Ghost Shrimp: Commercial Harvest And Gray Whale Feeding, North Puget .
ESGhost shrimp: commercial harvest andgray whale feeding, North Puget Sound,Washington.NATURALRESOURCTechnical ReportOctober 28, 2016
Cover Photo: Ghost shrimp photo credit: Joe Smillie.
Ghost shrimp and gray whalefeeding: North Puget Sound,WashingtonOctober 28, 2016Casey PruittCinde DonoghueAquatic Assessment and Monitoring TeamAquatic Resources Division
AcknowledgementsAAMT received invaluable help from a number of University of Washington and Central Washington University studentsand faculty, as well as volunteer interns who participated in field work and laboratory processing. We would like to thankDrs. Jennifer Ruesink and Alan Trimble, Josh Borin, Alazar Dowty, Colin Gross, Laurel Kanawyer, Aiden Klemmer, LukeStillwater, Stephanie Valdez, and Molly Ware for all their help.Washington State Department of Natural ResourcesAquatic Resources Division1111 Washington St. SEP.O. Box 47027Olympia, WA 98504-7027www.dnr.wa.govii
Contents1Introduction . 21.1 Overall goal . 51.2 Specific objectives . 52Methods . 62.12.22.22.32.43Assessment of ghost shrimp stock and distribution available . 6Mapping ghost shrimp distribution . 7Estimate of shrimp biomass eaten by whales . 8Estimate of shrimp biomass taken by harvest . 9Comparison of available shrimp stock biomass and total biomass extracted . 9Results .103.1 Ghost shrimp stock and distribution . 103.2 Whale feeding . 133.3 Harvesting . 17Comparison of available stock and total biomass extracted . 184Discussion.204.1 Management recommendations . 215References .23iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages 2.6 million acres of aquaticland in Washington State. DNR is challenged with determining if the commercial harvest ofshrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis) (also referred to as burrowing shrimp or sand shrimp) isaffecting the yearly feeding on these shrimp by the spring resident population of gray whales(Eschrichtius robustus) in Puget Sound’s Whidbey Basin. Every spring, during an annualmigration from warm birthing waters in the Gulf of California to feeding waters in the NorthPacific, a subset of the gray whale population (annual average 10 individuals) stopover inWhidbey Basin to suction feed on benthic invertebrates (Calambokidis 2010, Calambokidis et al,2002). Burrowing ghost shrimp are thought to be a main food source for the whales during thisstopover (Weitkamp et al, 1992). An investigation was conducted to estimate a standing stock ofghost shrimp (in number and biomass), as well as to estimate the quantity of ghost shrimp fed onby gray whales in Whidbey Basin. To measure the number of ghost shrimp fed on by the whales,whale feeding pit size was measured and 0.10 m diameter sediment cores were taken to 0.7 mdepth to count density of ghost shrimp present inside and outside of those pits. Total feeding pitnumbers were counted from May, 2015 (corresponding to whale feeding season) with low tideaerial imaging. Shrimp densities per square meter were assessed at twelve different sites,classified into one of three categories:(1) ‘whale feeding’, (2) ‘commercial harvest’, and (3) ‘nowhale-no harvest’ sites. All shrimp found were collected, brought back to the laboratory andpreserved by freezing. Carapace length, total length, sex, and wet weight were recorded for allsamples. Estimated stocks were compared to commercial harvest data from the past five years.Comparisons between estimates of the total stock of ghost shrimp available to gray whales, andthe number of shrimp taken yearly by harvest and whale foraging were explored. Resultsindicated that neither shrimp density nor biomass were significantly different across the three sitetypes. Annual whale feeding and harvest combined account for only a small portion of the totalshrimp stock available.Executive Summary Ghost shrimp: commercial harvest and gray whale feeding, North Puget Sound, Washington1
1IntroductionThe ghost shrimp Neotrypaea californiensis is a benthic crustacean that inhabits sandy substratesof North American Pacific coast estuaries. These shrimp construct complex burrow systems upto 70 cm deep in the mid to low intertidal zone of the beach. As vigorous bioturbators they turnover the sediment regularly, often making the beaches where they reside soft and soupy. Theseelaborate burrows contain multiple turnarounds and openings, the number of which variesseasonally (Griffis and Chavez 1988). The shrimp can live up to ten years or more (Cassidy2008), are deposit feeders, and reside post planktonic larval phase in their burrows for theirentire lives (MacGinitie 1930). Larval recruitment and settling in Washington and Oregonestuaries occurs in late summer/early fall (August to October), after a larval planktonic period of6-8 weeks in mid-summer (Dumbauld, et. al. 1996).Whale Presence and Harvest OverlapWhale Presence Whidbey BasinHarvestShrimp RecruitmentFigure 1. Timeline indicating approximate time gray whales, harvest operations, and ghost shrimp larval recruitment occurs inWhidbey Basin, Puget SoundEach year, gray whales complete one of the longest known migration of any mammal. Theytravel over ten-thousand miles round trip from their birthing grounds in the Gulf of California, totheir feeding grounds in the Arctic. Halfway through this migration, from approximately the lastweek of February to the first week in June, gray whales travel down the Strait of Juan de Fuca,(the Strait that forms the border between Canada and Washington State), into the Whidbey Basinto suction feed on benthic invertebrates (Figure 1). Ghost shrimp are thought to be a main foodsource for the whales over this time period (Weitkamp et. al., 1992). At high tide, the whalescome in very close to shore, turn over on their side, and suction feed for invertebrates in thesediment. Suction feeding involves sucking up benthic material, and straining the materialthrough baleen plates to expel fine particles (Nerini 1984). Evidence of feeding can be identifiedby shallow oblong depressions or “feeding pits” on the beach. These pits are anywhere from two2Washington State Department of Natural Resources
to four meters in diameter, ranging from ten to thirty cm deep and remain on the beach for daysto weeks of time. Pits are numerous and densely patterned enough that they are easily identifiedat low tide –even from aerial photos (Figure 2).16mFigure 2. Aerial image of Snohomish river delta at low tide, May 2015. Arrows indicate gray whale feeding pits.Along with being a main food source for transient gray whales, ghost shrimp are purchased asbait for recreational sturgeon and steelhead fishing along the West Coast USA. There is acommercial fishery in Washington State with harvest tracts in both Whidbey Basin and WillapaBay. Harvest occurs year round, and is performed by liquefying tracts of beach fromapproximately zero mean lower low water (0 MLLW) to ordinary high water (OHW) bypumping seawater through a plastic PVC wand. Shrimp in the sediment float to the surface andare skimmed with a net. Harvesters provide monthly harvest logs to the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Harvest is constrained by the number of low tides in the year, andusually occurs on tides from 0 to -2 ft. (J. Linard, personal communication, October 14, 2015).Concern that gray whales were being impacted by commercial harvest prompted DNR to shutdown all commercial ghost shrimp harvesting operations on state owned aquatic lands (SOAL)in April 2014 until an assessment of gray whale feeding could be made. In this study whale pitswere observed no higher than the 0 ft. tidal line on the beach, and harvest occurs primarily abovethe -2 ft. tidal line, indicating that the area of competition is a relatively narrow strip of the beachfrom -2 to 0 ft. (Figure 3).1. Introduction Ghost shrimp: commercial harvest and gray whale feeding, North Puget Sound, Washington3
Harvest (Down to -2 ft.)0 ft.-2 ft.Whale Feeding (Up to 0 ft.)Figure 3. A cross-section of beach depicting whale feeding and shrimp harvest zonesThe Tulalip Tribes also conduct shrimp harvest on beaches in Port Susan, and have continuedharvesting their beaches throughout the moratorium on SOAL. Tribal and non-tribal harvestoperations are relatively similar in size. Information regarding the stock of ghost shrimp in NorthPuget Sound and estimates of the quantity of shrimp that gray whales feed on is sparse. To ourknowledge, the only study of gray whale feeding on ghost shrimp in Puget Sound was conductedand published by Weitkamp et al (1992). DNR’s Aquatic Assessment and Monitoring Team(AAMT) was tasked with designing and implementing a study to determine the current totalghost shrimp stock available to both commercial harvest, and gray whales in Whidbey Basin.Study results would be used to make an assessment of the sustainability of commercial harvest inthe region and inform management decisions.For this study, we surveyed twelve separate beaches distributed around Whidbey Basin. Four ofthese beaches were previously authorized for harvest, three were beaches with gray whalefeeding but no harvest present, and five were absent of both harvest and gray whale feeding(Figure 4). We hoped to survey equal replicates of the three beach types, but under furtherscrutiny, one of the whale feeding sites was classified as no whale no harvest beach. The areathat gray whales fed on in 2015 encompassed 4 of the 5 state owned harvest leases in Port Susan.Focus sampling was also performed within and outside of feeding pits to estimate shrimpconsumption by whales when surveying these twelve sites.4Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Stillaguamish River DeltaSnohomish River DeltaFigure 4. Map of Whidbey Basin indicating the twelve sites surveyed1.1Overall goalDetermine if total Whidbey Basin shrimp stock is sufficient for sustainable harvest and graywhale feeding1.2Specific objectives1) Estimate total available shrimp stock available to gray whales.2) Evaluate temporal distinction between gray whale feeding and harvest areas.3) Estimate shrimp stock taken by gray whales and harvest.4) Compare biomass estimates of ‘harvest’, ‘whale feeding no harvest’, and ‘no whale feedingno harvest’ sites in Whidbey Basin. Evaluate spatial distinction between gray whale feedingareas and harvest areas.5) Resource management recommendations.1. Introduction Ghost shrimp: commercial harvest and gray whale feeding, North Puget Sound, Washington5
22.1MethodsAssessment of ghost shrimp stock and distribution available2.1.1 Population characteristicsAll shrimp collected were frozen immediately and later measured for carapace length (mm), totallength (mm), sex, and wet weight (g). Ovigerous females were noted as well as any shrimp withisopod parasites or lipid-like fatty deposits.2.1.2 Ghost shrimp densitiesQuantifying ghost shrimp densities involved several steps. Sites were designated into one of thethree site types based on data collected by the volunteer-based whale observation groups; theOrca Network and the Washington State University (WSU) Beach Watchers. Representativesampling was conducted by manual coring at the reported high density sites. Follow-upliquefaction sampling of unit volume of sediment was conducted to calibrate the representativevalues obtained through manual coring.2.1.3 Manual coringShrimp surveys were conducted March to May 2015, with the exception of Freeland Park whichwas surveyed in December. At all twelve sites, ghost shrimp densities were sampled along twotransects that each measured three hundred meters (m) parallel to the shore. The lower transectwas at the MLLW tidal line and the upper transect was spaced forty meters up (shoreward) onthe beach. The point-intercept method of sampling was used, placing a one square meter quadratevery twenty five meters along each transect. Within each quadrat, a ten centimeter diameter,seventy centimeter long clam gun was used to core five haphazardly selected representative spotswithin the quadrat. Shrimp were separated from the sediment and any shrimp that floated to thewater surface inside the cored hole were collected, bagged, and frozen. GPS points for each ofthe thirteen quadrat placements were taken with a handheld Trimble GPS unit.The total number of burrows in each quadrat placement was recorded, as well as burrow systemconnectivity inside and outside of the quadrat. Burrow system connectivity was indicated byburrows that expelled water when moving the clam gun up and down in the sediment at aselected burrow opening. All burrows where water seeped out while moving the clam gun werecounted, inside and outside of the quadrat, and recorded.2.1.4 LiquefactionTo calculate a shrimp density estimate per beach area, the representative sampling core methodwas calibrated by counting all the shrimp present in a unit area of beach for a sub sample of sitesusing a liquefaction method. After the five standard cores were sampled within a quadrat, a 0.8m6Washington State Department of Natural Resources
diameter core (0.5 m2 surface area) was inserted 0.7 m into the sediment within the quadrat andwater was pumped in until the sediment liquefied. The core was constructed with perforatedsides so liquefied sediment flowed out while water was pumped in. Shrimp within the liquefiedsediment in the core interior were too large to flow out of the perforated sides. Shrimp floated tothe surface where they were scooped up, counted, and bagged for freezing. A total of tenhaphazardly placed calibrations were performed, three at mission beach (whale feeding), three atFreeland park (no whale no harvest), and four at hidden beach (harvest). Calculated estimates oftotal shrimp per unit area were based on this regression.2.1.5 Ghost shrimp biomassWeighed shrimp were classified into four size classes: (Large 6.9 g Medium 2.4 g Small .63 g Extra Small). These size classes were relevant because while whales are not likely todiscriminate size of shrimp taken, commercial harvesters will predominantly focus on the largertwo size classes (J. Linard, personal communication, October 14, 2015). Proportions of each sizeclass collected from all sites were quantified. The four size classes found was similar to previousstudies on population characteristics for N. californiensis (Dumbauld et al 1996, Bird 1982). Theproportions for each size class from each site were applied to their related average mass (Large 9.9 g, Medium 3.8 g, Small 1.0 g, and Extra Small .23 g) to calculate total biomass.Biomass per square meter was then calculated based on the number of shrimp estimated usingthe relationship derived from the liquefaction calibration approach described above.2.2Mapping ghost shrimp distribution2.2.1 Shrimp area per site delineationThe upper and lower boundaries of ghost shrimp burrows were delineated in the field at alltwelve sites. Along each three hundred meter stretch of beach sampled, the upper boundary ofghost shrimp area was identified by a transition of substrate from sand/mud to shell/cobble andthe abrupt absence of shrimp burrows. The lower boundary was demarcated when the continuouspresence of the native eelgrass Zostera marina occurred, as ghost shrimp have been found tohave a significantly lower density in seagrass (Castorani 2014). While walking along these upperand lower ghost shrimp area boundaries, points were recorded every ten meters with a handheldTrimble GPS unit.2.2.2 Shrimp stock area available to whales in 2015In addition to the directly sampled sites, the estimated extent of ghost shrimp stock area wasdelineated along shores of Whidbey, Camano, and Port Susan - where there was evidence thatwhales fed in 2015. Habitat delineation was accomplished by inspecting aerial imagery fromMay of 2015 – (the peak of whale feeding in Saratoga Passage). Whale feeding locations wereclearly evident from obvious pits in the photos (Figure 2). At these locations, where it wasevident the shrimp stock was available and utilized by whales, the lower edge; (characterized byeither eelgrass, or the -10 ft. bathymetric line), and the upper edge; (identified by cobble, orwhere mud substrate merged into sand and gravel) were hand digitized. Characteristics of theseupper and lower area bounds were consistent with ghost shrimp habitat at all sites surveyed in thefield.2. Methods Ghost shrimp: commercial harvest and gray whale feeding, North Puget Sound, Washington7
2.3Estimate of shrimp biomass eaten by whales2.3.1 Temporal feeding dataOrca Network sighting data from 2002 to 2015 was analyzed to determine the mean return anddeparture dates for whales to and from Whidbey Basin.2.3.2 Whidbey basin whale feeding dataGray whale feeding habitat in 2015 was designated using three different datasets:1) Scientific observation and tagged whales. Cascadia Research Collective was contracted totag a subset of whales with suction cup attached GPS - accelerometer enabled videocameras. Along with determining X, Y coordinates for the whales, the tags track the depth atwhich the whales are in the water column. Additionally, Cascadia Research personnelconducted dedicated boat surveys to observe and track the whales.2) Feeding pits evident in aerial images. Whale pits around Whidbey Island, Saratoga Passage,and Port Susan were counted with use of 2015 aerial imagery. Using imagery and tools onGoogle Earth, polygons were made around all visible pit groupings from the upper limit ofthe pits to the tidal water level, where water started obscuring pits. It was assumed that thedensity of shallow underwater pits would be similar to the density of the pits counted in thevisible, lower intertidal area. A density above the tidal line was determined per region, andthis pit density was applied to the lower regions of utilized shrimp stock areas where waterwas covering and it was not possible to accurately count pits. The highest shorewardpresence of pits indicated the shallowest areas the whales came into shore to feed.3) Orca Network sighting data categorized by gray whale behavior and location. In regionswhere the water level was too high to observe pits in aerial images, Orca Network archives(2013-2015) were analyzed to identify sites where reported sightings documented feedingactivity.2.3.3 Surveys inside and outside pitsWhale pits are large, oval depressions (approximately 3 x 2 meters in size) in the surface of thelow intertidal and subtidal beach (Figure 2). These features remain after gray whales havesuction sieved sediment to feed on ghost shrimp. In the field, length, width and depth of each pitwere measured, and sediment cores were sampled within and outside the whale pits. The samemanual coring methods to estimate shrimp density as described above were applied to samplingwithin and outside of whale feeding pits. Five cores were sampled per square meter quadratplaced within then outside each pit. The number of quadrats sampled at each pit was limited bythe particular size of each pit - an equal number of quadrats were made inside and outside eachpit. The number of shrimp and shrimp biomass were calculated using the liquefaction vs. coringrelationship. The total shrimp biomass (grams per square meter) eaten by gray whales inWhidbey Basin was calculated as the average difference biomass measured inside and outside ofeach pit extrapolated to the surface area of pits. The area of each pit was calculated as an ellipsegiven by the equation: 𝐴 𝜋(0.5𝑊 0.5𝐿), where W width of the ellipse and L length of theellipse. This biomass per pit was then applied to the 2015 area estimate for the total number ofpits in Whidbey Basin.8Washington State Department of Natural Resources
2.4Estimate of shrimp biomass taken by harvest2.4.1 Temporal harvesting dataHarvest intensity was estimated throughout the year by reviewing monthly WDFW catch recordsfor both tribal and non-tribal harvest. Data included in the analysis was tribal data from 2010 2015, and non-tribal data from 2010 – Dec. 31, 2013.2.4.2 Mean biomass harvestedYearly commercial tribal and non-tribal ghost shrimp harvest data was provided by the Tulaliptribe and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The commercialharvest of ghost shrimp is reported to the WDFW in units of ‘dozens of shrimp’ collected. Todetermine biomass from this, the WDFW assigns an average measured weight per shrimp to thenumber of dozens reported. To avoid an overestimate of shrimp biomass, we used ourcommunity composition proportions of large and medium shrimp found at harvest sites surveyedto determine the total biomass harvested. As extra-small, and small shrimp are unlikely to beharvested (J. Linard, personal communication, October 14, 2015), we excluded these size-classesfrom the biomass calculation estimates. Because of the moratorium on non-tribal harvest in2014/15, harvest data after Dec. 31, 2013 was not included in the calculation for mean yearlynon-tribal harvest.2.5Comparison of available shrimp stock biomass and total biomass extractedThe five authorized harvest sites were delineated with Google Earth using shoreline coordinates,and specific areas were determined for each lease. This combined ‘harvest area’ was compared tothe total estimated ghost shrimp area available to whales. Areas harvested by the Tulalip tribewere not available, but it is estimated that this harvested area is roughly the same as non-tribal.The total biomass of ghost shrimp reported taken by harvest from the past five years (both nontribal and tribal harvest), and the amount estimated to have been removed by gray whales in 2015was compared to the available stock estimated in all areas with gray whale feeding pits.Recommendations for ghost shrimp management are made after reviewing these findings.2. Methods Ghost shrimp: commercial harvest and gray whale feeding, North Puget Sound, Washington9
3ResultsThe results are presented in the same general order as the methods. First the populationcharacteristics of all shrimp that were sampled from Whidbey Basin are presented. Next,calibration of manual coring to liquefaction, and resulting estimates for shrimp density andbiomass are provided. Available ghost shrimp stock, and temporal and spatial patterns of whalefeeding and harvest are presented. Finally, estimates of the total extracted shrimp stock arecompared to the total available shrimp stock from all of Whidbey Basin.3.1Ghost shrimp stock and distributionSize classes burrowing shrimpMeasurementLargeMediumSmallEx. SmallCarapace length (mm)20.2614.5810.416.16Total length (mm)80.9059.0039.4922.40Total mass (g)9.923.771.040.21Table 1 Weights and length measurements for the four distinct shrimp size classes across all sites3.1.1 Population characteristicsOf 2383 Shrimp collected and measured from all sites, 1161 (49%) were identified as male, and1215 (51%) were identified as female. 381 (31%) of those females were ovigerous. Fecundityincreases with size, and females are ovigerous from April to August - eggs hatch from June toAugust. It is estimated the female ghost shrimp takes approximately four years (with a growthrate of 3.3 mm carapace length (cl) per year) to reach its most fecund age (Dumbauld et. al.1996). In our study, 50% of all larger female shrimp (cl 13 mm) were ovigerous, and 46% ofall smaller female shrimp collected (cl 13 mm) were ovigerous.Within 177 (7%) of all shrimp measured, a native parasitic isopod Lone cornuta was present.There is some evidence to suggest this parasite has been slightly reducing the ghost shrimppopulation along the outer coast of the Pacific Northwest over the past ten years (Dumbauld et al2014). From all 2383 shrimp measured, 478 shrimp (20%) were large, 359 shrimp (15%) weremedium, 1068 shrimp (45%) were small, and 459 (19%) were extra small. The total biomass ofall 2383 shrimps collected was 8455 grams, with 5363 g (63%) large, 1519 g (18%) medium,1400 g (17%) small, and 175 g (2%) extra-small shrimp. Harvest and whale feeding sitescontained proportionally more medium, small, and extra small shrimp than the no whale no10Washington State Department of Natural Resources
harvest sites, where shrimp were primarily all large (Figure 5). Although the total number ofshrimp were less at the no whale-no harvest sites, the greater proportion of large shrimp explainsthe finding of no significant difference in total biomass among sites.Ghost shrimp totals by size all sitesLargeMediumSmallWestLangleyAla Spit FreelandEx. Small140120# oresSandy Pt. HiddenBeach'whale feeding sites'Mabana'harvest sites'Iverson Coupeville'no whale feeding, no harvest'Figure 5. Size distribution per square meterThe relationship between representative manual coring and total count liquefaction is representedin the plot below (Figure 6). y 6.08x 21.86 with an r2 value of 0.77 indicating a fairly strongcorrelation between our manual coring methods, and the total amount of shrimp within 0.5 m2area of beach surface.# Shrimp sand liquefied core .5m²Manual cores to large liquefied core relationship250200y 6.0808x 21.856R² 0.7669150100500051015202530# Shrimp small core (5 cores)Figure 6. Relationship in shrimp counts between manual coring and liquefaction methods3.1.2 Shrimp densityTwelve sites were surveyed; three whale feeding, four harvest, and five no harvest-no whalefeeding. Whale feeding sites had the highest shrimp density with a calculated average of 222shrimp/m2 a standard deviation (SD) of 49. Harvest sites had a slightly lower average density,3. Results Ghost shrimp: commercial harvest and gray whale feeding, North Puget Sound, Washington11
with an average of 161 shrimp/m2 SD 32. No whale-no harvest had the lowest density,averaging 71 shrimp/m2 SD 16 (Figure 7). While significant differences were detected between‘whale feeding’ and ‘no whale-no harvest’ site densities as well as between ‘harvest’ and ‘nowhale no harvest’ sites, no significant difference was detected between harvest and whalefeeding site densities using the t-test statistic with unequal variance p 0.5.# Shrimp/m2Shrimp density-all sites'whale feeding sites''harvest sites''no whale-no harvest sites'450400350300250200150100500Figure 7. Density of shrimp (# shrimp m2). Error bars indicate standard deviation3.1.3 Shrimp BiomassBiomass averaged across the three site types for whale no harvest, harvest, and no whale noharvest were respectively 653 g/m2 SD 171, 736 SD 188, and 750 g/m2 SD 161 (Figure 8).There was no significant difference between any of the site types with a single factor ANOVA p .05.g shrimp/m2Biomass density- all sites1400120010008006004002000Figure 8. Average estimated biomass density (g/m2). Error bars indicate standard deviation3.1.4 Shrimp area per site delineationThe average shrimp area for all 300 m sections of field sample sites mapped was 3.6x104 m2 astandard error (SE) of 7,998. Iverson Spit had the greatest shrimp area, at 1.2x105 m2 - this waslikely due to its low, shallow slope in N. Pt. Susan, located on the leading edge of the12Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Stillaguamish River delta. Coupeville Town Park had the smallest shrimp area of any site, at1,017 m2.3.2Whale feeding3.2.1 Shrimp area available to whales in 2015For 2015, shrimp stock area used for feeding by gray whales was split into five different regions;1) East Port Susan, 2) West Camano Island, 3) the Snohomish river delta, 4) SE Whidbey Island,and 5) Sandy Point Whidbey Island (Figure 9). During their time in Whidbey Basin in 2015,whales were observed feeding extensively off of the Snohomish River Delta. Satellite imagery ofthe delta also showed the majority of whale pits here (Figure 9). This region provided the largestextent (1.0x107 m2) of shallow whale feeding grounds. The total available shallow (down to -10ft.) shrimp stock area from all five regions, excluding harvested sites with whale feeding in 2015was calculated at 1.7x107 m2. When including additional northward regions, where whales fed inthe past 3 years, utilized shrimp stock area increases to 1.9x107 m2.Gray whale feeding grounds 2015Gray whale feeding grounds 2013, 2014State Authorized harvest sitesMariner’s CoveCrescent HarborSnohomish River DeltaHat IslandFigure 9. Whale feeding grounds, harvest areas, and shrimp sampling sites. Feeding areas ind
2002). Burrowing ghost shrimp are thought to be a main food source for the whales during this stopover (Weitkamp et al, 1992). An investigation was conducted to estimate a standing stock of ghost shrimp (in number and biomass), as well as to estimate the quantity of ghost shrimp fed on by gray whales in Whidbey Basin.
18 a 5 . Shrimp Each dinner is served with egg fried rice & fried wontons. Fried Shrimp with Vegetable - battered fried shrimp served with slice bok choy, onion, carrot & broccoli .14.25 Kung Bo Shrimp - diced Chinese veg.* stir-fried with shrimp in a brown spicy garlic sauce with peanut garnish.14.25 Shrimp with Lobster Sauce - shrimp, egg, onion, water chestnut, mushroom, carrot .
on the grill b1 8 grilled jumbo shrimp 18.99 b2 12 grilled jumbo shrimp 22.99 b3 16 grilled jumbo shrimp 28.99 b4 2 grilled lobster tail (6-7 oz tail) 35.99 b5 6 grilled shrimp & 6 scallops 22.99 b6 grilled red snapper (9-12 oz) 17.99 b7 grilled red snapper (9-12 oz) & 3 shrimp 18.99 b8 grilled seafood 23.99 (1 redfish 4 shrimp 4 sea scallop) b9 grilled flounder 18.99
are a stupid ghost. The least a ghost can do is to read a man’s thoughts. However , a worthless ghost like you is better than no ghost. The fact is, I am tired of wrestling with men. I want to fight a ghost”. The ghost was speechle
Nov 07, 2021 · Tues. & Thurs. 5:30 pm Holy Ghost Wed. & Fri. 8:30 am Holy Ghost Weekend Saturday 5:00 pm Holy Ghost Sunday 8:00 am Holy Ghost 9:30 am St. Bridget 11:00 am Holy Ghost
Currency Harvest was 15.22%. The Global currency harvest returned 12.07% and the G10 Currency harvest returned 8.02%. The Sharpe ratios for the Balanced Currency Harvest, Global Currency Harvest and G10 Currency Harvest over the period were 1.60, 1.23 and 1.07 respectively. (The returns are in USD terms
of farm-raised Pacific white shrimp (L. vannamei) freshly harvested from three different farms. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Collection of Shrimp Specimens The L. vannamei shrimp used for this study were of between 60 and 80 shrimp/kg and harvested from three dif-ferent farms in Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia.
The whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei formerly Penaeus vannamei), also called Pacific white shrimp, is an eastern Pacific Ocean shrimp commonly caught or farmed for food. The US imports 1.2 billion pounds of shrimp (both wild captured and aquacultured) each year, and currently p
Exploding Stars, Black Holes, and Mapping the Universe Second Edition From supernovae and gamma-ray bursts to the accelerating Universe, this is an exploration of the intellectual threads that led to some of the most exciting ideas in modern astrophysics and cosmology.This fully updated Second Edition incorporates new material on binary stars, black holes, gamma-ray bursts, wormholes, quantum .
