PS = Pole Spear BSK = Bang Stick BS = Band Spear L = Light PNS = Pneumatic Spear AK = Abalone Iron

Figure _2. Observer's interview form for each charter dive. 7 After the first dive, the observer interviewed each diver to obtain information about their experience and about the dive. Each diver was assigned a serialized reference number that was retained for the entire trip. Experience levels for individual divers were determined by asking the number of years the diver had been actively diving. The observer determined the annual diving activity by asking each diver how many dives he or she made during the previous twelve months (excluding the current trip). Each diver was informed about the purpose of the study and how the i nformat ion woul d be used. For subsequent dives during the trip, the observer recorded the data from each dive for the respective diver. For each dive, the observer recorded the site name, time of day, and weather at the beginning of each dive. Before or after each dive, all divers were asked why they were diving and what kind of equipment they were using. Divers sometimes noted more than one purpose for a dive and up to three purposes were recorded. Equipment included knives, abalone irons, harvest ("goody") bags, lights, and four kinds of spears. The spears included pole spears, band-powered spearguns, pneumatic spearguns, and bang sticks. The duration, maximum depth, and catch were recorded at the conclusion of each dive. Additional factors of interest were also noted such as instructional dives, over limits of fish or shellfish, fish speared and escaped, or exceptionally large or unusual abalone or fish. Data were not used from instructional dives unless harvest occurred. Dive duration, or bottom time, was recorded to the nearest minute from entry into the water until return to the boat. 8 Biological information was collected at the conclusion of each dive. Each diver's catch was i dent ifi ed and counted. Di vers sometimes discarded part of their catch after they returned to the boat. Some species such as chi tons or sea stars were identified then returned to the water. For fi nfi sh, the observer recorded species, fork length (in millimeters), weight (in kilograms), and sex (when possible). The number of individuals or total weight was recorded for shellfish. In situations when the shellfish catch exceeded the legal, daily bag limits, excess numbers or weights were not recorded but noted as overlimits.

Data Categorization and AnalYsis Eighty-seven dive sites or areas were used by the charter boats and gi ven a numeri c code. Each code corresponded to a specific reef or rocky area or a dive location identified by the nearest geographic feature. These dive sites were coded and grouped into the four regions as follows: Twenty-four sites were in the North regi on, 29 in the Inner, 22 in the East, and 17 in the Southwest. Grouping dive site data preserved the confidentiality of the specific site information provided by charter skippers. We aggregated the individual dive data in several ways. Data on maximum depth were grouped into ten-foot intervals ranging from snorke 1 i ng, I-10ft, and i ncreas i ng sequent i all y to dives deeper than 120 ft. The purpose of each dive was categorized into seven targeted groups of harvest and into two non -harvest act i vit i es. These dive "target types" included the non-harvest activities of 9 photography and observation, as well as the harvest categories of lingcod, rockfish, bottomfish, abalone, crab, scallops, and shellfish. The bottomfish and shellfish categories were used when the diver did not specify a particular species of finfish or shellfish. For several analyses, data for the two non-harvest categories, observation and underwater photography, were pooled and classified as "observation" target types. Frequently, harvest data were grouped as "finfish dives" when a finfish was targeted and "shellfish dives" when an invertebrate was targeted. For most analyses, we considered only the first target type given by the diver even though secondary targets may have been reported. Catch data were grouped into seventeen categories (Table 1). Fourteen were individual species of finfish and shellfish, but the remaining were aggregates of a variety of species. The three aggregate categori es, "other fi sh", "crustaceans", and "other invertebrates", included infrequently-harvested species of finfish, crabs and shri mp, and other invertebrates, respect i ve 1y . When invertebrate catch data were reported only by weight, the data were converted to numbers by using an average weight per individual determined from the biological data. For biological analysis, 1ength data reported in mi 11 imeters were rounded to the nearest cent i meter. The maturity of 1 i ngcod was determi ned from the measured length: Lingcod over 60 cm were classified as mature (Miller and Geibel 1973) We estimated catch rates in several ways including: diver success, catch per dive, and catch per diver day. "Diver success" 10 Table 1. Species caught by charter divers.

Common name Scientific name

Finfish Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus Quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus Kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Surfperch Embiotocidae Other Fish White spotted greenling Hexagrammos stelleri Spiny dogfish Sgualus acanthias Spotted ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Red Irish Lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Rock Sole Lepidopsetta bilineata Wolfeel Anarrhichthys ocellatus

Shellfish Northern Abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana Rock scallop Hinnites giganteus Pink scallop Chlamys rubidia Red rock crab Cancer productus Dungeness crab Cancer magister Crusteaceans Shrimp Pandalus ssp. Puget Sound king crab Lopholithodes mandtii Other Invertebrates Gumboot chiton Cryptochiton stelleri Spiny scallop Chlamys hastata Cockle Clinocardium nuttallii Octopus Octopus dofleini Sea cucumber Parastichopus californicus Red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus Purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Basket star Gorgonocephalus eucnemis Sea star Sol aster spp. 11 was defi ned in two ways. II Any catch II success meant a diver harvested at least one finfish or shellfish species during a harvest

dive. IITarget catch ll success meant a diver successfully harvested at least one individual of their target species. We also identified the percentage of divers who exceeded daily bag limits. Catch rates were estimated for an average dive and for an average diver-day. Catch per dive was estimated for each region and year by summing all the catch-per-dive observations in the stratum and dividing by the number of dives. Similarly, catch per diver-day was the simple average of the diver-day observations for each year and target group. Catch rates for 1 ingcod were only calculated for the months of the open season, April to November. Catch per dive, experience, and dive characteristics were tested for differences among years, regions, and sites with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, Zar 1983). Differences among annual catch rates were only tested for complete years of observations, 1980-1984. When differences were detected, the Tukey multiple range test (Zar 1983) was used to discriminate which years and regions were different.

Results Trip Characteristics The observer sampled a total of 63 trips (101 dive days) between November of 1979 and April 1985 (Table 2) and interviewed 957 divers. Fewer trips were sampled in 1979 and 1985 because the Table 2. Average trip and daily activity for charter boats from 1979-1985.

Dive Trips Days! Number of Divers! Opportunites! Dives! Hours! Year Sampled Trip Dive Days Trip Day Diver Day Dive

1979 3 1.3 4 15 2 2.1 0.58 1980 12 2.0 24 16 3 2.2 0.65 ...... 1981 9 1.9 15 15 3 2.3 0.63 N 1982 7 2.2 13 15 3 2.4 0.61

1983 9 1.7 17 14 3 2.2 0.60 1984 18 1.2 21 17 2 2.1 0.61 1985 5 1.4 7 11 3 2.5 0.55 All Years 63 1.7 101 15 3 2.2 0.62 13 observer sampled only a portion of those years. An average dive­ charter trip lasted 1.7 days and had 15 divers on board. The charter operator gave divers 2 to 3 opportunities to dive during the day and divers made 2.2 dives during a day, on average (Table 2). Not all divers made every dive during the day (Table 3). On a daily basis, 69% percent of divers made all possible dives, but this proportion declined as the number of possible dives increased. For those dive days on which up to three dive opportunities were given, the majority of divers made all the dives (Table 3). On those dive days with four possible dives, only a small proportion of divers made all four dives, but most divers made three. The observer monitored 3,272 dives that totaled 2,020 h of diving (Table 4). Most dives occurred in the North and Inner Regions. Each region had approximately 20 active dive sites, and, on average, sites were visited one and a half times a year (range, o to 5) during our observations. Annual site usage was less in the East Region. During an average year, we observed about 18 to 22 dives at an average site in the North, Inner, and Southwest Regions, but only 13 dives per year occurred at sites in the East Region.

Di vers spent an average 0.6 h duri ng a di ve and 1. 4 h per day diving.

Diver Characteristics Residency- Slightly over half of the interviewed divers were Washington residents, and 37% were Oregon residents. A small proportion of the divers interviewed were from Idaho. Table 3. Diver participation in daily diving activity.

Diver participation (%) Number Dives per Observed All One Less Two Less Three Less Number of Day Days Dives Dive Dives Dives Dive Days

1 Dive 2 100% 27 ...... ~ 2 Dives 38 85% 15% 609 3 Dives 56 59% 29% 11% 790 4 Dives 4 16% 55% 25% 4% 55 All Trips 101 69% 1481 15

Table 4. Observed diving activity and annual site usage by the dive charter fleet in each region.

Annual Observed Activity Maximum Hours/ Depth Sites Visits/ Dives/ Region Dives Hours Dive (Feet) Used Site Site

North 1015 626 0.62 61-70 21 1.5 20.7 Inner 998 604 0.61 51-60 27 1.4 17.5 Southwest 722 478 0.66 40-50 17 1.6 21.2 East 537 312 0.58 50-60 22 1.2 12.8 Total 3272 2020 0.62 50-60 87 1.5 18.1 16 Experi ence. -The years of experi ence and annual di vi ng act i vity varied among charter divers. Almost half of the interviewed divers had two years or less of experience (Figure 3). Their experience ranged from their first certification dive to 40 years of dive experience with an average of 4.6 years (Table 5). Diver activity during the previous 12 months averaged 29 dives. The longer a person had been diving, the greater the number of dives they made in the previous year (Figure 4). Most divers with less than a year's experience averaged 15 dives. Divers with 1 to 6 years of experience averaged approximately thirty dives a year, while divers with over 11 years averaged between 40 and 50 dives in the previous 12 months. Gear. - Di vers carri ed some type of spear on 56% of all observed dives and on 27% of all shellfish dives. Divers favored two spear types for the harvest of fish. The pole spear and band­ powered speargun were used more than any other type of gear (Figure 5). Although approximately the same number of dives were made using pole spears and band spearguns, divers using the pole spear harvested the majority of finfish (Figure 5). Abalone irons were carried on 8% of dives targeting this species and were used to harvest 10% of all observed abalone. Target selection - Charter dives were made for a wide variety of purposes, but mainly to harvest finfish and shellfish (Table 6). Of the 3,272 sampled dives, 72% targeted fish or shellfish and 28% were observation or photography dives. Most divers dove for one of four reasons: 30% of the dives were for lingcod, 24% for 25% AVERAGE = 4.6 YEARS -';fl. -0 20 w :5:w >a: w I- Z en 10 a: ...... w ...... > 0

o 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-1213_1415-1617_1819-20> 20

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Figure 3. Frequency of years diving by charter divers. 18

Table 5. Years of experience and annual diving activity by charter divers.

Average Number of Dives in Interviewed Years Previous Year Divers Diving 12 Months

1979 46 4.6 50 1980 200 3.8 29 1981 138 5.1 27 1982 102 4.2 26 1983 131 5.1 24 1984 291 4.5 30 1985 49 6.5 33 Total 957 * 4.6 29

* 57 divers did not give experience information. 100 AVERAGE = 29.3 DIVES en I I­ oZ ::2: C\I T""" I- en 50 ~ z ...... en \0 w > o

o 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-1213_1415-1617_1819-20> 21

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Figure 4. Average annual dive activity (and 95% confidence limits) versus years of diving experience. 60%

K\S\J Dives ...... 1',:,',:,:,f:,ff:,:,:,:1 Fish harvested (fl. Shellfish harvested '-'" RS2'X21 :c 40% o 5 a: o (J) 20% w N > o o

0%

POLE BAND PNEUMATIC CAMERA NO GEAR SPEAR SPEAR SPEAR GEAR TYPE

Figure 5. The proportion of dives and catch by gear type. Table 6. Percentage of dives by primary target type for each region of the San Juan Islands.

No. of Region Lingcod Rockfish Bottomfish Abalone Sca llops Crab Shellfish Observation Photography Dives

North 32% 2% 15% 18% <: 1% 6% 22% 4% 1015

Inner 27% 4% 18% 8% 3% <: 1% 7% 29% 4% 998

Southwest 32% 2% 17% 21% <: 1% 1% 4% 19% 3% 722 East 30% 2% 21% 9% 3% 8% 20% 6% 537 N Total 30% 3% 18% 14% 2% <: 1% 6% 24% 4% 3272 - 22 observation, 18% for'bottomfish, and 14% for abalone. Lingcod- and bottomfish-targeted dives accounted for 95% of all finfish-targeted dives. Dives for abalone and unspecified shellfish accounted for 91% of shellfish-targeted dives. The majority of divers sought a single target group on a dive but 16% sought more than one target group and 2% sought 3 target groups. Of these multiple-target dives, 81% of divers whose primary target was shellfish indicated finfish as a secondary target (Table 7). Many of these dives were primarily for abalone with lingcod as a secondary target. About half of the divers who selected some finfish as a primary target indicated some other finfish as a secondary target, and most of remaining divers sought shellfish as a secondary target. Only three percent of non-harvest divers had a secondary purpose. Most divers (64%) had the same purpose for all their dives made during the same day (Table 8). The remaining 36% made dives for a combination of finfish, shellfish, and non-harvest dives, and most of these divers combined finfish- and shellfish-harvesting activities. Target selection did not vary greatly during the year, except lingcod were not sought when the lingcod season was closed between December and March (Table 9). Eight dives for lingcod were made in December and most of these were in 1979 when the season was still open until the end of the year. Observation dives showed more monthly variation than other target types. More observation dives were made during the summer and winter than during other seasons. Table 7. Additional types of targets sought by divers with more than one purpose during a dive.

Secondary Target ------Any Any No. of Primary Target Finfish Shellfish Lingcod Rockfish Bottomfish Abalone Scallops Crab Shellfish Observation Photograph Dives

Any Finfish 53% 45% 16% 12% 24% 20% 4% 22% 1% 2% 325 Any Shellfish 81% 11% 52% 5% 24% 1% 8% 1% 1% 3% 4% 235 Lingcod 55% 44% 19% 35% 22% 5% 17% 1% 190 Rockfish 91% 9% 66% 26% 2% 6% 47 N Bottomfish 27% 67% 9% 18% 26% 1% 40% 6% 88 w Abalone 81% 13% 54% 5% 21% 10% 1% 1% 2% 5% 182 Sca llops 79% 14% 57% 7% 14% 14% 7% 14 Shellfish 87% 3% 42% 45% 3% 8% 3% 38 Observation 7% 93% 7% 71% 21% 14 Photography 25% 67% 17% 8% 33% 33% 8% 12 Table 8. Annual targeting pattern by charter divers during a day.

Fish & Only Only Only Fish & Fish & Shellfish & Shellfish & No. of Year Finfish Shellfish Observation Shellfish Observation Observation Observation Divers

1979 44% 0% 37% 3% 5% 8% 2% 59 1980 37% 11% 15% 18% 8% 10% 1% 376

1981 42% 9% 22% 15% 4% 7% 1% 212 N ~ 1982 33% 7% 8% 27% 11% 13% 1% 182 1983 19% 16% 20% 35% 4% 5% 1% 233 1984 31% 5% 35% 11% 7% 11% 0% 348 1985 25% 14% 24% 20% 8% 6% 3% 71 All Years 33% 9% 22% 19% 7% 9% 1% 1481 Table 9. Percentage of dives by target type and by month.

Target All Type January February March April May June July August September October November December Months

Lingcod 36% 41% 32% 32% 27% 37% 43% 41% 14% 30% Rockfish 4% 12% 4% 4% 1% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 5% 3% Bottomfish 21% 13% 24% 12% 22% 19% 10% 31% 12% 8% 19% 12% 18% Abalone 26% 13% 20% 13% 10% 4% 10% 13% 20% 19% 14% 8% 14% Sca llops 5% 2% 6% 2% 9% 2% N Crab 4% t U"I Shellfish 14% 18% 13% 10% 3% 5% 1% 7% 3% 3% 5% 6% Observation 20% 35% 31% 19% 17% 37% 45% 15% 24% 19% 13% 47% 24% Photography 10% 8% 3% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3% 6% 3% 6% 4% No. of Dives 163 106 280 276 396 277 235 267 395 274 537 66 3272

t - Trace. 26 Target selection among the regions was generally similar (Table 6). Lingcod, observation, and bottomfish dives were the predominant target types for all regions. Dives targeting on crab, scallops, rockfish, and photography constituted five percent or less of total dives within each region with the exception of rockfish in the North Region. The North Region had a larger proportion of dives targeting rockfish compared to the other three regions. Abalone­ targeted dives constituted a higher proportion of regional dives in the North (18%) and Southwest (21%) Regions compared to the Inner (8%) and East (9%) Regions. Average maximum depths differed among the generalized target groups of finfish, shellfish, and observation dives (Table 10, Figure 6; ANOVA, Pr.>0.05) and among target types (ANOVA, Pr.>0.05). Divers dove deeper, usually between 51 and 60 ft, when seeking finfish and made progressively shallower dives for observation and shellfish (Figure 6). Divers made deeper dives for lingcod than for rockfish and bottomfish (Table 10, Tukey multiple range test, Pr.<0.05) and made shallower dives when seeking crab and abalone than for other shellfish groups (Tukey multiple range test, Pr.<0.05). Divers making observation and photography dives and those seeking other types of shellfish typically dove at intermediate depths between 41 and 50 ft.

Species composition.-Three species comprised 75% of all harvested finfish and 3 species comprised 98% of the total harvested Table 10. Frequencies (%) of maximum dive depths for each target type.

Maximum Depth Range (feet) Target No. of Type Snorkel <30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 >120 Dives

Lingcod 1 5 13 25 22 13 11 4 4 1 1 t 984 Rockfish 1 8 15 2.9 20 12 10 2 1 1 84 Bottomfish 1 8 20 24 24 11 7 3 2 t 575 Abalone 2 33 30 19 9 4 1 t t 446 N Scallops 25 19 29 10 8 4 6 52 ...... Crab 90 10 10 Shellfish 19 26 22 15 8 5 2 3 195 Observation 1 14 23 24 18 10 5 2 2 1 1 760 Photography 16 27 20 25 4 6 2 123 All Dives 1 13 20 24 19 10 7 2 2 t t t 3229* * Depth information was not provided on 43 dives. t = < 1%. 60

p I w 50 w IJ.. '-" f :c I-a.. w 40 Cl

N (X) 30

SNORKEL~~--~----~--~--~----~--~--~----~ LINGCOD BOTfOMFISH SCALLOPS SHELLFISH PHOTOGRAPHY ROCKFISH ABALONE CRAB OBSERVATION TARGET TYPE Figure 6. Average dive depth and 95% confidence intervals for each target type. 29

shellfish (Tables 11 & 12). Lingcod and kelp greenling were the most commonly harvested finfish species. Collectively, rockfish comprised 37% of the total observed catch (Table 11). Divers harvested more copper rockfi sh than any other rockfi sh spec i es. Copper rockfish accounted for 44% of total rockfish catch with the remainder consisting of black, quillback, yellowtail, and tiger rockfishes. The shellfish catch primarily consisted of pink scallops, rock scallops, and abalone (Table 12). Divers targeting lingcod speared more than half of the observed catch of finfish and 71% of the lingcod (Table 11). These lingcod divers accounted for only 30% of the interviews but took the greatest proportions of kelp greenling, quillback rockfish, ye 11 owta il rockfi sh, and cabezon. Di vers who targeted abalone accounted for the majority of the observed abalone catch (Table 12), but a quarter of the abalone also was harvested by divers targeting fi nfi sh. Most other speci es of invertebrates were harvested by divers seeking invertebrates, although a third of all shellfish were harvested by finfish divers and 10% by those divers who said they had intended to observe or take photographs. Some regional differences were observed in species composition. Lingcod, rockfish, and kelp greenling were the most commonly harvested finfish in all four regions. However, catches in the North and Inner Regions had higher proportions of lingcod and rockfish and lower proportions of kelp greenling than in the other regions (Figure 7). In the Southwest and East Regions kelp greenling was the most common species harvested and rockfish was Table 11. Percent of finfish harvested by target type.

Target Kelp Copper Qui 11 back Black Ye llowta il Other Other All Type Lingcod Green 1ing Rockfish Rockfish Rockfish Rockfish Rockfish Cabezon Surfperch Fish Finfish

Lingcod 71% 44% 29% 42% 47% 47% 9% 65% 33% 26% 52% Rockfish 3% 2% 12% 12% 2% 4% 9% 2% 11% 5% Bottomfish 18% 41% 51% 40% 47% 46% 55% 23% 61% 16% 35% Abalone 6% 12% 7% 6% 3% 1% 18% 9% 5% 7% w Sca llops < 1% < 1% 0 Crab Shellfish 1% < 1% 1% 1% 9% 6% 1% Observation < 1% < 1% 2% < 1% Photography < 1% 42% < 1% Number of Fish 677 490 307 140 176 70 11 65 18 19 1973 % of Total Catch 34% 25% 16% 7% 9% 4% 1% 3% 1% 1% Table 12. Percent of shellfish harvested by target type.

Red Rock Dungeness Other Other Pink Rock All Target Type Abalone Crab Crab Crustaceans Invertebrates Scallops Sca llops Shellfish

Lingcod 13% 43% 11% 17% 24% 17% Rockfish 3% 9% 1% 3% 3% 3% Bottomfish 10% 7% 20% 4% 51% 17% 7% 15% Abalone 55% 40% 9% 9% 1% 31% 17% Sca llops 1% 20% 5% 13% (.oJ Crab < 1% 27% 80% < 1% ..... Shellfish 11% 0% 13% 9% 30% 26% 25% Observation 5% 27% 13% 2% 12% 3% 9% Photography 3% 9% 16% < 1% 1% 1% Number of She llfi sh 1798 45 5 23 139 5399 1211 8620

% of Total Catch 21% 1% < 1% < 1% 2% 63% 14% 32

40 North N = 717

20

0

40 Inner ()>- N = 563 Z W 20 ::> 0w a:: 0 u.. 40 Southwest .-Z w N = 468 () a:: 20 w a.. 0

40 East N = 225 20

o Kelp Other Lingcod Greenling Rockfish Cabezon Surfperch Fish

SPECIES

Figure 7. Regional catch composition of finfish. 33 second. In the North, Inner and East Regions, pink scallops constituted the major component of shellfish harvest (Figure 8). Abalone comprised one-third to one-half of the shellfish catch in the Southwest and North Regions but was less than 10% of catches from the Inner and East Regions. Rock scallops were present in all regions, but they were only a third of the catch in the East Region and were less than 10% of the total shellfish catch in the other three areas. Bi 01 09i ca 1 Data. -The 1i ngcod catch was domi nated by males, which averaged 56.8 cm in length and 2.0 kg in weight (Figure 9, Table 13). On average, female lingcod were slightly larger (63.3 cm) and heavier (2.7 kg) than males. Males comprised 70-80% of the total lingcod catch each month (Figure lOA) and most were immature (Figure lOB). Although most femal e 1ingcod were immature, the majority harvested in June and July were mature. During most years, female lingcod averaged about 4 cm larger than males (Figure 11). The average size for both sexes decreased approximately 5 cm between 1983 and 1984, and remained low in 1985. Mean lengths and weights for kelp greenling were similar for both sexes (Table 13). Divers harvested slightly more female kelp greenling (51%) than males. Mean length and weight for sampled females were slightly greater than for males (Figure 12, Table 13). The mean lengths and weights for all rockfishes ranged between 30 and 37 cm and 0.5 to 1.0 kg, respectively (Figure 13, Table 13). Black, yellowtail, and tiger rockfish were larger than quillback and copper rockfishes. 34

North N = 2670 50

0 >- 0 Inner Z N = 3356 ill 50 :::l 0 ill a:: u.. 0 I- Z ill Southwest 0 N = 1317 a:: .50 illa..

0

East N = 1317 50

o RED DUNGENESS INVERTEBRATES PINK ROCK ABALONE ROCK CRAB CRAB CRUSTACEANS SCALLOPS SCALLOPS

SPECIES

Figure 8. Regional catch composition of shellfish. 35

A. MALES N = 478 5 X= 57.2

~ Zw :::> o w 0 L....-..&..-__--L. a: U- I­ Z W () B. FEMALES a: w N = 136 a. X= 63.0 5

o L....-__...IL..-_ 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 92 102 LENGTH (eM)

Figure 9. Length frequency distribution of lingcod. A. Males, B. Females. 36

Table 13. Biological data from finfishes speared by charter divers.

Average Average Number Length Weight Species Sampled (cm) (kg)

Copper rockfish 306 30.3 0.5 Quillback rockfish 140 31.4 0.6 Black rockfish 176 35.9 0.8 Yellowtail rockfish 70 36.6 0.8

Tiger rockfish 11 35.9 1.0 Kelp greenling male 223 35.4 0.6 female 232 36.0 0.7 Lingcod male 487 56.8 2.0 female 135 63.3 2.7 37

100%~------~ A. % MALES

C/) W '...J ~ !z 50% ow II:w a.

O%~~==~~~~~~=-~~~==~===-~~~ APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

B. % MATURE _ Male

~Female 50%

0% APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

MONTH

Figure 10. Monthly sex ratios and maturity of lingcod harvested by charter divers. A. % males, B. % mature. • MALE + FEMALE

-~ 60 ...... 0 I..... CJ Z W ...J Z w US 50 co ~

42L-~------~----~------~------~----~------~~ 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 YEAR

Figure 11. Annual mean lengths of male and female lingcod, 1979-1985. 39

A. MALES N = 222 X=35.4 10% I- - -

~ z ••111 • ~ O%L....----IIa--I-...... ---.J-~ ...... -.---~-..-.J------' 1._. o w a: u. I- I- B. FEMALES ~ 10% (.,) N= 232 a: w X=36.0 a.

•• II I. 0% '--2-2...... 24~26...-...2 ... 8 ...3-.J0-.J3I ... 2-3-4.-3 .. 6~38 ...... 40..... 4... 2 ... 4... 4-.J4 ... 6-4-8-5-O~

LENGTH (eM)

Figure 12. Length frequency distribution of kelp greenling. A. Males, B. Females. 40

A. COPPER ROCKFISH 20 N=306 X = 30.3 10

0

B. QUILLBACK ROCKFI 20 N = 140 ~ X = 31.4 Z W 10 :::J 0 W a: u. 0 ..... Zw C. BLACK ROCKFISH () 20 N = 176 a: X = 35.9 a..W 10

o

D. YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH 20 N = 70 X = 36.6 10

o 1---______19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 LENGTH (CM)

Figure 13. Length frequency distributions of rockfishes. A. Copper rockfish, B. Quillback rockfish, C. Black rockfish, D. Yellowtail rockfish. 41 Catch Rates Diver success.-On most dives, divers targeting fishes or shellfishes were successful. Of 2,376 harvest dives, 57% had some harvest (Table 14). Further, divers harvested at least one individual of their target group during 41% of the harvest dives. Divers were most successful in the North Region and the least successful in the East Region. Divers seeking shellfish were slightly more successful in harvesting their intended target species than those who targeted finfish (Table 14). Divers seeking only lingcod speared them on one out of every three dives. Divers targeting rockfish were slightly more successful, and those targeting bottomfish harvested at least one fish on every other dive. Not all fish speared were harvested. Thirty-seven lingcod were reported as speared and subsequently lost. This represents 5.5% of the total observed harvest of lingcod by charter divers. In addition, six rockfish were also reported as speared and lost. Diver-day catch rates - Divers who sought finfish or shellfish on at least one dive during a day averaged 2.1 finfish and 8.8 shellfish per dive day, respectively (Tables 15 and 16). In descending order, daily catch rates of finfish species were greatest for lingcod, kelp greenling, and copper rockfish (Table 15). Catch rates for other species of finfish were less than 0.3 fish per diver day. Forty-three percent of all spearfishing trips resulted in one lingcod and 12% in two lingcod. Shellfish catch rates were greatest for pink scallops, abalone and rock scallops (Table 16). Divers Table 14. Success rates (%) for harvest dives.

Group targeted by divers Region/ Any Harvest Catch type Lingcod Rockfish Bottomfish Abalone Scallops Crab Shellfish Dive

North Any Catch 63% 56% 64% 65% 100% 72% 65% Target Catch 44% 44% 55% 52% 100% 63% 50% Number dives 326 25 157 181 4 57 750 ------Inner Any Catch 57% 67% 58% 40% 40% 45% 54% Target Catch 33% 47% 50% 33% 30% 43% 39%

Number dives 270 36 183 82 30 1 65 667 -1=00 ------N Southwest Any Catch 55% 64% 61% 70% 100% 56% 40% 60% Target Catch 23% 45% 54% 56% 100% 56% 37% 41% Number dives 231 11 125 155 1 9 30 562 ------East Any Catch 48% 33% 45% 31% 61% 40% 44% Target Catch 17% 0% 36% 15% 61% 38% 26% Number dives 163 12 111 48 18 45 397 ------All regions Any Catch 49% 58% 66% 59% 53% 60% 51% 57% Target Catch 32% 39% 50% 46% 47% 50% 47% 41% Number dives 990 84 576 466 53 10 197 2376 Table 15. Annual estimates of finfish catch per diver day, on days when at least one finfish-targeted dive was made.

Average Species 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Year

Lingcod 0.47 0.60 0.40 1.07 0.82 0.89 0.23 0.64 Kelp greenling 0.53 0.64 0.52 0.49 0.38 0.30 0.58 0.49 Copper rockfish 0.25 0.33 0.27 0.16 0.35 0.34 0.88 0.37 Quillback rockfish 0.09 0.28 0.23 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.12 Black rockfish 0.20 0.25 0.72 0.44 0.09 0.10 0.26 w~ Yellowtail rockfish 0.00 0.00 Tiger rockfi sh 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 Cabezon 0.13 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.08 Surfperch 0.31 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 Other fish 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 All fish 1.91 2.32 1.88 2.70 2.37 1.87 1.98 2.14 No. of Diver Days 32 240 130 132 137 172 40 883 Table 16. Annual estimates of shellfish catch per diver day, on days when at least one shellfish-targeted dive was made.

Average Species 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Year

Abalone 1.25 3.34 3.70 2.09 1.96 3.73 3.80 2.84 Red rock crab 0.08 0.19 0.04 Dungeness crab 0.03 0.00

~ Crustaceans 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 ~ Invertebrates 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.03 Pink scallop 6.00 13.18 0.81 3.03 2.61 1.87 3.93 Rock scallop 1.50 1.02 5.12 0.36 1. 21 0.07 1.23 1.50 All species 8.13 18.93 9.62 6.49 7.35 2.83 7.93 8.75 No. of Di ver Days 8 151 69 88 132 94 30 572 45 harvested 2.8 abalone per day when they made at least one shellfish­ targeted dive. Thirty-one percent of charter divers achieved their daily bag limit of five abalone. Dive catch rates.- Catch rates for individual dives differed among regions, sites, and years. For finfish-targeted dives, divers speared 0.40 lingcod on an average dive, the greatest catch rate for any finfish species (Table 17). Average catch rates were the second highest for kelp greenling at 0.26 per dive. Copper, black, and quill back rockfi sh were the next most successfully harvested speci es with average catch rates ranging from 0.06 to 0.20 fish per dive. The remaining species had low catch rates: Each of these species had fewer than four fi sh harvested ina hundred dives. Di ver experience did not contribute to higher catch rates for the common species: Catch rates for lingcod, kelp greenling, rockfish, and abalone were similar among divers with different years of experience (ANOVA, Pr.<0.05). Catch rates (pooled over all regions) differed among years for lingcod, quillback rockfish, black rockfish, and other fish (ANOVA, Pr.<0.05; Table 18). For lingcod, catch rates were greater in 1982, 1983, and 1984 than in 1981 (Tukey multiple range test, Pr.<0.05). The peak catch rate in 1982 also differed from the moderate catch rate in 1980. Catch rates for black rockfish also peaked in 1982, and this rate differed from those of 1980, 1981, and 1984 (Tukey multiple range test, Pro <0.05). Quillback rockfish was the only species that showed a decrease in catch rates over the study years. In 1980, the first full year of study, the catch rate was 0.15 fish Table 17. Annual estimates of finfish catch per dive on finfish-targeted dives.

Average Species 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Year

Lingcod 0.26 0.36 0.21 0.56 0.48 0.53 0.38 0.40 Kelp greenling 0.29 0.34 0.25 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.30 0.26 Copper rockfish 0.14 0.18 0.13 0.08 0.20 0.19 0.45 0.20 Quillback rockfish 0.05 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.06 Black rockfish 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.22 0.18 0.04 0.03 0.09 0'1""" Yellowtail rockfish 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 Ti ger rockfi sh 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Cabezon 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.04 Surfperch 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 Other fish 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 All fish 1.04 1.17 0.87 1.24 1.20 1.00 1.03 1.08

Number of Dives 59 452 271 251 237 303 77 1650 Table 18. Results of one-way analysis of variance tests for differences in catch per dive among years for regions and selected sites.

Kelp Copper Quillback Black Other Pink Rock Stratum Lingcod Greenling Rockfish Rockfi sh Rockfish Fish Abalone Scall op Scallop

ALL REGIONS * * * * * * NORTH * * * * SITE 3 * SITE 17 ...... ~ SITE 18 * INNER * * * * SITE 47 * SOUTHWEST * SITE 63 SITE 69 EAST * * Indicates differences at 0.05 level of significance. 48 per dive. This catch rate was different from the 0.04 fish per dive observed from 1982 through 1984 (Tukey multiple range test,

Pr.

Average Species 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Year

Abalone 0.42 1.80 2.28 1.41 1.10 1.97 1.98 1.57 Red rock crab 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 Dungeness crab 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ Crustaceans 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.01 \0 Invertebrates 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 Pink scallop 4.00 10.12 0.64 2.64 2.03 0.00 1.30 2.96 Rock scallop 1.00 0.78 4.06 0.32 0.94 0.06 0.86 1.15 All species 5.42 12.89 7.00 4.37 4.15 2.03 4.19 5.72 Number of Dives 12 198 87 101 170 115 43 726 Table 20. Regional estimates of finfish catch per dive on finfish-targeted dives.

All Species North Inner Southwest East Regions

Lingcod 0.56 0.45 0.33 0.23 0.38 * Kelp greenling 0.24 0.23 0.34 0.25 0.26 Copper rockfish 0.16 0.27 0.14 0.08 0.17 Quillback rockfish 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.08 *

0.09 U'1 Black rockfish 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.10 * 0 Yellowtail rockfish 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 Tiger rockfi sh 0.01 0.00 * Cabezon 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 Surfperch 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 Other fish 0.01 0.01 0.01 All fi sh 1.26 1.13 1.10 0.72 1.09 * Number of Dives 508 489 367 286 1650 * Regional catch rates differ at the 0.05 significance level. Tabl e 21. Regional estimates of shellfish catch per dive on shellfish-targeted dives.

All Species North Inner Southwest East Regions

Abalone 2.30 0.93 2.38 0.13 1.65 * Red rock crab 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 Dungeness crab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 *

Crustaceans 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 ...... U1 Invertebrates 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.04 Pink scallop 2.26 9.86 0.04 4.21 3.82 * Rock scallop 0.91 1.67 0.49 1.28 1.04 All species 5.52 12.55 2.94 5.63 6.56 * Number of Dives 242 178 195 III 726 * Regional catch rates differ at the 0.05 significance 1eve 1 . 52 in the North and Southwest Regi ons. Catch rates differed among regions for pink scallops, with the Inner Region having significantly greater catch rates than the Southwest or North Regions. For each species, most regions showed similar differences in catch rates among years (Table 18); however, there were some exceptions. Lingcod catch rates differed among years in all regions but the Southwest Region. Abalone catch rates differed among years in all regions but the East Region. Some species which showed annual differences in catch rates for the San Juan study area actually differed in only one region. Catch rates for quillback rockfish differed among years only in the North Region, and black rockfish had annual catch rates that differed only in the Inner Region. For some species, no annual differences in catch rates were detected when pooled over all regions, but when tested by individual regions, some annual differences were detected. For example, annual differences in catch rates were not found in the San Juan study region for copper and tiger rockfish, but catch rates differed among years in the Inner Regi on for copper rockfi sh and in the North Region for tiger rockfish. Finer-scale information was available for six sites to test whether catch rates differed among years for each site. Catch rates did not differ among years at any of the selected sites for lingcod, kelp greenling, black rockfish, or quillback rockfish (Table 18). Catch rates differed among years for copper rockfish for one site in the North Reg ion, but not for any of the other sites. A 53 consistent trend was not evident for the copper rockfish catch rates at this site: The 1983 catch rate was greater than either the 1982 or 1984 catch rate. Abalone catch rates differed among years at one North Region site and one Inner Region site. The catch rates at these sites increased over the tested years: At one site, the catch rate in 1983 was greater than in 1980 and 1982, and at the other site, the catch rate was greater in 1984 than in 1982 or 1983. Bag limit violations.-The majority of divers observed the daily bag limits for managed species. Only four divers (less than 1%) exceeded the daily bag limit of 15 bottomfish. Similarly, only 3 divers exceeded the ten rockfish daily bag limit. Fifty-eight divers (6%) exceeded the da il y bag 1 i mi t of 2 1 i ngcod and those individuals averaged 4 fish during a diver day. Divers exceeded the bag 1i mit for abalone on 3.4% of the observed days. On 1y fi ve divers (1 ess than 1%) exceeded the daily bag 1 imit of 12 rock scallops and observed divers did not exceed the pink scallop, crab, sea cucumber, or sea urchin limits.

Discussion The observer program of the dive charter fleet provided detailed information about the fishery, scuba divers and their catch. However, we were unable to make total catch or effort estimates during the six years of study because we did not collect complete effort information or sample the charter trips on a random basis. We can use our results in combination with other studies on 54 recreational fisheries in Washington to assess the importance and stability of the dive charter fishery.

Dive Charter Fishery Divers have harvested a significant portion of the bottomfish catch in the San Juan Islands. In 1982, 119,000 days were spent diving which accounted for 7% of all fishing trips taken in the Sound (Table 22). Forty percent of all dive trips were taken in the San Juan Islands where diving constituted almost one quarter of all fishing trips. Although divers accounted for only 7% of the bottomfish harvest in Puget Sound, they accounted for 41% of the bottomfish harvest in the San Juan Islands. In 1990, the San Juan Islands and northern Puget Sound continued to draw the majority of Puget Sound divers (Geselbracht 1991). Divers in the San Juans may rely heavily upon dive charters. Geselbracht (1991) found Puget Sound divers made 3 dives a year on dive charters and that 29% of their average 23 trips per year were in the San Juans. Although Geselbracht's study suggests that 45% of all dives in the San Juans are made from dive charters, a serious avidity bias occurred during the diver survey. Most surveys that were collected by Geselbracht were from members of dive clubs who tend to be more experienced and active divers than unaffil iated divers (Bargmann 1984). Dive clubs often have organized activities aboard dive charters which may have caused an inflated estimate of the usage of dive charters. Table 22. The importance of spearfishing to recreational fisheries in Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands during 1982. \a

Puget Sound San Juan Islands Statistic All Fishers % by All Fishers % by (millions) Spearfishers (mill ions) Spearfishers

U1 U1 Bottomfish Catch 1.10 7.4 0.10 41.0 Fisher Trips 1. 74 6.9 0.21 23.2

\a Based upon 1982 boat-based angler statistics reported by Palsson (1988), shore-based angler statistics reported by Bargmann (1982) for 1981, and diver statistics reported by Bargmann (1984) for April 1982-March 1983. 56 A logbook program of the charter boat fleet in Puget Sound offers a contrasting result of the importance of the dive charter fleet. In their 1986 and 1987 studies of the charter fleet in Puget Sound, Lippert et al. (1991) found that four dive charter boats, three of the same that were monitored during our study, operated exclusively in the San Juan Islands. During 1987, each boat operated an average of 44 days and carried 230 divers. The 921 diver-days spent on the four dive charter boats was 7% of the fishing effort on charter boats in the region and only accounted for 0.2% of all boat-based angling trips in the San Juans during 1987. During the same year, 941 bottomfish were harvested on all dive charters, less than 1% of the bottomfish catch by boat-based anglers in the San Juans. The impact of the dive charter fishery on bottomfish populations in the San Juans is likely of minor significance compared to other fisheries in the area. The dive charter fishery may have significant, local impacts on reefs that are visited repeatedly. The total usage of the 87 dive sites in the San Juans was not directly observed, but an inference can be made by using the observer results with the results of the charter boat study by Lippert et al. (1991). Each site was visited, on average, 1.5 times a year during our observed trips. An average of 18 days were sampled each year between 1980 and 1985. If effort patterns did not change between our study and the 1987 study of Lippert et al. (1991), then the average number of observed days represented 11% of all dive trips taken during an average year. Therefore, each site was probably visited 14 times during an average 57 year by the charter fleet, and approximately 165 dives were made at a site. Whether this was sufficient effort to deplete populations of reef fishes is unknown, but the patterns of catch rate trends over the study years at each site may provide some information on the effect of spearfishers on local reefs (see below).

Diver Activity Experience.- Divers who used charter boats were less experienced than the divers surveyed by Geselbracht (1991). The Puget Sound divers who responded to the 1990 survey had 8 years of diving experience, on average, about twice the experience of charter divers. This average diving activity of Puget Sound divers may be an overestimate of the typical diver because Geselbracht (1991) found that most respondents to the survey were members of dive clubs. Bargmann (1984) found that members of dive clubs were more active than the average diver in Washington. Charter divers dove as frequently as recently surveyed Puget Sound divers who made 23 dives per year (Geselbracht 1991). This annual diving frequency and the average 29 dives per year of charter divers is greater than the 8.dives per year for the average Washington diver surveyed in 1982 (Bargmann 1984},1 but about the same frequency as 31 dives per year of divers surveyed during the 1970s (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC) 1977).

IBargmann (1984) reported annual dive activity in dive-days. To compare this result with charter divers, we divided Bargmann's result by 1.4, the average number of dives per day determined by Bargmann. 58 Bargmann (1984) found that new divers dove more frequently during the previous 12-month period than more experienced divers (Figure 14). In contrast, the more experienced charter divers we observed dove more frequently during the year than less experienced divers. The greater annual dive frequency by charter divers, especially by more experienced divers, than Washington divers may be related to more experienced divers seeking better diving sites, making challenging dives in greater depths and currents, and using the expertise offered by di ve charter operators. The observed difference may also be related to the non-random sampling of dive charter trips. The observer maximized the number of divers interviewed on a trip by sampling trips with high passenger loads. These larger parties of divers may have been more experienced because the observer found many large trips were organized by a dive club or dive shop. Because dive club members averaged 2.3 times more dives annually than non-club members (Bargmann 1984), the bias of sampling larger trips would have artificially increased the observed experience level over all dive charter trips. A similar bias was encountered by Geselbracht (1991) who had a high proportion of quest i onna i res returned by members of dive clubs. From the returned questionnaires, Geselbracht found that only 4% of divers accounted for 75% of all Puget Sound dives. Dives per day.-Charter divers spent more time diving and made more dives in a day than typical Washington divers surveyed by Bargmann (1984). Bargmann (1984) reported the majority of divers made 1.4 dives per day and averaged one hour or less of dive time 40 - • % Divers (BARGMANN) <> % Divers (OBSERVER) -eft. -Q W ~ W > a: 20 w I- Z C/) a: w > Q

0 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 > 25 ANNUAL DAYS DIVING

Figure 14. Frequency (%) of annual dive activity by observed charter divers and Washington divers surveyed by Bargmann (1984). 60 each day. Charter divers usually made two dives of similar duration and averaged over one hour of dive time each day. All charter divers made the first dive of the day and 80-85% made the second dive of the day. Only a minor number of divers made more than three dives. Participation in more than two dives was likely limited by the problems inherent to repetitive diving: fatigue and residual nitrogen. Purpose.-Most charter divers had a single purpose for making a dive and spent most of a day performing the same activity. The singularity of diver targets is not surprising given the difficulty of performing complex tasks during a dive. Most divers intended to harvest a finfish or shellfish during their dive. The most popular targets were lingcod when the season was open, bottomfish, and abalone. Observational dives constituted only a quarter of charter dives, a result that contrasted with other studies of Washington divers which found observational dives more common (Geselbracht 1991, Bargmann 1984, WSPRC 1977). About 60% of Puget Sound divers spent their dives taking pictures and sightseeing in 1990 (Geselbracht 1991). The remaining dives were spent either spearfishing or harvesting invertebrates. Our results and Gese 1bracht's have shown that the popul ari ty of harvesting has increased since 1982 when Washington divers only logged 6% of their dives as spearfishing dives and 5% as shellfish-collection dives (Bargmann 1984). A survey of divers in the mid-1970s revealed that 20% of divers sought to harvest animals as their primary reason for diving (WSPRC 1977). 61 In many areas outside Washington, non-harvest activities are more popular than harvest activities. Canadian divers reported that less than 20% of their dives in 1983 were harvest dives (McElderry and Richards 1984). In a California dive survey, observation and training dives were the most common reasons for diving (Miller et al. 1974). Although spearfishing has become more popular in Puget Sound, spearfishing activity may have decreased on dive charters since the observer program. The observer program documented that 15 divers went on the average trip and that 70% of these divers spearfished. The logbook program in 1986 and 1987 found only 5.3 spearfishers went on the average trip (Lippert et al. 1991). Several factors may account for the difference in the passenger loads. The charter logbook program of Lippert et al. (1991) only documented the number of divers who spearfished while the observer program documented all divers including those seeking only shellfish and those making non­ harvest i ng di ves. The decrease of spearfi shers between the two programs may also be due to an actual decrease in the popularity of spearfishing. The operators of dive charters now report fewer harvest dives are requested and the proportion of observation and photography dives are increasing during their trips (Gordon Bradley and Jess Starnes, dive-charter operators, personal communications, 1990). Although these factors may have contributed to the difference in daily passenger loads between the observer and logbook programs, another likely cause was the method of selecting observed trips in conjunction with the NMRFSS. Whereas dive charters 62 reported effort from all dive tri ps duri ng the charter logbook program, we only observed trips when the observer's presence would not exceed the boat's passenger capacity and when the number of interviews would fulfill the sampling quotas. Depth of dive.- The depth for all dives in this study averaged 10 feet shallower than the average depth previously reported for dive charters by Bargmann (1984) but was similar to the 51-foot average depth from private boats (Bargmann 1984). More recently, Puget Sound di vers were found to make about half of thei r di ves between 30 and 60 feet and nearly a third between 60 and 80 feet (Geselbracht 1991). Bargmann (1984) found divers made deeper dives for spearfishing than for other purposes and dove deeper in the San Juans than in other areas.

Catch and Catch Rates Species composition.-Lingcod, rockfish, and greenling were the most common finfish species in charter divers' catches and were caught at the highest rates by spearfishers. Some regional differences were noted in species occurrence, with lingcod being less frequent in dive catches from the Southwest and East Regions. The harvested species are commonly associated with rocky nearshore habitats in Puget Sound (Moulton 1977, Barker 1979), and the catch composition was similar to the composition of other diver catches on the west coast (Table 23). Lingcod was the most common species in all diver catches, but kelp greenling was less common in California than in Washington. Rockfish, as a species group, was Table 23. Species composition of finfish speared by divers in California and Washington.

Northern San Juan Puget Sound Puget Charter California Washington San Juan Charter Divers Sound Divers Species Divers \1 Divers \2 Divers \3 1987 \4 Divers \5 1979-1985 \6

Lingcod 26% 19% 39% 35% 15% 34% Kelp greenling 6% 12% 20% 15% 12% 25% Cabezon 9% 1% 1% 8% 3% Black rockfish 8% 15% 7% 9% Copper rockfish 1% 12% 10% 16% O'l Quillback rockfish 12% 6% 7% W Ye llowta i 1 0% 1% 4% 4% Tiger rockfish 0% Other rockfish 27% 2% 8% 48% 46% 1% Striped surfperch 7% 18% 15% Flatfish D% 5% 0% 0% 4% Other 15% 4% 3% 2% 2% Total Catch 24089 82300 917 941 3412 1973 \1 Mi ller et al. (1974) \2 Bargmann (1984) \3 LaRiviere and Bargmann (1983 ) \4 Lippert et al. (1991) \5 Geselbracht (1991) \6 This study 64 the predominant harvest by divers in Puget Sound, the entire State of Washington, and California. The harvest of shell fi shes also refl ected the rocky reef habitats where most dives were made. Abalone comprised about a fifth of the shellfish harvest by charter divers and Washington divers surveyed by Bargmann (1984). In 1991, abalone only comprised 8% of the shellfish harvest by Puget Sound divers (Geselbracht 1991) Scallops, both pink and rock, numerically dominated the shellfish catch of charter divers and of most divers surveyed in Washington (Geselbracht 1991, Bargmann 1984). Crabs were infrequent in diver catches in the San Juan Islands and red rock crab, not Dungeness crab, was the most common spec i es. Crabs are more frequently harvested by divers in other areas of Puget Sound and Washington (Geselbracht 1991, Bargmann 1984), and they comprise about 19% of the shellfish harvest for Puget Sound. Most divers sought a single target type when making a dive, but harvest outside the stated target type was common. Despite the intended target for the dive, shell fi sh harvest was more evenly distributed throughout all finfish- and shellfish-target types, suggesting that shellfish harvest was opportunistic. Although divers act i vel y targeted aba lone and sca 11 ops, other shell fi sh species were harvested incidentally and rarely. Charter divers infrequently targeted crab and harvested the most crabs when seeking other species. In contrast, the majority of finfish were harvested during finfish-targeted dives, and the majority of lingcod were harvested 65 during lingcod-targeted dives. Charter divers most frequently harvested rockfish on a generalized bottomfish dive. Apparently, spearing rockfish was opportunistic: Few divers specifically sought rockfish as a primary target or even as a secondary target, but the number of harvested rockfish exceeded the lingcod harvest. Biological data.-Mean lengths of all male and female lingcod we observed in this study were within 1 cm of mean lengths reported for 1 ingcod harvested by divers in other dive studies (LaRiviere 1981, Bargmann 1982, LaRiviere and Bargmann 1983). The decline of mean length during the study period may indicate a change occurred in the population structure in 1984, but the significance of this change cannot be evaluated without an age-structured analysis of the catch and a complete review of all lingcod fisheries. The predominance of male lingcod in charter-diver catches was similar to findings of other studies of lingcod fisheries in Puget Sound: From 70 to 75% of recreationally-harvested lingcod are males (LaRiviere 1981, Bargmann 1982). The high percentage of males may relate to more males occurring in shallow waters than females (Miller and Geibel 1973, Moulton 1977). Divers and anglers fish more commonly in shallow waters than in deep waters and, therefore, harvest more males. Because males must guard nests (Jewell 1968), scuba and other fisheries may harvest too many for optimal nesting and recruitment (LaRiviere 1981). A 22-inch minimum size for lingcod commercial and hook-and-line fisheries was instituted in April 1985 to conserve lingcod and allow at least one mature age class to nest and spawn. 66 Mean lengths of all measured rockfishes were within the range found by LaRiviere (1981). Catch rates.-Divers on charter boats in the San Juans caught more finfish and shellfish in a day than most other divers studied in the San Juans, in Washington, or in California. Charter-boat divers caught 2.1 fish per dive day, at least 0.3 more than shore­ based, private-boat, or charter-boat divers surveyed by Bargmann (1984) either in the San Juans or for the entire state. For most individual species, the catch rates we observed were higher than the catch rates of divers or anglers surveyed in other studies. Charter divers had higher catch rates of 1ingcod than charter divers surveyed in the San Juans during 1987 (Lippert et al. 1991), in Washington or the San Juans during 1982-1983 (Bargmann 1984), and in the San Juans during 1979 and 1980 (LaRiviere and Bargmann 1983). Charter divers in the San Juans had higher catch rates of kelp greenling and most rockfishes than all divers in the San Juans or in Washington. Of note, we found quillback rockfish were caught at lower rates than found by Bargmann (1984), especially for divers in the San Juans. The smaller size of quillback rockfish may have been less attractive to the more experienced charter diver, or the decreasing trend in catch rates we observed may have resulted in fewer quillback rockfish available to divers during the period of our study. Shellfish catch rates by charter divers targeting on shellfish were higher than a typical scuba diver in the San Juans or Washington (Bargmann 1984). 67 Relative abundance.-The use of catch rates as a measure of relative abundance may have innate biases. The critical assumption is that species vulnerability is the same among the years or areas being compared. For our study, vulnerability may be assumed to be constant if factors such as diver experience, water conditions, fish behavior, and seasonality are homogeneous among the strata being tested. We had no basis to evaluate these assumptions, and assumed the relative patterns of catch rates directly related to abundance. Catch rates of some species differed among regions and years. Regional differences for lingcod, quillback rockfish, black rockfish, and abalone may be related to differences in habitats among the regions. Divers in the East Region caught fewer of these reef-dwelling species than in other regions, perhaps as a result of less reef habitat. Divers in the East Region, which consisted of more sand/gravel substrates and fewer reefs, made shallower dives than in the other regions. These regional differences in catch rates are al so simil ar to abundance patterns found by Moulton (1977). He found differences in species abundance between a site in the inner San Juans and two sites in the East Regi on of our study. Lingcod abundance, species diversity, and many fish densities were greater in the inner San Juans where reefs predominate than in the eastern sites. If regional differences in catch rates relate to abundance, then the annual differences in catch rates may also reflect changes in species abundance over time. Lingcod were more abundant between 1982 and 1984 than before or after. In contrast, quillback rockfish 68 was the only finfish and pink scallop was the only shellfish to show apparent declines in abundance from 1980 to 1984. Other species having significant differences in catch rates showed no trend over the years but had higher catch rates during some year of the study period. For most species, each region showed the same annual trend as the trend pooled over all regions, adding support to their.use as a relative measure of abundance. Using catch rates estimated for specific sites, we found no decreasing trends in annual catch rates among the years of available data. Although the sample sizes were low, the lack of differences suggests overharvesting of local sites by divers did not occur during the study period. Success and bag limits - On a daily basis, charter divers were more successful in harvesting a lingcod than had been previously reported for Washington spearfishers. Bargmann (1984) reported 33% of all spearfishing dives in the San Juan Region resulted in a successful catch of 1i ngcod and 12% of spearfi shers harvested a daily bag limit of two fish. The observer found that divers caught 0.64 1i ngcod per spearfi sh i ng day. Subsequent to th is study in 1986, a reduction in the daily bag limit for divers to one fish of any size in the San Juan Region and a 22-inch minimum size limit for hook and line anglers was put into effect. These actions may have caused a decrease in catch rates and the lower 1987 observation of 0.33 lingcod per trip on dive charters (Lippert et al. 1991). Thirty-one percent of charter divers achieved the daily bag limit of five abalone compared to the 18% reported by Bargmann (1984). 69 The majority of divers observed bag limits for managed finfish and shellfish species. The percentage of days when charter divers exceeded their daily bag limit of abalone was slightly greater than the 2% observed by Bargmann (1984). Few divers harvested a daily bag limit of 20 pounds of pink sca 11 ops duri ng a day. The poss i bil ity of para lyt i c shell fi sh poisoning (PSP) from scallops did not prevent some divers from harvesting scallops. Waters around San Juan County were routinely closed during the study period due to PSP.

Recommendations The results from our study and the charter logbook program have shown some changes in the targeting patterns of spearfishers and in catch rates. The dive charter fishery constituted only a minor portion of the total harvest of bottomfish from the San Juan Islands and did not have a major impact on local reefs. We inferred that an average site was visited 14 times a year by 165 divers and found few differences in catch rates at selected sites. Since few sites were tested and sample sizes were low, more intensive site and population studies should be undertaken to fully evaluate the effect of the dive charter fishery on local reefs. Since the annual catch rates of quillback rockfish catch rates decreased over the period of the study, a special monitoring program might be instituted to determine whether this species is being overharvested. The observer program was not the best method of characterizing the dive charter fishery because we did not collect complete effort 70 information or sample the trips at random. A dockside survey of charter divers and operators could more efficiently use staff time and provi de a random bas is to est imate total catch and effort. Total catch by divers could be estimated with effort information supplied by the charter operators combined with estimates of catch rates determined by dockside interviews (Lippert et al. 1991). Site-specific harvest information could also be monitored by operators keeping a log of their daily diving activity. Such information could be combined with independent population surveys of fishes at diving sites. Through such a program, the effect of diver harvest on reef fishes could be fully studied. Some of our results and those of past surveys of divers in Washington have been biased by avid divers participating disproportionately to other divers. Any further studies of Washi ngton di vers shoul d be conducted ina manner to avoi d or correct for the avidity bias. Two better methods include a telephone survey of registered divers in Washington (through national diving organizations) or random creel surveys conducted at dive sites.

Summary 1. An observer aboard dive charter boats in the San Juan Islands interviewed 957 divers on a total of 3,272 dives during 1979 to 1985. Thi s observer program characteri zed what di vers sought, their experience level, their catch, and their catch rates. 71 2. On average, divers took trips that lasted 1.7 days and made 2 dives per day. Most divers sought some species of finfish or shellfish during the dive, but 28% of the dives were for non-harvest purposes. 3. Over half of the dives made for fish or shellfish were successful. The finfish catch consisted of reef-dwelling fishes including lingcod, rockfish, and kelp greenling. The most-harvested invertebrates were abalone and scallops, species that are associated with rocky reefs. 4. Finfish catch rates were highest for lingcod, and then rockfish, and kelp greenling. Abalone had the highest catch rate of shellfish-harvesting divers. Catch rates were similar among regions, except the East Region had lower catch rates for most species. 5. For many species, catch rates varied among years, but only quillback rockfish and pink scallops showed consistent decreasing catch rates over the study period. 6. Site-specific catch rates showed some annual differences, but did not suggest overharvesting. 7. More intensive, site-specific studies are recommended to assess the impact of divers on local reefs. The population status of the quill back rockfish should be closely monitored to determine if overharvesting is occurring. 8. Any further monitoring of the dive charter fishery should make use of random, dock-side creel surveys and logbooks kept by the charter operators. 72 Acknowledgements The observer program was conducted in conjunction with the National Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey which contracted with the Washington Department of Fisheries to conduct the creel survey in Washington from 1979 through 1986. We thank Darcy Wildermuth for her coordination of sampling during the many years of this survey. We also thank Sue Hoffmann who meticulously coded the logbooks onto computer forms. The anal ys is of the observer data was made possible by funds from the Sport Fish Restoration Act, F-81-R, Segments 3-5, Monitoring and Assessment of Puget Sound Recreational Bottomfish. The authors thank the skippers of the dive charter boats who provided access to their vessels and patrons. We also appreciate their cooperation in giving views of diving patterns and their operations during our analysis. The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviews of the manuscript provided by Cyreis Schmitt, Greg Bargmann, and Amy Leitmann. 73 Literature Cited Barker, M. W. 1979. Population and fishery dynamics of recreationally exploited marine bottomfish of northern Puget Sound. PhD Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, 134 p. Bargmann, G. G. 1982. The biology and fisheries for lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) in Puget Sound. Wash. Dept. Fish. Tech. Rep. No. 66, 69 p. Bargmann, G. G. 1984. Recreational diving in the State of Washington and the associated harvest of food fish and shellfish. Wash. Dept. Fish. Tech. Rep. No. 82, 66 p. Buckley, R. 1967. Status report on skin diving and spearfishing in Puget Sound, January to June, 1965. Wash. Dept. Fish. Supp. Progress Rep., 64 p. Geselbracht, L. 1991. Puget Sound recreational divers survey. Underwater Society of the Pacific Northwest, Seahurst, Washington, 32 p. + appendices. Jewell, E. D. 1968. SCUBA diving observations on lingcod spawning at a Seattle breakwater. Wash. Dept. Fish. Res. Pap., 3: 27- 34. LaRiviere, M. G. 1981. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) population studies in northern Puget Sound, Washington. MS Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, 128 p. LaRiviere, M. G., and G. G. Bargmann. 1983. The fisheries for bottomfish by scuba divers and recreational anglers in the San Juan Islands, Washington during the spring of 1979 and 1980. Wash. Dept. of Fish. Marine Fish Program Briefing Rep. 83-007, 21 p. Lippert, G. R., W. A. Palsson, S. J. Hulsman, and S. A. Hoffmann. 1991. The voluntary charter logbook program for Puget Sound, 1986-1987. Wash. Dept. Fish. Tech. Rep. No. 114, 72 p. McElderry, H. I., and L. J. Richards. 1984. Recreational scuba diving in the Strait of Georgia: an analysis of the distribution of diving effort and importance of collecting marine animals. Can. Manu. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1794, 61 p. Miller, D. J. and J. J. Geibel. 1973. Summary of blue rockfish and lingcod life histories; a reef ecology study; and giant kelp, MacrocYstis pyrifera, in Monterey Bay, California. Cal. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 158, 137 p. 74 Miller, D. J., J. J. Geibel, and J. L. Houk. 1974. Results of the 1972 skindiving assessment survey. Pismo Beach to Oregon. Cal. Dept. Fish and Game Marine Resources Tech. Rep. 23, 61 p. Moulton, L. L. 1977. An ecological analysis of fishes inhabiting the rocky nearshore regions of northern Puget Sound, Washington. PhD Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, 181 p. Palsson, W. A. 1988. Bottomfish catch and effort statistics from boat-based recreational fisheries in Puget Sound, 1970-1985. Wash. Dept. Fish. Prog. Rep. No. 261, 104 p. Ricker, W. E. 1963. Big effects from small causes: Two examples from fish population dynamics. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 20: 257- 264. Schumacher, J. D., C. A. Pearson, R. L. Charnell, and N. P. Laird. 1978. Regional response to forcing in southern Strait of Georgia. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 7: 79-91. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Pacific Coast, 1986. U.S. Dept. Comm., Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., Current Fishery Statistics Number 8393, 114 p. Waldichuck, M. 1957. Physical oceanography of the Strait of Georgia and influencing factors. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 14: 321-486. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). 1977. Underwater parks comprehensive study, 99 p. Zar, J. H. 1983. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 718 p.