Issuu

NATIONWIDE ASSESSMENT MARINE FISHERIES AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

23 states responsible for governing public-trust resources thinkcoastal.com

“In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught.” - Baba Dioum, 1968

TABLE OF CONTENTS A BRIEF HISTORY.............................................................................................................2 - 3 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 4 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 5

PART 1:

MARINE FISHERIES AND HABITAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GAMEFISH DESIGNATIONS .............................................................................................6 - 7 STOCKING PROGRAMS.....................................................................................................8 - 9 GEAR PROHIBITIONS................................................................................................... 10 - 11 QUOTA ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 12 - 13 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 14 - 15

PART 2:

COASTAL DREDGING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DREDGING ................................................................................................................... 16 - 17

PART 3:

MARINE FISHERIES HABITAT ECONOMIC RESEARCH LITERATURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH LITERATURE .......................................................................... 18 - 19

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................20 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................... 21 - 24 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...................................................................................................... 25

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

INTRODUCTION A BRIEF HISTORY Fishing has been an everyday activity in our country since the first permanent English settlement was established in the 17th century (1601 – 1700). The most common fishing equipment used at that time was nothing more than a simple hook and line, which yielded a variety of fish and crustaceans: Striped Bass, American Shad, River Herring, White Perch, Gar, Catfish, Sturgeon, Black Drum, Red Drum, Sheepshead, Oysters, and Blue Crabs were harvested and consumed. In the 18th century (1701 – 1800), the need to support the growing population advanced the fishing industry. While hook and line remained the most traditional method, wealthy landowners began to employ haul seines in coastal waters, which caught greater amounts of fish in less time and with less effort. During the 19th century (1801 – 1900), fishing efforts rapidly expanded, and almost anyone could fish for whatever they wanted, with few restrictions. The middle of the 20th century (1901 – 2000) brought the end of World War II, and many new products and equipment were produced during the war that were later employed in the fishing industry: boats shifted from sails to gas-powered engines; fishing nets evolved from individually sewn cotton to mass-produced monofilament thread. At the same time, the advancement of roads, vehicles, and various fishing tackle resulted in a tremendous increase in recreational fishing efforts, creating the first conflicts with commercial fishing interests. In 1941, growing concerns in the decline of fishery resources brought the first limits on commercial fishing gear. Before that time, laws and regulations only governed seasons, size limits, and gear types.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

On May 22, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed The Submerged Lands Act (SLA) into effect. As a result, 23 coastal states were granted jurisdiction over public-trust resources, navigable waters, and lands beneath, extending 3 nautical miles from respective coastlines, with the exception of Florida and Texas, which were granted jurisdiction extending 9 nautical miles into the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, major changes have taken place in many fisheries around the country.

The 23 Coastal States of America 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island North Carolina Florida Alabama Mississippi

9. Louisiana 10. Connecticut 11. New York 12. New Jersey 13. Delaware 14. South Carolina 15. Texas 16. California

17. Oregon 18. Washington 19. Maryland 20. Virginia 21. Georgia 22. Alaska 23. Hawaii

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

OVERVIEW OVERVIEW In 2020, the North Carolina Marine and Estuary Foundation commissioned a study to identify the most effective fisheries management strategies implemented by the 23 coastal states. In efforts to accomplish this task, coastal-focused researchers assembled documentation and reports from relevant state agencies to determine the rules, approaches, and frameworks that govern the nearshore waterways and natural resources nationwide. This research’s synthesis component represents the first step in identifying effective management practices, given that determining what is “best” necessitates a comprehensive inventory of alternatives.

New England Council Pacific Council Mid-Atlantic Council

South Atlantic Council Gulf of Mexico Council North Pacific Council Western Pacific Council Caribbean Council

West Coast region

Alaska region

Pacific Islands region

Federal waters (generally extend from 3 to 200 nautical lies off the coast)

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Southeast region

Greater Atlantic region

METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY From the project’s inception, it was acknowledged that the greatest resource for meaningful insight lay with senior coastal fisheries administrators. As a result, requests were made to conduct interviews with high-ranking managers. In some cases, researchers were granted interviews with multiple persons from a given state. The responses to requests for interviews were overwhelmingly positive. In total, 7 chiefs or deputy chiefs, 12 directors, 1 assistant director, 2 commissioners, 1 assistant secretary, and 6 additional senior administrators with varying statespecific titles were interviewed.

Effective Fisheries Management

Resource Administrators 20 of 23 Coastal States controversial topics. As a result, information obtained from fisheries managers could be used freely for this project; however, insights from fisheries managers

The length of interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes

were suitably anonymized so that comments or

with

resource

thoughts would not be directly linked to any of the

administrators from 20 of 23 coastal states. Researchers

interview participants. Refer to page 25 to review the

utilized a modified version of the Chatham House Rule to

questions that were presented to each of the senior

increase the openness of interview discussions on highly

fishery managers interviewed during the study.

senior

marine

fisheries

natural

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

PART 1

MARINE FISHERIES AND HABITAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

STATE-BY-STATE SYNTHESIS

LIMITED ENTRY Starting with Alaska in the 1970s and through the end of the 20th century, most states migrated toward limited entry licensing to regulate who could fish commercially. State fisheries managers have praised limited entry licenses for professionalizing the fishing industry and creating accountability. Although limited entry licenses are a crucial tool for fishery management, the approach has potential shortcomings. Without restrictions on vessel size and fishing gear, limiting the number of vessels or fishers does not necessarily limit the total harvest. Rather, technological advancements often enable fewer vessels to harvest higher quantities, a process known as capital stuffing. At the inception of limited entry licensing programs, states often had a low bar for who could be included in

licenses to relieve pressure on fish stocks is very costly.

the pool of licensees. Many states now report that there

Meanwhile, issuing new licenses is often vehemently

are too many licenses, many of which are inactive but

opposed by existing license holders who would see the

can be used again at any time. Additionally, transferable

value of their own licenses being undercut. An overhaul

licenses can be bought and sold, and a state’s only option

of a state’s limited entry program, in conjunction with

to reduce the number of licenses is to buy licenses back.

other measures, could enable active management

Because of the uncertainty around inactive licenses and

toward a sustainable fishery.

the transferability of licenses, fisheries managers may not be able to adapt to fluctuations within a fishery. With the market for licenses being so lucrative, removing enough

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

LIMITED ENTRY

CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIMITED ENTRY LICENSES Based on interviews with senior state fisheries managers from 20 of 23 coastal states Active-use Requirements Active-use requirements are necessary and valuable to avoid the commoditization of licenses by fishers who are not committed to the productive use of a license.

Use in concert with other management tools As a standalone measure, limited entry licensing cannot guarantee sustainability. However, managers widely reported it to be a valuable tool when used alongside other measures (e.g., seasons, spatial closures, and gear specifications).

Non-transferability Non-transferable permits that require active use give states the opportunity to manage fishery participation. Fisheries managers can reduce the number of permits by not replacing a retiring license. Or, if they see an opportunity to increase participation, they can issue additional licenses. NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

GAMEFISH DESIGNATIONS GAMEFISH

DESIGNATIONS Almost every coastal state prohibits the commercial harvest and sale of at least one marine finfish species while still allowing it to be fished recreationally as a gamefish. Designating a species as a gamefish and preventing its commercial harvest intends to reduce administrative burdens and fisher conflicts, and potentially improve population numbers for that species. Currently, it is less resource intensive to manage recreational fisheries than commercial fisheries, where managers track harvest, issue permits, and monitor fish houses.

increasingly efficient, and can contribute significantly

For recreational fishing, managers focus on setting size

to a species’ harvest and mortality. Therefore, fisheries

and bag limits, and sometimes, a season. Especially for

managers point out that designating a species as a

species without much commercial harvest, gamefish

gamefish will not necessarily help recover its population

designation can be a relatively simple way to minimize

without other measures, such as increasing minimum

regulatory burden on managers. For species with

size limits.

comparable

commercial

and

recreational

harvest,

gamefish designation is more fraught, and often results from conflict between commercial and recreational fishers.

Recreational fishers are becoming more abundant,

Managers suggest any designation be informed and supported by a strong scientific research basis. Some managers report anecdotal evidence that gamefish

Many commercial fishers view gamefish designation

designation benefits the target species, but not enough

as a threat to their livelihoods, while recreational anglers

scientific studies exist to be certain. Most managers are

champion economic efficiency or conservation objectives

unable to say whether gamefish designations benefit

in gamefish designation. But a gamefish designation

fisheries, particularly since designations often occur

does not necessarily lead to the higher harvest limits that

alongside other regulatory changes to both commercial

recreational fishers might expect.

and recreational fisheries.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

GAMEFISH DESIGNATIONS

CONSIDERATIONS FOR GAMEFISH DESIGNATIONS Based on interviews with senior state fisheries managers from 20 of 23 coastal states Relieves administrative burden Decreasing regulatory burden is a contributing factor in many state legislatures’ decisions to designate a fishery species as a gamefish.

Provide agencies with opportunity for more research Managers recommend that states considering gamefish designation provide state agencies with the resources to conduct the socio-ecological research needed to make fully informed decisions on gamefish designations.

Use alongside other management tools Some managers give anecdotal evidence that gamefish designation helped recover the population of a species, but in every case, the designation occurred alongside other management actions, including recreational regulations. NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

STOCKING PROGRAMS STOCKING PROGRAMS Most coastal states have stocking programs for at least

have assessed the contribution of stocking programs

one finfish species. Juveniles of a species are reared

to fishery stocks, there are no studies evaluating the

at hatcheries, then introduced to the wild to enhance or

combined or cumulative effects of stocking programs,

sustain the fishery.

gamefish designation, other management actions, or

The species selected for stocking by a state often overlap

environmental fluctuations.

considerably with those designated gamefish species,

Researchers recommend that state agencies are

which prohibits the commercial harvest and sale of a

provided with the resources to conduct the research

marine finfish species while still allowing its recreational

needed to make fully informed decisions on gamefish

fishing. The frequent co-occurrence of stocking and

designations and stocking programs.

gamefish designation can make it challenging to identify what population impacts are solely attributable to gamefish designation. If a state’s fisheries management agency is considering initiating a stocking program for a particular species, it might also consider if a gamefish designation is necessary to generate support from stakeholders. Although studies

110

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Most coastal states have stocking programs for at least one finfish species.

STOCKING PROGRAMS

(Gear Prohibitions Graph Here)

CONSIDERATIONS FOR STOCKING PROGRAMS Based on interviews with senior state fisheries managers from 20 of 23 coastal states Use alongside other management tools Some managers give anecdotal evidence that stocking programs helped recover the population of a species, but in every case, the designation occurred alongside other management actions, such as gamefish designation.

Provide agencies with opportunity for more research Managers recommend that states considering stocking programs provide state agencies with the resources to conduct the socio-ecological research needed to make fully informed decisions.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

GEAR PROHIBITIONS GEAR PROHIBITIONS Gear bans are meant to tackle a variety of potential

In some cases, fish stocks appear to have recovered

problems in fisheries. First, a gear ban should relieve

when gear bans were enacted alongside other

pressure on the fishery and its habitat. Bans on equipment

management actions like stronger protections on water

like trawls and gillnets, for instance, help reduce the

quality and changes to recreational bag size limits. But

mortality of bycatch and prevent habitat destruction. Many

managers cannot draw a direct line between gear bans

bans are enacted to protect endangered or threatened

and fishery success.

species at risk of being captured by certain gear types.

Gear bans are often controversial, so we recommend a

One widely reported benefit of gear prohibitions is that they

strong scientific foundation for enacting them. Fisheries

prevent the establishment of industrial-scale fisheries.

managers are generally against additional gear

Many states, particularly those with short coastlines,

prohibitions, and without further scientific research, the

introduced gear bans specifically as a safeguard against

perception is that the benefits of outright gear bans do

industrial fishing, fishing ground conflicts, and intrusion

not outweigh the costs.

by out-of-state fleets. Of course, the costs and benefits of gear bans are contextdependent. For example, gear prohibitions that benefit one fishery could add pressure on another as fishing effort is reallocated to a new target species.

112

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Many bans are enacted to protect endangered or threatened species at risk of being captured by certain gear types.

GEAR PROHIBITIONS

(Gear Prohibitions Graph Here)

CONSIDERATIONS FOR OUTRIGHT GEAR PROHIBITIONS Based on interviews with senior state fisheries managers from 20 of 23 coastal states Gear bans vs. closures Overwhelmingly, managers say that spatial and temporal closures are typically sufficient to protect vulnerable habitats, prevent overexploitation, and minimize conflict over fishing grounds. Use in concert with other management tools Some managers have anecdotal evidence that gear bans helped rebuild fishery stocks, but most are quick to acknowledge that the bans occurred alongside other management actions.

Provide agencies with resources for further research Managers recommend that states considering gear bans provide state agencies with the resources to conduct the ecological, economic, and social research required to develop a holistic understanding of the many impacts of outright gear prohibitions.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

QUOTA ALLOCATIONS QUOTA ALLOCATIONS In coastal fisheries with both commercial and recreational participation, the total allowable catch—or quota— is divided between the two sectors by state fishery managers. The allocation is almost entirely based on historical catch composition, rather than on economic or ecological factors. In recent decades, recreational participation and fishing efficiency have increased dramatically in fisheries. Even though recreational harvest estimates have high levels of uncertainty, some fisheries managers incorporate these estimates into quota determination for commercial

often stimulates different parts of the economy and at

fisheries, which can exacerbate conflict between

different scales.

recreational and commercial fisheries.

Stock assessments typically set the total allowable

Little research exists on the socioeconomic impacts of

catch, rather than detailing its allocation between

allocating fishery resources, creating a bottleneck for

commercial and recreational sectors. Even as ecological

implementing useful management frameworks. The vast

models

majority of senior fisheries managers report having no

incorporating new frameworks for determining fishery

dedicated natural resource economists or social scientists

allocations has the potential to erode stakeholder

on staff. Managers also point out that economic activity

confidence due to a perceived lack of transparency.

generated by recreational and commercial sectors

Most recreational marine fisheries continue to operate

and

socioeconomic

analyses

improve,

under status-quo management regimes based on

In recent decades, recreational participation and fishing efficiency have increased dramatically in fisheries.

114

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

historical catch composition. Without considerable research evaluating how other fishery resource allocation

frameworks

could

bolster

ecological,

economic, and social benefits, the status quo approach is the least contentious way forward and appears unlikely to change.

QUOTA ALLOCATIONS

(Gear Prohibitions Graph Here)

CONSIDERATIONS FOR QUOTA ALLOCATION Based on interviews with senior state fisheries managers from 20 of 23 coastal states Historical Allocation based on historical catch composition represents the status quo for many state managers and the least contentious management regime.

Biological Senior fisheries managers from a number of coastal states reported efforts to move towards ecosystem-based management approaches. However, doing so had little influence on allocation between commercial and recreational sectors.

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic considerations have not been explicitly incorporated into allocation decisions by coastal states, largely due to insufficient data, absence of established frameworks, and lack of in-house social scientists and natural resource economists. NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

PART 2

COASTAL DREDGING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MULTI-STATE SYNTHESIS

DREDGING Dredging is a process that removes bottom material from waterways to ensure that they can be navigated by ships and fishing vessels. It’s a necessary process in many coastal areas, but dredging and other waterway modifications can disrupt the natural distribution of sediment, thereby reducing the ecological and economic vitality of valuable habitats that depend on specific water levels and sediment supplies to be productive.

Repurposed dredged material will likely become a pivotal part of preserving shorelines. Without proper mitigation, dredging can also have detrimental impacts on water quality and wildlife, including fish mortality. Concerned state and federal fisheries managers have moved to develop new policies

116

material as a resource in coastal systems can help reduce coastal erosion and promote resilience goals while still maintaining waterways. Recent extreme weather events have revealed the vulnerability of coastlines and prompted the urgent need to protect them. Repurposed dredged material will likely become a pivotal part of preserving shorelines and offer numerous opportunities for enhancing coastal resilience in both natural and built systems.

and agencies to protect vulnerable habitat from the

Notably, throughout the Atlantic Coast study states,

potential negative environmental outcomes of dredging.

there is a lack of readily available reporting on dredging

Many coastal states have started reusing dredged

projects. Fully studying dredging activities is likely to

materials in beneficial ways, such as repurposing

improve planning and execution of dredging projects.

dredged materials for nourishing eroding beaches

With improved data informing policy implementation

and restoring sediment-depleted shorelines. Whereas

and project planning, many opportunities become

dredged material was typically disposed of at upland

available to modify dredging practices for supporting

facilities or deposited in the open ocean, using that

coastal resilience.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

DREDGING MANAGEMENT

(Gear Prohibitions Graph Here)

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COASTAL DREDGING Based on a study of 5 Atlantic Coast states (NC, SC, ME, NJ, VA) State similarities and differences Although each state faces unique challenges, dredging policies are remarkably consistent in the states sampled. Policy must accommodate states’ distinctions to adequately protect a state’s resources.

Beneficial reuse of dredge material Using dredged material as a replacement for natural sediment accretion buffers beaches, which creates more resilient coastlines and sustainable habitats.

Importance of planning and monitoring States with more intensive pre-assessment and post-monitoring on projects, like Maine and New Jersey, appear best equipped to prevent problems and maximize benefits from dredging projects.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

PART 3

MARINE FISHERIES AND HABITAT ECONOMIC RESEARCH LITERATURE

MULTI-SPECIES STUDY

ECONOMIC RESEARCH

LITERATURE

For North Carolina’s most important commercial and recreational species, only a few economic studies are available, and those studies cover few management and policy areas of interest. Permitting and game-fish laws for example were not covered in any of the studies. Seasonal closures were examined in blue crab economic studies, and spatial closures were examined in mackerel economic studies. Gear restrictions were examined in blue crab and dolphin fish economic studies.

and social goals as well as the health of the fishery resource. Data on the economic implications of

Even allocation, which is an issue of interest to most

marine fisheries policy and management decisions

fisheries stakeholders, was only covered in economic

are invaluable in determining the impacts to fishery

studies on blue crab. Coastal habitat protection was

participants and stakeholders. Towards these ends, this

covered in shrimp and red drum economic studies, on

report summarizes existing economic research on the

the topics of hypoxia and red tide, respectively.

top marine fisheries in North Carolina. The intent is to

Other fisheries management and policy topics that arose in the economic literature reviewed were size

118

Fisheries management ideally considers economic

document economic methodologies used and results that can inform fisheries management decisions.

and bag limits, effort, multi-species management, stock

Note that few economic studies reviewed were specific

enhancement, bycatch reduction, and escape devices.

to North Carolina but rather pertained to another state

Some topics were covered in the economic literature

or region. Economic research summarized in the gray

but not relevant to fisheries managers, including the

literature, as well as studies funded by state and federal

economic viability of aquaculture, market integration for

fisheries agencies were not systematically reviewed in

domestic and imported seafood, technical efficiency of

this report. Thus, some topics may be better covered

fisheries effort, and economic value estimations.

than reported here.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

ECONOMIC RESEARCH LITERATURE

(Gear Prohibitions Graph Here)

CONSIDERATIONS FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH LITERATURE Based on peer-reviewed academic publications published in the U.S. Economic Implications Data on the economic implications of marine fisheries policy and management decisions are invaluable in determining the impacts to fishery participants and stakeholders. Identify Research Gaps Fisheries management and policy topics are not well covered with economic research for North Carolina’s top commercial and recreational fisheries. As a result, information gaps must be filled to effectively address the complex fisheries issues in our state.

Collective Deliberations Future economic research on fisheries should be tied to current resource management questions, which requires an ongoing dialogue between environmental economists, fisheries managers, fisheries stakeholders, and research partners.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

CONCLUSION WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Today, North Carolina and 22 other states continually strive to balance various fishing operations that compete for the same, shrinking public-trust resources. As humanity’s population increases and our technology advances above the surface, the existence of our marine species remains the same it has for centuries below the surface. While our coastal states’ fishery managers and policymakers are tasked with managing shared public-trust resources to the best of their ability, information and education gaps must be filled in our state and others to support needed solutions for the long-term health of our coastal fisheries. Fishery management laws and regulations should focus on growing fisheries as a resource and a major economic staple for recreational and commercial fishers. With proper management, the entire fishing economy can thrive, and coastal states can amplify the economic value of all fisheries while ensuring their sustainability for future generations to enjoy.

120

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

LITERATURE CITED: Abbott, J. K., P. Lloyd-Smith, D. Willard, and W. Adamowicz. 2018. Status-quo management of marine recreational fisheries undermines angler welfare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:8948-8953. Adams, C., S. Jacob, and S. Smith. 2001. What happened after the net ban? Citeseer. Anderson, D. K. 2002. Understanding the impacts of the Florida net ban (Article X, Section 16 of the State Constitution). Andraka, S., Mug, M., Hall, M., Pons, M., Pacheco, L., Parrales, M., Rendon, L., Parga, M., Mituhasi, T., Segura, A., Ortega, D., Villagran, E., Perez, S., de Paz, C., Siu, S., Gadea, V., Caicedo, J., Zapata, L., Martinez, J. Guerrero, P., Valqui, M. Vogel, N. (2013). Circle hooks: Developing better fishing practices in the artisanal longline fisheries of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Biological Conservation, 160, 214-224. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.019 Arkema, K. K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S. A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Kareiva, P., Lacayo, M., Silver, J. M. (2013) Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea- level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change 3:913–918. Asche, F., Bennear, L. S., Oglend, A., & Smith, M. D. (2012). U.S. shrimp market integration. Marine Resource Economics, 27(2), 181-192. Beem, Betsi. 2006. “Planning to Learn: Blue Crab Policymaking in the Chesapeake Bay.” Coastal Management 34(2):167–82. Bergman, M. J., S. M. Ubels, G. C. Duineveld, and E. W. Meesters. 2015. Effects of a 5-year trawling ban on the local benthic community in a wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone. Ices Journal of Marine Science 72:962-972. Bohnsack J. (2011) Impacts of Florida coastal protected areas on recreational world records for spotted seatrout, red drum, black drum, and common snook. Bulletin of Marine Science. 87:939– 970. Borch, T. 2010. Tangled lines in New Zealand’s quota management system: The process of including recreational fisheries. Marine Policy 34:655-662. Brown, C. J. 2016. Social, economic and environmental effects of closing commercial fisheries to enhance recreational fishing. Marine Policy 73:204-209. Bunnell, David B., Douglas W. Lipton, and Thomas J. Miller. 2010. “The Bioeconomic Impact of Different Management Regulations on the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30(6):1505–21.

Casey, J. (2014). A Short History of Commercial Fishing in the Chesapeake Region. https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/history_of_comm_fishing Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:517-524. Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958-1960. Commission, F. F. a. W. C. 2011. 2011 Stone Crab Stock Assessment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Cooke, S. J. and I. G. Cowx. 2004. The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises. Bioscience 54:857-859. Cornwell, J. C., Owens, M. S., Staver, L.W., & Stevenson, J. C. (2020) Tidal marsh restoration at Poplar Island I: Transformation of estuarine sediments into marsh soils. Wetlands, 1- 14. Costa-Pierce, B. & Weinstein, M. (2002) Use of dredge materials for coastal restoration, Ecological Engineering 19(3). Crawford, A. (2004) Beneficial reuse of dredged sediment for vertical cutoff wall backfill material. DRUM. Crutchfield, J. A. 1961. An economic evaluation of alternative methods of fishery regulation. The Journal of Law and Economics 4:131-143. Da Silva, J. 2016. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2016. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Press: Rome, Italy:1-204. Denson, M. R., K. Brenkert IV, W. E. Jenkins, and T. L. Darden. 2012. Assessing red drum juvenile stocking in a South Carolina estuary using genetic identification. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:32-43. Depestele, J., W. Courtens, S. Degraer, J. Haelters, K. Hostens, M. Leopold, E. Pinn, B. Merckx, H. Polet, and M. Rabaut. 2014. Sensitivity assessment as a tool for spatial and temporal earbased fisheries management. Ocean & Coastal Management 102:149-160. Dippold, D. A., Leaf, R. T., & Peterson, M. S. (2016). Evaluating Management Regimes using Per-Recruit Models and Relative Stock Density for Mississippi’s Spotted Seatrout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 36(5), 1178-1189. doi:10.1080/02755947.2016.1204387

Buzzelli, C. P. (1998) Dynamic simulation of littoral zone habitats in lower Chesapeake Bay: I. Habitat characterization related to model development. Estuaries 21:673-389.

Dumas, C. F., & Horton, S. (2002). The potential impact of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) aquaculture on regional flounder price. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 6(1-2), 39-54.

Camp, E. V., Larkin, S. L., Ahrens, R. N., & Lorenzen, K. (2017). Trade-offs between socioeconomic and conservation management objectives in stock enhancement of marine recreational fisheries. Fisheries Research, 186, 446-459.

Douvere, F. 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based seause management. Marine Policy 32:762-771.

Carter, D. W., & Liese, C. (2012). The Economic Value of Catching and Keeping or Releasing Saltwater Sport Fish in the Southeast USA. 32 North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32 (4), 613-625. doi:10.1080/02755947.2012.675943

Duarte C. M., Losada I. J., Hendriks I. E., Mazarrasa I., Marbà N. (2019) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3(11): 961–968 NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Easley, J. and F. J. Prochaska. 1987. Allocating Harvests between Competing Users in Fishery Management Decisions–Appropriate Economic-Measures for Valuation. Marine Fisheries Review 49:29-33. Edwards, S. F. 1990. An economics guide to allocation of fish stocks between commercial and recreational fisheries.

Jones, A. R. (1986) The effects of dredging and spoil disposal on Macrobenthos, Hawkesbury Estuary, N.S.W. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 17(1), 17-20.

Edwards, S. F. 1991. A critique of three “economics” arguments commonly used to influence fishery allocations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:121-130.

Kaiser, M., I. Laing, S. Utting, and G. Burnell. 1998. Environmental impacts of bivalve mariculture. Journal of Shellfish Research 17:59-66.

Eero, M., H. V. Strehlow, C. M. Adams, and M. Vinther. 2015. Does recreational catch impact the TAC for commercial fisheries? Ices Journal of Marine Science 72:450-457.

Kellison, G. T., & Eggleston, D. B. (2004). Coupling ecology and economy: modeling optimal release scenarios for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) stock enhancement. Fishery Bulletin, 102(1), 78-93.

Erftemeijer, P. L. A., Lewis III, R. R. R. (2006) Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: A review. 52(12), 1553-1572. Gordon, H. S. 1954. The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. Pages178-203 Classic papers in natural resource economics. Springer. Green, T. G. 1994. Allocation between commercial and recreational sectors in stressed marine fisheries. Society & Natural Resources 7:39-56. Havens, Kirk, Donna Marie Bilkovic, David Stanhope, and Kory Angstadt. 2011. “Fishery Failure, Unemployed Commercial Fishers, and Lost Blue Crab Pots: An Unexpected Success Story.” Environmental Science & Policy 14(4):445–50. Hawkes Jr, E. W. 2011. NOAA/NMFS Approves the Mid-Atlantic ACL/AM Omnibus Amendment. Fisheries 36:530-531. Huang, Pei. 2015. “An Inverse Demand System for the Differentiated Blue Crab Market in Chesapeake Bay.” Marine Resource Economics 30(2):139–56. Huang, Pei, Richard T. Woodward, Michael J. Wilberg, and David Tomberlin. 2015. “Management Evaluation for the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery: An Integrated Bioeconomic Approach.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 35(2):216–28. Huang, L., Nichols, L. A., Craig, J. K., & Smith, M. D. (2012). Measuring welfare losses from hypoxia: the case of North Carolina Brown Shrimp. Marine Resource Economics, 27(1), 3-23. Huang, L., Smith, M. D., & Craig, J. K. (2010). Quantifying the Economic Effects of Hypoxia on a Fishery for Brown Shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 2(1), 232–248. Hutchinson, S. D. (2003). An Economic Analysis of Multi-Fishery Participation Among Commercial Fishers in South Florida. National Sea Grant Library. Ihde, T. F., M. J. Wilberg, D. A. Loewensteiner, D. H. Secor, and T. J. Miller. 2011. The increasing importance of marine recreational fishing in the US: challenges for management. Fisheries Research 108:268-276. Islands, U. V. and S. I. Assessment. 2011. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT (ACL) AMENDMENT FOR THE US CARIBBEAN. Jackson, E. L., Rowden, A. A., Attrill, M. J., Bossey, S. J., Jones, M. B. (2001) The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology – An Annual Review, 39, pp. 269-303.

122

Jenkins, W. E., T. I. Smith, and M. R. Denson. 2004. Stocking red drum: lessons learned. Pages 45-56 in American Fisheries Society Symposium.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Kellison, G. T., Eggleston, D. B., Taylor, J. C., Burke, J. S., & Osborne, J. A. (2003). Pilot evaluation of summer flounder stock enhancement potential using experimental ecology. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 250, 263-278. Kellner, J. B., I. Tetreault, S. D. Gaines, and R. M. Nisbet. 2007. Fishing the line near marine reserves in single and multispecies fisheries. Ecological Applications 17:1039-1054. Koropchak, S. C., Daniels, W. L., Wick, A., Whittecar, G. R., Haus, N. (2016) Beneficial use of dredge materials for soil reconstruction and development of dredge screening protocols. J. Environ. Qual., 45: 62-73. Levin, L. A., Boesch, D. F. Covich, A., Dahm, C. Erseus, C. Ewel, K. C., Kneib, R. T., Moldenke, A. Palmer, M. A., Snelgrove, P., Strayer, D., Weslawski, J. M. (2001) The function of marine critical transition zones and the importance of sediment biodiversity. Ecosystems 4: 430-451. Loring, P. A. 2017. The political ecology of gear bans in two fisheries: Florida’s net ban and Alaska’s salmon wars. Fish and Fisheries 18:94-104. Matlock, G. C. 1982. The conflict between user groups of red drum and spotted seatrout in Texas. Marine Recreational Fisheries 7:101-108. McClanahan, T. R., J. Maina, and J. Davies. 2005. Perceptions of resource users and managers towards fisheries management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12:105-112. McKee, K. L., Patrick, W. H., Jr. (1988) The relationship of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) to tidal datums: A review. Estuaries 11(3):143-151. McKindsey, C. W., H. Thetmeyer, T. Landry, and W. Silvert. 2006. Review of recent carrying capacity models for bivalve culture and recommendations for research and management. Aquaculture 261:451-462. Mengerink, K. and J. Austin. 2015. Evaluating Ocean Protection: State and Local MPA Framework. Environmental Law Institute. Miller, W. D., Neubauer, S. C., Anderson, I. C. (2001) Effects of sea level induced disturbances on high salt marsh metabolism. Estuaries 24(3):357-367.

Mitsch W. J., Bernal, B., Hernandez, M. E. (2015) Ecosystem services of wetlands. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 11:1–4.

Salz, R. J. 1998. Social justice and the Florida net ban controversy. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, Amherst.

Moeller I., Spencer T., French J. R. (1996) Wave attenuation over saltmarsh surfaces: preliminary results from Norfolk, England. Journal of Coastal Research 12(4): 1009– 1016.

Schlag, A. K. 2010. Aquaculture: an emerging issue for public concern. Journal of Risk Research 13:829-844.

Morris, J. T., Sundareshwar, P. V., Nietch, C. T., Kjerfve, B., Cahoon, D. R. (2002) Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83: 2869-2877. Murawski, S. A., S. E. Wigley, M. J. Fogarty, P. J. Rago, and D. G. Mountain. 2005. Effort distribution and catch patterns adjacent to temperate MPAs. Ices Journal of Marine Science 62:1150-1167.

Sinclair, S. 1961. License Limitation: A method of Economic Fisheries Management. Canada Department of Fisheries. Smith, B. T., Howard, I. L., & Vahedifard, F. (2018) Lightly cemented dredged sediments for sustainable reuse. Envi. Geotechnics, 5(6), 324-335. ecosystems: A critical element of risk reduction. Conserve. Lett. 7, 293–301. doi:10.1111/conl.12074

Nardin, W., Lera, S., and Nienhuis, J. (2020) Effect of offshore waves and vegetation on the sediment budget in the Virginia Coast Reserve (VA). Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 45: 3055– 3068.

Smith, M. D., Oglend, A., Kirkpatrick, A. J., Asche, F., Bennear, L. S., Craig, J. K., & Nance, J. M. (2017). Seafood prices reveal impacts of a major ecological disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(7), 1512–1517.

Neikirk, R. 1990. An Investigation of Impediments to Commercial Shellfish Mariculture in Virginia. College of William and Mary Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Smith, S., S. Jacob, M. Jepson, and G. Israel. 2003. After the Florida net ban: the impacts on commercial fishing families. Society &Natural Resources 16:39-59.

NOAA Fisheries Data. 2017. Understanding Shellfish Aquaculture. Odum, W. E., Odum, E. P., Odum, H. T. (1995) Nature’s pulsing paradigm. Estuaries 18:547- 555.

Smith, T. I., W. E. Jenkins, M. R. Denson, and M. R. Collins. 2004. Increasing red drum abundance in South Carolina: monitor, regulate, and stock hatchery fish. Pages 77-86 in American Fisheries Society Symposium.

Pineda, M. C., Strehlow, B., Sternel, M., Duckworth, A., den Haan, J., Jones, R., & Webster, N. S. (2017) Effects of sediment smothering on the sponge halobiont with implications for dredging management. Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group), 7, 1-15. Pipitone, C., F. Badalamenti, G. D’Anna, and B. Patti. 2000. Fish biomass increase after a four-year trawl ban in the Gulf of Castellammare (NW Sicily, Mediterranean Sea). Fisheries Research 48:23-30. Priest, W.I. (1981) The effects of dredging impacts on water quality and estuarine organisms: a literature review. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering 247: 240–266. Ray, G., Clarke, D., Engler, R., Wilber, D., Brostoff, W. (2005) Sedimentation: Potential Biological Effects of Dredging Operations in Estuarine and Marine Environments. 14. Riggs, S. (2002) Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina Estuaries: North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC, UNC-SB-01-12, 32p. Rhodes, R. J., Whitehead, J. C., Smith, T. I. J., & Denson, M. R. (2018). A benefit-cost analysis of a red drum stock enhancement program in South Carolina. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(2), 323-341. Roberts, W. M. 2018. VALUES AND PERCEPTIONS OF SHELLFISH MARICULTURE IN COASTAL NORTH Roman, C. T., Able, K. W., Lazzari, M. A., Heck, K. L. (1990) Primary productivity of angiosperm and macroalgae dominated habitats in a New England salt marsh: A comparative analysis. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 30: 35-46. Rudershausen, P.J., J.A., Bolton, G.E., Gregory, R. W., Averett, T. W., & Conn, P. B. (2012). A comparison between circle hook and J hook performance in the dolphinfish, yellowfin tuna, and wahoo troll fishery off the coast of North Carolina. NOAA Fishery Bulletin, 110(2), 156-17

Spalding, M. D., Mcivor, A. L., Beck, M. W., Koch, E. W., Möller, I., Reed, D. J., Rubinoff, P., Spencer, T., Tolhurst, T. J., Wamsley, T. V., van Wesenbeeck, B. K., Wolanski, E., Woodroffe, C. D. (2014) Coastal ecosystems: A critical element of risk reduction. Conserv. Lett. 7, 293–301. doi:10.1111/conl.12074 Stagg, C. L. & Mendelssohn, I. A. (2010) Restoring ecological function to a submerged salt marsh, Restoration Ecology, 18(1), 10-17. Staver, L. W., Stevenson, J. C., Cornwell, J. C., Nidzieko, N. J., Staver, K. W., Owens, M. S., Logan, L. Kim, C. & Malkin, S. Y. (2020) Tidal marsh restoration at Poplar Island: II. Elevation trends, vegetation development, and carbon dynamics. Wetlands 40, 1687– 1701. Sutton-Grier, A. E. & Sandifer, P. A. (2019) Conservation of wetlands and other coastal ecosystems: a commentary on their value to protect biodiversity, reduce disaster impacts, and promote human health and well-being. Wetlands 39, 1295– 1302. Tao, L. S., K. K. Lui, E. T. Lau, K. K. Ho, Y. K. Mak, Y. S. de Mitcheson, and K. M. Leung. 2018. Trawl ban in a heavily exploited marine environment: Responses in population dynamics of four stomatopod species. Scientific Reports 8:1-14. Tao, L. S., K. K. Lui, E. T. Lau, K. K. Ho, Y. K. Mak, Y. S. de Mitcheson, and K. M. Leung. 2018. Trawl ban in a heavily exploited marine environment: Responses in population dynamics of four stomatopod species. Scientific Reports 8:1-14. Temmerman, S., Meire, P., Bouma, T. J., Herman, P. M., Ysebaert, T., De Vriend, H. J. (2013) Ecosystem-based coastal defense in the face of global change. Nature 504, 79–83.

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Turner, R. E. (1991) Tide gauge records, water level rise, and subsidence in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries 14:139-147. Upadhyaya Kamal P., Larson Janelle B., and Mixon Franklin G. 2002. “The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulation on the Blue Crab Industry.” International Journal of Social Economics 29(7):538–46. Vinuya, F. D. (2010). Technical efficiency of shrimp fishery in South Carolina, USA. Applied Economics Letters, 17(1), 1-5. Voyer, M., K. Barclay, A. McIlgorm, and N. Mazur. 2017. Connections or conflict? A social and economic analysis of the interconnections between the professional fishing industry, recreational fishing and marine tourism in coastal communities in NSW, Australia. Marine Policy 76:114-121. Welch, Michelle; Mogren, Eric Thomas; and Beeney, Lauren, “A Literature Review of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material and Sediment Management Plans and Strategies” (2016) Center for Public Service Publications and Reports. 34. Wenger, A. S., Harvey, E., Wilson, S., Rawson, C., Newman, S. J., Clarke, D., Saunders, B. J., Browne, N., Travers, M. J., Mcilwain, J. L., Erftemeijer, P. L. A., Hobbs, J.P. A., Mclean, D., Depczynski, M., Evans, R. D. (2017) A critical analysis of the direct effects of dredging on fish. Fish & Fisheries. 18: 967– 985.

124

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

Whitehead, J.C., Dumas, C.F., Landry, C.E., & Herstine, J. (2011). Valuing Bag Limits in the North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery with Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Data. Marine Resource Economics, 26(3), 233-241. doi:10.5950/0738-136026.3.233 Whitehead, J. C., Dumas, C. F., Landry, C. E., & Herstine, J. (2013). A recreation demand model of the North Carolina forhire fishery: a comparison of primary and secondary purpose anglers. Applied Economics Letters. Applied Economics Letters. Willson, T.M. (2009) The economic importance and management of mercury contamination in pelagic fisheries. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3267. Wirth, F. F. (2015). Assessing the US Market Economics for a Cultured Flounder, Paralichthys sp., Industry. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 27(3), 188-202.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Nine (9) questions that were asked of each senior fisheries manager that was interviewed.

GEAR RESTRICTIONS

GAMEFISH DESIGNATION

l If your state has enacted outright bans on any commercial gear (e.g., gillnets, trawls, shellfish dredges), do you believe the intended outcome was realized?

l Do you believe there would be a benefit to the designation of any, or any additional, saltwater fishes as gamefish species (recreational harvest only)?

l Are there any (or any additional) commercial or recreational gear restrictions for which you believe the social/economic/ecological benefits outweigh the social/economic/ecological costs? ............................................................................................

LIMITED ENTRY l If your state has used limited entry permitting as a fisheries management strategy, do you believe it has been effective in reducing overcapacity, reducing latent licenses, stabilizing catches, and/or increasing income of eligible fishers within the fishery to which it was applied? l Have you observed reduced diversification or increased attrition of fishers resulting from your state’s limited entry approach? ............................................................................................

l If your state has designated any saltwater fishes as gamefish, how has that worked out in your state? ............................................................................................

INCORPORATION OF HABITAT INTO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT l How does your state integrate coastal and marine habitats into marine fisheries management? l Can you identify strengths or shortcomings of your state’s approach? ............................................................................................

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT l Do you believe the regulatory structure, process for outside expertise (e.g. advisory committees), and public input is effective? l Do you see any way it could be improved?

QUOTA ALLOCATION

............................................................................................

l For the most important/valuable mixed-use (commercial and recreational) fisheries in your state, do you believe there is sufficient credible data to incorporate economic efficiency, social benefits, and ecological externalities (e.g., bycatch, gear impacts to habitats) into the process of allocating Total Allowable Catch between the two sectors?

SUCCESSES l What management action taken by your agency do you believe to have had the greatest benefit to the sustainability of your state’s fisheries (within the last 2-3 decades)?

NORTH CAROLINA MARINE & ESTUARY FOUNDATION

thinkcoastal.com